House of Commons
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
1. What representations he has received from secondary ticketing platforms and those working on their behalf on amendments on secondary ticketing made to the Consumer Rights Bill in the House of Lords.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
I have not had any specific discussions with secondary ticketing platforms on the amendments made to the Consumer Rights Bill in the other place.
Mrs Hodgson
May I offer my condolences on the very sad loss this morning of the cricketer Phil Hughes? The thoughts of the whole House will be with him and his family this morning.
The Secretary of State was very keen on our ideas to improve transparency in the secondary ticketing market when I and colleagues met him in July to discuss the report of the all-party group on ticket abuse. He must therefore be delighted, as I am, that their lordships have added a new clause to the Consumer Rights Bill to deliver exactly that, although, sadly, against the Government Whip. Will he lobby his counterpart at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to leave that new clause in the Bill, so that we can finally put fans first?
Sajid Javid
I was pleased to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue, but she knows, because we discussed it then, that the previous Labour Government, this Government and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport have looked at the issue and all have concluded that new legislation is not necessary. Event organisers can seek their own solutions. However, I am of course looking carefully at the new clause that was accepted in the other place and will respond to it fully in due course.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The new clause is similar to a new clause that was defeated in this House when the Bill was going through the Commons. Should not the elected Chamber get its way, rather than the unelected Chamber? Is not this all about allowing event organisers to void or cancel tickets and place people on blacklists, denying them any guaranteed refund, which has nothing to do with transparency or protecting the interests of consumers?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He and others will know that I have said that I believe that the calls for legislation have been misguided. Criminalising people and preventing them from selling tickets that they have purchased is a heavy-handed approach and is inconsistent with wider consumer rights to buy and sell items that they freely own.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) regarding Phil Hughes and also mention Sean Abbott, the bowler involved in that tragic accident, who must be feeling terrible?
The Secretary of State’s response is just not good enough. The Government have failed to act to protect rugby world cup fans and now the same is happening to cricket fans. Ashes tickets for the Lord’s test are on sale on the secondary ticketing market for £1,500, yet the ballot and the prices will not be available until next month. What is more worrying is that the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union and the Lawn Tennis Association all wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to warn him that unless the Government act they will be forced to put their prices up to secondary ticketing levels, so at least the money that is being made can be invested back into sport. That may be music to the Government’s free market ears but it is a disaster for sports fans on moderate and low incomes. When will the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport get a grip and act? He must do it quickly.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman knows all too well that when his party was in office it failed to act on the issue. He will also know that the previous Government looked at the issue in detail, as did the Select Committee at that time, and all concluded that it is for event organisers to take action. With newer technology, and technology improving all the time, there are probably more ways to do so.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that existing secondary market companies already provide safe and secure means for ticket holders to resell unwanted tickets and that they provide a level of consumer protection that will not be available if people are forced to go on to the black market on the streets?
Sajid Javid
I agree. People have rightly raised concerns about the sale of fraudulent or non-existent tickets and about people who provide misleading information. That is already a criminal act.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
2. What progress he has made on ensuring that the first world war is appropriately commemorated.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
The events my Department hosted on 4 August set a fitting tone and this month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a memorable and dignified programme of events to commemorate the Gallipoli campaign. We are also offering further programmes that allow local communities to mark the centenary in their own way.
Andrew Rosindell
In this year of the 100th anniversary of the first world war, it is of course right that the ambassador of Ireland was asked to lay a wreath for the first time ever at the cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. As the Secretary of State is responsible for the arrangements for the national service in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday, will he please explain why it is still not possible for representatives of Her Majesty’s territories and dependencies to lay their own wreaths in their own right, and will he undertake to put this right for next year?
Sajid Javid
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that it was absolutely right to invite the Government of Ireland to lay a wreath at the national remembrance day service. It was an opportunity to mark our nations’ shared sacrifice. My hon. Friend will also be aware that Her Majesty the Queen lays a wreath on behalf of our country and the Crown dependencies and the Foreign Secretary does so on behalf of British overseas territories. I have to tell my hon. Friend that at this point we have no plans to change these arrangements.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Christmas eve is the 200th anniversary of the ending of the North American war between the United States and the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is also worthy of a fitting tribute, perhaps of celebration and not just commemoration?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is not something I have looked at carefully, but now he has mentioned it, I will take a look.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Our perceptions of the first world war have been shaped by historians but also by the artists of the time. The team at 14-18 NOW, in particular Jenny Waldman and Vikki Heywood, have helped artists today shape our commemorations of this important event. Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red at the Tower of London is part of the 14-18 NOW work and I am sure the Secretary of State will want to join me in putting on record the thanks of the entire House to the incredible team of volunteers who have made this happen.
Sajid Javid
I wholeheartedly join my right hon. Friend in commending them for the work they have done. The poppies at the Tower captured the imagination of the whole nation. I had the privilege of planting a poppy myself, and I was pleased that the Government could act with 14-18 NOW to make sure part of that poppy display will now tour the country over the next four years.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
A lot of the questions today have been about national acts of remembrance, but I hope Members will take the opportunity to remember the 100th anniversary in their own constituencies. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Brent Stevenson, a monumental mason from Darwen, who, free of charge, is providing a new world war one memorial in the centre of Darwen?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I will. I have heard of the work Brent Stevenson is doing and I wholeheartedly commend that. My Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government are helping to provide funding and other ways of support to local communities to commemorate the war in their own way.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
4. What recent estimate he has made of the contribution of tourism to the economy.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
10. What recent estimate he has made of the contribution of tourism to the economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
The tourism industry was worth an estimated £127 billion gross value added to the UK economy in 2013. Some £58 billion of this is direct contribution. Tourism supports 3.1 million jobs in the UK.
Andrew Bingham
Christmas lights are being turned on across the whole of my High Peak constituency at the moment, with the village of Castleton proving a particular draw to tourists from all around. Does my hon. Friend agree that tourism in this country is a year-round phenomenon, not just for the summer, and consequently provides a huge boost to my constituency and the whole country? Furthermore, will she join me in paying tribute to all the volunteers across High Peak and the country who spend this time of year putting up Christmas trees to create the festive atmosphere that so many people enjoy?
Mark Menzies
Hoteliers on the Fylde coast have told me they have had one of the best tourist seasons in well over a decade. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure the great British coastal resorts such as those in Fylde have a bumper 2015?
Mrs Grant
Coastal towns are an important part of our tourism economy, and I am pleased to say that the Government have recently announced £10 million of funding for tourism in the north of England. I hope that the resort of Fylde will get involved with the fund, which will bring even more tourists to our fantastic northern coastal towns.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
We do not have any coastline in Huddersfield, but we do have more—[Interruption.] Hang on, guys! We have more listed buildings than most towns, including York and Cambridge. There are 1,500 in the centre of Huddersfield and another 1,500 in greater Huddersfield. We know the value of tourism, and we know that it depends on the cultural life of our communities. However, that cultural life is being swept away by Government cuts, with a cruel Treasury cutting, cutting, cutting. Many of our great exhibitions and festivals are being cut to the bone. What is the Minister going to do about that?
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The great opportunity in the tourism market in the years ahead will be in attracting Chinese tourists. Britain has been improving in its ability to do that, and I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State have taken a personal interest in that area, particularly in relation to visas. We know that Chinese tourists are surprisingly adventurous and want to get out of London and into the regions, and we are seeing more of that in the midlands and Scotland. What more can the Government do to market the regions—particularly the east midlands—to get those wealthy Chinese tourists out of London and the south-east?
Mrs Grant
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. VisitEngland and VisitBritain promote the nations and the regions, and they do a very good job. VB does it through its GREAT and tactical campaigns, and VE does it through its very successful holidays at home campaigns. The local growth fund, the regional growth fund, the coastal community fund and the recently established £10 million fund for the north are all helpful in growing local tourism outside London.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
5. What steps he is taking to provide broadband of up to 2 megabits in areas currently not served. [R]
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that Ofcom reports that 97% of premises in the UK already have access to broadband speeds of at least 2 megabits. The Government are committed to ensuring that the whole country will be able to receive 2 megabits as soon as possible.
Michael Fabricant
Well, I would not want to accuse my hon. Friend—and he is a friend—of being smug, but what about the other 3%? May I just say how utterly frustrating it is to hear about superfast broadband when parts of my constituency such as Tatenhill, and other parts of the United Kingdom, have no broadband at all?
Mr Vaizey
I am very far from being smug. Having read my hon. Friend’s interview in which he waxed lyrical about his “bromance” with the Chief Whip, imagine how I felt after our years of friendship. Nevertheless, I remain resolute in supporting him, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that Staffordshire as a whole has received £9 million to connect to superfast broadband and that his own constituency will see 8,000 homes committed under our programme. That is real “bromance”, Mr Speaker.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Even in the tech hub at the heart of my constituency we have huge challenges with broadband, as the Minister knows. One of the main barriers to having high speeds everywhere is the fact that competitors are unable to put their equipment on buildings without the permission of the landowner. Is it not time for a change in the planning laws? What conversations is he having with his counterparts in the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that that is delivered?
Mr Vaizey
I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that I have sat down with representatives of the City of London to talk about broadband in central London. I was also pleased to hear the City of London’s plans to roll out its own broadband network, because competition is very important. She raises an important point, and we will continue to keep that matter under review.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The Abbotsford estate on the edge of Romsey is a brand-new, 800-home development that still suffers from broadband speeds of less than 2 megabits. Does the Minister agree that it will be an enormously long wait until 2017 for those residents to get decent speeds?
Mr Vaizey
There are two answers to that question. The first is that we have sat down with developers and network providers to work on a code of conduct to ensure that new developments get broadband. Secondly, it is worth reminding hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, that this is a difficult engineering project. We cannot deliver broadband with the wave of a wand, but we are ahead of schedule in almost all areas.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
9. At a time when the Government are making more and more services digital by default, does the Minister believe it is acceptable for 1.2 million homes across the UK, including 113,000 in Scotland, still to have no access to broadband whatsoever? What are the Government doing putting back their timetable for superfast broadband? Should we not have universal coverage now?
Mr Vaizey
All homes do have access to broadband; 97% have access to broadband at speeds of 2 megabits; superfast broadband availability has doubled; the average speed of broadband has trebled; one in four people in this country have superfast broadband; and we have the lowest prices of the European Union big five and the United States.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I hate to break up the “bromance” but 28% of farms and rural businesses across Thirsk, Malton and Filey will not have any fast-speed broadband, not even 2 megabits, by 2016, yet the Government are making us all go digital by default. What measures will the Minister take to allow farms and rural businesses to access rural broadband before digital by default goes live?
Mr Vaizey
As I said, we are well ahead of schedule with our roll-out of superfast broadband. On Yorkshire, North Yorkshire was one of the first out of the traps, and more than 60,000 homes have been connected through that programme. We also have a £10 million pilot scheme to connect the most remote parts of the country, and that is going very well.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Many people were pleased to see the Government’s announcement of 1,000 free wi-fi hot spots across the country, but the map on the Department’s website shows that Glasgow, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Bristol, with a combined population of 4 million, have no provision at all. What criteria did the Minister use when choosing locations? How could he possibly miss those great cities?
Mr Vaizey
Well, we worked with the cities, so they came up with up their own proposals. I believe that Newcastle has a cloud computing centre, using its super-connected cities programme, and Bristol, too, has a fast-speed internet hub. So it is up to the cities how they choose to use the money. The criteria have come from the cities and they are the ones that have chosen which public buildings they want to put wi-fi in.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
6. What progress he has made on ensuring that mobile network operators and broadband providers provide adequate coverage in rural areas of Northumberland.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
As we have heard, mobile communication is critical to the rural economy. We are therefore working with Ofcom to identify gaps in mobile coverage, and I have consulted on potential measures to tackle patchy coverage. In addition, the Government have allocated £9.5 million to increase superfast broadband coverage in Northumberland to almost 90% by 2016.
Guy Opperman
I accept that we are making progress in Northumberland, but my constituents in many parts, such as Kielder, Dalton, Stamfordham, Stocksfield and Byrness, suffer from very poor mobile and broadband reception, or zero coverage. May I ask the Minister to visit soon, to push BT and the other providers and, frankly, kick ‘em up the arse, and generally to push ahead so that we have a campaign whereby there are no no-go areas and no go-slow areas?
Sajid Javid
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, but perhaps not in the same way! My Bromsgrove constituency has areas with similar coverage problems, so I can absolutely see the importance of the issue he is raising and how big the problem is for towns such as Kielder. I look forward to visiting Northumberland soon and I will apply whatever pressure I can to BT and others to end this scourge of not spots and poor, slow broadband speeds.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Innovative small business in my constituency, such as Shepherds Walks in Rothbury, have doubled their business as a result of the availability of superfast broadband under this valuable scheme. The remaining areas have businesses that could do the same if they were given a chance, so can he report any progress on alternative technical solutions for the most difficult-to-reach areas?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the impact that superfast broadband can have on businesses, helping them to grow. As he will know, there is a phase 3 to our broadband plan, which is the so-called “last 5%”, and we are working on that simultaneously—we are not waiting for phases 1 and 2. We are working on that right now, and we recently had a £10 million programme to test the feasibility of various projects. We are looking into the results and seeing what can be done.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
7. What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to bring ratings for music videos online into line with British Board of Film Classification standards.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I welcome the commitment that music labels and digital service providers have made to pilot the British Board of Film Classification age ratings for online music videos where they are unsuitable for younger children. Since it was launched on 1 October, 49 music videos have been classified by the BBFC under the pilot, and the rating symbols should start appearing on YouTube and Vevo towards the end of the year.
Diana Johnson
Why does the voluntary pilot scheme apply only to UK musicians?
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of mobile phone coverage in rural areas.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Mobile coverage at 2G reaches 99% of premises, but my hon. Friend is well aware of the issues that we have with not spots and partial not spots, which is why we have in place the mobile infrastructure programme and why we are currently consulting on roaming.
John Glen
I thank the Minister for that answer. Although I welcome the recent consultation on partial not spots, many areas in rural Wiltshire, such as Bishopstone, remain without any coverage at all. Vodafone’s decision to introduce open sure signal technology in Broad Chalke, as it has recently done in Winterslow, will be revolutionary. What more can be done to incentivise companies such as Vodafone systematically to roll out those solutions before the outcome of the consultation?
Mr Vaizey
When Vodafone announced that scheme, I ensured that all the villages in my constituency were aware of it and encouraged them to apply for it. Bishopstone will be covered under our mobile infrastructure programme. I certainly encourage mobile operators to roll out such solutions. I do not understand why they do not offer villages an off-the-shelf service, as many parish councils would look seriously at funding such a scheme.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for their efforts to address this problem of partial not spots and not spots. But does my hon. Friend agree that the best solution would be to obtain an agreement with the industry on how to move forward and that it may also require the Government to make some changes to the electronic communications code and possibly the planning rules?
Mr Vaizey
When I said that we are consulting on national roaming, I should have made it clear that we are consulting on a range of options, and a voluntary agreement with the operator remains our preferred solution. Looking at the electronic communications code and the planning laws is also part of the options that we are considering.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
It is good that the Government are giving Arqiva £150 million to put up mobile phone masts in not spots, but they are moving extremely slowly, and they cannot tell anybody what their plans are for Argyll and Bute. Will the Minister urge them to get a move on and to be more transparent with their plans?
Mr Vaizey
We are trying to be as transparent as possible. If my hon. Friend wishes to give me his specific concerns, I will ensure that he gets a full response. This is a technically challenging programme, precisely because these masts are going up in areas that are difficult to reach and where there has previously been no coverage.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
11. What recent funding his Department has provided for the fabric of cathedrals in England.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
In this year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced a £20 million fund to allow cathedrals to undertake urgent repair work. As my hon. Friend knows, that included £330,000 for the beautiful Worcester cathedral. In addition, cathedrals have access to the listed places of worship grant scheme, which has a budget of up to £42 million per annum.
Mr Walker
I am grateful for that answer. May I add my condolences on the tragic death of Phil Hughes, who is fondly remembered in Worcestershire, where he used to play?
I was pleased recently to welcome the Secretary of State to Worcester cathedral for a magnificent performance of Shakespeare. Will he join me in celebrating the fact that, in the year that Bishop John of Worcester has taken the lead for the Church of England on cathedrals and church buildings, the east window at Worcester cathedral will be being restored with that grant of £330,000?
Sajid Javid
May I first say to my hon. Friend that I thoroughly enjoyed visiting the cathedral with him and seeing “Julius Caesar”. It is an excellent demonstration of how our cathedrals can be open to so many activities in our local communities. In fact, I have seen similar events recently at Rochester and Portsmouth cathedrals. With regard to Bishop John, I was actually just discussing that very matter with His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday, and I join my hon. Friend in warmly congratulating the bishop on his position.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I warmly thank the Secretary of State for the £20 million grant for cathedrals, which has enabled some 41 cathedrals to carry out various works and repairs from fixing leaking roofs, repairing stained-glass windows and spires and carrying out many other important works to enable them to commemorate the centenary celebrations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that cathedrals are powerful symbols of our shared history and are also the envy of the world? They bring in many tourists, so this investment by the state in our cathedrals is great value for taxpayers.
Sajid Javid
Yes, I agree fully with my right hon. Friend. He will know that of the £20 million we allocated in that grant, £13 million has been used so there is still about £7 million left to go. I urge other cathedrals to take advantage of that and to work to help their local communities.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
12. What assistance his Department has provided to sports bodies to encourage world-class sporting events to be held in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
Through UK Sport, we have invested £27 million to bring more than 70 major sporting events to the UK. The Government also made available an extra £10 million to support last year’s excellent Tour de France Grand Départ.
Damian Collins
Does the Minister agree that the recent chaos at FIFA demonstrates that it is not fit to govern world football? Will she confirm that the Government would not support a future bid from England to host the World cup while the current leadership team at FIFA remains in place?
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that in Harrogate and Knaresborough we staged part of the hugely successful Grand Départ of the Tour de France this year. It had a huge impact on our tourism economy and will have a broader impact on the economy over the years ahead. Will the Minister assure the House that she will do everything she can to make it as easy as possible for major sporting events to be held here? By easy, I mean by providing support through measures such as ticketing assistance and an efficient visa system.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
13. When he plans to announce his decision on whether to change Ofcom’s appeals process.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
No decision has been made on the appeals process. However, we will make an announcement through the normal channels once we have reached a decision.
John Robertson
I thank the Minister for that extensive answer. May I urge him to consider Ofcom and the deal for mobile companies? For example, only 9% of people will switch companies. We have had the same kind of problems in the energy market and people are now working hand over fist trying to help people switch mobile phone providers. It takes seconds for a company to let somebody switch their phone, so it is time that those companies were brought to book and we need to give teeth to the regulator.
Mr Vaizey
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I tried to keep my answer as short as his rather radical haircut, which looks very impressive this morning. We are sympathetic to the concerns that the current framework for appeals against Ofcom’s decisions are costly and lengthy, but we need to strike the right balance between providing a proper right of challenge and allowing the regulator to make timely and effective decisions.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
14. What recent discussions he has had with the organisers of the 2015 rugby world cup on ticket touting.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
I meet often with the organisers of the rugby world cup and we continue to discuss ways to ensure that all fans can purchase tickets in a safe and secure way.
Julie Elliott
As a rugby fan, it appals me to see tickets for the rugby world cup being listed online for thousands of pounds. Will the Government now accept that they were wrong not to protect genuine fans from touts and support the amendment that their lordships have recently passed?
Mrs Grant
As has already been clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government believe that organisers, promoters and ticket agents should do everything they can to find solutions to deal with the secondary market. Successive Governments and Select Committees have ruled, found and concluded that regulation should be a very last resort.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the 2015 world cup will be a fantastic celebration of the game of rugby? There will be plenty of tickets available at large stadia venues around the country, including Brighton, Milton Keynes, Newcastle and Leicester. That means that anyone wishing to watch a game during the rugby world cup will be able to do so.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of children’s access to the creative arts; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Between 2012 and 2015, we are going to invest £15 million in cultural education and we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in music education.
Fiona Mactaggart
Yet his own Department’s survey shows that a third of secondary boys and a fifth of secondary girls do not access arts activities outside schools. In a recent speech the Secretary of State for Education said that arts were not the basis for a successful career, yet the creative industries provide 6% of our national wealth. What is the Minister doing to increase children’s access to arts beyond school?
Mr Vaizey
The Secretary of State for Education was not saying that. She was simply making the point that a lot of people said that doing a maths or science degree narrowed children’s career opportunities. She was correcting that impression; it was not an either/or. Both channels are good ways to get wonderful career opportunities after leaving school.
We are working with Into Film, providing film education for hundreds of thousands of children. We are working with English Heritage on the new heritage schools initiative, which has massively increased engagement with heritage already. We are funding the Sorrell Saturday clubs, and we are working with the Arts Council on arts awards and the pioneering Artsbox.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The situation that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) describes is not the situation in Kettering, where there are loads of dance, ballet, theatre and other groups, with many dedicated and committed volunteers. Would my hon. Friend the Minister like to take this opportunity to praise all those volunteers and all the mums and dads who put the extra effort in outside school to ensure that their children engage in worthwhile activities?
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is right. The Education Secretary said that choosing arts subjects held back pupils for the rest of their lives. Our arts and creative sector is a key part of what makes this country great, and an economic powerhouse for us, which we saw at this week’s launch of the Creative Industries Federation. Ensuring that pupils get a good creative education is important for the development of each and every one of them, but also necessary to build the audience and the work force for those industries in the future.
Should the Culture Secretary not be making sure that this Education Secretary, unlike the previous one, supports creativity in schools rather than devaluing it, which is exactly what she is doing?
Mr Vaizey
The previous Education Secretary was the one who ring-fenced music education and funded cultural education programmes. This Education Secretary has increased the budget for music education by £18 million. By praising the opportunities that are provided by science and maths education, one does not denigrate cultural education. This Education Secretary takes cultural education extremely seriously, and the Department for Education is a joy to work with in supporting our programmes.
Mr Speaker
We move on to Topical Questions. Colleagues, led by the Secretary of State, might wish shortly to join me in congratulating Switzerland on winning the Davis cup last weekend for the first time—a great team effort, notable among other things for the inimitable brilliance of Mr Roger Federer.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)
May I begin by saying how saddened I was to learn this morning that the young Australian cricketer Phil Hughes has died. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in saying that our thoughts are with his team mates, his friends and his family.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Lewis Hamilton on his second Formula 1 world title, to applaud the record crowd that supported England’s women at Wembley this Sunday and to wish a happy 20th birthday to the national lottery.
Jake Berry
Today is Lancashire day, when we celebrate all that is great about the red rose county. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating Lancashire, and encourage people to come and visit our tourist attractions such as East Lancashire railway, Healey Dell and Turton Tower, as well as the other tourism jewels in the red rose county?
Sajid Javid
I will wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend, not least because I was born in Lancashire and it is my home county, so I know more than most, perhaps, about everything that Lancashire has to offer by way of attractions, sites and heritage. Lancashire day is a fantastic day to showcase that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
T2. The Secretary of State knows a lot about social investment tax relief. I worked happily with him on many aspects of crowdfunding, and he knows that crowdfunding provides an amazing opportunity for people to get together to start cultural and artistic events and raise the money for that. Will he have a quiet word with his old boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about increasing the cap on social investment tax relief before the autumn statement?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what is in the autumn statement, but he raises an important point. I remember the discussions we had about crowdfunding, and he is right about the importance that it has for businesses and for cultural activities. I have discussed that on many occasions with colleagues.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
T4. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the town of Rugby is the birthplace of the great game in which England’s men were world cup winners in 2003 and they were awarded the freedom of the borough of Rugby. Will he join me in congratulating England’s women rugby players on winning their world cup earlier this year and on their award of the freedom of the borough of Rugby, which will be made at a ceremony in Rugby next month?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is fantastic that the women’s team is visiting Rugby on 10 December. I am very pleased that they are being rightly recognised in the same way as the men were when they won the world cup in 2003. The support that our women’s team has been receiving is brilliant.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
T3. I thank the Sports Minister for her diligent work in securing the funding for our GB basketball teams from Sport England, which means that our women’s team can go off to take part in the EuroBasket tournament next year. Does the hon. Lady agree that supporting elite team sports should be the role of UK Sport? Does she therefore share my hope that the consultation currently under way on the future of UK Sport will result on it focusing on delivering social value and support for team sports, as well as medals?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
T5. As a cricketer, I echo the sympathies for the wonderful Phil Hughes, whose loss is tragic. I welcome the announcement that Ponteland middle school will have a new artificial grass football pitch funded by the Premier League, the Football Association and Sport England. May I urge the DCMS to carry out an audit of all my constituency so that other pitches may be installed very soon?
Mrs Grant
I am delighted that Ponteland community middle school has been successful in its application. Artificial pitches are amazing and increase participation, community involvement and talent development, which is how we will grow the game. I am happy to look, with my hon. Friend, at what scope there might be for further projects.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. Given reports that alcohol advertising in Formula 1 might go the same way as tobacco advertising, and given that this is an area where there has been some concern in the past, can the Minister give an assurance that any discussions that are entered into with Formula 1 teams will be open and accountable, and will seek to preserve our great British motorsport industry as well?
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree with the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) who said last week that £2.80 or so a week for the BBC
“is tremendous value, but only if you watch it.”
Given that over 96% of people access the BBC every week, does that not show what good value the licence fee is?
Sajid Javid
Like my hon. Friend, I am very proud of the BBC. It is well respected not just at home, but abroad, and rightly so. However, we have to recognise that there have been serious changes in technology over the past decade, and when the charter review takes place, all issues should be looked at, including those raised by colleagues.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
T7. On the 20th anniversary of the national lottery, it is a fact that twice as many households in the north-east play the lottery, compared with London, but the region receives only half the grants that London gets. Does the Minister think that is fair?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
May I add my condolences to those already expressed on the death of Phil Hughes? I declare an interest, as my brother is Sky television’s cricket correspondent.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for meeting me and a delegation from Plymouth earlier this month to talk about Mayflower 2020, the anniversary of the founding of the American colonies. Does he agree that Mayflower 2020 could contribute similar levels of growth in Devon and Cornwall to those we have seen from the “Gathering” in Northern Ireland and Ireland?
Sajid Javid
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend and representatives from his constituency to discuss that important point in history, which I think it is right to mark. Another good reason to look at it is that it could do a lot for the local economy.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Five years ago the previous Labour Government made a commitment on universal broadband access for everyone. The Minister might talk superfast, but the fact is that up and down the country people and businesses are waiting to get decent broadband so that they can carry on their business and that essential part of their lives that is now lived online. What is he going to do about it?
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Five years ago the previous Labour Government made an unfunded commitment to deliver 2 megabits broadband. There was no way in which they would be able to see that through. We have doubled the availability of superfast broadband and provided 2 megabits to 97% of the country. One in four now have superfast broadband. We have the best broadband in the EU big five, and the cheapest.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
What discussions has the hon. Lady had with her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that in growing towns such as Chippenham development brings more sports pitches and pavilions, not fewer?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Newcastle United supporters trust fully supports Labour’s football governance strategy, which will mean that for the first time supporters will be guaranteed a place on the board. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the trust on developing a credit union in the best interests of the supporters and people in the north-east?
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
It is clear from the number of complaints I have received that the Telephone Preference Service is simply not working. I urge the Secretary of State to take whatever action is needed to stop nuisance telephone calls.
Mr Vaizey
Ofcom ran an inquiry into the Telephone Preference Service, which showed that being a member does significantly reduce the number of nuisance calls received. As my hon. Friend must be aware, we have consulted extensively and changed the law in order to reduce the impact of nuisance calls.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
We have heard about the success of our tourism section, but the business tourism sector is sometimes overlooked. The conference market is very international and huge in scale. It plays a significant role in my constituency, with the Harrogate International Centre driving much of our local economy. I ask the Minister to focus on that, alongside all her other work to promote our tourism sector.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
1. What assessment she has made of the effects of the under-occupancy penalty on disabled people.
The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)
The removal of the spare room subsidy is just making sure that the same rules apply in the social housing sector as apply in the private sector, as implemented by the previous Labour Government. To deal with difficult cases, the Government have made available a significant amount of discretionary housing payment to give local authorities the flexibility they need to deal with cases where disabled people need more support.
Mr Spellar
According to the Government’s own evaluation, 68% of those hit by the bedroom tax are themselves disabled or have someone in their household with a disability. Is the Minister not ashamed of that figure? When will the Government scrap that cruel and unfair tax?
Mr Harper
I note that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point that I made. We are treating people in the social housing sector in exactly the same way as the previous Government treated them—[Interruption.] I hear someone heckling on the Labour Benches. Disabled people do not get a spare room subsidy in the private sector. Those rules were implemented by the previous Labour Government. This is a matter of fairness. The £345 million we have made available to local authorities over the past two years for discretionary housing payment gives them the flexibility they need to deal with individual circumstances.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Minister name and shame the five worst local authorities that have the largest number of disabled people who are affected by the spare room subsidy removal but are not using the discretionary funds that the Government have given them?
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I was going to ask exactly the same question as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). Will the Minister name and shame all local authorities that are failing to provide discretionary housing benefit for people who are being penalised as a result of their disability?
Mr Harper
We do have records of the amount of money that the Government make available to local authorities. In the interests of transparency, I will put in the Library details of the money made available by the Government and the extent to which local authorities take up that generous allocation of funding.
Mr Speaker
No colleague need be shy; repetition is not an unknown phenomenon in the House of Commons.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
2. What steps she is taking to ensure equal pay for men and women.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
8. What steps she is taking to ensure equal pay for men and women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)
It is good to see that over the past year the gender pay gap has fallen significantly to 19.1%—its lowest ever level. However, we are determined to build on this, and our aim must be to eliminate the gender pay gap. We are promoting pay transparency through the Think, Act, Report initiative; transforming the workplace to ensure flexible working and shared parental leave; and, through the Your Life campaign, encouraging girls and young women to consider a wide range of careers, including well-paid careers in technology and engineering.
Chi Onwurah
On Monday, the headline in Newcastle’s The Journal was “Women pay high price for the long slump”, highlighting the fact that in the north-east the gender pay gap is rising; in Newcastle, it stands at 16%. Why is the Minister’s Government making women pay for the financial crisis caused by the banks, and what is she going to do about it?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Lady is rather interesting in her portrayal of the circumstances that led up to the financial crisis, particularly regarding the part that her party’s Government might have had to play in that situation. I have pointed out that this Government are absolutely determined to eliminate the pay gap and to make sure that it continues to fall as it has over the past year. We also have more women in work than ever before. We have created 2 million extra jobs over the course of this Government’s time in office, and unemployment has been falling across the country, including in the north-east of England.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister talks of grand initiatives, but the hourly rate of pay for women working part time is a third less than that for their full-time counterparts. Given that 42% of all working women now work part time, does the Minister think that it is time for big companies to publish the average hourly pay for men and women in their work force to expose this continued pay gap?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman raises several issues. It is true that, for men and women, part-time work is often paid at a lower rate. Of course, as he points out, many women are working part time. This is an important issue where we need generally to value much more the contribution made by people working part time. Organisations such as Timewise are doing some wonderful work that tries to remove the stigma around working part time by highlighting people at very senior levels who are doing so. He is right that transparency is a really important tool in making sure that this can be tackled. That is why we have the Think, Act, Report initiative to encourage companies to think about and act on the issue, but also, crucially, to report on it.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about encouraging more women into engineering. In Rossendale and Darwen, we have a high-tech engineering work force. What steps are the Government taking to encourage women to take up these fantastic jobs in engineering, which tend to be some of the highest paid in my constituency?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this as a hugely important issue. Only 7% of engineers are women, and these jobs, as he rightly says, are often very well paid. As the Perkins review set out very clearly, we urgently need more engineers in terms of our overall economy and skills, and we therefore need more women to fill that gap. We have announced a £30 million fund to increase the supply of engineers and encourage more women into the area, £10 million of which is specifically earmarked for our Developing Women Engineers programme. We are working with the Royal Academy of Engineering and with organisations such as the Institute of Physics, because making sure that girls take the subjects that open up an engineering career to them is also really important in making sure that this happens.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
We all praise companies such as Friends Life, Genesis Housing and PricewaterhouseCoopers which annually publish their gender pay gap because they want to reduce it, but there are too few examples of that. Can we therefore achieve cross-party consensus and will all the parties back Labour’s proposal—we will bring it to the House next month—to require all big companies to publish annually their pay gap?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Lady is quite right to say that there is cross-party agreement that this issue needs to be tackled. The 2010 equality strategy set out very clearly that we would pursue the voluntary approach and then assess how it was working and come to a conclusion about what needed to happen next. The hon. Lady will be aware that my party published proposals—I am delighted that her party has subsequently agreed with them—to implement section 78 of the Equality Act 2010. I am sure that the issue will be very much discussed in the approaching election and that all parties will want to set out very clearly how they propose to tackle the pay gap.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What discussions she has had with charities and pressure groups on a charter for women or a women’s bill of rights.
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Nicky Morgan)
I regularly engage with women’s organisations at one-to-one meetings, round tables and consultation events, and through social media. The Government are currently carrying out an online survey on women’s views of progress on improving women’s lives and on where there is most need for work still to be done. As part of that engagement, I regularly discuss the UN convention on women, which is sometimes known as the international Bill of Rights for women.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister knows that it has been a long, hard struggle to get equal rights for women and we are not there yet. There are significant elements in our communities who do not believe in equal rights for women. I want the Minister to introduce a charter that gives every female child in this country information on what their rights to equality are. I want that to be clear to every little child, wherever in this country they are brought up, whatever their family background and whichever school they attend. Does the Minister agree with that?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, although we have made great strides towards equality, there is still much more to do. He will know that, as Secretary of State for Education, I have recently spoken of the broad and balanced curriculum, British values—which include, obviously, mutual respect and tolerance—and education on girls’ rights. I have not heard anybody apart from the hon. Gentleman call for a Bill of Rights. To be honest, I prefer to look at what works on the ground and make sure that there are lessons and strong female role models in all communities and all schools right across the country. Of course, however, the idea is interesting.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Women’s rights are incredibly important and we need to ensure that women are at the heart of decision making. My right hon. Friend is the Minister for Women and Equalities, but, unusually, no specific Committee of the House is tasked with holding the Government to account on the work of the Government Equalities Office. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the issue further, as I believe the right thing to do would be to set up a women and equalities Select Committee at the start of the next Session of Parliament?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for that question. The Leader of the House is in his place and I am sure he will have heard her request. I am, of course, very happy to have a meeting. This is a matter for the House, but I look forward to discussing it with my hon. Friend.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
If there was such a charter or Bill, would not there be an obligation on television companies, including the BBC, to explain why it is that, while men in their late 70s can carry out their job as lead presenters—and do it very well, no doubt—once women reach their 40s there is almost a ban? Why this discrimination?
Nicky Morgan
Perhaps for the first time, I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He might be interested to look at the evidence taken by the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications as part of its inquiry into women in broadcasting and the media, to which I recently gave evidence. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that having positive role models—women of all ages and all backgrounds—represented in the media and national newspapers is incredibly important.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
In England, 18-year-old women are a third more likely to apply for a university place than their male counterparts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows how far we have come in terms of girls’ educational attainment, but that there is still further to go?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we know, women now make up the majority of the numbers in many different subjects right across our universities. In fact, in the university I represent in my constituency of Loughborough, I understand that more women than men are taking engineering degrees. However, we all clearly have a long way to go.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
4. What steps the Government have taken to support parents with child care responsibilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)
We have increased free early education hours for three and four-year-olds, and in September we extended it to 260,000 two-year-olds. From next autumn, almost 2 million people could benefit from the new tax-free child care scheme, worth up to £2,000 a child. From April, couples will be able to choose how they manage their child care responsibilities, as we have introduced shared parental leave.
Mr Sharma
When Labour left office, 99% of schools provided access to breakfast and after-school clubs, but since the Government removed the ring fence more than a third of local authorities report that the provision has been scaled back in their area. Does the Minister now agree that that was a mistake, and will she back our plan to legislate to give parents a guarantee?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. After-school and breakfast clubs can be hugely important in enabling parents to manage their responsibilities. It is also important that schools have the ability to make choices about the services they offer. We have introduced legislation to make it easier and reduce the bureaucracy for schools deciding that that is indeed what they want to do. That should help to ensure there is greater provision of these important services.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I have been to Diandjims nursery at Prudhoe in Northumberland and seen the transformational effect of the free child care provision of 15 hours per week for two-year-olds. The lives of parents are transformed, because they can go back to work or get back into employment following the birth of their child.
Jo Swinson
My hon. Friend raises an important example of the policy in action and working to deliver for hard-working families in his constituency. There are many such examples up and down the country. The policy is incredibly important for making sure that people do not have to choose not to work for economic reasons, which is why we are committed to taking it further.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Ministers trumpet tax-free child care, but the fact is that it will not have helped even one family that is struggling with child care costs during this entire Parliament. In fact, those who are struggling the most have had their support via child care tax credits cut, so why do Ministers not implement the policy sooner? While they are at it, why do they not adopt Labour’s commitment to providing 25 hours a week of free nursery education for all working families?
Jo Swinson
The hon. Lady will be aware that support through working tax credit for child care will rise to 85% under universal credit. She is right that we are introducing tax-free child care, which is coming in next autumn. The legislation to make that happen is going through the House, and I am delighted that it is happening. I have outlined the additional early education hours that the Government have delivered, including, crucially, making it available for two-year-olds for the first time. We know that it has significant benefits, and it has helped many working parents.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
5. When she last met the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss the effects of the purchasing policies of UK retailers on the rights of women and girls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)
I regularly meet the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss a range of issues, including supply chain transparency and human rights. I assure my hon. Friend that, following significant work by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), the British Retail Consortium is working with his Department to produce guidelines on this area for their members.
Michael Fabricant
I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. The recent episode of the Mauritian T-shirt illustrates so clearly how very important this issue has become. What steps is she taking to ensure that other companies follow the example of some well-known partnerships that show how well they can source their supplies?
Jo Swinson
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Transparency is key so that investors and indeed customers are able to look at such matters and hold companies to account. We have introduced a requirement for a strategic report, which means that human rights need to be reported on, and further non-financial reporting will be helpful. Of course, the measures in the Modern Slavery Bill will make the UK a world leader in this area.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the measures in the Modern Slavery Bill. Will the Minister meet companies to make sure that they understand their responsibilities, because the Bill could end this exploitation of workers in UK supply chains?
Jo Swinson
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has done so much work on this particular issue. I am glad that she welcomes the measures brought forward in the Modern Slavery Bill. We are engaging with business on these issues. Indeed, next week I am going to a United Nations event, where there will be many very senior representatives from different businesses who are looking at these exact issues. As I have said, we are also working specifically with retailers on the British Retail Consortium guidance.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What assessment she has made of the effects of Government policies on domestic violence support services.
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Nicky Morgan)
The Government have ring-fenced funding of nearly £40 million until 2015 for specialist domestic and sexual violence services. The Home Office is working closely with the women’s sector on a programme of engagement with local commissioners. Earlier this week, the Government announced an additional £10 million of funding for refuges for victims of domestic abuse.
Luciana Berger
Despite what the Minister has said, women’s refuge charities report that services are still closing right across the country, with some areas having no refuge provision left at all. We need a comprehensive audit of domestic violence service provision to be carried out urgently. Why have the Government failed to do that and when will they do it?
Nicky Morgan
The Government have been putting the funding in. I have mentioned the £10 million that was announced this week. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has written to all local authorities this week to say that, even though the funding environment is extremely difficult, they must continue to prioritise the provision of refuges for victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence. Rather than talking about audits in Whitehall, we want to get on with giving money to the services on the ground to fund the valuable work that they are doing.
East Coast Main Line
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the Government’s decision to award the franchise for the east coast main line.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
This morning, I announced the intention to award the InterCity east coast franchise to Stagecoach-Virgin, exactly on the schedule that we promised two years ago. That is great for passengers. It will bring more trains, faster trains, newer trains, better services and better value for money. It is good for towns and cities up and down the east coast. It is good for our economy and for jobs. It is proof that the right route forward for our railways is the private sector and the public sector working together. This deal will make the route of the Flying Scotsman a world-beater once again.
We have heard different advice from the Opposition—led, of course, by the unions. They told us to leave the route in the hands of the emergency public sector operator. They do not understand how that would deny the east coast line new ideas and investment. They do not understand that the operator was set up as a short-term measure by the last Labour Secretary of State for Transport. That is why the noble Lord Adonis said at the time:
“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]
Indeed, the then Minister of State at the Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said that
“one reason we are able to invest record sums in our railway service is the revenues that the franchises bring in and the premiums that they pay”.—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 430.]
They were right then and they are wrong today.
It is this Government who are powering ahead with better plans for our railways. The new franchise will be good for people who use the line. The deal will strengthen the vital links from London to Scotland, all the way along the route as far as Aberdeen and Inverness. Passengers will benefit from regular, faster, more frequent services to places such as Falkirk, Stirling and Edinburgh. Journeys between London and Edinburgh will regularly be down to just 4 hours by May 2020. Leeds will see regular journey times go down to just 2 hours.
Places such as Leeds, Bradford, Shipley and Harrogate will see more direct services each day. Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Huddersfield and Dewsbury will get new east coast services. There will be the first direct service from Huddersfield to London since the 1960s. Lincoln, which gets just one train a day to London under the current operator, will get one every two hours with the new one. We have protected the service levels to every current main line station as well. By May 2020, all those destinations will be served by the new intercity express trains, which will be built in the heart of the north-east at the new plant in Newton Aycliffe.
I ask the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher): why does he want to deny the north all those benefits? The new operator will provide 50% more capacity across the east coast network, a 40% increase in peak seats to and from King’s Cross, and a refurbishment of the existing fleet. It will cut some of the most expensive fares by 10% from May next year.
The franchise is not just good for the passengers; it is good for the staff. There will be investment in skills, with a graduate programme and new apprenticeships. There will be a national academy for rail professional education based in London, York and Derby. The franchise is good for taxpayers, too. It will run for eight years, with the option to extend it for a further year. In that time, it will return £3.3 billion in premium payments to the taxpayer. These figures are robust and have been subject to rigorous scrutiny, including by independent auditors. The deal will bring more services, more passengers and a growing return.
The Government’s franchising programme is creating the railways that this country needs. Passengers in Essex, London and the south-east already benefit from the improved services that a partnership between the public and private sectors can provide for our railways. This award is further proof that private competition is good for passengers, staff, communities and taxpayers. The quality of the new operator’s plans will benefit the whole country.
Michael Dugher
If this is such a good deal, why did the Secretary of State not offer to come to the House and make a statement, to share all the good news with us? Are the Government desperate to avoid scrutiny of their shambolic approach to franchising, which has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds?
First we had the west coast fiasco, which wasted £50 million, and then Ministers presided over the loss of hundreds of millions more, with delays to investments and franchise extensions. Now, on the east coast main line, we see Conservative dogma on privatisation put before the interests of the travelling public.
It is absurd in the extreme that our own public operator should be the only rail company in the world that has been barred from challenging to run its own services. It is not too late to halt the process, but given that the Secretary of State is adamant that it will go ahead, that we are only months away from an election and that there is no political consensus for this major decision, will he give a formal written ministerial direction to his permanent secretary to outline that he is still insisting on proceeding with this flawed process?
The Government say that £3.3 billion will be paid to the Exchequer over eight years, but the operator says it will be £2.3 billion. Why the discrepancy? Is the Secretary of State’s announcement already unravelling? Given that Virgin charges some of the highest peak fares in the country on the west coast, will passengers on the east coast main line face more fare rises to pay for this decision? Is it time that the Government legislated to allow a British not-for-profit public sector operator to take on and challenge train operators on a level playing field?
It is clear that the whole franchise process should never have happened. It was rushed through on a rigged political timetable, and by the time this service is privatised it will have paid more than £1 billion to the Exchequer. The entire process is a disgrace. The taxpayer and the travelling public have been sold down the river.
Mr Speaker
Order. I point out that this urgent question got off to an over-long start because in seeking to be informative, the Secretary of State went way beyond the allotted time for a ministerial response. I want to accommodate colleagues but we have a short period, so pithiness is of the essence.
Mr McLoughlin
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the hon. Member for Barnsley East to his position. He is no stranger to the Department for Transport because he was special adviser to Stephen Byers when he was Transport Secretary—a time of glorious indecision for our railways. This is the third shadow Secretary of State I have witnessed during my short time at the Department. No doubt if I wait a bit longer, another one will be along shortly.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned dogma, but I think the dogma comes from the party that did not implement any of these measures when it was in a position to do so. When Labour had 13 years to set up a public sector operator, it rejected that. Directly operated railways were always there as a matter of last resort. On the subject of dogma, the hon. Gentleman is speaking for ASLEF and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, repeating what they are saying almost word for word. They have given more than £350,000 and £220,000 respectively to the Labour party, so I will not accept comments about dogma from Labour Members.
I am also interested in what the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said on franchising:
“One of the purposes of franchising is to ensure that we get better value in respect of the subsidy paid in the particular case, but we also want better services.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 703-4.]
That is exactly what I have announced this morning for the east coast main line: better services to towns and cities that have not been served since the 1960s. The party that represents dogma sits on the Opposition Benches; the party challenging Britain’s railways and companies to come forward with new and better services, serving more communities than ever, sits on the Government Benches. We have seen the railways grow, from providing services for 760 million passengers to providing them for 1.6 billion passengers last year. This is a time of great renaissance for the railways—something that I celebrate, but the Opposition complain about.
Mr Speaker
Order. Extreme brevity is now required. Let us be led by Mr Philip Davies.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Secretary of State knows, I have long lobbied for additional railway services on the east coast line to Shipley and Bradford, so I very much welcome his statement today. Will he confirm exactly how many additional services there will be to Shipley and Bradford, when they will come on track and what can be done to try to speed up the process?
Mr McLoughlin
I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend with the exact details of how many extra services there will be. There will be a great increase, with six services overall to Shipley—in 2018-19, I think—as a result of the new intercity express programme trains that will serve the line. I am happy to provide my hon. Friend with more information in due course.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Why do the Government think it is better for our country to pass the profitable east coast main line into private hands, with money going to shareholders rather than the people of this country, and throw out TUPE regulations, which will jeopardise the terms and conditions of the work force on the east coast main line?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not quite sure why the new old Labour party, led by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), is so concerned about profits. Profits are not a bad thing. They go towards paying pensions and towards rewarding people who invest in companies. A number of people the hon. Lady represents rely on pensions that are generated by profits. That, I would have thought, is a good thing. It is not just about profits. The overall return to the rail franchises is 3%. Investment by the rail companies has resulted in tremendously better services for passengers up and down the country.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that what matters to my constituents is not who owns the operator but whether the trains are on time, clean, reasonably priced, retain good staff and stop at places such as Berwick and Alnmouth?
Mr McLoughlin
Indeed. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the new trains, which will be built in the north-east shortly, will be of tremendous benefit on this particular line and will provide the investment the line has wanted for many a year.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me if I do not share his enthusiasm for today’s announcement. Some of us have been here before, with private sector companies promising the earth to win contracts and then not delivering in practice. Why did the Government not listen to local people and keep the excellent East Coast in place as a public sector comparator? What will he do to ensure the promises that have been made will be delivered?
Mr McLoughlin
The people who are serving on East Coast trains now will be the people serving on the new InterCity franchise that I have announced today. I will quote another Labour Member of Parliament; that seems to be a bit of a habit this morning. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said:
“will he be fair to the marvellous train crews of Virgin Trains, who give extraordinarily good service, and tell them that their future is assured? Will he simply award the franchise to Virgin, which has carried it out brilliantly?”—[Official Report, 15 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 53.]
In fairness, he was referring to the west coast main line, but if I go back to that statement I could quote those people time and again.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
For years in north Lincolnshire, we have been arguing to get back our through-train from London to Grimsby via Market Rasen. At the moment, the train stops at Lincoln. What hope is there of getting back our train?
Mr McLoughlin
If my hon. Friend presses me further, I will certainly come back to him in more detail. It is tremendous news that we have increased the number of trains to Lincoln to six a day, but I know that colleagues want services to go elsewhere, which is why the study being done with northern authorities on the northern powerhouse strategy is looking at how to improve connectivity for our market towns and cities in the north.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that both times the private sector has run the east coast line it has been a failure, whereas the public sector, which has been running it for some considerable time, has handed over more than £1 billion to the Treasury? Why change a winning formula? Why does he not agree with the 70% of the population—I am one of them—who believe that rail should be brought back into public ownership?
Mr McLoughlin
I wish I could say I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s announcement that he is one of those who would like to see the railways re-nationalised. When we had a nationalised railway system, it was dying on its legs. It was providing only 760 million journeys a year, whereas today’s railway provides 1.6 billion and employs more people—more people working on our railways, more people using our railways. I thought he would welcome the fact that instead of a dying, declining industry, today it is a vibrant industry employing more people and improving opportunities for everyone, whatever their background. I celebrate that; he is disappointed by it.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
There is no doubt that the east coast rail service has been good over the past five years, but it has lacked new investment, so I welcome today’s announcement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the thing we hope for and desire—direct rail services to Grimsby, in my case via Scunthorpe—remains a possibility and that he will work with us to see how viable it is?
Mr McLoughlin
I shall certainly work with my hon. Friend to see whether we can accommodate what he wants. As I have often pointed out, 25 years ago I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport, and in those days it was thought that the railways were yesterday’s business. Today, wherever I go, I am lobbied by MPs for more direct services from their constituencies. I celebrate that we are today announcing 75 new destinations for this service.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State not realise that most people in Yorkshire think that privatisation has been a disaster for train services across our region? It has been rotten, and it will still be rotten under this new arrangement. We do not believe in pie in the sky. I am not the most radical Member on the Labour Benches, but I have been persuaded that we need to take the rail system back into public ownership. That is what we deserve.
Mr McLoughlin
I think the person who has just spoken is the hon. Member for Huddersfield, yet we heard not a single welcome for the new train service to Huddersfield. He would rather talk about dogma than celebrate the first direct link to his area since 1960. That sums up the Labour party 100%: it is the Labour party of Kinnock, rather than Blair or Brown.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
More trains; more investment; more money back for taxpayers; a link for Thornaby, in my constituency; a link for Middlesbrough; trains built down the road in Aycliffe—does my right hon. Friend agree that this is good news not just for passengers and taxpayers, but for the economy of Teesside?
Mr McLoughlin
Indeed it is. The decision by Hitachi to base its plant in the north-east, bringing more than 700 new jobs to the area, has been universally welcomed.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Why is the only public operator effectively barred from competing and operating the line, despite having reinvested £800 million into services rather than into the pockets of shareholders?
Mr McLoughlin
For the sake of brevity, I will refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the statement. It is great news that Yorkshire will get so many services from this deal. Could the Secretary of State say a little more about services to Harrogate and Thirsk, which serve my constituency, and more about Skipton? I know that my right hon. Friend was thrown off the station at Settle, but I hope he will fight for a Skipton daily service.
Mr McLoughlin
What I am announcing today is extra services right across the line. I hope that the services to my hon. Friend’s constituency will see the benefits of that, as well as of the new intercity express trains, which will be coming on course in just a few years’ time.
Mr Speaker
I cannot imagine the Secretary of State being “thrown”. It would be a deeply onerous task, accomplished not without emotion.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has made much of the potential benefits for employees, but is it not the case that he has ensured that TUPE will not apply, thus jeopardising the terms and conditions of the work force?
Mr McLoughlin
I think the hon. Lady is on to a technical point, but it will be a transfer over. It is a transfer over of the staff, who will be there on the same terms and conditions as they are at the moment—apart from those employed by Agility Trains.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
When will the better services to which my right hon. Friend refers include the electrification of the east coast main line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen? I ask that not least because it serves four stations in my constituency.
Mr McLoughlin
That may be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. If my right hon. and learned Friend does not mind, I would prefer to write to him about that.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
As a regular user of this service, I agree with the Secretary of State that East Coast making a profit is not a bad thing. The difference is that we want that £1 billion profit going back to the people of this country—not lining the pockets of his Tory friends.
Mr McLoughlin
The fact is, as I said, that directly operated railways have basically paid £1 billion to the Exchequer over the past five years. The new intercity express will pay £3.3 billion over eight years.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, particularly in respect of the six additional trains per day running between London and Harrogate. I think this is a transformation of our services in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that this deal represents a huge boost—not just to our part of the economy, but to that of the whole of the north of England?
Mr McLoughlin
I do indeed. My hon. Friend can look forward to those extra services for his constituency, along with the others to which I have referred. We are talking, basically, about an increase of some 33% of services across the board, with 75 new destinations being served as a result of this morning’s announcement.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Unlike the currently successful and profitable publicly owned service on the east coast main line, the previous two private operators failed—a point raised by my hon. Friends. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give that this latest franchise will not be third time unlucky?
Mr McLoughlin
Let me simply point out that a number of things have changed. The hon. Gentleman refers to franchises that were left by the last Government. Issues have been changed by this Government, and all the other franchises on the railways are currently running to the budgets that we have required of them. Some of them are subsidy receiving, but most are premium payments.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Thirsk and Malton will welcome a public-private partnership delivered by tried and tested operators. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be increased services from York that will take a shorter time, and will he let us know the balance between first class premium fares and standard class fares?
Mr McLoughlin
I might have to write to my hon. Friend on the details of the balance between premium and standard fares, but we have seen a tremendous improvement with the technology surrounding advanced booking, giving people some very good deals when they book their tickets in advance.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Whoever runs the franchise, trains will be made at Newton Aycliffe. Will the Secretary of State please explain why he was quite content for a French nationalised industry to bid, but not for a British one to do the same?
Mr McLoughlin
I have no objection to foreign companies wanting to invest in this country. I would have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed the fact that Hitachi is building new plants in Newton Aycliffe. She is not decrying Hitachi because it is a foreign company, is she? I have no objection to foreign countries wanting to invest in the United Kingdom. I welcome it.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
We shall have 3,000 extra seats during the morning peak time, 65 new state-of-the-art trains, a 10% reduction in long-distance Anytime fares and the first direct service from Huddersfield to London since 1960. Will my right hon. Friend continue to put passengers at the forefront of these new services?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but I should point out to him that this is not just about passengers. It is also about staff—the staff who deliver a fantastic service on the east coast main line, and who will now be given better training. I think that the national academy—which, as I said earlier, will be based in London, York and Derby—is very good news for the people who work on our railways, as well as the passengers who travel on them.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Virgin fares on the west coast main line are excruciating. Will the Secretary of State tell us what he can do to protect passengers on the east coast line?
Mr McLoughlin
As I have said, some of the top fares will be reduced by 10% in May. Moreover, if passengers buy tickets in advance, they can obtain some very good deals.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has announced extra investment in our railways, extra services, extra trains, extra seats, and British-built trains for British passengers? Does he share my dismay at the economic illiteracy of Opposition Members, given that this is a good deal for passengers, a good deal for everyone who wants our economy to improve and a good deal for taxpayers, who will receive £3.5 billion back from these companies?
Mr McLoughlin
I do not think that I need to answer my hon. Friend’s questions, apart from the one about whether I was surprised by the attitude of the Opposition. The answer to that question is no.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s idea of a public-private partnership seems to be “Private failure and public bail-out; private profit and public subsidy.” When I catch the train to Newcastle in two hours’ time I will ask the staff what they think, but in the meantime, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no reduction in direct services from Newcastle to London, no increase in prices—and no action from the Government when they fail to deliver on their long list of promises?
Mr McLoughlin
What I have announced amounts to extra points. But I see that we have now been joined by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). I can do no better than quote what he said when he was Transport Secretary:
“franchising is to ensure that we get better value in respect of the subsidy paid in the particular case”. —[Official Report, 1 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 703-4.]
We also get better services. There will be increased services and faster services from Newcastle, and I think that the people of Newcastle will get a better deal.
Smith Commission
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement to the House about the further devolution process in Scotland and the publication of the heads of agreement resulting from Lord Smith’s five-party talks. As the Prime Minister has already said this morning, we back the agreement and its recommendations, and will produce draft legislation in January.
The referendum on independence that was held on 18 September 2014 saw Scotland vote decisively to remain within our UK family of nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, backed by the strength, security and stability of the United Kingdom. The turnout across Scotland was nearly 85%, and more than 2 million people made a positive choice for Scotland to remain part of the UK.
During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made a joint commitment to deliver more powers to the Scottish Parliament. The Smith commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, was up and running on 19 September, and Lord Smith convened cross-party talks to reach agreement on the proposals for further devolution to Scotland. The process has been thorough and extensive. The party representatives were drawn from the five main political parties in Scotland; this was the first time ever that all five had participated in a devolution process.
I would echo the comments of Lord Smith in the foreword to his report:
“This agreement is, in itself, an unprecedented achievement. It demanded compromise from all of the parties. In some cases that meant moving to devolve greater powers than they had previously committed to, while for other parties it meant accepting the outcome would fall short of their ultimate ambitions. It shows that, however difficult, our political leaders can come together, work together, and reach agreement with one another.”
In preparing the report, Lord Smith heard from a wide range of Scottish civic institutions and members of the public. Over 400 submissions were received from organisations and groups, and over 18,000 submissions, including e-mails, letters and signatures to petitions, from people across Scotland.
The Smith commission has today produced comprehensive heads of agreement ahead of the St Andrew’s day deadline contained in the timetable. This is a significant achievement and historic moment for Scotland. I thank Lord Smith and the party representatives for their work. They have worked hard against a challenging timetable, covering an enormous area of ground. This work will deliver a substantial package of new powers to the Scottish Parliament.
The heads of agreement provide for a durable but responsive constitutional settlement for Scotland within the United Kingdom. They give greater financial responsibility to the Scottish Parliament, with an updated fiscal framework for Scotland, consistent with the UK fiscal framework. For the first time, over 50% of the money spent by the Scottish Government will be raised by the Scottish Government. That is an important step which builds on the measures brought forward by this Government in the Scotland Act 2012, and further increases the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish people.
The recommendations provide for key welfare measures to be designed by and delivered in Scotland. That will give the Scottish Parliament the tools—and the responsibility—to tackle a range of issues with specific consideration of local circumstances, including those related to social care, long-term unemployment and housing, while continuing to benefit from the strength and stability of the UK-wide system.
The recommendations build on the already significant powers of the Scottish Parliament in social justice and a range of other policy areas. Together, those recommendations give greater responsibility for more decisions affecting Scotland to be made in the Scottish Parliament and paid for by revenue raised by the Scottish Parliament. However, further devolution is just one part of this story. People in Scotland were unequivocally clear on 18 September that Scotland should retain the security of being part of our United Kingdom. The Smith commission’s remit was clear—to set out proposals for further devolution within the United Kingdom—and that remit was signed up to by all parties participating in the process, including the Scottish Government. The conclusions reached by the parties ensure a set of proposals that do not cause detriment to the UK as a whole or any of its constituent parts. The Government are committed to ensuring that Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom continue to prosper from our single domestic market, our social union and the strength that comes from the pooling and sharing of risks.
People in Scotland voted on 18 September for the jobs and opportunities that are created by being part of a larger United Kingdom with one currency, no borders and more money to spend on public services. People in Scotland want to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces and a strong UK voice in the world. The package that has been announced today allows that to happen.
As the Prime Minister has already made clear, the Government back the heads of agreement and their recommendations and we shall get on with producing draft legislation. The draft clauses will be produced by Burns night, 25 January, meeting the next phase in our commitment to the people in Scotland. That work begins today. A team has been brought together with leading officials in the Scotland Office, HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office. That team will work closely with all lead policy Departments within the UK Government. The team will remain in place to deliver a Bill in the UK Parliament following the next general election.
To support the preparation of the draft legislation, I have invited key Scottish stakeholders representing a wide range of sectors to form a stakeholder group. I shall provide further details of the membership and terms of reference of the group in due course, but it is my intention that it will support the Government’s work translating the heads of agreement into the draft legislation that we shall publish by 25 January. As Lord Smith said in his foreword:
“Through this process I have worked closely with people who can argue passionately with one another while sharing an equal concern and love for their country. I would like to thank them all for their input, challenge and support. I hope that, in the end, they can work together, maintain their energy and use it to create a Scotland which is even stronger and even better.”
Having a more powerful Scottish Parliament inside a strong United Kingdom is the best outcome for the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom. This is what we voted for on 18 September. Today’s report is an affirmation of the vow that was made in September. It is a historic moment for Scotland.
The cause of home rule has been at the heart of Scottish politics since the days of Gladstone. This agreement provides a modern blueprint: Scottish home rule within our strong United Kingdom—home rule for Scotland that can open the door to constitutional reform for the rest of the United Kingdom. We can achieve home rule all round.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and join him in thanking Lord Smith of Kelvin for his work and his report, and indeed all the commissioners. I want to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), whose proposals during the referendum set us on the way to delivering this momentous agreement to deliver a powerhouse Parliament.
As the Secretary of State has said, this is a historic day for Scotland. Ten weeks ago the people of Scotland—in overwhelming numbers—confirmed Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. It was a decision made on the highest turnout ever seen in these isles, and it was a vote for change: change in the way Scotland is governed, change that will see more decisions taken closer to people, but safer, faster, better change as part of the United Kingdom. This is a promise kept and an agreement delivered.
The Labour party was very clear that we would honour the promises made during the referendum, and we have delivered. As the Secretary of State has said, this has been achieved in a co-operative and constructive process, working in the spirit of consensus that people across Scotland expect. That is why we wholly endorse the recommendations of the Smith commission and we give our guarantee to the people of Scotland that if—or, rather, when—we are in government after May, we will legislate for these powers in our first Queen’s Speech.
This agreement will see more powers over tax, welfare and jobs transferred to the Scottish Parliament. We have secured guarantees over the voting rights of Scottish MPs on the Budget and on the continuation of the Barnett formula. We believe this provides the best deal for the people of Scotland. In fact, today’s deal is more radical and goes further than many had anticipated. We on this side of the House believe that the principle we have worked for today—pushing power closer to people—is one that should be followed across Britain. That is why we will continue to call for a constitutional convention to be established to consider how this can be achieved, working with all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
Now that agreement has been reached, will the Secretary of State tell the House how the recommendations of the Smith commission will be implemented and what the timetable will be, and will he specifically and in detail outline how hon. Members will be involved in this next stage of the process, as the draft clauses are produced? Given the success of cross-party working that is inherent in the work of the Smith commission, will the Secretary of State outline how the parties will be involved in this stage, and how the Opposition will be consulted on the details he announced in his statement?
As Lord Smith pointed out in his statement this morning, these additional powers will also mean that the Scottish Parliament’s own processes will need to be strengthened to enable it to hold the Government to account. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what consultation there will now be with the Scottish Parliament to ensure that it is well prepared for this transfer of powers?
Lord Smith also recommended closer working between the Scottish Parliament and Government and the UK Parliament and Government. How does the Secretary of State intend to take forward that recommendation and ensure that Members of this House become involved?
For the past two years, our country has been divided along yes and no lines. Today marks an important moment. There are no longer yeses and noes, just Scots with new powers, and we look forward to working across Scotland to deliver them. Labour will deliver those new powers in our first Queen’s Speech in May. More power is now in Scotland’s hands, and it is for all of us to work together to create that better Scotland.
Mr Carmichael
I acknowledge that this process has not been easy for any of the parties; it has involved compromise on all sides. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Scottish Labour party for the compromises and progress that they have made. They have acted in accordance with the spirit that was expected by the people of Scotland following the referendum vote.
The hon. Lady mentioned the proposals for the rest of the United Kingdom. As I have said at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions in recent weeks, that debate is now happening and I welcome it. I share her enthusiasm for a constitutional convention. She will be aware that the Government have set up a Cabinet Committee to look into the wider issues of devolution in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I deeply regret that her party has chosen not to take part in that. I hope that, even at this late stage, Labour Members will change their minds. She and her right hon. and hon. Friends can anticipate receiving an invitation soon to contribute to the Command Paper that the Government will be bringing forward, so if they have proposals, we will be interested to hear them.
The hon. Lady asked about the implementation of the heads of agreement. As I explained in my statement, a stakeholder group will be set up, and I anticipate there being opportunities for all parties—and, indeed, for groups beyond the political parties—to have a role in that. I will update the House on that as soon as possible.
One of the most important and prescient observations that Lord Smith made in his personal recommendations was that there should be closer working not only between the two Governments—which has long been accepted to be the case—but between the two Parliaments. Indeed, it was suggested that you, Mr Speaker, might soon consider meeting the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament to build that co-operation between the two Parliaments and the two Governments. Those recommendations have a great deal to recommend them. The hon. Lady asked how the recommendations in the report would be implemented, and I can tell her that they will be implemented without hesitation, reservation or equivocation.
Mr Speaker
I meet the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament regularly—a fact of which I suspect colleagues might be aware—and I am very happy to meet her as necessary.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
May I say to the Secretary of State that this is no way to introduce massive constitutional change to our country, given the major implications for the rest of the United Kingdom, which has not been consulted at all, not least on the question of how English votes are to be applied to English laws? Does he believe that these proposals will contain or further inflame separatist sentiment in Scotland?
Mr Carmichael
In Scotland, on 18 September, we decided that we wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom. That was clear and unequivocal, and it is that position that we are now entrenching. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s last question, I believe that these proposals will strengthen the position of Scotland and the United Kingdom for the future. I am sensitive to his concerns about the need for constitutional change in other parts of the United Kingdom and I understand that there is an imbalance within our current constitutional framework. Let me tell him that that was the case before we set up the Scottish Parliament in the first place—it was one of the reasons we set up a Scottish Parliament. The process has been an evolutionary one across the UK and that evolutionary process must now continue. I hope that he and his colleagues, in England in particular, will now take to that debate with enthusiasm and build a consensus that can bring forward the change that is necessary.
Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the proposals being made by the Smith commission today, transferring, as they do, not just more powers but significant new responsibilities that will be taken on by the Scottish Parliament. As we implement those and discuss, as we must, further devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom, will the Secretary of State ensure that we do nothing that undermines the integrity and the strength of the United Kingdom? In particular, will he ensure that we do not undermine the fiscal union, which is one of the central pillars of that United Kingdom? The majority of people in Scotland voted clearly to stay within the United Kingdom, and I believe the majority of people in the entire United Kingdom want to see it continue. We must be very careful to manage this carefully—other big countries have done it and we can do it, too.
Mr Carmichael
I do not disagree in any way, shape or form with what the right hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the sentiment he refers to was reflected in the remit we gave Lord Smith and then in the principles that underpinned his work—the principles agreed by all five parties to the discussion. I believe that what they have brought forward today is entirely consistent with those principles.
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for the integrity and credibility of the political process in this country that commitments given by political leaders during the referendum campaign are honoured? Does he further agree that the proposals he has just announced further accentuate the imbalance in the British constitution between England and the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he therefore agree that it would be wrong, as some have proposed, to kick the McKay proposals into the long grass? They now need to be addressed with some urgency.
Mr Carmichael
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman on the importance of honouring the vow that was made, and that is what we are about today. As I have acknowledged, there is currently an imbalance within the UK constitutional framework. As a federalist, I have long believed that that needs addressing. I do not think anything should be kicked into the long grass. He has been involved in the management of this House in various capacities for many years now, so he will be as aware as I am that once these things are changed it is difficult to change them back if we get them wrong. There is a need for constitutional reform and it goes far beyond the Standing Orders of this House.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the Scottish Secretary for his statement, and Lord Smith and the commissioners for their work. The substantive parts of this are the devolution of less than 30% of Scotland’s tax base and of less than 20% of welfare, and the assignation of a share of VAT. Although that is interesting as far as it goes, I note the absence of other substantive job-creating powers. The Scottish National party will not stand in the way of these powers; it is important to put that on the record, and I do welcome the report as modest progress. However, will the Scottish Secretary confirm that however they are dressed up, these proposals do not reflect the powerhouse Parliament that many in Scotland believed they had been promised before the referendum?
Mr Carmichael
First, let me try to adopt a more appropriate tone than the hon. Gentleman has perhaps just done and congratulate him on his recent election to the position of deputy leader of his party. It is unfortunate that he did not use the word “welcome”; there are significant job-creating powers in this package and the Scottish Parliament already holds significant job-creating powers. If Nicola Sturgeon is sincere when she says that she wants to govern for the whole of Scotland, she should get on and use the powers that she has, welcome the ones that she is getting and use them for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman predictably and depressingly seeks to suggest that this is not a fulfilment of the vow. Well, the vow is on the front page of the Daily Record. For the benefit of the House, I have brought that paper with me today. The front page says, “The vow delivers.” Let me draw the House’s attention to the article itself. On page 3, it says that
“it’s is now clear that they”—
David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband—
“have stood behind this agreement to deliver change. Lurid claims to the contrary by some pro-Yes commentators”—
it must have known what the hon. Gentleman was going to say—
“have been shown to be false.”
That is the assessment of one of Scotland’s leading papers. It is more to be relied on than the views of the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend can now be assured of some favourable remarks in relation to what he has just said about the Daily Record. He will not be surprised that I, rather less grudgingly, welcome both the process behind the proposals and the proposals themselves. Does he understand that I welcome the accusation that these proposals are federal in nature, because it is in federalism that we will find the best constitutional solution to meet the aspirations of all four of our nations and, at the same time, secure the advantages of a secure United Kingdom? Is not the truth now that we should all be federalists?
Mr Carmichael
Speaking for myself, I always have been a federalist. Indeed, I understand that I can now count on the support of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in that aspiration. May I also recognise the pivotal role that my right hon. and learned Friend took in the formulation of my own party’s proposals? His commission was the first intervention in this debate, and it very much established the tone and set the bar at a level that others felt it necessary to clear. Ultimately, a federal structure is what this country needs. It works perfectly well—in fact it works much better—in countries around the world. Clearly, it will take time. What we are about here today is delivering in the here and now on the pledge that we made in the referendum.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
I seek clarification from the Secretary of State as to whether the support of the Smith commission was unanimous. If that is the case, great credit is due to the Greens and to the SNP in particular for being willing to sit down and collaborate with the Liberals, the Conservatives and Labour to find something around which we can all agree. I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees that if we have had unanimity in producing the report of Smith, we now must have unanimity in implementing it.
Mr Carmichael
That unanimity is important. I understand that that was the basis on which the agreement was made. Unfortunately, given the tone of some of what we have heard today, John Swinney, who by all accounts performed a significant role in the commission, has not been able to bring everyone in his party with him. That is to be regretted.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that once Scotland is determining her own income tax rates and bands in the Scottish Parliament, it would be quite wrong for Scottish Members of this Parliament to be trying to fix those bands and rates for the English?
Mr Carmichael
I commend to my right hon. Friend the terms of the Smith report, which make it clear that income tax means a tax shared between the two Parliaments.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I welcome the report. This is a great day for democracy and what is good enough for Scotland is now good enough for England. The Secretary of State will have seen in The Times today a letter from local government leaders from the greatest to the smallest asking for devolution in England. Rather than having to drag it out of Whitehall over 20 years, as Scotland did, through lobbying and referenda-ising, we should get to this quickly. If we do not, through our sloth the Secretary of State might create in England the same nationalism as was evident in Scotland, which I think he would regret. Will he not keep putting this off and talking about constitutional conventions that might never report? We know what we need to do: put it in the manifestos, unite the House and give England local devolution, as Scotland is now getting.
Mr Carmichael
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, as I suspect that that is the first time that Hansard will have been required to record the word referenda-ising. It is novel and creative. I am not entirely sure whether the growth of nationalism in the different parts of England will be a consequence, but having sat through a six-hour debate just a few weeks ago in this House on the subject of devolution across the whole United Kingdom, I would say the one thing that was clear at the end of the debate was that there is not yet consensus—[Interruption.] It might well need leadership, but leadership alone will not be enough to build consensus. The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen to the words of his own Front Benchers on the question of a constitutional convention. That is not a delaying tactic, as he seems to think. In my view, it is the only feasible way of building consensus to get the change that is wanted.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The report is a welcome first step towards stabilising the Union, redressing a Scottish grievance, and the Treasury Committee will consider it as part of its inquiry into fiscal devolution. Does the Secretary of State agree that another crucial step must be to redress an English grievance: that Scottish MPs vote on English laws? That must end, notwithstanding the curious wording of paragraph 75 of the agreement. Does he further agree that the English must have a veto on all laws that largely or exclusively affect them, and that the case for that is all the stronger with full devolution of income tax? Nothing less will do.
Mr Carmichael
It is because we understand the need for change—as I have said already, I and the whole Government are sensitive to that wish for change—that we have set up the process that is being led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which is aimed at building consensus to bring about that change.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I welcome the comprehensive cross-party consensus to work together for the benefit of the whole of Scotland that the Smith commission has achieved. The Secretary of State will be aware, as I mentioned this to him in Scottish questions yesterday, that there is a growing tax gap, given that there is a higher proportion of basic rate taxpayers and we still do not know how those on the highest incomes, such as Brian Souter, might divert their tax bases so that they do not become liable for Scottish tax rates. Before we produce a White Paper next year, may we have a full analysis from the Treasury of the tax base, so we can make sure that any final block settlement accurately reflects the tax raised in Scotland and ensures that we do not end up with Scotland having a worse deal?
Mr Carmichael
Today’s publication and the agreement we have offer us a range of opportunities in Scotland. In particular, we can do the things for the Scottish economy that will produce the growth that will expand that tax base. The important point is that, having made this decision, we should get on and implement it and then start using the powers, rather than constantly talking about our constitutional position.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
How does today’s report fit in with the promise made by the Prime Minister on 19 September that any change giving more devolution in Scotland would go in tandem with, and at the same pace as, changes in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr Carmichael
No. I have to contradict my hon. Friend. It has been made perfectly clear all along, and the Prime Minister himself has said, that the change that was promised to Scotland will go ahead according to the timetable that was given to the people of Scotland. It is not contingent on other changes.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I welcome today’s statement and I think people across Scotland will welcome it. The referendum changed Scotland, and today’s statement is confirmation that we need to respect the wishes for change of the no voters and reach out to many of those who voted yes as well. In welcoming the tax powers, may I point out that the new welfare powers are just as crucial? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new welfare powers total perhaps as much as £3 billion of new responsibility for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, and that he is minded to enable the devolution of those powers at a pace and in a manner that will enable Scotland to challenge poverty and the generational disadvantage that blights far too many families?
Mr Carmichael
I can confirm the figure that the right hon. Gentleman has put to the House. What is being offered to the Scottish Parliament is the power to design a welfare system that is fit for purpose in Scotland. That will be one part of tackling the generational issues of poverty and social exclusion to which he refers. The increased powers in job creation and taxation, especially income tax, and the powers to grow the economy in Scotland, can be used to tackle the issues that the right hon. Gentleman is so right to highlight.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
During the referendum campaign, the four party leaders made commitments to the Scottish people. Today we see three party leaders delivering on the vow that they made. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way forward for Scotland is for the SNP to acknowledge their leader’s statement that this would be a once-in-a-generation referendum?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed; I could not agree more. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made a vow during the referendum campaign. Today we honour that vow. The former First Minister and his successor—Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon—also made a vow. They said that they would respect the outcome of the referendum and the decision of the people of Scotland. There is no reason from today for them to do anything other than to make it clear that we will not be returning to this question in a referendum, as they said, in a generation.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the announcement today. It has delivered more than the vow—perhaps we could call it the vow plus. There is certainly more in the statement than was expected.
I welcome the fact that quite a lot of welfare is to be devolved, but it is right that pensions, especially the state pension, should remain reserved, because throughout the campaign and in all the polling, Scottish people, even many yes voters, thought that pensions should remain part of the UK. When can we expect to see the detail of how some of this will work in practice? Not until the detail is available to all Members will we know whether it is practical or not that some of these powers should be devolved.
Mr Carmichael
I like the hon. Lady’s formulation, “the vow plus”. My party leader in Scotland, Willie Rennie, said this morning that this was “the vow max”. I agree with him on that. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that the state pension will remain part of the United Kingdom welfare system. That is one of the most significant parts of the social union that the people of Scotland chose to remain part of on 18 September.
As for the detail, as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Lady will doubtless have an important role to play in working it out.
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)
When a healthy majority of our fellow countrymen in Scotland voted to remain in our country, the United Kingdom, it seemed to me that they voted against the petty-minded, mean-spirited and spiteful nationalism that we see from the SNP, yet these proposals seem to be delivering deeper and greater separation between the component parts of the United Kingdom. When Tony Blair introduced his proposal for devolution, which I considered pretty half-baked, he said that it would end the rise of nationalism and cement the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend explain what it is about today’s proposals that will cement the United Kingdom and not lead to yet greater demands for separation of the structure of our country?
Mr Carmichael
In the course of the referendum campaign all three parties made a vow. It is absolutely essential that we deliver on that vow in the way we are doing today. The UK constitution is a dynamic model—it always has been and it always will be. It is one of the advantages of having an unwritten constitution, as we do. So yes, as I said earlier today, I remain sensitive to the wish of people in England in particular to see a reformed constitution working better for them. It is up to them to decide exactly what that means. We have done it for ourselves in Scotland. They now need to follow suit.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
I am pleased that, contrary to reports, it has been decided not to recommend devolving abortion, which would have caused all sorts of problems. This is a very exciting day for Scotland, a day we should celebrate. I was going to say that we should put the cynicism and division of the past few years behind us, until I heard the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). Will the Scottish people be informed on an individual household basis of the eventual legislation that comes forward, as happened during the referendum? May I ask the Secretary of State to come to the birthplace of our national bard on 25 January to announce the draft legislation?
Mr Carmichael
That sounds an enticing prospect. Subject to diary commitments—my own diary gets fairly full around Burns night—I would be more than happy to accommodate the hon. Lady’s request if at all possible. She raised the matter of abortion, the terms of the report in relation to which she will have seen. There is a clear statement that it is considered by the commissioners to be an anomalous reservation, and I can understand why they take that view. However, we have always dealt with abortion differently—we have always made it the subject of a free vote in this House, for example—and the commission reached a sensible compromise by recognising the current anomaly, but saying that a new process will have to be devised to deal with that. I hope that process can involve parliamentarians and civic groups beyond the two Parliaments, which might in some way build a measure of consensus.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Unfortunately, there appear to be a number of lacunae, inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the report. If we rush this process, we are in danger of throwing petrol on the embers of English resentment and Scottish separatism. I pose one question out of many: paragraph 95(5)(a) states:
“The Scottish Government’s borrowing powers should be agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments”.
Does this mean that their borrowing will be underwritten by the UK Parliament?
Mr Carmichael
No. Obviously, if the Scottish Government were to borrow, they would have the liability under the borrowing powers. On the hon. Gentleman’s earlier observations about what he perceives as lacunae, the resulting measure, when introduced as legislation in the Queen’s Speech following the election, will still be subject to the full scrutiny of this House and the other place, whoever is standing at the Dispatch Box at the time. I am confident of the abilities of this House and the other place, and that what we will have at the end of the day will work.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Secretary of State manages to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), he would be most welcome to cross the border into Kilmarnock and Loudon—of course, Robert Burns lived in the village of Mauchline and had his works published in Kilmarnock. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the powers that will now be given, in addition to welfare and taxation, include responsibility for the Work programme? That will give the Scottish Parliament a real opportunity to add to its existing powers in respect of economic development in order to get people back to work, which is what many of our constituents will be concerned about.
Mr Carmichael
I would be delighted to join the hon. Lady in her constituency as part of this grand Burns tour that I seem to have signed up to—I just hope that Opposition Members will not start complaining about the cost. She will see that the Work programme is to be devolved, which I think is sensible. Indeed, it was something John Swinney spoke about many times when I shared platforms with him during the referendum campaign. They have the powers; they just have to get on and use them.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Should not those of us who believe in lower taxes welcome this proposal’s potential to encourage a healthy competition between London and Edinburgh over which sets the lowest rate of income tax? If Edinburgh sets a significantly higher rate than this Parliament, there will be a movement of talent from Scotland down south. Likewise, if we set a higher rate than Edinburgh, people will start moving to Scotland. That competition should hopefully lead to lower rates of tax.
Mr Carmichael
That is indeed one of the possible consequences. The truth of the matter is that the Scottish Parliament will, for the first time since it was set up, control both sides of the books for the areas for which it has responsibility; how it spends money and how it raises it. It will then have to be accountable to the voters for how it taxes them. I think that in time, that will have a transformative effect on Scottish politics.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
In 2011 the people of Wales had a referendum on greater powers. The Secretary of State might wish to consider the arguments for giving the people of Scotland a referendum on these powers, if for no other reason than to flush out exactly where the SNP stands on the Smith commission.
Mr Carmichael
That is an interesting idea, but the real purpose of proceeding according to the timetable we have set out is that we will be able to put the proposals to the people next May, which will be the referendum that matters.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who is implementing a long-standing Liberal policy and succeeding where Gladstone did not. I am delighted to see that the Crown Estate is to be devolved and that the Smith commission recommends further devolution of its assets to the island authorities. Will he support devolution of the Crown Estate’s assets to other coastal and island communities, such as those in Argyll and Bute?
Mr Speaker
It is a matter of debate whether the Secretary of State is as great a man as Gladstone, but thankfully his statements to the House are notably shorter.
Mr Carmichael
I do not think there is much debate, Mr Speaker; I do not set myself up for that claim. On the Crown Estate, my hon. Friend is right: that is one of the report’s most significant proposals for our coastal and island communities. Indeed, it requires the Scottish Government, when they have devolved control of the Crown Estate, to pass it on to coastal and island communities. We all know what happens when power is devolved to Edinburgh: it tends to stick there. Scotland now has, as a result of seven years of SNP government, one of the most centralised Governments anywhere in Europe. The report mentions Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, as my hon. Friend says, but it begins that recommendation by referring to
“local authority areas such as”.
I think that could well include his constituency.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I too welcome the Smith commission’s proposals for Scotland. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I will support any process that transfers powers from unelected Tories in Scotland to the Scottish people. Does the Secretary of State even start to recognise the palpable sense of disappointment that exists in Scotland this morning, whether among Scottish people who wanted maximum devolution and expected something close to home rule following the type of talk in the run-up in the referendum, whether among those in the voluntary sector who expected the full transferral of welfare powers, or whether among those in the trade union movement who wanted real job-creating powers and say that they are underwhelmed by the proposals? While we all welcome the proposals, does he at least start to recognise the disappointment at the fact that they could have gone much further?
Mr Carmichael
I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman wants independence and always has done. That is why we had a vote. It pains me to tell him that he lost, however, and it is about time that he and his party came to terms with that. For him to try to use this process to get independence by the back door does not respect the views of the Scottish people as expressed on 18 September. It is perhaps about time that he thought he has a duty to speak for the 60.19% of his own constituents who rejected independence on 18 September.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
In the fall-out from the recent Scottish referendum—in which only people in Scotland had a vote, but the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland were bound by the result—the Scottish nationalists now object even to the prospect of a UK-wide referendum on our membership of the European Union, claiming that Scotland would be bound by the British consensus. Does my right hon. Friend detect, as I do, more than a whiff of tartan hypocrisy in this stance?
Mr Carmichael
I suspect, Mr Speaker, that if I used the word “hypocrisy” you would call me back into order, and for that reason I do not use it.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Of course, as hon. Members have pointed out, this agreement affects all parts of the United Kingdom—Wales, England and Northern Ireland as well as Scotland. Will the Secretary of State explain the implications for the Barnett formula of the tax measures in the agreement? In particular, if the Scottish Parliament decided to reduce the level of income tax, what implications would that have for the Barnett formula?
Mr Carmichael
The Barnett formula remains in operation, but only for the portion of the budget going to the Scottish Parliament that is not accounted for by the taxes that are currently reserved here and are going to be devolved. Detailed technical work is currently under way on this between the Treasury and the Scottish Government. Announcements will be made on its practical application in relation to the 2012 powers in fairly short order.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I particularly welcome Lord Smith’s comment in his foreword to the document,
“that neither the Scottish nor UK Governments will lose or gain financially from the act of transferring a power.”
Following on from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), does that not underline the fact that if a Scottish Government wanted significantly to increase public spending in Scotland, Scottish taxpayers would foot the bill, and that is good for the accountability of Holyrood?
Mr Carmichael
I could not agree more. The Scottish Government keep telling us that they want to spend more money; well, now they can, and in order to do so they will have to raise taxes or cut money elsewhere. That is how politics works.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It sounds as though it is thanks to Labour that the Smith commission is proposing such an excellent deal for Scotland. Is the Secretary of State having discussions with his ministerial colleagues about devolving power to English regions via their local authorities?
Mr Carmichael
I caution the hon. Lady about seeking to claim too much credit on behalf of her party, or any other. As I said, this required us all to participate in good faith, and we all had to make compromises. No individual party should seek to claim too much credit; it was a joint effort. She knows that I am sympathetic to devolution to parts of England, but a concrete proposal has to be worked out. We did that over many years in Scotland, and I am afraid there is no quick or easy way for her and her communities now to do it for themselves.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The Scottish referendum showed without doubt that a large number of people who voted for the SNP may not necessarily have wanted independence. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that, when the SNP wipes out the Labour party next May, it is seen as a rejection of the Labour party rather than a reflection of the need for further devolution or separation?
Mr Carmichael
I think we should all be cautious of trying to predict the outcome of next May’s election.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
May I commend the work of all the commissioners on the Smith commission, particularly—not to single anyone out—my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)? There is a perception that politicians do not keep their promises, but the truth is that the solemn promise we made to the Scottish people during the referendum campaign has today been not only delivered, but delivered with bells on. May I encourage the Secretary of State to look seriously at double devolution, to make sure that today’s announcements and the commission report create not just a powerhouse Scottish Parliament, but powerhouse local authorities and, more importantly, powerhouse local communities?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will see some support for his latter proposition in the report’s foreword, under the heading, “Devolution from the Scottish Parliament”. Lord Smith articulates, in a very measured way, the galloping centralisation we have seen in recent years in the Scottish Government. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman did not single out the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. In the same tone, I should not single out my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), who, along with my constituency colleague, Tavish Scott, played a tremendous role in getting this deal.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
In the Scottish referendum, if people voted yes they were voting for full independence, but it now seems that if people voted no they were voting for more independence. Will the Secretary of State explain how those people who wanted the status quo should have voted in the September referendum? Will he personally accept that, as more power is given to the Scottish Parliament, it is unacceptable and unjustifiable for Members of Parliament from Scotland to continue to vote on issues that affect only England?
Mr Carmichael
As the Prime Minister himself said this morning, he always said that a vote for no was never going to be a vote for no change. Indeed, when the people of Scotland went to the polling stations, all parties had put out their detailed proposals on what would follow in the event of a no vote. As I have said on a number of occasions today, on the question of constitutional change in England, a process is now under way, led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) on their hard work? I also congratulate the six SNP Members in particular—it must have been very difficult for them to compromise on an area on which they do not usually compromise in any shape or form. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State agree that now is the time for the Scottish people—the families and friends who were split and the people who did not talk to each other because of grievances caused by the referendum—to get back together and put Scotland first?
Mr Carmichael
I apologise for missing the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s question because of the constant sotto voce commentary from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
Mr Carmichael
Did I say it was sotto voce? It seems to have ratcheted up a little. The hon. Gentleman had his chance when he was called by you, Mr Speaker.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) is absolutely right. This is a time to heal the divisions and bring the people of Scotland together. We had a vote, prior to which we said we would deliver change and today we have told the people of Scotland what that change will be. It is time to get together and use the powers that the Scottish Parliament has and will get, and to use them for the good of the Scottish people and the Scottish economy.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is already a tough market for north of England and Yorkshire airports. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if Scotland is going to get flexibility on air passenger duty, north of England and Yorkshire airports have to get it, too?
Mr Carmichael
The question is how the Scottish Government choose to use any flexibility they have. If they choose to cut air passenger duty, they will obviously have to cut some public service provision or raise some other tax. The hon. Gentleman should not assume that flexibility only goes one way.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In Wales, we are required to have a referendum before we have income tax devolution of a much more modest nature. The devolution of income tax in Scotland will have profound implications for migration. In particular, if the Scots lower the top rate of tax, richer people will naturally move to Scotland. If unemployment goes up in Scotland, they will raise tax at the lower rate and reduce public services, because they do not have compensatory borrowing powers. Given that, should there not be a referendum of not just the 8% of people who live in Scotland, but of the rest of the UK? We should not be driven by the 4% of people who voted for independence; the profound implications for migration, taxation and all the rest of it should be decided by the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr Carmichael
That is not how we have done these things in the years since the late 1970s, when such decisions were first mooted. The hon. Gentleman has outlined all sorts of scenarios, many of which are possible, and some of which we may even see. That is what we mean when we say that the United Kingdom changed for ever on 18 September. The duty is on all of us in the political parties and the body politic to come up to the mark and to meet that change. As far as referendums are concerned, I am afraid that I have had enough to be going on with.
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his considerable achievement in helping to secure this historic agreement? I also pay tribute to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore). I invite the Secretary of State to agree with me that, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said earlier, what is good enough for the Scots is good enough for the English, too. Does the Secretary of State support a similar constitutional arrangement for England?
Mr Carmichael
I thank my hon. Friend for referring to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore). My hon. Friend is right to say that constitutional change has to come to other parts of the United Kingdom. However, it is not for me to tell the people of England how they want to govern themselves. They have to have that conversation and make the decision for themselves.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the amount of revenue raised by income tax in Scotland will not affect the amount paid to Scotland under the Barnett formula?
Mr Carmichael
No, the amount taken from income tax will now be divorced from the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula will operate for that part of the public expenditure grant to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that remains after that process.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
If legislation on elections is a Scottish matter, does that mean that Scotland decides who gets a vote in Scotland, or is that only so for the Scottish Parliament, while Westminster decides who gets a Westminster vote?
Mr Carmichael
That is in fact the case. That matter is dealt with in some detail by Lord Smith in his report. The responsibility in relation to elections to local authorities and to the Scottish Parliament will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, this House will retain control over elections to it.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I do not envy the Secretary of State his task of going in January to all of the parts of Scotland where Robert Burns dallied and romanced. The important point, however, is that a lot of people in Scotland want to be involved in this debate and discussion. They want to be fully informed about what is happening, not just to be told what they think or to be told that there is some form of betrayal. What arrangements will the Secretary of State make to ensure that people are fully involved in these debates?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady is right to highlight that one of the great successes of the whole referendum experience was that we got the widest possible range of engagement across Scottish society. We have to make sure that that does not now just wither away; we have to do what we can to harness and nurture it. I recently met representatives of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Church of Scotland and the National Union of Students to discuss exactly that process. Not everything of this sort has to be done by Government and through the party political process. The most effective civic engagement is that which grows out of civic groups themselves.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Scotland receives from English taxpayers an additional annual public subsidy, over and above what any English region receives, not because there is an extra level of deprivation, but simply because Scotland is Scotland. What proportion of the funds that are given to Scotland under the Barnett formula will be affected by the ceding of tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament?
Mr Carmichael
It was of common accord between the parties that the Barnett formula would remain. As I have made clear to the House, the amount of money that goes to Scotland under the Barnett formula will be reduced, because what is taken in taxation directly by the Scottish Parliament will be taken out of the equation. It is an important truth that, although the Barnett formula produces some anomalies, no party has ever been able to produce a better option.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Communities across Britain want power to be held and wielded closer to them. I therefore welcome Scotland’s increased self-determination. However, we in the north-east also want more powers to be devolved to us. The Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) that there were no easy answers, but will he at least confirm that he is looking for solutions? Specifically, how will he enable us to ensure that Newcastle international airport can compete with Scottish airports in respect of air passenger duty?
Mr Carmichael
The Government have already embarked on that process through the programme of city deals and growth deals over the past four and a half years. I do believe that there needs to be greater devolution to all corners of the United Kingdom. My family stretches to the south-west of England, where my in-laws come from. They understand that the needs of people in the south-west of England are as badly served by the conventional centralised model of government from Whitehall as the needs of the rest of my family in Scotland ever were. It is now for the hon. Lady and her communities to come forward with a coherent plan for exactly what that change should be.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Further to that answer, in which the Secretary of State talked about devolution to all parts of the United Kingdom, does he not accept that when addressing issues such as English votes for English laws, which many of us feel passionately and strongly about, and the balance between local and central Government, it should be this sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom that takes the final decisions, not some remote constitutional convention, as is suggested by those on the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr Carmichael
Perhaps I should explain how constitutional conventions work. A constitutional convention brings together the political parties and the voices of business, the trade unions, civic groups, the Churches and all the rest of it. They build the consensus, as they did in Scotland, but it was this House that passed the Scotland Acts in 1998 and 2012. There is no question of our subcontracting legislative responsibility.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The commission and the parties recognised that foreign affairs would remain a reserved matter. The report refers to vital “national infrastructure” in respect of the security and defence of the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all parties involved in the Smith commission, including the SNP and the Greens, signed up to that? Will he therefore have discussions with the Scottish Government to make it clear that it is this House and this United Kingdom that are responsible for the foreign and defence policy of our country?
Mr Carmichael
I confirm that it was an agreement of all the parties. I hope that all parties will demonstrate good faith and honour that agreement. Obviously, I cannot account for everyone.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Apparently, home rule for Scotland and the creation of a powerful Scottish Parliament can be decided on in the blink of an eye, but the issue of English votes for English laws needs to be kicked into the long grass, with a constitutional convention. Is it not the truth that, unless these proposals go along with English votes for English laws, my constituents in Brigg and Goole and the people of England will continue to get the fluffy end of the lollipop?
Mr Carmichael
Well, there’s no accounting for taste I suppose.
In the blink of an eye? I have been a political activist for 34 years, and this issue has dominated Scottish political discourse during that time, and I suspect for some time before that. A substantial amount of work was done on today’s proposals by the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Labour before the referendum, so it is not a rushed or ill-considered piece of work but has considerable background. On English votes for English laws, the hon. Gentleman should be careful about devolving power within Parliament without tackling the same question within the Executive, as that would risk creating another instability.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The signature policy of the Smith commission concerns the full devolution of income tax receipts. The Wales Bill, which completed its passage through the House of Lords on Monday, devolves only a small partial element of income tax receipts, and only following another referendum many years down the line. When will Westminster stop treating Wales like a second-class nation?
Mr Carmichael
I thought the only grievance we would get today would be from the Scottish nationalists; I had forgotten we had Plaid Cymru here as well. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the positive approach taken by all parties in building a consensus in Wales. We have always known that for different historical reasons, devolution across the different nations in this country emerges at different paces, which is absolutely right. If he wants more progress, he should try to learn from the Scottish nationalists—or at least from what they were doing before today—and work with other parties to build that consensus.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
Scotland will get what Scotland wants, but when will England get what it wants? Does the Secretary of State agree that we need much more radical change in Westminster than has currently been contemplated, more radical devolution within England than has currently been delivered or offered, and a much more open, inclusive and democratic process than that being led by the Leader of the House?
Mr Carmichael
I am confident that England will get what England wants when England decides exactly what it is she wants.
Business of the House
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
Monday 1 December—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
Tuesday 2 December—Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
Wednesday 3 December—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer will deliver his autumn statement, followed by remaining stages of the Taxation of Pensions Bill.
Thursday 4 December—Motion to approve a statutory instrument, followed by debate on a motion relating to Financial Conduct Authority redress scheme, and a general debate on availability and pricing of branded medicines on the NHS. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 5 December—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 December will include:
Monday 8 December—Second Reading of the Infrastructure Bill [Lords].
For the convenience of the House, I advise colleagues that the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill will be considered in a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday 9 December, Monday 15 December and Tuesday 16 December.
I also inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 11 and 15 December will be:
Thursday 11 December—Debate on reports from the International Development Committee on strengthening health systems in developing countries and on recovery and development in Sierra Leone and Liberia, followed by a debate on the 11th report from the International Development Committee on disability and development.
Monday 15 December—General debate on an e-petition relating to Millie’s Trust campaign to train all nurses in paediatric first aid.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, albeit with last-minute changes. I note the sudden appearance next Thursday of unidentified Government business. Will he tell us what it is, or is he playing partisan games? In the light of the publication of the Smith commission report this morning and the assurance that there will be a draft Bill by the end of January, will he set out in more detail what arrangements the Government will make to enable proper consideration and debate on that report, both inside and outside the House?
Yesterday the Home Secretary published the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, and we will debate its Second Reading next Tuesday. The Bill contains welcome measures to restore relocation powers and give more support to the Prevent programme. Will the Leader of the House ensure that he gives the Bill appropriate time to be properly scrutinised, especially because yesterday the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that one of the measures was:
“An announcement waiting for a policy.”
Do the Government need time to explain why they got it so wrong on control orders and put public safety at risk?
Next week we have the autumn statement, which is yet again in December—I am beginning to wonder whether the Chancellor knows something about climate change that he is not letting on. In 2010 he promised two things: that he would balance the books by 2015, and that he would not do that on the backs of the poor. Four years later he has clearly broken both promises. His five-year plan to eliminate the deficit is now running four years late; wages have fallen year on year while food bank use soars. On this Government’s watch the majority of people in poverty in this country are in work, but all the Government can deliver is a £3 billion tax cut every year for the top 1% of earners. While the Chancellor makes complacent boasts about the slowest recovery for more than 100 years, is the truth that only Labour can end this low-wage economy and deliver a recovery for the many not the few?
One thing this Government do well is miss their own targets. We have had the Chancellor’s abject failure on the deficit. The Home Secretary has finally admitted that the Government have no hope of meeting their target to reduce net migration—we all remember “no ifs, no buts”—and today’s net migration figures show the scale of her failure. The Government’s flagship universal credit programme is being delayed again. It was meant to be in place by 2017, but yesterday’s report from the National Audit Office states that it will not be ready until 2020. One million people were meant to be on universal credit by this April, but there were fewer than 10,000. It was supposed to save money, but the Government wasted millions of pounds on a failed IT system and staff costs are set to soar by a massive £2.8 billion. The Secretary of State talks fondly of “landing” the universal credit programme safely, but is it clear from that damning report that it has not yet even taken off?
This Government have managed to be cruel and inefficient at the same time. They have overspent by £25 billion on social security because they have not tackled low-paid and insecure work. They have spent £5 billion more than they planned on tax credits and £6 billion more on housing benefit. People are suffering because of the bedroom tax, and nearly a million of the most vulnerable people in our country have been left waiting for their disability assessment. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time so that we can start to sort out the rhetoric from the reality on social security?
This week yet again we have watched as the Conservative party’s civil war on Europe widens. After the Chancellor’s humiliating climbdown on EU bankers’ bonuses, and while the Prime Minister keeps us all waiting for yet another speech to end all speeches on Europe, it is no wonder that Conservative MPs are taking matters into their own hands. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said:
“I agree with UKIP and Nigel Farage on virtually everything”.
The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made a bid to put himself at the head of the “out” campaign, and six senior Ministers look set to join him. No wonder the Home Secretary has let it be known that she no longer rates the Prime Minister and has “given up” on him.
Appearing on “Desert Island Discs” this week, the Home Secretary revealed that her favourite song is Abba’s “Dancing Queen”, but what she really meant was “Take a chance on me”. She revealed her favourite book to be “Pride and Prejudice.” Well, Mr Speaker, “It is a truth universally acknowledged” that the Conservative party just cannot stop banging on about Europe. I can only imagine what it would be like to be stuck on a desert island cut off, alone, isolated from friends, with no one to talk to and no hope of rescue. It must be a bit like being a Liberal Democrat.
Mr Hague
I think the hon. Lady is being a little audacious in talking about “Desert Island Discs” when the Labour party cannot even sing “Stand By Your Man” very well. When she talked about somebody being cut off from all his friends, I thought she must have been referring to the Leader of the Opposition.
The hon. Lady asked about last minute changes to business. Unusually, I have announced business three weeks ahead to 15 December. It is for the convenience of the House to have business announced as far ahead as possible, so I think that that is a good last minute change to make. She also asked about a particular item of business on Thursday next week. I can assure her that it will be very clear by next Thursday.
We have just had a statement on the Smith commission report. It is very important for the House to debate these matters further and to debate the consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom, a point made by many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. As the Chair of the Cabinet Committee for Devolved Powers, I intend to ensure that the Government publish the options for England in a Command Paper before Christmas, following up the work of the Smith commission. I am sure the House will want to consider that, and I will make a statement at the time.
The hon. Lady asked about appropriate time to be given for the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. I have announced three days in Committee on the Floor of the House. There will be a clear gap between the Committee stage and Report. The Opposition wanted the Report stage to be after the Christmas recess and it will be. That will give the House time to reflect on all parts of the Bill, so I hope we have accommodated Opposition concerns on that. We have had productive discussions on this issue. The Bill is very important for our national security, but of course it needs to be properly scrutinised and considered in detail.
The hon. Lady asked about the autumn statement and poked fun at its being on 3 December. I have to remind her that autumn lasts until the winter solstice, which is normally on 21 December, or on 22 or 23 December in certain years. I can therefore assure the hon. Lady that 3 December is very much within autumn.
The hon. Lady asked about universal credit. The previous Government were left with a welfare system in which for every extra £10 some people earned, they lost £9 in additional taxes. Universal credit is being designed to ensure that it pays to work and it is likely to deliver benefits to millions of people. Yes, it is always possible to criticise the implementation of IT projects, but it was estimated that the previous Government wasted £26 billion on IT projects that did not succeed. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), made a statement to the House, so Members have had the opportunity to discuss that.
The hon. Lady asked about relative incomes. Relative poverty in the last year for which we have figures, 2012-13, was at its lowest since the 1980s. We have 600,000 fewer people in relative poverty than there were at the general election. The answer to poverty is to get people into work, and that is what the Government are achieving. She asked about a recovery for the many or the few. The previous Government left office with no recovery for anyone at all—neither many nor few. That is what the Opposition’s policies would bring about again.
The hon. Lady talked about comments within the Conservative party on various issues in the past week. It has not been a great week in the Labour party. She has made an exception of asking about the whereabouts of the Chief Whip this week. As I explained last week, he spent much time in Rochester. Really, the Opposition Chief Whip should have been there to tell members of the shadow Cabinet not to photograph people’s houses. She would have been well deployed—[Interruption.] Oh, she was there! Well, she obviously did not get to all the members of the shadow Cabinet.
After the stealth reshuffle that I think took place in September on the Opposition Front Bench, and the anti-climax reshuffle in October, we have now had the Rochester reshuffle in November. But we are pleased that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is still in place and we are absolutely delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is in place all the way to the general election.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on wildlife crime? Is the Leader of the House aware that the trade in endangered species is being facilitated by some courier firms, which transport animal parts and derivative products without inquiring what it is they are delivering? Should we not impose a greater duty on couriers, and should we not be doing more to stamp out this vile crime?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. There is a good case for a debate on this matter and I hope he will take it to the Backbench Business Committee. As chair of the ministerial committee on animal health and animal issues, I too feel extremely strongly on this issue. I believe there is more that Governments across the world can do, and I will be doing some work on that in the next few months.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
Can I take it from the Leader of the House’s words that whatever the statutory instrument is on, it will not be on English votes for English laws? When he brings forward the White Paper, will it include proposals to take the options he identifies out to the country at large for discussion, debate and amendment, before anything is brought back to this House?
Mr Hague
There is no primary legislation that would permit the statutory instrument to be about English votes on English laws; the right hon. Gentleman can be assured of that. One of the reasons why it is important to bring forward a Government paper on the options on decentralisation and on the question that we have come to call “English votes on English laws” is so that there can be a full debate in the country and discussions between parties. Indeed, I regret that those on the Opposition Front Bench have chosen not to take part in cross-party discussions. I will be writing to them today to invite them to contribute ideas to the Command Paper, so there is a chance for them to reconsider their position. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can encourage them to do so.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This weekend, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), Tom Pursglove, our excellent candidate in Corby, and I will be delivering our north Northampton EU referendum. We will be stopped by people saying that the most important issue is immigration and the number of people coming here from the EU. Can we have an emergency statement next week from the Prime Minister on stopping EU migration until the position is resolved?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister will be making a speech on these issues, particularly in relation to the European Union. The immigration figures today show that, while there has been a large reduction in non-EU immigration—in fact, that is at its lowest level since the 1990s—there has been an increase in EU immigration to the United Kingdom. That is an important issue, as I am sure he will find when he is canvassing with our excellent candidate in Corby this weekend. The Prime Minister will address this issue in his forthcoming speech.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
When the shadow Leader of the House was referring to obscure Abba hits, I thought she might have mentioned a song on Abba’s 1973 “Ring Ring” album, “He Is Your Brother”.
I turn to the much more serious matter of serious and organised crime and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. The Leader of the House will be aware that two prominent members of Sinn Fein, including an elected representative, were last night arrested in Northern Ireland for serious and organised crimes, including an historic murder case. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to include such matters in the Second Reading debate next week, so that we can get to the bottom of some of the most serious and obnoxious crimes currently taking place in Northern Ireland?
Mr Hague
It is up to hon. Members what they wish to raise in the debate—subject to the scope of the Bill, of course. The Home Secretary will set out on Second Reading the scope of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill and its provisions, so I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have opportunities to ask her about those matters when we begin the debate on the Bill.
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)
We heard earlier the statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about the historic agreement on greater devolution of power to the Scots, and the Leader of the House said just now that the Government would publish their Command Paper on options for England before Christmas. Will he commit to an urgent debate in the House once it has been published, and does he personally agree that what is good enough for the Scots is good enough for the English?
Mr Hague
I will seek to make a statement on behalf of the Government when we publish the Command Paper, and it will then be important to hold debates on these things. Opposition Members have just been calling for public discussion, so I am sure we will want to hold such debates. What has been agreed for Scotland will undoubtedly have consequences for England, and that is something on which all of us, including my hon. Friend, will want to put our views.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we debate early-day motion 501, which forecasts that the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill will become a landmark in legislative futility?
[That this House believes that a coalition bill will become a major landmark in legislative futility; further believes that the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill described by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, a former Conservative Attorney General, as utter tosh is designed to create volunteers and heroes by legislation; salutes the intention of Lord Lloyd to move against all three clauses of the bill so that only the title will remain; is alarmed that responsible bodies warn that the bill could do harm, including the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers who say the bill will put vulnerable people at risk and the leading law firm Slater and Gordon who described the bill as pointless and potentially dangerous; calls on the Government to avoid the derision from judges that a former Conservative Solicitor General said will be provoked and drop this lamentable headline-seeking example of crude populism.]
It was described by a former Attorney-General as “utter tosh”, and a former Solicitor-General has said it will cause cynicism among judges. Will the Leader of the House’s party help the reputation of this Parliament by supporting the intention of Lord Lloyd to move against all three elements of the Bill so that all that is left is the title?
Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), the Leader of the House confirmed that there would be not just a statement and a Command Paper, but a debate on English votes for English laws. May I press him to go to the next stage and promise that at the end of the debate there will be a vote?
Mr Hague
I am very much in favour of testing the opinion of the House. Of course, that would require agreement within the Government about the motion we bring forward and with the Opposition about the framework for such a debate. Like my right hon. Friend, however, I am personally very much in favour of fully testing the opinion of the House, including by having a vote.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate Steelite International on its recent “Made in Britain” award from the Growing Business Awards. Given the importance of the product safety regulations, which I understand will be discussed on 4 December, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Business Secretary to make a statement about whether the Government will support origin marking, so that when someone turns over a piece of ceramic, they can see exactly what they are getting and where it was made?
Mr Hague
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the business concerned, and I will draw the Business Secretary’s attention to the representation she has made. This country has a good record of supporting regulations within the EU that increase consumer awareness and knowledge of what people are buying, and I know that he will want to keep the House informed. I shall pass on the hon. Lady’s representations to him.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
May we have a debate on planning rules, particularly the rights of local residents living on the borders of local authorities? For example, there is a go-karting track in north Warwickshire that has a significant impact on my constituents over the road in Tamworth, yet those residents have no say in the election of North Warwickshire councillors, who of course make the planning decisions. I know there are rules about consultation and feedback, but a debate would allow us to discuss how we can address that continuing question of accountability.
Mr Hague
I agree that accountability on these things is important. As always, on these and other matters, my hon. Friend speaks up well for the interests of his constituents. It is open to him to pursue a debate—either an Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate—on these issues.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Royal Society’s report on resilience to extreme weather has just been published. As the Leader of the House will know, it has highlighted that by 2030, 800,000 properties—over 300,000 more than currently—will be subject to extreme flood risk as a result of climate change, even with the additional spending the Government are trying to make available up to 2020. May we have a debate on this important matter and report?
Mr Hague
I agree that it is an important report. The hon. Gentleman referred to increased spending. We have announced a record capital settlement of £2.3 billion over the next six years to tackle flooding, and we are spending £171 million on maintenance alone. However, as he said, such reports forecast that the problem will intensify over the coming decades, so there is a good case for considering these matters in the House. I cannot promise that the Government will provide such a debate immediately, given all the other pressures, but the hon. Gentleman could pursue the matter with the Backbench Business Committee and with Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs during Question Time.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the week that saw the publication of the report on the Woolwich atrocity, attention has inevitably focused on the killers and the social media companies that think it was nothing to do with them. May we have a statement from an appropriate Minister, therefore, on the failure so far to recognise the bravery of three people who did not pass by on the other side? Amanda Donnelly, Gemini Donnelly-Martin and Ingrid Loyau-Kennett sought to help Fusilier Rigby and confronted the killers. One of them has since suffered major mental health problems. Why has neither a Queen’s commendation nor a George medal been awarded to these three brave women, who clearly deserve them?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, the Prime Minister made a statement on the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee on Tuesday, but he is right to mention the bravery and outstanding behaviour of these individuals and to draw their names to the attention of the House. I will ensure that the Prime Minister is made aware of his remarks.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I would like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), which, as a Member of Parliament for a constituency in the borough of Greenwich, I very much appreciate.
The privatisation of the NHS met its Waterloo last Friday in a vote on my private Member’s Bill, which seeks to take the market, and the regulatory authorities that introduced it into the NHS, out of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The will of the House was heard when it voted overwhelmingly in favour of my Bill— 241 to 18—so may I urge the Leader of the House to bring forward a resolution as soon as possible to ensure that it goes into Committee?
Mr Hague
While not agreeing with the Bill, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s work in promoting it and the debate that took place last week. He must know, however, that his Bill is some way down the list of private Members’ Bills, although it received its Second Reading last week, and that there are other private Members’ Bills going into Committee. His Bill will have to go into Committee following the normal procedures and at the normal time, in the light of the order of sequence of private Members’ Bills.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
On Christmas eve, printing company Polestar will be axing 75 jobs in my constituency and shutting all three of its sites in Colchester. May we therefore have a debate on spare capacity in the printing industry—a situation not helped when British companies such as BT print all their directories overseas?
Mr Hague
I think that a whole debate in the House on spare capacity in the printing industry would be a little narrow, but of course the hon. Gentleman could pursue these issues in an Adjournment debate or elsewhere. He has just demonstrated that he is pursuing the matter in the House and standing up for his constituents, and I am sure he will find further opportunities to do so.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 39 about the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.
[That this House notes the recent governmental conferences on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, attended by 127 states in Norway in March 2013 and by 145 states in Mexico in February 2014; welcomes the announcement of a new follow-up conference in Austria in December 2014; further notes the call for UK attendance; and urges the Government to ensure that it is represented at this event in Vienna. ]
The United States has recently announced that it will join the 150 countries attending that conference. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether it is the intention of the UK Government to send a representative to Vienna on 8 December?
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman will know very well, it is Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday on 2 December. I spoke for a long time for the Foreign Office, but rather than trying to do so now, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to FCO questions. In previous years we have been reluctant to attend, given various difficulties to do with that particular conference, but I am sure Foreign Office Ministers will be able to answer his question clearly next week.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I press my right hon. Friend a little more on the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)? In common with many people, my main priority is the Union and friendship between our two nations. This depends on the absence of resentment on either side. What some of us are worried about is that as we approach the end of this Parliament, it will suddenly be announced that we cannot have a vote because the Deputy Prime Minister has thrown his toys out of the pram, or something like that, and there is no agreement in the quad, and the whole thing will just fade into the long grass. We want an absolute cast-iron, specific assurance from the Conservative side of the Government that we will have this vote.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend need be in no doubt that the Prime Minister and I, and Conservatives in the coalition—and, indeed, across the country—will be very committed to having a vote in this House. The only caveat is this: my hon. Friend will be aware that, since we do not have an overall majority, we are not in total control of Government business or of the business of this House. We have, of course, seen some of our hon. Friends from the Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), looking for these matters to be considered in detail. Let us make sure that we are able to do that.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If the right hon. Gentleman knows what the business is next Thursday, why cannot we? The Government favour transparency, so they say, but making the business invisible simply turns that into a game of charades. If he is not prepared to tell us what the business is next Thursday, perhaps he could get up at the Dispatch Box and mime it, so that we might at least have a clue what it is that we will be debating next week.
Mr Hague
I do not think miming would be very easy for Hansard to record, so that is not the solution! A small part of next Thursday’s business is not invisible; it is more that its full contents are not yet clear. It will become entirely apparent why that is the case in due course.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The new DVLA contract with Specsavers for drivers’ eye tests has meant that constituents in Campbeltown or Islay have to travel 90 miles by road or take a four-hour ferry journey to get their eye tests, which is completely unacceptable. May we have an urgent statement from the Department for Transport to allow my constituents to have an eye test locally, because they certainly do not want to go to Specsavers?
Mr Hague
I am advised that Specsavers is currently negotiating contracts with a number of independent opticians to ensure that there is appropriate coverage. I am advised, too, that where it is unable to negotiate a contract locally, the DVLA does not expect individuals to travel excessive distances. Where it is satisfied that a contracted optician or optometrist is not available, the DVLA will approach an independent provider to conduct the vision tests on an ad hoc basis. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents may be able to make use of that.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
My constituent Dawn Astle is campaigning for justice for her late father, the former West Bromwich Albion and England footballer, Jeff Astle, who sadly died in 2002 after suffering neurological damage as a result of heading old-style leather footballs. When I recently visited Coalville rugby club, I found it had numerous leaflets advising about the risks and dangers of head injuries, yet in the words of Dr Robert Cantu, a leading neurologist, football is “light years behind” rugby union in appreciating this problem. May we have a debate on what more the football governing bodies can do to address this long-running issue?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend rightly raises an important issue on behalf of the family of Jeff Astle as well as those currently playing the sport. His question is all the more poignant given that we heard this morning the very sad news of the tragic death of the Australian cricketer, Phillip Hughes. I believe that the Football Association published new guidelines in August relating to the problem of head injuries. The FA says, however, that it is aware that the rules around treating head injuries cover only players in the present and the future and cannot cover past injuries. I am sure that a debate would give Members an opportunity to discuss what more could be done—in other sports as well as football. I am sure that this would be a good argument to present to the Backbench Business Committee.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health recently visited Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency, and I would like to thank him for all the support he has given to the hospital to turn it around as soon as possible. May we have an urgent statement from the Health Secretary on hospitals in special measures to highlight the work the Government are doing to improve these hospitals, taking into account the fact that six of them have already been taken out of special measures?
Mr Hague
The Secretary of State regularly answers questions about and comments on hospitals in special measures. My hon. Friend will know that the Medway is receiving an additional £5.5 million of support to increase its resilience in the coming winter period. Eighteen trusts have gone into special measures, since that regime was established, with six of them now turned around, as my hon. Friend said, and no longer in special measures, while major progress has been made at nearly all the others. I am sure we all believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the right and necessary action with regard to these hospitals.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
If the Liberal Democrats prevented the Government from introducing a motion on English votes for English laws, and if in that event some of us tabled a suitable motion through the Backbench Business Committee, would the Leader of the House encourage Conservative Members to support it?
Mr Hague
Yes. If for any reason there were no vote on these matters stemming from a Government initiative, there would be very strong pressure on the Backbench Business Committee. I shall keep hon. Members suitably informed. How all of us vote on a particular motion will, of course, depend on its content. I shall keep my hon. Friend and others informed.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
We heard a very positive announcement on the east coast main line from the Transport Secretary this morning, building on the huge investment in rail infrastructure in the north, both of which significantly benefit my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency. May we have a debate about how the Government are transforming the rail network in the north of England?
Mr Hague
There is good case for that. This morning’s announcements will be of great benefit to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and indeed to mine. We saw an extraordinary display from Labour earlier. Despite an announcement bringing the prospect of a better return for the taxpayer, an improved service, more seats and more trains going to more stations across the north of England, Labour Members were against it because they take the trade union line and are still wedded to ideas of nationalisation, so I think a debate on this subject would be very welcome.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Speaking as chairman of the all-party group for fair fuel for motorists and hauliers, we very much welcome the Government’s freezing of fuel duty. However, despite a 30% reduction in the price of crude oil since June, pump prices in the UK have fallen by only 6%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a full Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into the pricing of petrol and diesel is now long overdue, and may we have a statement?
Mr Hague
It is important for these price reductions to be passed on. The Office of Fair Trading has investigated these concerns. In January 2013, it published its analysis, and Government analysis suggests that crude price changes are passed on to pump prices within about six or seven weeks. National average pump prices are now at their lowest levels since December 2010, but it is, of course, quite right to keep up the pressure to ensure such reductions are passed on. My hon. Friend will also be aware that, thanks to the policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pump prices are nearly 20p a litre lower than they would have been under the last Government’s fuel duty plans.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
May we have a debate on the role of smaller hospitals within the NHS, which was the subject of a recent Monitor report? My constituents in Rugby have consistently made it clear that, wherever possible, they prefer health services to be provided locally at the Hospital of St. Cross. The report states that
“small district general hospitals can thrive”,
which means patients being treated closer to home in Rugby.
Mr Hague
This issue is very important to many parts of the country. The Government agree with Monitor’s findings that smaller hospitals must have a future. I believe that the local trust has given an assurance that it has no plans or intention to close the Hospital of St Cross, and that should there be any future plans for service changes—in Rugby or anywhere else in the country—it would be necessary to demonstrate that they had the support of local doctors and patients, and public engagement would be required. However, I know that my hon. Friend rightly places great value on that hospital, and will always defend it very strongly.
Afghanistan
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on Afghanistan.
Let me begin by offering my condolences to those who were killed and injured in today’s attack, including, sadly, two British embassy staff. It is a tragic reminder that there are some who still seek to undermine the progress that has been made towards peace and security in Afghanistan. I also pay tribute to the courage and commitment of our armed forces, 453 of whom lost their lives, and to the many others who have suffered life-changing injuries in the service of our country. Their legacy is that terrorists have been prevented from using Afghanistan as a launch pad for attacks on our streets. The Afghan security forces whom our armed forces have helped to mentor, and who are now securing the country’s future, have played a major part in that. The sacrifice of our servicemen and women will never be forgotten.
Since the last quarterly statement to the House on 9 September, a national unity Government has been formed, with Dr Ashraf Ghani as President and Dr Abdullah Abdullah as chief executive. President Ghani was inaugurated on 29 September. That was a historic moment: the first democratic transfer of power from one elected President to another. In their first significant act, the Government signed the bilateral security agreement and the NATO status of forces agreement. During my meeting with President Ghani in September, I was encouraged to note that he had clear priorities for the new Government: tackling corruption, making progress on the peace process, working towards stronger economic development and improving regional relations, including relations with Pakistan. We will be working closely with President Ghani and chief executive Abdullah as they continue Afghanistan’s significant development.
The Afghan national security forces successfully secured the elections this year, with more than 7 million people voting. The forces have performed well against a determined enemy. Despite prolonged fighting over the summer, the Taliban have failed to take any district centres, or to capitalise on small and temporary tactical gains in north Helmand and the taking of significant casualties, but they remain a potent force. Afghan forces continue to conduct clearance operations against the Taliban, and their strong performance this year should serve them well in the next fighting season.
The UK had the second largest force in Afghanistan, and our troops undertook some of the heaviest fighting, but it is important to remember that we were only one part of a coalition of 51 nations that helped to build the Afghan national security forces from scratch to a force of over 330,000, which is capable of battling the insurgency and sustaining progress in the removal of the terrorist threat. There can be no guarantees, but the sacrifices made by coalition and Afghan forces have given Afghanistan the best possible chance of a stable future.
The UK has taken a leading role at the Afghan National Army Officer Academy, and I addressed the graduates of the first battalion at their graduation ceremony during my visit in September. We will continue our role there next year with around 470 troops as the United Kingdom contribution to the NATO Resolute Support mission, a coalition of 35 nations. Our contribution will focus principally on mentoring in the officer academy. We have committed ourselves to providing about £70 million a year to help to sustain the Afghan forces, thus reaffirming another element of the enduring international commitment to Afghanistan.
The redeployment of matériel has been a challenging process, but, notwithstanding the scepticism expressed by many people, it is now almost complete. The redeployment from Iraq in 2009 was conducted predominantly through Kuwait, across 130 km of relatively permissive lines of communication. In Afghanistan, the land routes to the nearest port were 900 km long, and included areas of significant threat. Despite that, about three and a half times as many containers and about four times as many vehicles have been redeployed from Afghanistan as were returned from Iraq.
I want to put on record my praise for the efficiency of our military planners and logisticians, as well as that of our combat troops. All our major matériel has now left Afghanistan. At the height of our involvement, we had some 137 bases; more than 120 have now been handed to the Afghan authorities, and the rest have been dismantled. Earlier this week, our troops left Kandahar airfield for the last time, following our departure from Camp Bastion in October.
As we face new terror threats, we are learning the hard lessons of our Afghan campaign. First, to take on an insurgency, armed forces must gain the trust and support of the local population. That support must be inclusive, crossing political lines and bridging tribal divides, and it must also involve early training of local security forces. Secondly, the increasingly complex nature of 21st-century conflict means that we must build strong international military coalitions—alliances that are ready to act, and capable of sharing resources. Our experience of forging partnerships in Afghanistan provides a model for the sort of agile and effective rapid reaction forces that NATO countries pledged to develop at the recent NATO summit in Wales.
Thirdly, military action can only be one part of a wider solution. In Afghanistan we pioneered a cross-Government approach that combined defence, diplomacy and development via our provincial reconstruction teams. They were deployed in the Afghan provinces, and combined military and civilian organisations to strengthen local political institutions, empower local leaders, and improve social and economic progress.
When I visited Helmand, I saw the difference that has been made by the United Kingdom, including our armed forces. Most citizens in Helmand now have access to health care, household incomes have risen by 20% since 2010, and more than 120,000 students are enrolled in Government schools across the province—including nearly 30,000 girls, compared with none in 2001. We will continue to support that development, and our continued support will include maintaining our contribution of £178 million a year in development aid until at least 2017.
Next week, the London conference on Afghanistan will be led by our Prime Minister, President Ghani, chief executive Abdullah, and other leading international figures. It will focus on the future development partnership between the international community and the new Afghan Government to build on the foundations that we have laid over the last 13 years, and will reaffirm our enduring commitment to supporting the future of Afghanistan.
There remain significant challenges ahead for Afghanistan, but we have helped to develop Afghan security forces who have proved that they are able to take the fight to the insurgency. Tackling the drugs trade remains a considerable and generational challenge, but we and our international partners are committed to helping the Afghan Government to combat it. The international community is working with the new Afghan Government to secure long-term fiscal sustainability, and we are pleased to see the new efforts that are being made to tackle corruption.
We fully support the Afghan Government’s promotion of prosperity through jobs, growth and investment, which builds on the sacrifices made by our armed forces. That campaign was long, but it was worth while, and we believe that we have given Afghanistan the best chance of a safer future.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his courtesy in informing me earlier in the week that he would be making it today. I concur with both the tone and content of his remarks, and was particularly pleased to hear about his discussions with President Ghani, the good progress of the draw-down and the continuing work on development issues.
We are all shocked by this morning’s despicable terrorist attack on a British embassy vehicle in Kabul. People have lost their lives. It reminds us of the dangers still faced and the challenges that remain. Can the Secretary of State give us any further details about that incident?
Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to our armed forces. Our servicemen and women perform their duties with bravery, honour and distinction. Nowhere has that been more evident than in Afghanistan. I think in particular of the 453 members of our armed forces who gave their lives serving our country, as well as the many who were injured. They and their loved ones are in my thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of all Members of this House. As the Secretary of State knows, we support efforts to have them commemorated in a national memorial in London, and will work with the Government and others to bring that about. Can he update the House on the progress on that?
I say with sincerity that the United Kingdom’s role in Afghanistan in the past 13 years is one we can be proud of. Does the Secretary of State agree that our combat mission was a success? It has been hard fought and we have paid a heavy price, but the consequences would have been far worse had we, in 2001, left Afghanistan to those who subjugated that country and its people and used it as a base to launch terrorist attacks on other countries and their peoples. In a world that is of course still dangerous and unpredictable, the UK armed forces in Afghanistan have enhanced our safety and security in Britain by assisting the Afghans to take charge of theirs. Does he agree that those of us in positions of leadership have a responsibility to explain to the public the complexities and success of our role in Afghanistan?
The Opposition are convinced that the UK along with our allies must remain involved in assisting the fledgling Afghanistan as it takes important steps to manage its own security. Only with the international community’s enduring support can we work to ensure that hard-won gains in Afghanistan are not lost. Therefore, I want to focus my remaining remarks on the future and the role the United Kingdom will play.
The Afghan national security forces did not exist in 2001, but are making steady progress. Can the Secretary of State update us on the strength of the ANSF and the work being done to sustain and professionalise the army, police and air force? What specific work will be done by British armed forces in continuing training and support, and how many personnel will be involved? Can he tell us whether any of that work will involve helping with the removal of unexploded ordnance? Does he believe that sufficient numbers are being committed for the task that they have?
I and my shadow Cabinet colleagues are committed to a cross-Government, multi-agency approach, which the Secretary of State mentioned. The key tenet of that will of course be the relationship between the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. Can he tell us how many staff from each Department, excluding the armed forces, will remain in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014?
To that end, I welcome, as the Secretary of State did, the forthcoming London Afghanistan conference, which will have the full support of the Labour party in seeking to chart a plan for security, socio-economic and development gains. He may know that the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women, Rashida Manjoo, has called on the Government of Afghanistan and the international community to adopt sustainable measures to address the causes and consequences of gender-based violence in the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that violence against women and girls will be a priority at the London conference? Can he tell us how many women will be invited to take part in the main conference as well as the private sector and regional co-operation side events? Does he agree that the conference communiqué should commit to the full implementation of the national action plan for the women of Afghanistan and the elimination of violence against women?
The conference will no doubt receive an update on progress towards a political settlement. Several weeks ago, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani invited the Taliban to join national reconciliation negotiations and earlier this month Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif backed Ghani’s initiative. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment that the UK Government will work and support those involved to help to make those negotiations a success?
I hope the message that the Government, our allies and the people of Afghanistan take from what the Secretary of State and I have both said is that the UK is committed to ensuring a peaceful, stable and, in time, prosperous Afghanistan. We in the UK stand by Afghanistan’s fledgling democracy and we will do all we can to help it on its journey to a brighter, better future. We owe that to the 453 brave service personnel from our armed forces who gave their lives to allow it to happen. It will be their legacy.
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary both for what he said and for the tone in which he said it. As we learned this morning, there is no guarantee of an absolutely safe and stable future for Afghanistan, but I believe that we have given it the best possible chance of a stable future.
Let me try to pick up some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. On this morning’s incident in Kabul, he will appreciate that it happened only a few hours ago. I can confirm that, sadly, two British embassy staff were killed. I believe a number of others were killed and injured, including passers-by. The incident occurred not at the embassy itself but within Kabul, some distance from the embassy. As soon as I have more details, I will of course ensure that he and the House have them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the London memorial. He will have seen the announcement a few days ago that the memorial appeal, which was launched in The Sun, will be headed by a former chief of the defence staff, Lord Stirrup, who will be in charge of raising private sector contributions. The memorial will be in London but it is worth reminding the House that the memorial wall at Camp Bastion is being returned to this country and will be erected in the national memorial arboretum in Staffordshire.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to agree that the campaign was a success and worth while. It was certainly worth while. I believe that the decision to intervene with other countries in the light of the attack on the twin towers in 2001 was right. I do not think now there can be any question about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm our future commitment. It is a good time to emphasise to the new Afghan Government that, although we have withdrawn our combat troops, we are not walking away from Afghanistan. We will underline that at the London conference, but our commitment to the Resolute Support mission will be enduring for 2015 and for 2016.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the make-up of the ANSF. That is a mixture of army, police and other elements, including an air force, which will take some time to develop. However, having met the local Afghan army corps commanders in Helmand province, I have no doubt about their appetite for defending their country. I saw that at the graduation ceremony that I was privileged to attend on behalf of the UK. I saw the determination of all those young officer cadets to get out into the field and defend their country against the kind of violence that we have seen and that continues sporadically in some areas.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the continuing UK presence. As I said, we will retain some 470 personnel in Afghanistan, largely in the Kabul area. They will continue to work at the national officer academy. They will provide advice on counter-terrorism and support to the security ministries. Our force will include an element of force protection, but it will be located mainly in and around Kabul. I cannot give him specific figures for the other Government Departments but, if he will allow me, I will write to him on that specific point.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the London conference. The programme for the main event at the end of next week is still being developed with the Government of Afghanistan. However, ensuring that Afghan women’s and girls’ issues feature prominently is a top priority, and we are deliberately planning the conference in such a way that those are incorporated across all the main themes, including discussions on the overall reform agenda.
If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on any further questions that I might not have picked up.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
As someone who was looking at the scale of the draw-down at an early stage, I ask my right hon. Friend to do me the favour of passing on my thanks and congratulations to all those, both civilian and military, who have been involved in a magnificent logistical operation. The Ministry of Defence is often criticised—including, I have to say, on occasion, by me—but this time what it has achieved is nothing short of spectacular, and it deserves the thanks and congratulations of the whole House because it has done our country proud.
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and he is right that there is occasional criticism of the Ministry, but I will be delighted to pass on his congratulations. This was a huge logistical exercise, and there were many who told us at the time that it simply could not be done and the matériel would not be brought out safely—that the convoys would be attacked and the lines interdicted and so on—but that did not happen. That is in very large part due to the skill, commitment and professionalism of the planners and logisticians, as well as to civil servants in my Ministry, who sometimes do not get the praise we rightly accord, of course, in the first place, to our combat troops.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
May I add my voice to that of the Secretary of State concerning the appalling terrorist attack today? Does he agree that this shows that it is not just our military but many civilians and locally engaged people and people in the various private security organisations who put their lives at risk in trying to help the people of Afghanistan, and that we should recognise that this is a threat not just in Afghanistan, but throughout the world?
Michael Fallon
I certainly endorse that. A huge number of people have been helping in the effort to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan—as the hon. Gentleman says, civil contractors, locally employed staff and others—and it is right that we acknowledge not simply their commitment, but the fact that they, too, have been willing to put themselves in harm’s way to work for a better future.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
As a former Minister for Afghanistan who knows the embassy and staff there, may I, too, express my deep sadness at the events of this morning? This will have affected the place very badly, and indeed the whole of the FCO family, particularly as it is highly likely that our security staff were involved. We express our thanks to them for the work they do to protect many of us as we go around the world. We know the Government will do all they can to support them at this difficult time.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that such events make it even more important that the international community continue to provide support not just in the form of security but, crucially, of economic development, and that the conference next week in London can demonstrate that and show that upon the sacrifices of today and previous years a future for Afghanistan can, and will, be built by all of us working with the Afghan people?
Michael Fallon
I thank my right hon. Friend. Few Members of this House have as much experience as he gained in his time as Minister with responsibility for this area, and he probably knows better than any other Member of this House just how deeply this attack will be felt in the FCO family. There are going to be attacks like this. The terrorist threat—the insurgency—has not been fully defeated, and I know the Government there and their armed forces expect that and are ready to take that on.
My right hon. Friend is also right to focus on the future economic development of Afghanistan. While I am pleased that other NATO countries have now fulfilled the commitment they made to the Resolute Support mission and that finally, the numbers of troops we need from the different participating countries have been pledged, it is equally important that other countries now rally behind the London conference and make the same kind of commitment to Afghanistan’s longer term economic development. We have a Government of national unity in place there now—a Government whom I believe have a better prospect of delivering the kind of economic reform that is well placed to tackle corruption, but they are going to need the help of the international community, and I grateful to my right hon. Friend for continuing to underline that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He will know that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has said there is a 7% increase in the number of hectares under poppy cultivation this year, and a 17% increase in opium production. What measures will be taken and what money will be allocated at the London conference specifically for farmers to move from the production of poppies and opium to other crops, and what money will be made available to them to make up the shortfall in their income resulting from losing that high-value crop?
Michael Fallon
If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the details of the subsidy that is made available to farmers. We should be frank about this, however, and he is right to draw attention to the challenge posed by the poppy crop. It has increased—let us make no bones about that—and it presents a threat not just to the future of Afghanistan but to the west as well, where these drugs eventually get through. So it is a challenge that the new Government have to surmount, and in doing so they are going to need all the assistance and expertise that other countries can offer.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I support the Defence Secretary’s tributes in his statement, and as a constituency MP I wish to draw attention to 16 Air Assault Brigade. Can he elaborate on the priorities for the new Afghan Government in working towards stronger economic development? Will that include bringing on stream the turbine at Kajaki dam, which soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade took there more than six years ago?
Michael Fallon
I note the tribute my hon. Friend has paid to his own unit. I could easily have singled out a whole number of units but I deliberately did not because the campaign in Afghanistan involved many—from all three service in the end—and I thought it invidious to pay tribute to any particular one. However, I certainly pay tribute to his.
I am familiar with the turbine that was, at some cost and with great difficulty, brought up to the dam, and I believe there are plans to get that working finally. I will write to my hon. Friend with details on that.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Will the Defence Secretary thank and congratulate Mrs Hazel Hunt of Abergavenny, who has set up a very successful new charity named Welsh Warrior, which is helping to provide aid and comfort to those Afghan veterans who have been maimed in mind or body? Mrs Hunt is also the mother of Richard Hunt, who was the 200th solider to die in Afghanistan. She recently said, “My son was killed because of the politicians. They asked too much of the armed services.” Mrs Hunt is asking for an immediate inquiry into the war. Can she have an assurance that that inquiry will not be delayed for five years, as the Chilcot inquiry has been, so that the guilty cannot hide the truth?
Michael Fallon
I am happy to pay tribute to the work of Mrs Hunt, and I think I acknowledged the enormity of the sacrifice made by our servicemen and women, not simply those who lost their lives but those who suffered life-changing injuries during the campaign, and it is right that we should continue to pay that tribute.
The matter of an inquiry is not wholly one for me, the hon. Gentleman will understand, but I am clear that we should learn the tactical lessons of the campaign. We are already learning some of them, such as the way we combat IEDs, and I drew attention to some of the wider strategic lessons we need to learn in working with our partners, but no decision has yet been taken on the nature of any inquiry.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I entirely endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about the seriousness and importance of the enduring commitment to which the Secretary of State has referred. Last year, the then Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral Jim Stavridis, asked me to impress upon the British Government the importance of maintaining a continuing military contribution more in line with that of the Germans, who are committing about 1,000 troops. Given what has happened in Iraq and the catastrophic consequences of the reversal of the United States’ plan to leave 10,000 troops there—they were withdrawn because of Maliki’s failure to offer a status of forces agreement—will my right hon. Friend keep under review the British military contribution in Afghanistan? Many of those who have been bereaved will feel that their sons and daughters will have died in vain if we do not secure enduring peace in that country. That is a tall order, but I believe that it would be valuable if the Secretary of State could keep the British military contribution under review to ensure that what happened in Iraq does not happen in Afghanistan.
Michael Fallon
I made it clear earlier that we have withdrawn our combat troops from Afghanistan and that we are not going to revisit that particular decision. I have outlined to the House the nature of our enduring mission there, which will help the Afghan military in the challenge that it faces. My hon. Friend is right to draw some comparison with Iraq. In many senses, Afghanistan is better placed, in that we have left as our legacy an Afghan security force that is genuinely representative of all parts of the country. That was not the case with the army that was bequeathed under Maliki in Iraq. Afghanistan therefore has a better chance of dealing with the insurgency in the name of the whole of the country, and of not being subject to the political and tribal difficulties that the Iraqi national army has experienced.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The British armed forces have spent more than a decade fighting the Taliban, yet it seems that the Taliban are now part of the reconciliation negotiations. What does the Secretary of State see as the future role of the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Michael Fallon
I have discussed with President Ghani his approach to this. There are moderate elements in the Taliban, and it is important for the new Government to reach out to them whenever possible. That is the ambition of President Ghani who—rather differently from his predecessor—is open to that and to building more effective international alliances with his neighbours, including Pakistan, India and China. It is in everyone’s interest that Afghanistan has a stable future.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
We should be proud that millions of Afghan girls are now in school and that thousands of women are doctors, teachers and politicians, but Afghanistan remains one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman. Many women in public life there pay with their lives. In the light of such violence, it is unlikely that any peace process that excludes women will be sustainable, so, while I welcome the Secretary of State’s assertion that the London conference will consider women’s issues, may I ask him to go further? Will he make it his priority to ensure that women are not only represented but able to speak for themselves at the conference and at all future peace negotiations?
Michael Fallon
I will certainly bear that in mind as we finalise the agenda and programme for the London conference. I found, on my visits to Afghanistan, that women were becoming increasingly involved in the future of the country. It was noticeable at the first passing-out parade of the officer academy that there were female cadets training there—two platoons are training at the moment—and that, after I had spoken to the first battalion of cadets to graduate, I was followed by a female member of the Afghan Parliament who addressed them in far more rigorous and robust terms than I had done about their obligation to defend their country.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I, like many other Members who have visited Afghanistan, have been protected and supported by British embassy staff in Kabul, so may I also express my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of those who have been killed in this morning’s tragic events? On that note, will the Secretary of State set out his plans for any national recognition or memorialisation of British civilians and civilian staff who have served, lost their lives or suffered injury in Afghanistan during the campaign? Also, on the issue of memorialising servicemen and women, has he issued any guidance to local authorities around the UK on how those who lost their lives in the campaign might best be memorialised locally, in addition to at the national memorials?
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first comment. The tragic event in Kabul this morning is a reminder that this campaign has involved all kinds of people—civilian contractors, locally employed staff, and so on—in addition to the combat troops that we seconded. The intention is that the main London memorial will pay tribute to the memory of all those involved—everyone from the civil service staff in my Ministry all the way through to those who fought and those who supported those who fought. That will certainly include those who were employed on a civilian basis in Kabul. I will certainly look at his suggestion about encouraging local authorities to play their part in this memorialisation. I understand that some councils have already taken the decision to name particular streets after local heroes who lost their lives in the campaign. This is certainly something that we ought to encourage.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Many of the specialists involved in the successful withdrawal of heavy equipment from Afghanistan are from the 17th Port and Maritime Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps based at Marchwood in my constituency, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to confirm that that military port facility will be neither run down nor degraded in any way.
On the question of the lessons of the campaign, it is a fact that there are al-Qaeda-type groups in many other countries, too, and we must develop a doctrine—based on strategic bases and bridgehead areas, as I have endeavoured to suggest on previous occasions—to enable us to tackle those groups without having to take on nation-building from the ground up in every country where they appear, because that is an impossible strategy and we need a flexible, sensible strategy for the future.
Michael Fallon
I note what my hon. Friend says about Marchwood, of which he has been a great champion. He does not need me to confirm the important role that it has played in the recovery of so much equipment, matériel and vehicles from Afghanistan. I can certainly confirm that we will have a continuing use for that kind of facility.
I also note what my hon. Friend says about the doctrine. We are seeing al-Qaeda in different forms in some countries, and we are seeing it mutate into ISIL. He makes the important point that the western nations are simply unable to reconstruct whole countries time and again.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I pay tribute, as everyone else does and should, to the sacrifice and the loss of service people in Afghanistan. May I ask the Secretary of State to be slightly more objective about the situation that the Afghan people are now facing? The levels of poverty are very serious, and large numbers of Afghan people are seeking refuge in other places because they feel that they can no longer live safely there. He indicated in answer to an earlier question that the new Afghan Government were going to undertake some kind of talks with the Taliban. One obviously hopes that that will bring about long-term peace and stability for the country, and that it will result in the recognition of the rights and role of women in society there. Does he not think, given the fact that British troops and many others have been there for 13 years, that the levels of poverty, drug production and corruption are very serious? Should we not be a bit more objective about what has happened, rather than being triumphalist about it?
Michael Fallon
I hope the House will agree that I have not been triumphalist about the campaign. I believe the campaign we fought, for which so many sacrificed their lives, was certainly worth while, but I am not triumphalist about it in the least. Afghanistan remains a relatively poor country and a place in which there is still great danger, as we have learned from this morning’s events. I hope the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that Afghanistan is a more prosperous and safer place than it was 12 or 13 years ago, and that women have a better prospect now of fuller participation in civic life than they did 10 or 13 years ago. I have noted that the drugs trade remains an increasing and enduring challenge to the current Afghan Government, and, indeed, to the international community. He is right to say that we should not be triumphalist about this campaign, but, equally, he should recognise some of the progress that has been made.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
One fifth of the Royal Navy are in the Royal Marine Commandos and one quarter of Army personnel are in infantry regiments. At airfields, force protection is achieved using the admirable Royal Air Force Regiment. Those branches of our armed forces have taken by far the highest percentage of casualties in Afghanistan—I believe the figure is over 80% or over 90%—and it is always the same in any active operation. Only by using those combat soldiers, be they in Navy, RAF or Army uniform, who do the very dangerous business of closing with the enemy, are military conflicts normally brought to a satisfactory conclusion. They truly represent the very essence of the martial risks always run by our courageous service personnel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any future strategic defence and security review that recognition must be placed centre stage?
Michael Fallon
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, who brings to the House his own military experience, and I am sure he will continue to press that point as we approach the strategic defence and security review next year. It is important to emphasise, as he did, that all three services—the Marines, the RAF and the Army—were heavily involved in this campaign, and it is slightly invidious to pick out any individual unit as this campaign was fought by the services. However, of course he is right to say that those in the front line have borne the heaviest burden of the combat.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement and endorse everything he has said. The BBC documentary “The War Widows of Afghanistan” talks about the estimated 2 million war widows after decades of war. Some 13,000 Afghanistan soldiers are thought to have died. What support is being provided to those Afghan women who have lost their husbands?
Michael Fallon
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the heavy casualties taken by the rest of the Afghan population—of course, there were years of conflict before we even got to Afghanistan in 2001. The Afghan war widows are the responsibility of the new Afghan Government, but we will be working with that Government from next week’s London conference onwards. As I said earlier, the role and recognition of women in Afghan society will be a key part of that conference.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Among those killed in Afghanistan were constituents of mine serving in the Royal Logistic Corps, the Yorkshire Regiment and the Royal Air Force Regiment. Will my right hon. Friend continue to make the case for our intervention in Afghanistan, to show that their sacrifice was not in vain? Will he also do all he can to keep the families and loved ones of those who made that sacrifice updated on the progress of the national memorial, which will be a fitting tribute to their sacrifice?
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who of course served in the armed forces. He makes a good point about keeping those who lost loved ones in the campaign and those who suffered injuries up to date with the progress on the memorial, and I certainly undertake to do that.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Most of us agreed at the time with the initial deployment to rid the country of al-Qaeda, but what we tend to forget in this House is that that mission was accomplished within a couple of years. The mistake we made was then to allow the mission to morph into the much bigger one of nation building, something we did not properly resource. Given that—to use the Defence Secretary’s own words—the Taliban “remain a potent force”, may I draw him out a little and ask him what he thinks the key lessons are from this intervention?
Michael Fallon
I think I drew attention to the military lessons we can learn: these campaigns are best fought by local armies that have the support of the local population and have that inclusive support across tribal and political divides; these campaigns are waged best in conjunction with international partnerships, so that we learn and can operate each other’s equipment; and military action has to be supplemented with effective economic and political support alongside it. I certainly acknowledge that there is a great deal more to do in all three of those respects.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and keeping us so well informed, and I am also grateful for the responsible approach taken by the Opposition. May I, too, pay my personal tribute to the men and women who have served in Afghanistan? Looking back at the conflict, is the Secretary of State now satisfied that we had all the right equipment for our troops? In particular, did we have enough helicopters throughout the whole of the campaign?
Michael Fallon
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he, too, had close family involved in the campaign. I have been focused on dealing with the draw-down from Afghanistan and ensuring that we have the right remaining balance of force there for 2015-16. I have not had time to look back as to when and where the equipment was provided in the right order. As I said to the House, no decision has yet been taken on the nature of any inquiry, but it is important that where there are military lessons to be learned from the campaign we do learn them, and reasonably quickly.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly said in his statement that the major legacy of our intervention is that terrorists have been prevented from using Afghanistan as a launch pad for attacks on our streets, and all involved are to be hugely commended for that terrific achievement. But what we have not been able to do is prevent the flow of drugs and the poppy growing, which ends up killing young people on our streets in this country. He rightly says that that represents a generational challenge to us, but may I urge him to attach a top priority, now that the security situation is as good as we could possibly have left it in Afghanistan, to concentrate our efforts on tackling the problem of opium production there? It should be made a top priority for both his Department and the Department for International Development.
Michael Fallon
I am happy to take on the commitment to relay what my hon. Friend has said to my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary. My hon. Friend rightly says that the increase in poppy production is a threat, not simply to the stability of Afghanistan, but to the west and to the streets of our own countries. We therefore have every interest in helping the new Government face up to that particular challenge.
Point of Order
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure Members will have been as surprised as I was by media reports this morning that the US marine corps will be offered the use of HMS Queen Elizabeth for flight operations. That is because a bad decision, a change of decision and then indecision by the Government about the purchase of F-35Bs will leave British aircraft carriers with a gap of years before we have any aircraft to fly from them. Have you received any indication from the Defence Secretary as to whether he intends to offer the House an explanation about this hugely important issue?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, the Defence Secretary is in his place and if he indicates to me that he wishes to make a point of order further to that point of order, which was not a point of order, I will of course invite him to do so.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
Perhaps I should not probe too hard as to whether this is now a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me just make it very clear that the reports the shadow Defence Secretary has been reading are completely incorrect.
Backbench Business
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Inequality
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to set guideline targets for remuneration which over time reduce the ratio between top and bottom incomes in large organisations to no more than 50 to 1.
Even at this rather late hour, when the first debate would normally be drawing to a close, I am nevertheless grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on inequality—not least because the excesses of extreme inequality are increasingly seen as a serious, moral, economic and social problem, yet the issue has not received the attention in this House that it clearly deserves.
It is worth saying at the outset that concern over this matter is not the preserve of the political left. In this past month, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, and Janet Yellen, the chair of the US Federal Reserve, have both argued that the enormous growth in inequality over the past few decades was not only wrong morally but was having increasingly baleful economic consequences. Then there were the strictures of Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, arguing that the current explosion of inequality was now acting as a brake on growth. They all say that inequality fosters fear, creates too much demand for credit to compensate for squeezed living standards, drives asset price bubbles, catalyses financial instability, and, by displacing too much risk on those who cannot bear it, undermines the legitimacy of capitalism.
The facts on ballooning inequality are broadly well understood. Official statistics show that average weekly pay in June this year was £477, while the average annual take-home remuneration among the FTSE 100 chief executives was £4.3 million, or £83,000 a week. The ratio between their remuneration and the remuneration of the average UK worker is therefore about 175:1. That needs to be put into perspective. In 1998, according to the High Pay Centre think-tank, a FTSE 100 boss was typically paid 47 times more than their workers. In other words, in just 16 years, the gap between top incomes and the average wage has nearly quadrupled. The obvious question then is: is all this justified? In fact, there is rather little correlation between the surge in executive remuneration and company performance; sometimes, there is even a negative correlation.
The director of the High Pay Centre, Deborah Hargreaves, explains the phenomenon. She says:
“The only reason why their pay has increased so rapidly compared to their employees is that they are able to get away with it.”
They are able to get away with it largely because of the structural divide in the way in which pay is determined in this country. For manual workers, it is by collective bargaining. That has dramatically declined in the past 30 years, leading to a very sharp fall in the share of wages in GDP from 65% to about 53%. For white-collar workers, it is by private contracts, which are laid down by the employers. But for chief executives in the boardroom, it is by remuneration committees, specifically chosen by the board itself, which largely operate on the principle of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.” That is not a system that carries credibility across the whole spectrum of the work force.
One might even question why such elaborate devices are needed for top executives to secure a maximum uplift in pay, since one would have thought that £80,000 a week was far beyond what is necessary for the most comfortable lifestyle. Indeed, one could reduce a £2.5 million income by almost 95% and the recipient would still be in the top 1% of all earners in the UK. That is a staggering fact.
Are incomes 10 or 20 times more than the earnings of those already considered very, very rich strictly necessary? The only answer seems to be that these turbo-charged salaries have almost nothing to do with performance and everything to do with chief executive officers keeping up with each other in a status race. In other words, rather as in the end of the Victorian period, which we are getting closer to now, the very rich constantly demand yet more wealth to show it off in order to demonstrate where they stand in the pecking order.
Does that matter? The apologists for inequality have always traditionally argued that it does not because it does no harm to other people. Peter Mandelson notoriously argued that new Labour was
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
But he did add
“as long as they pay their taxes.”
That was partly on the grounds that wealth would then trickle down to everyone else, but it has not trickled down; it has gushed up as if from a geyser. According to the Sunday Times rich list, the richest 1,000 persons in this country—just 0.003% of the adult population—have doubled their collective wealth in the six years since the crash, from a staggering £250 billion to more than £500 billion. Moreover, that does harm other people. It leads to smouldering resentment, which can at times explode if triggered by a sudden event, such as the five days of rioting after Mark Duggan was shot in August 2011. It undermines trust and solidarity and it weakens the social fabric of communities. Above all, it has been shown unequivocally by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in “The Spirit Level” that across all countries—it is not just the UK—the greater the inequality, the greater the degree of social pathology in terms of homicide levels, crime and violence, mental illness, imprisonment, teenage pregnancies, obesity, maths and literary educational scores, life expectancy, infant mortality and many others.
It is not just the poor who suffer, although they certainly suffer the most; those impacts extend widely across the whole society. It is not just the social impacts of inequality that damage society, but the economic ones as well. It weakens aggregate demand, which is serious at times like the present when all the other potential sources of demand—Government expenditure, business investment and net exports—are negative.
Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, recently summed up the economic impacts of excessive inequality. He said that
“there is rising evidence that extreme inequality harms, durably and significantly, the stability of the financial system and growth in the economy. It slows development of the human, social and physical capital necessary for raising living standards and improving wellbeing. That penny is starting to drop among policymakers and politicians.”
I hope that his last comment was right.
What should be done? The terms of the motion suggest that the Government should set guidelines for remuneration that, over time, reduce the ratio between top and bottom incomes in large organisations to no more than 50:1. That would still allow top incomes to reach nearly £24,000 a week or £1.25 million a year. I think that that is justified on two grounds. First, in the period when capitalism flourished most in the UK—that is, the three decades after the war—the ratio was 40:1 or less. Secondly, the most successful dynamic economies with the highest long-term growth figures and the greatest social cohesion in the past 40 years—I am thinking of Japan up to the 1990s, the east Asian tiger economies, Sweden, Norway and Singapore, among others—all had a ratio of less than 50:1.
Of course, there are other ways of moving towards the same objective. The Business Secretary introduced new regulations that became operative this year, empowering shareholders with a binding veto over company executive pay policy. Despite his good intentions and the shareholder spring that peaked in 2012, that has not ever been called on, partly because the holdings and voting rights on pay are controlled by very wealthy fund managers and the work force have no say in the process at all. That suggests that the structure of incentives and pressures needs to be recalibrated.
I have already quoted Deborah Hargreaves’s remark that executive pay soars because they can get away with it. Corporate power and the greed and self-interest that go with it have increased dramatically over the past three decades and they are still increasing. That needs to be redressed. There are several measures that could help. One is the mandatory publication of company pay ratios, as is already operated by John Lewis, where the ratio is 75:1, and TSB bank, where it is 65:1. Another would be to strengthen the coverage of trade union collective bargaining, which has shrunk dramatically over the past 30 years from 82% to a wholly inadequate 23%.
A further measure would be to increase the prevalence of work force-wide profit sharing. In my view, the most effective mechanism would be the introduction in all large companies of what I would call an enterprise council, made up of representatives of all the main grades of employees and meeting at least once a year to open up the books, look at all the company’s activities, consider how failures could be corrected and performance improved, think about the financial implications of depreciation, investment, stock control, dividends and so on and then examine the bids for pay increases across the company over the next year. That would strengthen the cohesion and solidarity of the company, greatly improve morale and productivity and almost certainly enhance profitability. I commend that, and all the other measures I have proposed, to the House.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing the debate. It is extremely important that the House should consider the growing inequality in this country and specific measures that might be taken to reduce it.
I start by painting a picture of where we are with inequality, both nationally and in my constituency. We know that about 20% of working households rely on some form of tax credit, which shows that a great many people are in work but are relying on benefits because they are earning very low wages. That is compounded by gender. We know that since 2011, the gender gap in wages has been getting worse, not better. The gap between all women working and all men working is about 18.6%; for those who work full time, it is 14.9%. That means that women earn about 85p for every £1 that a man earns. That is important because although inequality affects large numbers of people across our work force, we must be clear that it affects women more than men.
We also know that 3.5 million children nationally are in poor households. That means that they are unable to afford adequate food or transport or to join in activities with their friends. That demonstrates the huge gap emerging between people at one end of the income spectrum and those who are increasing their wages at the other end. I experience that in my Durham constituency a great deal. Take-home pay in the north-east is less than it is in the rest of the country, so although we can give national figures about people relying on benefits, the problem is much greater in the north-east.
Changes to benefits have had an impact on areas like County Durham, where people are losing about £565 per working-age adult—money is going from people who are working and relying on top-up benefits—but the situation is also worsening for those who are out of work and relying on benefits. This is evidenced daily by the increasing number of people using food banks in my constituency. Indeed, some of the people who run the food bank in Durham talked to me recently about setting up a clothing bank and doing so locally, because they recognise that people sometimes cannot even afford to get to the charity shops in the city centre.
My contention is that a raft of measures need to be taken to reduce inequality. Before we look at them, however, perhaps we could stop for a moment and consider what has happened at the other end of the spectrum. The top 100 executives in the FTSE 100 companies took home as much as 131 times the amount their average employee did, yet only 15 of those companies have committed to pay their employees a living wage. Across the country, increasing numbers of companies pay the living wage, and we should stop and recognise that. There are some really good examples—a number of our universities pay the living wage, as does John Lewis—but trying to dig around and find them is difficult. We should have a list readily available. We need to consider what measures could be taken to reduce the income gap, and why we should do so.
Early in the lifetime of this Government, the Prime Minister was keen on looking at measures of happiness. He wanted us to be able to assess what leads to happiness; perhaps he thought that if we had information on that, it would cheer us all up and we would not spend so much time worrying about austerity. I do not know what has happened to all that work, but we do know that people who live in countries where there is more equality are happier. I want to give some advice to the Prime Minister and his colleagues this afternoon: if he wants to make people more content with their life, he and his Government need to address the growing inequality by insisting that companies adopt the living wage and that we get away from a low-pay, low-quality job economy.
Of course, in any economy we need people to work in the service sector. These are important jobs, but we want a much greater variety of jobs, especially high-value ones requiring higher skills. We need to see a real Government programme to support job creation of that type. That is in great contrast to what is available. In preparing for today’s debate, I looked at the jobs available today on my local Jobcentre website in Durham and the levels of income that they offer. The figures are truly shocking. So many of the jobs available do not even pay the living wage. Indeed, about three quarters pay less than the living wage, with about half paying the minimum wage. The jobs available cover everything from care co-ordinators to receptionists and night care assistants. I think we would all regard a senior night care assistant as an important role with significant responsibilities. The job advertised paid £7.35 an hour. These are simply wages that people are not able to live on, which is why so many people rely on in-work benefits.
We need to challenge our employers in a way that we have not done to date. Why do they think they can take home thousands of pounds a month while not paying the majority of their employees the living wage? I do not know about other hon. Members, but I do not want to live in a country that has such growing inequality. I do not want to live in a country where more and more people cannot afford basic rent. Shelter recently published research that showed that 1 million people took out payday loans just to cover their rent. This is clearly ridiculous in a country such as ours that can do so much better.
This afternoon we are challenging the Government to do more to get employers to pay not only the minimum wage—which they have to do, although some still seem to try to get out of their responsibilities—but a living wage. What do the Government intend to do to encourage the creation of jobs with higher-level skills that pay more and can take us forward to a knowledge-based economy? I also want the Government to challenge the companies that pay huge bonuses and whose directors take home obscene amounts of money to plough more resources into their businesses so that they can be successful and pay a living wage.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing what has been a short but perfectly formed debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on agreeing to it. He is right to point out that inequality is one of the most pressing issues facing our economy and society. It is clear that the economy does not work for many working people. Galloping advances in executive pay and real-terms pay cuts for most people in work does not suggest an economic model that is performing well or efficiently or providing the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that for the past 30 years or so the prevailing model has been the shareholder value model, which was supposed to maximise returns to the shareholder. The argument goes that if there is an alignment between the interests of shareholders and executives, perhaps in the form of share option incentive plans, executives would act in the interests of the owners of the company. Evidence shows that that theory has been found wanting. Directors of large companies are often remunerated far in excess of the performance of the company that they lead or the extent to which they have created value for the firm’s stakeholders.
Don’t get me wrong: leading a company requires enormous skill and judgment, and those men and women—sadly, it is still predominantly men—should be rewarded for bringing such skill and judgment to bear. If that skill results in a company being transformed and improving beyond the norm, that should be recognised and appropriately remunerated; and as my right hon. Friend eloquently said, for all the talk of aligning shareholder and executive interests, ironically, executives have been extracting value from large companies for themselves at the expense of the company, its shareholders, its work force and ultimately its society. Let me illustrate this point.
In 1980, the median pay of directors in FTSE 100 companies was £63,000. At the time, median pay across the country was £5,400. In 2010, the median pay of directors in FTSE 100 companies was £2.99 million, while median wages for the rest of the country was £25,900. That meant that the ratio of executive wages to the average wage moved over a generation—30 years—from 11:1 to 116:1. And it is not getting any better, despite the recession, and despite stagnating economic activity.
The High Pay Centre revealed earlier this year that FTSE 100 chief executives received remuneration worth 143 times the average wage. This single fact encapsulates everything that is wrong. It takes a chief executive three days to receive what a worker on average wages earns in a year. That is at a time when there is an explosion in zero-hours contracts and greater insecurity at work for many people. Incomes are lower on average now than they were a decade ago, and the worst off and the lowest paid have seen the biggest falls, leading to a rise in in-work poverty that we have not seen in this country for decades.
I pay tribute to my fellow north-east MP, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), who made a passionate speech and is well versed in the problems of her constituency. She will know that figures derived from the Northern TUC show that our region has a particular problem in relation to low pay. In Hartlepool more than half of women working part time are paid below the living wage. She also mentioned the impact of spending cuts on general demand in a local economy. The north-east has borne the brunt of that. In Hartlepool we have lost £680 per household as a result of the austerity measures. That money has been taken away from the economy, exacerbating inequality in this country. We did not have a food bank in Hartlepool in 2010. We do now.
One in five workers in this country—some 5.2 million employees—are not paid the living wage. That has increased from 3.4 million workers in 2009. The UK has the second highest rate of low pay in the OECD, and lower levels of productivity than our main competitors. All this provides a compelling argument that inequality is not producing a more resilient or a more competitive economy. It is clear, as I said, that the economy does not work for most people. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, we will succeed in the global economy only if these issues are tackled and if we address low pay and poor productivity, and work to ensure a more equitable distribution of wages.
My right hon. Friend mentioned an important point—perhaps all this would be excusable if a growing gulf between average pay and executive remuneration reflected superior company performance. The argument goes that talent on this scale, which is often global in its outlook, requires a premium in remuneration. Superstar pay packages attract super talent, which in turn incentivises superstellar performances. I have never quite understood, though, how executives are expected to be motivated to work harder by means of ever escalating pay, but workers on average and low earnings are supposed to be motivated by greater insecurity and no pay increases at all. But the evidence suggests that there is no correlation between executive pay and company performance—quite the reverse.
An article by Michael Cooper, Huseyin Gulen and Raghavendra Rau concluded that firms that pay their chief executive officer a sum within the top 10% of pay earn negative returns of –13% over the next five years. Throughout the whole of 2014, the FTSE 100 has fallen in value by 0.02%, even though executive pay has risen. The model of aligning executive pay with shareholder returns is broken, and the executives are the ones who are benefiting at the expense of others.
There appears to be a correlation between unequal and disproportionate reward at the top and inefficient and dysfunctional performance by the organisation. Far from securing star performers who can transform an organisation and motivate their work force, the more a firm’s executive pay exceeds the average in that company, the higher the rates of industrial action, staff turnover and work-related stress in that company. The evidence suggests that inequality is a disincentive to success, hard work and loyalty, as workers feel resentful that bosses at the top are not earning their remuneration. That breeds discontent, lower productivity and ultimately inferior company performance.
It is important that there is increased transparency and scrutiny in this area. I appreciate that the Government have made some progress in the past couple of years with its reforms of corporate governance and executive remuneration, but I think the Minister would agree that more needs to be done. That is why we believe that large firms should publish the ratio between the pay of their highest earner and that of the average employee in the organisation. I believe that is Liberal Democrat policy, and I hope the Minister will confirm that and say that it will be Government policy.
We believe that employees should be members of remuneration committees, ensuring that the voice of the workplace is heard when executive pay is set. We would reintroduce the 50p rate of income tax for the highest earners. We would raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour by 2020, bringing that rate closer to average earnings.
John Maynard Keynes said:
“The businessman is only tolerable so long as his gains can be held to bear some relation to what, roughly and in some sense, his activities have contributed to society.”
This debate has shown, as has evidence collated over the past 30 years, that those gains are often far in excess of what those activities have contributed to society and to those executives’ companies. A more unequal society results in a less productive economy. We in this House should resolve to change that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this debate. I am grateful that we have the opportunity to discuss this important matter, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time. On many aspects there is substantial agreement across the House.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that concern about the issue is not the preserve of the political left. The Government—not just my party, but my coalition partners—have understood that concern. The very concept of rewarding failure shows that markets are not working as they should. From every political perspective, we want to make sure that people are properly rewarded for doing well and are not rewarded for failure.
There is concern that levels of directors’ pay have ratcheted upwards. At the same time the link to company performance and wages at other levels in the company has grown much weaker. That is damaging to the long-term interests of business and it is right that we are acting to address this market failure. That is why we have taken decisive action to restore the link between top pay and performance in UK public companies.
The reforms that we introduced, which came into force last October, create a more robust framework for the setting and reporting of directors’ pay. They have boosted transparency so that what people are paid is clear and easily understood, and have empowered shareholders to hold companies to account through binding votes. They restore a stronger, clearer link between pay and performance, and address the important issue of rewards for failure. Our reforms require companies to report the ratio of average percentage change in employee pay compared with the percentage change in the chief executive’s pay, allowing shareholders to understand whether pay increases apply proportionately to all employees or only to those at the top. They also mean that companies must report on how the pay and conditions of employees informs the remuneration policy for directors, whether they have sought the views of their work force, and how the work force was consulted.
During the debate concern has been expressed about the pay ratio galloping ahead and hugely increasing. Although I recognise those concerns, it is important to set some of the figures in context. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned a ratio of 143:1, which I believe is from a report from the High Pay Centre back in August. It is worth noting that subsequent to the initial release of that figure, the High Pay Centre and The Guardian, which had reported it, had to retract the figure because it was found to be a miscalculation. The figure suggested now is 130:1. Another research organisation, Manifest, has suggested that it is 121:1, compared to a peak of 151:1 in 2007. I am not for a moment saying that that is a level that many people would find acceptable, but the trend is not going ever upwards. There seems to have been a peak in 2007 and the ratio is now falling, which I hope hon. Members will recognise and welcome.
Mr Iain Wright
I am glad the Minister has put that clarification on the record. She is galloping away somewhat, rather like executive pay over the past 30 years. May I bring her back to the Government’s reforms? In respect of binding votes, how many companies have had to change their pay policy as a result of shareholders voting against it?
Jo Swinson
I will talk about the particular reforms in a moment. There are two ways in which the Government’s reforms can have an impact on executive pay and, therefore, company behaviour when agreeing directors’ remuneration. One way, obviously, is to have a binding vote that a company could lose, and as a result the pay policy would not go forward. The other way—it is an important one—is that companies, because they know they will face a binding vote on executive pay, will be incentivised to have more detailed discussions with investors and shareholders in advance of the annual general meeting. I would not want us to get into a situation in which we thought that it was only if lots of votes were won that the reforms were not successful, when actually it might be a sign that there is much more engagement, which in itself would be a sign of success.
Mr Meacher
Does the Minister accept that, despite the good intentions of the Business Secretary’s reforms, the fact that they have not actually been exercised suggests that we need to go significantly further and that that is probably because of the excessive influence of very wealthy fund managers and, in particular, because the work force has no say at all? Does she believe that the work force should have some say in executive pay?
Jo Swinson
I certainly think that the points the right hon. Gentleman made about involving the work force are important. That is why our reforms require that it be set out how employees have been involved and consulted. It is not a prescriptive approach, but it requires that to be taken into consideration. Indeed, the Government have tried in other ways to influence corporate governance. For example, the work we have done on employee ownership has supported different types of ownership and engagement models, through various changes to the tax system and the provision of materials on how to make it easier for companies to convert to employee ownership models, so that employees can be much more involved in the running of their companies. We know that that can have real business benefits, because employees buy much more into the success of the company. That also starts to deal with some of the productivity issues that the hon. Member for Hartlepool mentioned.
Mr Wright
The Minister is making a very important point, and I really agree about the need to ensure that employees have a say in the running of their businesses, because that improves the value of those companies. Could that be formulated within corporate governance? Does she agree with the notion of having employees on remuneration committees?
Jo Swinson
I think there is a difference between recognising and supporting business benefits, and prescribing in legislation or regulation exactly how companies should go about doing that. There is a lot of agreement on the advantages for companies, but I do not think there is much agreement with the idea that the best way is for the Government to be very prescriptive, stating, “This is exactly what companies must do, and this is the only way to do it.” There are different ways in which companies can achieve that level of engagement successfully. It might be through employee representation on the board or remuneration committee, but there are other ways in which that can be done. We should enable companies to find the way that works best for them.
We are monitoring the impact of the reforms we are undertaking in the context of the 2014 reporting and annual general meeting season. We want to understand how companies have interpreted and applied the regulations, what trends can be observed in the remuneration packages that have been put forward and how shareholders have responded. We intend to publish the key findings from that work shortly, along with any policy conclusions that flow from them. We have always said that the policy will remain under review, because we want to see how what we have implemented works in practice.
Of course, it is useful for the Government to take on board and consider interesting proposals made in the House, in the context of looking at how our reforms are actually working. We know from the evidence already available that companies are increasingly responding to shareholder expectations on remuneration. There are positive signs of restraint on levels of directors’ pay and a substantial number of companies have simplified their remuneration policy, linking it much more closely to measurable performance over longer periods of time—that is crucial—to try to get away from the short-termism culture.
There have been reports in the media about rising pay, but often they reflect the impact of previously agreed pay awards. What matters most in assessing the impact of the reforms is what pay is being awarded under the new regime. The latest evidence shows that the median total remuneration awarded to FTSE 100 CEOs fell by 5% in 2012 and by a further 7% in 2013. Some 35% of those CEOs and 30% of the executive directors did not receive a salary increase at all last year. The median salary increase for FTSE 100 executive directors overall was 2.5%. Only 16% of companies gave their directors a salary increase of more than 3%; in the previous year that figure was 25%. The trend shows that pay is coming down, but obviously we will want to look at all the evidence that comes forward before publishing those findings and having a clearer picture.
The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton talked about the importance of engaging investors in the process. That ties in closely with the work my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is doing on long-termism, particularly the Kay review, because investment funds, pension funds and so on have a crucial role to play as active investors. Important campaigning bodies have certainly achieved some success in getting much more engagement from those investors, so that they can properly hold to account the decisions on pay.
On the specifics of pay ratios, overall ratios certainly give us a picture of how things are across the economy, but I suggest a degree of caution about using a ratio between the top and the bottom for paid employees within a company. We considered that very carefully when we introduced the reforms. We decided not to mandate that ratio, as set out in the motion. Transparency is welcome, but we have to guard against potentially misleading information when that is broken down between the top and the bottom.
Obviously, that will depend on what sector the company is operating in and the type of staff working for it. For example, a large investment bank that outsources all its unskilled work could end up having quite a low ratio for pay between the top and the bottom, but a large retailer with a large number of relatively unskilled employees would have a much bigger ratio. The retailer could none the less be paying above the living wage and treating its employees pretty well. It might look as though it is the investment bank that should be polishing its halo, but perhaps that is because it outsources its unskilled work to be done in less favourable conditions. Therefore, we have to be slightly careful about unintended consequences, because some factors could mask what is actually happening. Comparing top and median pay might give a more realistic and meaningful figure. The hon. Member for Hartlepool is right to point out the Liberal Democrat policy in that area—he is undoubtedly an avid reader of Liberal Democrat policy documents, as I encourage all hon. Members to be.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) raised a number of issues that are very important as part of the discussion on inequality and pay policy, particularly the pay gap for women. At the end of last week we heard the positive news that the pay gap is closing. However, we need to be cautious about celebrating that too much when we still have such a significant pay gap. Let us welcome the fact that it is being reduced, but also recognise that our aim has to be to eliminate it.
The hon. Lady’s concerns about part-time work are also important. There is far too much stigma within the workplace about how valuable somebody can be if they work part time. Very important work is being done by organisations such as Timewise to highlight the fact that people in very senior roles can work part time and do their jobs perfectly successfully, so we should be able to deal with some of those issues.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the living wage. We obviously have the national minimum wage, which is a floor, or a basic standard. Of course, this year we saw the first above-inflation rise in the national minimum wage since 2007, which is very welcome. That gives full-time workers a £355 increase each year. We want that to continue, if possible, without negatively impacting on employment. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has asked the Low Pay Commission to look at considering above-inflation rises in the national minimum wage, and we hope that, with a growing economy, that can be sustained. Of course, at the same time we have focused on helping people on low pay by cutting income tax by £800 a year, taking 3.2 million people on the national minimum wage out of paying income tax. We have done a significant amount, but we want to continue by encouraging employers to pay above the national minimum wage and to recognise that it is a minimum. Very profitable and successful companies should recognise their responsibilities to their employees, which might mean that they should be paying more. I welcome the fact that many employers are now turning into a positive the fact that they pay more than the minimum wage and badge themselves as a living wage employer. Of course, they will then be able better to compete for talented staff and get business benefits.
The hon. Lady is right about happiness and well-being. In 2010, the Prime Minister said that the Office for National Statistics would be collecting data on well-being and happiness. That was not met with universal acclaim in some sections of the press. I seem to recall that the Daily Mail was not necessarily delighted by the suggestion. I, for one, was delighted, having set up the all-party group on well-being economics and long campaigned for the importance of recognising that people, yes, care about their income and the size of the economy, but also care about the health and happiness of themselves and their loved ones. The more we recognise that in our policy making and in what we measure, the better.
The hon. Lady said that she did not know what had happened to that work, so I will update her. The ONS has been collecting the information, and about 250,000 people a year are questioned. As a result, a rich databank is being built up that can be broken down in interesting ways across different geographical areas, and between men and women and different age groups, so as to be able to assess the impact of policies and see what is happening in different parts of the country in different groups.
We recently announced the setting up of a “what works centre”—a research think-tank that the Government are supporting to analyse how different policies impact on well-being. From a BIS perspective, one of the key strands of this work is about well-being in the labour market and the workplace and what drives it. We recently published research that we have undertaken on that. A range of factors impact on workplace well-being. Obviously, pay is one, but there are also things such as the variety in someone’s job, whether they feel that they get to use their skills, whether they have a degree of autonomy, how they go about their job, and their sense of fairness in the workplace, which very much ties into this debate. I am glad to say that very many businesses are also engaged in this agenda and recognise that continuing to engage with the well-being of employees leads to better business performance.
We recognise that this is a very significant issue, and we have taken action. We do not want to see rewards for failure. A ratio cap as set out in the motion could, in its purest sense, have unintended and perverse consequences. Early signs of the response to our executive pay reforms are encouraging, and we will review their impact and publish the findings. We will continue to work to ensure that pay policies become fairer, and also support low-paid workers by cutting income tax. I know that we will return to this topic in the House. I thank the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton and the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss it today.
Mr Meacher
This has inevitably been a rather short and truncated debate, but a useful one for all that. I think it fair to say that there is broad cross-party agreement that inequality is now out of control and further action needs to be taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) made the essential point that an increase in the ratio between top and bottom from 11:1 to 116:1, within one generation, cannot remotely be justified in terms of the performance of the British economy.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) for making important points about the raft of measures that are still necessary to deal with poverty, including tax credits to deal with in-work poverty; the continuing unfair span of gender inequality; the need for the Government to press the issue of the living wage—some companies are paying it but far too many still are not—and the need, above all, to shift away from a low-pay, low-skills and low-productivity economy to a high-pay, high-skills and high-productivity economy.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool for observing that the relationship between executive pay and company performance does not justify these excesses and cannot remotely do so, that the voice of workers needs to be directly involved in the determination of pay, and that we do not currently have a productive economy to the degree that we need and that is clearly possible both socially and economically.
I am grateful to the Minister for her, as always, positive and bubbly tone, but I realise that she cannot go beyond her brief. I hope that if there is one lesson she will take to her right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, it is that he has to move from the action that he has already taken, which is valuable, to direct involvement of workers in executive pay. If we can get that message across, this debate has been worth it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is reported in The Independent today that John Vine, the Government’s independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, has written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee expressing concern that the Home Secretary has been intervening to delay and manipulate the publication of inconvenient reports on the Government’s immigration and asylum policy, and compromising the independence of his role. Given today’s news of the continuing mess that the Government’s immigration policy is in, have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had any indication that the Home Secretary will be making a statement to the House on this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I have to say—I am sure she will be a bit disappointed—that today’s business is not a matter of order for me, and I have not received any such notification. However, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard her point, which is now on the record.
Historical Child Sex Abuse
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Before we move on to the debate, let me say to the House that this is an important debate dealing with matters that have horrified Members in all parts of the House and people across the country. No doubt Members will wish to express those concerns in strong terms, but I must remind the House of two points. First, Members need to avoid reference to cases that are active before the courts. The sub judice resolution agreed by the House is designed to ensure that what is said in the House does not prejudice fair trials and, where merited, successful prosecutions. It is important that we respect that. In cases of doubt about the status of a case, I would advise Members to err on the side of caution.
Secondly, even if the matters are not active before the courts, I would caution Members to think carefully about the impact of their words before making critical references to individuals. Freedom of speech is essential for the work of this House and to allow us to represent our constituents without fear of outside interference, but it is an obligation on all Members to exercise that privilege responsibly. I am sure that all Members taking part are fully aware of those two points, but I think that as we start this very important debate, we do well to remind ourselves of its context.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered progress of the historic child sex abuse inquiry.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving the subject of the historical child abuse inquiry so much prominence and time.
I would like to celebrate the campaign of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, which has, first, given a voice to the voiceless; secondly, stimulated the media to act; thirdly, engaged many hon. Members in this place; fourthly, shone a light on a dirty secret and made child abuse more unacceptable than ever before; and fifthly, and probably most importantly, is now resulting in many perpetrators being arrested and dead perpetrators rightly being shamed.
I think we can all agree that this subject is both diverse and full of detail, and it would not be difficult to speak for quite a long time. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me, because although I do not usually take up too much time in this place, on this occasion I would like some time to develop some important points. First and not least, I want to set out how we have got to where we are today; secondly, I want to talk about—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is quite right about the time he usually takes, that the normal expectation for opening speeches in all Back-Bench debates is 15 to 20 minutes. That is much longer than he usually speaks for, so I am sure he will be able to put his points very eloquently within that time.
Simon Danczuk
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me start with William’s story. I have changed his name to protect his identity. He is in his late 50s and his wife does not know that he was abused. He believes it would ruin his relationship if she found out. You could not wish to meet a more polite, intelligent and endearing gentleman. He does not look like a gentleman: he has tattoos, his face and skin are weathered, and he is quite dishevelled. William came to see me four months ago to tell me what had happened to him as a child. In 1970, he had been placed in Knowl View residential school in Rochdale, a place for youngsters with behavioural problems. The initial ethos was caring and supportive: the hitting of children was frowned upon and children were to be listened to.
As William pointed out to me, that ethos did not last very long. Within weeks of him arriving, he was being abused, both by teachers and by fellow pupils. Physical and sexual abuse was meted out on a daily basis. From the age of 13, he was bullied and abused, both physically and sexually. Sobbing, he explained to me how he was pleased when a younger boy who was more attractive was placed in the school, because that child became the focus of attention. One day, Cyril Smith tried it on with him, but one of the good teachers saved him. Obviously, at the time, William did not know that Smith was part of a paedophile network operating at the school. It was just one of the networks to which Smith would belong in his long paedophilic career.
William eventually escaped by running away and he has spent the rest of his life working on fairgrounds, an articulate, smart lad whose life chances were limited by his abusers. Needless to say, he is sad and wants justice. Only time will tell whether Greater Manchester police will deliver that for him.
Let me turn to John, who came to my office a few months ago. He suffered a similar fate at Knowl View school. He attacked one of his abusers and ended up going to prison. Years later, he sat in my office seeking help to find accommodation because he was homeless. Abuse had destroyed John’s life.
It is for those people—William and John—that we are here today. They are the survivors. As children, they suffered horrendous abuse. Now, as adults, they are determined to share their stories and bring the abusers to justice.
That desire to get to the truth about child abuse, however, has not been universally shared. We now know that from at least the 1970s up to the present day, there have been not only people in positions of power who have sexually abused children, but powerful people willing to cover up that abuse and obstruct justice. People were more concerned about their own careers and protecting the system than they were about the lives that were being shattered. From the systematic abuse by Jimmy Savile, which has been well documented, to the continual abuse committed by Cyril Smith, which Matt Baker and I have detailed, it is clear that there was a culture of acceptance of child sex abuse by the powerful and well connected.
Amazingly, that attitude seems to have been well known at the time. Indeed, I was recently shown an episode of “Spitting Image” that was produced and aired in June 1987. The sketch mocks Conservative youth unemployment policy by joking that the Government had been very good at
“getting to grips with youngsters”
through their “rent boy scheme” The joke was on the Conservative policy, but it was also on the boys who were raped and abused by politicians.
In addition, we have seen the shocking spectacle of a former Whip, Tim Fortescue, openly telling the BBC that the Whips in the 1970s would help MPs to cover up scandals, including incidents with small boys. It seems that the culture of child abuse around politics was an open secret, yet nothing was done and children continued to be abused.
This problem was not confined just to politics and broadcasters. There are many instances, which I and others have documented, of the police ignoring child sex abuse. Let us not forget that this is the agency charged with keeping children safe, yet there was systematic ignorance by the police of the abuse that was going on.
During my own investigation, Cyril Smith was found to be the subject of multiple police investigations, all of which were dropped. There are many examples of retired police officers offering powerful testimony to me and my staff about past investigations of child abuse. They were shut down once it was apparent that high-profile politicians and other establishment figures were involved. They include Operation Circus, which focused on what was known as the Piccadilly Circus “meat rack”, where men would pick up adolescent boys for sex. Cyril Smith was among the powerful politicians spotted here taking boys back to a flat in north London. Questions must be asked about why those investigations did not continue.
Last Sunday, events took an even more sinister turn and there were allegations that sexually abused children had been murdered and that they involved people with a connection to this House. As shocking as those claims are, I am wholly convinced that we should take them seriously. When responding to the Wanless and Whittam review of missing files at the Home Office, the Prime Minister described those who believed in child abuse cover-ups as “conspiracy theorists”. My view is that those comments were extremely insensitive and I think he will regret them in the months and years ahead. I have to admit that some of the claims that sometimes surround child abuse in that period can seem extreme, but from what I have seen and heard it is not hard to conclude that there was a paedophile network at Westminster during that period. The network organised child abuse and conspired to protect each of its members from exposure. Cyril Smith was certainly a part of it.
Earlier this year, I told the Home Affairs Committee that a dossier containing allegations about child abuse by politicians had been handed by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan. That revelation helped lead to the Wanless and Whittam review and to the establishment of the overarching inquiry, but not everybody was pleased with the idea that I might challenge Lord Brittan. The night before my appearance before the Committee, I had an encounter with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). After the 10 pm vote, he drew me to one side outside the Chamber and warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the following day. He told me that challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move and that I might even be responsible for his death, as he was unwell.
I understand that people are cautious about naming parliamentarians, but I think that people who might know about child abuse allegations should answer questions, whatever their position. We should not shy away from that.
I move on to the inquiry itself. It is fair to say that we are in a bit of a mess. First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily blame the Government or, indeed, the Home Office, but it is clear that mistakes have been made. What the Home Office permanent secretary told the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday is quite revealing. He said that the Home Office had not appreciated the emotional nature of the inquiry when setting it up and appointing the chair. I was pleased to hear the permanent secretary say that this is now one of the top three priorities for the Home Office.
I do not want to dwell too long on false starts and the progress that still needs to be made. Too much time has been lost already. On the chair, however, I understand that the Home Office is now considering 100 names. Clearly, the process will not be quick and I do not think it should be rushed, but we need to get the right person in place. To do that, it is clear that we need more scrutiny and transparency of the appointment process. I am still confused and disturbed by the role of the Home Office in drafting the letter from Fiona Woolf to the Home Secretary. On the new chairperson, it is important for the Home Office not to have any involvement in any letter to or agreement with the Home Secretary—it should stay well out of it.
It is now clear that we cannot have another chair with significant links to people who might be investigated in the course of this inquiry. I am pleased that the permanent secretary has said that they are looking “further afield” and considering people from outside a narrow Westminster circle.
The other thing that is clear is that there needs to be a much greater role for survivors. I started my speech with two stories about survivors, to remind the House that this inquiry should always be focused on them. I am sure that meeting groups and representatives will redouble the Home Secretary’s efforts to make sure that the inquiry gets to the truth. It is not enough, however, simply to meet survivors—the Home Office needs to listen to them, too. For example, I understand that at a recent meeting with the Home Secretary, there was a vote on whether the inquiry should be a statutory one. I am given to understand that the vote was unanimously in favour. May I ask the Minister whether these views are really being taken on board?
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On the question of having a statutory inquiry, I take it that the hon. Gentleman means an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. We had considerable experience of trying to get such an inquiry on Mid Staffordshire: I had to campaign almost unimaginably hard to get one under the 2005 Act. The reason for having one is simply that evidence can be given on oath and there can be a proper inquiry; anything less would simply not be adequate. Indeed, the Attorney-General will need in some way to be brought in to ensure that the very important people who might be involved in all the investigations are aware that the inquiry is being undertaken at that level.
Simon Danczuk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his valuable intervention, which should inform the inquiry and its work.
I know that the new chair of the inquiry, when eventually appointed, will have some scope to alter the terms of reference. It is especially important to concentrate on the geographical scope. If I have learned one thing from studying child abuse networks, it is that there are lots of connections that are difficult to spot or to understand. I am worried that drawing arbitrary boundaries that stop us from looking at Scotland and Northern Ireland might prevent some connections from being made and some lessons from being learned. In Northern Ireland, I am particularly thinking of Kincora boys’ home and the alleged involvement of the security services. I want the new chair to consider the geography of the terms of reference.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
One of my concerns is that I am confused about the relationship between the new inquiry that my hon. Friend is speaking about and the inquiries currently under way, such as the Macur review of the Waterhouse inquiry. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me about that relationship?
Simon Danczuk
The short answer is no, because the terms of reference are very brief and not very detailed. We need to be given more of an understanding about that relationship. The idea is for the inquiry to bring all such investigations together, but we still need to be told how that will work in practice.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), surely the point is that we are talking about an overarching inquiry—it is not a prosecution, or an investigation into criminal activities to bring somebody to justice now—whereas the other inquiries, reviews and investigations that are going on might just deliver that, but will do so in parallel to this inquiry. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Simon Danczuk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has shone some light on the questions that need to be answered.
For every person who commits child abuse, very many people are complicit in that abuse or know information that could help, and it is absolutely vital that those people—they could be civil servants, cab drivers or even neighbours—come forward. More significantly, a large number of police officers, both retired and serving, have information to give. We simply need to get the full picture, and to get those people to speak at the inquiry. The Home Secretary must ensure that there is a full amnesty for any officer, so that they are not worried about the Official Secrets Act or their pensions.
We must make sure that we create the best possible conditions in which survivors can come forward and speak to the inquiry. I know how hard that will be for many of them. I have spoken to many survivors who have been silent for decades, and they are struggling to come to terms with what happened to them. That can be a hugely painful and traumatic experience. We need to provide full support and access to therapies that might be required by those people. We have failed them once, and we must not do so again.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
On the issue of support, what is the hon. Gentleman’s view of the financial implications of what he is saying? It seems to me that there is a need for money to support counselling services across this whole area. Will he say what money might be needed for the survivors in relation to the inquiry?
Simon Danczuk
I have made no calculation of what the cost might be of therapies or support for the survivors, but it is minuscule in comparison with the damage done to them. I have no doubt that the Home Office will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Another group of people should come forward to the inquiry—the perpetrators of child abuse. To those people, I would say: “I urge you to think about the people you have abused, and to think about your victims. Damaged as children, they continue to suffer now, well into their adult lives. You have inflicted untold misery on them and their families. In many cases, what you did has made it impossible for them to live normal lives. Now they must suffer again by coming forward and speaking about what you did to them. They will have tried desperately to bury the memories of abuse, but they will now have to drag them back into the light. They will have to relive that trauma. But you can spare them some of that suffering. You can come forward and admit your guilt. If you admit what you have done, some of that pain can be saved, and some people can begin to rebuild their lives. So I say again: as a perpetrator of these crimes, you must come forward to the inquiry and take responsibility for what you have done. You can never undo the wrong, but you can at least prevent further agony.”
So far, my speech has focused on the historical aspects of child abuse, but the grim reality is that child abuse is a fact of life for hundreds of children in modern Britain. In places such as Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford and Telford, children are still being abused. This is not a thing of the past; this is happening to our children in our towns now.
We know from the Jay report on Rotherham that there were more than 1,400 victims over a six-year period in just one town. The Communities and Local Government Committee, on which I sit, conducted an inquiry into Rotherham, and our findings were worrying. The same failures and bad practices that allowed children to be abused in Rotherham are common across local government areas. Rotherham is simply the tip of the iceberg. We are yet to discover the true horrific extent of child abuse in this country. When it is revealed, nobody will be in any doubt that this is one of the most appalling crimes of our times.
In these circumstances, it is vital that the police get to grips with the issue and that resources are made available to solve abuse cases and catch the abusers. I am not convinced that that is happening. I have spoken to serving Met police officers, and they have described in graphic detail abuse crimes that are being committed, but are being ignored. I have the same concerns with regard to Greater Manchester police, my local force.
Victims have been ignored by the police because they were poor, white, working-class kids. Police and social workers have insulted them and left them to be abused. The survivors—often as young as 11—were accused of making lifestyle choices. The attitude in one agency was so warped that when an abuser got a young victim pregnant for the second time, the social worker insisted that the rapist, who was married with a family of his own, should attend the antenatal classes. I am still struggling to believe that such a culture could exist in our public services. As a result of that culture, the police failed to arrest rapists, who moved on to new victims year in, year out, and the perpetrators’ confidence was bolstered so that they thought they were untouchable.
My own town of Rochdale has also suffered from this crime. Not only did Cyril Smith and others abuse children in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but we had the Rochdale grooming scandal just a few years ago. It does not stop there. Yesterday, eight men were arrested across Rochdale, Oldham and Manchester, accused of grooming three children—one was 15, and two were just 13—in our town. I am glad that the police are acting and making arrests, but it is shocking that after all the town has been through, people are still out there trying to sexually abuse children on our streets. In this case, the abuse is alleged to have occurred between September and October this year, so the accusation is that at the very time we were all learning about the horrendous abuse in Rotherham, these men were still brazenly continuing their abuse. It is just sickening.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I want to reflect for a moment on the consequences of child abuse. It is a difficult and distressing subject. I know that it is all too easy to turn away from the distasteful headlines and harrowing stories, and to think that it is something that will never touch us. We think that this kind of abuse could never happen in our town or to anyone we know, but it affects all of us. Child abuse ruins lives, strips people of their dignity and is creating a growing underclass of people who have been abused.
We must think about the consequences of child rape: it sets people back in school and damages their life chances; it pushes people to the margins of society, where they often end up involved in crime and drugs, putting pressure on the police and other agencies; and it leaves people with terrible physical problems, often preventing them from having children of their own. It is a crime that stores up all sorts of problems that are felt across society. Like all violent, senseless crimes, its consequences are felt long after the crime is committed. The psychological damage that it causes to survivors is impossible to overestimate.
With that in mind, and considering the hurdles that we must cross to get the inquiry moving, I am hopeful that the whole House will unite and renew its efforts to bring justice to the victims of child abuse. The survivors are crying out to be heard. It is time we started listening.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am delighted that we are having this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for helping to bring it about. He was one of the gang of seven who went to see the Home Secretary initially to impress upon her the need to have an overarching inquiry, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who are in the Chamber today.
This is a hugely important subject. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the permanent secretary at the Home Office agreed at the Home Affairs Committee this week that it is one of the top three priorities of the Home Office. All of us in this Chamber and our colleagues beyond have constituents who have been the victims and who are the survivors of child sexual abuse that goes back many years. People from my patch have certainly contacted me. Those of us who were at the vanguard of the call for the inquiry have received many harrowing tales from survivors up and down the country.
It is useful briefly to remind ourselves of why the inquiry is so essential. Over the past two and a quarter years, since that extraordinary ITV programme in October 2012 that started to unpeel the horrific, systematic, serial child abuse by one Jimmy Savile, the whole situation has changed and the floodgates have opened. A string of celebrities followed on from Jimmy Savile, including Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris. Investigations have been renewed, reviewed and re-uncovered with Operation Pallial on care homes, Operation Fairbank and Operation Fernbridge. There have been inquiries involving schools, such as Operation Flamborough, which is investigating alleged assaults on girls with learning difficulties at a Hampshire boarding school, and the investigations into Fort Augustus Abbey school, Carlkemp school, Kesgrave Hall school and Chetham’s school of music, where there were a series of abuses by music tutors who had the opportunity, when teaching on a one-to-one basis, to take advantage of vulnerable children.
Of course, there was the tragic suicide of Frances Andrade when all that was uncovered. We have heard about the historical abuse in our religious institutions. There have been criminal investigations into the Catholic Church, including in my diocese of Chichester, where people have ended up in jail and where other investigations are ongoing. There has been Operation Retriever and the more recent child sexual exploitation by Asian gangs and others in Rochdale and Rotherham. We have had Operation Bullfinch and Operation Chalice. It goes on and on.
We must remember that this matter has more recently, not least through the hard work of the hon. Member for Rochdale, started knocking on the door of politics and Westminster. We must not be afraid of that.
Julian Smith
My hon. Friend might be coming to this point, but does he agree that it is vital that we leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of what has happened in this place? It has to be an absolute priority for the inquiry to find out what has happened and, potentially, what is happening in the corridors of power.
Tim Loughton
That is entirely the point that the hon. Member for Rochdale made. It is not in the interests of any one of us who is in politics or in Parliament to stand by while suspicions and allegations of child sexual abuse involving politicians, dead or alive, are ignored. We need to root out this cancer. A child sexual abuser who happens to have been a politician is no less of a vile criminal than Jimmy Savile, a rogue priest or any other subject of the overarching inquiry. Those who think that we would want to cover up the involvement of other politicians in this abuse need to understand that this cancer tarnishes all of us and needs to be cut out. We have more incentive than many to ensure that we leave no stone unturned, however uncomfortable the findings may be.
Sir William Cash
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for their persistence in this matter. It is a remarkable example of how results can come from determination. He might be interested to know that it was Jim Callaghan who, as Prime Minister, insisted that the Protection of Children Bill reached its Report stage, against the background of considerable covert opposition. I was involved in that Bill in 1977 on behalf of the former Member of Parliament, the late Cyril Townsend. Jim Callaghan told me that his wife had said that if he did not get the Bill through as Prime Minister, she would not speak to him for six months.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend makes a good point and one that I have heard him make before. He is a veteran of taking an interest in this issue and ensuring that a spotlight is placed on these horrendous crimes. That was more difficult back in the ’70s and ’80s, when there was what I call the “Oh, it’s only Jimmy” mentality. What we now recognise as vile crimes against vulnerable children were swept under the carpet. It was assumed that that was just what went on and people did not want to rock the boat, for all sorts of reasons. It was harder for people to stand up and point the finger in the ’70s and ’80s than it is now. We should pay tribute to those people who, under whatever duress, brought such matters into the open.
It would have been better and easier if the overarching inquiry had started two years ago. Some of us wrote to the Prime Minister soon after the Savile revelations broke to say, “This is going to be really important. This is going to lead to a serious undermining of confidence in the child protection system in this country, and all sorts of allegations about cover-ups will start to come out.” The floodgates had been opened. The only compensation of the Savile case is that it raised the profile of child sexual abuse and emboldened victims to come forward who for years and decades had been told to go away and forget about it, and had been treated almost as the perpetrators, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, rather than the victims that they were or the survivors that they are. If the inquiry had got under way before the floodgates opened, I think there would be more trust that the Government and politicians were taking a lead and wanted to uncover it all, but alas that did not happen.
I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, who stuck her head above the parapet and agreed to hold the overarching inquiry that we called for in July, appreciating—almost uniquely—just how important and necessary it was. No less than any of the gang of seven and the rest of us who are interested in this issue, she wants to get to the truth and leave no stone unturned. She wants justice to be done for the survivors and to ensure a child protection system that is fit for purpose in 2014.
However, there has been an unfortunate train of events. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were both excellent candidates to chair such a high-profile inquiry, but circumstances conspired for them to lose credibility in the eyes of survivors. In many respects, one could not win. Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has huge experience in child abuse inquiries and the family courts. She had a connection with a Government Minister—her brother—back in the 1980s, and decided that that would overshadow the great experience that she could have brought to the inquiry. I think that was unfortunate. Fiona Woolf had no connections with the family courts and seemed to have no baggage or agenda, but, alas, she too was not able to carry the inquiry forward. We should not see that as a deliberate intention to try to undermine or rig the inquiry; they were two, honourable heavyweight candidates, but unfortunately, because of the delicacy and sensitivity of this issue, they were not able to continue.
It is vital to get on with the inquiry and, as the Home Secretary announced, in the absence of a chair the panel must get the work under way. We heard from the permanent secretary at the Home Office that a new candidate is unlikely to come forward until the new year, and the Home Affairs Committee, on which I serve, will be asked to give them a confirmatory hearing. That person—or perhaps persons, as we may need dual chairs—must be allowed to get on with the job. If they cannot, the inquiry will never happen, and we must hold this inquiry.
This overarching inquiry is important for three reasons. First, we must put into historical context exactly how such things were allowed to happen, and learn when things changed and improved. Children are much safer in 2014 than they were in 1964, ’74 or ’84. Did the advent of the Children Act 1989 or the shocking high-profile revelations about the north Wales care homes in the 1990s make society take child abuse more seriously? We must put into context all those different things, which are confusing people with almost weekly revelations of new historical child sex abuse inquiries.
Secondly, the inquiry is necessary to give the survivors a voice at last, ensure that they are listened to, and discover whether the perpetrators are still out there—we know that abuse is still going on, hopefully in a lesser form than it was previously. After decades of not being listened to, people still feel raw. I have met many survivors, and the Home Affairs Committee held a private meeting with survivors who are palpably still traumatised by experiences many decades ago. Survivors must be listened to and feel that they are being listened to, and they must be able to achieve some sort of closure at long last.
The third reason the inquiry must get on with its work is that we must consider whether all major institutions in this country that have significant dealings with children and young people have instituted child protection policies and practices that are fit for purpose in 2014 to deal with modern-day perpetrators of abuse. Rotherham was the tip of the iceberg; there will be more Rotherhams I am afraid, and unless we have assurances and can restore confidence in the public that child protection systems in this country are fit for purpose, people will continue to be worried on behalf of their own children and friends. The inquiry will be vast. Its nature means that it will have to go anywhere and everywhere it needs to go, and it may take many years. That is the nature of the beast that we are dealing with, and it is a beast indeed.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
May I add a fourth reason? There is now confidence among many victims who want to come out and talk about their experiences but not to the inquiry—they have gone to the police. The Met police, particularly the Sapphire unit, is working closely with victims who would not have come forward if it were not for this inquiry.
Tim Loughton
That is right. We must recognise the enormous pressure that the police services are under to look into historical cases of abuse. Many victims, quite rightly, have bravely been emboldened to come forward, having sat on the issue and been repulsed over many years. I realise that a huge amount of distrust and scepticism from survivors surrounds the inquiry, and I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that it is not helpful simply to write them off as conspiracy theorists. During my time as children’s Minister, and subsequently, I met many survivors. They are very raw and there are great sensitivities. It is also difficult to determine who speaks for what is inevitably a disparate group. Some say they would like a judge to head the inquiry. Some say that a judge is the last person they would want. Some say they would prefer to wait a further two, three or six years to get the inquiry right before we start it. Others say we need it now because we need closure now. We must also not forget that there are current victims who need to be helped by the implications of an overarching inquiry.
There are conspiracy theories coming from a very different direction. I received a letter—I should think other hon. Members received it as well:
“I am not one of your constituents. Until last Friday I was only very dimly aware of your existence as an MP, but last Friday evening you appeared on ‘The World Tonight’ and ‘Newsnight’ to discuss the resignation of Fiona Woolf. In both programmes, you repeated allegations about the late Jimmy Savile which you appear not to have verified or investigated in any way.”
There are people standing up for Jimmy Savile, saying that he has been misrepresented in some way. There are extraordinary theories going around, which is why we need an inquiry to get to the truth.
In conclusion, what action should be taken going forward? The whole inquiry could have been handled better. The survivors should have been consulted earlier, before the processes and structures were set up, but we are where we are and we need to move forward and get the inquiry going.
First, we need to get on with appointing a chair, or possibly dual chairs. There will be circumstances where certain people being investigated as part of the overarching inquiry will be known to a chair. It is impossible, frankly, to get somebody with the calibre to chair such an inquiry who has no knowledge of all sorts of people who may have been on the periphery. If that does happen, perhaps they could step aside temporarily and an alternative chair could come in for the part of the investigation which involved somebody with whom they may have had a connection. We must remember, however, that these are not trials of criminals now. This is an overarching inquiry and it is for other police investigations to nail down perpetrators and bring charges.
Secondly, I have got to the stage where I believe the inquiry needs to be chaired by a judge, or judges. Many judges have turned down the invitation, which is not surprising. It is a poisoned chalice. We may have to go overseas to find somebody who does not have connections and baggage. It will perhaps be difficult to find somebody with the knowledge of the way the systems have worked in this country to lead the inquiry, but this is not the Oscar Pistorius trial. This is not a one man or one woman show; it is a panel of experts which includes, at the behest of many of us who went to see the Home Secretary, the survivors. The survivors should be represented at the heart of the panel to ensure that their perspective is included.
Thirdly, it is possible that the inquiry will have to become statutory. The Home Secretary has, perfectly reasonably, cited the Hillsborough inquiry as a very good example of an inquiry where everybody—bar one, I think—came forward with the information required of them. She has promised full co-operation from all Government agencies and Departments including, I would hope, the intelligence services, but we have got to the stage where the inquiry may need to be put on a statutory basis.
Sir William Cash
The Hillsborough inquiry was about a dreadful event. This is much more widespread: it goes deeper and involves criminal issues. I entirely agree with the direction my hon. Friend is taking. I am absolutely certain, from all my experience as shadow Attorney-General and in my previous incarnation as a lawyer in these fields, that it is absolutely essential not only to have an Inquiries Act 2005 inquiry but to have it led by a judge who can evaluate all the circumstances.
Tim Loughton
I feared my hon. Friend was about to say that Hillsborough was a terrible inquiry. No, it was a good inquiry about a terrible event and I think he is probably right. This is a huge, many-headed hydra that will go into many Departments and include documents and information from the intelligence services and others.
Fourthly, we must recognise that we have a good panel of experts. Questions have been asked about the way certain members of the panel were appointed. That was up to the Home Secretary, with advice from her officials. The gang of seven and others were invited to make any suggestions helpfully. I made some suggestions. Some of the people I suggested had been recommended by other institutions. Some of the people I suggested have not made it on to the panel. Some people think that, because they have been suggested by MPs, they must therefore be tainted. Please recognise that we have a good panel of experts from a wide variety of disciplines who bring great skills to the panel. To think that any one of them, let alone the eventual chair or chairs, could in any way, in such a high-profile inquiry with such a spotlight shining on them, sweep something under the carpet or try to divert the inquiry’s deliberations is just not realistic.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the panel members, but it would have been better had survivors, representatives and groups at least been consulted on the members before they were announced. The fact that they were not has caused undue suspicion among some survivors. I am sure he thinks it would have been a better way of putting the panel together.
Tim Loughton
I actually said that just now. It should have been handled better, but we are where we are.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that the terms of reference, particularly for whistleblowers, need to be reviewed. We do not want people, be they police officers or others, not coming forward to help uncover the truth because of a fear of procedures. I am not a supporter of mandatory reporting, but we need a system of whistleblowing that is fit for purpose and does not get in the way of the truth in this inquiry.
The chair and the panel need to be completely transparent, accountable and accessible. I recommend we have a sounding board panel of survivors who are consulted not just at the beginning—it should have happened earlier—but as the inquiry progresses so they can give their input on whether the inquiry is getting under the right stones, going in the right direction and being rigorous enough. They need to be part of that process all the way through.
As I said earlier, Parliament should have no fear if the inquiry encroaches on our own sort, and it does not help any party or politician to be party to a cover-up. We need to ensure, and all the survivors need to trust, that we have a shared agenda and aim to which many of us are wedded: to root out criminals; to uncover the truth, however unpalatable; to give survivors a voice; and to ensure that the system in 2014 is working to keep our children and young people safe.
Survivors need help and counselling. I have met survivors who have had to set up charities to give counselling and advice to other survivors and who are doing it on a shoestring. Organisations such as the National Association for People Abused in Childhood have done excellent work but are now being overwhelmed. There is a huge demand for counselling services from survivors having to relive a trauma they thought had gone away, and there have even been suicides by former survivors since this was uncovered. We have to do more on that score.
Finally, however, there are grounds for optimism. Notwithstanding Rotherham and the fact that there will be more Rotherhams, our awareness of child exploitation is higher than ever. The child sexual exploitation action plan, which I launched as children’s Minister in November 2011, is the thing of which I am most proud from my time at the Department. It has brought about a sea change in the way we recognise, intervene on and tackle child sexual exploitation, and has brought together the police and social, education and health workers through local safeguarding children boards—they are not good enough, as the Ofsted recently showed, but we are going in the right direction—and ensured that taxi firms and hotels have a means of sharing information if gang abuse is happening on their premises or in their taxis.
Furthermore, we now have an Archbishop of Canterbury who takes this issue so seriously that he will not consecrate any new bishop until they have gone through a child sexual exploitation training course, and clergy and volunteers throughout the Church of England and—I am sure—other Churches are being brought up to speed. We have also seen changes in court procedures meaning that victims are more confident about coming to court and can give evidence in greater safety, without being intimidated by barristers, and that more perpetrators are going to jail. We owe it to the survivors and to vulnerable children and young people now to get this overarching inquiry under way; to make its investigations robust; and to ensure that its findings stick. We must do that if we are to restore confidence in the child protection system we so desperately need.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
We have heard two interesting speeches, one of them particularly emotional, which is understandable. Anyone who has worked, as I have, for some considerable time in this area will have great difficulty not getting emotional about it. One needs only to hear the stories.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) appeared to start from the 1970s, so I would refer him to a period before that. A film appeared on BBC2—it is still available—called “Hunting Britain’s Paedophiles”. It was produced by a man called Bob Long, who followed the Metropolitan police paedophile unit, tracking a gang that had run its own institution of dance studios and the like since 1959. Members of that gang were finally put away earlier this century. They used manuals and induced the kids, and the number of children involved over 40 or 50 years would have been vast. However, that was the start of a real rethink, resulting in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which brought grooming into the picture. At that stage, and still to a degree, this country was ahead of anywhere else in the world on that particular aspect of dealing with this problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was involved in that as a Minister, and many of us worked in the background. He talked about the high-profile cases. I am bothered that in concentrating on those cases, we may be missing thousands—and there will be thousands—of children elsewhere who have been abused over many years by gangs. We have got to be broad, and the advantage of dealing with the high-profile cases is that it makes it absolutely sure that it will appear in the media and in people’s minds, which has a positive effect.
Coming right back to the title of today’s debate, I find it interesting that so soon after the commencement of this historical child sex abuse inquiry, today’s debate is looking at progress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary bravely anticipates an initial report before Christmas. In addition, the Home Office says that it does not expect a full report before the next election.
It is worth looking at the Northern Ireland Assembly, which set up a similar inquiry into child sexual abuse in Northern Ireland’s institutions. The population of Northern Ireland is much less than here, the number of institutions is much smaller and the terms of reference much narrower—perhaps, after recent accusations, too narrow. The inquiry commenced in January 2012. I have not followed its progress carefully but I understand that the first part, interviewing witnesses behind closed doors, will be complete by Christmas. Educated guesses are that the report for this much smaller inquiry will come out in 2016, 2017 or later.
We need to decide whether we want a speedy inquiry that comes forward with possibly predictable things that we already have and with no depth, or exactly the opposite, in which case the inquiry will go on for years. Our inquiry is much broader, potentially involving vast numbers of institutions and others. Many of these will wish to hide, and are capable of hiding, past sexual abuse. We will not catch them all; we will not get to the bottom of it all; but we might get enough from those we look at to bring about some dramatic changes to build on what has already happened.
I first became interested in legislation relating to protecting children from abuse and enabling the better prosecution of abusers, particularly child sex abusers, many years ago. My interest resulted from the shock of a day spent with the Metropolitan police paedophile unit, which would completely shake anyone, unless they had the tendencies. At that time, it was the leading unit in the country and probably still is, alongside the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. CEOP and the Met unit work in the same area of protection, but act differently: one can arrest, the other cannot.
At the time, the head of the Met unit was DCI Bob McLachlan—a very tough character. His unit was small, especially in comparison with the current Met unit, but it had a much broader geographical link, look and vista, including overseas, than one would expect for a Met unit.
Years ago, I asked Bob McLachlan how many active paedophiles he and his team thought there were in this country. He said that, in about the year 2000, he and his team had undertaken an exercise on just that subject, and had estimated that there were 230,000 active paedophiles—enough, he said, for there to be one in every street in the country. He also said that 20% of those paedophiles were women, and that half of them—that is, 10%—were women who actively took part in the abuse, sometimes of their own accord rather than being goaded. In those days it was hard to prosecute female abusers because juries would not believe that females were capable of abuse, but cases that have arisen over the last few years have proved that they are. Predominantly, they seem to act in institutions, but we should be very aware that that is not always the case. Given the huge progress of the internet and the “dark web”, there must have been a large increase in the number of paedophiles since 2000. Bob’s figure of 230,000 was a guesstimate.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fascinating but also very depressing speech. Does he share my concern about sentencing? A high-profile figure in my community was found in possession of 50,000 of the most extreme images imaginable. He went to jail, but came out after nine months, and received no rehabilitation of any sort. It is inconceivable that he does not now pose a threat to children in my community, and there are probably 200 or 300 people like him on my patch alone.
Sir Paul Beresford
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Law Officers in the present Government have chased many of these individuals, and they have a list. However, what we need is an inquiry—conducted by the Attorney-General rather than the Home Office—into the sentences imposed, compared with those that are available.
My hon. Friend spoke of 50,000 indecent images. Judging by many cases that I have looked into, 50,000 is a drop in the ocean. Some of these individuals have hundreds of thousands of images, which may run into the millions. What they do with them is beyond me, but they have them, and we have changed the law so that we can now have access to them. They may not be accessible because they have been encrypted, but another recent change in the law, which I initiated, means that these individuals can be sent to jail for failing to allow the encryption to be broken.
I did not ask Bob, the policeman, for a definition of “paedophile”. Perhaps I should have, because there are various definitions. For the purposes of the inquiry, it needs to be recognised that the vast majority of child abuse, and child sex abuse, happens in families—including extended families—and not in institutions. The inquiry should not forget, and we should not forget, that there is more going on outside institutions than inside them. Having said that, however, I should add that, historically as well as today, predatory paedophiles—both male and female—can and do use institutions in which they are in a position of trust as their field of operations.
Julian Smith
I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw a Channel 4 documentary entitled “The Paedophile Hunter” earlier this week. It raised some quite concerning issues relating to how we as a country have dealt with paedophiles, and referred to academic research which suggested that we should be doing more of what is being done in Germany—helping paedophiles who want to come forward and be given counselling to do so. What conclusions has my hon. Friend reached about the validity of such work?
Sir Paul Beresford
There was a similar programme on Channel 4 about paedophiles as neighbours. The individual in the Channel 4 programme went to Germany, but he did not need to do so. The facilities are available in this country, and have been for a considerable time. They are used in the Prison Service, for instance, and in a world-famous organisation called the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. The system works rather like Alcoholics Anonymous, and the success rate is very high. The problem with the success rate is the cherry-picking, but that does not bother me. If such organisations catch these individuals early enough and stop them, they are being proactive, and that is what we really want.
On occasion, Bob McLachlan would catch these individuals before they did anything and say, “Lad, go and get treatment. If you don’t go and get treatment, I’ll take you to court. If I catch you a second time, you’re going to court.” I have drifted a little way from what I was saying.
In debates such as today’s, Members may be tempted—we have had a bit of this—to add to the inquiry. My only addition relates to the members of the team. It does not have, as the Northern Ireland one does, a highly experienced and recently retired police officer expert in this area. No one on that team has actually looked for these people, arrested them, talked to the victims as part of the campaign and the whole programme. I hope that the Home Office will think about that.
The Northern Ireland inquiry was wise enough to take on an expert who served for many years with the Met police. He is a very recently retired Met DCI who is renowned for his success not only in catching and convicting offenders but in caring for and helping victims, introducing new systems—for example, face recognition—at the Met to find victims. The fact that his nickname in the police is Postman Pat indicates how he is able to approach both victims and offenders so successfully. I do not know how he does it. He interviews victims and they warm to him. He interviews the paedophiles and they warm to him until he reaches the point where he has to leave the room because he feels absolutely disgusted. I can say that now because he is no longer doing it.
I hope we recognise that if we have a decent report on the issue it will probably resemble the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” in volume. I also suspect that the inquiry will report in 2016 if we are lucky, 2017 possibly, but probably even later if it is to be of real value. The inquiry team has a vital role in listening to victims and unearthing currently hidden activities in institutions, as set out in the terms of reference. Merely listening to victims will enable help to be provided to them, as well as potential lines of investigation to be passed to the police. As I said earlier, people will be encouraged to go to the police of their own accord. However, we must recognise that over the past 10 to 12 years there have been huge changes in the protection of children. There have been massive changes in legislation, which I am proud to say I have had a subtle, low-profile hand in putting through. There have been massive changes in attitude and public awareness, and the number of officials, especially police, in this field has gone up enormously. CEOP has been set up, and I believe that all police forces now have paedophile units. They did not 20 years ago. The Met and Birmingham units were the only ones. The Met unit is probably more than 10 times the strength it was when I visited it on that first day of shock. In addition, the Met have their Jigsaw team throughout London, actively monitoring those on the offenders list.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned the individual who came out of prison after nine months. It is not finished for him. He will be being watched by the Jigsaw team. We can guarantee that the moment he steps out of line he will be back there.
It is probable that the inquiry will rehash lessons we have already learnt but, probably more usefully—my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham touched on this—it will show where we have the legislation and experience and we are not using it.
Zac Goldsmith
I am sorry to interrupt—I will make a speech shortly—but I have spoken to members of the Jigsaw team in my patch and other areas. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is monitoring afterwards, but talk to any member confidentially and they will say that they are not satisfied with the current regime. They feel that they have an impossible task because of the sheer number of people they have to monitor. There are incidents all the time relating to people who are supposed to be monitored by Jigsaw teams. A tiny number of police officers are monitoring a vast number of very dangerous people. It is not a satisfactory situation at all.
Sir Paul Beresford
I completely agree. I have talked to some of the Jigsaw team, too. It is putting together a programme of suggestions that it will bring to the Home Office. Perhaps my hon. Friend can join me and we can use my subtle-ish methods of sliding legislative changes through, so that the Home Office will agree and we can put them through. That is why we have ten-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills. It is possible to put such changes through. It does make one vulnerable to accusations from the BBC—recently I put a piece of legislation through that was on the Floor of the House for just 17 minutes because everybody agreed on it, and I think everybody will on this area, too.
It is probable that the inquiry will rehash lessons already learned, but not always acted upon. The legislation that is in place has also not always been acted upon, partly because many of the non-specialist police officers do not know what is available.
I hope we will relax a little over the inquiry, and let it get on with the job. It is a big job that will take a long time, and we should leave the inquiry team alone for a while to get on with it. Having said that, I want to repeat my small inquiry to the Minister, who is half-listening on the Front Bench: that team is excellent, but it does not include a police officer or ex-police officer, and I can recommend one or two if I am asked—and I am willing to be asked.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for securing the debate, along with the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who cannot be here today for good reason. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case, and I would not want him to be on my case under any circumstances because he is a formidable campaigner.
I do not want to go into too many of the specifics of the abuse allegations, as that would not be appropriate for today, but I do want to emphasise the scale of the allegations. The Westminster paedophile ring, which has now become a murder investigation; Jimmy Savile; children’s homes; the Church; Rochdale; the grooming scandals in Rotherham: it goes on and on and on. There is the Elm guest house, too, which is in my constituency, and the reason why I am here today—and it is also the reason why I became aware of these horrific events.
I also want to emphasise how important this inquiry is and why its nature, form, structure, remit and credibility matter so very much. We now know that there have been systematic cover-ups. Powerful people have done terrible things and they have been protected, and unsurprisingly many of the victims left behind are struggling today to believe that that same establishment is on their side. Frankly, it has not been for many, many years.
We need only consider the Elm guest house in Barnes, which was run by Haroon and Carole Kasir. It was raided more than 30 years ago, back in 1982. The couple were fined and given suspended sentences for running a disorderly house, but at the time there were already questions and allegations around the abuse of young children at the house. Allegedly—we are reliably told this—12 boys gave evidence in 1982 that they had been abused, yet all these allegations simply evaporated at the time, some 30 years ago. They are only resurfacing now.
When Mrs Kasir died a few years after the house was raided, in very odd circumstances, a child protection campaigner from the National Association Of Young People In Care called for a criminal investigation into events at Elm guest house. He said he had been told by Mrs Kasir that boys had been brought in from a local children’s home—Grafton Close, also in Richmond—for sex, and that she had photographs of establishment figures at her hotel. One of them apparently showed a former Cabinet Minister in a sauna with a naked boy. She had logbooks, names, times, dates, pictures of her customers and so on. All that evidence simply disappeared after the raids and no longer exists. That is astonishing.
The Met has since confirmed that Cyril Smith visited the place—the hon. Member for Rochdale has made this point—and at least three other men named in documents as visitors to the Elm guest house were later convicted of multiple sexual offences against children. It is impossible to believe there was not a cover up. This is not sloppiness; there has to be more to it than that.
Then this week it emerged that a former news editor of one of my local papers, the Surrey Comet, had been prevented from making inquiries into the Elm guest house in 1984 after he was issued with a D notice by the Government. It goes on and on and on.
We all know about the famous Dickens dossier, a long list of names of abusers that was handed into the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, in 1983. That dossier, too, has vanished. The Wanless review was established to look into its whereabouts. It has been inconclusive on many levels, but it refers to a letter that Leon Brittan, then Home Secretary, wrote in reply to Mr Dickens on 20 March 1984. It states that a dossier of letters provided by Mr Dickens was passed to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that,
“in the view of the DPP, two”
of these cases
“could form the basis for enquiries by the police and have been passed to the appropriate authorities.”
There is no evidence of those letters now. How is that even possible? How is it possible for those trails to evaporate in that way?
Things have moved on, and today the Met is investigating allegations that at least three young boys were murdered by this depraved network of VIP and MP paedophiles. Operation Midland is the name of the investigation. On the back of that, a retired magistrate, Vishambar Mehrotra, the father of eight-year-old Vishal, who disappeared in 1981 and whose body was found a year later in West Sussex, has come forward to say that at the time of his son’s disappearance he was contacted by a male prostitute who told him that his son had probably been killed by VIP paedophiles linked to Elm guest house. He recorded that conversation and took it to the police, but nothing happened. Again, the evidence just evaporated.
Linked to that, two former Scotland Yard detectives who had investigated allegations of the murder of young boys more than 30 years ago have recently said on record that they were instructed to stop their investigations at the time. This all sounds unbelievable, but who now among us or outside this place would want to suggest that there have been no conspiracies? Who would just dismiss this stuff as fantasy? A few years ago, we probably all would have done so, but not nowadays.
Ian Lucas
When the Waterhouse inquiry, a judicial inquiry, took place, allegations were made relating to politicians and paedophile networks in north Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it extraordinary that none of the information to which he is referring appears to have been considered by that inquiry?
Zac Goldsmith
I have only the patchiest knowledge of the case that the hon. Gentleman has just described, so I cannot really comment on it, but we could sit here for hours swapping examples of important evidence that has disappeared and of leads that have not been followed up.
When we see some of the stories that we now know to be true, it is not hard to understand why there are pockets of conspiracy. I am not convinced that there is a grand, overarching conspiracy, but there are without a doubt lots of pockets of conspiracy and cover-up, and that has been happening over the past few decades. We know, for example, that a former deputy director of MI6, Sir Peter Hayman, was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. That is not disputed. We know that he was investigated in 1978 for having grotesque images in his possession. We also know that absolutely nothing happened with that evidence.
Thanks to the new Operation Cayacos, we also know about the convicted paedophile, Peter Righton, whom the hon. Member for Rochdale has mentioned in many contexts. He was once regarded as a leading child protection specialist in this country, but he ran a sophisticated network of abusers. When he was raided in 1992, 25 years-worth of correspondence between him and other paedophiles was found, but again the leads just dried up. I could provide endless similar examples—I suspect that many other Members could do the same—but I hope that I have already made my point. I will not dwell on the examples any further.
This is why the inquiry is so important, and why we must bend over backwards to ensure that it is credible even to those who are most suspicious of it, particularly the survivors who have direct experience of cover-ups and are unwilling to blanket-trust the establishment and the authorities to be on their side.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the Chamber for a few minutes. The debate has been going on for some considerable time. The normal convention is that Members should be in the Chamber to hear more of the debate—rather than just a few minutes of the current speech—before they intervene. The hon. Gentleman is returning to the House and he should know the courtesies of the House well. He should not need to be reminded of them.
Zac Goldsmith
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is welcome to intervene on me whenever the appropriate time comes.
I want to give the House some specific information relating to the inquiry that we are talking about. I also have some questions and suggestions for the Home Secretary and for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is here in her place. First, we need to know that the Home Office has instructed all Ministries and Government agencies—including the security services, the NHS, police forces, local authorities and schools—not to destroy any documents that are even remotely connected to child sex abuse. I might be wrong, but I believe that if this were a statutory inquiry, that would already have been done. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that important point.
The Home Secretary has been firm about the security services needing to hand over evidence, but she has not explained how that has or will be done. This may not even be necessary, but it is worth considering empowering the inquiry to compel the security services to hand over information in the event that that becomes necessary. The selection of the inquiry chair has been discussed, but it is crucial. I accept that whoever the chair is they will be the chair of a panel and the panel as a whole will have a role to play. I would like to understand better exactly how the chair will be selected, how MPs are going to be consulted on that and how survivors are going to be consulted. I very much hope the panel will have a role in the chair’s selection.
There are fears, some of which have been expressed today, that the police lack adequate resources to carry out the necessary investigations, particularly now that this has moved into a murder inquiry. I know that the police inquiries have already moved up quite a few notches since this inquiry was announced, and I do not think that is a coincidence. I believe that police numbers on Operation Fernbridge and associated investigations have grown from seven to 40 in the past few months, which is very good news. I hope that trend continues and that the police are given all the resources they need to get to the bottom of this, once and for all.
Historically, however, the police have been part of the story, just as MPs, celebrities and everyone else has been, and it is imperative that people coming forward have absolute confidence that they will be heard and that leads will be correctly followed up. So, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), it must be made clear how the inquiry that will be looking at the processes—the cover-ups—will handle allegations and ensure that they are picked up properly by the appropriate police force.
Julian Smith
I have had experience in my constituency recently of working with a victim and the police were asking the victim I was trying to help for details of the conversations she had had with me. We still face a major issue with some elements in the police of interference and of a lack of understanding of the relationship between an MP and others, independent of the work that they are doing.
Zac Goldsmith
My hon. Friend makes the point well and puts it on the record.
Sir Paul Beresford
I want to intervene on the intervention, because I have been in the same situation as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and it was part of the police process of gathering evidence. I saw it in a positive way because the lady may not have told the police what she told me and I gave a full statement which added to what they already had. I saw it positively, not negatively.
Zac Goldsmith
I am going to bring my remarks to a close. We have a chance now to put these appalling wrongs right. That is partially thanks to intervention by people in this House and people outside it. Survivors have played a crucial role, but so, too, did the intervention in this House by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). That was crucial in shifting this process forward, as was the exposé of Cyril Smith by the hon. Member for Rochdale. Above all, I wish to pay tribute to the extraordinary work by the investigative journalists at Exaro, particularly David Hencke. That organisation has led the campaign on so many fronts. The mainstream press, who have been so slow to pick up on what is really happening in this scandal, have become heavily dependent, and rightly so, on Exaro. I sometimes feel that because it is online and does not have the magazine on people’s desks, it is somehow invisible to people who are not paying attention. But Exaro is crucial; David Hencke has encyclopaedic knowledge of something that I do not ever want to have encyclopaedic knowledge of, and he is an extraordinary figure.
There can no longer be any doubt that powerful people have done terrible things and that they have been protected by the establishment. We know that some of the key figures are alive today, and the measure of success for the police investigations is that those people face justice before they die. This process really needs to happen now. Justice must be done and it must be seen to be done. It is no good waiting years and years for some of these people to fade away and be punished in their absence—that is not good enough. The measure of success for this inquiry is that we and the wider public understand how these conspiracies and cover-ups have been able to happen. Only by understanding how they form will we have any hope of preventing them from forming again.
Sir Paul Beresford
My hon. Friend has touched on the key point. The key point we have to learn, which we have been learning, using and considering in the changes to legislation, is that we must be proactive. We have to get the individuals before they get the children.
Zac Goldsmith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Let me end by putting it on the record that I am grateful to the current Home Secretary for having had the courage to initiate this process. She is often described as having been bullied and hectored by a bunch of MPs, but, as someone who has done a lot of lobbying on the subject in the four and a half years that I have been here, I can say that it was not difficult to get her to act. She gets the importance of the issue. I do not doubt her absolute commitment and believe that she will leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of the matter.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on calling for and securing this debate. Progress has been made; we now have a panel to look at the wider issues relating to child sexual abuse. I am pleased that Ivor Frank, a barrister who has himself been in care, has been appointed to the panel. I did get Michael Mansfield to agree to chair the panel, but I have not yet managed to persuade the Home Secretary to appoint him.
It is worthwhile to look at the issues that the panel will be considering, some of which are not in the terms of reference, which should be widened to include Northern Ireland, the Crown dependencies and possibly the British overseas territories. My speech will range wider than that. I spoke on this subject on 13 November 2012; anyone interested should read column 246 of Hansard of that date. I will not repeat the speech, but I refer again to Mike Stein, who, in his excellent article in Child and Family Social Work in February 2006, explained how widespread the problem was, with a possible one in seven children in care being subject to abuse. Perhaps that bears repeating: one in seven children in care. I accept that care is not the only place in which child sexual abuse occurs, but we need to understand how large a number that is. Obviously, it explains why there are so many survivors who are upset about the cover-up.
When looking at the past, it is important that we learn lessons for the future. One lesson that we should really learn is how easy it is for things to be concealed by agents of the state. Hillsborough is relevant in that sense. It should be noted from the Rotherham report that it is only through media attention that anything happens. The checks and balances operating in the system might as well have been welded together for all the challenge that they provided. I remain concerned about the work of Verita, for example, which has been involved in previous cover-ups of errors by the state. I was shocked to see it at the centre of the Savile inquiries both in the UK and Jersey. The central control over the reports from hospitals enables any links to those people protecting him to be concealed.
Let me turn now to the word “independent”. Someone who is paid by someone else is not “independent” of the payor. We see that in the petition I presented for Shaz Hussain, which demonstrated how the local hospital can commission KPMG to write what suits the hospital management rather than the truth. The word “independent” is massively misused in the child protection system. The independent reviewing officer is just another employee of the local authority, and we can see how ineffectual that role is by looking at A and S (Children) v. Lancashire county council 2012 EWHC 1689 (Family).
England has many more problems than Scotland, although there are cases such as that of Mark and Kerry McDougall, who lived happily with their two children in Ireland, but were on the receiving end of vindictive proceedings that saw their children removed when they returned to Scotland. Sadly, they have had to return to Ireland as mum is pregnant, and we will see where that goes.
The state has many tools at its disposal. Local authorities get injunctions to stop people complaining to legislatures, which is an appalling situation. When it comes to child sexual exploitation, there have been problems with the attitudes of those responsible for caring for children even if they do not go as far as the one in seven reported by Mike Stein.
In Birmingham, practitioners in the past have argued that children should be permitted to prostitute themselves while not being allowed to make toast for each other. Attitudes are now shifting, but it remains the case that I have reported cases and felt that my reports were not taken seriously. Someone spoke to me this year about a paedophile network operating in Birmingham in the 1990s, which included at least one senior manager in the child protection arm of social services. I reported that to the police and the local authority. I spoke again to my contact this morning who confirmed that the council had said nothing and that the police had failed to give an update, although they did speak initially.
The council has produced a report called “We Need to Get it Right” in which it states that child sexual exploitation was a “hidden issue”. I raised that in Parliament in 2007 and had expressed concern previously to the local authority. Hence, the issue was not so much hidden as ignored. I have recently raised concerns on behalf of a constituent about activities around the canal going into the city centre, but neither my constituent nor I are satisfied with the response of the authorities, which seem to want to sweep the matter under the carpet—or into the canal.
Some of the public have wondered why, if we have parliamentary privilege, we are not naming names. Speaking personally, I am always concerned that there should be evidence. Lots of things are said on the internet, but we need to remember that not everything on the internet is true. Furthermore, we also need to avoid prejudicing any formal inquiries.
What is true is that very recently, in mid-2011, a journalist from the USA, Leah McGrath Goodman, was banned from the common travel area because she told authorities she was investigating child abuse in Jersey. That included Haut de la Garenne, one place where Savile was active; this happened before he died. She could have asked him who was protecting him, but she was banned by the UK Government. Not only that, but she was obstructed in Heathrow later when the ban was reduced to a year from two years and she finally got a visa. It seems clear that there are influential individuals still using the tools of the state to hold back investigations. What is important is that there will still be an audit trail of evidence and if something is missing it will be obvious.
Jersey is an important element of the debate. It is excluded from the terms of reference, but we know that children were sent there from London to be sexually abused. There are also reasonably widespread reports of abuse cruises involving children in Jersey being visited by people from the UK.
We know that with Kincora, which is outside the terms of reference, and with Cyril Smith, the security services were involved in covering up child abuse. Sir Peter Hayman’s role is obviously key in considering that question. Robert Armstrong should have known by the end of October 1978 about Sir Peter Hayman’s involvement in Paedophile Information Exchange because he had access to all the UK’s secrets and was potentially vulnerable to blackmail. The finding of a sealed letter addressed to him in his false name at his secret London flat—a very curious sequence of events—should have been raised with Merlyn Rees and then with James Callaghan. PIE’s membership is, of course, both a threat to and an opportunity for MI5.
What is interesting about the Wanless report is that the Home Office had a set of secret files on about 100 children’s homes that was passed to the Department of Health in 1972. Their purpose is not described and all the files were marked to be retained and not disclosed for 75 or 100 years. That set of files was not disclosed to Wanless, although Wanless does refer to a standard National Archive file called “Home Secretary’s Meetings” that ended in 1984. That file is missing from the National Archives and could not be found by National Archives staff. Furthermore, the security services refused to provide any information to Wanless and there are questions about what has happened with the special branch files.
There are signs of security service involvement in the treatment of Leah McGrath Goodman as well, and that is of course recent. Answers are needed and the events are sufficiently recent for the answers to be there for anyone who looks with their eyes open.
I have been approached by police officers who are concerned that the management within the Metropolitan police—the senior sergeants or whatever—instructed junior police officers to conceal evidence, and there are examples that can be identified. I put to the Home Secretary the suggestion that where there is a command structure and a senior officer instructs a junior officer to break the law, there should be an opportunity for some sort of amnesty for the junior officer if they then reveal that, so they do not end up being prosecuted for revealing how they were forced to commit offences.
I wrote to the Home Secretary in July asking whether that could be done and received a standard response about the inquiry about a week ago. I have written again to suggest action if we wanted to find out the truth of what has gone on in the Met. There is no doubt that there were people in the Met who were involved in the cover-up. I have had people report that to me; a lot of people are willing to speak up, but not if they end up going to jail as a consequence of admitting what they were forced to do. It is a complex issue, of course, because whenever we have amnesties we need to consider their limits, but if things continue to be concealed because people are frightened to tell the truth it will be very difficult to get to the truth. One of the critical points in all this is getting to the truth.
I recently asked a question to find out about reports written about British overseas territories such as St Helena. It appears that people have known for years what is going on in such places but that nothing has been done to make things work any better. I happen to know that a couple of employment tribunals, which I do not think are covered by the sub judice resolution, started today in Kingsway and will be reported in the media tomorrow. They are relevant and if people are interested they should follow the proceedings.
Let me mention again the failure of the Government to modify the SSDA903 return in order to track when children are lost or trafficked out of the care system. It does not appear that the Government are bothered about this given that they refused to even count them. I continue to go on about this. I know that I am a bit of a techie who is really interested in computer systems and things like that, but if children are disappearing from the care system and we do not bother to count them, what does that say? The response from the Minister was:
“The Department has no plans to expand the codes under which local authorities provide statistical returns on children missing from care, as this will lead to an unnecessary increase in reporting requirements.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 641W.]
Frankly, that is unacceptable. We should be concerned if children are being trafficked. We should be sufficiently concerned as an absolute minimum to count how many are trafficked and find out which authorities they are lost from and what their ages are. We are lucky in that we have a reasonably good database that tracks what happens to children in care. Every year, a large number disappear for other reasons—not that they have gone back to their parents, or have been adopted. They just disappear from the system. I do not think that that is reasonable. We are happy to send in auditors if we are worried that money has disappeared. We send in local government auditors to check about local government finance. We audit the finances to make sure that money has not been stolen. We do not audit what happens to children to make sure that they have not been stolen. That is a failure of this Government, of whom I happen to be a quasi supporter as a Back Bencher.
The history here is all about abuse of power by employees of the state. The fact that it involves the maltreatment of children for sexual gratification makes this all the worse. For the future, we need to make it harder for state employees to conceal abuses of power. More transparency and accountability are needed, as well as less secrecy. Parliament, which is the voice of the people, has to stand on the side of the powerless. Whitehall mandarins, judges, BBC managers, council bureaucrats and professionals all have their own interests and a desire to hide mistakes. Parliament needs to balance the scales on the side of the weak—those without wealth who are crying out and not being heard.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate, which is on the progress of the historical child abuse inquiry. I pay tribute to him for his doughty campaigning on child abuse since entering the House of Commons, and for telling the real story about Cyril Smith.
It is right to acknowledge that in his opening speech my hon. Friend set the tone for what has been a good and important debate. He started his speech by describing the experience of survivors. He talked about William and about John and the life chances that had been limited by the people who abused them. I want to use my speech this afternoon to focus on survivors in relation to the inquiry.
We have heard powerful speeches from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who brings a wealth of experience as a former children’s Minister, and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has introduced many changes to the law to protect children over the years. He is another doughty fighter on behalf of children and young people. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke eloquently about what he knew had happened in his constituency and the Elm guest house allegations. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has spoken on many occasions about these issues.
What is powerful about all the speeches is that they were informed in the main by the stories of survivors of abuse. The House owes a huge debt to the survivors, who have shown enormous courage in coming forward, in the hope that their experience can prevent what happened to them from happening again, and that justice can, wherever possible, be done. This debate and the wider inquiry that we are discussing have to have at their heart the survivors’ voices. I want to thank all those people who have taken the time to speak to me and tell me what they want to see out of this child abuse inquiry, including Peter Saunders of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood and Andrew Kershaw of the Survivors of Forde Park, both of whom have done so much to give a voice to those abused as children.
Having listened to the debate today, the Minister can be in no doubt about the commitment of hon. Members to the success of this child abuse inquiry and to ensuring that it has the confidence of survivors. Hon. Members appreciate the scale of the task facing the inquiry panel and the need for the panel to carry out the inquiry in a timely manner, as we know that many perpetrators are growing older and must be brought to justice wherever possible.
Along with the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), many Members have been calling for the overarching inquiry for about two years, so when the Home Secretary announced that she would set it up, that was welcomed across the House. As we know, however, she appointed a chair without proper vetting or consultation. After that sorry saga, we ended up, unbelievably, in the same position with a second chair. We know that the Home Secretary apologised for that and is trying to make sure that from now on there is proper consultation and vetting of the prospective chair. I listened to what the permanent secretary at the Home Office told this place this week, when he said that the child abuse inquiry would be one of the top three issues for the Home Office. That is encouraging to hear.
In relation to the chair, perhaps the Minister will be able to help the House. I understand that about 100 nominations have been made. With due diligence checks and the pre-appointment consultation and hearings that have been scheduled, a chair is unlikely to be in place before the spring of 2015. Will the Minister comment on that timetable?
Although I have just mentioned how important it is to make sure that a chair is appointed as soon as possible, that is not nearly as important as making sure that the survivors of abuse have a voice in the inquiry and that they are involved in discussions about how the inquiry is to proceed. That has not happened enough, which is a problem. It was a fundamental mistake not to consult survivors about the panel members. Although I accept that all the panel members have a great deal to commend them, survivors tell me that they would like to have been consulted. I noted that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that MPs were asked for their opinion and for any suggestions. That is welcome, but the Government missed a trick by not making sure that survivors were also consulted about panel members. As all hon. Members will recognise, if the inquiry is to succeed, survivors must have confidence in the panel to which they will give evidence.
A number of hon. Members referred to the terms of reference. Again, I note that there was no consultation with survivors about the terms of reference for the inquiry. One issue that I would like to take up with the Minister is the cut-off date of 1970. The Home Secretary has said that if that cut-off date is a problem, she will listen to any representations in favour of taking it back further that the chair considers appropriate, but I wonder why the date of 1970 was chosen. I was told just this week that approved schools where a number of children and young people were abused closed in 1969, so they would not come within the scope of the terms of reference. The survivors feel that their experience would not automatically be considered by the panel. Will the Minister explain to the House why 1970 was the date chosen? I have heard suggestions from survivors that the terms of reference should set a cut-off date just after the second world war, which would allow any person still living who has suffered abuse to come forward and feel that their experiences could be part of the inquiry.
Most importantly, I want to talk about how survivors’ voices should be heard in the inquiry. The hon. Member for Mole Valley referred to the experience in Northern Ireland. Its historical institutional abuse inquiry commenced, as he said, with an acknowledgement forum, for the purposes of listening to those who were abused as children in those institutions. That process has taken many months and allowed anyone who has been abused in institutions to come forward and be heard. The acknowledgment forum spoke to more than 500 people. That was not the end of its process of listening to survivors, but the start, informing the next stage of the inquiry, but still hearing from survivors directly.
Australia’s child abuse inquiry has been very good about moving around the country. It reached out to survivors, and the response has been overwhelming. It has taken 17,500 telephone calls, received more than 7,800 letters and e-mails and held over 2,500 private sessions. The English and Welsh inquiry, however, seems to have had two sessions in London and plans two more outside London. They appear to be open meetings. I am very unclear about what it is proposed should happen at those events. It feels to me that they are insufficient, and it is very unclear how they will support survivors who come forward. In Australia and Northern Ireland, people were asked to contact the inquiry, and the inquiry team then worked with individuals to enable them to give evidence in the most appropriate way. They were signposted to support and advice.
I do not think there is any point in proceeding with this inquiry until a process for involving and supporting survivors is established. Existing services, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, are stretched to breaking point, including NAPAC, which faces losing its offices early next year, at a time of unprecedented demand for its support.
Julian Smith
On the remarks that the hon. Lady has just made about the inquiry, which I am really pleased has started its work—the panel members got started on 12 November—are she and the Labour party recommending that that work should now be paused? Will she clarify her remarks?
Diana Johnson
The problem is that there seems to be a lack of clarity—probably because there is no chair in place—as to how the inquiry is going forward and what the purposes of the regional meetings are. I have asked a number of people to explain to me how those meetings will be conducted. If survivors are to come forward and give evidence at those meetings—I do not know whether that is their purpose—there is a concern about the lack of clarity and the lack of an agreed process as to how that is to be handled. That is why I wanted to refer to the Northern Ireland example, as it is very clear what it was going to do in that first period: hear from survivors so that it could get to grips with the extent of the problem through the evidence before it, which would then determine how the rest of the inquiry would proceed. My purpose in referring to that inquiry was to highlight the need for clarity on how proceedings should go on.
On the point about the support available to survivors, I think that we need a very clear process—this fits in with what the hon. Gentleman has just asked—for the inquiry, whereby survivors are fully involved and supported and it has their confidence. I think that we are all looking to ensure that survivors are in that position as the inquiry moves forward.
Julian Smith
The hon. Lady has still not directly answered my question about the Labour party’s view, given what she has said. Does she agree that it is very problematic to ask Ministers to micro-manage this inquiry? There are some very senior people on the panel, and they must now be able to get on with their work. Has she spoken directly to the panel members about their plans for the next few months?
Diana Johnson
I am not trying to imply that the Minister or the Home Secretary should micro-manage. I am merely highlighting where the inquiry is not operating in a clear way, such that survivors are saying that they are not sure what the process is or what the purpose of the regional meetings is. I think the problem stems from the fact that no chair is in place directing the inquiry. As I said, the chair may not be appointed for many months. That causes me some concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us on what the Home Office and Ministers may be able to do to support the panel in making the process a bit clearer so that survivors really understand what is happening during this period.
We must make sure that survivors who come forward with their evidence are fully supported afterwards. I worry that the Home Secretary has talked about the NHS being part of providing that support, given that the NHS is under such stress, particularly in terms of counselling services, where there are often long waiting lists. What additional support will be available to survivors, and particularly to third sector groups?
This inquiry must aim to investigate historical child abuse, to try to bring justice to those who have seen justice denied for too long, and to inform current practice in the field of child protection to stop children being abused in future. While it is important to investigate historical allegations, we must never forget that children are still being abused today, as a number of hon. Members said.
I want to make a suggestion to the Minister about the way forward. While the main inquiry establishes a forum for hearing from survivors, in the first instance, the other inquiries that have been set up—such as the north Wales care homes inquiry, the BBC inquiry, and the ongoing NHS inquiries—would have time to conclude and to put forward their recommendations for a response. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) mentioned the potential confusion about how those other inquiries will fit with the overarching inquiry, and that is part of the overall problem of how this is going to work. The main inquiry could then commence in the position of having heard from survivors of abuse and seen the recommendations of the other inquiries and what they have come up with.
On the legal status of the inquiry, there is a particular issue relating to documents. Lawyers have told me that because the inquiry has not been put on a statutory footing, organisations could destroy documents with no legal consequences, whereas if it were to be put on a statutory footing, there would be criminal consequences for that type of behaviour. The Home Secretary has said that the chair can decide whether to make the inquiry statutory, so that suggests that her mind is open to it. However, as we know, the chair is unlikely to be appointed for many months, and lawyers are saying that in the meantime documents could be destroyed. The hon. Member for Richmond Park also raised this point. Will the Minister comment on it?
We need to hear from the Minister how she is going to make this inquiry work with the confidence of survivors, and how she will give survivors the voice that they deserve and that the inquiry has to hear. She needs to give us an overview of how she sees survivors being consulted and to explain how they will be listened to in the inquiry. I hope that she will also address the broader question of how the inquiry will build on the other inquiries already set up and work to inform best practice. The survivors need to know that this Government and this Parliament want the inquiry to succeed. We want to give survivors whatever redress is possible and to learn lessons so that these terrible situations do not arise in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this important debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving him the time to address and air the incredibly important issues involved? I welcome the chance to debate them again.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), whose experience as a former children’s Minister makes him an expert in this field. I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who also has great experience, that I listened to his speech extraordinarily carefully. I have always appreciated his regular suggestions to me on many topics, particularly those under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) also has great knowledge of the issue as a result of his constituency experience, and he has been instrumental in making sure that it is taken seriously and given the prominence it deserves in Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for his contribution, which shed considerable light on the path we have taken to get to this point.
I want to start by being clear on the title of the inquiry under discussion. It is the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse. It is not, as the title of this debate on the Order Paper says, an inquiry into “historic” child sex abuse. I say that because survivors have been clear with us that, for them, the abuse they have suffered is not historic—it is not done, it is not finished and it is not in the past. It is something the consequences of which they have to deal with every single day of their lives. The hon. Member for Rochdale opened his speech by mentioning William and John—I know those are not their real names—which really brought home how live this issue is for victims. We should treat it not as historic but as a real, current problem.
As the Home Secretary set out when she spoke to the House on 3 November, the work of the inquiry is hugely important, providing us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expose what went wrong in the past and prevent it from going wrong in the future. I want to focus on how we go about finding out the truth about these crimes.
I repeat that it is a live issue. If hon. Members had the opportunity to check their phones or smart devices during the course of the debate, they will have seen the report about the conviction yesterday of a Bristol sex gang jailed for grooming girls:
“Thirteen men have been convicted of a string of child sex crimes in Bristol involving the abuse, rape and prostitution of teenage girls.”
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about the awareness we have today and how this crime is now treated differently. We should all be very proud of that. We should also be very pleased that the police are taking such matters seriously and getting successful convictions.
We need, however, to understand what happened in the past. It is important to consider the inquiry’s terms of reference, which are:
“To consider the extent to which State and non-State institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; to consider the extent to which those failings have since been addressed; to identify further action needed to address any failings identified; and to publish a report with recommendations.”
That is important because, when a specific crime is uncovered as a result of this work, it must be investigated by the police, law enforcement bodies and the relevant bodies in whichever territorial area the crime took place. The inquiry is looking at the way in which state and non-state institutions have approached child abuse in the past. We need to make sure that we get to the bottom of that, but that does not preclude us from looking at the crimes themselves and ensuring that, wherever those crimes took place, they are properly investigated.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
For the record, am I right in thinking that the commission of inquiry will, if necessary, investigate outside UK jurisdiction—the Channel Islands, for instance—reports of abuses in children’s homes there?
Karen Bradley
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come on to territorial extent shortly.
On the chairing of the inquiry, the House will be aware that the first two chairs resigned. It is important to say that they resigned not because they did not have the right credentials, but because they did not command the confidence of survivors. As the Home Secretary made clear, the priority now is to find someone who is suitably qualified and who can also win that confidence.
The Home Secretary and the whole of the Home Office are committed to working with survivors and their representatives in the process of recruiting a new chair. I can update the House today by saying that the Home Secretary has had a number of meetings with survivors of abuse and their representatives. She has not yet finished that process so I am not in a position to provide an update on the outcome of those discussions, as I am sure all hon. Members will understand. However, I can say that survivors have made it clear that they want the inquiry, that they want the right chair to be in place and that they want to continue working with both the Government and the independent panel. I absolutely agree that all that must happen.
The discussions with survivors and their representatives are helping to form the process for appointing a new chair. The Home Secretary will also speak to the panel and parliamentarians as the process develops. We are clear on what survivors require. I can confirm that whoever the Home Secretary chooses as the new chair will be subject to a pre-confirmation hearing in front of the Home Affairs Committee.
In the meantime, nominations for the chair continue to come in to the Home Office. As has been noted, there are already more than 100 nominees on the list. We are confident that among the nominees we can find a suitable chair, someone who will command the overall confidence of survivors and be able to lead the complex and sensitive work of the inquiry.
What is the panel doing? As the Home Secretary set out in her statement to the House on 3 November, the panel will continue to go about its vital work. It is meeting weekly in the run-up to Christmas. Panel members have already attended two listening meetings with victims and survivors. Two further regional meetings will be held before Christmas, and four regional meetings will be held in the new year. The meetings will provide an early opportunity for survivors to give their views, and they will help to inform the panel on how to go about its work.
Diana Johnson
I thank the Minister for that very useful information, but I am a little concerned. Are survivors not therefore expected to give evidence to the panel? Obviously, there is no chair and the support—I hope the Minister will come on to that shortly—is not in place at the moment. Will she say a little more about the listening events?
Karen Bradley
The Home Secretary and I are obviously not instructing the panel on how to go about this exercise. The important point is that this is an early opportunity to make sure that victims and survivors can help to frame how the panel approaches the inquiry.
On the hon. Lady’s point about Government support, victims must be able to come forward to report abuse to the police and to get the support they need. If child abuse takes place, it must be thoroughly and properly investigated, and those responsible must be arrested and brought to justice. As part of a series of meetings that the Home Secretary is chairing in response to Rotherham, the Government are looking at how best to provide urgent support to victims. We are very aware that we need to make sure that there is proper and appropriate support for victims, so that they can have the confidence to come forward and we can support them when they do.
The panel is considering as a priority the best ways in which to engage with victims and survivors, and how to ensure that the right package of support is available to those who take part in the inquiry. Those giving evidence will share and relive some of the most appalling experiences anyone can live through. The panel will endeavour to make the process of giving evidence the most supportive and least traumatic for survivors that it is possible to make it.
Both the secretariat to the inquiry and officials in the Home Office are already in discussion with officials in the Department of Health, and they will work with charitable organisations, all of which have a vital part to play in making sure that the right support and counselling is available. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park asked about whether we are working with other Departments. It is important to say that the permanent secretary has written to all Departments to tell them that they must fully support the inquiry. That information has gone out to all Departments to make sure that they are aware of the inquiry.
The panel is working on the approach it will take and the methodology it will use in the collection and analysis of information and evidence. These fundamentals for the inquiry will be the way in which it ensures that the terms of reference are met, that survivors and victims of sexual abuse are given a voice, and that that voice is heard and makes a difference for future generations. The panel is also seeking to learn lessons from the Australian royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse about what worked well and what did not.
The Home Secretary will be happy to discuss the terms of reference for the inquiry, including its territorial extent, and the composition of the panel with the new chair, when they are appointed. It is important that the inquiry be able to work fully with the devolved Administrations, including with the Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey, to ensure that no information and no institution or individual with a case to answer falls through the cracks.
Ian Lucas
I wonder whether the Minister can deal with a point that I am puzzled by. I put down a parliamentary question about the Macur review and it was transferred to the Ministry of Justice for an answer. She is detailing the extent to which the Home Office will be involved in the inquiry. Will she confirm that the Home Office will be leading on this matter, because when I asked a question on the Macur review, I received an answer from the Ministry of Justice? I am confused.
Karen Bradley
Without knowing the specifics of the question, I cannot explain why it was given to the Ministry of Justice. That particular question was clearly within the portfolio of the Ministry of Justice. The Home Office is leading on this inquiry.
The shadow Minister asked about the dates that the inquiry will cover. It is true that the inquiry will consider cases from 1970 to the present. However, the panel might be presented with evidence that leads it to conclude that the time frame should be extended. The important point is that the Home Secretary is open to listening to the panel and its chair, when they are appointed, to ensure that we are covering the right period and looking at all possible avenues. The panel will provide an update on its progress to the Home Secretary before May, which she will share with the House.
The priority, of course, is to find a suitable chair to lead the hugely important work of the inquiry. As I have set out, that process is under way. I cannot give the House the date by which a new chair will be appointed, but I can say that it is a priority for the Home Secretary and the Government. We will appoint a new chair as soon as possible, but we must take the time to get it right. We must ensure that survivors have had their say and have been heard, and that parliamentarians and other interested parties have been appropriately engaged in the process so that we can all be confident that we have the right person in place to lead this once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver justice for those who have suffered and to save other vulnerable young children from the appalling abuse that so many have endured. That is the least we can do.
Simon Danczuk
I thank the Minister for her contribution. Some of the problems that we are encountering are to do with the delay in appointing the chair, which falls fairly and squarely at the door of the Home Office. Many of the questions that hon. Members have posed about the geography and the terms of reference cannot be answered because there is no chair in place. It is therefore important that progress be made on that.
The shadow Minister made some good points and has clearly been listening to survivors of child sexual abuse. She made some constructive criticisms in discussing how we should move forward.
To finish off, I will trot through some of the contributions that have been made and highlight some important points. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) rightly mentioned Jersey. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said how important it was to prevent documents from being destroyed. He also spoke about the role of the intelligence services and asked whether they will co-operate fully. It has been alleged that D notices relating to Elm guest house have been destroyed. That matter is important.
I was very interested to hear from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I was not familiar with the work he had carried out in years gone by. He was right to say that this abuse was going on well before 1970. He was also right that it is not just about high-profile cases. On the contrary, much abuse is not high profile at all.
Finally, I come to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The question of whether the inquiry should be on a statutory footing is critical. He also spoke about help and support for survivors. He finished on an optimistic point, which we must all concentrate on, about the progress we are making not only in this place, but in getting the inquiry to move forward.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered progress of the historic child sex abuse inquiry.
West Anglia Main Line
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Some people may think that this could be called groundhog day because I spoke in the House on this subject on 19 January 2011, and again on 11 December 2013. Apart from the passage of time not a lot has changed, except perhaps the Minister designated to reply to the debate. I could almost repeat those speeches word for word, but I might provoke an intervention from you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were I to attempt such a thing.
I acknowledge all that has been said in this Chamber and Westminster Hall by colleagues who represent the length of the West Anglia line, including the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), the hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr Love) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) who hopes to catch your eye in short while, Mr Deputy Speaker. Despite everything that has been argued, nothing fundamental has been done to improve the experience of passengers on the West Anglia line.
My concern has increased over time because the necessary remedies—which everyone acknowledges—seem to be receding into the future, and the talk is of an insufficient business case. It is no comfort to be told by Network Rail that reliability on the West Anglia line is better than on the Great Eastern line that forms part of the Abellio Greater Anglia franchise. I have constituents who rely on the Great Eastern line, and I am at one with my colleagues across East Anglia who demand action there as well, although I will not stray from the strict focus of this debate.
The 1985 decision to designate Stansted as London’s third airport should have been the trigger for investment in the West Anglia rail line. There could have been no clearer example of the meaning of the oft-used term, “integrated transport”, yet subsequent Governments have pursued policies that generate extra demand at virtually every point along the route. The airport—now under the stewardship of the Manchester Airports Group—claims that 10,000 extra jobs will be created over the next 15 years. Well, they will not be filled by people from my constituency where unemployment, I am happy to say, is below 1%. Where will all those new employees, whether at the airport or in many other burgeoning businesses in the constituency, come from, and how will they get there? I cannot imagine that we want more and more vehicles clogging the M11, and that is before one counts the rising number of airline passengers. Is no one paying attention to the projections of the Manchester Airports Group, which are more bullish than those of the Davies commission?
There is seldom any reference to freight. Stansted airport has quite a big freight centre. FedEx is perhaps the leading company, but there are also DHL, UPS, TNT and others. More and more vehicles will be coming from the centre of London along the M11. When talking of a business case, I would have thought it possible to introduce the concept of the movement of freight if more train paths can be found, but the limitation of the West Anglia line is that it has only two tracks for virtually all its length.
So far as the infrastructure is concerned, there is now the prospect of the construction of a third rail from Coppermill junction to as far as Angel Road, principally to facilitate traffic from Angel Road through to Stratford. Stratford will become a much more important terminal in the London area as the years go by, with its connection to Crossrail and continental rail traffic. I am afraid that the third rail will add very little network capacity for longer distance destination services north of Angel Road.
Another thing that could help, and which Network Rail is talking about, is the elimination of some crossings. The crossings that could help the most and that are affordable may still not add a great deal of extra leeway in terms of train acceleration to speed up journeys. That is the best that can be hoped for, but a year cannot be put on when it might be done. So that is it: the third rail and the elimination of some crossings—that is all we recognise that is on offer and on the table. For the rest, we are seemingly being told that we should be looking to control period 7, to use the jargon of Network Rail, and beyond. If fares were on hold over an equivalent indefinite period, the pain of travel might be somewhat eased. However, if my right hon. Friend were to announce that this afternoon, I think I would keel over in shock. The rolling stock, on which my constituents are obliged to travel, is of mixed vintage, so when I refer to the pain of travel there is an extra point to it.
It is clear that Network Rail is not on the cusp of recommending action in control period 6 for the four-tracking of the line as far as Broxbourne, which everyone, including Network Rail itself, knows is necessary. Network Rail says that with longer trains and longer platforms it can “cope” with extra demand. That’s comforting, isn’t it? Just like, for example, it is coping so well with the basic fragility of the infrastructure, and just like it coped so well with overcoming a signalling fault outside Liverpool Street station this morning, which held up many trains by 20 minutes.
I am really not expecting the case for four-tracking to be accepted through a cast-iron guarantee this afternoon, however good and generous we know my right hon. Friend to be, but we can ease the pain of travel if passengers have a better train experience. The complications over franchising, with the need to have another stop-gap franchise before a long franchise is let, have made it difficult for the train operator, Abellio Greater Anglia, to commit to new rolling stock. Only yesterday, it announced a whole series of measures to help the passenger experience across its whole network. The one item directed towards the West Anglia line is what it is pleased to call a “refresh” for 24 class 317 type 6 trains, which are known in the trade as 317/6s. What does the word “refresh” conjure up? I felt it was a bit like the ugly sisters glamming up for the ball: these are very old and very ugly trains. There is talk that about 24 trains may be refreshed, but what about the 317/5s, 317/7s and 317/8s, which add up to another 27 sets of trains that are part of the staple stock running on the West Anglia line? However, no action has been promised.
I would appreciate it if my right hon. Friend reaffirmed the promise given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), on 11 December 2013, when he was Under-Secretary of State, that the 10 type 379 units—the only modern ones we have—would stay on Cambridge services. Passengers understand the difference between standard class and first class, but with the rich variety of trains on the West Anglia line, there are 10 classes, which is not reflected in the fare structure. Standard class on a type 379 is a very different experience from standard class on a 316/5—and probably a 317/6 even when it has been refreshed.
I do not include the inner-suburban stock, the type 315s, because they are going to be replaced. The Mayor and Transport for London have been granted the franchise to take suburban routes from Liverpool Street station into the Overground, and for that there will be 30 brand-new train sets. So inner-London services—I do not begrudge them—are getting decent trains, whereas the people who pay more and travel further and too often longer are not being offered new trains.
If Network Rail is to “cope”—its highest ambition—with the extra demand by adding coaches to trains, where will they come from? I beg my right hon. Friend not to mention cascading type 319 trains from Thameslink, which are also quite old. The new Thameslink franchise is being fitted out with new trains, but not before 2018, so if the only new trains are the type 319s, we will be getting 30-year-old trains, and they probably only offer one class—and it is not first class. Crossrail is also getting new trains, so the only people not guaranteed new trains are the passengers to Harlow, Bishop’s Stortford, Audley End, Whittlesford Parkway, Shelford, Cambridge and all the stations in my constituency; we will be the Cinderella line. For the reasons I have adduced, we absolutely deserve new trains and no longer hand-me-downs.
What needs to be done has been staring us in the face since 1985 when that airport decision was made. However, waiting for this to be nailed down by a business case has allowed nearly 30 years and eight Governments to pass without anything meaningful being done. The Government need to acknowledge this depressing situation—if Ministers are uncertain, they should travel on the line—and then give some direction, not more interminable studies that we are tired of responding to without getting anywhere.
Inevitably and understandably, there will be a wait before extra track capacity can be put in place, but while we wait, let us at least have the palliative of decent trains. The way to do that is by having a high-quality specification for the long franchise being let in 2016 for the Greater Anglia services demanding new trains, not something at the lowest end of the scale.
That is the situation. This is the third impassioned plea I have made in a speech for the benefit of my constituents and the many other people travelling to and from the airport. The airport deserves a good service—I do not begrudge that—but those who are paying most often at the highest prices need the best of services. That is what I am looking for—some promise and some indication that that is recognised and will happen in the relatively near future.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) not only on securing this debate, but on bringing his typically forensic expertise, about which close watchers of this House will know, to a subject that is dear to the heart of his constituents and mine. Indeed, we have worked together to champion this cause because it directly affects the daily lives of thousands of our constituents.
I recently surveyed my own constituents on this issue, looking for the specific bugbears they have. It was a long list and I will not bore you with it, Mr Deputy Speaker. The overwhelming view of people in East Hertfordshire and in north-west Essex, as we have heard, is very clear: they regard this service as being very expensive, hugely overcrowded and, I am sorry to say, all too often unreliable. Those are sentiments with which I strongly associate myself.
The Minister needs to know that we are not alone in this. Members representing areas along the line from Cambridge through Essex and Hertfordshire into London are now joining us to press for this investment—an investment, as we have heard, that is long overdue. It is a cause that is gaining momentum. In the last few months, we have seen an increasing number of major employers and now a majority of local authorities, together with local enterprise partnerships, saying, “We need this investment in the rolling stock and in the four-tracking.”
The occasion of this debate follows the publication of what I would regard as an incomplete and, frankly, inadequate draft route study recently published by Network Rail. I am sorry to say that the study fails to address the fundamental problems on the line. Indeed, it seems completely detached from the realities of the overcrowding already in evidence for most of our constituents. To be fair, the draft route study has a few suggestions about some helpful incremental improvements, but it does nothing to address the lack of capacity and, in particular, the tracking into Liverpool Street.
Just as importantly, and perhaps of equal concern to the Department, is the fact that this study by Network Rail ignores the recommendations of the Airports Commission for the four-tracking of the line to improve the links to Stansted airport. Given that Stansted is designated by the Department—and, indeed, by the Government—as London’s third airport, this oversight seems completely unacceptable. Just as bad for my constituents is the admission of the authors of the study that it
“does not fully reflect potential housing growth projections in the Upper Lea Valley and the wider impacts on economic growth”.
Some people estimate that the population along this corridor from London to Cambridge will rise by approximately 1 million people in the coming years. For Network Rail not to factor in that scale of development and population growth makes this draft study a joke, frankly. So what needs to be done?
I urge the Minister to commission a full feasibility study to push Network Rail into doing what it should have done so that we can see a whole range of investment options for the line, including four-tracking. Some 13 options were offered for the great eastern line, while we were offered a paltry three. As my right hon. Friend described, most were short term and none addressed the principal challenge. Only a full study setting out all the options would provide the evidence base essential to good ministerial decision-making.
Locally, of course, we believe that new rolling stock and four-tracking are essential. We know that they would ensure a service that is fit for purpose now and for the future, while enabling the sort of job creation and rates of economic growth that the Government rightly seek. Conversely, without a proper study, Ministers would become vulnerable, as any decision that they made on future investment would not be based on clear—
Mr Prisk
As I was saying, I fear that Ministers would become vulnerable if their decisions were not based on clear and complete evidence. Were that the case, those decisions would be open to challenge—politically, of course, but, who knows, perhaps legally as well.
If sustainable development policies are to be meaningful and robust, more homes and businesses must surely come with the additional infrastructure. I suggest that it is in the interests of not just our constituents—who must, of course, come first—but of the Government to ensure that Ministers have the facts on which to make the right decision, whether it be in the franchise letting next year or in control period 6 for infrastructure investment. I know that the Minister likes to have sound evidence on which to act. His Secretary of State certainly does, and he has already made clear to my right hon. Friend in the House that the West Anglia route will not be forgotten.
I ask the Minister to acknowledge the inadequacies of the draft route study and to press for a full feasibility study, so that the evidence can be seen in the round and the right decisions can be made.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
C.S. Lewis, the House will remember, was “Surprised by Joy”: surprised by the joy of the love of God, and surprised by the mortal love of the woman who subsequently became his wife. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) will be surprised by the joy of my response tonight—perhaps as surprised as I am to be rail Minister for the day.
Taking full advantage of this space and this opportunity, perhaps we can make more progress than my right hon. Friend has made so far—despite, I must add, his consistent advocacy of the interests of his constituents. He mentioned that he had raised this matter many times. That is well known to the House, but what he did not mention, because his humility prevented him from so doing, was that he has always raised it both with immense courtesy and with absolute determination. In my experience, that combination is what enables us to get things done here. Let us hope that I can demonstrate that to my right hon. Friend in my response.
I also welcomed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), with whom I served as a Minister. I know that he too is a doughty champion of his constituents’ interests, as well as being an accomplished Member of the House.
Let me say at the outset that I have a script prepared by the civil servants, to which I will refer but by which I will not be constrained. It is not good enough not to reply to these debates properly, and replying to them properly means responding to the points made by the contributors.
My right hon. Friend spoke about a Cinderella service. Tonight, I want Cinderella to go to the ball. He also spoke about the pain of travel, which I found quite poignant. Is it not sad that we have to talk about the pain of travel? Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend is right. Travel is all too often seen in those terms—not by Members, but by the people who must endure congested roads, overcrowded trains, and an inadequate transport infrastructure. The Government are determined to do better precisely because of our understanding of that. The record levels of investment in our railway and road networks show that we understand how much travel means, to economic growth—that point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford—but also to our individual and collective well-being. People travel for a range of purposes: they travel to work and to school, but also recreationally. Travel should be a joy, not a pain.
Let me turn to some of the particular things that have been raised. To begin, it may be helpful to explain, for the benefit of the whole House, that the West Anglia main line is the route between London Liverpool Street, Stansted airport and Cambridge. At present, it is mainly a two-track railway serving commuters from Cambridgeshire, Essex and north-east London. The Stansted Express links central London with one of the UK’s major airports using the West Anglia main line structure.
That significant range of demands means that there is a high and constant demand for rail services on a line with, as has been said, limited capacity. There are no signs that that demand is likely to decrease. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, the economic growth that we seek as part of the Government’s long-term plan to deliver prosperity to the whole nation, and the immense range of economic, social and cultural activities in that part of our great nation, suggest that, if anything, demand is likely to increase. So, this debate is apposite.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden is aware, many of the services operating on the West Anglia main line use new, “class 379” rolling stock. As he said, they are more modern, comfortable units, offering air conditioning, on-board passenger information systems, ample space for luggage and provision for wheelchair users. Those trains are principally used on the Cambridge and Stansted Express services, meaning his constituents are particular beneficiaries. However, as he said, not all of them, all of the time, are able to take advantage of those better services. It is important, therefore, that we look at what we can do to improve the other trains on the line.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the “refresh” programme. Untypically for him, that was parodied rather. I thought there was a touch of irony in his use of the term, but I am determined that it should be a real refurbishment. I have made it clear in my Department this afternoon that I want our trains to look and feel good so that the quality of the journey improves and the pain that he described becomes the joy that I seek.
I do not see any reason why trains should not look good, why the livery of trains should not be right, or why the circumstances in which people travel should not be edifying and enjoyable. That programme, which includes the replacement of seat covers and the improvement of train interiors, needs to be meaningful and comprehensive. In my role as rail Minister for the day, I have done all I can to ensure that that occurs. It is not enough to have a cursory makeover; a proper refurbishment needs to take place.
The improvements that we make to rolling stock are tied to the acquisition of new stock. My right hon. Friend made it clear that he fears—I understand why he said this—that the new rolling stock may not necessarily be of the right order, so I make clear my view that it is important that it is. We cannot prejudge exactly where that stock will come from, but we certainly do not want what we have to be made worse. To put that another way, we cannot miss the opportunity to make what we have better. I certainly want the acquisition of the new rolling stock to be of the right order so that the quality of service that people enjoy is enhanced.
Sir Alan Haselhurst
When I talk of new rolling stock, I expect it to come from the manufacturers, not from somewhere it has been operating for a number of years. I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend is saying, but I understand that retention tanks cannot be fitted under the on-board lavatories of the class 317 stock, and there are 51 units. Those trains may stay in service longer, with brighter paintwork and better seat covers, but there is that horrible disadvantage, which is manifested quite disgustingly at Liverpool Street station.
Mr Hayes
That is a powerful and vivid illustration of how railway journeys can be less than edifying and less than enjoyable. I shall certainly ask my officials to give that consideration and see what can be done, although I hear what my right hon. Friend says about some of the constraints on the ability to make the necessary improvements. I am generally of the view—I am well off-script here—that if we want to do things, we can do them, and I think we might have to go the extra mile in these terms. I am more than happy to tell my right hon. Friend that following this debate, I shall ask my officials to see what that extra mile would look like to satisfy his requirements
In addition to the established demand along the line that I have spoken of, additional demand is growing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, in the lower Lea valley of north-east London. For that reason, the Government’s rail investment strategy has provided approximately £80 million to deliver three and four-tracking at the southern end of the route. This investment will facilitate the introduction of new services, as well as improve operational reliability. It will support regeneration in the lower Lea valley, including the major development at Meridian Water near Angel Road. Led by Network Rail, this upgrade will be delivered by 2019 and will be compatible with any subsequent enhancements of the capacity of the route, an important matter to which I shall return shortly.
As my right hon. Friend is aware, demand is also growing on the northern end of the West Anglia main line. In particular, Cambridge is a regional economic powerhouse, making a significant and increasing contribution to the local and national economy. For this reason, Cambridge station itself is in the process of a significant redevelopment, including having a new ticket hall and additional cycle parking facilities.
My Department is also working with Network Rail and Cambridgeshire county council to develop plans for a new station to the north of Cambridge, at Chesterton. As well as providing direct access to the rapidly expanding science park, this station would relieve some of the rail congestion at Cambridge, with operational and performance benefits right along the West Anglia main line.
Within my right hon. Friend’s constituency, I am aware that passengers travelling to and from Audley End station also now benefit from full step-free access between platforms, following the installation of lifts. In addition, there is excellent rolling stock now operating on the route, which we will add to further, and I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that the Government and the rail industry are making good progress in improving the experience of his constituents at least in that regard, although I hear that he rightly argues on their behalf that we can do more.
I have already highlighted the key limitation of the West Anglia main line—that it is a very busy, principally two-track, railway. I very much hope that the Government’s commitment to three and four-tracking some southern sections demonstrates our determination to improve capacity on the route. However, I recognise the strong aspirations of my right hon. Friend and other Members for faster and more frequent services, and enhancements which would require further infrastructure interventions. I would now like to discuss that issue, because my right hon. Friend’s speech was in two parts, the first about the pain of travel and the condition of the rolling stock and other matters, and the second about the need to meet demand through improved capacity.
To begin with, I would like to explain that major investments in the railway are funded on the basis of five-year funding cycles known as control periods. We are currently in control period 5—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned this—which began earlier this year and will run until 2019. During this control period, the Government are providing Network Rail and the rest of the rail industry with more than £16 billion of funding to upgrade and enhance the networks in England and Wales. It is from this funding pot, known as the Government’s rail investment strategy, that the lower Lea valley upgrades I have already referred to will be funded. The process for identifying possible investments and upgrades for the next control period—control period 6, which will run from 2019 to 2024—has recently begun. There are therefore opportunities for my right hon. Friend, other Members and the public in general to contribute to the process and influence the Government’s next rail investment strategy.
As Yeats said:
“Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”
In regard to the West Anglia main line, the draft Anglia route study has recently been put out for consultation, and I want to emphasise that this is a draft for consultation. I note the remarks that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have made about its imperfections and limits, and I emphasise again that it is not set in stone. It will evolve, and I want to receive representations that will contribute to its evolution. We will make adjustments to it as we listen and learn throughout the consultation period. Tonight’s debate represents an important contribution to that process.
The rail industry’s emerging view is that the future level of demand expected on the West Anglia main line can be met through the lengthening of certain peak Cambridge and Stansted airport services. However, there are other views on the ways to meet the demand, and I want to hear them. I am not satisfied that there is just one single take on this. We have heard from my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, who speak on the matter with great expertise, and they take a rather different view of how the demand should be met. I want that view to be heard loud and clear in my Department and across the rail industry.
The emerging view on control period 6 has been articulated and published by Network Rail in good faith, based on the information available to it, but it is an emerging view, a draft and a consultation. I do not want anyone to assume that it is definitive, or that the Government take it as read that that is the only way forward. Responses to the consultation will feed into the final version of the Anglia route study, which is due to be published in the middle of next year. That will then help to inform the Government’s priorities for the next rail investment strategy, for the period 2019 to 2024—control period 6.
Mr Prisk
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said; he has been very helpful. I am waiting, as I am sure you are, Mr Deputy Speaker, for him to introduce a John Betjeman quote into the debate—literary man that he is—but before that, I am keen to learn more about the problem of unreliable or incomplete evidence resulting in subsequent decisions being open to challenge. None of us wants or needs that. We want clarity, evidence, good decisions and investment. Does he accept that there could be a real problem for the Department if the evidence were incomplete as a result of a poor route study, leading to subsequent decisions proving unreliable?
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend must wait until the very last few lines of my speech—which I hope will be as poetic as Betjeman; they will certainly be as joyful as Lewis—when I will respond directly to that point.
We will set out options for upgrades until 2043, including the option for four-tracking the West Anglia main line, Crossrail 2 and increased services to and from Stansted airport. It seems inevitable to me that, ultimately, we will need to greatly increase the capacity of the line to keep pace with growing demand. Again, all responses to Network Rail’s consultation, which ends on 3 February next year, and all views on the longer-term funding priorities are very much encouraged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made the following point, on which I wish to conclude. He said that the Government should act on the basis of clear and robust evidence, and called for a full feasibility study. That is a perfectly reasonable request. It is not in the script prepared for me by my civil servants, but if he is to be “Surprised by Joy”, they should be surprised, too, when I say that I am more than happy to invite him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and other interested parties, including local authorities and the local business representatives, to the Department to discuss what that kind of study might look like. That proposal is perfectly compatible with the consultation we have described. Indeed, it would frame a response to the consultation, which would combine many of the points made in this short debate, so my final surprise is not to quote Betjeman, but hon. Members will recall, thinking of Christmas, the line:
“A cold coming we had of it”.
I end rather more warmly, in welcoming the chance to make that new commitment to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, and to ensure that the pain is replaced by the joy of travel.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Food Security
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Hood, and to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and colleagues on the Select Committee to their places. We are very pleased to have the opportunity presented by this debate. On a personal note, I represent what is probably one of the most rural constituencies in the country, not just the north of England, of which livestock production and farming form a vital part.
The Select Committee decided to inquire into and report on food security, looking at food production and supply, for a number of reasons. There are particularly challenging and changing—volatile—market conditions at the moment. The inquiry took place against the backdrop of “Horsegate”, as I shall call it for short. I am referring to the adulteration of food with horsemeat that took place. Also relevant are the current global economic conditions, as witnessed by the sanctions against Russia, and the emerging markets—new markets—in China and elsewhere. Also, after a brief visit to Brussels last week, a number of us are better informed about how the European market is changing, with the removal of quotas for milk and the sugar regime facing change as well.
I should like to highlight one or two of the main aspects of the report and to thank those who contributed to the inquiry, which we launched in October 2013. We received 50 written submissions and, earlier this year, held five oral evidence sessions. We are grateful to all those who contributed.
Obviously, the farming—agricultural—and food sector is hugely important and successful. The food and drink sector is responsible for 3.7 million jobs and 7% of the overall economy. At the outset, it is fair to say that there is a danger of complacency. When we looked into food production and the supply dimension of food security, we found that complacency is a genuine risk to future UK food security. We want our food production and supply systems to be secure, in which case the Government and food producers must plan to deal with the impacts of climate change, population growth and increasing global demand for food, so what we are examining today are clear lines of Government responsibility.
We set out that at least three Departments are responsible for food security. They are the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. We asked, to ensure coherent planning and action, that the overall strategy be led by DEFRA, with a robust approach right across Whitehall. May I say, in again welcoming the Minister to his place, that I can think of no one better than him or his predecessors to take that role? However, he is particularly well placed, having served with such distinction on the Select Committee previously. I shall return to that.
In our report, we support the idea of sustainable intensification—producing more food with fewer resources—and we call on DEFRA to stem the decline in UK self-sufficiency and deliver more resilience in the UK food system. We note that the yields of key cereal crops—for example, wheat—have not increased for more than 15 years. The most conservative figures—I am a Conservative with a small c and a large C—are, I think that we can accurately say, the National Farmers Union figures, which I think are more recent even than the ones in our report. In 2013, we were running at only 60% self-sufficiency in food production; it was 62% in 2012. That is down from the height, in 1991, of more than 75%.
Clearly, the fact that self-sufficiency is on a downward spiral is of some concern. There are a number of reasons for that. We say that the biggest long-term challenge to food production systems is the impact of extreme weather events resulting from climate change, so we call for supermarkets to shorten supply chains to reduce the threat of disruption and for UK farmers to extend the seasonal production of fresh fruit and vegetables in co-ordination with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and local and central Government. The Government must reduce dependence on imported soya bean for animal feed, as increased demand for protein from emerging economies threatens current supply lines.
The Government should also produce a detailed emissions reduction plan for the UK agricultural sector. If we are to curb emissions and adjust to climate change, we need a significant shift, potentially, in how the UK produces its food. Currently, livestock production contributes 49% of farm-related emissions, so we need more research to identify ways to curb that.
We need the better longer-term weather forecasts that successive Governments have worked on—I welcome that work—and more resilient production systems to cope with severe weather events. We particularly welcome the Government’s new £160 million agri-tech strategy to translate technological ideas into farm practices, but I shall add a plea on that. The current funding levels, as they were put to us, are insufficient and the time scale is very limited. When we visited the Rothamsted institute, we were told that the last two years of the five-year term are spent accessing and applying for the grants to ensure that the very valuable work that these research institutes are doing carries on. We looked at precision farming technologies as an example of good research but one that needs commercial partners to make it viable.
Let me deal with a number of these points in turn and against the backdrop of self-sufficiency going backwards rather than forwards. We are looking in the current inquiry at food security: demand, consumption and waste. We are about to report, we hope, on our second inquiry, which is about bringing food to market and actually to the table.
I welcome the fact that supply chains have shortened. I particularly welcome the excellent work done by Professor Chris Elliott in that regard. However, a number of issues remain. Looking at the UK food system within the EU and internationally, can the Minister explain the reasoning behind not having an individual such as him as the Minister responsible, with a specific profile for co-ordinating food security and food supply policy across Government? That would be very welcome. We spent considerable time, in the evidence that we took and in the conclusions that we reached, on the fact that that single development would make a major impact.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I intervene only to reinforce the point that the Chair of our Select Committee is making, because this was one of our key discussions. Knowing how successful this Government have been in one or two other Departments where there are cross-departmental working parties, although mostly chaired by the Cabinet, does she agree that we did feel very strongly that the Minister at DEFRA should be the lead for any such joint working arrangement in government, because of the significance of food and agriculture and the need for that Minister to lead the rest of the Government on the policies that the hon. Lady is very ably outlining?
Miss McIntosh
I could not have expressed it better myself. Against the backdrop of self-sufficiency falling over the past 20 years, and potentially going backwards, we have BIS in charge of research institutes and DECC dealing with the climate change angle. The Committee was absolutely united on that powerful recommendation. We owe it to our witnesses and those whom we visited to extract an explanation from the Minister of why that was not deemed to be appropriate. If the Government would keep the matter under review, that would be very welcome.
The range of actions that the Government and others are undertaking to improve co-ordination is good, especially on cross-sector soils research. Will the Minister outline DEFRA’s plans for promoting the export of products such as apricots, which now have a longer growing season? How can the Department encourage other crop growers to extend their seasons? That would provide opportunities for further growth and more exports, which would build on the success that we have seen.
I would like to spend a moment on the common agricultural policy and greening issues. We heard evidence from the Secretary of State yesterday, and I am absolutely delighted that the Government are looking again at the three-crop rule. Having met the incoming EU Agriculture Commissioner last week, I believe that he is a potential ally who has a great understanding of and background in farming. The review of the CAP to which he has committed in 2017 is particularly welcome. The fact that the commissioner has said that food security is the Commission’s priority must give more grist to the Government’s mill and ensure that that remains the case. In the short term following the adulteration of beef with horsemeat, supply chains were made shorter, and that must be kept under review.
Farmers and NFU representatives have criticised the complexity of the CAP, which was meant to be simple. They have criticised in particular the effectiveness of the ecological focus areas. Does the fact that there will be an early review offer us an opportunity? What discussions are the Minister and the Secretary of State having with the commissioner on the potential for reviewing the CAP and introducing a swift review of problems such as the ineffective ecological focus areas and the three-crop rule? The higher CAP modulation rate in England will penalise our farmers more than those in other parts of the United Kingdom and the EU, so perhaps the Minister would be so good as to comment on that.
Turning to the UK’s international role, the Government said in their response to the report that they were collaborating through the Courtauld commitment on the challenge of reducing food waste, on which the UK is a world leader. They are looking at the matter in more detail and will respond further in due course. The Committee was struck by the fact that soya beans are the main feedstock for our animals, and that the supply is coming under increasing pressure because of competition from emerging economies. May I press the Minister for assurances that action will be taken to avoid any possible crisis in animal feed supplies? How are we encouraging alternatives to soya as a source of protein?
On the challenge of climate change, which may have an impact on farming and other industries, we have seen the latest targets and the framework from the EU. May I press the Minister on the outcomes that will be required from the 2014 to 2020 rural development plan, and from the expenditure under that plan on emission reductions? How will that impact on farming, and how will the Government ensure that the most cost-effective actions are taken first? I particularly welcome the soil protection work, but what outcomes does the Minister expect from the £5 million that has been put into soil security work and when does he expect to see them? When might he be able to report on that? What input is DEFRA having into EU soil protection work?
Our report’s core recommendation related to improving the resilience of supply chains. When we heard evidence recently from Professor Elliott, we were able to thank him in person for his work, and we are delighted that the Government have accepted all his recommendations. Shorter supply chains minimise the threat of disruption. In our report on food contamination, the Committee expressed concern about the length of food supply chains, and we welcome the work that retailers have done to reduce them. Where are we in relation to the cross-government group on food integrity? Where are we on labelling and traceability at an EU level? Will the Minister look kindly on a review of the groceries code and the adjudicator’s role, which currently makes no provision for an investigation without a formal complaint? Will that remit be reviewed and could it be changed? Will the Minister look kindly on the idea of introducing, as a matter of urgency, the statutory instrument that would empower the adjudicator to levy fines? It was something of a shock when we realised that such a statutory instrument had been neither laid nor adopted, so effectively the groceries code adjudicator has no teeth. Can the Minister tell us whether there an appetite in government to press for such a change, although I realise that BIS probably leads on that issue?
The Government response included a commitment to monitoring the agri-tech catalyst. How will that monitoring work and will it lead to action? Will the Minister elaborate on the findings? It is vital that we get a decision on genetic modification one way or the other. Will the Minister update us on progress at an EU level? We have looked at the matter, and I remain to be convinced on GM, but it is important that we have a framework at EU level.
The Government response said that both the Government and industry had started to address the findings of the future of farming review, especially in relation to new entrants to the industry, reducing bureaucracy and the red tape challenge. What more can the Government do to encourage new entrants, particularly young farmers, into the sector? It is no secret that the average age of farmers is relatively high compared with people in other walks of life and industries. Neither is it a secret that farming and fisheries remain two of the most dangerous industries. Farmers work in all weathers, sometimes using very complicated bits of kit. They work hard, against the elements and in the face of a constant stream of regulation, to bring food to our plates and to export as much as possible. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the Government’s plans to introduce more support for young farmers and the likely cost of doing that. How does he believe that we can entice young farmers and new entrants into the programme? One of the barriers to new entrants has to be the lack of broadband coverage in especially rural areas, and I know that we will have the opportunity to quiz the Minister about that separately.
I am very proud of our work on the food security report and I commend our conclusions to the House. I am concerned that we face the challenge of increasing food insecurity and a potential downward spiral of self-sufficiency. Lessons have been learned from “Horsegate”. We need shorter supply chains and to recognise the challenge of climate change and an increasing population, which works both ways, as there will be more mouths to feed and we are in a particularly good place to feed them. I would like consumers to be going out and buying British. I am particularly disappointed that a major retailer—I will not name it—has chosen to move away from the red tractor system. The red tractor is a symbol that food has been produced in Britain to the highest possible animal welfare standards and meets the farm-assured test. To move away from it is a retrograde step, and I hope that that supermarket chain will hang its head in shame and reconsider that decision.
We must increase self-sufficiency at home and increase opportunities to export. I welcome this opportunity to discuss the report, and I commend to you, Mr Hood, the conclusions that we have reached.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hood, and I am delighted to follow the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). She says that she represents one of the most rural constituencies, if not the most rural, in the country; I represent probably one of the most urban, with Canary Wharf in the south half and Tower Hamlets in the north. When I was appointed Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I was attacked in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph as a veggie and a townie: “What does he know about the countryside?” Fortunately, the National Farmers Union was much more pragmatic and generous, and I think I can say that I built up a positive working relationship with it during my year in office. It is a pleasure to see the shadow Minister and the Minister in their places. I look forward to hearing their comments.
“Food security” conjures up three things for me: security of international supply, UK self-sufficiency, and the honesty and integrity of the food that we eat. The hon. Lady mentioned the reduction in the percentage of food produced in the UK. I do not think that that is a major problem. British farming should have opportunities and challenges to produce and sell more, but most important to feeding the nation is ensuring that international supply lines are strong and varied, and that our food has integrity. The horsemeat scandal has been mentioned, and I will return to it later. Internationally, hunger and death from starvation is still a major world scourge. There is food poverty within the UK as well, with a growing number of people dependent on food banks across the country.
Food security is not about self-sufficiency alone; it is about safeguarding against failing harvests, disease and climate change, all of which can disrupt supply. It is positive that the Government accept many of the recommendations from the EFRA Committee; there is much consensus about food, production and standards. If I may sound one discordant note, it is my disappointment that the Government dropped the Food 2030 strategy worked out by the last Government. It was well researched, science-based and evidence-led, and it was a medium to long-term map for how the UK could progress over the 20 years after it was produced. Obviously, however, the Government have their own programme to promote and follow.
I would like to mention two items before referring to some of the recommendations in the report; I do not intend to speak for very long. One is milk and dairy. The Committee is examining the issue in a short inquiry, and the all-party parliamentary group on dairy has been holding its own inquiry for the past three weeks, with two or three still to go. With world production at record levels, the price of milk is dropping, and Russian sanctions are affecting our ability to compete in the world market. Obviously, there is great concern in the dairy industry about the future of dairy, and it would be interesting if the Minister could comment on what the Government are doing to help the dairy sector get through this period of massive world production and difficulties with sanctions.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although retailers, distributors and processors have a duty to the bottom line, to shareholders and to consumers to put affordable milk and milk products on the shelves, they also have a duty to the integrity of the UK supply chain? Without the UK supply chain, they would not have milk and milk products to put on shelves. There should be transparency, but there should also be a fair deal for dairy producers.
Jim Fitzpatrick
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said a few moments ago, UK retailers should show some solidarity and loyalty to UK producers. I will come to the transparency of prices in a moment when I cover recommendation 21.
The second issue that I will mention, which was also mentioned briefly by the hon. Lady, is the European sugar regime and the sugar quota. In east London we have Tate & Lyle, the biggest cane refinery in the world. Beet production is doing well, but the market might fluctuate. Tate & Lyle is struggling to deal with the unfairness of the new regime. I know that UKRep in Brussels has been lobbying, and that the Select Committee raised the matter when it met the commissioner and the appropriate officials last week. Does the Minister have any sight of how that discussion is going, and can he comment on any discussions that he has had with our officials in Brussels, or with Brussels officials, on the sugar quota and the sugar regime?
I will run briefly through a few of our recommendations. Recommendation 15 was mentioned by the hon. Lady. Any updates that the Minister can give us on greenhouse gases would be welcome. The Chair of the Select Committee recommended Professor Elliott’s report. Last week, when Professor Elliott gave evidence, was the first time that I had met him. He is a hugely impressive individual. To the Government’s credit, they accepted all the recommendations in his report, which is extremely welcome. It will furnish Government policy and the working of our Committee for a considerable time ahead. The hon. Lady mentioned the fact, which emerged in this week’s evidence session, that the statutory instrument on fines that the groceries code adjudicator could level against transgressors has not been laid before Parliament. If the Minister cannot say anything about that today, we would be delighted if he could do so on Tuesday when he comes before the Committee. He is bound to be asked about it, as the Secretary of State was yesterday.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about fairness and transparency, one issue that has come up several times in the all-party dairy group’s examination of dairy is the apparent lack of transparency and openness in pricing. Everybody knows what the farmer is being paid for their produce, and what the consumer is paying in our supermarkets and shops, but how we get from the farm-gate price to the retail price is still shrouded in mystery. There seems to be no direct relationship between the two. It would be interesting if the Minister had any comments on that, as numerous colleagues will be pressing him on that in the months ahead. The other issue raised was whether there might be a role for the adjudicator in initiating investigations rather than just responding to them, as she does at the moment. That will clearly require an amendment to the law. If the Minister has any comments on that, I would certainly be interested to hear them.
Lastly, recommendation 29 is on genetic modification, which the hon. Lady mentioned. The Committee recommendation asked questions about Government support for genetically modified food and whether there is an information campaign to create balance in the public’s mind about what GM can and cannot do. Comments in the report and the Government’s response ask whether the European Parliament will consider the matter in due course, and whether the Minister expects the European Parliament to agree to the Commission’s change of policy on GM; that is also of interest.
Food security is critical to the well-being of our species and the planet. It should be central to Government policy. As the hon. Lady said, the Minister here should be the Government lead on that policy. I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), my hon. Friend the shadow Minister and the Minister. The Committee has produced an excellent report, if we say so ourselves. It has some excellent recommendations, of which the Government have accepted quite a number, and we are keen to hear what colleagues have to say about it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and to follow our very knowledgeable Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is also a fount of knowledge on all things farming and environmental.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. The Committee’s food security inquiry was wide-ranging and there are a number of important points to discuss. In fact, once the inquiry was under way, we quickly realised that there are so many issues at play in this debate that considering them all within one report would be a huge task, so we decided to split the report into two parts. Today we are discussing issues around food supply, but I hope that we will also have an opportunity to debate the second report once it is published.
As a member of the all-party inquiry into hunger and food poverty, I have taken part in a number of evidence sessions and visits this year, speaking to food bank charities and to those people who rely on food aid. That aspect of food security is vital to understanding the full picture, since those people are the ones most affected by changing food prices.
As our inquiry heard, falling incomes, benefit cuts and a cruel sanctions regime imposed by this Government are leaving more people at the mercy of rising living costs. It is also fair to say that general public awareness about how we source our food is higher than it has been for some time, not only because of the rise in food poverty and the attention that that has received in the press, but because of the horsemeat scandal and the review by Professor Elliott that followed.
I will make a few points about that review, since it was published after our Committee’s report. It highlighted the lack of co-ordination between different bodies on food fraud, and the confusion of responsibilities when the scandal first came to the public’s attention. The creation of a new cross-departmental committee and the new food crime unit are designed to address that situation. However, as Professor Elliott said in his evidence to the Committee last week, it is essential that that unit has the resources that it needs, and that there are systems in place to ensure that it can co-operate fully with our police forces.
Professor Elliott also stressed the need to clarify the responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, although he stopped short of repeating his interim recommendation that food authenticity be brought under the FSA’s remit. That disappointed many people, including Labour Members. It is true that, as the professor told us in his evidence, this point had become politicised, but I would argue that it was politicised even at the time of his interim report, and I would not be surprised to learn that Government pressure had something to do with the changes in the final report.
However, there are also positives to take from the final report. Professor Elliott reports significant improvements in the way that both the industry and local authorities inspect food. He also reported on a positive change of culture that has made food safety and authenticity a higher priority at all levels, from Government right down to the consumer. Those changes are all very welcome. Before the horsemeat scandal, food safety and authenticity were not issues that were high on many people’s list of priorities. That is not the case any more, and there is a genuine will out there to tackle these issues. What is important now is to make sure that we have the resources and the infrastructure that are necessary to monitor food fraud effectively. Our Committee made clear recommendations about the need to maintain capacity in public laboratories. I hope that, in his response to the debate, the Minister can explain briefly what action the Government are taking in this area.
I now turn back to the Committee’s food security report. It was surprising that the Government did not accept the case for appointing a food security co-ordinator with clear responsibility for food security. If we apply the lessons of the horsemeat scandal, we can see that this kind of leadership really matters. If nobody has clear responsibility for food security, it is likely to become a secondary concern, at least until something goes wrong. Having such a co-ordinator is particularly important when it comes to food security because, as our Committee has seen, the food security picture is incredibly complex, with a huge number of factors affecting both supply and demand. Food security is not something that we can address in a piecemeal way. It needs a joined-up approach that runs throughout our environmental, trade and science policy. I hope that, in his response, the Minister can go into a bit more detail on why the Government did not feel it was necessary to appoint a dedicated co-ordinator for food security policy.
Another point I wanted to raise briefly was about climate change and resilience. Last winter’s floods showed the damaging effects of extreme weather, and although much of the media coverage focused on residential areas, agriculture was a big victim too. As the climate continues to change, the risk to farmers will increase, and that is why our Committee has called for DEFRA to reconsider the way it allocates resources for flood management, so that farmland does not lose out to residential areas when it comes to flood protection.
We know that climate change is happening. Just this morning, it was reported that the impact of flooding is likely to be four times higher in the next century than it is now, so we can anticipate the kind of challenges that we will face in future. Last winter was the warmest in centuries, and it is predicted that what is currently a one-in-20-year rainfall event will be happening every 10 years by 2050.
The emergency funding that the Government provided after last winter’s floods did a lot of good, but we should not just wait for extreme weather to come along and then pay for the damage. We need the Government to be proactive in strengthening our flood defences. That is why I remain concerned that funding for flood defence has gone backwards under this Government, receiving a boost only after the events of last winter. Until that wake-up call, funding for flood protection had been cut by nearly £100 million per year. The Committee on Climate Change has warned that the Government’s spending plans will mean that an extra 330,000 properties will be at risk of flooding by 2035.
We also need to recognise that, whatever action we take to protect our harvest, extreme weather abroad can have a dramatic effect on food prices and our food supply. We also have to be aware that rising temperatures globally mean that some farmers will see their yields decrease at a time when global population is increasing, which means there is even more pressure on our food supply. In a globalised food system, it is impossible to escape the effects of climate change, which underlines just how important reducing emissions and mitigating the effects of extreme weather will be to our security in the decades to come.
This Government need to show that they have a serious, joined-up plan for the future of Britain’s food supply. The last Labour Administration had such a plan. That is why this Government’s decision to scrap Labour’s Food 2030 strategy causes concern. The Government’s willingness to compromise long-term goals, such as improving our flood defences and tackling climate change, in the name of short-term savings will create problems for our food supply in the future. I hope that this report and this debate will encourage the Government to take a more strategic and long-term view on food security. Appointing a food security co-ordinator, as the Committee recommended, would have been a start.
As I mentioned, the Committee had originally planned to publish a single report on food security, before the complexity of the issue made it clear that a single inquiry could not do the topic justice. However, this means that the House has the opportunity to discuss in much greater detail the factors that contribute to our food security, which I think all Members will welcome. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate, and to debating the second part of the inquiry with my hon. Friends next year.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
As always, it is a delight to be under your stewardship, Mr Hood, and I am also delighted to take part in this important debate this afternoon. While we are relatively few in number here in Westminster Hall today, I am slightly overawed by the expertise displayed by all the Members who have already taken part in the debate—I mean that quite genuinely—and by their passion for this issue, because they get the importance of food and food security. So I begin by commending the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its report’s timely focus on food security and for prompting this debate.
As usual, within this detailed report—it is a quite comprehensive part one of two reports—there is a feast of recommendations and information. There is far too much for me to digest and reflect upon in a relatively short contribution.
Let me turn to some of the contributions from the members of the Select Committee who are here today. Its Chairman, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), said early in her contribution that the Government must plan for food security. That point has resonated across all contributions today, and I will pick up on it as well. Such a plan needs coherence and not just vision, but action planning down to the detail, and there needs to be a cross-Government, cross-sectoral approach that ties in industry and other stakeholders and, crucially, the Government nationally and all the way down through the devolved Administrations, and so on.
The hon. Lady also picked up on the need for cross-Government leadership on food by a DEFRA Minister and said that the Minister here today should be the one doing it. I agree. In future, it might be somebody else—who knows?—but I agree that a DEFRA Minister is needed in there, arguing the case, championing it and doing that cross-Government collaboration, not in bits and pieces, but across the whole shooting match. That is exactly what is needed. My hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) touched on that, too. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made many other detailed points that I will return to later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, with his great expertise, reminded us that when he was first put in post he was described by some out there, although not by all, as a townie vegetarian: “What does he know?” However, in his time in office, he rapidly proved them wrong and became trusted for the breadth of his knowledge of the area and the detail that he went into and for his ability to work collaboratively with all the people involved. He has taken his expertise on to the Select Committee. He outlined that although the report contains major challenges, it also speaks of the opportunities for farmers and food producers and for our big food industry—the biggest manufacturing industry employer in the UK—if we can get this right and if we have the willingness to do it.
My hon. Friend commented, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, on the rise of food banks as a measure of food insecurity on our own doorsteps, and we are certainly seeing that. He touched on the loss of Food 2030, although he was humble and did not discuss his pivotal role in producing that project. The loss of that strategy is much bemoaned by many people in the industry particularly, who liked the certainty, the cross-Government approach and not just the vision, but the fact that when we left government that was being translated into detailed action points. Initially, there was some criticism: “This big strategy is fantastic. We’ve never seen anything like this. It’s what we need, but where’s the real meat that follows it?” However, as we left government, we were starting to put that meat on.
Jim Fitzpatrick
My hon. Friend is being generous and I appreciate it. Does he agree that what happened to Food 2030 is disappointing because it was not a political draft, but a strategy for the Department, drafted with the advice of the chief scientist and others? That is why there was disappointment that the Government decided not to proceed with it as their framework.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. The project was so well worked-up and had the most wide-ranging group of stakeholders possible, from farmers, distributors, retailers, producers, non-governmental organisations: everybody was involved. There were disagreements—that was a tricky enterprise to embark upon and to get agreement on—but, my goodness, there was agreement that that was the right way forward. I will compliment the Government on some good initiatives, but they are not a substitute for that real, coherent, cross-sectoral, binding strategy that says that we are serious about food security, nutrition for children, international development issues and climate change. We would say strongly to the Minister that, if he introduced his own version of a strategy that looked like that—Food 2050, perhaps—we would support him in doing that. However, it needs to bind together all these critical things, because if we get it right for schoolchildren and local supply chains, and so on, it will also be good for producers in the UK. I will mention that in a moment.
It is unarguable that food security is now an imperative, globally and for individual nations, including the UK. As such, it is worth reminding ourselves that food security was defined by the world food summit way back in 1996 as existing
“when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”.
It was redefined subsequently by the United Nations food and agriculture committee to include, rightly,
“dietary needs and food preferences”.
That definition remains sound, but the context has changed, not least in the scale and urgency of the challenges, summed up so well by Professor John Beddington in 2009, at a sustainable development conference, when he described the
“perfect storm”
that was coming:
“Our food reserves are at a 50 year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water."
This was reinforced by the Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming”, led by Professor Beddington, which Professor Tim Benton of the university of Leeds drew upon when he told the Committee in evidence that
“Wars are likely to happen”
in the competition for land and water and scarce resources.
The Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign, which ended earlier this year, brought together more than 200 organisations campaigning to end global hunger. Interestingly, they focused not simply on the efficient production and distribution of food, but on aid, land, tax and transparency. Food security, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned, is complex and international, but it is very personal for the 3 million children who die of malnutrition each year, in this modern world, or the 1 billion who go to bed hungry every night.
Here at home in the UK, we have seen the hugely accelerated growth in food banks and other types of food aid. I do not want to dwell on this, but I want to state two simple facts, which are both unarguable. Fact one: there has long been volunteer-led informal food aid in this country, going years back, in the shape of the distribution of emergency food, kitchens, and so on. The leading food bank organisation, the Trussell Trust, was providing just over 40,000 allocations of three-day emergency food packages in 2009-10, under the previous Labour Government. It has been there; it was there. That is a fact. However, the second fact is that last year the Trussell Trust provided over 913,000 three-day emergency food allocations. That is, by my rough calculation—and I am not great on maths—a twenty-two-fold increase.
Last February, a much-delayed report commissioned by DEFRA itself into the growth in food aid in the UK found that food aid providers ascribed the food insecurity to problems that have led to sudden reduction in household income, such as job losses, problems associated with social security payments and ongoing underpinning circumstances, such as continual low household income and indebtedness that can no longer support purchase of sufficient food to meet household needs. This analysis has been reinforced by many other analyses of this growing poverty and cost-of-living crisis.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a 60% increase in sanctions since welfare reform, as we heard in the all-party group on hunger and food poverty, and that is driving people, out of necessity and in their hundreds, to food banks?
Huw Irranca-Davies
Yes, indeed, and that illustrates the point that there is no simple international or domestic solution to food security and related food insecurity; it is very much a function not simply of food production and distribution and waste, but of social and economic policy. That is why we need to get the whole package right, including welfare reforms. Certainly, in my constituency of Ogmore, the delays following the move to personal independence payments mean that, out of a population of some 60,000 on the electoral register—mine is a relatively small constituency—I have 920 cases waiting for PIP outcomes at the moment, with delays in payment, assessment, and so on. So getting this right is a real issue.
I mention that because, as we debate this useful report, it is worth reminding ourselves of two important points arising from food security at home and overseas. First, the causes of food insecurity are many and complex and so are the solutions, involving wider social and economic solutions, as well as food production, storage, distribution, and so on.
Secondly, food insecurity is not an abstract construct, but a deeply personal matter that can devastate lives, families, communities and even nations. It is in our gift as policy makers to fashion adequate responses and on that note, I turn to the report and the Government response.
We note that the Committee and the Government draw on much that was achieved or initiated under the previous Labour Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse. The comprehensive food security analysis in 2009, which the Select Committee report refers to, bolstered such groundbreaking work as the Food Matters strategy and the Foresight report on land use and how to resolve conflicts on land use, which were drawn together in the landmark Food 2030 strategy. That strategy was being worked up into detailed action plans when we left government. Simply put, it was the most ambitious, comprehensive approach to food strategy, taking in not only food security domestically and globally, but diet and nutrition, climate change and carbon reduction, land-use conflict and resolution and so much more. It looked at how we can encourage people to eat a healthy, sustainable diet; ensure a resilient, profitable and competitive food system; increase food production sustainably; reduce the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions; reduce, re-use and reprocess waste within the sector; and increase the impact of skills, knowledge, research and technology. It brought all that together in a streamlined, joined-up way of thinking across Government, industry and non-governmental organisations.
The industry, NGOs and others are still asking why the Government scrapped that strategy and retreated into government by silos, with DEFRA doing its things on food production, the Department of Health doing its things and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office doing its things. What happened to the cross-Government, cross-sectoral working?
However, there have been some welcome developments. The green food project was good and well-intentioned, but even participants in it described it as too narrow and under-resourced, and it eventually ran into the sand. People were looking for what came next. The Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming”, adds usefully to the field of knowledge and to previous Foresight reports, including its “Land Use Futures” report under Labour.
The groceries code adjudicator, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, is a step forward in ensuring fair play in parts of the supply chain and had cross-party support, although we are still curious about why the Government resisted attempts by Labour and others, from all parties and all sectors, to strengthen the Bill with financial penalties until the Government were backed against the wall and facing defeat in Committee. As the hon. Lady asked, where does the GCA go now?
The fruit and vegetable taskforce action plan, which aims to increase the production and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in the UK, is commendable and recognises the huge potential of the sector to benefit the economy and health and well-being. It builds on the work of the previous Labour Government, who established—I think it was under my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse—the fruit and vegetable taskforce. I am getting a little worried that I am praising him too much.
The agri-tech strategy is welcome, as it applies that collaborative approach to innovation and research and development across industry, academia, NGOs and Government. That was pioneered by Labour in such programmes as the marine science strategy. The agri-technology strategy needs to ensure that productivity gains and genuine environmental sustainability are simultaneously achieved and that there is full buy-in, not only from the UK, but from global partners—that is the nature of the beast—but it is the right approach. We are glad to see the Government taking forward and building on some of the pioneering achievements of the previous Labour Government, to help build food security and to introduce some logical additional programmes to help deliver some of the wider benefits of a sustainable and resilient food sector, but their piecemeal and disjointed approach is not a substitute for a coherent cross-Government, cross-sectoral plan of action. I am delighted that that point was echoed today by Government and Opposition Members in their different views.
I will ask the Minister some questions that arise directly from this Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report—this is part one of two—and on which the Government response is still unclear. Specifically, does he believe that the increased costs, including the environmental costs, and the global demand for meat protein mean that we will consume less but higher-quality meat in the future? If so, how do we get there? Does he believe that UK farming is increasingly vulnerable to the rising costs of animal feed, and what is he doing to bring forward specific measures to deal with that? That might involve alternative modes of farming.
What measures can the Minister take to extend the access of food producers, including small farmers, to the highest quality of meteorological prediction as part of our climate change adaptation programme? Does he agree that horticulture has the greatest potential to improve diets, boost food production sustainably and create employment? If so, what more can the Government do to accelerate growth in the sector? What specific measures does he have to promote social enterprises in horticultural growing and food distribution and in local food networks, as well as to promote greater links among people, communities and the food we eat and grow? What measureable, tangible progress has been made on increasing the production and consumption of fruit and vegetables since 2010 and on the taskforce established under Labour?
In the light of the decision by EU Environment Ministers to enable member-state decision making on genetically modified organisms within an EU framework, when will the first commercial applications for GM cultivation in the UK take place and for what products? Why, if the Government agree that pillar two is the better use of common agricultural policy money than pillar one, as they state in their response to the Select Committee report, did they retreat from that position and not ensure 15% modulation? Why, if they see direct payments to farmers under pillar one as an ineffective use of public money and a distortion of the market, did they see fit to place no additional demands on innovation, farm entry, public benefits or environmental benefits on the largest recipients of direct payments, who receive in excess of £150,000 a year or even £300,000 a year? Over the last couple of years, the Government have appeared in statements from the very top of DEFRA to be a little gung-ho in their advocacy of GM. How will the Minister take forward a balanced argument to the public, based on science and evidence, robust safety controls and labelling for consumer transparency?
Those are just some of the questions, and I suspect we will have to return to them in future debates. I thank the Select Committee for a well-informed and excellently argued first part of a two-part contribution to this essential debate on food security. I thank all members of the Committee for their expertise and for asking questions, as well as proposing some possible answers. We look forward to the second part of their report, where we can examine other issues in more detail, just as we now look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on a comprehensive, rounded report that covers a wide range of issues, including self-sufficiency, whether we can improve and increase our exports, the role of the common agricultural policy, the impact of climate change, the importance of technology in agriculture and, finally, the role that reducing food waste can play in meeting our food security needs.
I will briefly set out the nature of the challenge that we face. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the Foresight report examined the issue of food security and concluded that by 2050 there will be a large increase in the world population. Some projections suggest that it could go to 9 billion. Projections suggest that that could lead to an increase in food demand of between 60% and 70%. Coupled with that is the impact of climate change, which means that parts of the world that can currently produce food may be restrained by water resources. Water could become a limiting resource, which would compromise the ability of those areas to produce food.
The Foresight report concluded in 2011 that we have a good level of food security in the UK. It also highlighted the fact that the issue is not just about self-sufficiency. In fact, self-sufficiency is in many ways—I will come on to them—the wrong measure to use for food security. Global food security depends on free trade as much as it does on sustainable production. The UK Government’s position is clear: we want a successful, vibrant farming industry and a sustainable increase in food production. We are doing a huge amount to promote exports and to try to open new markets for our products. We are also keen to deliver import substitution, particularly in dairy, where there is a great deal more potential for this country to manufacture and process more cheese. There are also export opportunities for sectors such as beef and lamb.
If we deliver that and achieve that sustainable increase in production, displace imports and grow our exports, we will of course increase our self-sufficiency. For reasons I have made clear, however, the production-to-supply ratio is the wrong measure for food security, because we could be completely food sufficient one year, but then have a dire harvest and find that we are not sufficient the next year. Part of global food security is therefore about having open markets and free trade.
It is also worth putting our level of self-sufficiency in context. Between the wars, in the 1920s and 1930s, our food security was only some 30% to 40%. At the start of the second world war and when in dire need, the country managed to switch production sharply to crops such as potatoes and got close to self-sufficiency. We can therefore change such things when we need to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, our overall self-sufficiency is at 60%, but our self-sufficiency in indigenous foods is still around 73%. That has stabilised in recent years, but it is down, as my hon. Friend said, from the peaks of the late 1980s and early 1990s. We must recognise, however, that a distorting common agricultural policy was driving unsustainable production at that time, and we do not want to return to that.
My hon. Friend also highlighted climate change, which is important in the context of global food security. It is clear that water will become a limiting resource in many countries, which is why some of the research that we are funding through our agricultural technologies strategy is on developing drought-resistant strains of wheat that will still be able to be grown in such countries.
We are also promoting the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Several hon. Members mentioned the green food project, which the Government took forward and published. A number of industry road maps also deal with carbon reduction. My hon. Friend also mentioned soya and its impact on the environment. It is worth noting that the pig sector has made quite good progress in reducing the amount of imported soya used for pig feed, which has contributed to a reduction in their carbon emissions. DEFRA also has greenhouse gas action plans, and we are working with industry to achieve cost-effective reductions in emissions of some 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2022. We are therefore doing several things to deal with the environmental impact.
Several hon. Members mentioned the report’s recommendation that DEFRA should lead on food security. The Government response made it clear that we agree with that, and that DEFRA should and does lead on food security. The Government were asked whether someone should be designated to deal with the issue. Well, I am standing here, which usually means that I am the Minister who has been designated to look after this matter.
Miss McIntosh
The Minister is being gracious in his response, which is most welcome. We want a co-ordination role and a cohesive, comprehensive approach, which he is well qualified to provide. He steps up and says that he is responsible for food security, but we want someone to co-ordinate policy across the three Departments.
George Eustice
I understand that. I think that we do have that co-ordination, but I lead on food security. We also need co-ordination on science, because science will have many of the answers to the challenges we face.
Several hon. Members mentioned the Global Food Security programme, which was set up to co-ordinate food-related research. It is led by Tim Benton, whom the shadow Minister mentioned, and deals with joining up research in a number of areas, looking at how to improve resilience and the sustainable production and supply of food. It also considers nutrition, health and well-being. That programme is co-ordinating and joining up much of the specific, tailored research in this area. DEFRA is also looking more generally at whether we can co-ordinate more effectively all the various research bodies to reduce duplication and increase focus on research and its effectiveness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the importance of waste, an issue that the second part of the Committee’s food security report considers. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), is present for the next debate and waste is generally an issue that he covers, but it is important to recognise that, through the Courtauld commitment and the work of organisations such as the Waste and Resources Action Programme, we have already made good progress on reducing food waste. Household waste is down by some 15%, and we have reduced waste in the supply chain by some 8% and aim to reduce that further.
I want to touch on the importance of technology. Together with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, we have an agri-tech strategy and a £160 million fund, £90 million of which is a catalyst fund to support projects in order to accelerate the transfer of knowledge into farms. Another part of the fund is designed to create centres of excellence in science and food technology.
On long-range weather forecasts, I chair a farm resilience group that meets every six months and will be meeting again in the new year. The Met Office is represented in the group, and we regularly discuss how to improve weather forecasting for farmers. DEFRA has also funded a project to examine our flood resilience on the east coast, and, in addition to some other international collaboration, we are doing some work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the US Government to understand the impact that extreme weather can have on global security. We are conscious of the weather’s impact and want to improve our forecasting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and others mentioned the soft fruit industry’s success in extending its season. Our production-to-supply ratio for strawberries has increased from some 60% to 70% just in the past decade or so. I was in the soft fruit industry myself some 20 years ago, and some of these things are not as new as some people say. In Cornwall 20 years ago, I was producing strawberries in heated glasshouses from the end of March right through until Christmas. We used to pride ourselves on having strawberries from Easter to Christmas. The advent of Spanish and French-style polytunnels has given more protection to such crops and has enabled a more widespread extension of the season. My hon. Friend also mentioned apricots, which are indeed now grown in the UK under temporary polythene structures.
I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of reforming the common agricultural policy. The Government argued against the greening measures in pillar one and were clear that it should be kept as simple as possible, and that the best way to deliver for the environment was through our highly successful agri-environment schemes and pillar two. I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has written to new Commissioner Hogan, with whom I spoke last week. The European Commission is certainly open to the idea of reconsidering some of the greening requirements, and possibly even reconsidering in the mid-term review the idea of the three-crop rule or how it is applied. We have worked with our allies in the Stockholm group of countries, which argue for reform of the CAP and the European Union, to reach a common position to argue for the simplification of the CAP. We hope to make some progress on that next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned soya beans, and I have already touched on the fact that the pig industry has been particularly successful in reducing the amount of soya bean that it uses. The other thing to note is that one possible impact of the greening of pillar one—of which, I repeat, we were critical—is that in order to reach the three-crop rule some arable farmers may grow leguminous crops such as broad beans to count towards both their third crop and their ecological focus areas. Potentially, we could see an increase in the production of broad beans and other leguminous crops, which might then displace soya imports.
My hon. Friend also mentioned soil protection. Under our cross-compliance regime, we will scrap the need for a soil protection review, which is only a paper-based exercise that people go through and tick boxes. It does not mean much and is simply an administrative task, and we are replacing it with something much more meaningful. Where we know about soil management challenges on farms or inappropriate management of the soil having an impact on water courses, for example, we want to put in place meaningful measures to deal with that. We are completely overhauling cross-compliance in that area.
Huw Irranca-Davies
The Minister is giving a comprehensive report,. Will he give us more idea of what “meaningful measures” might be? It is only one point in his overall plans, but this different approach is interesting—to say, “We are not doing a tick-box scheme, but we will target instead.” What might such measures be? Does he have any early indications?
George Eustice
Yes. We will shortly be publishing the detailed guidance on the cross-compliance, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to look at it then. In essence, it means farmers ensuring that they have vegetative cover on fields for the maximum possible amount of time; that they only plough when they need to, just ahead of sowing; or that, for example, if they have a problem with water running off their fields, they might consider ploughing them in a different way so that the water does not tunnel down the furrowed ploughed land. We can do a number of different things, and that is the kind of sensible measure that we will have in cross-compliance, rather than having a simple paper-based exercise.
On the groceries code adjudicator, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned third-party complaints. I was on the Bill Committee that scrutinised the introduction of that adjudicator. Third parties may complain on behalf of other people, but she made a moot point about whether the adjudicator should be able to instigate investigations itself, without a complaint. In a year or two, a review by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is the sponsoring Department, might consider that, but at the moment it is too early to make such a judgment.
My hon. Friend also mentioned new entrants. I confirm that we are working on a plan to support new entrants into the industry through the rural development programme. It is a delight to be in the Chamber today, but were it not for this debate, I would have been speaking at the Farmers Weekly “Fertile Minds” conference in Cumbria, which is all about trying to engage new people into the industry. That is something that we are looking at, and I am working on a project about encouraging the use, for instance, of share farm or contract farm agreements to create alternative routes for new people into the industry.
We are already delivering on our commitment to increase exports. Through UK Trade & Investment, we have already helped 2,500 food and drink companies and, so far this year, we have opened more than 100 new international markets to animals and animal products. That includes countries such as the Cayman Islands, the Dominican Republic, Mongolia and, for dairy products, Cuba. We are leaving no stone unturned when it comes to opening new markets.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), mentioned the previous Government’s “Food 2030”. People can, however, get too hung up on particular reports. I have read the report and, where it talks about the importance of agricultural technology, I would argue that we have taken things forward in our agri-tech strategy and other things. The report mentions the importance of sustainable intensification—we have had our own green food project with various route maps. It talks about new entrants—I have just explained what we hope to do on that. There is a consistency of themes between what we are doing and what was identified in the report as a challenge.
In addition, we have asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and its new chair, Peter Kendall, to put in place a plan for British agriculture and for how we can make it more competitive. That is a priority for that levy organisation.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I take on board what the Minister is saying about consistency in Government policy. It was probably too naive of me to expect that the branding would have stayed the same; as long as the policy stays the same, that is the consistency that the industry is looking for.
George Eustice
There we go, we have an outbreak of consensus. As I said, we are taking forward many of the points.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the existing precarious condition of the dairy industry, which has seen sharp falls in prices. I will have the pleasure of appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next week to discuss such issues in more detail. For now, I point out that last week we had a meeting of the dairy supply chain forum, which I chair. We looked at the issue of price volatility and at whether the industry can do more, or whether we can support it, to develop financial instruments that might help them to manage volatility in future. We have also had a review by Alex Fergusson MSP of how the dairy supply chain code is working.
On GM foods, which a number of hon. Members mentioned, our position is consistent. We believe in a science-based approach; if we get the regulation right, there could be a role for such crops. That remains our position. We have always sought allies to argue that case in the European Union.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) talked about food security and, in the context of food banks, people’s ability to afford food. I will not stray into areas that are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, which might be outside the scope of the debate, but I want to say that although there was a big spike in food prices in 2008, in the past year we have seen food prices fall for the first time since 2002. I chair AMIS, the Agricultural Market Information System, which monitors agricultural commodity markets, and most of the projections at the moment are that for the next couple of years there will be relative stability in cereal prices.
The hon. Member for Ogmore mentioned animal feeds. I want to touch on that, because animal feed costs are lower. Although prices are in some cases just as low for dairy farmers as they were two years ago, the fact that animal feed prices are lower means that farmers’ financial viability is not as compromised as it might have been. He also talked about local food networks, and we are keen to encourage and promote local food production. That is why we asked Peter Bonfield to put in place our new Government plan for procurement, which is all about encouraging the public sector locally—schools and hospitals—to buy and source its food locally, from local suppliers.
The hon. Member for Ogmore also mentioned the role of health. Public Health England regularly runs campaigns to encourage healthy eating, in particular the “eatwell plate”, through which people are encouraged to have their five a day, to moderate their meat consumption and so on.
The final thing that I wanted to mention was the point about meat production made by the hon. Gentleman. We are not going to lecture people on what they should or should not eat, but one of the things that emerged from an informal session that we had at the European Council recently was what might happen if we want to reduce our carbon footprint in meat production, which is perhaps a bit of a trend towards less intensive systems, predominantly using grassland production, the environmental impact of which is lower. The lamb and beef systems of production in this country have less impact on the environment than those of many other countries.
Huw Irranca-Davies
My intention is to come back only on that point, because a lot of good stuff is going on and there is a lot of continuity, which is great and which people want to see. The Minister mentioned procurement and diet, health and well-being, but with so many such areas involved, does he sit down with other Ministers and talk about the effect of X, Y and Z on the food industry, jobs, average earnings, food banks or the response to food aid, telling them what he would like them all to do?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman has been in government, and he knows that Ministers have regular meetings with other Ministers on a range of issues. I regularly meet the Health Minister with responsibility for those matters to discuss issues such as nutrition.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I am trying to enhance the Minister’s position. I would like him to sit down in a cross-departmental way and say, “Health, you are doing great things. BIS, you are doing great things. All of you are doing great things, but it is within a context. We will deal with things, such as access to food within the UK, and we will do it in this manner, coherently.” I want him to do that. Will he do it?
George Eustice
As we said in our response to the report, DEFRA leads on food security. Ministers have many meetings with ministerial colleagues, and we have many cross-Government committees, some of which are chaired by Ian Boyd, DEFRA’s chief scientist, and some of which are chaired by officials. This is an important debate on a wide-ranging report that makes an important contribution to the debate on food security. Again, I congratulate the members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on their work.
Miss McIntosh
I thank the Minister, but I hope he will respond to the challenge from the team and the shadow Minister to have more confidence, to step forward and to co-ordinate—not just to lead, but to co-ordinate. On that positive note, I congratulate him on his response.
Plastic Bags
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have secured this debate. We have just had a wide-ranging debate on environmental issues, and on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee I propose to address in much more detail the specific issue of plastic bags, which are equally important. I thank the Liaison Committee for making it possible for us to debate our report this afternoon. I am aware that Thursday afternoons are commonly known in parliamentary circles as the graveyard slot, because so many people go back to their constituencies. None the less, there has been interest in our report and, indeed, there have been numerous responses to the Government’s consultation. As the regulations are being introduced in October 2015, it is important that we have this small amount of time in Parliament to question the Minister on what progress the Government are making and where we are. I am grateful to the Minister for being here, and I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the shadow Minister, who will no doubt address some of the relevant issues.
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
There is no single solution to all the environmental challenges that we face. If we consider all of the Environmental Audit Committee’s reports, not only on plastic bags but on the green economy, the circular economy and the sustainable development goals, we clearly need to be taking forward steps on plastic bags just as much as on anything else. If we cannot get it right on plastic bags, how can we, the Government or anyone concerned about the issue get the much bigger things right? It is all about consistency. I accept that banning plastic bags altogether would be a much more radical proposal, but we are not talking about that—it has only been proposed in Italy. We are talking about regulating plastic bags so that we move further along the route towards decarbonisation and addressing environmental degradation. It is therefore critical that we get every single aspect of the regulation right.
The nub of our recommendations on plastic bags is that, if the Government are to introduce a scheme, it must be simple, easily understood and consistent. Unless the scheme ticks all those boxes, there will be complete confusion about its purpose and operation. Section 77 of and schedule 6 to the Climate Change Act 2008 allow us to introduce further regulations on plastic bags, and those regulations need to be approved by the House because the Act did not set out how the proceeds from the sale of carrier bags would be addressed. We therefore need further regulation. That technicality means that we now have this opportunity to make a proposal that is fit for purpose.
The question, therefore, is: why has it taken us so long to get it right? We have had from back in 2008 to October 2015. I am the first to say that it is not only this Government who got it wrong; the previous Government got it wrong, too, because they could also have introduced a measure to do something about plastic bags. There is a question of whether the public are behind the measure and whether there is courage to take these issues forward, but I think that has been addressed because in Scotland, Wales and other parts of the UK we have seen that, where the devolved Administrations have made proposals, they have largely been welcomed once people became used to them. Everyone wants to do their bit for the environment, and such proposals are a means of doing that.
We have concerns about the Government’s proposals and consultation. Our main concerns relate to paper bags, small retailers and biodegradable bags. We took extensive evidence from a wide range of experts and stakeholders. I am also aware that a long list of people responded to the Government’s consultation, including Tidy Britain, Surfers Against Sewage and various other groups. No regard has been given either to the consultations or to the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee, which is here on behalf of Parliament to scrutinise what the Government are doing. I hope the Minister will give us chapter and verse, which has been lacking so far, on the Government’s response to the consultation and the reasoning behind that response.
We suggest that there should be no exemptions and that there should just be a single straightforward scheme. Why complicate it? Why are the Minister and his Government complicating it so much? Many of the trade bodies representing small retailers actually oppose the proposed exemption for retailers with fewer than 250 employees. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the Association of Convenience Stores and the British Retail Consortium all criticised the exemption in their evidence to the inquiry. They said that the exemption will distort competition and cause confusion for businesses and consumers. All three bodies said that their members would like to participate. We need to know why the Minister is ignoring what those groups said.
I understand that the Government do not want more red tape or to make everything difficult, but I have had further conversations with one of those groups, in which it has made the point that more changes are likely to be coming in as a result of what is currently happening in Europe. Why should its members have to get used to one set of changes when there will perhaps be another set later on? How are the general public going to understand why there are exemptions for smaller businesses? Why can we not simply have a level playing field, with measures that are understood by everyone from day one? Will the Minister tell me why we cannot do that?
The Government have put forward exemptions for paper bags, but as our report points out, paper bags can have a greater emissions impact than plastic bags. Exempting paper bags from the charge would weaken the message on bag reuse and risks reducing environmental benefits and reductions in bag use. The Government should include paper bags in the charge.
We have seen similar things happen on all kinds of environmental issues. One comparison is the situation with air quality and diesel engines. It is laudable to be doing everything we can to cut carbon emissions, but if those efforts at the same time have a reverse effect on environmental quality and standards, we need somehow to co-ordinate efforts in the two areas. Paper bags use more carbon, so what rigorous appraisal have the Government used to come up with the proposal to exempt paper bags? How is that proposal consistent with their long-term climate change and carbon reduction targets under the Climate Change Act? It is incumbent upon the Government to show how every single element of their environmental policy contributes to their overall long-term objectives. They must demonstrate that there will not be contradictory, unintended consequences as a result of the exemption for paper bags.
Our third area of concern was oxo-biodegradable bags. Recyclers who gave evidence to the Committee were concerned that increasing the use of biodegradable—perhaps we should put that word in inverted commas—plastics would threaten the viability of the UK recycling industry by contaminating waste streams and recycled products. During the inquiry, concerns were also raised that biodegradable bags would still cause litter and harm wildlife, because of the time it takes discarded bags to decay.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this debate, which is on an issue that is important to many people. I do not think that the small number of Members here today accurately reflects the significance of the issue.
When the hon. Lady was taking evidence during her inquiry, did she receive evidence not only from Surfers Against Sewage, a group based in my constituency, but from the European Centre for Environment and Human Health, which again is based in my constituency? That centre has gathered a huge amount of scientific work and evidence that shows that biodegradable plastic bags do not degrade naturally in the environment, but need specific circumstances in order to biodegrade. Anyone who has done a beach clean—I have, many times, along the Cornish coast—will be only too away that the plastic does not biodegrade and we all have to collect it.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she may make a speech.
Joan Walley
I am grateful for that intervention from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). I pay tribute to the work of Surfers Against Sewage. I know from my 28 years in this House just how many campaigns that group has been involved in, very actively, on environmental degradation and the importance of keeping our marine areas and coastal waters clean. The group attaches importance and value to wildlife and has looked at the long-term problems that are caused by the throwaway society that we now seem to have, in which litter ends up everywhere.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s welcome intervention, I can say that we received evidence from Surfers Against Sewage, an organisation that believes in making its point on each and every occasion. Its view is that our greatest chance of success in reducing the amount of bags that are littering our blue and green open spaces, through reducing the number of single-use bags given out at checkouts and ensuring consistency across retailers and along the high street, means we must remove the exemption in the English bag-charge scheme for paper and oxo-biodegradable plastic bags—that is what the group is calling for, and it believes those measures have to be brought forward. That is so obvious to Surfers Against Sewage that I come back to asking this: why is it not so obvious to the Government that we should not allow those particular exemptions? They will create so much uncertainty and lack of understanding.
At a time when politicians are not really trusted by the electorate in the way that we would like to be, the exemptions will undermine trust in the scheme. I do not know whether Surfers Against Sewage made the same points to the devolved Administrations, but if it did, it was listened to better. I hope it is not too late for the representations that are being made to be picked up by the Government—after all, they have not lost any opportunities to say that they intend to be the greenest Government ever. We will judge that by actions, not words.
The Government have failed on all three of those issues: on paper bags, for the reasons I have outlined; on small retailers, because people need to know clearly what is being done; and on the issue of biodegradable bags, as well. While we are on that last subject, it is all very well to talk about biodegradable bags, but according to the evidence we received they are apparently not biodegradable, or at least not yet. The question that then arises is: how can the Government set an exemption for something that is not yet there?
The Government have said—I think Lord de Mauley, the Environment Minister in the other place, made this point—that there will be opportunities for research to establish where the innovation on biodegradable bags will come from. I have to say that there are some questions for the Government on this matter. When it was discussed in the European Parliament, questions were raised by a Danish MEP about whether there had been full transparency about the company wishing to put forward proposals for a type of biodegradable bag that has not yet been confirmed as biodegradable, on which research is still required and for which the Government have yet to set any determining criteria. We have an exemption for something that does not yet exist and will come in at a later stage. That raises all kinds of questions about how fit for purpose the Government’s proposals on plastic bags actually are. They seem to be nonsense.
That would not matter so much if it were not so important that we make progress on the environmental agenda. I was really disturbed to see the Department’s figures on recycling earlier this week, and gave a local radio interview in my constituency this morning about the real cut in the number of items that are being recycled. Looking at the figures, that reduction in recycling is happening not just in Stoke-on-Trent but in London and in areas all over the country. We are a long way from the target of 50% of goods being recyclable by 2020. Instead of reaching a plateau and allowing efforts to flatten out, we should be acting with even greater urgency to get the different schemes that are coming forward absolutely right. As I say, that is not the case with the way we are dealing with paper bags.
WRAP has told us that the number of single-use plastic bags handed out to shoppers by UK supermarkets is not going down; in fact, it has risen for the fourth year running. In England, the number of thin plastic bags used increased by 5% last year, representing an 18% increase since 2010. In contrast, Northern Ireland introduced a charge a quarter of the way through the reporting period, and the number of bags used dropped by 71%. That is a huge difference, and we should be following suit—perhaps we will do so a little more following today’s statement in the House about devolution and where it is taking us.
Bag litter is also rising. When even the Daily Mail is starting to campaign on the issue, we realise just how important it is to people across the country and why getting the scheme right is so important.
I would like the Minister to respond on a couple of issues. We would like to glean from him what has actually been going on in the European negotiations. It would really help people to understand the issue better if they knew the Government’s position in those negotiations. I understand from press reports that a watered-down version of the regulations is likely to come forward, but I would like to hear that directly from the Minister. What was the UK Government’s line? Were we trying to water down the regulations?
The Minister has to tell us why the Government have not taken on board the feedback they have received from so many consultations and as part of the Committee’s report.
I would like the Minister to say a little about the timetable. The Government say they will lay the necessary regulations under the affirmative procedure by the end of the year so that they will be enforced by October 2015. Can we have the dates for the regulations? Are they on track? Have there been further consultations with key stakeholders? When will we see a copy of the proposed regulations? Is there any possibility of the Committee’s recommendations being taken on board as a result of this debate? It is not too late for the Government to change their stance.
Related to that is the issue of behaviour change, which I touched on earlier. How are the Government seeking to use their proposed measure to support other pro-environmental behaviours? What are they doing to ensure consistency in messaging and outcomes? There is also an issue about the money going to charity. Will the work of the charities involved be related to the environment in some way?
What are the Government doing to ensure companies do not use the threat of a new stick to remove existing carrots, if I can put it that way? Sainsbury recently decided to stop giving people Nectar points for reusing plastic bags, but that was an incentive for them to do so. Have the Government met major retailers to see whether they are consistently going forwards, even on the current voluntary basis? How can the Government ensure that charges for bags result in fewer bags being littered?
There is also the issue of learning from other countries. How are we helping companies to prepare, based on what has worked well in other countries? How can we pre-empt the risks that might arise? How has the issue been addressed in Ireland, Wales and, more recently, in Scotland?
This issue is really about the UK Government’s commitment to supporting reductions in the number of plastic bags and about transparency. At the heart of all this—we have seen this with pesticides and so on—is the question of what importance the Government attach to the precautionary principle. That principle should be at the heart of the specific actions we take on plastic bags, but I do not see that it is. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on those issues when he winds up the debate.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), for all the work she has done on this issue, for her Committee’s excellent analysis and for her excellent presentation of it.
Simply put, the Government should not have a stand-alone policy on plastic bags. Reducing their use must be part of a coherent waste management strategy with a focus on preventing plastic from entering the waste stream and reducing litter. There should be no disagreement on that in the House, but, of course, one of the Minister’s first acts on entering the Department was to announce in his infamous letter that there would be an abandonment of waste management by Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
The hon. Gentleman and I served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee together, and we discussed these matters informally and formally. However, I ask him to refer to what I actually said in my letter, which is that there are some areas of policy that have been taken forward, and it will now be up to industry and wider society to respond, and others that we will continue to conduct research on and get behind. To say that my letter said we were abandoning waste policy is not an entirely fair characterisation.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister pleads in his own defence, and I will let the industry judge for itself, but the industry has been clear that it was deeply unhelpful of the Department to announce that the Government no longer saw fit to take part in some aspects of waste management and that it was down to the industry just to get on with things.
The rationale behind the Government’s position was that they should not intervene in areas where there was no market failure. The problem, however, is that I happen to believe that 2,309 items of plastic per kilometre on UK beaches constitute market failure. The remarks of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the levels of plastic litter experienced around the UK coastline bear witness to that. They are disgusting, but they are also a warning about the level of plastic that has not washed up on our beaches and that is still floating out at sea. The Government have just not thought through waste management in this respect. If they had, they would have listened to the industry and delivered a workable policy programme. They have not done that.
What percentage reduction in plastic bag use do the Government expect will be achieved as a result of their policy by 2020? Will it be as much as in Wales, where there is a simple charging system without all the loopholes and caveats the Government have added?
When does the Minister think that a biodegradable plastic bag will fulfil the criteria for exemption from the single-use plastic bag charging policy? My hon. Friend made an incontrovertible and admirable point: where else in Government policy does one create in law an exemption for something that does not exist? It really beggars belief.
The Committee’s report stated:
“The policy around the exemption for biodegradable bags appears rushed and taken before reviewing existing evidence or considering the concerns of all stakeholders.”
If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend’s Committee let the Government off lightly by putting it so delicately.
The report continues:
“It appears to us that Defra is trying to use innovation to justify a rushed and flawed policy proposal to allow an exemption for biodegradable bags.”
The question we must ask is why. Can the Minister give a reasoned explanation— because there is certainly not one in the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report—of why the Department has gone into such contortions to do that? The waste management industry and environmental scientists are clear about the fact that the exemption is absurd. The British Plastics Federation has made it clear that DEFRA made the decision on the exemption before consulting manufacturers. British Polythene Industries opposed the exemption and stated that it would increase the use of plastic bags and undermine recycling targets. What progress has been made as part of the small business research initiative on biodegradable bags?
Objections to the policy on environmental grounds have been as emphatic as the industry’s. A professor of marine biology and adviser to DEFRA told the Environmental Audit Committee that he was surprised by the proposals to exempt biodegradable bags. His research found that approximately 98% of plastics, including so-called biodegradable plastics, remained after 40 weeks, in part because of a lack of light reaching the bags under water. There is no such thing as a biodegradable plastic bag; the plastic just degrades into smaller pieces that are more easily ingested by marine life. That means that they are more easily able to contaminate and pollute the marine environment.
Quantities of litter on UK beaches have more than doubled since 1994, according to the Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch survey, which is the source for the figure of 2,309 items per kilometre found in 2013. Last year English beaches had, on average, 45 plastic bags per kilometre, an increase of just over 20% since 1996. Let us consider the impact of that on wildlife. The northern fulmar does not regurgitate plastic, but accumulates it in its stomach. Data collected between 2007 and 2011 show that 95% of fulmars in the North sea had plastic in their stomach—62% exceeding legal limits.
The Government’s response to the Committee’s report states:
“Several key impacts of the policy (e.g. reduced disamenity impact of litter; reduced damage to marine life) are difficult to measure in quantitative and monetary terms.”
Indeed they are, but that does not mean they are not real. They are what classical economics regards as externalities, and, as so often with the present Government, externalities are ascribed a nil value. That is the problem. The Government have chosen to discount the importance of litter and, significantly, of damage to marine life, because it is too difficult to work out what those things cost. That is the wrong approach. Litter ruins neighbourhoods; plastic waste damages entire marine ecosystems.
The waste management industry, perhaps more than any other, can produce growth that increases the productivity of our economy and creates new, skilled jobs. The job creation rate for recycling and reprocessing is significantly higher than that for landfill. It has been estimated that one job in landfill is created for every 50,000 tonnes of waste. By contrast, SITA estimates that job creation per 1,000 tonnes of waste for recycling ranges from 0.75 to as many as 40 jobs, depending on the material. That is between 38 and 2,000 jobs for every 50,000 tonnes of waste. That is the industry on its own, making an immensely valuable contribution to jobs and growth; but it is even more important as a driver of the wider economy.
Joan Walley
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread concern that the Government are stepping back from supporting the waste management sector, and offering only a limited programme of waste prevention activities? There are opportunities for innovation and growth in jobs, but the sector is not being supported by the Government to the extent it should be.
Barry Gardiner
I am happy that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because, as on most such occasions, she is right. She will have heard the Minister giving his justification for the Government’s approach to the waste management industry and the issue of the circular economy. The point that she and I are trying to make is that the opportunities are huge; and so are the risks of inaction. The Committee warns in paragraph 68 of its report:
“The Government’s waste management strategy needs to be clear, consistent and easy to understand in order to secure reduced carbon emissions, improved rates of recycling and avoid contamination of waste disposal streams. Gains in other areas could be far more important than can be generated by bags alone.”
Again, it is a question of an integrated approach to and coherent policy on waste management. The Committee was right to highlight that; the Government should not have a stand-alone policy on plastic bags. The policy is, frankly, an unscientific mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has pointed out that no genuinely biodegradable plastic bag exists. Paragraph 33 of the Government’s response to the report states that they are
“aware of the concerns regarding contamination of the recycling stream with biodegradable plastics and are addressing this with feasibility studies”.
I should be grateful if the Minister would update us about the progress of those feasibility studies.
In places the Government’s response is incoherent. Paragraph 24 states that
“the Government intends to require retailers to publicise the number of bags sold and how the proceeds of the charge have been spent.”
That is from a Government who are anti-regulation; but three paragraphs on, paragraph 27 states:
“Requiring businesses to report specifically on the VAT on plastic bags would also introduce additional administrative burden for those firms involved.”
Goodness me; within three paragraphs the Government contradict themselves on whether regulation on plastic bags is appropriate or burdensome for business. The policy is incoherent, and an incoherent response has been given to a coherent report.
It is alarming that the policy has been allowed to get so far when Government officials and advisers express serious concerns about the impact on the marine environment, in particular. If the Government do not abandon the absurd parts of this policy and adopt the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation for a simple universal charge that will reduce plastic waste and litter as part of a wider, comprehensive and coherent waste-management strategy, I assure the House that the next Labour Government will. It is an essential component of a resource management strategy worthy of the name.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Brooke.
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for the opportunity to debate plastic bags. Owing to my ministerial position, I get to be a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, although I am sure as its Chair, the hon. Lady would take me to task on my attendance record sitting on her side of the table. It is a convention that one does not attend in that way, but I have appeared before the Committee on several occasions and look forward to doing so in the near future—next week—on another topic. I appreciate the work it does.
Before I delve into aspects of the policy raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), I noted that the hon. Lady’s speech was somewhat negative. To be fair, she was negative about the previous Government as well as the current one. We are introducing a policy that takes advantage of the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. She and the hon. Member for Brent North, who is sometimes my hon. Friend, may take issue with some aspects of the policy, and I will address their concerns in a few moments. The fundamental point is that we are seeking to enact those provisions and to do something about the matter. I hope the hon. Lady and the Committee welcome that.
Joan Walley
Does the Minister agree that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing right?
Dan Rogerson
Absolutely, and we can debate the provisions and aspects that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have highlighted.
The Government carefully studied the Committee’s report on plastic bags earlier in the year—the hon. Gentleman referred to our response. We may disagree on details of the scheme, but we agree that reducing plastic bag use has environmental benefits. It will mean lower carbon emissions, more efficient use of valuable resources and less litter. Too many single-use bags are currently being distributed. Efforts to reduce the number of such bags without resorting to legislation have led to success in the past, and voluntary initiatives by retailers saw a reduction in their distribution by 48% between 2006 and 2009. That was significant progress, but the number of single-use plastic bags is on the rise. In England between 2010 and 2013, there was an increase of 18%, or just over 1 billion bags. In 2013 alone, England’s main supermarket chains issued more than 7 billion single-use carrier bags to their customers. Laid out, those bags would go round the M25 more than 20,000 times. Such statistics are staggering.
As we know, far too many bags make their way on to the streets and into the countryside as unsightly litter. They are also discarded on beaches, as hon. Members have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) highlighted the work of organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society in monitoring and reporting on that, and in conducting beach cleaning. I was out beach cleaning a few weeks ago, as I am sure many hon. Members were—[Interruption.] Perhaps those with slightly less coastal constituencies were not engaged in that but they are welcome to come to Cornwall to see such important action first hand.
The hon. Gentleman set out the impact in the sea and to the environment where plastic bags can cause harm to wildlife. Plastic bags also have a negative impact on the environment through their production and disposal. The oil used in their creation and the tonnes of plastic that go to landfill means we must take action to reduce the use of plastic bags. When they are used, they should be reused as often as possible and then recycled.
The Government will shortly lay draft legislation in Parliament to introduce a requirement to charge for single-use plastic bags. There has been a largely positive response to the announcement of the charge. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North referred to some corners of the media that have been particularly keen to support the policy. It is a proven tool. In its first year, the Welsh charge resulted in a decrease of 76% in the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by the seven big supermarkets. We have been able to use the experience from the Welsh charge to help to shape our scheme. A similar charge was introduced in Scotland in October, as the hon. Lady said.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the English charge will commence in October 2015. It will require retailers to charge a minimum of 5p for every new single-use plastic carrier bag, the same as in Wales and Scotland. Bags used for deliveries will incur the charge, as well as those used to carry purchases away from a store.
Exemptions are at the core of the debate. Small and medium-sized businesses will be exempt from the charge in England. We recognise that some wanted SMEs to be included, but we concluded that we need to avoid administrative burdens on start-up and growing businesses in England at a time when we want to support new growth in the economy. It is also worth bearing in mind that the current UK retail market is dominated by a relatively small number of large stores run by companies with more than 500 employees—they employ 65% of the people working in retail and have 69% of all annual turnover of retail businesses. Any retailer who is not covered by the legislation will of course be able to charge for bags voluntarily.
Joan Walley
Why are the Government persisting with that when small businesses do not feel the need to be exempted and do not want to be exempted?
Dan Rogerson
Some organisations have taken that on. I have met some of them and they have given evidence to the Committee. Other organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, have taken a different position. It is important to look at the implementation of the charge. The huge majority of the bags will be distributed by retailers who will be covered by the charge. We can continue to examine how the exemption operates post-implementation. The smaller retailers who want to make a charge can do so. They are exempt from the compulsion to do so and the reporting of that, which will be an obligation on those who are covered by the charge.
Barry Gardiner
If small retailers charge 5p for a bag but are exempt, that will presumably constitute part of their revenue stream and they will have to declare VAT on that element of their income, whereas those who are not exempt will be exempt from declaring VAT. The exemptions are working directly counter to each other. Is that correct?
Dan Rogerson
I have been having discussions with some of the organisations representing smaller retailers. Some small businesses have already chosen to introduce a charge voluntarily in local areas. That is a decision for them. We are talking about the difference between compulsion and an option to do so. When smaller retailers have chosen to introduce a charge voluntarily or as part of their business model, and to use the money for good causes, which is what we are expecting larger retailers to do, that will be a matter for them to decide. I want to talk about how we expect that money to be used because that is important and there have been discussions about that outwith this place.
As in Wales and Scotland, we hope and expect that retailers will give the proceeds of the charge to good causes. The Climate Change Act 2008 does not give the Government the power to determine what retailers do with the proceeds of the charge. We will require retailers to report to the Government the number of bags they give out, the amount raised by the charge and what they do with the proceeds. We will then make that information public. We expect that pressure from customers will ensure that the net proceeds, when reasonable costs have been deducted, will go to good causes. Many large retailers have already stated that they will give the proceeds to charities and publish details on their websites.
Barry Gardiner
Given that retailers will be obliged to publish how many bags they have given out and how they have given the money from those bags to charitable causes, is it correct that it will be simple for anyone to calculate how much VAT will be related to the income derived from those bags? It will be a straight 20% to the Government, so why in paragraph 27 of their response to the Committee do they say that that will be a large additional burden on business?
Dan Rogerson
Just for clarification, when the hon. Gentleman says burden on business, is he talking about small businesses that we are exempting from the charge?
Barry Gardiner
I am referring to paragraph 27, which states:
“Requiring businesses to report specifically on the VAT on plastic bags would also introduce additional administrative burden for those firms involved.”
For that reason, the Government did not propose to follow the Committee’s recommendation to report on the VAT and to hypothecate that for the monitoring and effectiveness of the scheme. The excuse given by the Government for not doing so is that it would pose an additional burden on business, but the Minister has just told us that the business will have to report on the number of bags sold and the proceeds of that charge. Given that all one has to do is divide the proceeds of the charge by five, how is it that the Government use the excuse of that being an additional burden on business to avoid the Committee’s conclusions? It is simply a case of dividing by five the burden that has already been placed on them to report on the proceeds.
Dan Rogerson
The reporting system will require retailers to report on the VAT that is paid. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I was covering the importance of where the money goes and our ability to state our expectations of that. As the Chair of Committee said in her opening remarks, the provisions that allow us to do that without requiring primary legislation are in the Act. That is the area in which we work.
Joan Walley
I agree with the contradiction that has just been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). If the Minister is not able to clarify that now, it might be helpful for the Committee to have clarification in writing later. The Government’s response to our report says that
“the Government intends to require retailers to publicise the number of bags sold and how the proceeds of the charge have been spent”,
and that they will make an announcement in due course. When will that “due course” be?
Dan Rogerson
Does the hon. Lady mean reporting on what we have received? Does she want to know how the information will be published?
Dan Rogerson
With regard to the regulations on the scheme and the explanation of how the scheme will operate, we will be tabling the regulations in December. One of the hon. Lady’s other questions was about the timetable for implementation. It is still our intention to table the regulations by the end of this year and to have the charge come into operation in October next year. That timetable still remains and, obviously, we will have the opportunity to explore the operation of the system in Committee. Should the hon. Lady be a member of that Committee, we could debate any further questions she has, but the reporting of how that money is to be spent will come to the Government, because retailers will have to do it and make it public. I would be very surprised if companies that were taking the charge in and giving it to good causes did not wish to demonstrate clearly to their customers the purpose to which the money was being put. It would be rather strange for them to give money to good causes—I am sure many of those companies are altruistic—and not tell the public about the good causes to which they are giving money. We have seen other schemes in supermarkets in which, as part of their corporate-social responsibility, they demonstrate how they are supporting community activities in the local area.
Dan Rogerson
I would like to make a little progress, if I may.
It is not only charities that stand to gain from the charge, because when littered, carrier bags cost all of us. They cost taxpayers in England around £10 million every year in clean-up costs. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady mentioned biodegradability—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, who is concerned about the marine environment, also mentioned it. The Government’s position is that there will always be a need for some plastic bags. People may forget their reusable bags or they may require a new bag to avoid contamination if they are buying raw meat. At the same time, we should aim to reduce the visual impact and the harm to wildlife if those bags go on to be littered. A bag that biodegrades into harmless products is clearly more desirable. That is why we are working with industry and academic experts to review existing standards and to set a suitably robust standard for biodegradable bags. Bags that meet that standard will be exempt from the charge.
Hon. Members have referred to bags that are already on the market and the challenges we face. Bags biodegrade in different circumstances in different environments. Those circumstances include hedgerows in the countryside and the marine environment, which we have talked about. We will need to be satisfied that there is a product that is biodegradable in the multiple circumstances in which it may be littered or find itself disposed of.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister is being very generous giving way—I do like him so much and I find it difficult to be quite so difficult with him. He is absolutely right that, depending on the light available, plastics will degrade in differential ways, but standards could be set to allow bags to be used in different circumstances and different contexts. Is he seriously saying that, if someone lives or does their shopping within a mile of the seaside, they will not be able to get hold of a particular plastic bag, whereas if someone lives in Birmingham, that bag might be available to them? Context-specific measures cannot be applied in legislation in that way. We require a bag that does not just break down into small particles, because those small particles are ingested by birds, as well as fish and other marine organisms, and that is a key problem. Unless he can come up with an answer to that critical point, the exemption for supposedly biodegradable bags really does not wash.
Dan Rogerson
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong to have different types of bag that biodegrade in different circumstances and then allow them to be sold in particular places—we are absolutely not doing that. We are talking about a product that meets a standard that covers that range of circumstances. That is the super-biodegradability aspiration.
Sarah Newton
I am pleased that the Minister is saying he will use scientific evidence before he makes that decision because, right now, such a product does not exist. I hope he will assure us that, even though he is creating a category of exemption, he does not anticipate any of the current products meeting it. As the science will show, he cannot give us an assurance that the plastics properly biodegrade in the marine environment. Because they do not do so, huge harm is being done. [Interruption.]
Dan Rogerson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and the hon. Member for Brent North for his sedentary remark about the criteria and specifications. That is why, in the regulations that hon. Members will see by the end of the calendar year, we must ensure that we can give everyone confidence that we understand that point. We must ensure that the biodegradability is of a sufficient standard to satisfy those concerns. However, we want to stimulate the industry to explore the potential for a product to meet the circumstances that I described. We want to stimulate it to innovate and come up with something to meet the standard.
Joan Walley
Things get curiouser and curiouser. We have an exemption for something that does not exist, and we do not know what the criteria for it are or what the funding will be to incentivise the new procedure. We seem to have a hypothetical future technology that we are waiting to introduce, which will then surely require an equivalently hypothetical future recycling system. I wish the Minister would accept that. Why does he not go back to the drawing board and say, “Rather than having this hypothetical exemption, we will leave it as it is”? If in future that technology or innovation comes to the market, surely we can change the regulations.
Dan Rogerson
Obviously, as I said, the hon. Lady will be able to study the detail of the regulation when it is tabled. The intention behind signalling the desirability of a product that meets the criteria is that that is an important and perfectly reasonable thing to do to stimulate investment in innovation. The hon. Member for Brent North has pointed out that we have studies under way, as is referred to in our response, first, on materials, and secondly on processes for reprocessing bags, to satisfy concerns in that regard. We have had the initial work back. We will review it and consider whether we want to take anything further forward.
Dan Rogerson
I want to make some progress and come to some of the other issues raised in the debate.
The Chair of the Committee was right to point out that, along with such a product, we need a standard to measure it and ensure that it is suitable. However, we would not be doing this at all if we were signalling that in no circumstances would such a product ever be exempt. The whole point of extending that possibility is to stimulate the discussion and innovation. That is the reason behind that aspect of the policy.
The hon. Lady also referred, as did her Committee, to paper bags. We are focusing the charge on plastic bags as part of a targeted and proportionate approach. Plastic carrier bags take the longest to degrade in the natural environment, can harm wildlife, as hon. Members pointed out, and are extremely visible in the environment because they take so long to degrade. Paper bags make up less than 0.1% of the bags distributed in the UK by the seven major supermarkets and can also biodegrade naturally in the open air. Of course, paper bags should still be reused a number of times before being recycled and should never be littered. We have analysed their life cycle—this addresses the carbon problem that the Chair of the Committee was keen to point out—but, because they make up such a small part of the overall number of bags used, we do not think that that will be significant, although they do have a part to play, for the reasons I have set out.
Joan Walley
Will the Minister reassure the House that there has been a full appraisal of the long-term implications of that—one sufficient to reach the conclusions that he has just reached?
Dan Rogerson
The assumption, from what the hon. Lady is saying, is that there might be a massive switch to paper bags and that therefore some of the littering issues and so on might continue even if biodegradability and the use of oil and so on—separate questions—are taken aside. I suggest that retailers, who are used to other forms of the policy in the Welsh jurisdiction, will make the charge part of the operation of their businesses. That was another of her questions—she mentioned working with retailers. We have had regular meetings with the British Retail Consortium and others. The fact that a system has been introduced in other jurisdictions means—the vast majority of those businesses operate across those boundaries—that retailers understand how such a system can work and will be prepared for it.
The hon. Lady mentioned the European Union. We are very pleased that the European Union has reached agreement on a robust plan for tackling the blight of plastic bag pollution, but with each member state doing what works best in its own circumstances. The negotiating position adopted by the United Kingdom Government was to safeguard that flexibility, so that member states can take systems forward in the way that is most suitable in their jurisdiction. That was at the heart of what we were trying to do.
Barry Gardiner
Will the Minister assure the House that, when the Government said, quite properly, that they were going to pursue a charge on plastic bags, a company did not come to them and say, “Hold on a second. We think that we have a product that’s going to be developed that will go a substantial way towards meeting some of the problems with plastic bags, so can you tailor-make an exemption for us”? I ask that because it would be deeply concerning if there were any suggestion that the Government were passing legislation simply to facilitate a company bringing a product to market in that way. It would be good for the Minister to clear the air and say that that is definitely not the case.
Dan Rogerson
As the hon. Gentleman may well be aware, the European Commission is committed to further research on oxo-biodegradable bags, and we will always use robust scientific evidence to inform our decisions. As I set out in our discussion about how things biodegrade in different environments, whether the marine environment or another environment, and the standards that we are seeking to set for our domestic policy, we are very clear that we would have a high barrier for any product to overcome to satisfy the exemption. This is not about taking one technology and saying, “We think that’s fine. We’ll make an exemption for it.” It is about saying, “We want a new sort of product that will overcome a high barrier.”
Barry Gardiner
I want to give the Minister the opportunity to deny categorically that, when the policy against plastic bags was being put forward, a specific company came to the Government and lobbied and got the exemption put into the legislation. I understand what he is saying about standards and the benchmark—when standards are in place, they apply to everyone—but it is really important that the Minister stands up in the House and says, “No. The exemptions that we have put into this legislation are not a result of lobbying by a specific company that came to us once this process was under way.”
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman has been a Minister, so he knows that decisions that are taken are subject to a process of discussion across Government, across all Departments. I can certainly say that the policy that we have taken forward is not to suit any particular company or any particular technology. It is to meet the obligation to improve environmental outcomes and to deal with the issues of litter, and to generate an income stream for good causes, which we have discussed. That is the focus of the policy.
In concluding my remarks, I thank hon. Members for their close interest in the policy.
Dan Rogerson
No, I am concluding my remarks. I hope we can agree that the policy is a real step forward, for all the reasons we have discussed. I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Lady and her Committee that we take all these questions very seriously, and that we will move forward on the basis of robust scientific evidence—that will be the basis of our decision—particularly on the question of biodegradability, which I know is of interest to many people. I thank her again for securing today’s debate, and the Liaison Committee for facilitating it. I also thank her for the work her Committee did on the policy.
Joan Walley
May I say first that the Minister has been most gracious in allowing so many interventions? Perhaps that was more a function of the attendance at the debate, but it was very helpful in flushing out some of the issues.
We have had a very wide-ranging debate. I am particularly pleased to have heard the interventions from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who I know takes marine pollution concerns seriously. The contributions certainly from our Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brent North, and from the Minister have helped us perhaps not always to clarify, but certainly to be better informed.
Joan Walley
I am not sure whether I am able to take interventions in the summing-up. I shall take guidance on that from you, Mrs Brooke.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
I will allow a brief intervention. I suspect that that will not be the case, but we do have time on our side, but this must be a one and only, not an inquisition.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful, Mrs Brooke. Was the Chair of the Select Committee concerned, as I was, not to hear an absolute, categorical denial from the Minister that the exemption was precipitated by a specific intervention from a specific company?
Joan Walley
I take note of what my hon. Friend says, and I was about to come on to that point. Before I do, it remains for me to say that the Environmental Audit Committee report was an informed one, and if our recommendations had been adopted, they would have resulted in proposals that were fit for purpose and easy to understand. That would have been a significant step forward. We do not feel that the Government’s proposals, with the exceptions that they contain, will meet the existing need. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will take away a little of the battering that he has received in the debate and put it to good use.
On my hon. Friend’s point about the oxo-biodegradable issues, I want to help the Minister. I suggest that it would be helpful, in view of the concerns that have been expressed during the debate, for the Minister to give the Environmental Audit Committee further written feedback on the meetings that have taken place. We need to know categorically exactly what lobbying there has been from any company that was involved in putting forward proposals. I think that that would put the matter straight, and I am sure that it would be possible with the help of the Minister’s officials. We are simply asking for full transparency on the matter.
I hope that the regulations will be introduced shortly, but they are not fit for purpose as they stand. We need something that is clearer and that will contribute to the overarching agenda that we need to protect our environment. I thank all who have contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Flood Recovery
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
Last winter saw some of the most severe weather on record, and thousands of homes and businesses were flooded.
Extension of flood recovery schemes to all of 2013-14
The Government responded to these events by making relief available for those flooded, both from council tax and business rates, as well as by helping householders make their homes more resilient to future flooding. However, the Government are today recognising the hardship caused in other parts of England by flooding earlier in 2013-14 by announcing an extension of the following Government flood recovery support schemes: the Department for Communities and Local Government council tax and business rates relief schemes, the severe weather recovery fund (Communities Element); the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs repair and renew grant; and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills' business support scheme.
This will make a real difference for those who suffered the appalling effects of flooding throughout the entirety of the 2013-14 financial year. My officials will be writing on behalf of the Government to all local authorities in England advising them of how to apply along with the terms and conditions of the various schemes.
Bellwin consultation
Last winter, to help local authorities deal with the immediate costs of the severe weather, the Government activated the Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance to local authorities, and in recognition of the unique scale of the flooding, made the terms of the scheme more generous. This included lowering the threshold above which the Government will compensate, and reimbursing 100% of local authorities’ costs above those lower thresholds.
We are today announcing a consultation on making those changes to the Bellwin Scheme permanent.
Preparedness
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be making a full statement on winter preparedness. However, my Department has already done a great deal of work on this. We continue to engage with local government to consider how councils can build on and improve their emergency support outside normal business hours, including clearly publicising their emergency contact numbers; being a more visible part of the local response; and giving clear advice to residents and businesses on how to plan for emergencies. On 30 October DCLG published, jointly with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the “local authorities preparedness for civil emergencies: a good practice guide” to help local authorities ensure they are well-prepared to respond to a civil emergency in their local area. Ministerial colleagues will be meeting with leaders from a number of local authorities over the coming weeks to discuss preparedness to respond to winter weather and flooding in particular.
Recovery progress report
It is also right that I update the House on the recovery progress from last winter’s severe weather events.
The Government are today publishing a flood recovery progress report updating on Government support and local authority activity over the past 11 months, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. My Department has talked to local responders, including volunteers, businesses and communities to understand how the local flood response and recovery process was delivered in local areas; exploring with them lessons that we can all learn about the effects of last winter’s severe weather; and working with them to reduce the risk of damaging floods in future.
Finally, once again I would like to thank all those from local authorities, the emergency services, the armed forces, community and voluntary groups, the staff of the Environment Agency and transport workers who worked so hard throughout last winter, often in appalling conditions, to support and help people during the severe weather.
Future Reserves 2020
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
As part of Future Reserves 2020 (FR20), the planned five-year growth of the reserve forces’ trained strength was set out in a statement to the House on 19 December 2013, Official Report, column 121WS. This included annual trained strength targets along with intake targets. I am announcing a public consultation on the reporting of performance against these targets to ensure a consistent approach is taken across all three single services.
Each service uses its reserve forces differently so, when the FR20 targets were set, each service proposed some small variations in the groups of volunteer reserves that should be counted. This has resulted in inconsistent reporting of the number of volunteers against the targets. The Army excludes volunteer reserve personnel serving temporarily on full time reserve service (FTRS), whereas the RAF excludes volunteer reserve personnel serving on either FTRS or additional duties commitments (ADC) from their FR20 trained strength numbers. For both the Army and RAF these personnel are included in the numbers once their FTRS or ADC service ends and they reassume part-time volunteer status. These complications do not exist in the maritime reserves, as the Royal Navy has always counted volunteer reserves serving on FTRS or ADC towards its FR20 targets.
In order to provide a consistent approach to reporting across all three services, the MOD proposes that all volunteer reserve personnel serving on FTRS and ADC should be counted towards the FR20 trained strength targets. The targets themselves will not change.
The targets also need to reflect the use of sponsored reserves as part of our overall reserve requirement.
The public consultation sets out the proposal in more detail. All responses to the consultation will be considered before any decision is taken to revise the population definitions. Performance against the FR20 targets is reported in the UK armed forces quarterly personnel report (QPR) National Statistics publication. This may be amended following the outcome of the public consultation.
Senior Off-payroll Appointees
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
A key requirement introduced as a result of HM Treasury’s review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees (Cmd 8350 published in May 2012) was that Departments must exercise governance over appointments where the appointees are not engaged directly on departmental payrolls. Each Department therefore has an obligation to ensure that such appointees are paying the appropriate amount of tax and national insurance.
On 9 March 2014, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced Departments’ compliance with the rules governing senior off-payroll appointments in central Government in the 2012-13 financial year, Official Report, columns 9 to 13WS. We have, however, subsequently established that the information provided for the Ministry of Defence was not correct, with the consequence that we did not fully conduct the necessary tax compliance checks in a timely fashion for 2012-13.
I apologise to the House for this error, which was due in part to a misinterpretation of the scope of the new requirements, and I provide a restatement of the position for the Ministry of Defence:
Annex 1: New off-payroll engagements between 23 August 2012 and 31 March 2013, for more than £220 per day and for more than six months, of which:
Department and ALBs | Number of new engagements whom assurance was sought of 31 March 2013 | Number for whom assurance was requested and received | Number for whom assurance was requested and not received |
|---|---|---|---|
MOD (core) | 101 | 59 | 42 |
MODALBS | 66 | 63 | 3 |
To comply fully with the Treasury rules and guidance, we are seeking retrospective assurance directly and individually from all of our senior off-payroll appointees that they are complying with the tax legislation. We are verifying the evidence received and will terminate the contract of any current appointee who fails to provide satisfactory evidence of tax compliance and refer the appointee to HM Revenue and Customs for further action as appropriate.
While the vast majority of off-payroll appointments have been made for legitimate business-delivery reasons, the Ministry of Defence is committed to ensuring that it demonstrates the highest standards of governance in this area. We are therefore also enhancing our own departmental controls for all such appointments so that they are not normally made until a formal declaration of compliance with tax legislation has been received from the prospective appointee. Full assurance will subsequently be sought in accordance with HM Treasury guidelines.
In the interests of transparency, a restatement of the Ministry of Defence’s 2012-13 position will also be published in our 2013-14 annual report and accounts, which are being laid before the House today.
Flooding(Winter Preparedness)
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
This statement updates the House on Government action to prepare for potential flooding this winter.
Protecting the country from flooding is a core DEFRA priority. This Government are investing £3.2 billion in flood defences in this Parliament, compared to £2.7 billion in the previous five years. This represents a real- terms increase and is helping us better protect over 165,000 properties since 2010. In addition, for the first time we have committed to six years of future capital spending to protect a further 300,000 properties and provide long-term planning for flood resilience.
Winter 2013-14
Last winter saw the wettest weather on record. There were record river flows, sea levels, wave heights and groundwater levels across widespread areas of the country. Although flood defences protected 1.4 million homes, 8,342 homes were flooded and thousands of people were affected by disruption to businesses, infrastructure, transport and utilities.
Since then the Government have led a major flood recovery effort, including committing more than £560 million in recovery support funding. The result is that going into this winter every community is at least as well or better protected than it was last winter. In England, 844 flood defences owned by the Environment Agency, local authorities and others were damaged over the winter. All of the flood defences damaged last winter have been repaired, with either permanent or temporary repairs. DEFRA made an extra £270 million available to repair these defences. Permanent defences have been restored to over 200,000 properties. The Government have committed more than £20 million to help Somerset, which was particularly hard hit.
Somerset
In Somerset, the dredging of the Rivers Tone and Parrett was completed on time and on budget at the end of October. Somerset has been awarded a further £13.1 million through the local growth fund for more dredging; developing options for a Bridgwater Barrier; and a project to increase capacity of the River Sowy. Work is under way to raise key roads at Beer Wall and Muchelney. The Government are working with Somerset county council and others to establish a new rivers authority that will give local people the power to manage their flood risk.
Military assistance
Last winter highlighted the valuable contribution our armed forces can make. The Government have simplified the process by which local responders can request military help in emergencies, and local authorities were informed of the new arrangements in October.
Improving resilience
The Government are also taking action to improve the resilience of our transport, energy and water supply networks. For example, a review into resilience of transport networks was published in July and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Patrick McLoughlin) will today publish the Government’s response. DEFRA has also been working with water companies as they review their emergency plans to ensure water supplies are not affected by flooding.
Working with communities
Locally, we are improving the way we work with communities to give them clarity on what works are being undertaken and the outcomes they will deliver. The Environment Agency has held local meetings across the country to explain its current maintenance programme, giving people the opportunity to contribute to and influence these programmes. We are also removing barriers for individuals and local groups to undertake work such as dredging watercourses through the river maintenance pilots scheme.
Working with local authorities
We are working with local authorities to plan for flood risk through the development of local flood risk management strategies. We have identified those authorities where we feel work is most urgent, and we are strongly encouraging them to get strategies in place as soon as possible. We have also started work on a review of the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act, to check that flood risk is being properly managed at a local level.
National level preparedness
We have improved our ability to respond to emergencies at a national level. For example, we will hold precautionary COBRA meetings if significant flooding is likely in advance of public holidays. This will help us ensure all organisations are fully prepared and ready to respond. The arrangements for making use of temporary flood defences and pumps have also been improved. On the recovery effort, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities (Eric Pickles) is updating the House today.
Flood insurance
We are taking action to ensure people at risk of flooding can protect themselves by securing affordable home insurance. The new Flood Re scheme will limit the amount that people pay for floods cover when it is introduced next year.
Raising awareness
In October, we launched the national “Get Ready for Winter” campaign with the Met Office to encourage people and communities to think about preparing for winter. This month is the Environment Agency’s “flood awareness month”, and it has been explaining how to prepare and encouraging more people to join the 1 million who are already signed up to the flood warning service.
Funding
Comparing this Parliament—2010-11 to 2014-15—to the previous five years, investment in flood risk management has increased in real terms by 5%. Over the coming six-year period, we will be making record levels of investment (£2.3 billion) in capital flood defence projects. This will begin with £370 million in 2015-16 and then the same in real terms each year, rising to over £400 million in 2020-21. This is the first time that such a long-term settlement has been set out demonstrating our commitment to managing flood risk and providing communities with increased security.
This investment will deliver long-term value for money and reduce the risk of flooding to a further 300,000 households between April 2015 and March 2021, on top of the 165,000 protected during the current spending period. By the end of the decade, we will have provided a better level of protection to at least 465,000 households.
Conclusion
Despite the exceptional weather conditions experienced last winter, in the large majority of cases our defences stood up well. They protected around 1.4 million properties and more than 600,000 acres of farmland from flooding. This underlines the importance of continuing our investment in flood defences. We have one of the best forecasting and warning systems in the world. We are determined to reduce the risk further and provide better protection for people’s homes, farms and businesses across the country. We have acted on the lessons from last winter and together with our local partners we are better prepared than ever before.
Afghanistan
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 forty second progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
On 27 October the final UK personnel were flown from Camp Bastion to Kandahar airfield. This followed the formal handover of responsibility for Camp Bastion to the Afghan military the previous day.
The Independent Election Commission announced the final, certified results of the provincial council elections on 25 October. 458 candidates were elected to the provincial councils, with 21 % of seats going to women.
In response to the serious fiscal crisis faced by the new Afghan Government, the UK agreed to make £15.6 million of previously committed funding available more quickly to the Government of Afghanistan. This is not new money. It will be delivered through the World Bank managed Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund and will allow basic services to continue to be delivered to the people of Afghanistan.
The UK and the Afghan Government agreed the London conference on Afghanistan will take place on 3-4 December. This is a key opportunity for the international community to signal its continued support for the Government of Afghanistan and their vision for reform, underpinned by the principle of mutual accountability and aid effectiveness.
I am placing the report in the Libraries of both Houses. It will also be published on the gov.uk website at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports
British Indian Ocean Territory
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
On 19 November 2013 my predecessor, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) updated the House on the start of an independent feasibility study on resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) by its former inhabitants. KPMG were appointed as independent consultants commissioned to carry out this study. Today KPMG will publish its draft final report in full. It is available via the Overseas Territories website at: www.gov.uk. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
In line with its terms of reference, the feasibility study has examined the full range of options for resettlement on each of the islands of the territory, including Diego Garcia with its vital military base. Final views are now sought from the Chagossian community and all those with an interest.
The study will conclude and issue its final report to Ministers in January 2015.
Pre-Council Statement
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 4 and 5 December in Brussels. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
Justice day on 4 December will begin with the Italian presidency seeking a partial general approach on chapter IX of the proposal for a general data protection regulation. This deals with personal data processing for statistical, scientific and medical research purposes as well as provisions dealing with freedom of expression, employment and social protection. The presidency is also looking to secure a partial general approach on the issue of public sector flexibility within the instrument. Although progress has been made in improving some aspects of the text, the Government are against the use of partial general approaches with regard to this dossier, given the amount of technical detail on which disagreement remains.
Separately, they will hold an orientation debate on the regulatory one-stop shop which is intended to clarify in which member state regulatory decision-making should take place where there is a cross-border element to the processing of personal data.
The presidency will also provide a state of play update on the proposal for a data protection directive, covering the processing of personal data in the investigation and detection of crime. At this stage, it is not looking to secure any agreement as there has been more limited progress than is the case on the proposed general data protection regulation.
There will be an orientation debate on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) proposal. The UK does not and will not participate in the EPPO. Debate will centre on the EPPO’s nomination and appointment procedures and how best to deliver independence within the “college” structure. While the UK plays an active role in the negotiations as a non-participating member state, to shape and protect our position, we do not anticipate a need to intervene on these internal matters.
The presidency will present a partial general approach in relation to the Commission’s proposal to reform Eurojust, covering Chapters I-III and V-IX—omitting the chapter on data protection—of the proposal with all references to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) removed. Given that Eurojust’s relationship with the EPPO is not covered in the revised text, it is impossible to take a definitive view on items such as governance arrangements. However, the presidency text provided is broadly positive from a UK perspective. One of our key concerns was to ensure that member states are not obliged to give additional powers to their national members. The presidency text is much improved in this regard.
The presidency will be aiming for a general approach on the directive on presumption of innocence. The UK has not opted in to this proposal though monitors negotiations.
This will be followed by a state of play debate on the directive on legal aid; again the UK has not opted in to this proposal. The Council also seeks an update on the state of play for the draft directive on the fight against fraud by means of criminal law following the European Parliament’s first reading position of April 2014; the Council continues to discuss the content of the directive ahead of trilogues.
Next, there will be a political agreement on the proposal for a revised regulation on insolvency proceedings. This represents the end of negotiations which began in January 2013 following a proposal from the Commission to modernise the existing regulation, particularly to expand its scope to ensure businesses in the EU are rescued where possible and jobs preserved. The Council is being asked to reach political agreement on the text with a view to adoption in 2015. The UK Government support this revision.
There will be orientation guidelines on the regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU. This measure aims to abolish the process of “legalisation” of certain public documents. Legalisation is the formality to confirm the authenticity of an official signature or seal. The regulation also proposes establishing EU multilingual forms. The Government support the principle of reducing red tape and costs and welcome recent amendments to both parts of the proposal which have limited the list of documents in scope to core civil status documents, such as birth, death and marriage certificates. They also welcome ongoing discussions to replace the proposed multilingual forms with simple translations of the original national documents rather than creating translated standalone forms with their own evidential value.
The presidency hopes to obtain a general approach to amend the European small claims regulation. From a UK perspective the negotiations have been successful in achieving our main objectives, including returning to the current definition of what constitutes a cross-border case and ensuring that no arbitrary cap on court fees is imposed on member states. The Government would have preferred a higher threshold for a small claim than €4,000 but understand that a compromise had to be found between the different positions of the member states.
The presidency is to provide a state of play report on the negotiations of the proposals on matrimonial property and the property consequences of registered partnerships. This is likely to state that while most technical issues have been finalised agreement on the proposals has not yet proved possible because of political concerns from some member states regarding the status of same-sex relationships. As these proposals will be decided under the special legislative procedure for family measures, agreement must be obtained by unanimity. The UK has not opted in to either proposal.
Under AOB, there will be an update from the presidency on the outcome of proceedings of the EU-US justice and home affairs ministerial meeting which took place in Washington DC on 12-13 November 2014. Finally the Latvian delegation will give a presentation on their incoming presidency programme.
The interior session on 5 December will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland—non-EU Schengen states. We expect the Council to focus on the implementation of October’s JHA Council conclusions on the response to migratory pressures, in particular those from the Mediterranean. The UK will press for full implementation of the conclusions, in particular supporting further action in key countries of origin and transit, offering further support for the new Frontex operation in the Mediterranean, and pressing for further efforts to ensure member states are meeting their responsibilities in the area of asylum and illegal migration.
The Commission will present the latest biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, and Council will be given the opportunity to discuss its content. Although the UK does not participate in the border and visa elements of the Schengen acquis, the Government maintain a strong interest given the effect of illegal migration transiting the Schengen area on UK borders. We will call for the EU to consider the role that Schengen visa liberalisation with non-EU member states can play in creating opportunities for immigration abuse, including the abuse of free movement rights by non-EU nationals.
Ministers will be invited to note a report highlighting the achievements of 15 years of Schengen evaluations under the Council’s management. Council conclusions will then be discussed, to allow the continuation of the relevant evaluation working group beyond 27 November. This will retain Schengen evaluation expertise within the Council structure and assist Ministers in effective delivery of the new Schengen evaluation mechanism. The UK supports this move.
The presidency currently plans a debate on Bulgarian and Romanian accession to Schengen, at the request of Romania and Bulgaria, who are seeking to finalise their accession to the border aspects of the Schengen acquis and then lower border controls with their EU neighbours. While the Italian presidency would like to see this issue resolved at Council, accession remains blocked by a minority of member states. The presidency may well withdraw it from the agenda—as it did in October. If the debate goes ahead, Bulgaria and Romania are likely to express their frustration. As this currently concerns only borders elements of Schengen, the UK does not have a vote.
Over lunch on the interior day there will be an update on passenger name records (PNR). The Council will consider how to proceed on PNR given the recent decision by the European Parliament to refer the EU Canada PNR agreement to the European Court of Justice. It is possible the LIBE Committee will use the referral to further delay progress on the draft PNR directive. The UK supports speedy adoption of the PNR directive, but we are clear that it should provide for intra-EEA PNR.
The Council will return to the issue of foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq. Member states will be invited to discuss a number of issues based on a presidency paper, as called for at the June European Council. The Council will also be asked to adopt the guidelines which accompany the EU strategy for combating radicalisation and recruitment to terrorism, following the adoption of the updated strategy earlier this year. The UK supports the guidelines and has taken an active role in negotiations at working level, drawing on the UK’s experience of Prevent.
Under AOB, there will be an update from the presidency on the outcome of proceedings of the EU-US justice and home affairs ministerial meeting which took place in Washington DC on 12-13 November 2014. The Latvian delegation will give a presentation on their incoming presidency programme.
Powers of Entry
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Lord Bates) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 required Ministers across Government to undertake a review of powers of entry. The Act required Ministers who are members of the Cabinet with responsibility for powers of entry to examine their powers and to consider whether they are still necessary, proportionate and contain sufficient safeguards.
Ministers of each Department have now concluded their reviews and prepared reports which will be laid before Parliament today.
These reports show that a total of 1,237 powers of entry have been subject to review. The Government are proposing a significant reduction in the overall number of powers which will leave a total of 912. The Government have also ensured that, where necessary, remaining powers will have additional safeguards added via legislation to ensure appropriate use of the powers. The number of powers for which it is proposed to add safeguards is 231.
Policing in England and Wales (Annual Assessment)
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary has today laid before Parliament his annual assessment of policing in England and Wales in accordance with section 54 of the Police Act 1996. Copies are available at: www.hmic.gov.uk and in the Vote Office.
This report forms a part of HMIC’s first police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy (PEEL) assessment. The PEEL assessment represents a radical shift in how police forces are held to account by enabling the public to see for the first time how well their force is performing when it comes to cutting crime, providing a service that is fair and providing value for money. The individual force assessments are also available today at: www.hmic. gov.uk
Boundary Commission for England (Deputy Chair)
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I should like to inform the House that I have made the following appointment under schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986:
The hon. Mrs Justice Patterson has been appointed as Deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission for England, effective until 9 November 2019.
Legal Aid
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I am today publishing the Government response to the “Transforming Legal Aid: Crime Duty Contracts” consultation published on 24 September. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
This consultation was specifically about the reports produced by KPMG LLP and Otterburn Legal Consulting regarding the legal aid litigator market, which helped inform decisions on the number of criminal legal aid duty contracts to be offered across England and Wales in 2015. We have thoroughly reviewed all the responses received.
As a result, the Legal Aid Agency will let 527 crime duty contracts. This has been revised from 525. The LAA is also today issuing an invitation to tender for those organisations eligible to apply for a 2015 duty provider crime contract. Contracts have already been awarded for own client work, the other type of criminal legal aid contract we announced in February.
To provide further help to firms in rural areas, we have decided to introduce payments for travelling times in excess of 90 minutes. We will also relax the office requirements in the split procurement areas and London to give greater flexibility. This builds on the support measures introduced earlier, such as introducing interim payments for lawyers involved in lengthy Crown court cases and establishing a business partnering network to help practitioners with organisational and financial advice, if they need it. We have also worked with the British Business Bank to develop guidance and advice specifically for the legal aid market.
I have previously informed the House that a second fee reduction for litigators is forecast for mid-2015. The Legal Aid Agency are inviting bidders to bid on the basis that the fee reduction will take place in July, subject to the further considerations we have already said we will undertake.
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
Further to my statement on 28 October, Official Report, column 16WS, I hereby exercise powers under section 21 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to extend the period for protocol 15 to the European convention on human rights to be laid before Parliament, it having been laid initially by the Foreign Secretary on 28 October as Command Paper No. 8951. The scrutiny period will be extended by eight sitting days and will expire when the House of Lords rises for recess on 17 December.
Intelligence Services Commissioner
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I have today deposited in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of a direction I have given to the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Mark Waller, under section 59A of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This direction puts on a statutory footing the Commissioner’s role overseeing compliance with the consolidated guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel on the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas, and on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees.
The Commissioner’s oversight of the consolidated guidance began when it was published for the first time by this Government on 6 July 2010. His annual reports since then, which are published and available on the Commissioner’s website, detail his work overseeing compliance with those aspects of the guidance for which he has responsibility. In his 2013 annual report he asked me to issue this direction and put his work in this regard on a statutory footing. I said I would issue this direction in my statement to the House on 25 November 2014, following the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby.
In their report, the Intelligence and Security Committee were critical of the Secret Intelligence Service for the handling of allegations of Michael Adebolajo’s mistreatment in Kenya, made during his interview by the police under the Terrorism Act 2000 on his return to the UK. I have therefore asked Sir Mark to examine the concerns raised by the Committee on the Government’s responsibilities in relation to partner counter-terrorism units overseas. He will have full access to all the material referred to in the Committee’s report.
The Intelligence Services Commissioner plays a crucial role as part of the oversight regime for the work of the security and intelligence agencies. His 2013 annual report, published on 26 June 2014, sets out in detail his work over the past year. I am grateful to Sir Mark Waller for his continuing scrutiny of the agencies and their activities, including compliance with the consolidated guidance. This Government have been determined from the outset to have greater clarity about what is and what is not acceptable when dealing with detainees held overseas by other countries. That is why we published the guidance at the earliest opportunity. It makes clear that our services must never take any action where they know or believe that torture will occur, that if they become aware of abuse they should report it to the Government so we can try to stop it and if there is a risk of serious mistreatment, it is for Ministers—rightly—to determine what action, if any, should be taken.
Heads of Agreement
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
Lord Smith of Kelvin has today published the Heads of Agreement with recommendations for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament.
In order to assist Members, I am depositing a copy of the Heads of Agreement in the Libraries of both Houses. I have also arranged for paper copies to be made available in the Vote Office in the House of Commons and the Printed Paper Office in the House of Lords.
I will make a further statement to the House of Commons later today.
Rail Franchising
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I am pleased to inform the House that following a rigorous competition I intend to award the Intercity East Coast franchise to Inter City Railways Ltd, a joint venture between Stagecoach Transport Holdings Ltd and Virgin Holdings Ltd, pending the successful completion of a standstill period of at least 10 days.
This new franchise will run for eight years from 1 March 2015 to 31 March 2023 with a further extension of one year callable at my discretion.
This is a significant step forward not just for this vital and historic route but for our whole transport system. Traffic on our railways has more than doubled since privatisation from 750 million to 1.6 billion journeys a year. With Network Rail we are investing £38 billion in maintaining and improving the system. The new franchise will realise the benefits of this investment. It will be good for towns and cities up and down the east coast of England and Scotland, and good for our economy and jobs.
This franchise will provide over £140 million in investment for passengers: faster journey times; new trains; more services; 50% more capacity; lower headline fares; free wi-fi and connects five towns that have never been connected to this franchise before. It provides strengthened services to the north of England, Scotland and Lincolnshire. We asked for transformation; our new partner will achieve this with what will be a renewed railway.
Stagecoach and Virgin have long-term plans to build on the work done by the public sector operator and improve the franchise for passengers. Stagecoach and Virgin will also deliver for taxpayers by providing an improved premium of £3.3 billion—nominal—to Government over the next eight years.
The flexibility in our specification has allowed Stagecoach and Virgin to use its experience and put together a new timetable that not only continues service levels to every current mainline station but significantly enhances the levels of service.
Stagecoach and Virgin will strengthen the vital links from London to Scotland; all the way along the route as far as Aberdeen and Inverness. Passengers will benefit from regular, faster, more frequent cross-border services to Falkirk, Stirling and Edinburgh, with journeys between London and Edinburgh regularly taking just four hours by May 2020.
England will also receive greatly improved services. By May 2020, Leeds will see regular journey times of two hours while Leeds, Bradford, Shipley, Harrogate and Horsforth will see more services each day when compared to the current timetable.
Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Thornaby, Huddersfield and Dewsbury, will all get services on InterCity East Coast for the first time as a result of this competition and Lincoln, which gets just one train a day to London, under the current operator will get one every two hours by May 2019 with the new one.
All of these destinations will be served by the new Intercity Express trains by May 2020. They will be built in the heart of the north-east at the new plant in Newton Aycliffe. These trains will provide more reliable services, more seats and more leg and luggage space. The new operator will provide 50% more capacity across the InterCity East Coast and a 40% increase in morning peak seats to and from Kings Cross. Stagecoach and Virgin plan better catering with more staff on board trains to help passengers. They will not make passengers wait for the new trains to bring improvements. Stagecoach and Virgin will perform a major refurbishment of the existing fleet. This will bring them up to a high standard.
Stagecoach and Virgin plans to reduce some of the most expensive standard class fares on the franchise by up to 10% from May next year. Passengers will also have the chance to register to get automatic delay-repay payments at times of disruption and benefit from a loyalty and rewards scheme. Stations will see investment too with more car parking spaces, additional secure cycling facilities and electric vehicle charging points.
A benefits package worth £5 million will be available to all of its employees. Stagecoach and Virgin will invest heavily in skills, not just for their staff but for the railway as a whole. There will be a graduate programme and new apprenticeships, and the operator will create the national academy for rail professional education with bases in London, York and Derby. This will provide good training at a reduced cost; helping the whole of the industry by reducing the barriers to employment in it.
This award is further proof that private competition is good for passengers, local communities and taxpayers.
Transport Resilience
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
Following the 2013-14 winter of sustained wet and windy weather, I invited Richard Brown OBE to chair a review of the resilience of our transport networks to extreme weather events. The review was published in July and today I am publishing the Government’s response.
Richard Brown’s review examined the resilience of our major transport modes, assessed lessons learned and put forward more than 60 recommendations to improve resilience both in the short term and long term. The majority of recommendations quite rightly addressed the impacts of last winter’s weather which resulted in flooding, damage to transport assets and disruption to passenger services. The review did not look at the impacts of snow and ice as these were covered in the Quarmby review of 2010.
We accept the recommendations made in the review, and the response published today sets out in detail the actions being taken forward by Government and transport owners and operators to improve the resilience of our transport infrastructure and its operations. Good progress has been made since the review’s publication. Wherever possible actions have been put in place in advance of this winter, while other resilience activities have been planned for delivery as soon as practicable. Areas covered include asset management; communications; economics and funding; flooding; geotechnics; maintenance; supporting infrastructure; user behaviour; vegetation management and weather forecasting.
While there will always be vulnerabilities to our transport networks from extreme weather, the review has served to join up a lot of the existing work on resilience across transport modes and has prompted transport operators to take immediate action which should put them in an enhanced state of readiness to respond and recover from future severe weather events.
My Department will monitor the progress of the resilience activities set out in the Government response, and will provide a supplementary report next year to provide an update on the delivery of the actions highlighted in the response.
Copies of the Government response can be found in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/review-of-the-resilience-of-the-transport-network-to-extreme-weather-events-expert-panel
Employment and Support Allowance
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)
Later today, I will publish Command Paper Cm 8967, the Government response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee report on employment and support allowance (ESA) and work capability assessment (WCA). I would like to thank the Committee for its report.
The Government are committed to reviewing and improving the service they offer disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. We have made a number of improvements to these provisions over the course of this Parliament, and recently appointed Maximus as the new provider of the WCA from March 2015.
The number of disabled people in employment has increased by 259,000 in the last year to 3.07 million. However, we are not complacent and recognise that more support is needed for people in receipt of incapacity benefits. Every one of these people has something to contribute to society and we are determined to support them in realising their full potential.
Today I am announcing a series of measures to further improve the support we offer disabled people and those with health conditions. From early 2015 we will run a range of pilots to test additional approaches to supporting ESA claimants. This will include testing more intensive support during the first six months following the completion of the Work programme; voluntary employment-related interventions and occupational health advice for those awaiting a WCA; and testing the impact of the claimant commitment for ESA claimants.
In April 2015 we plan to introduce a measure allowing individuals to remain on JSA for up to 13 weeks during a period of sickness. This will ensure claimants with short-term conditions remain closer to the labour market. In addition by next spring we plan to introduce a measure preventing claimants being paid the ESA assessment rate if they have already been found fit for work but have then made a repeat claim for benefit without developing a new health condition or having seen a deterioration in their current condition.
There will inevitably be some individuals whose condition affects them so severely that they may not be able to return to full-time employment. We will of course continue to provide comprehensive support for this group as well as look at ways of improving the service we already deliver.
Work Capability Assessment (Year Five)
(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)
The Government are pleased to announce that the fifth independent review of the work capability assessment, carried out by Dr Paul Litchfield, will be published later today. This is the fifth and final annual independent review, as required by the Welfare Reform Act 2007.
Dr Litchfield has reported on the evolution of the work capability assessment since 2008, as well as progress made in implementing recommendations made in the previous independent reviews. He has explored how these changes have had an impact on the operation of the work capability assessment and the way in which it is perceived. He has recommended further minor changes to the assessment and recognised the need for a period of stability for the current WCA.
The work capability assessment is integral to the Government’s commitment to ensuring that as many people as are able to do so engage in employment and those who genuinely cannot work receive the appropriate support.
The Government welcome Dr Litchfield’s report as a key step in making sure the assessment is as effective as possible and will carefully consider his report and recommendations. The Government’s response to Dr Litchfield’s report will be published during this Parliament.