House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
2. What progress she has made on reducing pupil absence from schools.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
16. What progress she has made on reducing pupil absence from schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
In the autumn and spring of 2009-10, 45.8 million days of school were missed by pupils. By 2013-14, that figure had decreased to 35.7 million, the lowest number since comparable records began. The number of pupils who were persistently absent has also decreased, from 439,000 in 2009-10 to 262,000—again, a record low level. Time off for holidays has also dropped, by about 1.4 million school days, compared with the same period in 2009-10.
Mr Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I also thank the Secretary of State for visiting Nuneaton last Thursday to hold a very positive round-table discussion with local head teachers. Good attendance is the bedrock of improving educational outcomes for our young people. Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in thanking the teachers, head teachers and governors in Warwickshire for the solid improvement in attendance in the past year?
Mr Gibb
The Secretary of State mentioned to me how much she enjoyed her visit to the George Eliot school in Nuneaton on Thursday and how valuable she found the round-table discussion with the head teachers from Nuneaton and north Warwickshire schools. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) is assiduous in fighting for small businesses and more jobs in his constituency, and that he therefore understands the importance of education. I join him in paying tribute to all the teachers, parents and pupils for their efforts to reduce pupil absences, particularly in Warwickshire, where the number of school days lost owing to absence has fallen from 5.7% in 2009-10 to 4.2% this year. There have been similar falls in persistent absence.
Mr Walker
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Perry Wood primary school in Worcester? Against a backdrop of falling absence levels in the county, the school has used pupil premium funding to introduce a walking bus and a breakfast club, and it has increased attendance from around 90% two years ago to an average of 96% today.
Mr Gibb
I pay tribute to the teachers at Perry Wood school for the innovative way in which they have reduced absence there. In fact, I congratulate schools throughout Worcester on improving school attendance. In Worcestershire as a whole, overall absence has dropped by a fifth and persistent absence by almost a quarter since 2009, and I pay tribute to all the teachers, parents and pupils for the work they are doing.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
21. Another reason for school absence is that some pupils are young carers who have duties at home. The burden on young carers was shown tellingly in a BBC film called “Looking after Mum”, which was about a young carer who had been caring for her mother—my constituent—who had had a stroke when the child was four years old. What are Ministers doing to ensure that schools have policies in place to identify and support such young carers who have taken on a burden of care from the age of four?
Mr Gibb
Schools play an important part in identifying young carers and offering them appropriate support. To assist them in that endeavour, the Department has been working with the Children’s Society and the Carers Trust to share tools and good practice with schools, including a free access e-learning module for school staff. The Department of Health is also training school nurses to support young carers at school.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Is it still the case that, for the purpose of drawing up school league tables, a pupil in hospital receiving treatment for cancer would be marked as absent?
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
3. What recent discussions she has had with the CBI on careers education in schools.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
One of my priorities is to ensure that more of our young people are leaving education with the skills to succeed in modern Britain. In October, I hosted a round-table discussion with employers and education sector representatives, including the CBI, on this important issue. We are consulting representatives to examine what further steps we can take to prepare young people for the world of work more effectively, and to ensure that businesses are engaging with schools in meaningful ways.
Stephen Timms
The CBI business manifesto was published last month. It highlights
“the shameful state of careers provision in English schools”.
It emphasises that girls in particular are losing out, but states that everyone is suffering as a result of what seems to be the virtual collapse of careers education. Why has the situation been allowed to get this bad, and what is the Secretary of State going to do to fix it?
Nicky Morgan
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I was particularly struck by the paragraphs about the state of girls’ education and aspirations:
“We’re losing out on the contribution women can make because too many girls at school, college or in the workplace are writing off—or are written off from—particular jobs for no good reason…Choices should not be closed off to anyone, and the full facts about earnings and opportunities need to be available to all, especially women.”
That is why one scheme—there are many others—that this Government are supporting is the Your Life campaign, which is supported by more than 200 leading representatives from businesses, education, civil society and government to show how science and maths can lead to exciting and successful careers.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in impressing on local schools the importance of work experience? Will she also congratulate the York, North Yorkshire & East Riding local enterprise partnership on the work it is doing in placing people on work experience and giving careers guidance, together with local employers?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She rightly says that work experience is extremely important, and I pay tribute to the role that LEPs play—both her own and many others across the country. We are working to make the whole education system much more closely linked to the world of work, with more relevant respective qualifications, more emphasis on learning useful skills and greater employer influence over course content.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State work with the Association of Colleges to help deliver its call for a careers guidance guarantee?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion and I shall certainly take a look at that. I work closely with the college in my constituency in Loughborough. I will work with any organisations and do anything that will raise the aspirations of our young people and prepare them by giving them the skills they are going to need for life in modern Britain.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When I grew up and went to school in Herefordshire in the 1980s, we had a widespread and comprehensive careers service. That has changed under successive Governments, yet I meet more and more young people who are unsure, post-qualifications, what they want to do with their lives. What can we do to ensure that local and national employers, particularly Her Majesty’s armed forces, get access to schools?
Nicky Morgan
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says. At the base of his question is the point that there is no such thing as a career for life any more and that we are all going to have to think about the skills we need to take the first job and then the next job, be it in the armed services, the public services, in business or through being self-employed. There are many examples of excellent schemes across the country where businesses and schools are working together, and our task is to make sure that that good practice is replicated throughout the country.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Quality careers advice is essential to support young people in making the right choice, be it academic or vocational. However, recent figures on youth apprenticeships confirm the concerns we have been raising for some time that Government policy is damaging the apprenticeship brand and leaving young people behind. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) is right to call out the Government on their failure to deliver for young people. Will the Minister explain why they have failed to deliver on apprenticeships as a quality route for young people entering the work force?
Nicky Morgan
That is an extremely disappointing question because it bears absolutely no relation to the facts. We have the lowest number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—ever on record; and we have more 16 to 18-year-olds starting apprenticeships. The hon. Lady should not be talking down our young people and their opportunities—she should be talking them up. Our young people are learning fantastic skills. I do agree with her that the links between vocational and academic education should be treated completely equally. That is exactly what this Government have done with the delivery of almost 2 million more apprenticeships.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
4. What steps she is taking to promote the study of STEM subjects at school.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
Under this Government we have seen record numbers taking STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—with maths now being the most popular A-level. That is due to excellent teaching and several supporting programmes, but of course more needs to be done. We have reformed qualifications and the curriculum; we are recruiting top graduates into teaching with increased bursaries and scholarships; we have established maths hubs; and, as I have mentioned, we have the Your Life campaign to change young people’s perceptions of science and mathematics.
Neil Carmichael
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that business and education come together and talk to each other to ensure that we match up supply and demand for skills in the engineering sector?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is right. I have previously said from this Dispatch Box that the estimates are that we need 83,000 more engineers every year for the next 10 years, and I have also said that they cannot all be male. That is why campaigns such as Your Life and other things such as tomorrow’s engineers week, which the Government are already supporting, are extremely important. I continue to look at all the best ways that businesses, schools and educators can work together to make sure that our young people are prepared for life in modern Britain.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is aware that the earlier we can start loving numeracy, the better—it is so important. She was not there, but only last week one of her junior Ministers was with me, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and Johnny Ball to launch the early years numeracy strategy that came out of our all-party group. Will the Secretary of State put a bit of muscle behind that?
Nicky Morgan
Well, I’ll think of a number! The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this Government will put their weight behind the campaign to get more of our young people studying maths subjects and studying them to a higher level. We have already introduced the maths hubs, and are supporting teacher exchange programmes with places such as Shanghai, which are already leading the way in maths education. We are seeing more of our young people doing better at maths earlier, and, as the hon. Gentleman says, that is absolutely critical.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Fiona Kendrick, chief executive officer of Nestlé in my constituency, is providing inspirational leadership? She is leading the campaign to get more science, technology, engineering and maths into schools so that more young people, especially young women, can enter the fields of engineering and technology. Such an inspirational change will improve the quality of education in this country.
Nicky Morgan
I agree with my hon. Friend and welcome Fiona Kendrick’s comments on the need to bridge the gap between education and employment and the need for industry to play its part. I think I was with my hon. Friend when I visited Bombardier, which is also in her constituency, and met the fabulous Kirsten, who is doing incredibly well as an apprentice welder.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It may be a “Blue Peter” link to say that I was at primary school in Heston with Zoë Ball. Very recently, I was talking to Heston residents about the opportunities for young people in the local economy, which is full of light industry. Exposure to the world of work at a young age makes a huge difference to confidence. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve work experience opportunities for under-16s in science, technology and maths subjects?
Nicky Morgan
I agree that work experience is extremely important, and I should like it applied to pupils as young as possible. As a first step, I would like young people to get advice about the jobs that are out there—I am talking about labour market information. But if the hon. Lady’s Government had not introduced so much red tape and so many health and safety regulations, employers might not be so put off taking on people for work experience.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
5. What steps her Department is taking to help more schools offer nursery classes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Nurseries in schools are at the heart of our plans to offer flexible, affordable and high-quality child care. To deliver on that plan, we are removing the red tape that stands in the way of schools offering provision to two-year-olds. We have also invested £100 million in early years child care places, of which a third are being created in schools. We are allowing child minders to offer wrap-around care in schools, and championing calibration between schools and private, voluntary and independent nurseries.
Nick de Bois
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Keeping a child in the same school when they transition from nursery to primary school is in the best interests of the child and indeed the school. Although I welcome steps to examine moves towards amending admissions codes for the most disadvantaged, may I urge him to keep an open mind about widening this policy right across nursery schools?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In many cases, parents want their children to continue into reception year in the school in which they attended nursery, but that should not come at the expense of parents who, for whatever reason, choose different early years provision for their children. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are amending the admissions code for the most disadvantaged pupils. Of course I always keep an open mind, and we will keep this matter under review and consider it later.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
One of the best ways of extending nursery provision is to have supportive chairs and boards of governors. Many schools find it very difficult to find governors, and many are paying them. May I ask the Minister what his personal—not his departmental—opinion is on the principle of paying school governors? By the way—interest declared!
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is asking about the payment of governors in the early years sector. As he is aware, the early years sector is very diverse. Child minders and PVI nurseries do not have school governors. Some maintained nurseries do, but they do not have to pay them.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
There will continue to be a shortage of nursery class places until we address the issue of pay for nursery school staff. Top bankers’ pay went up by 7% last year, and that of those working in nursery schools by barely more than 1%. What will the Minister do about that?
Mr Gyimah
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post, but I do not agree with the numbers she cites. In fact, the pay of nursery staff has gone up, according to independent statistics. More important, most of the provision is in the private sector. The Government cannot prescribe wages for people in the private sector, but we can cut taxes so that people can keep more of what they earn, and that is why we have raised the personal allowance to £10,000.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
6. What recent assessment she has made of the vulnerability of children missing from school and home to child sexual exploitation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
Nothing is more important than keeping children safe. To better protect missing children, we have introduced tougher statutory guidance and regulations, improved national data collection and published new practice standards for social workers. Ofsted has found that many, but not enough, local authorities are making progress, so we will continue to establish where that is not happening, and why, and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure children’s safety.
Ann Coffey
A recent Ofsted report entitled “The sexual exploitation of children: it couldn’t happen here, could it?” said that most local authorities inspected are not making the connection between child sexual exploitation and children missing from school. Does the Minister agree that every local authority should keep a centrally held persistent absence list that could be cross-referenced by police and children’s services to identify children at risk and patterns of local child sexual exploitation?
Mr Timpson
I begin by thanking the hon. Lady and acknowledging the significant and important contribution she has made over a long period, and more recently through her report “Real Voices” on child exploitation in Greater Manchester. It poses many of the right questions, as she has this afternoon. I agree that it is absolutely right not only that all schools must inform the local authority of pupils who are missing education but that local authorities must identify pupils missing from school and take action as a result. Those duties already exist and Ofsted’s thematic review made it clear that in many cases that was not happening because of very basic practice failures across a range of agencies and organisations. The number of persistently absent children has dropped by 40% since 2010, but we need to highlight even more those children who are particularly vulnerable for the reasons the hon. Lady has outlined. I know I have a meeting with her in a week or two to discuss these matters further and I look forward to having a conversation to see what progress we can make.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that protecting children from sexual exploitation must include better education of children and parents on the potential dangers of the internet? To that end, will he praise the work of Warning Zone in Leicestershire?
Mr Timpson
I agree that in the new digital age, when children come into contact with the internet at an ever younger age, we need to ensure that they have the understanding and skills to make good choices. Part of that is ensuring that parents and teachers can acquire those abilities. That is why we have ensured that internet safety is taught at all key stages at school, and I am sure that the work that has gone on on the ground—not just in his constituency, although I praise that, but throughout the country—is helping to ensure that we get that message across.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for her excellent report “Real Voices” and, in particular, for the consideration she has given to the voice of these young people. Her recommendations have a significance way beyond Greater Manchester. Anyone who reads the report cannot fail to be struck by the repeated references to the benefit that many of these vulnerable young people derive from working with peer mentors. Does the Minister share Labour’s interest in this approach, and does he have any plans to develop the model? Has he considered using the innovation fund as a means of stimulating it?
Mr Timpson
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s insight, analysis and recommendations as to what more we can do to ensure that children who need their voice to be heard have the requisite support from people who can provide them with the guidance and trust that are often lacking among other professionals. I am happy to talk to him about his suggestion. We have had some extremely exciting bids in this area through the innovation fund programme, which I will be able to say more about in the coming weeks. As I say, I shall be more than happy to discuss the subject with him in due course.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Somerset county council has withdrawn regular checks on children educated at home, stating that it will contact families only if it is
“advised that Elective Home Education is not happening or is unsuitable.”
Does the Minister recognise that it is necessary to check systematically so that children at risk are identified, along with parents and carers who need support to deliver education, because otherwise school is often the only place where children at risk can have contact with other adults?
Mr Timpson
The hon. Lady refers to the recent Ofsted inspection in Somerset and the need for Somerset’s children’s services to make marked improvements in its response to ensure that children are safe. The example she has given is an element of that on which it needs to improve. I will not comment on the specific work that needs to be done, which has been well documented. She knows, as do her colleagues across Somerset, that I am determined to do whatever it takes to ensure the children in Somerset get the support and care they need so that they have a safe and fulfilling upbringing.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
7. What steps she has taken to ensure that the best school leaders are recruited to work in the most challenging schools.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
From 2015 the Government-funded Talented Leaders programme will match up to 100 excellent leaders with challenging schools, including in Norfolk. We also fund the charity Future Leaders to develop the leadership skills of aspirant head teachers.
Simon Wright
I welcome the extension of the Talented Leaders programme to Norfolk. Excellent leadership is vital, and turning around a struggling school needs a team effort, with teachers, governors and parents all pulling in the same direction. What efforts will be made to ensure that the Talented Leaders programme supports a whole-school approach?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is exactly right that we need not only to get talented head teachers and leaders into those schools, but to ensure that other members of the school community are part of that. That is why, under this programme, each school will be entitled to a leadership sustainability grant of £50,000, which is ring-fenced for staff and governor development in order to build leadership capacity for the future.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
For the third year running the Government have missed their teacher recruitment targets. For example, only 67% of physics places have been filled—the figures are 88% for maths and 44% for design and technology. Does the Minister accept that the teacher recruitment crisis is leading to real problems in key subjects and in leadership roles right across the country?
Mr Laws
We certainly accept that for some time now there have been challenges when recruiting to some of the core subjects, including some of the core scientific subjects, and that is why we have significantly increased the bursaries available in those areas. However, we should also acknowledge the great successes there have been in recent years in getting more outstanding graduates into the teaching profession, and we will do more of that in future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Some of our country’s best leaders can be found in Her Majesty’s armed forces. What success are we having in recruiting former soldiers, sailors and airmen to become teachers in our schools, and what success are we achieving in getting more male teachers into primary schools?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is right on both points. The latest statistics show that we are having more success in recruiting male teachers into primary schools. We are also doing more, through our Troops to Teachers programme, to use the talents of many people who have served our country in the armed forces and can now serve our education system, too.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the leadership of Wellfield community school in my constituency, under head teacher Linda Rodham, on improving the school’s Ofsted rating from poor to good in four terms, and on the improvements we are seeing in qualifications year on year? Does that not prove that there is no smell of defeatism in the schools of east Durham?
Mr Laws
I am delighted to hear about the success of that school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I hope that other schools in the region, and in those regions where there has been underperformance, will look at was has been done there and realise that there is nothing inevitable about failure in any part of the country.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
9. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of allowing nursery schools to become academies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Many maintained nursery schools are delivering high-quality early education, often in disadvantaged areas where that provision can make the greatest difference. Our aim is to improve parent access to high-quality early-years provision, enable a diverse market and ensure that nurseries are part of that market. However, the current legislation does not allow maintained nursery schools to become academies, but we will keep that under review.
Mr Stuart
I welcome the Minister’s response—or I think I do—that this is going to be kept under review. Too many maintained nursery schools—centres of excellence anchored, for the most part, in the poorest communities in the country—have been lost under successive Governments. Would not academy status give them the opportunity to ensure that they continue to help the Government in raising standards for all and, most importantly, closing the gap between outcomes for rich and poor?
Mr Gyimah
I welcome the enthusiasm of the Chairman of the Education Committee for maintained nurseries. I have visited Pen Green maintained nursery in Corby, which is an excellent example. He mentioned harnessing their quality. We have invested £5.5 million in teaching schools so that maintained nurseries can spearhead this and help to spread quality across the sector. He is right to indicate that 4,000 schools have benefited from academy status. As I said, we will keep the situation under review as opportunities arise to reconsider the legislative framework for maintained nurseries.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Many nursery schools would like to become co-operatives but, by law, they are not currently allowed to do so. I welcome the Secretary of State’s interest in this area. May I press the Minister on allowing for an amendment to be made to the Deregulation Bill? That could happen very quickly and it would allow nurseries to join other schools in becoming co-operatives.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
10. If she will make an assessment of the public benefit contributed by schools in the private sector.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
Public benefit tests are a matter for the Charity Commission. Schools in the independent sector make a significant contribution to the UK economy estimated at £9.5 billion per annum. Many have partnerships with state schools to share resources and teachers, drawing on the strengths of each member school to improve outcomes for all children across the partnership. One example is the Wimbledon schools partnership between King’s College school and over 20 state schools. Independent schools also act as academy sponsors, and 11 have been approved to do so.
Nicky Morgan
Sir Michael Wilshaw and I have had a number of discussions on many different subjects, including this one. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, as I would to all Labour Members, that this is happening already. We would like more partnerships to be growing, but there are already plenty of partnerships and collaborations between state and private schools. I wonder whether he would agree with Andrew Halls, the headmaster of King’s College school in Wimbledon, who recently said:
“The independent schools are under a bit more threat than we’ve been for a long time. The state sector has really improved.”
That is what happens with four years of a coalition Government.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one element that lies behind the debate on the public benefit of private schools is the need to ensure that pupils in the state sector have an ever-increasing chance of receiving the best academic education? Does she also agree that grammar schools play a significant role in providing this opportunity and that their work across the country should be suitably valued?
Nicky Morgan
At the heart of what my right hon. Friend is asking—I completely agree with it—is that we want every child in this country to go to a good or outstanding local school. I welcome diversity in our schools system. I also welcome the fact that, after four years of this Government, over 800,000—heading towards 1 million—more children are in good or outstanding schools receiving a life-transforming education to prepare them for a life in modern Britain.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
A prep school in Hampshire that claims £180,000 tax relief just for showing its pupils’ art work on the walls; a ladies college in Yorkshire that claims £110,000 tax relief a year while profiting from renting out school facilities: enough is enough. Will the Secretary of State now join Anthony Seldon of Wellington college, head teachers at the United Learning trust and the majority of the British people in supporting Labour’s plans to break down the barriers in English education and require private schools to work alongside state schools to share best practice and raise attainment across the country?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman appears to have answered his own question—in fact, his own policy—by pointing out the successful collaborative partnerships between private schools and state schools going on across the country. His previous school has decided that it will not be building any buildings or unveiling any statues to the hon. Gentleman any time soon. He ought to think about the Labour Uncut website, which said:
“It is not so much that Tristram Hunt has the wrong policies for education; it is that he appears to have none.”
Last week’s announcement has not changed that.
Tristram Hunt
This is the politics of the status quo. Once upon a time the Prime Minister said—[Interruption.] I thought Members on the Government Benches would want to listen to their Prime Minister. He said he wanted to end the “educational apartheid” between private and state schools. Now we have a Secretary of State afraid to take on the vested interests, happy to allow £140 million of tax relief a year without demanding partnership and progress. Is this a principled stand against our policy or, like her flip-flopping opposition to gay marriage, is she just waiting for more people to get in touch before she changes her mind?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman has shown yet again by his question that he has no vision or plan for education in this country. He would be letting down the children of this country were he ever to be allowed anywhere near the Department for Education. In a recent GQ Magazine interview he said:
“But what I have found challenging is that you can be so busy without achieving much, meeting upon meeting and then I think, ‘Where is the outcome? What have I achieved?’ Sometimes you can tick boxes but not feel you have made progress.”
That, so far, is the story of Labour’s education policy.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there are outstanding private schools throughout the country, such as University College school in Hampstead and St Mary’s school in Calne in my constituency, which make a gigantic contribution to the local society, but nearly always under the radar, nearly always by secret means and through a thousand different links across the community? Those could never be judged or counted by any organisation; they are none the less to be encouraged.
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The issue with the recent policy announcement is that much of the collaboration and partnership between schools, whether private and state or within state schools, is already happening. I have already mentioned that 11 independent schools were approved as academy sponsors. Last month we announced that 18 new primary independent/state school partnerships had been awarded DFE funding, so this is already happening. As usual, Labour is late to the party with zero policy.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
11. When she plans to announce the outcome of the next phase of the Priority School Building programme.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
13. When she plans to announce the successful applicants for the Priority School Building programme 2.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
Our Department is in the process of analysing the expressions of interest for the next phase of the Priority School Building programme, and we expect to announce successful schools in January.
Andrew George
I draw to my right hon. Friend’s attention the excellent applications from Humphry Davy school and Helston community college in my constituency. The successful applicants will be anxious to know how quickly they can crack on with their rebuilding projects and by what date they will need to complete them. Will the Minister elaborate on that?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is a great champion of all the schools in his constituency and has been lobbying very hard indeed, as I am well aware, for the two schools that he names. I can assure him that we are processing these bids as rapidly as possible and that we will announce the successful schools in January. That will allow the project to move ahead as soon as possible.
Craig Whittaker
The previous Secretary of State, when he visited Todmorden and Calder high schools in the Calder Valley, said that they were among the worst that he had seen in England, but they never qualified for rebuilding under Building Schools for the Future because they attained too highly and did not have deprivation. Can the Minister confirm that under the Priority School Building programme, the criteria of attainment and deprivation have been scrapped and that schools that are dilapidated stand a chance of being rebuilt?
Mr Laws
I can confirm that. It is right that such a programme should look at the condition of all schools and prioritise those that are in most need of help, rather than targeting either attainment or deprivation. I am aware that there are a number of bids from schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We will look at those closely and announce the results in January.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Minister give a higher priority to schools in areas where the number of pupils is increasing hugely year on year? In our areas, the amount of money available to spend per pupil is squeezed down because the numbers are counted in October one year, but the number of pupils in the following 12 months increases exponentially.
Mr Laws
I think I have good news for the hon. Lady, because not only have this Government been considerably more generous than our predecessors in the allocation of basic need funding for our school system, but we are now allocating basic need funding for new school places for three years. In January, we will make another announcement of funding for basic need for 2017-18.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
12. What recent assessment she has made of the performance of free schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
The performance of free schools is continually reviewed as more and more are inspected by Ofsted. Based on the inspections undertaken so far, the majority of free schools are performing well. With 24% rated outstanding, they are more likely to be rated outstanding than other state-funded schools.
Graham Evans
In Weaver Vale, I am proud to have worked with the founders of the Sandymoor free school, which has grown from strength to strength since it opened in 2012. Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the school’s achievements, including its first Ofsted report as a good school with outstanding leadership?
Mr Gibb
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the governors—I understand that he is one—and the staff at Sandymoor school. The school’s motto is “Ordinary people. Extraordinary achievements.” That is right in one respect, in that it is extraordinary to secure a good grading from Ofsted within the first two years of opening a new school, but there is nothing ordinary about the head teacher, Andrew Green-Howard, or his staff at a school where, to quote Ofsted, the
“majority of students are meeting or exceeding…ambitious targets…in mathematics, English and science”,
and behaviour “is very impressive.”
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I, through the Minister, thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for free schools, Lord Nash, for their visit to the Falcons school in Leicester? I know that they enjoyed their visit. We were disappointed not to see the Minister there as well. I know that, apart from the education provided, the Secretary of State particularly liked the vegetable samosas that the children had made for her. Does the Minister agree not only that the Falcons school is the first Sikh school in Leicester, but that it has a first-class future?
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his praise of the Falcons school. I wish I had been there: I am a great fan of vegetable samosas, but I am more of a fan of free schools of whatever faith that provide high-quality schools and high-quality education up and down the country.
Mr Speaker
It is always useful to have a bit of information about Ministers’ eating habits.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
23. [906352] I have championed the New College bid for a new free school in North Swindon, which would help to deliver much needed high-quality school places in my growing constituency. Will the Minister comment on the importance of local groups coming together to set up free schools?
Mr Gibb
I thank New College and other proposers that have submitted free school applications for their hard work and commitment. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work and support for the New College bid. Free schools are giving local communities and teachers the freedom to come together and establish new high-quality schools that are raising academic standards. We are currently assessing all wave 8 applications against the published criteria, and we will soon write to applicants to notify them whether they have been selected for interview.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
We are constantly told that free schools are outperforming all other maintained schools. Will the Minister comment on his own Department’s admission that not only have a very small number of free schools actually been inspected, but that the
“findings cannot be interpreted as a balanced view of the quality of education nationally”?
Mr Gibb
Of course, many of the schools have only just opened—they have been open for only one year or two years—and not all of them have yet been inspected. However, many have been inspected, and 24% of free schools inspected have been judged outstanding. That is under the tougher framework that Ofsted now applies. The rate is higher than for schools as a whole.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
14. What steps she is taking to ensure that local authorities recruit and retain an adequate number of qualified children and family social workers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
Since 2010, we have invested more than £0.5 billion in social worker training and improvement. The number of registered children and family social workers has risen to 24,845. Programmes such as Step Up to Social Work, the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment and, more recently, Frontline are all righty focused on bringing high-quality people into social work to improve the retention and status of social workers and, most importantly, the outcomes for children.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the need to attract more people into social work in the difficult area of child protection, but is it not important for councils to strike the right balance between newly qualified social workers and experienced staff? If we expect newly qualified social workers to carry too high a case load and we do not provide the right support, that will not only damage retention, but have a negative impact on vulnerable children. What will he do to address that further?
Mr Timpson
I agree with the hon. Lady. It is important that newly qualified social workers get as much support as possible when we bring them into the profession, so that they see it as a legitimate career to remain in and so that too many of them do not leave it too soon. That is why the chief social worker, Isabelle Trowler, recently proposed an approved child and family practitioner accredited status, and said that we must ensure that we have accredited supervisors and a practice leader in all children’s services to lead practice from the front. On top of that, there has been better collaboration across the local authorities in areas such as the north-east, where the hon. Lady’s constituency is based, to look at social worker need in the region and keep vacancy rates as low as possible.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend expand on the contribution that programmes such as Frontline and Step Up to Social Work are making to bring high quality people into social work? What plans does he have to continue with them?
Mr Timpson
Frontline and Step Up unashamedly attract the brightest and best graduates into social work, making them very much the Teach First of social work. They have been extremely successful, with 25 people applying for every place in Frontline. We have just announced the fourth cohort of Step Up to Social Work for January 2016 and we are supporting a third year of Frontline. That will ensure that high-quality graduates go into social work and will be its future leaders. It will also help to improve the status of social work across the country.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
15. What steps her Department is taking to make additional resources available to schools in areas that experience high levels of in-year admissions.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
We have allowed local authorities to use a mobility factor in their local funding formulae to target additional funding at schools that had a high proportion of pupils entering in-year in the previous year.
Mr Ward
I am not sure whether the Minister has seen the figures for Bradford. If he has, he will know why I am asking this question. Recently, the Prime Minister said that
“there is no doubt that some communities face particular pressures… I think a fund that can more directly help those communities would be very worthwhile and that is what we are going to put in our manifesto”.
If there is a need right now, why should the money not be made available right now?
Mr Laws
I would be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about this matter. In 2014-15, Bradford local authority allocated almost £1 million to schools that experienced high in-year fluctuations in pupil numbers. In addition, it allocated £1.7 million to help schools provide new places to cope with population growth. In January, we will allocate further basic need funding across the country.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
18. What recent representations she has received on the National Audit Office’s report, “Academies and maintained schools: oversight and intervention”, published on 30th October 2014, HC 721; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I have received no representations on the National Audit Office’s report. The Department will reply to any recommendations the Public Accounts Committee makes in due course.
John Cryer
Is the Minister aware that the NAO report points out that the Department for Education finds it difficult to judge the value of various school interventions? Does he agree with that assessment? If he does not agree with it, why not?
Mr Gibb
We do not agree with that assessment. The report is factually accurate, but we do not believe that the interpretation the NAO has put on the facts is correct. The oversight of our schools is very clear: the oversight of academies is very clear, the oversight of maintained schools by local authorities is very clear, and the oversight by Ofsted is very clear. We are seeing a rise in academic standards across maintained schools and across academies and free schools in this country.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
On Friday evening, I attended the Social Worker of the Year awards, which is an inspiring occasion that recognises the work of many in the profession. I thank them for the warm welcome that they gave me and my team. Last week, the early years foundation stage results showed an increase in the number of children reaching the expected levels, which is an important step in ensuring that more children are ready for learning. I also welcome the recent figures that showed a drop in bullying. That is an important priority for me. We recently invested more resources in supporting schools to tackle bullying, including £2 million to help schools address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender bullying.
Gareth Johnson
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the opening of a university technical college in my constituency, which is the first of its kind in Kent? Such colleges are a fantastic innovation that help to satisfy the increasing demand for skilled engineers and scientists. The UTC will add to the diverse range of educational establishments that is available in my Dartford constituency.
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Leigh university technical college, and I am delighted that young people in his Dartford constituency now have the opportunity to attend a UTC. They are an important part of our education plan to ensure that young people leave school well educated and, as he said, well prepared for careers such as those in engineering.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Recruitment for initial teacher training was 108% against target in 2010, but it is now down to just 93%. Head teachers are having to travel abroad to recruit, and the chairman of the teacher training advisory group has warned that places such as Dover, Great Yarmouth and Blackpool will be at the back of the queue for teachers. We warned that that would happen, but there has been nothing but cold complacency from Ministers. I think it is one of the only policies that the Liberal Democrat Minister for Schools still agrees with. When will he get a grip on it?
Nicky Morgan
I am sure that the Minister for Schools can answer for himself, but I doubt that that is the only policy he agrees with. Some 32,543 trainee teachers started undergraduate or postgraduate initial teacher training in 2014-15—236 fewer than last year. The shadow Minister might want to reflect on the fact that one reason more teachers are attracted to the profession is the recovering economy, yet the legacy that his Government left us was a weak economy. We want to make teaching an attractive profession. It is already highly respected, but it will be less attractive given the shadow Education Minister’s proposals to make all teachers swear an oath, which I think was met with universal derision.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
T3. My right hon. Friend has a strong commitment to teacher training. Will he join me in supporting a Fens teaching and learning centre based in Wisbech that will support not just north Cambridgeshire but also west Norfolk and south Lincolnshire, and help with retention, recruitment and talent management?
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
I am happy to welcome that and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that proposal. He will know that in the year ahead, as a consequence of representations from him and other hon. Members from Cambridgeshire, we are increasing funding for Cambridgeshire schools by 8%, or £23 million. That will certainly help with the recruitment problems and issues that he mentions.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
T5. My constituent, Julia, came to talk to me about the plight of supply teachers who are now paid considerably less than the classroom teachers they cover, despite needing a wide range of skills and the ability to adapt quickly. What will the Minister do to regulate supply teacher companies to ensure that schools and teachers are not being ripped off?
Mr Laws
We are not intending to over-regulate that sector, but I agree that we must ensure a proper deal for supply teachers. They form an important part of the school system, and the flexibility and freedom that we are giving schools to run their own recruitment, as well as additional resources through the pupil premium, are allowing schools to tackle those problems.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
T4. Some Labour councils are frustrating the growth of primary free schools by building annexes to local education authority schools, even though they may be miles from the secondary school, which often means that a less rigorous process is followed to establish the new school. Will the Minister look into the matter, and would he welcome examples of where it is happening?
Mr Laws
I would be happy to look into that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we allocate basic need and maintenance money directly to local authorities, and the free schools programme is managed directly from our Department. If he wishes to provide me with examples of this issue, I will happily look into them.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
T7. The decision by the Education Funding Agency to halt the move by Academies Enterprise Trust to privatise a range of academy services from teaching assistants to ground maintenance in one huge £400 million contract, has been welcomed by schools, trade unions and staff, many of whom saw it as a mechanism to drive down wages and reduce other terms and conditions. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her personal intervention, but will she outline what advice she has given to academy chains such as AET about the need to concentrate on the poor performance of many of those schools, rather than on partnerships that drive money away from our children?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
Academy chains want to find efficient ways of providing back office services, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that chains that are under performing, including the AET chain, are receiving the close scrutiny of the Minister responsible.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T6. With the advent of the new curriculum, the Government have moved away from a nationally recognised, standardised system based on levels, and schools are now free to choose from myriad different assessment frameworks. Is the Minister confident that consistency will be maintained, and what work is being done to ensure that all frameworks are fit for purpose?
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The old system of levels was flawed. It merely gave the illusion of consistency. In reality, the standard of a particular level varied from school to school. The national curriculum, on the other hand, sets out very clear expectations for each key stage. The national curriculum tests in reading, maths, grammar, punctuation and spelling at the end of key stage 2 will tell pupils’ parents and teachers how children are performing against very clear expectations.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The logistics sector is probably, if one takes all elements of it, the biggest industry in the UK, yet all too often children in our schools have no knowledge of the career opportunities in that sector. What will the Government do to ensure that children in our schools get to know about the sector, the fantastic careers available to them and the fact that in some ways it could almost offer a job for life?
The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. He was not here for the first bit of Question Time, but I am delighted he has turned up for the second bit—otherwise I was not going to get an outing at all. It is very important that young people understand the opportunities available in the logistics sector. The National Careers Service now has specific allocation to ensure that it does more work with schools. In any area of the country like his, where the logistics sector is vital, it should contact schools directly to seek opportunities. Schools are often crying out for employers who are willing to come in and talk to young people about the opportunities they can offer.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Schools’ efforts have ensured the successful launch of universal free school meals. In Chippenham, Redlands primary school is bidding for a kitchen pod so it can begin to serve hot lunches, and at Holt primary school lunches are served from the staff room, which is also where the washing up is done. Will the Minister look favourably on those schools, and other growing schools, that lost their kitchens long before we introduced free school meals?
Mr Laws
I will certainly look further at this issue and at the particular schools my hon. Friend mentions. He will know that we have recently allocated a further £25 million for school kitchen and dining room improvement to allow us to tackle the neglect of school kitchens and dining halls, which has gone on for too long. I will look very closely at the bids he mentions.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Will the Minister, for the benefit of the House, enlighten us as to which independent statistics he prayed in aid in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern)? My hon. Friend was using statistics from November this year produced by the Office for National Statistics’ annual earnings survey.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with the answer.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Last week, a primary school in my constituency at Middle Rasen was marked down from “outstanding” by Ofsted for being too British. That follows other faith schools that have been marked down because they are falling foul of the Secretary of State’s new British values. Let us be honest: not a single traditional Catholic or Anglican school preaches intolerance in this country. When will the Secretary of State take action to ensure that we have freedom of faith in our faith schools?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend will know, if he has read the Ofsted report carefully, that the school was marked as “good” right across all the categories on which Ofsted marks, not just on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education that the school provides to all its pupils. He will also know that the requirements on schools to actively promote fundamental British values, to teach a broad and balanced curriculum and to have regard to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education given to their children, have been long in the drafting. They have, of course, come into sharper relief since the events in Birmingham. I agree with him that all good schools—including all faith schools, of which I am a huge supporter, and Church schools—already do a huge amount to teach their young pupils about life in modern Britain. We want all pupils to have mutual respect and tolerance for each other and for people of all faiths.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister knows that the number of children put forward for adoption has halved in the past year. The Government’s unrealistic time scales have meant that social workers are left with no option but to hold off issuing care proceedings, resulting in a logjam in social services departments and, in some cases, increasing delays for children. Will the Minister accept responsibility for this situation and urgently reconsider this ill-thought-out policy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)
That is simply not true. We have seen a record rise of 60% in the number of adoptions under this Government. On the back of the judgment in RE B-S, there has been a misinterpretation of the law, but the law on adoption has not changed. We are prepared to do everything we can for all those children whose plan is for adoption, who still await care as we sit here and who still endure the delays and unfortunate practices preventing them from getting into loving, permanent, stable family homes. We will do everything we can to get rid of those delays and give them the best possible start in life, which is exactly what they deserve.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? In its report, Ofsted marked down Middle Rasen school because:
“Pupils’ cultural development is limited by a lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society.”
Do the Government really think that that should be a factor in determining whether a school is outstanding? Most people in this country think it is a load of politically correct nonsense.
Nicky Morgan
I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but on this occasion I am afraid I have to disagree with him. I think that what most parents in this country want is that their young children and students should receive a broad and balanced curriculum, to be prepared for life in modern Britain and have their horizons broadened, not for doors to be closed. That is exactly what we are looking for in all schools. The difficulty with his point is the assumption that children at that school will never leave Lincolnshire, which I do not think is the case.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Today’s report by the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted the increasing gap between rich and poor families and its effect on children. It states that in spite of measures such as universal free school meals for infants, the Government are failing to meet their commitment under the UN convention on the rights of the child, particularly to protect the most disadvantaged children. Does the Secretary of State regret the decisions of the Government that have led to such a damning report?
Nicky Morgan
I will take a close look at the report, but what I most welcome is the fact that this Government have spent billions of pounds on the pupil premium, which schools are using and spending to raise educational attainment. We have seen the gap between the poorest and richest pupils narrowing as a result of the Government’s policies.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to award an additional £300,000 to Burnage academy for boys, reflecting an increase of nearly 100 extra pupils in-year. May I urge him, however, to bring forward a change to the funding formula to ensure that schools that suffer from dramatic changes in numbers in-year do not have to keep coming begging to the Government?
Mr Laws
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very strong case he made for this school at the end of last week. As a consequence, this morning we approved popular growth funding of almost £300,000 for the school. It is particularly important to award such funding where the change in pupil numbers is due to popular growth changes, and I will look more widely at the points he raises.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
What sort of spell has the Secretary of State cast on her Front-Bench team? I have never seen a bunch of numpties with such a lack of vision and passion. I went to five schools in my constituency on Friday. They are crying out for new teachers. They cannot recruit. What will she do about that?
Nicky Morgan
If the hon. Gentleman wants to look for a team with lack of vision, he ought to look to his party’s Front-Bench.
Mr Speaker
Order. For the record, the use of the word “numpties” is arguably tasteless and a matter of subjective opinion, but I do not think it constitutes a threat to order.
Road Investment Strategy
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I would like to make a statement about our plan to invest £15 billion in England’s strategic road network. It is a new, five-year funded plan, backed by significant reform to make sure that it will happen.
New schemes and new action, set out in one investment plan for the first time ever—this is a fundamental change for the better, and we need it because the strategic road network is the backbone of our economy and our way of life. Whether people drive or cycle, or travel by bus and coach, it matters; when people buy goods from the shops or travel to work, it matters. The strategic road network needs to work well and it needs to improve. It carries a third of all traffic and two thirds of all freight, and it is busier than ever. Motorway traffic has increased by almost 50% in the last 20 years. Traffic across the entire road network has doubled since 1976, and we have not invested enough to cope with this growth. Our motorway network has hardly expanded since the 1990s. Our trunk A roads are often of variable quality and are running at capacity. Forecasts show that traffic will continue to grow and the problems will get worse.
This Government are responding. We have started construction on 20 major schemes, six of which are finished already—schemes that will add over 300 miles of new lanes to our strategic road network—and we have also committed to major new investments, such as the £1.5 billion in improvements to the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, but this is just the start. Today I am pleased to set out details of a much bigger plan, which will hugely improve our strategic network in all parts of England—an ambitious, funded and achievable plan.
In shaping the plan the Government have kept three things in mind: first, that action on our roads must be just one part of a much wider commitment to improving our transport infrastructure. We already have a five-year investment plan for our railways, which will see £38 billion spent on improvements and maintenance by 2019. We have also supported work on a northern powerhouse, with faster rail links across the Pennines, so I do not see better roads as an alternative to investment in rail, airports or ports. They are part of the same thing: building a transport network that is reliable and fast.
Secondly, we have to keep in mind changing technologies. Our road network as it stands today was designed for the vehicles and standards of the ’60s and ’70s, but new fuels and new digital systems offer immense opportunities in the years to come and we must be ready to take them. Already, smart motorways offer a big increase in capacity, and Britain is becoming a world leader in low-carbon technologies, including through the £500 million of Government backing for low-emission vehicles, so it is right that we continue to invest in the network for the future, not just rely on the one we have today.
Thirdly, we must make sure that investment in our road network improves lives and the environment and does not harm them. That means schemes that are thought through and that address long-standing problems such as the essential new tunnel at Stonehenge, which will both extend the dual-lane running on the congested A303 and massively improve the situation of the world’s most famous prehistoric monument. It also means that as we develop our strategic road network, we must make sure it serves the needs of every user, for example by cycle-proofing new sections and making the £100 million investment in better cycling routes across 200 priority locations that we announced last week.
To do all that we need to reform. Until now, the Highways Agency has been hamstrung by annual budgets, which have made a mockery of long-term planning. It has been inefficient and has held our roads back. That is going to change. The Infrastructure Bill now before Parliament aims to create a new Government-owned company to improve and operate the network, with a watchdog to make sure that motorists get what they have been promised, and it is backed by a five-year funding settlement already announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This will see investment in enhancements to the strategic roads network triple by the end of the next Parliament to £3 billion a year.
That is why the Government can proudly say that we are on the driver’s side, and in today’s road investment strategy we have the proof—in total, 84 new schemes, more than 1,300 miles of new lanes, including 23 new sections of dual carriageway, 400 new miles of lanes on our motorways, junctions that work, bottlenecks unblocked and jams cleared. In addition, Members have contributed to the work of the six feasibility studies launched last year to find solutions to particular challenges. This has been a valuable process and has helped to shape the road investment strategy. I am pleased to say that we have not just been able to act on some of the feasibility studies, but that we are acting on all of them.
Let me now set out in some detail what will happen, starting with the south-west, a region whose vital transport links have been neglected, but under this Government they will not be left behind. Today I can announce that as a result of the A303 feasibility study we will bring motorway-quality journeys to this key route. This will be a £2 billion investment, starting with a 1.8 mile tunnel where the road passes Stonehenge. It is part of over six miles of new dual carriageway between Amesbury and Berwick down, and there will be three miles of new dual carriageway between Sparkford and Ilchester. That will be followed by further work, including linking the A303 to the M5 at Taunton with a new dualled section. Also in the south-west, we are upgrading the A30 between Chiverton and Carland Cross. This will extend the express route to Camborne from the M5.
Let me now deal with East Anglia. The A47 is a vital east-west link between this economic powerhouse, the midlands and the north. As a result of the feasibility study, I can announce substantial work to the east and west of Norwich, upgrading North Tuddenham to Easton, and Blofield to North Burlingham. This will create 30 miles of continuous dual carriageway around the city. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has continued to highlight the dangers of the Acle straight, so I am pleased to be able to announce a £10 million fund for safety measures and investigations into the long-term future of this hazardous road. Other schemes include the £280 million upgrading of the A428 between the Black Cat roundabout and Caxton Gibbet. This will create an express standard road between Cambridge and Milton Keynes.
In the midlands, we are committing £20 million to upgrading the Chowns Mill junction between the A45 and the A6, and junctions along the A52 around Nottingham will be improved. Junction 10A of the A14 will be built, opening up a substantial development site.
In the north-west, the port of Liverpool will benefit from a £250 million upgrade on the link between the docks and the motorway, and we will also act on the trans-Pennine feasibility study, which will cut jams through a new link road to Glossop. There will be new passing lanes on the A628 and dualling of the A61. We will commission a new feasibility study focusing on the M60 around Manchester, working closely with the local transport authorities. We will consult on the options around Mottram and Tintwistle while keeping in mind the scenic importance of this area on the edge of the Peak District national park.
In the north-east and Yorkshire, two further feasibility studies on the A1 will lead to improvements around Newcastle and a significant improvement to the road towards the Scottish border. This is a main link between the two capitals of the United Kingdom and it has been made clear that action is needed, so I can announce that we will invest more than £600 million to improve the A1 Newcastle-Gateshead western bypass and to dual the A1 north of Newcastle between Morpeth and Ellingham. Work will be done on tackling the notorious pinch point at the Hopgrove roundabout on the A64.
Finally, in their commitment to all parts of England, including the north, the Government have not forgotten that the south needs good roads too. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) will be pleased to hear about the junction work on the A34 around Oxford, and we are looking at the long-term future for this road. Ashford will benefit from a new junction 10A on the M20, facilitating growth in the south-east of the town. Junction 30 of the M25 will see huge improvement, strengthening access to ports in Essex. As a result of a further feasibility study on the A27, improvements will include a new dual carriageway bypass around Arundel, and improvements to the road junctions in Worthing and Lancing. Furthermore, £75 million has been ring-fenced for the A27 east of Lewes.
This is a comprehensive package for all parts of England. It is funded; it is committed; it will bring change. It sits alongside our much wider investment in better transport, including a transformation of our railways. There will be proper co-ordination with work being done by local transport and Network Rail. I commend the statement to the House.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. However, the whole country has had advance sight of these projects, first when they were announced in June 2013 and subsequently at the time of their re-announcement in November this year. This latest re-announcement represents not so much an upgrade of the nation’s roads as an upgrade of the Government’s press releases. If the Government were as good at upgrading roads as they are at making announcements about upgrading roads, life would be considerably easier for Britain’s hard-pressed road users.
The Secretary of State is right to talk about the vital importance of our road network to families and businesses throughout the country, but is this not a classic case of all talk and no delivery from the Government? We know that they have failed to deliver, not just on roads but on their infrastructure promises. Will the Secretary of State confirm that infrastructure output has fallen by more than 11% since 2010, and that only a third of the projects in the national infrastructure plan will have started by 2015? If the prehistoric builders who began work on Stonehenge had taken the approach to construction that the Government are taking, we would still be waiting for the first stone to be erected four and a half thousand years later. Is it not high time that the Government backed Sir John Armitt’s proposal for an independent national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs? Why do Ministers disagree with—according to the CBI—89% of businesses about the need for such a commission?
We support proposals to tackle congestion hot spots, and we support long-term funding for roads, but given the Government’s track record, we will be looking at the detail very carefully, and scrutinising their plans against clear objectives. Those objectives are that the public get value for money, that the schemes support economic growth, and that the schemes deliver tangible improvements for road users.
Labour spent £94 billion on the road network between 1997 and 2010, delivering significant improvements in both strategic and local road networks. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, in marked contrast, the Government’s record includes the cancelling of schemes for roads such as the A14 and their subsequent reinstatement, a process that wasted millions of pounds; promises of private investment on which they failed to deliver; and the repeated issuing of deadlines for the completion of improvements, which they missed time and time again? We know that the Government cut £4 billion from Labour’s planned road investments in 2010. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has announced today includes no money in addition to that which the Government have previously announced?
The Secretary of State said nothing about tackling the desperate condition of many of our local roads, and the pothole crisis throughout the country. The Department’s own statistics for this year show that spending on local authority minor roads has fallen by 20% since 2010. The latest figures also reveal that over 2,250 more miles of our local roads now need maintenance. That is the equivalent of the distance from Land’s End to John O’Groats and back again. What is the Secretary of State doing about the urgent need to improve the condition of those local roads?
Let me now comment on some of the individual proposals that the Secretary of State has announced today. First, we favour the long-term investment in our roads that the road investment strategy provides, but when will the Government present firm proposals for the new strategic highways company? Secondly, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the possible impact on the five-year funding settlement of a delay in the proposed reform of the Highways Agency? Thirdly, the £l00 million for cycle schemes and cycle-proofing is welcome, but cyclists and transport planners are right to ask what the Government are doing to deliver much needed long-term investment and planning for cyclists. Fourthly, will the Secretary of State publish the environmental impact assessments of all the proposed road plans?
Finally, we know that the current Government’s sudden interest in roads has more to do with the forthcoming general election than the transport needs of the country. This is a sad attempt at motorways for the marginals, new lanes for soon-to-be-defeated Liberal Democrats, and trunk roads for Tories about to be turfed out by Labour.
Ministers will be judged not on what they say they will do after the next election, but on what they have actually done since the last election. The sad truth for Britain’s hard-pressed road users is that this is a desperate pre-election move from a Government who have failed to deliver on our nationally strategic roads, and when it comes to our important local roads, the reality is that things have got much, much worse.
Mr McLoughlin
I think I heard in part of that rant a commitment to support a roads investment strategy. That is much needed in this country. The simple fact is that we have had such a strategy for the railways for the last few years, and we should have one for the Highways Agency and our strategic roads, because big projects like this do take time. On the idea that somehow we have ignored these projects, I would point out that since 2010 we have completed eight major road schemes left to us by the last Government, and we have completed a further six started by this Government. We have also started construction on a further 14 schemes. Mr Speaker, because you like short replies I will not list them all, but I could easily do so if I needed to.
On funding for local highways, between 2005 and 2010, at the time of the last Government—when the hon. Gentleman was a spokesman for the former Prime Minister and for some time did the job of writing his press releases—local highways maintenance funding was £3.7 billion. Between 2010 and 2015, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the spending on highways authorities has been £4.7 billion. So, yes, Mr Speaker, I make no apologies for the fact that we have had to cut some schemes that were announced in the very late days of the last Government, but we have also invested in the roads programme—and we have invested substantially, and we will continue to do so.
Mr McLoughlin
The answer I have just given was on local roads. As I said, between 2005 and 2010 the funding was £3.7 billion and between 2010 and 2015 the spending going to local authorities is £4.7 billion.
Today we have set out some ambitious programmes, because I am ambitious for the roads of this country, but that should be set alongside the ambition that we have also laid out for the railways and the investment we are making in them, which is seeing more people use the railways today than at any time in our history. We have also got to make sure our road network is sufficient for future generations. That is what today’s schemes will achieve.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the details. They were set out in the written statement I made this morning. Four documents explain what will be expected of the new roads investment strategy and the new highways department.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend not only for helping in the seats identified by the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), but for giving me the information that the Labour party is going to challenge me in Worthing. There was clearly support for dualling in Worthing and either side of it. There are clear benefits for safety, in air pollution reduction, and for environmental protection for the other roads and the countryside. Were the Dutch to come to the A27, they would say, “Why haven’t you put this dual carriageway in a long time ago?”
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a strong case for dualling the road around that particular part of his constituency, and we would certainly want to work on that with him and other Members in the area.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
This renewed announcement is certainly very welcome, but does it not mean that the assessment made by the Institute for Public Policy Research that 62% of transformational infrastructure investment is in London remains exactly the same?
Mr McLoughlin
The hon. Lady, the Chairman of the Select Committee, says that this is a renewed announcement. Yes, the figure was set out last year but we are now putting the flesh on the bones in terms of what that figure will buy. I know that her Committee will want to look at the figures in more detail, but when she looks at what we are doing, she will recognise that we have struck a good balance across the whole country. She makes the point about what has happened historically regarding investment in London, but those figures are made larger by the huge investment in Crossrail. I am also keen to see investment in the rest of the country, spread across the whole of England.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I warmly welcome the announcement of investment in the A47. Is the Secretary of State aware that that artery is vital not only to our regional economic success but to west Norfolk’s future? Now that the road has been designated a key strategic route, does he agree that today’s announcement should be a precursor to the dualling of the whole route?
Mr McLoughlin
I have already been accused of being over-ambitious. I am sure that my hon. Friend will repeatedly make the case for the dualling of the whole of that route, but the plans that we have outlined today will go a long way towards providing some of the shorter-term improvements for the road.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the importance of the A1 linking the Tyne and Wear conurbation with the Edinburgh-Glasgow conurbation. I also welcome the work that he has announced today, but it will still leave 25 miles of single track that ought to be dualled. Will he set out his plans for the future dualling of the road on the English side of the border?
Mr McLoughlin
In Yorkshire and the north-east, there will be 26 schemes worth £3 billion, including 18 new schemes worth £2.3 billion, the A1(M) to Newcastle will be fully open by 2017 and the A1 will be dualled to Ellingham, 34 miles north of Newcastle, so I think we have made a start in the right direction. It is a pity that that start was not made in the 13 years when the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had responsibility for these matters.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
This investment, which will include improvements to the M3 and the M27, will be a particular boon to my constituents, although more work needs to be done on quietening the M27. Does the Secretary of State agree that the dualling of the A303 and the A358 in the south-west, the dualling around Ellingham and the vital reduction of black spots on the A30 will represent a boon for the economy in north Cornwall and the area around Berwick-upon-Tweed and a help for local businesses, as well as helping to reduce pollution and carbon output as a result of the reduction in congestion?
Mr McLoughlin
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that a good transport system will lead to fewer emissions, which will be welcomed right across the House. As far as the south-east and London are concerned, we are talking about 29 new schemes worth £3 billion, with 18 new schemes worth £1.4 billion.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Given that investment in transport infrastructure has fallen significantly under this Government, and that the Secretary of State’s Conservative predecessor made exactly the same promise about the A303 in December 1996, I hope the Secretary of State will forgive me if I take today’s reannouncements with a tad of scepticism. Given the huge economic damage to the south-west whenever our main rail artery is severed, does he agree that tackling the vulnerability of our rail infrastructure has to be our region’s greatest priority?
Mr McLoughlin
The right hon. Gentleman slightly absurdly chastises me for something that was said in 1996. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a different Government between 1997 and 2010, of whom he was a member. There must therefore have been 13 years in which he failed to make any progress whatever for his area, so I will not take too many lessons from him on that. I agree with him on the question of resilience in the south-west, however, and I am keen to ensure that we look at that whole matter. That includes the railways, but it also involves improving the road network, which has been sadly neglected. The planned improvements for the A303 and the A30 that we have announced today will have a substantial effect on the area, and will be of great benefit to the south-west.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
May I tell my right hon. Friend of the gratitude in mid-Essex at his announcement that he has listened to representations over the past year or so and will be upgrading to three lanes the A12 from the M25 to Chelmsford and from Chelmsford to Colchester? That is a strategic feeder road into the east of England and the port of Felixstowe, so it is particularly welcome that the Secretary of State is acting to deal with the congestion and the problems that have, for too long, been associated with that road.
Mr McLoughlin
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome. In the east of England we are talking about 17 schemes worth £3 billion, of which 15 are brand new schemes worth £1.5 billion. He has been a strong advocate for the improvements of the roads to Chelmsford.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
One of my colleagues should have mentioned our also having to suffer the Deputy Prime Minister on Radio 4 this morning. Today’s statement talks about roads and previous statements have dealt with rail, but what we need for the first time—probably since the Romans—is a proper integrated transport statement. When are we going to have that?
Mr McLoughlin
An integrated transport system would address the different components of the transport world, and we have done exactly that by having a rail investment programme and a roads investment strategy. The hon. Gentleman did not point out the number of schemes in the midlands, so it is perhaps worth my pointing that there are 31 schemes in the midlands worth £2.9 billion, with 17 new schemes worth £1.4 billion. This is good news not only for the midlands, but for the construction industry, as it can plan properly to get the right skills and the right people in place.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the already excellent work done recently on the A23, but ask him to have regard in his future announcements to those of us in constituencies where there is very high demand for new housing and where the infrastructure simply cannot cope with existing requirements?
Mr McLoughlin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct on this, which is why when addressing transport in the whole one cannot just rely on the roads and instead one also looks at the railways. That is why I am particularly pleased that we have managed to find so much money, given the economic problems we face at this time, for enhancements on our rail structures as well.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State’s comments about the importance of resilience in our rail network in the south-west, and I am sure we are all awaiting the statement on Wednesday with great interest. He talked about reforming transport networks. As part of these much publicised reforms, does he intend to extend the national strategic transport corridor to Plymouth?
Mr McLoughlin
I want to see all parts of the United Kingdom well served. A huge amount of investment is already planned on the roads leading to Plymouth and that is very important.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of the first ever roads investment strategy, which I know is the culmination of several years of careful preparation by my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that it is the five-year funding deal that is likely to be transformational and to open up efficiency opportunities in both procurement and the supply chain, which will ensure that these schemes can be delivered?
Mr McLoughlin
Yes, and may I say to my hon. Friend how grateful I am to him as although he did not specifically deal with this issue, we did discuss it in general when he was in the Department? He is absolutely right in what he says; we have seen that as far as the railways are concerned—the long-term planning for the rail investment strategy is very important. Likewise, the construction industry will be welcoming this statement as far as its long-term planning is concerned, because it also means that the industry should be able to take on apprentices and plan and train right.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Is it right that costs in respect of the Medway tunnel should continue to fall to local council tax payers, when almost every other toll in the country is part of the strategic roads network and, therefore, funded by the Highways Agency?
Mr McLoughlin
It is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has made that point to me. It is amazing how things change on various issues. He will no doubt write to me on the matter.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
White van man and woman travelling to and from Harlow will welcome the investment in the M11. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that £50 million will be spent on upgrading junction 7 of the M11? For the future, will he also look at junction 7a?
Mr McLoughlin
Can we get junction 7 sorted out before we move on to junction 7a? I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about improving the road structure, because although this may—something that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said—help certain constituencies, it actually helps motorists in general who come from every kind of constituency.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
This morning, when the Chancellor talked about the opening of the A1 north, he mentioned improvements in Northumbria, a kingdom that has not existed for centuries. Perhaps someone should have a word with him about the geography of this country. Last week, the Chief Whip said that the opening of the A1 was all down to the Tory candidate in Berwick. This morning, the Business Secretary said that it was all down to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The truth is that both those people have done sterling work, as have lots of Members on the Opposition Benches, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). May I ask the Secretary of State why he has come to the House hours after he spoke on the radio? Does that not show contempt for this House and for the rules that you, Mr Speaker, have made?
Mr McLoughlin
It is true that Anne-Marie Trevelyan has made many representations about the road, but so, too, has the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is pointing to himself and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). They doubtlessly made representations, but what I say is that we are not making representations, but taking action. There are many more Members making representations than delivering. The hon. Gentleman chastised me for giving an interview, but I gave no interviews until after I had laid a written ministerial statement this morning.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
: In thanking the Secretary of State for his announcement of substantial dualling and further improvements on the A1 in my constituency, may I also thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, without whom these things do not happen? The Liberal Democrats will stay around, making sure that the promise is kept, and continuing to campaign to have dualling the whole way from London to Edinburgh.
Mr McLoughlin
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and others, including the Chancellor, have made many representations about this particular road. I fear that it needs no advocacy from me.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the road investment strategy is an England-only plan and will therefore lead to full Barnett consequentials of around £750 million for Wales over the five years?
Mr McLoughlin
It is an all-England plan, and the Barnett consequentials will follow.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
As the unemployment rate in my constituency has now fallen below 1%, it is obvious that the many jobs that will be filled in my constituency, not least those at Stansted airport, will be for people coming from outside my immediate constituency. In that context, does my right hon. Friend accept that the M11 junction 7 improvement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) referred, is extremely important, as is the completion of the A11? Will he assure me that he has not completely forgotten the link between the A120 at Braintree to Marks Tey to what will be the much improved A12?
Mr McLoughlin
There are a number of whole-route technology upgrades to the A12, but I will certainly go away and investigate the specific point made by my right hon. Friend.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
As the MP and former local councillor for Mottram and Hollingworth, where the new trans-Pennine investment will go, I am obviously extremely pleased. Ours is a problem that will be fixed only by new investment in new capacity and that is what I want for my area. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and also the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). He and I have campaigned together on this issue since 2010 and we were told that we had no prospect of success, yet here we are with this good result today. The Secretary of State will understand that there is a huge hunger for further details in my area. Can he give us any more information on the time scale of establishing a route and on whether he believes that a public inquiry will be necessary?
Mr McLoughlin
The planning procedures will necessarily have to be gone through and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the details set out in the road investment plans and strategies that accompany today’s statement. I pay tribute to him and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) for working together on this important matter and will check the wider implications for Mottram and Tintwistle.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) have been campaigning for a long time to have the A1 widened between Welwyn and Stevenage. I thank the Secretary of State, because this has blighted Hertfordshire for a long time. Widening the road, allowing the extra running and the motorway technology that he is introducing are very welcome, so may I thank him on behalf of Hertfordshire?
Mr McLoughlin
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I know that he is meeting the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), tomorrow to discuss these issues and will no doubt want to look at the plans in more detail.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Earlier, the Secretary of State mentioned projects that are under construction. In the past, I have raised the question of the Tollbar junction just outside Coventry and the Whitley roundabout. We know that the work has to be done, but there have been delays that have prompted questions about business investment in the Coventry area. There are also delays related to transport problems in the area. This is a serious problem and I have asked the Secretary of State to look into it before. Will he look into it again and see what can be done?
Mr McLoughlin
I know that in and around the hon. Gentleman’s constituency there have been a number of pinch point improvements. These sometimes lead to delays and to considerable frustration while the work is being done, but if he has a specific case that he wants me to consider I will of course do so.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the improvements at Dodwells bridge and outside the MIRA enterprise zone on the A5 near Hinckley in my constituency. Will he give serious consideration to further dualling of the A5 in the direction of Tamworth and the M42 because of the importance of the A5 as a relief road when there are problems on the M6 and other surrounding motorways?
Mr McLoughlin
I would point out to my hon. Friend that in the midlands we have 31 schemes worth £2.9 billion. I am obviously always interested when there are specific problems, and if there are problems with opening up areas for investment I would want to consider them separately.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s statement refers to the £250 million upgrade of the port access road in Liverpool. The road goes through a largely residential area and there will undoubtedly be large concerns among people living there about congestion and the impact on their homes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) suggested for the south-west, will the Secretary of State also consider the potential for improving rail access for freight from the port? That should be considered very seriously, rather than our just improving the roads. Rail is a key part of the solution, too.
Mr McLoughlin
We must consider all these issues across the board. We have seen a substantial increase in freight travelling on the railways. My understanding is that there are two possible routes for the scheme to which he refers and we will obviously want to discuss with local communities which should be the way forward.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for meeting my Somerset colleagues and me to hear the case for the planned improvement works for the A303, which will benefit businesses, tourists and visitors to Somerset and which I warmly welcome. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor about helping businesses further by considering the case for cutting VAT on tourism so that the west country can compete equally on cost with western European holiday destinations?
Mr McLoughlin
There are certain places where the Transport Secretary treads with some peril, and I think that answering that question on VAT rates and different businesses might be one of them.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I did not hear any announcement about investment in roads in Hull. If the Secretary of State is really serious about investing in transport infrastructure, when will he make the announcement about the privately financed electrification of the line to Hull, which we need desperately?
Mr McLoughlin
If memory serves me correctly, I have made some announcements on Castle street, which runs through the centre of Hull, and on meeting the local enterprise partnership to talk abut definite improvements. I think that I also announced at Transport questions a few weeks ago an increase in the GRIP—governance for railway investment projects—funding to look at the whole process for electrification. I think that we have made more progress on delivering infrastructure in Hull than was made in any number of years when it was represented by a number of distinguished other people.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
After years of my pestering, the Transport Secretary will know exactly how welcome today’s new announcement of £50 million for the A34 will be for my constituents, who suffer daily misery on that road, but will he ensure that the new feasibility study does indeed find a long-term, deliverable solution to the A34’s unsustainable capacity problems, and will he promise me not in any way to limit his ambition when it comes to the A34?
Mr McLoughlin
I hope that the announcements I have made today will go some way towards alleviating the congestion on that particularly busy artery, about which my hon. Friend has made many representations. I am sure that we shall have further such meetings to see what more can be done to improve the whole route and to make it an express route that also serves her constituents.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, welcome today’s announcement, but I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) in his hope that we can work towards an integrated transport strategy. Given that one in 12 deaths is linked to poor air quality in some areas, reducing the average life of Britons by six months, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that these developments do not reduce air quality?
Mr McLoughlin
I have two points for the hon. Lady. First, congested traffic causes more air pollution than traffic that is managing to move along. Secondly, the Government are investing over £500 million in ultra-low emission vehicles and encouraging their roll-out. We are also seeing car companies investing substantial sums of money in new technology.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the completely new money being put into a new junction 10A on the A14 at Kettering and praise the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), for visiting the site. The new junction will unlock millions of pounds of new private sector investment in Kettering. Without that announcement, traffic in Kettering would have been in grave danger of grinding to a complete halt.
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that welcome. He is quite right that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited his constituency and that the new junction 10A on the A14 is contained in the new road investment strategy.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a matter of public record that Labour spent next to nothing on transport infrastructure in the greater Peterborough area during 13 years in power, yet over the past four years we have had £43 million for a remodelled railway station, new rolling stock, better and faster trains on the east coast main line and road improvements on the A1139 and Paston Parkway, and this morning we heard the announcement of upgrades to the east and west of Peterborough. My constituents will be puzzled by Labour’s response, which is “Where did it all go wrong?” Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Mr McLoughlin
I certainly agree that my hon. Friend’s constituency has seen substantial transport infrastructure investment, which is right and necessary. We need to continue doing that, because there is a lot more work to be done. I am pleased that he has welcomed today’s announcement. I very much hope that the Opposition, despite the muddled response from their spokesman, will endorse this plan. If they do not, they need to say which of the schemes they would stop.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When it comes to cancelling road schemes, I am not sure that we need to be lectured by the party of Lord Prescott. Leaving that aside, we are at present borrowing £100 billion a year and we cannot magic money, so will the Secretary of State assure us that every scheme will meet a rigorous business case on wealth creation and eschew all political pressure and vanity projects? If that means, by the way, that we just have to lay another road alongside the A303 at Stonehenge and not wait another 40 years for a tunnel, let us get on with it.
Mr McLoughlin
I partly agree with my hon. Friend, but I diverge from him in one area. If we are to build in the Stonehenge area, we must do the right thing both for the environment and for that particular ancient monument, which is so important. I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at other examples relating to environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Hindhead tunnel, which has been very beneficial to the environment.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Severe congestion at Arundel damages both the local economy and the environment because traffic is forced up through the south downs. Storrington in my constituency has some of the worst air pollution in the south-east, so I welcome today’s statement and the announcement of an Arundel bypass and thank my right hon. Friend. Does he share my surprise that Opposition Front Benchers should criticise this Government for delivery when it was the previous Labour Government who cancelled the Arundel bypass?
Mr McLoughlin
No, the Opposition’s line does not surprise me. It is a great pity. I have been to see the route supported by my right hon. Friend, which I think will make a huge difference to Arundel. The amount of traffic backing up on that route at present is bad for Arundel, the environment and passengers.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I certainly welcome the improvements to the A417 Air Balloon roundabout; the Secretary of State will know from personal experience just how devastating congestion there can be. Does he agree that the delivery of improved logistics for manufacturers across my constituency is a powerful endorsement of this Government’s long-term economic strategy?
Mr McLoughlin
I have visited that roundabout with a number of hon. Friends from that area. There is no doubt that it needs some work. It is a very sensitive area and it will take some time to evaluate exactly what the right scheme for it is. My hon. Friend is right. It is a bottleneck and I think the proposal will have a transformational effect not just on his constituency, but on the rest of the haulage industry.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
I am grateful for the investment in the A47, including upgrading the A47-A11 Thickthorn roundabout. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding will deliver the scheme required to relieve pressure on one of Norfolk’s busiest roundabouts at a time of rapid planned growth in and around the south of Norwich?
Mr McLoughlin
I announced several points that will affect that particular area. They will go a long way to relieving some of the congestion to which my hon. Friend refers, and I think that is welcomed by most Members in East Anglia.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I very much welcome the announcement of a new junction on the M49 to support the enterprise zone in Avonmouth, which was a local enterprise partnership priority. Could the Secretary of State reassure me that the Government are also considering rail for that area so that this extra junction does not create extra traffic chaos, particularly given the enormous planned housing development there, so we can we can have a western hub as well as a northern hub?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend has been to see me about rail infrastructure in her constituency. I said then that we would work with her on her suggestions. I stand by that commitment and we will continue to work with her.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Congestion at the Dartford crossing blights road users in my constituency of Thurrock, particularly those connected with the logistics industry. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for investing in junction 30, which will alleviate that, and, indeed, for the successful introduction of free-flow tolling at the crossing, which commenced this very morning. My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, that constituents in Thurrock are very concerned about the options for a new lower Thames crossing. With that in mind, will he encourage Transport for London to do its bit to introduce new road traffic capacity to cross the Thames?
Mr McLoughlin
The free flow started yesterday and I am watching it very carefully. I think it will be a great improvement in the area. We need to do that and to look at the other options. I fully accept my hon. Friend’s point that it is also for other authorities to try to alleviate the pressure as far as that particular crossing is concerned.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
With the A428 now included as a named scheme, together with the A14 proposals and now the A1 feasibility study announcement, this Secretary of State and this Government are showing a profound understanding of and commitment to developing the infrastructure needed for my constituency and the whole of the east of England. Will he say a little more about the timing of the feasibility study for the A1?
Mr McLoughlin
I have already spoken to my hon. Friend, who came to see me a few weeks ago, about the Cambridge to Milton Keynes route, which, for him, is a first move in the right direction. He is absolutely right about what we have to do in the longer term on a road investment strategy. We have done it for the railways and we should be very pleased that we are going to do it for roads in future. These schemes do not happen overnight—they take planning. It is right that we try to take local communities along with us wherever we can and gather support for sensible proposals, so that we are not rushing forward and turning the tap on and off, but ensuring that people can see that this forms part of an overall strategy.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
The improvement of the M60 will of course be very warmly welcomed by my constituents, especially those who regularly have to commute around Manchester, but for the next two years things are going to get worse—probably much worse. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that, as far as possible, the works will be completed on time, and that while they are ongoing every effort will be made to keep disruption to a minimum?
Mr McLoughlin
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is talking about junction 8 of the M60, as well as junctions 20, 10 to 12, 24 to 27 and 1 to 4 of the M62. I appreciate and accept that while these works go on, there is disruption. First and foremost, I ask the Highways Agency to try to be as communicative with travelling passengers and motorists as possible so that they know where the troubles are going to be. It is very difficult to undertake upgrade works and not cause some disruption. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will talk to the chief executive of the Highways Agency to see whether we can do as much as possible on this concern for the travelling public.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As the Secretary of State said, he was kind enough to visit the A417-A419 connection—the so-called missing link—where he saw the congestion for himself. He is aware of the death rate and the terrible accident rate on that road. Will he therefore be clear on whether this roads programme includes an allocation of money to sort that problem out?
Mr McLoughlin
As my hon. Friend rightly says, I visited, with him and other Members, the connection of the two dual carriageway sections on the A417 in Gloucestershire. I have announced today that this will be developed for the next road investment strategy, because the scheme is not easy or straightforward and will be very complicated to carry out. However, we will start to look at the options in the next road investment strategy period.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement of £40 million-plus for the new section of the A585 that runs through my constituency. This has been talked about for over 20 years, and now it is finally being delivered. May I congratulate him on taking this very important decision?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This work will definitely reduce the impact of traffic on two villages and remove a major bottleneck from the main road to Fleetwood. He has been a strong applicant for investment in his area, and I hope that this will help the investment drive that he has led.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Chiverton to Carland Cross A30 section is a notorious bottleneck, and the investment announced today is very welcome. What it may do, however, is shift the bottleneck further along the A30 between Rose-an-Grouse and Long Rock, and a scheme for that was scrapped nearly 20 years ago. Would my right hon. Friend recommend that the local authority bring forward that scheme again? Clearly, the investment is needed across the whole stretch of the A30.
Mr McLoughlin
I am sure Cornwall council will want to look at the implications of the announcements that I have made today. It has often produced imaginative schemes on which we have been able to work with it. If the council feels that the plans will lead to further problems, of course I would want to work with the council to try to alleviate them.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The statement will be warmly welcomed right across west Sussex, where it will improve east-west traffic flows. What matters most to many of my constituents, though, is getting to work across the A27, the north-south route, particularly from the Manhood peninsula. This will become even more difficult with all the extra housing that the area is expected to absorb. What assurance can the Minister give that this scheme’s implementation will bring sharp and sustained improvements in travel to work times for those constituents who desperately need that?
Mr McLoughlin
I hope the improvements that we have set out will bring improvement to the journey times of the people mentioned by my hon. Friend, but if he has specific problems in relation to his constituency or a specific route in his constituency, I would like to look at that, along with the highway authority in his area.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
For over 30 years my constituents have been stuck in huge traffic jams on the two lanes between junctions 6 and 8 of the A1(M) at Stevenage. Today the Secretary of State announced a smart motorway scheme to introduce three lanes by using the hard shoulder. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the campaign from the local Members of Parliament. Does he realise what a massive boost this will give to Hertfordshire’s economy?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The operation of smart motorways and smart roads is encouraging. We are seeing roll-out. It is not a completely cost-free option. It is quite an expensive option, costing around £8 million a mile, but it leads to significant improvements.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
More than 900 new businesses have been created around Basingstoke in the past 12 months, so my constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s investment in the M3 that will help to tackle some of the problems, which were ignored by the previous Government. Smart motorway technology will make M3 journey times more reliable, and resurfacing will make the M3 safer. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that those sections of the M3 that have not been resurfaced in the past 10 years and are most affected by M3 motorway noise, such as those in Basingstoke, are a priority for his £6 billion plan to put low noise resurfacing on 80% of the strategic road network, as he set out?
Mr McLoughlin
I hope that over the next period of the road investment strategy, we will manage to resurface some 80% of the strategic highway. I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned for resurfacing in part of her constituency, as I admit I have done for part of my constituency, so I will look particularly at the schemes to which she refers.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am delighted with the announcement of a feasibility study for the dualling of the A69, which is long overdue, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see some of the issues there. Does he agree that connectivity between the east and the west of this country is often poor, and that dualling such roads as the A69 will help enormously, as well as boosting the economies of Cumbria and the north-east?
Mr McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I visited his constituency and he showed me at first hand some of the pinch points around it. I hope we can work with him on dualling and alleviating pinch points in his constituency so that he can get the opportunities and the traffic easing that he rightly asks for.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Secretary of State visited my constituency three times in May, and from May to December what a difference he has made for the people of Newark and Nottinghamshire—a new southern link road, more services on the east coast main line, a doubling of services on the castle line from Lincoln to Nottingham, and today a full design for the dualling of the A46 from Farndon up to the A1. That is a huge change for the people of Newark and across the east midlands. Will my right hon. Friend promise me that he will keep up the pace and see that redualling delivered in Nottinghamshire?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not quite sure that I can keep up that pace. My hon. Friend may well have had his fair share of investment. He failed to say that the castle line he mentioned actually starts in Matlock.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Today’s changes at the Thames crossing mean a bigger rip-off for drivers. Will the Secretary of State say whether the 84 new schemes in the road investment strategy include the A120 east and west of Colchester and the A12 around Colchester?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman’s first point about the tolling on the Dartford crossing, because if people pre-register and sign up to the system, the amount they actually pay comes down. On the other roads he mentioned, the schemes are very clearly set out in the road investment strategy, as I have said, but if a part is missing I am sure that he will let me know.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment on the M42 means that we are serious about rebalancing the economy and further helping Birmingham International airport to bring more flights and more jobs to our region?
Mr McLoughlin
The announcements for the midlands, which is a very important part of the country as far as infrastructure is concerned, involve 31 schemes worth £2.9 billion. As I have said, in bringing forward the road investment strategy, we have looked at the whole of England and tried to be as fair as possible in announcing road investment across the whole country.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I tell my right hon. Friend that there will be dancing in the streets of Lancing, Sompting and Worthing this evening, not least amid the static traffic on the A27 itself? For the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that the option of full dualling through Worthing, the largest town in Sussex, is very much on the table as part of his announcement?
Mr McLoughlin
I do not encourage anybody to dance on the roads. On the point about dualling the area mentioned by my hon. Friend, that is certainly on the table. It is for local people to show their enthusiasm for such a scheme, so that we can move it forward.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
May I thank the Secretary of State for and congratulate him on the very welcome and desperately needed investment in capacity at junction 6 of the M5, which will unlock growth in local businesses in Worcester? However, after a decade of lost investment in local roads, we desperately need more investment in the southern link, particularly at the Carrington bridge on the A440.
Mr McLoughlin
I take my hon. Friend’s first point about the M5. I will need a bit more notice of his other point, but no doubt he will write to me.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State had a very happy birthday yesterday, but my constituents in Glossop will have a very happy day today following the announcement about the trunk road on the A57, the Glossop spur. They will also be delighted to hear that there will be a consultation on extending it beyond Tintwistle. Will he listen on that point, as he has listened to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and me, about bringing much needed relief to my constituents who live and work in and around Glossop?
Mr McLoughlin
I know that my hon. Friend has worked very closely with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on this matter. We have deliberately said that we want to put the route around Tintwistle and Mottram out for consultation, because that is something which I am more than prepared to listen on and evaluate properly.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Anyone who has driven across the Pennines will know what a horrible journey it can be, with bottlenecks right across the M62, and that inevitably affects economic activity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures on that route and on the M621 at Leeds will help us to make the northern economic powerhouse a reality?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this whole programme, we have tried to be fair to the whole country. However, I have been very mindful of connections between the east and the west of our country, particularly in the areas referred to by my hon. Friend—up and around Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield—and I hope that, in the document, we have addressed some of the most contentious hot spots.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I heartily welcome the investment in the M42, which will be good for commuters in my constituency and make Tamworth an even better place to live, work and bring up a family. Will my right hon. Friend have it in mind that after years of failure to invest in the centre of the town, there is still a need for road improvements, so that we can continue to build all the houses that we need on brownfield sites and not greenfield ones?
Mr McLoughlin
I hear what my hon. Friend says. No doubt he has made representations to Philip Atkins, the leader of Staffordshire county council, because those are local highway authority roads. I will join him in making those strong representations. I agree with him that Tamworth is an excellent place to invest.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for visiting the missing link on the A417. He therefore knows what an important economic link it is from the M4 to the M5. Will he put a bit more flesh on the bones than he did in his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson)? Is it his intention to solve this problem? We have had feasibility studies for years. When does he expect work to start?
Mr McLoughlin
I am not sure that I can add much to the last two answers I gave on that point. There is a desire to find a solution, but it is not the easiest area to deal with. I have made a commitment to start work on it during the RIS programme so that a solution can be found in the longer term to this serious bottleneck.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement and, in particular, the planned works on the M62 and the first increase in trans-Pennine capacity since 1971. Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving the connectivity between our great northern cities will provide a significant boost to the economy of the north?
Mr McLoughlin
I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a keen interest in doing that. That is why we have money not only for the road investment strategy, but for rail improvement over the coming years. Our work on the northern hub will go a substantial way to addressing that area of concern. I also announced extra services last week under the new franchise on the east coast main line.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
My constituents in Winchester will feel very listened to today. I have badgered my right hon. Friend about junction 9 of the M3 for many years, so he knows the importance of today’s comprehensive package of improvements for my area. It is a huge issue for us locally, because whenever there is a problem on the motorway, it backs up right into Winchester and especially into Winnall. It is a huge issue for the country as well, because it is a major freight route from the midlands to the south, including to the ports in the south.
Mr McLoughlin
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. He showed me some of the transport problems in his constituency. He has been a leading advocate of the case for better road infrastructure. I hope that we have gone some way towards showing how that will be achieved.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Pursuant to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and my recent Adjournment debate about the A5 between the M42 and the M69, will my right hon. Friend consider the request for an in-depth feasibility study to search for a long-term solution to what is one of the most congested sections on the strategic road network?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend raised that issue in an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago. It was framed as a debate about congestion problems in the midlands, but I know that they affect his constituency specifically. He has often made the case for improvements to road infrastructure. I hope that some of the announcements that I have made today will lead to some improvements, but we will no doubt have to go further.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I, too, welcome the £41 million for the improvement of the bottlenecks on the A585 into and out of Fleetwood. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that builds on his announcement last year of £5 million for Lancashire county council to fill in potholes and the £111 million that was announced in 2011 to complete the M6-Heysham link road around Lancaster? Does he agree that in my part of Lancashire, we are finally beginning to make up for the 13 years of neglect by the previous Government?
Mr McLoughlin
My hon. Friend is right about levels of investment, not only in his constituency but elsewhere in that area. That is a marked change in the way transport infrastructure is addressed by the Government, and I hope that that continues whichever Government are in office—it certainly will under this Government.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The managed motorway scheme from Huddersfield to Leeds was completed on time and under budget, and I hope that the scheme announced from Huddersfield to Manchester will be completed with as little disruption to my commuting constituents as possible. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department and the Highways Agency continue to work with me on a possible new west bound exit off the M62 at Outlane in Huddersfield, which would ease pressure further up the motorway at Ainley Top?
Mr McLoughlin
Of course I will work with my hon. Friend. He referred to one part of the managed motorway scheme that was delivered on time and on budget. Another part is about to start, which I hope is delivered on time and on budget, with as little disruption as possible. As a member of the Transport Committee, the way my hon. Friend has addressed the importance of transport infrastructure shows that he understands what is needed in his area for the economy to prosper.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I join right hon. and hon. Friends from West Sussex in welcoming today’s announcement about £350 million to upgrade the A27. That will enhance the whole county economy and reverse the cancellation of some of the plans by the previous Labour Government. I thank the Secretary of State for upgrades that have already been delivered to the A23. Will he consider resurfacing parts of the M23 to reduce the impact of noise on constituents in neighbourhoods in Crawley that border that part of the motorway?
Mr McLoughlin
A sizeable amount of money has been made available in the next road investment programme for resurfacing roads—it has been estimated that we will be able to resurface something like 80%—and I will obviously look at my hon. Friend’s representations.
Andrew Bridgen
I feel as if I have been at the back of a long traffic jam to comment on this issue. After decades of promises and work authorised by this Government, the dualling of the A453 will soon be completed, linking my constituency with Nottingham and the east. Since a third of jobs in my constituency are distribution related, my constituents will welcome all today’s announcements about road infrastructure investment. Is my right hon. Friend as incredulous as I am that the shadow Transport Secretary should claim that the motorist has been let down, when Labour represents the party of the fuel duty escalator and the self-confessed failed transport policies of Lord Prescott?
Mr McLoughlin
On the A453 I congratulate Councillor Kay Cutts, who was leader of Nottinghamshire county council and did a fantastic job in making the case for that road. The improvements that will be made to junction 24 on the M1 will be important, and that will serve my hon. Friend’s constituency directly. He is right to say that the Government are putting the motorist centre stage. These road improvements are necessary, and I hope that they receive cross-party consensus. This plan will be delivered under a Conservative Government; I do not think the same can be said for a Labour Government.
Guy Opperman
I may be at the end of the road when being called at questions, but the triumphant campaign to dual the A69, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), and the feasibility study announced by the Secretary of State, are most welcome. Is the Secretary of State interested to note that although Conservative Members welcome the announcement about dualling the A1, the Leader of the Opposition was in Newcastle on Friday and made it clear that Labour does not intend to do that?
Mr McLoughlin
I was not aware of what the Leader of the Opposition has said, but if my hon. Friend continues to make his case, more people will get to know about it. I think the road investment programme is essential. It is a balanced programme between road, rail, and the importance of public transport, as well as ensuring that motorists get their opportunity. That is right and I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments.
NHS (Five Year Forward View)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I wish today to make a statement on the future of our NHS, one that I hope everyone in this House will welcome. In October, NHS England and its partner organisations published an ambitious “Five Year Forward View” that was welcomed across the political divide. Today, I will announce how the Government plan to implement that vision.
Our response has four pillars. The first pillar is to ensure that we have an economy that can pay for the growing costs of our NHS and social care system: a strong NHS needs a strong economy. Some have suggested that the way to fund extra cost pressures is through new taxes, including on people’s homes. However, through prudent economic policies the Government can today announce additional NHS funding in the autumn statement without the need for a tax on homes. The funding includes £1.7 billion to support and modernise the delivery of front-line care, and £1 billion of funding over four years for investment in new primary care infrastructure. That is all possible because under this Government we have become the fastest growing economy in the G7.
The NHS itself can contribute to that strong economy in a number of ways. It is helping people with mental health conditions to get back to work by offering talking therapies to 100,000 more people every year than four years ago. The NHS can also attract jobs to the UK by playing a pivotal role in our life sciences industry. We have already attracted £3.5 billion of investment and 11,000 jobs in the past three years, as well as announcing plans to be the first country in the world to decode 100,000 research-ready whole genomes. Today, I want to go further by announcing that we are establishing the Genomics England clinical interpretation partnership to bring together external researchers with NHS clinical teams to interpret genomic information so that we go further and faster in developing diagnostics, treatments and therapies for rarer diseases and cancers. Too often, people with such diseases have suffered horribly because it is not economic to invest in finding treatments. We want the UK to lead the world in using genetic sequencing to unlock cures that have previously been beyond our reach.
The second pillar of our plan is to change the models of care to be more suited to an ageing population, where growing numbers of vulnerable older people need support to live better at home with long-term conditions such as dementia, diabetes and arthritis. To do that, we need to focus on prevention as much as cure, helping people to stay healthy without allowing illnesses to deteriorate to the point where they need expensive hospital treatment. Some have argued that to do that we need to make clinical commissioning groups part of local government and force GPs to work for hospital groups, but because that would amount to a top-down reorganisation we reject that approach. We have listened to people in the NHS who say that more than anything the NHS wants structural stability going forward, and, even if others do not, we will heed that message.
We have already made good progress in improving out-of-hospital care. This year, all those aged 75 and over have been given a named GP responsible for their care, something that was abolished by the previous Government. From next year, not just over-75s but everyone will have named GPs. Some 3.5 million people already benefit from our introduction of evening and weekend GP appointments, which will progressively become available to the whole population by 2020. The better care fund is merging the health and social care systems to provide joined-up care for our most vulnerable patients. Alongside that, the Government have legislated, for the first time ever, on parity of esteem between physical and mental health. To deliver world class community care, we need much better physical infrastructure. Today, I can announce a £1 billion investment fund for primary and community care facilities over the next four years. This will pay for new surgeries and community care facilities in the places where people most want them: near their own homes and families. These new primary care facilities will also be encouraged to join up closely with local job centres, social services and other community services.
Additionally, from the £1.7 billion revenue funding we are also announcing, we will make £200 million available to pilot the new models of care set out in the “Forward View”. To deliver these new models, we will need to support the new clinical commissioning groups in taking responsibility, with partners, for the entire health and care needs of their local populations. So as well as commissioning secondary care, from next year they will be given the opportunity to co-commission primary care, specialist care, social care, through the better care fund, and for the first time, if local areas want to do it, public health. The NHS will therefore take the first steps towards true population health commissioning, with care provided by accountable care organisations.
A strong economy and a focus on prevention are the first two pillars of our plan. The third pillar is to be much better at embracing innovation and eliminating waste. We are making good progress in our ambition for the NHS to be paperless by 2018, and last month the number of A and E departments and ambulance services able to access summary GP records exceeded a third for the first time, while from next spring, everyone will be able to access their own GP record online. However, today, I want to go further: £1.5 billion of the extra £1.7 billion revenue funding will go on additional front-line activity. To access this funding, we will ask hospitals to provide assured plans showing how they will be more efficient and sustainable in the year ahead and deliver their commitment to a paperless NHS by 2018.
We also have to face the reality that the NHS has often been too slow to adopt and spread innovation. Sometimes this is because the people buying health care have not had the information to see how much smart purchasing can contain costs, so from next year CCGs will be asked to collect improved financial information, including per-patient costings.
The best way to encourage investment in innovation is a stable financial environment, so I can today announce that the Government, in collaboration with NHS England, will give local authorities and CCGs indicative, multi-year budgets as soon as possible after the next spending review. We expect NHS England and Monitor to follow this by modernising the tariff to set multi-year prices and make the development of year-of-care funding packages easier.
The NHS also needs to be better at controlling costs in areas such as procurement, agency staff, the collection of fees from international visitors and reducing litigation and other costs associated with poor care. I have announced plans in all these areas, and we will agree the precise level of savings to be achieved through consultation with NHS partner organisations over the next six months. This will lead to a compact signed up to by the Department, its arm’s length bodies and local NHS organisations, with agreed plans to eliminate waste and allow more resources to be directed to patient care.
The final pillar of our plan is the most important and difficult of all. We can find the money; we can support new models of care; we can embrace innovation, but if we get the culture wrong, if we fail to nurture dignity, respect and compassionate care for every single NHS patient, we are betraying the values that underpin the work done every day by doctors and nurses throughout the NHS. We have made good progress since the Francis report: a new Care Quality Commission regime, six hospitals turned around after being put into special measures, 5,000 more nurses on our wards, the My NHS website, and 4.2 million NHS patients asked for the first time if they would recommend to others the care they received.
In the next few months, however, we will go further, announcing new measures to improve training and safety for new doctors and nurses, launching a national campaign to reduce sepsis and responding to recommendations made in the follow-up Francis report, tackling issues of whistleblowing and the ability to speak out easily about poor care.
Under this Government, the NHS has, according to the independent Commonwealth Fund, become the top-ranked health care system in the world. In 2010, we were seventh for patient-centred care, and we have now moved to the top. Under this Government, we have also become the safest health care system in the world. But with an ageing population, we face huge challenges.
How we prepare the NHS and social care system to meet those challenges will be the litmus test of this Government’s ambition to make Britain the best country in the world in which to grow old. We are determined to pass that test, and today’s four-pillar plan will help us to do just that. Our plan will need proper funding, backed by a strong economy, so I welcome yesterday’s comment by Simon Stevens that when it comes to money, the Government have played their part.
However, we also need ambitious reforms of the way we deliver care, focusing on prevention, innovation and a patient-centred culture that treats every single person with dignity and respect—proper reforms not as a substitute for proper funding, but as a condition of it. A long-term plan for the economy; a long-term plan for the NHS—I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
This weekend a 16-year-old girl in need of a hospital bed was held for two days in a police cell because there was not a single bed available for her anywhere in the country. As we have warned before, this is by no means an isolated example: the BBC reported on Friday that seven other people had died recently waiting for mental health beds. But it is not just mental health: last week I told the House of a stroke patient ferried to hospital by police on a makeshift stretcher made from blinds in his house. That patient later died. This is one of a number of alarming reports of people waiting hours in pain and distress for ambulances to arrive.
Listening to the Secretary of State for over 10 minutes today, one would have no idea that any of that was happening in the NHS right now—and that is the problem: nothing he has said today will address those pressures ahead of this winter. On mental health, does he not accept that there is an undeniable need to open more beds urgently —right now, this week—to stop appalling cases like the one we heard about at the weekend? What assessment has he made of the ability of the ambulance service to cope this winter? Is there a case for emergency support, on top of what has already been announced?
This statement offers no help now to an NHS on the brink of its worst winter in years, but there is another major problem with it. The weekend headlines promised £2 billion extra for the NHS, but the small print revealed that it is nothing of the sort. I note that the Secretary of State did not use the figure of £2 billion once in his statement, but that is what the NHS was led to believe it was getting. False promises and cheques that bounce one day after they are written are of no use to doctors and nurses struggling to keep services going. We all remember the omnishambles Budget unravelling the day after it was given, but an autumn statement unravelling three days before it has been delivered is a first even for this Government.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that £700 million of the £1.7 billion he talked about is not new money, but already in his departmental budget? A few weeks ago his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it expects to overspend this year by half a billion pounds. His Department is in deficit right now. If that is the case, would he care to tell us where this £700 million is coming from and what services he will be cutting to pay for it? He mentioned research. At the weekend we exposed NHS England’s plans to cut the funding for clinical trials, which would have affected thousands of very poorly patients. Was that one of his planned central cuts to pay for this funding? Will he now guarantee that funding for research and clinical trials will not be cut?
But it gets worse. Not only is £700 million recycled; we gather that the other £1 billion will be funded by cuts to other Departments. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of “staggeringly big cuts” to local government in the next Parliament. The NHS Confederation has said:
“If additional NHS funding comes at the expense of tough cuts to local government budgets, this will be a false economy as costs in the NHS will rise.”
Have the Government not learnt the lessons of this Parliament: that the NHS cannot be seen in isolation from other services, particularly local government, and that cutting social care only leads to extra costs for the NHS? Figures released on Friday revealed record numbers of older people trapped in hospital because the care was not there for them at home. That is happening on the Secretary of State’s watch.
This is the human consequence of the severe cuts to social care in this Parliament, and it is clear that this Government are preparing to do the same again in the next Parliament if they are re-elected. This is why hospital A and Es have missed the right hon. Gentleman’s own target for 71 weeks running. We also have cancer patients waiting longer for treatment to start, and everyone is finding it harder and harder to see a GP.
Is it not the case that most of what the Secretary of State has announced will go to patching up the problems he has created, leaving less than a quarter for the new models of care outlined in the “Forward View”? Let me remind him that policies such as a year of care for vulnerable patients and having accountable care organisations were developed by the Opposition, and for him to stand there today and lecture us about reorganisations of the NHS—well, I did not think that even he would have the nerve to do that.
The truth is that what the Secretary of State has announced provides nothing for the NHS now and is not what it seems, and because of that it will not be enough to prevent the NHS from tipping into full-blown crisis if the Tories are re-elected next year. They will not be able to find any more money for the NHS than this, because they have prioritised tax cuts for higher earners and have not yet found the money to pay for them. That explains their desperate attempts to inflate these figures and make them sound more than they are. Is it not the case that to deliver the “Five Year Forward View”, the NHS needs truly additional money on the scale proposed by Labour—an extra £2.5 billion over and above everything the Secretary of State has promised today, and an ambitious plan for the full integration of health and social care.
They said they would be the Government who cut the deficit, not the NHS, but it is the Health Secretary who has created a deficit in the NHS. It is because of that deficit that cancer patients are waiting longer, A and E is in crisis and children are being held in police cells, not hospital beds. He had nothing to say to those people today. They deserve better than a Chancellor fiddling the figures and a Health Secretary spinning the facts.
Mr Hunt
This is the day on which Labour’s attacks on the NHS have been shown up for what they are—every bit as shallow as their attacks on the economy. The country knows that we are addressing the squeeze on NHS funding caused by Labour’s wrecking of the British economy.
The right hon. Gentleman called today’s announcement “patching up the problems”. If growing the economy so that we can put more money into the NHS is patching up problems, how would he describe shrinking the economy and then cutting the NHS budget, as he wanted to do? He said that £2 billion of new money was a false promise. It was not a false promise: it was the truth—£1 billion of additional funding from the Treasury and £1 billion from the forex fines. That is £2 billion of new money, which has been welcomed by the King’s Fund today as a big step forward, and by the NHS Confederation, the Foundation Trust Network and Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England and former Labour No. 10 health adviser. This is a very significant moment when, after years of taking painful decisions to get the economy back on track, we can at last put more money into the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman should welcome it, not scorn it.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about deficits in the NHS. We will take no lessons on deficits from the Labour party—the party that left the country its biggest level of unfunded spending commitments in peacetime history. The truth is that now, with a strong economy that Labour could never deliver, we are putting things right.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about problems with care in the NHS, and the one thing that no one ever says about me is that I am a Health Secretary who shies away from those problems. The trouble is that every time I talk about problems with care in the NHS, he says it is running down the NHS. It is not running down the NHS to confront the problems of poor care. He also talked about the issue of police cells, but we are on track to reduce the number of mental health patients using them by 50% over the next few months.
As for pressures on the NHS front line, it is not that all Health Secretaries do not have to confront them; it is whether or not we sort them out. When it comes to poor care in hospitals such as the Medway and hospitals in Colchester, Basildon and Burton, this Government are sorting out those problems, while the previous Government swept them under the carpet. The right hon. Gentleman used the word “spin”, but he might like to reflect on the massive harm done to patients when under a Labour Government poor care was covered up by Labour spin—surely it was Labour’s darkest period ever when it came to running the NHS.
Government Members have a long-term plan for the economy, and a long-term plan for the NHS. By contrast—[Interruption.] Opposition Members might listen to the truth about the NHS. By contrast, the Labour leader said recently that he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS. He wanted to turn the NHS into a weapon—a weapon to get Labour votes. No, Mr Speaker, the NHS is not a weapon for political parties. It is there to help patients and to save lives, not to save political spins. Under this Government, it will always be there for patients: that is what this Government will deliver.
Mr Speaker
Order. For the avoidance of doubt—because there was some consternation about this matter—let me say that I am sure the Secretary of State is not making an allegation of any personal dishonesty on the part of any Member. It would simply not be legitimate to do so.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State confirms that he is not making any allegation of personal dishonesty against any individual. Enough: we are grateful. We will leave it there for now.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement. The extra funds for the NHS constitute a clear endorsement of Simon Stevens’s excellent “Five Year Forward View”. I particularly welcome the announcement of multi-year budgets and investment in patients’ ability to control their own records. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the process of creating paperless NHS hospitals will move seamlessly from primary to secondary care, and will be controlled by patients themselves?
Mr Hunt
The commitment to a paperless NHS is not a commitment to the creation of paperless hospitals by 2018; it is a commitment to the creation of a paperless NHS so that, with patients’ consent, information can flow seamlessly between different parts of the system. The interface between primary care and secondary care, and social care, is a very important part of that process.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much money is now being diverted from patient care to the negotiation of legally binding contracts between commissioners and suppliers of services, or will he confirm that he cannot do so because he does not bother to collect the information?
Mr Hunt
What I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman is that the rules on the contracting out of services are the rules that we inherited from the Labour Government, although he personally might not have introduced them had he remained Health Secretary throughout those 13 years.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
May I focus for a moment on a constituency case? Last Thursday, a 16-year-old was placed in the custody centre at Torquay police station. What is of concern is that there is nothing new about that. In Devon and Cornwall alone, there have been 700 cases of people with mental health problems being placed in police cells. The problem for this young woman was that, at that point, not a single facility could be found anywhere in England to meet her needs. It really is outrageous that that could happen to a 16-year-old girl in this day and age. Where does the statement mention the fourth-tier funding to provide facilities that are clearly needed, and have been needed for years?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is totally unacceptable for someone with severe mental health problems to be placed in a police cell. We are making very good progress in reducing the use of police cells for that purpose, with the active support of the care services Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). In the specific case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, a bed was available but there was poor communication on the ground, which is why we were not able to solve the problem as quickly as we would have liked. As soon as NHS England was informed of the problem, it was able to find a bed within, I think, about three hours. However, as he says, this is a problem that we must eliminate.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
If that amount of new money is indeed going into the NHS, will the Secretary of State tell us how much of it will be dedicated to—perhaps even exclusively used for—better delivery of mental health services, not least services for child and adolescent mental health patients?
Let me point out to the Secretary of State that this is not the first occasion on which the House has raised with the Government the total failure to provide adequate services for people with mental health issues. The matter was most recently highlighted at the weekend, but it has been highlighted in the Chamber more than once in the recent past. What the Secretary of State has said today certainly does not calm my fear that if my constituents need a mental health bed, they will not find one in London, and heaven only knows how many hundreds of miles they may have to travel before they do find that security.
Mr Hunt
I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady, because today’s announcement includes £1.5 billion extra for the NHS front line next year. That will include mental health services, and we would expect commissioners to observe parity of esteem as they decide how to allocate those additional resources. It also includes £1 billion to improve primary care facilities, which will be used by many mental health patients. There is a lot in today’s announcement that I hope will relieve pressure. She is right to say that we need to do better on child and adolescent mental health services. This has been a long-standing problem, but we have been taking forward some important work to make a reality of our commitment to parity of esteem, which is something we are very proud to have legislated for.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I report to my right hon. Friend that, despite the dismal rant he heard from the shadow Secretary of State, the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath and the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton, and their doctors and nurses, are doing a magnificent job in treating local people? Will he also accept that the problem with mental health services in this country goes back a long way? It will not be fixed overnight. I have had the same problem in my constituency of someone being put in a police cell. The problem fell entirely on the staff of the local trust, who simply did not deal with the matter properly. This is going to take a long time to fix, and I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement.
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comment, because the use of police cells is not an issue with which we should be playing party political games. As it happens, their use was much higher under the last Labour Government. We are starting to address that issue, and he is right: even one person spending a night inappropriately in a police cell is one person too many. That is why we are making good progress, but in the end it will require people who purchase health care in local areas to look at people with mental health needs in a holistic way—not just trying to solve issues problem by problem, but looking at and addressing the whole problem and making sure they get the treatment they need.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State should not be at all surprised by this terrible case of the young girl kept in a police cell in Devon over the weekend, because I and other Members have been raising this personally with him for at least the last three years. What has he been doing over that period to address the scandal of young people’s mental health services in Devon and nationally?
Mr Hunt
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I have been doing: I have been putting in place a strategy that will see over the next few months a reduction of 51% in the number of mental health patients who use police cells. That is progress. It still means that there are too many people in police cells, but I would just gently urge him not to try to make party political capital out of this, because a higher number of them were used under the last Labour Government. We are addressing a long-standing problem in a responsible way, and are determined to go further.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I welcome every word of my right hon. Friend’s statement, not least because his fourth pillar on culture change echoes the work done by the Public Administration Committee on complaints handling and the need for openness. His statement addresses all the needs and challenges we face in north-east Essex: the problems of openness and transparency in the local hospital and the need to transfer more of what the hospital does back to the community providers—to the multidisciplinary providers that need to be in the community. I welcome the £1 billion fund for developing community facilities, but how is he going to persuade the CCGs to transfer some of their commissioning power to these units? A hospital in Harwich, which was built under the last Labour Government, has two operating theatres that have never been used because the CCG, and its predecessor the primary care trust, would not commission services through those facilities.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing support for the importance of transparency in driving up standards in health care. He has championed that for his own hospital, which has had particular issues on that front, but also through his role in this House, and he is absolutely right to do so. On his substantive point, we will get CCGs to do what he suggests through the reforms that I have announced, which will encourage them to take a holistic view of the health care received by the patients for whom they are responsible. In particular, we have got to move away from commissioning care piecemeal—commissioning a certain number of hips or a certain number of mental health consultations—and start looking at patients and all their needs in the round. If we commission in that way, we can avoid a number of the human tragedies that have come to light.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State kindly confirm that the Chancellor will include in his autumn statement on Wednesday an obligation on the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that if, as we expect, further funding for health is devolved to Northern Ireland, it is ring-fenced so that it is spent exclusively on health? In that way, GP beds in community hospitals such as mine in Bangor—in North Down, not north Wales—can be reopened. Those beds were closed today, 1 December, causing enormous trauma and distress to the patients and staff there.
Mr Hunt
The system involves Barnett consequentials. As a result of today’s announcement, extra money will go to the devolved Administrations and we hope that they will use it for health purposes, but they do have a choice. The hon. Lady has just made the case extremely elegantly for that money to be put into health. She mentioned north Wales, and I know that Members on this side of the House will be hoping that the Welsh Government will also use the extra money for the NHS, given the profound problems in the Welsh NHS.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Dementia care for our parents, grandparents and loved ones is a growing issue for my constituents, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on putting dementia care at the centre of what he is trying to do. I also congratulate the Bedfordshire clinical commissioning group on its recent review. Will he tell us what today’s announcement will do to help to support those parts of the country that are trying to make progress on dementia care?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do so. We have made good progress during this Parliament, increasing by 10% the proportion of people with dementia who receive a diagnosis. This is not just about getting a diagnosis, however; it is the care and support that people get when the diagnosis is made that really matter. That is the reason for giving the diagnosis. Let me characterise the change that we want to see for people with dementia over the next few years. When someone gets a diagnosis, we want to wrap around them all the care and support that they and their family need to help them to live healthily and happily at home for as long as possible, so that they do not get admitted to hospital in an emergency or need to go into residential care until the very last moment. Of course that will cost the NHS less, but it is also far better for the individual concerned.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about party politics, but he cannot get away from the fact that the number of mental health beds in this country has dropped by 1,500 on his watch. We have heard about the scandal in Devon last week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) has told the House how some patients have to travel up to 200 miles to access an emergency bed. What is the Secretary of State going to do to deliver those beds where the mental health patients who are in crisis actually need them, which is close to their homes?
Mr Hunt
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to address the issue of availability of mental health beds for crisis care, but we also need to recognise that the model of care for people with mental health needs is changing. We think that it is much better to avoid long-term institutionalisation if we possibly can, and that is why there has been a process of reduction in the number of beds. That happened under the Labour Government as well. If he wants to know what I am doing, I will tell him. I am part of the Government who are delivering a strong economy, which means we can put more money into the NHS.
Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for securing £1 billion from the Chancellor to modernise primary care services. I know that the GPs in my constituency will welcome that, because they often cannot provide additional services owing to capacity constraints. May I urge him to ensure that, when money is spent from the fund, it is linked to delivery in relation to the proposals set out by Simon Stevens for improving primary care, for better provision locally and for closer integration with hospitals?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This will help to improve primary care premises and facilities. I know that there is an urgent need to upgrade a number of GP surgeries and primary care facilities, but this is not essentially about buildings. It is about new models of care. The single big change that we need to see over the next five years is in the role of GPs, so that they have the capacity and the desire to take proactive responsibility, particularly for the most vulnerable people on their lists, including people with long-term conditions such as dementia, diabetes and asthma. To do that, they will need better facilities—bigger facilities—and the ability to carry out more diagnostic tests in their surgeries, and I think that this funding will make a big difference.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm a report in The Guardian today that he shelved the downgrading of the majority of accident and emergency departments in England under the Keogh review because that is “political suicide” and because of criticisms from the College of Emergency Medicine, the Care Quality Commission and chief executives of trusts? Will this mean that he can now suspend Shaping a Healthier Future and remove the threat to the Charing Cross and Ealing A and Es?
Mr Hunt
I am always happy to confirm that a Guardian story is wrong. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that there was no plan to downgrade the majority of A and Es. The plan is to invest in A and Es—to continue with broadly the same number of A and Es as we currently have but to recognise that some of them will need to specialise in different things. We will stick to that plan—it is a good one.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I very much welcome the statement and, in particular, the Secretary of State’s ambition that Britain should become the best place in the world to grow old in. Given that home care is an essential part of maintaining frail older people and enabling them to remain in their own homes, and given that well-paid, well-trained and well-motivated home care staff enable people to stay in their own homes and families to juggle work with caring responsibilities, will he direct some of the extra £2 billion to the better care fund, so that it goes directly into social care so that these services can actually be provided?
Mr Hunt
First, I agree with the point that my right hon. Friend is making: home care is going to become an increasingly important part of what the NHS and social care systems deliver. I want them to deliver it in an integrated, joined-up way, and £200 million of the £1.7 billion going to the NHS front line is to help develop new models of care. I think that improved home care could be a very real way we do that.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The “Five Year Forward View” recommended a five-year programme to prevent type 2 diabetes that is evidence-based. How much of the money that the Secretary of State has announced today will be specifically about preventing diabetes, so that in the long run we will save even more money? At the moment, health and wellbeing boards are under no obligation to spend any part of their budget in a specific way on diabetes.
Mr Hunt
First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his campaigning on diabetes. I have looked at this carefully as Health Secretary and I looked at the possibility of ring-fencing certain sums in the budget for conditions such as diabetes, but the advice I received was that the broader change we need to make is in the whole mentality across the NHS for dealing with all long-term conditions, not only diabetes, but arthritis, dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. That is because within a couple of years we will have 3 million people who have three or more long-term conditions, one of which is often diabetes. Will a real focus of the change we want to see in the NHS be on people with long-term conditions? Yes, I would say that that is the biggest focus of all in the change we want to see over the next five years.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate as many colleagues as possible on this extremely important set of issues, but may I appeal to colleagues to exercise a certain self-denying ordinance, whether they are speaking from the Back Bench or the Front Bench?
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement of the national sepsis prevention campaign, which will make a such a difference to people in Cornwall and all around the UK. Will my right hon. Friend continue to work with the all-party group and the UK Sepsis Trust to implement the sepsis six, which it is estimated will save 12,500 lives and £2 billion for the NHS every year?
Mr Hunt
Yes, I will. I have to say to the House that the importance of being better at tackling sepsis was brought home to me personally by two moving meetings with Scott Morrish, the father of Sam Morrish, who was from the west country—perhaps near my hon. Friend’s constituency. His son’s tragic death from sepsis was avoidable, so this is an absolute priority for me in the next couple of months.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State could not muster enough Conservative MPs in this House to defend the Health and Social Care Act 2012, particularly those elements of it that have allowed competition regulators into the NHS to second-guess decisions of local commissioners. If he wants to save money in the NHS, he can do away with that element of the 2012 Act and stop money being diverted from patients to pay for lawyers and accountants to oversee a tendering process that is wasting money.
Mr Hunt
If we stopped the NHS using the private sector, which seems to be Labour’s direction of travel, 330,000 people every year would have to wait longer to have their hips or knees replaced. We will make decisions on the basis of what is right for patients, and not of ideology.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his remarks and thank him for the extra £1 billion for primary care. In South Dorset, I hear many complaints about the agency fees for recruiting staff, which is one reason why trusts tend to recruit nurses from abroad—from places such as Spain. Will he look at that and see if there is some way we can save a bit of money and act a little more efficiently?
Mr Hunt
We are spending too much on agency staff. It is fair to acknowledge that one reason why NHS trusts are doing that is in reaction to the Francis report. They want to ensure that they have proper staffing on their wards and proper staffing quickly. We have introduced transparency to encourage them to do that. As things settle down, they need to transfer more of those staff on to proper permanent contracts, because it costs the NHS too much to pay those exorbitant agency fees.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I welcome any extra funding for the NHS, but will the Secretary of State ensure that it is fairly distributed, as on the current funding formula, Stockport is 4.9% from target, and that is affecting the ability of the clinical commissioning team to develop health services in the community as an alternative to emergency admissions to Stepping Hill hospital?
Mr Hunt
I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about the way funding is allocated, and it is a concern that is shared in all parts of the House. It has been very difficult to get that right in a period when NHS funding has not been going up by large amounts, but that matter is now decided at arm’s length from Ministers by NHS England. It will make its decisions at a board meeting on 17 December, and I will make sure that I relay to it her concerns.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that all patients, especially older and vulnerable patients, deserve the security of an NHS funded out of general taxation rather than part-funded by an unpredictable and opportunistic tax on people’s homes as proposed by the Labour party?
Mr Hunt
The trouble with a mansion tax is that, in the end, it will apply not to mansions but to homes, flats and people on low incomes. That is why it is the wrong way to put more funding into the NHS. The right way to do it is to have a strong economy, and only this Government can deliver that.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Up until her retirement, my mother was a very proud and committed nurse in the NHS. The Secretary of State wears a lapel badge pretending his love for the NHS. Today, my mother asked why, if the Secretary of State had £700 million in his Department, could he not have afforded the measly 1% pay rise for our committed nurses in the NHS, which would have cost £200 million.
Mr Hunt
It really demeans debate in this House to go on about some phoney argument that one side of the House cares about the NHS while the other does not. We have shown our commitment to the NHS by announcing today £2 billion of additional funding. That is a big deal and it shows our commitment. We have also given all nurses a 1% pay rise.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I welcome the additional money. My right hon. Friend is right that health providers need a stable financial environment, but many of them have been left with a debilitating legacy of debt. The Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust in my own area has a legacy of debt, which is just a fraction of the amount by which the Government have admitted that they have underfunded the local health economy over many years. Rather than having distorting activity going on in that trust, would it not be better for it to start with a clean sheet of paper and to build for the future rather than constantly having to work from a position of debt?
Mr Hunt
I sympathise, because the previous Labour Government left hospitals with more than £70 billion of PFI debts. Those debts must be paid off and that money cannot be spent on front-line patient care. We have done what we can on a case-by-case basis to help trusts deal with those debts. It is extremely difficult when resources are tight and of course I will consider the trust’s particular case.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Any new money for health is, of course, welcome, but it has only come because of acute need in the English NHS. If there had been acute need in the Scottish NHS or further acute need in the Welsh NHS, we could whistle for it. Surely this is one reason for us to have full fiscal autonomy in Scotland so that we can control the spending and raising of money in Scotland rather than relying on mismanagement in England or on electoral advantage. What will be the consequences of this announcement for the Scottish NHS, the Welsh NHS and the Northern Irish NHS per annum?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy we devolve responsibility for the NHS to the devolved Administrations, because it means that people can compare performance and that we can learn from each other. For example, patients wait a shorter time for operations in England compared with in Scotland and Wales.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Giving clinical commissioning groups the opportunity to commission GP services as well as secondary care will provide an amazing opportunity for there to be whole-population commissioning. Does it not also provide an opportunity for health and wellbeing boards? It provides an opportunity for elected councillors to work with clinical commissioning groups to try to design health care services, both primary and secondary, for the whole of the local population.
Mr Hunt
It absolutely does. My right hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. This year, the better care fund—a programme derided by the Labour party, which said that it would not work—has been a huge success, with a £5 billion integration of the health and social care systems. The enthusiasm that that unleashed encouraged me to propose today that we should go further, so that where both parties are willing, local authorities and the local NHS should consider jointly commissioning public health as well. There would be huge benefits if they chose to do that.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Is it still the Government’s case that the emerging deficits across the English hospital trusts can be dealt with by efficiency savings alone?
Mr Hunt
There are huge pressures in the NHS. By the time of the election, we will have nearly 1 million more over-65s than there were at the last election. That means that people have to redouble their efforts to live within their means. At the same time people are trying to deliver the higher standards of care that we have talked about following the Francis review of what happened in Mid Staffs. It is challenging, but we expect all trusts to live within their budget. In all cases, they have recovery plans that we expect them to stick to.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I pay tribute to the medical and support staff at Colchester hospital for their work to bring it out of special measures. Twice the Secretary of State referred to focusing on prevention. May I suggest that a contribution to that admirable aim would be for first aid to be included in the national curriculum for schools?
Mr Hunt
No one campaigns more for first aid than my hon. Friend. I would certainly encourage all schools to teach first aid, as I think it is a very important skill and we should consider that as part of the prevention agenda. There is also a broader point, which is that we can do a lot with the Department for Education on this agenda.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
In my constituency, people are increasingly finding it difficult to access GPs and the local hospital, Warrington and Halton, is in deficit and is missing its A and E targets. I therefore have a simple question for the Secretary of State. How many additional GPs will this money find, over and above the number of GPs who are in post today?
Mr Hunt
It takes seven years to train a GP, so the long-term solution is to train an additional 5,000 GPs, which is what the Government have decided to do and have announced. While they come on stream, this additional money will fund up to 20,000 additional posts, a number of which will be in the community.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his emphasis on prevention. Has he had a chance to read Public Health England’s report “From evidence into action”? It encourages him to place greater emphasis on risk factors that contribute to an early death, such as tobacco, blood pressure, diet, inactivity and alcohol, rather than the actual conditions that people die from. That would cut demand for services.
Mr Hunt
That document is very powerful and I have said before that I hope that in our lifetimes this will become a smoke-free country. It is shocking that we still have 85,000 deaths every year linked to smoking. However, we are a free country so this is about supplying the information, incentives and nudges and not about compelling people.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman knows that GPs in my constituency have, on average, 4,500 patients on their list, which is about twice the average for England. Earlier he told my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) that in constituencies such as hers and mine, where funding is so far from the target, we have to depend on NHS England, not him, to remedy the gap. How can we influence NHS England? What pressure is he putting on it to get fair funding for every area?
Mr Hunt
The reason we decided to give that decision to NHS England—it is now decided at arm’s length from Ministers—was to remove the worry people had that politicians might make these decisions for political purposes, rather than for what is right for the NHS. I encourage the hon. Lady to make representations to NHS England before its board meeting on 17 December.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I very much welcome the “Five Year Forward View” and the new investment, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is not so much a five-year forward view we need as a 20 or 50-year forward one, if we are to begin to meet the tsunami of demand we face? We will have to work together across the House as we face the tough questions on how to fund and manage the NHS. Otherwise, we will be accused by future generations of bickering while our NHS burns.
Mr Hunt
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is also important to have a clear plan of action to take us in the right direction over the next six years, which is what the plan from NHS England and Simon Stevens provides and what the Government have said we support. She is right that the demographic trends will get worse. By 2030 the number of over-80s will have doubled to 5 million. That is the sobering reality that we all have to face up to.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware the some of us on the Opposition side feel a bit sorry for him? This is the third “pie in the sky” statement we have had recently—we have heard statements on rail, on roads and now on health—which basically say that things might get better in future, and of course the election is in five months. The fact of the matter is that when I go back to Huddersfield, I see a health service in which all the players, who used to work together in partnership for something they believed in, are now at each other’s throats, as a result of his reforms: not collaborating, but fighting, disagreeing and making bids against each other.
Mr Hunt
Let us take one example. The better care fund has meant that for the first time—this did not happen in 13 years under Labour—local authorities are sitting around a table with the local NHS, working out how to jointly commission care for the most vulnerable patients in the community. That is a huge step forward. The hon. Gentleman should talk with the people in his local authority, because he will hear about the incredible progress that is being made. This is not pie in the sky; it is £2 billion of new money for the NHS. That will make a big difference to doctors and nurses in Huddersfield, just as it will everywhere else.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of additional funds for the NHS and give my support to the Minister for putting patients first and driving up the quality of care. However, does he agree that it is not all about money and that quality, committed and motivated staff are central to a successful NHS, as is good leadership and management, particularly at the local level?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For every hospital in difficulty—he has had many discussions with me about his hospital, which is going through a very difficult period—there is another with the same funding settlement that is able to deliver good care with motivated staff. Leadership is extremely important for motivating staff, and the one thing that staff say matters most to them is having leaders who listen to what they say and, when they have concerns, take them seriously. That is a change that we are beginning to see throughout the NHS.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
On that subject, I can advise the Secretary of State that last week I spoke to nurses in the hospital near my constituency, and they told me that as a result of the cuts in their pay, which have been going on for many years, they are seriously considering setting up shoebox collections to help their members get through this Christmas. At the same time, the chief executive of that trust has had a 17% pay increase, and the governors have had an 88% increase in their allowances. Is that what he means by all being in this together?
Mr Hunt
I am afraid we will not take any lessons from the party that increased managers’ pay at double the rate of nurses’ pay when in office. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what this Government have done: because of our increases in the tax-free threshold, the lowest paid NHS workers have seen their take-home pay go up by £1,000 a year.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Despite all the claims and counter-claims, does the Secretary of State agree that in the long term, with a taxpayer-funded NHS, Government will only ever be able to increase resources and meet the public’s expectations if UK plc is thriving and we have a growing economy?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party thought it would win this argument by pledging extra money for the NHS at its party conference, but that will not actually happen until the second half of the next Parliament and it may not happen at all if it has got its sums wrong. The public reaction was simply not to believe it, because they know that what Labour does to the economy actually puts all NHS funding at risk, which is something we must never allow to happen.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Earlier this year, the Secretary of State announced a welcome £6.12 million grant for Medway, and on Tuesday he referred to the extra doctors and nurses being taken on in a special measures regime for Medway hospital. Could he assure us that extra and recurring funding will also be available to cover the costs in future?
Mr Hunt
The funding I have announced today—the £1.5 billion for front-line NHS services—is recurring, as is the additional Treasury funding of £1 billion. That is being added to the NHS baseline so that it can be invested in long-term increases in staff numbers, among other things.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
What impact will the extra money have on hospitals in special measures, such as the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust? Could he assure the House that any extra moneys will reach clinicians and patients and will not be swamped by the disastrous private finance initiative that the previous Government signed?
Mr Hunt
Of course, that has been a huge problem for Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I have met the chief executive, who is doing a very good job in turning around the trust, but there are huge challenges. What doctors and nurses in failing hospitals or hospitals in special measures want to know is that they have a Government with a long-term commitment to the NHS and who will deliver the economy that can fund the NHS. They also want to know that they have a Government who will tell the truth about problems so that they get sorted out, which never used to happen before.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Last week, as chair of the all-party group on motor neurone disease, I took evidence from professionals and patients who had been promised that £14 million would be available for communication support from April this year. Not a penny has been spent yet on equipment or new staff. I took phone calls from people who are end-stage kidney diseased who are frightened by the announcement that kidney dialysis is to go from NHS England to clinical commissioning groups. Will the Secretary of State get a grip, make sure that the money that is there is spent, and stop the disastrous move of kidney dialysis to CCGs, which are not functioning?
Mr Hunt
With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I will very happily look into the concerns she raises, but what we are talking about today is more money going into the NHS because the Government got a grip of public finances and got the economy growing. That means more money for people with long-term conditions, including people with motor neurone disease. The hon. Lady should therefore welcome today’s announcement.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
According to clinicians in charge of health care and budgets, this Government have done much to take the politics out of running the NHS. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that average productivity in the NHS has improved under this Government, and does he agree that, given the outrageous comments of the Labour leader, it is clear that Labour is happy to see the NHS used as a political football?
Mr Hunt
I think what the public find very perplexing about this is that the Labour party opposed reforms that mean we have 10,000 more doctors and nurses on the front line. Labour is now not welcoming additional financial investment in the NHS that means we will have even more doctors and nurses, and it does not recognise the fundamental point that affects the whole NHS, which is that, in employing those extra doctors and nurses, we have to back them with a culture of safety and compassionate care that we never saw under Labour.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Our NHS is indeed reliant on a strong economy, but we should note that the UK’s state deficit is the worst in the European Union at the moment and our state debt has more than doubled since May 2010. Can I take it from the Secretary of State that I can go back to the constituents of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and tell them that their acute hospital trust will have its £91 million deficit removed; that its PFI, which was opened up in the Major years, will be dealt with properly; that Hemlington, Park End and Skelton medical centres will stay open: and that minor injuries units in Guisborough and Brotton will remain open?
Mr Hunt
I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being the first Labour Member to say in this House that a strong NHS needs a strong economy. May I encourage him to transmit that message to those on his Front Bench, and perhaps to the shadow Chancellor, who might then understand why people in the NHS are backing this Government because they know that we will deliver a strong economy? I do not know whether we can do all the things the hon. Gentleman talked about, but we will have a better chance with the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the support that he has personally given to Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency, including, at a meeting last week, a commitment of £5.5 million to increase its A and E capacity. Can he assure me that hospitals in special measures that have problems going back to 2006 with high death rates will be given extra resources from the funding announced today to ensure that they are turned around as quickly as possible?
Mr Hunt
I assure my hon. Friend, who has campaigned very hard to improve standards at Medway hospital, that, first, we want to support its doctors and nurses, who are more passionate than anyone about putting this difficult period behind them; and that secondly, I have no greater focus than on making sure that we do turn around these hospitals in difficulty. It is a challenging process, but the extra funds that I have announced today will benefit all hospitals, including Medway.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has boasted about the numbers of doctors and nurses coming through on his watch, but that actually started on Labour’s watch because, as he has said, the process takes seven years. What proportion of this new investment in the national health service is to be invested in Coventry, particularly given the disparity regarding doctors’ surgeries and the loss of doctors?
Mr Hunt
The training may have started under Labour, but if we do not have enough money in the NHS budget, we cannot pay for these doctors and nurses. We can do that because we took a decision, bitterly opposed by Labour, to disband the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities and to lose 21,000 administrators so that we could pay for 10,000 extra doctors and nurses, including in Coventry.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The achievement of parity of esteem between mental and physical health in the NHS is absolutely fundamental to its future. As the Secretary of State will know, the Government have a reasonably good record on moving towards parity of esteem. Does he agree that we need not only more investment in mental health services, but, more importantly, better commissioning and a change of culture towards viewing patients as a single whole?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend has campaigned incredibly hard on this issue. I totally agree that the key aspect is a change in the approach of commissioners. People with mental health needs often have physical health needs and different needs relating to gambling and alcohol addictions, for example, that are connected to their mental health problems. Unless all these issues are tackled together, we are unlikely to make progress. We are very proud to have enshrined in legislation parity of esteem as something that we must achieve in the NHS. Today’s announcement will help this to go further.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Given that delayed discharges have reached a record high, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give that this money will not be paid for by further cuts to local government social care budgets?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what the Chancellor says on Wednesday about the Department for Communities and Local Government settlement. This Government have recognised that the fate of the social care system and the fate of the NHS are closely entwined, and that we cannot support the NHS at the expense of the social care system because the two go together. That is why we see close working with the Better Care fund.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) highlighted, Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust remains in special measures. I know that the Secretary of State has taken an interest in this. The trust has many failings, but it also has one hand tied behind its back in the form of a particularly egregious PFI deal that takes up 16% of its budget every year. Is there anything he can do to review trusts that are in special measures and have particularly difficult PFI settlements?
Mr Hunt
I remember visiting Newark hospital with my hon. Friend before he was elected, and I know that he campaigns very hard on the issues facing the trust. I will happily take that issue away and look at it. It is worth saying that the doctors and nurses at that hospital are working incredibly hard to turn things around, and they have already made great progress.
Andrew Stephenson
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am honoured.
I very much welcome the £2 billion of additional funding announced today. This morning, I was at Airedale hospital for the preview of its new £6.3 million A and E department, which will open to the public this Wednesday. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to all the hospital’s NHS staff and management, and its patients, who have been involved from the start of the process in making sure that the new A and E department, which is more than double the size of the old one, is now a reality?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do so. It is an absolutely brilliant hospital. I was really impressed when I saw that it has integrated its IT systems with those of local GPs better than anywhere else I have seen in the UK, and it is now looking at integrating those systems with local residential care homes. It has a fantastic Skype system for patients who are vulnerable and have mobility problems. It is an amazing place, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to it.
Mr Marcus Jones
The previous Labour Government left my constituents with one of the worst health funding allocations in England. Despite the extra investment that this Government have put in, the issue still has not been properly resolved. Having heard my right hon. Friend’s advice earlier, I will be making representations to NHS England. Will he join me in supporting my constituents in getting a fairer funding deal?
Mr Hunt
I want everyone to have a fairer funding deal, and today’s announcement is significant in that respect. One of the reasons it has been difficult to help people to move closer to their target funding allocations is that the increases in the NHS budget have been only 0.1% every year, so we have not had the margins necessary to make changes. Precisely by how much, and where, we make those changes is a matter for NHS England, but I will happily refer my hon. Friend’s concerns to it.
Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)
Mr Speaker
I call Sir Richard Ottaway to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. He has three minutes in which to make such an application.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration —namely, the decision of the Chinese Government to ban the Foreign Affairs Committee from visiting Hong Kong.
In 1984, Britain and China signed a joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong when the UK’s lease expired in 1997. It included a commitment to a “one country, two systems” style of government and to its rights, freedoms and way of life remaining unchanged for 50 years. In August this year, the Chinese National People’s Congress issued a decision changing the way in which the chief executive would be elected. This confirmed earlier suspicions and has led to widespread protest in Hong Kong. In the Government’s latest six-monthly report to Parliament on Hong Kong, the Foreign Secretary said:
“the important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and feel they have a real stake in the outcome...there is still some way to go for consensus to be reached.”
As a result of this concern, the FAC decided in July to hold an inquiry entitled “The UK’s relations with Hong Kong: 30 years after the Joint Declaration”. In August, I was invited by the Chinese ambassador to discuss the inquiry. At the meeting, the Committee was abruptly accused of meddling in China’s and Hong Kong’s internal affairs. We were asked to discontinue our inquiry and told that we would be unwelcome in Hong Kong. The Committee gave full consideration to the ambassador’s views and decided to continue with its inquiry; indeed, we felt it would be an abrogation of our duties not to do so.
Since then, the rhetoric from the Chinese Government has intensified. Ten days ago, we were informed that some would consider our visit to Hong Kong to be of support to the protestors of Occupy Central and other illegal activities. Last Friday afternoon, I was formally informed—by the deputy Chinese ambassador, the chargé d’affaires, because the ambassador is abroad—that the Committee would be denied entry to Hong Kong. The Government have rightly said that the ban is mistaken and counter-productive. I agree. It is an affront not just to this House but to the men and women of the free world. I believe that this House should have the opportunity to express its views as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely “The ban by China on the Foreign Affairs Committee visit to Hong Kong”. This is an extremely serious matter for which, I confess, I can think of no exactly comparable precedent in my 17 and a half years in the House. As is my duty, I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Gentleman and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.
Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. The right hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 2 December, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Gentleman’s application. I hope that that is pleasing to the right hon. Gentleman, to members of his Committee and to the House.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 24 February 2014 in the last Session of Parliament (Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 12 May 2014 in that Session (Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00pm at today’s sitting.
(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Table | |
|---|---|
Lords Amendments | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
Nos 97 to 107 | 7 pm |
Nos 74 and 127 to 131 | 8.30 pm |
Nos 1 to 73, 75 to 96, 108 to 126 and 132 to 143 | 10 pm |
Subsequent stages
(4) Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(5) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Lancaster.)
Question agreed to.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 203 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 203 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 200 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 198 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 194 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 34, 75, 123 and 124. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Clause 64
Likelihood of substantially different oucome for applicant
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 98 to 106 and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 107, and amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.
Chris Grayling
Before I move on to the detail of the amendments, it might be helpful to remind the House why these reforms are so important. Judicial review was developed as a tool for citizens to challenge decisions taken by public bodies that unlawfully and adversely affect their lives. That remains as important today as ever, and nothing in these reforms will prevent those citizens from using judicial review in the future. As Lord Chancellor I take my responsibility to uphold the rule of law very seriously, but I do not believe that the way in which it has evolved in relation to the current use of judicial review is consistent with or necessary to uphold the rule of law, and I believe the time has clearly come to set some limits to prevent misuse.
Judicial review was never intended to be a tool for pressure groups to seek to disrupt perfectly lawful decision making in Government and Parliament, it was never designed to be used as a political campaigning tool, and it was never intended to put the courts above the elected Government in taking decisions over the essential interests of this country. Yet, in far too many examples, that is precisely what it has become and it is why reform is necessary. It is also why the three areas of our proposed reforms covered by this debate tonight are so important.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the judicial process must be robust and fair, it must not be open to constant abuse?
Chris Grayling
Indeed. I am genuinely baffled as to why the Opposition are so set against many of these reforms when many of their predecessors as shadow Ministers or in government raised many of the same concerns. I will challenge them over one or two of the issues later, because I find their position inexplicable.
Whoever wins the general election will have to take some very difficult decisions in the next Parliament. Those decisions are not ones that any of us would wish to have to take, any more than we in government wanted to take some of the difficult decisions that we have faced in this Parliament, but tough times mean tough decisions—decisions in the interests of this country. And yet, whichever party is in government after next May will face a wave of pressure groups trying to use judicial review to delay decisions, to avoid spending reductions, and to generate publicity for their own cause.
If a group can find a clever enough lawyer, almost any Government decision can be judicially reviewed, and very many are, not necessarily on the basis of specific breaches of specific laws, but far too often on a loose argument that something was not quite right with the consultation paper, that there should have been a bit more consultation, or that a tough decision seen in isolation was irrational. Without undermining the essential core of judicial review, we need to restore common sense to the way in which the judicial review system works, and that is what we are working to do.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the important point made by Lord Horam that there is a difference between a balance to protect the rights of the citizen in specific cases and a situation where, sadly, judicial review can be moved through pressure groups to what is effectively a review of the merits, rather than of the procedures, often contrary to the wishes of the communities that are most directly affected?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right. Judicial review has become a vehicle that is used as one of the tools to campaign, to delay and to challenge, not necessarily in the interests of the broader society or the broader community, but because it provides a vehicle to make a point or to delay something for financial reasons. It makes no sense to have a system that can be abused in the way it often is.
We listened carefully to the debate in the House of Lords, and as hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we have suggested some modifications to ensure that we avoid unintended consequences of what we are working to do. I hope that the House will say clearly today that having agreed those safeguards, we want to see this package of reforms pass into law.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On safeguards, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that local authorities will not be able to dumb down their standards, knowing that there is not likely to be a judicial review, and that they will still always go through the correct process, as they need to do, and not think that they are beyond reproach?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right. It is important to say that the Bill will not stop organisations being judicially reviewed where they are at fault. It does not stop organisations being judicially reviewed for constant or serious underperformance or failure to fulfil their duties. What it stops is judicial review on technicalities. It stops the system being used for purposes for which it should not be used.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the Lord Chancellor view as a technicality the recent consultation on changes to legal aid ignoring the Welsh language aspect altogether and allowing half the time for the consultation to go into the Welsh language issue, as opposed to the whole time? Is that something that we should just ignore?
Chris Grayling
In that particular case, we fulfilled the orders of the court after the first judicial review hearing. I did not agree with the judge in that initial ruling. I considered an appeal, but looking at the detail of the ruling, I decided that it was more in the interests of the system that we were trying to protect and develop to move ahead with a further period of consultation. That is what we did, and we have published our responses arising from that consultation. We took the opportunity to revisit our original decisions and to look at whether any further changes needed to be made. That was embodied in the document that we published last week.
There are three simple principles in the areas of debate covered by these motions. I challenge the Opposition to explain why they so strongly disagree with those principles. First, parties should not be able to use minor technicalities in process as an excuse to bring a judicial review in order to delay an essential decision when there is very little likelihood that the outcome would be affected by that technicality. It is a simple principle. There is an exceptional circumstances clause which still allows judicial discretion in cases where there is a particularly distinctive characteristic, but this is designed to stop organisations judicially reviewing a process on the basis of a minor flaw in process, only to have the effect of delaying a difficult change—delaying for financial reasons and trying to push a change back a few months so that the financial impact is not felt as soon.
That is the reality of what is happening, and this proviso seems a perfectly sensible means of ensuring that the Government can take decisions in a timely and necessary way. In the unhappy event that the shadow Secretary of State finds himself in my chair or his colleagues find themselves in other Ministers’ chairs, they will think that it is sensible and logical way to make sure that the wheels of government move at an appropriate pace.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that some Government Members, and I include myself, have some concern about the reforms he is promoting. Will he help me to resolve a very difficult dilemma by telling me and the House what he regards as a minor technicality? Judges do not generally grant leave for judicial review on minor technicalities—it has to be based on matters of serious abuse of fair process—so I am concerned and troubled by what he considers a technicality.
Chris Grayling
I hate to disabuse my hon. and learned Friend, but such cases happen all the time and very regularly. Very early in this job, I faced a judicial review—we eventually won it after a hearing, but only following a delay and some considerable cost—from a representative group that argued that changes to a part of the compensation system should not proceed because of a technical detail concerning how the consultation had been carried out. It went to a hearing, which we won, but it cost the taxpayer substantial amounts of money and delayed the process. It was on a technicality, and there was no likelihood of there being a different outcome. If he talks to Ministers from across the Government, he will find that such cases happen regularly—for example, if a nuance of a consultation has not been done thoroughly or properly, or if it was fractionally shorter than the precedent for similar consultations. I am afraid that such cases do happen, and they delay the wheels of government. Let me talk about the other two areas, because they are also acute problems.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman says “all the time”. Will he give us a notion of how often that is—once a day, once a week, once a month? How many times have such cases happened since April, for instance? He is giving the impression that they happen all the time, but what does that mean?
Chris Grayling
A Minister is confronted by the practical threat of the arrival of a judicial review case virtually every week of the year. It is happening all the time. There are pre-action protocols all the time, and cases are brought regularly. Looking across the majority of a Department’s activities, I would say that Ministers face judicial review very regularly indeed. It happens weeks apart rather than months apart.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Chris Grayling
Let me set out the other two areas covered by the reforms, and I will then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
The second thing we are trying to do is to stop third parties using people with no means as human shields, and effectively bringing broad-ranging cases on public policy by acting as interveners behind and alongside them, while being immune to financial risk if they lose. That is customarily discussed in terms of pressure groups, but it actually applies to big corporations as well.
The third reform applies in a similar way. If an organisation brings a judicial review, we should know who they are and who is backing them. Of all the disagreements of the House of Lords, I understand this one least. How is it possible for a judge to take a decision on costs and other aspects of a judicial review if he or she has absolutely no idea who is responsible for bringing it? Is it not right and proper for the court to know?
Let me give an example to challenge Labour Members. If a large international, such as a tobacco company, wants to challenge the Government on a public policy decision, it can, under the current rules, set up a shell company, with a single—probably impecunious—director and use it as the front for the judicial review. If that happens, is it not right, proper and sensible for us to know which corporation is backing the judicial review? Labour Members may say that it could never happen, but it happened in the Richard III case, when a shell company with a single impecunious shareholder brought a judicial review against the Government, which cost the taxpayer a significant six-figure sum. It can and does happen.
Why on earth would anybody disagree with the principle that if an organisation brings a judicial review, we should know who it is and who is backing or supporting it? Why is that so unreasonable? I simply do not understand why the Labour party lined up with Cross Benchers in the House of Lords to oppose it. What is wrong with the principle? I challenge shadow Ministers to say—I will happily take an intervention—what is wrong with the idea that a court should know who is backing a judicial review or who is behind it?
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I would love the Secretary of State for once to use an example or any example that does not involve Richard III. He knows very well that the intention of his approach on clause 67 is not to be transparent, but to discourage small litigants—individual groups wishing to take on a big corporation—who would fear that all their funds were at risk. The vast majority of such cases are of that kind. He wants to suppress viable litigation, rather than in any way to be transparent.
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that that is complete nonsense. The amendments that we are discussing do not involve any financial risk at all. They are simply about the court knowing who is backing the judicial review. They are purely for information. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for a court considering a judicial review to know who is backing it, and I am baffled as to why the Labour party opposes that.
We do not have much time for this debate, so I will focus my detailed remarks on clause 67, but I said that I would take another intervention.
Frank Dobson
The right hon. Gentleman talks of technicalities, but the law is full of technicalities—that is all it is. He says that Ministers and officials are frightened of judicial review, and so they should be. The pressure on them is to comply with laws and regulations that we have passed. We are encouraging law breaking if we let someone say, “Well, it’s okay. You can skate over that, or you can skate over this. You can get away with it. It was only a minor technicality.”
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that that is simply not right. Very many judicial reviews are not about whether we have broken a law passed by this place—of course, we must be challenged if that happens—but are based on a much looser interpretation of what should or should not happen. They are based not on statute, but on, for example, why we have run a consultation for six rather than nine weeks, given that the previous one was for nine weeks. The truth is that such arguments are brought to the courts by people who seek to delay the impact of decisions. I must say that if Labour Members find themselves taking difficult decisions in government after the election, they will discover that a judicial review’s ability to delay key decisions is against the interests of this country, and they will wish that they had supported rather than opposed us.
As hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we will ask the House of Lords to reconsider its opposition on most of the measures. We listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on clause 67. We disagree with the Lords amendments, which undermine the clauses agreed by this House. Each amendment would take the heart out of the reforms by undermining any duty to give effect to the key requirements. However, we have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed on clause 67, and we have moved by proposing an alternative model.
If this House approves the amendments in lieu, clause 67 will continue to give the courts significant leeway in making cost orders. It will be for the court to consider whether any of the four conditions have been met. It will preserve the court’s role in deciding whether costs were caused by the intervener and incurred by the party reasonably. Where the court is of the view that exceptional circumstances would make the award of costs under the clause inappropriate, it need not make an award.
That is a crucial point on all of this. There are still provisions that give the judiciary the freedom, in exceptional circumstances, to say, “This is a particularly distinctive case, and we need to pursue an approach that is different from the norm.” We have left in provisions for such exceptional circumstances, but on clause 67 we have taken on board some of the concerns expressed. The amendments in lieu are not about preventing legitimate intervention in support of a case brought on behalf of a disadvantaged individual, but are about preventing a powerful group from using someone with no money as a human shield for a case in which the group intervenes behind that individual, with the public picking up the cost regardless of whether the case is won or lost. That should not happen.
We believe that the amendments in lieu strike a sensible balance. They meet the concerns expressed by hon. Members from different parts of the House in a way that will reassure both them and those in the other place that our intention is to tackle the challenge of such human shields, not to remove altogether the ability to intervene in cases where there is a legitimate reason for doing so.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is therefore re-establishing judicial discretion?
Chris Grayling
As I just said, we have never taken away judicial discretion. We have left in place the clause on exceptional circumstances. Almost every week, this House passes measures that set tramlines for the courts to operate within. We set maximum sentences, but if the maximum sentence for a crime is five years, we do not say that judges should give a five-year sentence; we give them the flexibility to decide what is the right length of time below that.
We are taking a similar approach with these proposals. We are saying to judges, “Look, you’ve got some flexibility, but there are parameters that we need you to operate within.” To my mind, that brings common sense back to the system of judicial review and deals with the frustrations with a system that can be abused. It does not create a situation in which legitimate judicial reviews cannot be brought.
Surely my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) would admit that an organisation should not be able to bring a case to court free of financial risk because it is shadowing behind somebody who has no means and therefore cannot have costs awarded against them; that an organisation should not be able to set up a shell company to bring a judicial review without any information being available to the court about who is behind the shell company; and that an organisation should not be able to delay a difficult spending decision by arguing to a court that the whole process should start all over again because of a minor technicality. Those things happen on a regular basis and they must change.
These reforms are essential in restoring common sense to judicial review. I hope that the House will back the motions to disagree and the amendments in lieu.
Mr Slaughter
Although it is some two and a half years since I last spoke on a series of Lords defeats of Ministry of Justice legislation, I have an acute feeling of déjà vu. On 17 April 2012, this House considered the 11 defeats that their lordships had inflicted on the infamous Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Today, we examine the four considerable dents that have been put in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The three that we are considering in this group of amendments substantially amend part 4 of the Bill, which seeks to hobble the administrative law remedy of judicial review.
LASPO is fresh in my mind today for two reasons. First, those 11 defeats were whittled down, in the course of ping-pong, to some important but narrow wins. Secondly, the Government have spent the past 30 months trying to squirm their way out of even those concessions. The MOJ is still deciding what to do about the High Court decision that its review of costs rules for mesothelioma cases was unlawful. Let us remember that it is trying to enforce, against the will of Parliament, the payment by sufferers of that terrible disease of up to 25% of their damages in legal fees. Further proceedings are pending on the evidential requirement for obtaining legal aid in domestic violence cases—another defeat for the Government.
Both Houses may wish to note how the Government have sought to dodge the undertakings that were given to two of the most vulnerable groups in society—terminally ill cancer sufferers and domestic violence victims—when they look at any purported concessions in the Bill. Of course, the fact that a Government who go back on their commitments to Parliament and let people down are held to account by the courts is at the root of this attack on judicial review. The Lord Chancellor has lost six judicial review actions in the past year and there are several strong cases in the pipeline. Might that have any bearing on his current attack on judicial review?
For once, notwithstanding the truncated nature of the debate, I feel that we have enough time to debate an issue that the Government find very uncomfortable. That is not because there is a lack of arguments to put against part 4, but because they have already been put many times and have not been rebutted. On Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading in both Houses, there have been long debates on the dangers and inequities of this attack on the rule of law and the rights of the citizen against the state.
An unprecedented alliance of charities, the legal professions, the judiciary and victims of Government injustice has come together to support the Lords amendments. On the “Today” programme this morning, the noble Lord Woolf, who was a sponsor of the Government’s defeats, said that the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary and, thereby, the rule of law. All the arguments are on one side. Against the clear voice of the experts, which says that this attack on judicial review is a constitutional provocation, we have the childish statements from the Lord Chancellor, who says that judicial review is a left-wing conspiracy. He should tell that to those who are reliant on the independent living fund, the Gurkhas and the victims of care home abuse, or indeed the Countryside Alliance and Stop HS2, all of which are successful challengers of his Government’s arbitrary exercise of power.
The only thing going for the Government is the majority that they hold in this House. The real issue today is whether they can use it to batter the other place into submission. Sadly, there are too few supporters of individual freedom on the Tory Benches. Tory Members either support the big corporation over the little man or have swallowed the Lord Chancellor’s infantile line that judicial review is all about subversive left-wing groups stopping the wheels of commerce turning. We are left to hope—I find it difficult even to say this—that the Lib Dems will wake from their comfortable ministerial sleeps to remember the time when they claimed to be the party of civil liberties. To wait is to hope, but as only one Liberal Democrat MP has bothered to attend this important debate on civil liberties and the rights of the individual, I do not think that we can have much hope.
Frank Dobson
My hon. Friend mentioned Lord Woolf. Will he remind the House which judicial position was held by Lord Woolf? Would he, like me, be more likely to agree with Harry Woolf than with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)?
Mr Slaughter
We do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants in conducting this debate. The names that graced the amendments that were made in the House of Lords included not only the former Lord Chief Justice, but other esteemed lawyers such as Lord Pannick, the Labour spokesman Lord Beecham, Lord Carlile and many other senior jurists. Indeed, the President of the Supreme Court and the Master of the Rolls have also spoken out in clear and emphatic terms to say that the Government proposals are not just folly, but dangerous steps to take. I am amazed that any Lord Chancellor—even this one—would ignore those protestations.
It is not wrong to see this concerted attack on judicial review as of a piece with other reductions in access to justice that this Government have advanced, such as on legal aid, on no win, no fee, and on court and tribunal fees. However, judicial review seems to receive particular opprobrium from this Lord Chancellor. That is strange in many ways. Judicial review is already a remedy of last resort and already includes a permission stage. Its accessibility has been limited by the changes to the rules on legal aid for judicial review and the shortened time limits for applying. Indeed, Lord Justice Jackson, some of whose recommendations on costs and civil claims the Government have grabbed on to, advised that it was already very difficult for the ordinary citizen to apply for judicial review for want of funds and expert knowledge, and that we should look at broadening the basis for bringing a judicial review claim.
The attack on judicial review should be of concern to us all. It is a remedy that can protect the rights of very vulnerable individuals, such as young prisoners and dementia sufferers; that can save whole communities from wrongful decisions by the state, such as when the closure of Lewisham’s accident and emergency department was ruled unlawful; and that can establish the law on important points of policy, often with the help of expert bodies that intervene to assist the court on a point of general principle. It is, as Liberty says,
“a crucial tool which allows ordinary people to challenge decisions by the authorities—either because they’re unlawful, irrational, or made in the wrong way.”
I suspect that if their lordships had not been interrupted by other business, they would have continued to neuter the clauses that deal with judicial review. As it is, they stopped at just three defeats for the Government, each of which was important. We urge all Members of the House to vote against the motions to disagree in respect of each of the clauses at issue. For the avoidance of doubt, we will press to a vote, just as their Lordships did, the matters that relate to the “highly likely” test, financial information, and interveners.
Chris Grayling
Since the hon. Gentleman has indicated his intention to support all the Lords amendments, will he explain why he thinks it appropriate to allow organisations that back judicial reviews to remain anonymous?
Mr Slaughter
I will not speak for long because we have limited time, but I will come on to those matters in a few moments.
It is not only Labour peers who were rallied by Lord Beecham who share our view. Indeed, as he pointed out, the Lord Chancellor’s proposals have been roundly condemned by every independent and bipartisan body that considered them, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights and other Committees of both Houses. Furthermore, the former Conservative party chairman Lord Deben referred to the changes as “out of line” and “unacceptable”, and Baroness Williams called them an “act of absolute tragedy” that she was “very troubled” by. Lord Howe voted against the Government, as did many pillars of the legal establishment—so much for the Lord Chancellor’s left-wing plot.
Each amendment that the Government have resisted has a particular point to make. On the “highly likely” test, all their lordships are saying is that judicial discretion should be retained, and that the court may refuse judicial review if it concludes that it is “highly likely” that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. If we stick with the Government’s proposal and disagree with the amendment, public bodies will be allowed to escape responsibility for unlawful decisions. In the long run it would change the role of judges in judicial review cases as they would be invited to second-guess how decisions have been taken. The Government are confusing remedy with unlawfulness, and potentially creating far more problems at earlier stages of judicial review cases—and causing far more court time to be taken up—because the court will have to consider the implications of its decisions and not the process under review, as is the case at the moment.
On financial barriers, the evidence—I emphasise that word—of practitioners and those who have represented parties on all sides suggests that the chilling effect of the clauses will be felt first by people of limited means who look for support in their judicial reviews. That could be family members—for example in a care home case—or individuals in a community, perhaps on a planning case, but it could also be charities and other not-for profit organisations. Such organisations have said clearly that although they are currently prepared to support judicial review proceedings, if there is a risk that the court will look at the funders and potentially penalise them in costs, their trustees will not be prepared to continue doing that, whatever their support for the individual action. Each clause in part 4 purports to be a simple tinkering change and a way of dealing with things at the margin to ensure that unmeritorious cases do not come forward. However, evidence from the judiciary, practitioners, interveners and everyone who has participated in the process suggests that the clauses will have a chilling and discouraging effect. That is as true for provisions on financial barriers as for the “highly likely” test or interveners.
The issue of interveners has taken centre stage, and at an early point in proceedings the Government said that they would table amendments to deal with the concerns expressed. We had one of those little dances that takes place between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, when the Liberal Democrats say, “We’re not happy with this, can we have a concession?”, and grudgingly, at the last minute—last Friday in this case—we have a concession.
Let us consider the concession the Government are proposing. What they originally proposed, and what the House of Lords disagreed with, is the idea that only in exceptional circumstances and very rare cases would interveners be protected from paying costs. That does not mean their own costs, which interveners customarily pay, but those of all parties involved. That was clearly wrong, and the Government appear to accept that. As the deputy president of the Supreme Court said, interventions are of great assistance to the court and there can be merit in interventions. Therefore, amendments have been tabled. It is clear why Labour supports what the House of Lords said, and that the matter should be—as it is now—at the discretion of the court. The court has completely adequate powers, should it wish to exercise them, to punish or find against interveners on costs if it believes there is no merit in the intervention or if it believes—this is unlikely—that time has been wasted during proceedings. That matter is currently, and should properly remain, at the discretion of the judge.
Let us consider the amendments, because this is the most disingenuous part of the debate. We waited months—since June, I think—to see what concession the Liberal Democrats with all their bravery had wrung out of the Government. The opinion of everyone who has considered the amendments since they were published just before the weekend is that not only do they not address the issue, but they make the situation worse. The reason for that is simple. Previously, there could at least be exceptional circumstances. Now, a series of criteria must be met, otherwise a mandatory duty means that all costs associated with the intervention would be recoverable by all other parties, including losing parties. Therefore in certain ill-defined circumstances, the court would have no discretion to act to prevent an unjust outcome, despite interveners having been granted permission to intervene by the court, and encouraged to proceed. That will have a more damaging effect than the Government’s original proposal to create a presumption that costs would be payable except in exceptional circumstances. Only this Government could make the situation worse by making a concession.
In a way, the wording does not matter. The net result of those criteria is to set up retrospective tests that mean that the chilling effect will apply. Interveners are typically charities, not-for-profit organisations and others who may perhaps have funds to pay their own costs, but will not risk the definition of terms such as “in substance”, “taken as a whole”, “significant assistance”, or whether something is “necessary” for the court to consider whether someone has behaved unreasonably. A judicial review often develops from the permission stage through to a full hearing, and during that time it is perfectly possible that certain facts become more or less relevant. What impecunious charity will take those risks? This is another attempt to pull the wool over our eyes by setting up impossible hurdles and mandatory tests where matters should be left to the discretion of the judge.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Why should those who row in to back a judicial review that they lose be automatically insulated from the costs of doing so? He knows that time after time the taxpayer picks up the bill. This measure is simply to ensure that those who row in behind a judicial review but do not make a valid contribution to the process cannot be immune from facing the costs if they lose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I remind both Front-Bench speakers, one who has already spoken and the other who has been speaking for rather a long time, that the debate ends at 7 pm and other Back Benchers wish to participate? The Secretary of State has got his points on the record, and perhaps Mr Slaughter will conclude his remarks so that we can call the Back-Bench speakers.
Mr Slaughter
I give up with the Secretary of State. We are talking about interveners, who are there to assist the court and broaden the issue where it is helpful for matters of public policy. If he cannot see that after having discussed the Bill since February, I really do give up on him.
The Government proposals would prevent judicial review if they can persuade a court that it is highly likely that an unlawful act would have been lawful if done differently. That is a recipe for poor decision making. They will hobble the attempts of people to raise the considerable funds needed to bring a case and weaken their ability to have protection from the Government’s costs if they lose. Most bizarrely, they discourage the intervention of expert bodies, such as charities and civil society organisations, which often assist the court in making the right decision. Under pressure on this last point, or to give the usual fig leaf to the Liberal Democrats, a series of last-minute amendments have been tabled by the Lord Chancellor on interveners, but the opinion of experts who have looked at them is that, if anything, they make the Bill worse.
Labour MPs will therefore vote to uphold judicial review and the rights of the individual against the state. We will oppose the motion to disagree with each and every one of the Lords amendments in this group. We will vote against the Government’s amendments in lieu. We may, I hope, be joined by one or two libertarian Tories, although I am not holding my breath. It will be interesting to see how many Liberal Democrats, so keen to shout about their love of liberty before voting for legal aid cuts in secret courts, will join us in the Lobby.
Mr Cox
I regret the tone of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), which fell beneath the standards the House is entitled to expect on so important a matter. The tone was cynical and frankly insulting to those of us on the Government Benches who have spent many years of our lives fighting for the rights of individuals in the courts.
I should, before I begin, draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I appear in courts, specifically in the administrative court, quite frequently. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, hurling yet another insult. I do not know what he was like in the legal profession, but if he won as few arguments by his gracelessness and charmlessness as he is winning this evening, no doubt he switched professions with very good reason indeed.
In substance, many of the points the hon. Gentleman makes—they are not, I think, his; he is merely puppeting and gibbeting the points made by his betters and those more equipped than he to make the criticisms—are, I have to say, correct in the substance of the matter. That is why I say to the Secretary of State that, although one cannot always choose one’s friends in this House on specific topics, I am extremely troubled by what he is introducing. I sympathise with and understand the frustration that, he feels with the industry, it may well seem to those in charge of the Executive, that judicial review has become. I understand that, but my concern is that the measures my right hon. Friend is introducing are not well targeted or adjusted to the mischief he is seeking to suppress.
One of the examples I give is the provision to introduce a likelihood test as to the outcome of any judicial review. The problem with this measure is that it does two things, unintended no doubt in their consequence by the Secretary of State. First, it will turn permission hearings, and substantive hearings if permission is granted, into an immensely detailed and cumbersome process of trawling through fact and evidence so as to equip the judge to take a decision on whether it was more likely than not that the decision would have been taken anyway, and in order to demonstrate that it would have been taken anyway if the flaw had been identified by the judge. The presupposition is that the judge has identified a technical flaw, as my right hon. Friend would call it, either in consultation, natural justice or perhaps even discrimination. The public authority will then seek to justify its position by saying, “Well, it would have made no difference and you, the judge, on all of the evidence, can take the view yourself that this would have made no difference.” That converts the judge into the decision maker.
Chris Grayling
The “exceptional circumstances” provisions would allow a judge to say, “This is a flagrant case and must be heard.”
Mr Cox
I hear the Secretary of State, but the Bill does not refer to “minor technicalities”; as the Bill reads, the default position would be that any abuse of due process or power could be justified and defended on the basis that the decision would in any event probably have been taken. It is difficult to make “exceptional circumstances” clauses work, because the courts say, “Well, ‘exceptional circumstances’ cannot mean a lack of fairness or an abuse of power.” I have spent many years examining these kinds of clauses and arguing them in the courts, and I know that “exceptional circumstances” clauses are rarely invoked, because courts are reluctant to acknowledge them as a standard resort in such circumstances. It would take something extreme indeed for a court to be persuaded it was exceptional. On the other hand, abuses of power happen quite often, I am afraid, and the clause is likely to condone those abuses of power, whereas often where there is an abuse, it is right that the decision be taken again.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Lords amendments 97 to 102 were carried in the other place to ensure that courts maintained their discretion in determining whether to grant a judicial review by making use of the “highly likely” test. Groups such as Justice have rightly concluded that if these amendments are defeated, it will change the role of judges by inviting them to second-guess how decisions might otherwise have been taken. From his experience, the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) has detailed some very potent arguments why the amendments should be upheld. Parliament should never seek to undermine the courts’ discretion; courts should be free to determine whether to apply the “no difference” test, and to legislate otherwise would impede the integrity of our legal system. I therefore support these amendments.
Lords amendments 105 and 106 would allow the courts to consider the circumstances of individual cases in determining whether to grant an application for judicial review, even in cases where third-party information is not readily available. In clause 66, the Government have tried to find yet another means of limiting the circumstances where applications for judicial review can be heard. The amendments seek to ensure that applications can be heard in cases where third-party information is not easily available.
Judicial review is often the only means by which individuals can hold the Executive responsible for wrong -doing, yet the Government are trying to shut down that avenue for redress. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said it sees no evidence to support the Government’s reforms, and neither does Justice, Liberty, JustRights, Human Rights Watch, the Howard League, Redress, Inquest, Mencap, Amnesty International—the list goes on. Can anyone report which groups actually support the Government in these changes? [Hon. Members: “The Whips.”] Yes, the Whips.
On clause 67, Lords amendment 107 would maintain courts’ discretion over whether to order an intervener to pay the costs of relevant parties and vice versa. As drafted, the Bill would compel the court to order interveners to pay such costs, other than in exceptional circumstances, as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon. The provisions in clause 67 are among the most disturbing in the Bill. Unamended, the clause would ensure that charitable organisations and individuals with expertise could no longer enrich the opinion of the courts by intervening in cases where their expertise would be of use because they could not justify the risk to their trustees, funders or members of supporting litigation. As the noble Lord Carlile asked in the other place:
“How could trustees reasonably agree to support an intervention when it could result in losing tens of thousands of pounds or more in costs, jeopardising, in some cases, the existence of small charities?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2014; Vol. 754, c. 1607.]
Yet the plans would still allow Departments and corporations with huge funds to intervene and hence play a pivotal part in the development of public law.
I ask the House to reconsider the Government’s proposals in the context of the various and—I am trying to avoid vitriol—crippling reforms to access to justice in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. As a result of the significant cuts in that Act, more individuals will be looking to charitable organisations for support in getting justice. It seems to me that clause 67 will take away this last resort. I am afraid the Government seem intent on restricting access to justice so that only those with the least to lose can gain redress. Why do they think it necessary to pursue this agenda, which will throw the baby out with the bathwater, despite the perceived misuses of the law relating to judicial review? The hon. and learned Gentleman, a far more experienced lawyer than me, has referred to the time-honoured practice of judicial review—the Wednesbury principles and so on—and the practices in place to ensure that Departments act reasonably in all circumstances. Why should we not uphold the individual’s rights to ensure that Departments act reasonably?
In conclusion, Justice said:
“Punitive and disproportionate, these measures are designed to deter any organisation with limited funds acting as an intervener. In practice, this means that – even in important cases with a constitutional impact which reaches far beyond the immediate interests of the parties - the court will no longer benefit from expert advice and information provided from cash-poor and experience rich charities and NGOs.”
I think that says it all. As we heard earlier, senior judges themselves are on the record as saying that the courts are enriched by the interventions of these people, who know exactly what they are talking about.
Robert Neill
I commend to this House the words of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the other House. He supported the Bill and set out a sensible balance, as did the Minister, Lord Faulks, himself no slouch as a Minister. It is right that those who come to the Queen’s courts in a public hearing should not shield their true identity or who truly funds them. The Government are right to insist on that point.
It is legitimate for Parliament to set the parameters within which the undoubtedly important system of judicial review works. That is what the Bill seeks to do: it strives to strike a fair balance. I hope the House will support the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. It is absolutely critical that we have a comprehensible and credible system of judicial review. I want to see that as much as anyone else, but the mission creep of some areas of judicial review, very often for politically motivated purposes, undermines the true purpose of judicial review as a legitimate and important remedy for the individual. I believe that the Government’s proposal, despite the rather hyperbolic—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
I beg to move, That the House disagrees with Lords amendment 74.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 127 to 131.
Andrew Selous
As it has been some months since we last debated the Government’s plans for secure colleges, let me briefly remind Members of our ambition for secure colleges to transform the experience of young people in custody. At present, 68% of detained young people reoffend within 12 months of release—that is the highest reoffending rate of any group of offenders. Despite that poor outcome, we are paying on average about £100,000 a year for each place in youth custody—the figure rises to more than £200,000 a year for places in secure children’s homes, though the reoffending outcomes are no different. So it is clear that carrying on as we are is simply not an option. The Government believe that we must have higher ambitions for turning around the lives of troubled young people who end up in custody, and that putting education at the heart of youth custody, properly integrated with health and other support services, is the way to equip these young people with the skills and self-discipline they need to build productive, law-abiding lives on release.
Secure colleges will do that by being places of education first and places of detention second. We want to move away from the culture of bars on windows, and foster one of engagement and personal development. Our intention is to test the secure college model by opening a secure college pathfinder in Leicestershire in 2017. This purpose-built facility will, for the first time, provide detained young people with a secure learning environment in which education has been designed as the core of a regime tailored to the specific needs of young people.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I understand the aspiration to try to provide something that is educationally rather than penally driven, and we all hope it works. Does the Minister accept that there is a risk that it will not quite work? Would it not be sensible to phase things in, starting off by involving just boys over 15 and then expanding the scheme only if it actually works?
Andrew Selous
The intention is not to introduce girls and children under 15 at the start. We have engaged throughout this process and we intend to carry on doing so. We will, through a competition to be launched next year, invite potential operators to demonstrate how they would deliver innovative education and rehabilitation services to these young people. I am disappointed that we are today discussing Lords amendment 74, which excludes girls and under-15s from secure colleges, denying them access to the substantial benefits that we believe the secure college model will deliver for detained young people. I recognise the arguments that have been made during the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, about the particular needs of girls and under-15s detained in custody. I recognise also the need for establishments to put in place appropriate protections to ensure that these more vulnerable groups are kept safe. Those are valid arguments, and the Government are extremely mindful of their responsibilities to these vulnerable young people.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The lack of any improvement over 40 years by any Government in reducing recidivism condemns us as politicians. We welcome any fresh initiative, but can the Minister tell us whether there is any model, anywhere in the world, where the system he is introducing has worked?
Andrew Selous
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, we have lamentably failed to reduce reoffending over a very long period. In addition, we spend a huge amount of taxpayers’ money per place to achieve very poor results. I have seen good education in our current establishments, but I believe we can do better. The time is ripe for us to try something different, based on sound principles, putting education and health at the heart of what we are doing, and making appropriate interventions, all of which will be in place. We are confident that secure colleges can not only meet the needs of girls and younger children in custody, but improve on the education and reoffending outcomes that current facilities achieve.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister that we should put education at the heart of the rehabilitation agenda for young people. Will he say what educational qualifications the staff at the secure college will have?
Andrew Selous
As the hon. Lady may know, we are going to run a competition, which I will describe shortly, to find an education provider. But we are committed to increasing the amount of time in education and we want innovative responses to raise standards further because, as she will know, the results at the moment are simply not good enough.
As I have said, at this stage the Government have plans only for a single secure college pathfinder that will open in 2017, and it has been designed so that it is capable of housing about 300 young offenders aged 12 to 17. It is true that the majority of the young people in this first secure college will be boys aged 15 to 17, but that does not mean that girls and under-15s could not be safely accommodated on the same site and provided with the tailored services required to rehabilitate and educate them. Girls and boys aged 12 to 17 are already safely accommodated together in secure training centres, as well as in secure children’s homes.
Our designs for the secure college pathfinder have been specifically developed to ensure that if girls and under-15s were to be placed there, they would be accommodated in separate and smaller living units, entirely distinct from the accommodation for the majority of older boys. In our consultation on our plans for secure college rules, we also proposed a rule that girls must be separately accommodated from boys.
Mr Llwyd
The Minister has more or less taken my speech away from me, because to a large extent my concerns have been allayed and it is good that he is running a pilot for boys to see how that works. But how long does he think an individual youngster has to spend in that set-up in order to gain education. In other words: is there a minimum time?
Andrew Selous
Obviously, how long children spend in these institutions is not up to us but up to the courts. What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that significant improvements can be made in a short period. I have seen huge advances in a child’s reading within an eight-week period, so significant advances in education can be made in relatively short periods and, of course, many children are sentenced for considerably longer than that, as he will well know.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Does the Minister envisage the girls and younger boys being educated completely separately from the older boys?
Andrew Selous
What we have committed to is separate living accommodation. When I visited a secure training centre recently, I saw young children—both girls and boys—happily learning how to put up wall paper and to cook banoffee pie. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the accommodation will be separate. The whole set up and design of the secure college will be such that it will be possible to have considerable separation if and when we need it. I hope that he is reassured by that.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Minister may be aware that when the Bill was in Committee, we heard from a number of experts, including charities, doctors and other people working with young people and offenders, and they said that the way that the secure colleges had been set up as large institutions was completely unsuitable for young people.
Andrew Selous
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. I understand the concerns that she raises. Is she aware of how the secure college is designed? We will, for example, have 12-bed units for the more vulnerable groups, which could include girls and children under 15. There are 20-bed and 10-bed units. We believe that it will be possible to offer that proper support. The set-up will allow smaller groups of young people to foster that sense of community, belonging and close relationship with those that will be looked after.
Andrew Selous
I will just finish this point and then I will let the hon. Lady in, not least because her mother is one of my constituents. There will be no occasion when all 300 or so young people will be milling around together in any part of the secure college. I hope that that allays the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Julie Hilling
I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). Nobody involved in rehabilitation or education has said that this is a good idea. The Minister did not quite answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about whether the teaching staff will be qualified teachers. Moreover, what sort of ratio of children to teachers does he expect in that learning environment?
Andrew Selous
As I think the hon. Lady knows, we will be running a competition, and we will be looking for innovation and creativity from providers. We will assess the bids very rigorously on the basis of the best quality of education, so we are a little way off being specific on that at the moment. The hon. Lady will have heard me say very clearly that this is an institution that will have education at its core, and that we would not be doing this if we were not absolutely determined to do better than is currently done on the education front.
Now, if colleagues will allow me, I will make a little progress. Both measures will ensure that girls, and boys aged under 15, receive the tailored support that they need in secure colleges. Throughout the passage of the Bill, and indeed the development of our plans for the secure college pathfinder, we have actively engaged with interested parliamentarians in both Houses and wider stakeholders and experts, including both NHS England and the Department for Education. In the light of the feedback that we have received from peers, we have made changes to the plans to enlarge the site of the pathfinder by two acres to ensure that the younger and more vulnerable groups have sports and recreational facilities near their accommodation, and that there is greater separation between the larger and smaller units on the site. I am therefore satisfied that the secure college pathfinder would be able to deliver a distinct regime that caters for the specific needs of girls and under-15s while always keeping them safe.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time; he is being very generous. We all hope that everything works out as he anticipates. What assurances can he give us that the contract that would be signed would be such that if there were a decision not to go ahead with extensions, the taxpayer would not be financially penalised?
Andrew Selous
I am not sure whether the contract would specifically relate to the number and type of young people who were on the site, so I think that those would be separate issues. However, there is a strong argument for not discriminating against girls and young people. As a father of three daughters, I would not want to think that we were in any way discriminating against girls. That is an important principle.
I should stress that although the other place has proposed amendment 74, the Government have been clear that no final decisions have been taken on who will be accommodated in the secure college pathfinder. That will be determined in the light of analysis of the make-up of the youth custodial population ahead of the pathfinder opening in 2017. We have also given our commitment that girls and under-15s will not be placed in the pathfinder from its opening, and that any decision to introduce them would be carefully phased.
I hope that Members will agree that girls and under-15s should not be prevented from benefiting from the enhanced opportunities and facilities provided by secure colleges. Members should acknowledge the careful consideration that we have given to these matters, and the efforts we have made to ensure that girls and under-15s could be accommodated safely in the secure college pathfinder. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Lords Amendment 74.
Lords amendments 127 to 130 are minor Government amendments consequential to earlier amendments made by this House to extend the secure college provisions to Wales. Those amendments were necessary to ensure that principals of secure colleges were treated under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 in the same way as those in charge of other types of custodial establishment.
The purpose of amendments 127 to 130 is to ensure that the Welsh language text of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) 2014 Act is consistent with the English language text of the 2014 Act as amended by schedule 5. That is necessary because the two instruments are legally separate. I can assure the House that the effect of the amendments is unchanged from the English version seen earlier, and I ask Members to agree to Lords amendments 127 to 130.
Lords amendment 131 concerns the process for approving secure college rules. In its third report of the Session, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that if the Bill is to enable secure college rules to authorise the use of force for the purpose of ensuring good order and discipline, those rules should, to the extent that they authorise the use of force, be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government were pleased to accept that recommendation on Report in the Lords and consequently ask the House to support this amendment.
As the first set of secure college rules will contain provisions authorising the use of force, an effect of this amendment would be to make the entire first set of rules subject to the affirmative procedure. That will give Parliament additional oversight of the first set of secure college rules. The Government’s consultation on their plans for secure college rules closed on 27 November. We are considering the responses that we received. I urge Members to agree to Lords amendment 131.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak against the Government’s motion to disagree with the other place, and in favour of Lords amendment 74. I give notice of our intention to vote against the Government’s motion tonight.
This debate is about sparing girls and young children—the most vulnerable offenders—from a flawed, expensive and potentially dangerous institution, with which the Government should not be going ahead. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and will respond to some of his specific points in a moment, but would not the Government’s proposal for secure colleges be a step in the wrong direction for our youth justice system? It is a plan without any real supporting evidence.
Even the Government’s own impact assessment accepts that their plans are untried and untested and the Government have not been able to produce a single independent expert to vote for the proposal. The NSPCC, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and nearly 30 other leading children’s charities have publicly condemned the plans as “expensive and dangerous”.
Let me be clear: improvements need to be made to youth custody. Reoffending is still too high and education can and should play an important role in the rehabilitation of young offenders, so I welcome the efforts that Ministers are making to improve the delivery of education in young offenders institutions where it is not good enough. At a time when the youth custody population is falling, however, Labour does not think that construction of a new type of prison is the correct way to proceed.
Yasmin Qureshi
Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of rehabilitation is being able to keep in contact with family and close ones? It is proposed that this college will be in Lincolnshire and there will be only one in the whole country, so my hon. Friend can imagine the travelling that the parents of the children will have to do to visit. That completely defeats the object of rehabilitation.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the evidence explains that small units that are closer to home with a higher staff ratio are more suitable, particularly for girls and young offenders who have complex needs.
Let me respond now to some of the Minister’s points about the accommodation of girls and young children. We know that girls and children under the age of 15 are overwhelmingly in the minority in the youth custody population. In 2012-13, 95% of children in custody were boys and 96% were aged between 15 and 17. If those ratios were reflected in the 320-bed secure college, the Government would be accommodating fewer than 20 girls and about a dozen younger children together with nearly 300 older and troubled teenage boys. That has all the makings of an incredibly intimidating environment with real safeguarding concerns for the most vulnerable offenders and it is why large facilities such as young offenders institutions only accommodate boys over the age of 15. It also helps explain why, as I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), all the evidence shows that small units closer to home with a higher staff ratio are most suitable for girls and young offenders with complex needs. Ignoring the evidence in deciding the composition of the secure college would create a near impossible task for the college principal as the regime would inevitably need to be designed to cater for the needs of the majority, making it all the more likely that the needs of the minority would slip through the cracks.
The problem is compounded by the fact that Ministers have not carried out an equality impact assessment on how girls and younger offenders would fare in a secure college. That was confirmed in a written parliamentary answer to me on 16 June and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. The Committee’s report on the scrutiny of the Bill stated:
“We note that the Government does not appear to have carried out any equality impact assessments of the proposed secure colleges policy, and we recommend that such assessments should be carried out and made available to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.”
I remind the Minister of his Department’s response to the Committee’s report. It claimed:
“We believe that the pathfinder Secure College, an establishment”
comprising
“distinct accommodation units and capable of supporting different regimes for the various groups of young offenders, will provide…an individualised service.”
My simple question for the Minister is as follows: how? How will those warm words be delivered in reality? The House has been given no credible information about what life inside a secure college would be like for those young people.
We know that young people in custody have complex needs: mental health issues, learning disabilities, drugs, alcohol and problems of domestic abuse and family breakdown. However, the Government have proposed no credible plan for how the secure college would cater for those needs. They have not explained how they will be able to deliver better results at a lower cost than has been possible in other youth custody environments or how they would do so when the average time young offenders spend in custody is only 79 days.
Right hon. and hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let me remind the Minister of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier this year. Describing the secure college proposals, he said:
“The Bill establishes the secure college in law. Beyond the legal framework, the legislation does not specify details of the regime to be delivered within the secure college.”
The most obvious example of that is the secure college rules.
Yasmin Qureshi
Effectively, the secure colleges are the old-style Borstals, and everybody knew that they did not work.
Dan Jarvis
Indeed. One of the fundamental problems is that there is no credible evidence to support the proposal and no independent experts who are prepared to put their names to it.
Let me ask the Minister for a number of guarantees. If separate facilities are his solution to the issue, why are they not provided for in the Bill? Even if they were, fencing off girls and the youngest offenders is not the answer. It is likely that they would still be in the minority in the separate areas and they would also be cut off from the facilities on the main site for most of the time. There would also still be times when girls and children as young as 12 would need to be moved and escorted across the main site. That would be a recipe for intimidation and it is precisely why youth custody has moved away from accommodating different age groups on the same site. Such sites are more difficult to run and mean that children have to spend more time locked up and fenced off for their own protection, hindering any hope of rehabilitation.
Let me finish by putting it on the record that if we are elected in five months’ time, the next Labour Government will not wish to go ahead with this poorly thought through proposal. The Government have said that they want to cut the cost of youth custody, but wasting £85 million of public money on a vanity project that will do little to rehabilitate young people is no saving at all. Last week, Leicester city council refused a planning application that looks likely to delay the project. Will the Minister say when he expects construction to start and whether the final contract will be signed before the election?
Anyone and everyone who has scrutinised the secure college proposal has seen it for what it is: an ill thought through cost-cutting exercise with a veil of education draped over it. Throwing girls and the youngest children into the mix would be an accident waiting to happen. The other place has had the wisdom and common sense to say so and this House should agree with them.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister is aware that I am strongly against the creation of his secure college. Of all the witnesses we saw in Committee, not one was in favour of creating this prison for children. Indeed, most considered it a joke as it goes against the evidence and recommendations on rehabilitating vulnerable young children. The Government’s proposal for a secure college will introduce a new and dangerous kind of child custody. The Government plan to detain girls and boys aged between 12 and 17 in a 320-bed prison.
There is no doubt in my mind that if these plans go ahead, younger children will be extremely vulnerable. It is inevitable that they will experience higher levels of intimidation by older children and that their needs will be relegated because of a focus on the majority. Evidence shows that girls and younger children are likely to withdraw by refusing to engage in educational programmes or other activities in that environment, which completely counters the professed reason for creating this prison. There has been no impact assessment, so it is impossible to comprehend the implications for those groups.
Currently, young offender institutions only hold boys over 15 because it is recognised that larger institutions are unsuitable for younger children and girls. Girls and under-15s are currently held in secure training centres or secure children’s homes, which are smaller and have a higher staff-to-child ratio. Why cannot that tried and tested model be allowed to continue?
The reality of the secure college is that girls and younger children will still be sharing the same resources. Yes, they may have segregated use, but they will still see, hear and be intimidated by older boys. The vast majority of girls in the penal system have a history of sexual abuse. Imagine what it will be like for them in a testosterone-fuelled environment of boys trying to out-macho each other for fear of appearing weak. The Minister said that he has daughters so I am sure he can imagine how it will be for those girls when they try to sleep at night. How will they move on from the horrors that plagued their earlier lives or be able to develop as individuals when they are outnumbered by 19 to one?
The idea of a giant prison for children is a bad one. We have excellent youth offending schemes that have very positive results in rehabilitating young people. However, I have been in Parliament long enough to know that once the Government have decided on something, they plough on regardless. I beg the Minister to do the right thing and allow Lords amendment 74 to stand.
Julie Hilling
The notion of a secure college is flawed. Nobody except Ministers thinks it is a good idea—no educationalist, nobody who works in young offender institutions, nobody who works in the criminal justice system and nobody who campaigns for improvements in the way we treat children and young people in the criminal justice system. It seems to be based on a notion that going off to boarding school is a good thing, but this is not going to be like Eton. It will bring together large numbers of young people from very disturbed backgrounds who have committed serious offences. That is not a good idea.
Let us think about many of the young people who are in custody. Many have spent time in care and are likely to have had an absent parent. They have probably experienced neglect or abuse, and the prevalence of mental illness is high. Some 86% of young people in the criminal justice system have been excluded from school, 23% have learning difficulties and 36% have borderline learning difficulties. Boys aged 15 to 17 in prison are 18 times more likely to commit suicide than children of the same age in the community, and 11% of children in prison have attempted suicide. Simply trying to put knowledge into these young people without addressing their fundamental issues is doomed to failure. Young people need to be in the right place psychologically before they can start to learn. Simply trying to shove knowledge into young people who are disturbed, who have come from bad backgrounds and whose mental health is rubbish will not work; they need to be in the right place if they are to learn.
The average length of time spent in custody is 79 days, so how are those young people really going to learn a great deal in that period? The Minister talked about young people learning to read in a short period of time. There might be some successes in basic literacy and numeracy, but I do not see how it can work for their wider education process. We will be putting them in a college many miles away from home and the other support services they will need after their time in custody. They will then, after 79 days, have to reintegrate into their old school, or into a new school, and into those support services, which will not be on the doorstep to help them with their drug problems, mental health problems or all the other issues that young people face.
In Committee it was indicated to us that the teaching staff will not necessarily be qualified teachers. We are not sure about that, because the Minister will not tell us. The Government cannot just say that they will leave it until they have had a competition for people to apply to run the institution. Surely to goodness they need to lay down some firm guidelines on the qualifications and experience that those who will be working with the young people should have.
Why on earth will the Government not look at models that actually work? They should look to Scandinavia, where learning environments are in the community, where people down the street will not even know that the house on the corner is a youth custody premises, and where young people are treated holistically so that not just their education is dealt with, but all the other problems that have lead them to offend and have messed up their lives. They need that whole range of support services. We need that sort of therapeutic community, not a place where 320 young people will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, vie for attention and to prove who is the most macho.
I do not believe that a secure college is a place for 15 to 17-year-olds, but it is very definitely not a place for girls and younger children, who should be in the community. The therapeutic programmes that work for young people are those that are close to the community and that are small and specific. As my hon. Friend said, so many of the young women who end up in the penal system have suffered sexual abuse and other forms of physical abuse. The Government should rule out ever putting them in a place with 320 young boys, which would make the experience awful for them.
I do not believe that we will change reoffending by locking up 320 young people together. I do not believe that we will change educational outcomes for those young people by doing that. I really wish that the Government would accept the Lords amendment, but I also wish that they would reconsider the whole proposal. If nobody else thinks that it is going to work, why are the Government arrogant enough to believe that it will? Surely they should start listening to the professionals, to those who work with young people and understand them, and not go ahead with the college, and they should certainly never contemplate putting young children and women into that place.
Andrew Selous
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The Government are committed to improving outcomes for young people in custody. As I said, 68% of young people reoffend within a year of leaving custody, at an average cost of £100,000 a year to the taxpayer. We simply cannot be satisfied with the status quo and need to try something new. Education needs to be at the heart of the offer we put in front of those young people, and so does health.
We have engaged with parliamentarians, stakeholders, practitioners, experts and young offenders themselves on our plans and, in response to Parliament’s concerns, have amended the Bill to ensure that secure college rules are subject to the affirmative procedure to the extent that they authorise the use of force. We want to continue that dialogue as we implement our vision for secure colleges.
I say to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) that our vision is to have, rather than just a prison with some education in it, a building that is designed as a school—the plans have changed considerably since the first version. We do not think that it is right to educate those young people somewhere with bars on the windows; we think they deserve a better environment in which to learn. The published plans have changed hugely and, as I have said, there will be a considerable health offer within the establishment. Girls are already taught and looked after alongside boys in secure training colleges and children’s homes. We do not expect a delay. Blaby district council supported the proposals unanimously and the local further education college is very supportive of what we are doing.
On the equality impact statement, in accordance with the Ministry of Justice’s duties under the Equality Act 2010, we considered the impact of the proposals set out in the Government response to the transforming youth custody consultation in January 2014. That was made clear in the parliamentary question, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, on 16 June. I say to the other Members who spoke from the Opposition Benches that girls are already in youth custody, in secure training centres and in secure children’s homes, and many are sentenced there for a considerable time. We have a duty to give them a better offer. What we do at the moment is simply not good enough, and it costs us a huge amount of money. A Government with ambition are right to try to do the best for those young people.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 74.
Andrew Selous
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 73, 75 to 96, 108 to 126 and 132 to 143.
Andrew Selous
We have heard today passionate arguments from all parts of the House on parts 2 and 4 of the Bill on secure colleges and judicial review. The Government amendments made to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill in the House of Lords have significantly enhanced it. I do not intend to explain every amendment at great length, but I will touch on some.
Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 117, 126 and 142 introduce important changes to the law by creating a new criminal offence that specifically targets the behaviour commonly referred to as revenge pornography. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that this behaviour is intolerable.
Dr Huppert
As the Minister says, this is a very important issue, and I raised it when the Bill was here before it went to the other place. It is very good to have this criminal sanction, but does he agree that it will be effective only if it is matched by education so that it is not necessary because people simply do not do these things?
Andrew Selous
I pay tribute to the part that the hon. Gentleman played in earlier debates on this issue. He is of course right: the law can go so far, but people need to be educated, and that is absolutely part of what we need to do to stamp out this despicable practice.
The malicious disclosure of intimate sexual photographs and films is undoubtedly an extremely distressing experience for victims. Most are left distraught, not only by the disclosure of images that they once thought were private and personal, but by the breach of trust perpetrated by this abhorrent offence. Careers and subsequent relationships have often been ruined as a result.
Mr Slaughter
Even by the Government’s standards, making 140 amendments in the other place, ranging from new offences and procedures to a plethora of corrections to drafting and operational errors, is remarkable. In the end, most of the matters are uncontentious or the Government have had notice of our objections in terms, so I can be succinct. We do not intend to press any of the Lords amendments in this group to the vote.
However, some issues require considerably more explanation and reassurance, not least the new role of the recall adjudicator. We welcome the fact that Ministers have recognised the additional burdens placed on the Parole Board. Labour has made that point repeatedly during the Bill’s passage. The Government’s impact assessment accepts that the Bill will create at least 1,100 extra Parole Board hearings at a time when its work load is rising and its staff numbers are falling. Nearly one in five staff has been cut since the last election, many of whom were vital supports to the 232 Parole Board members, who are paid per hearing. The staff left in place have to clear a substantial backlog of outstanding cases, while recent Supreme Court judgments have also impacted on its case load. With that in mind, we do not oppose the Government’s efforts to redress the burdens on the Parole Board in principle, but we need assurances on several points.
Introducing the provisions in the other place, the Minister accepted that
“the Bill is silent on the precise workings of the recall adjudicator”,
and that there is
“a great deal of further work to be done on the detail.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 14-15.]
Yet Ministers seem determined to rush through the changes with many questions left unanswered.
The Bill currently does not make it clear who the recall adjudicator would be, what the nature and scope of their role would be limited to, how the appointment process would work, what the costs of the new system would be, or how adjudicators would co-operate with other criminal justice agencies to ensure a fair, robust and effective system of recall. It is not clear what experience, training or expertise would be required of recall adjudicators.
So far, the Government have gone only as far as saying that they intend the positions to be filled by people with “significant criminal justice experience”. The point is best summarised by their impact assessment:
“Recall adjudicators will need to be carefully selected and trained and provided with a clear process and guidance to mitigate the risk of their release decisions either being too risk averse, which would add to the pressure on prison places, or failing to take full account of relevant risk factors, which could lead to the release of prisoners who breach their licence conditions and/or re-offend. This would have adverse consequences on the system as well as incur reputational damage to the MOJ.”
Such “reputational damage” to the Ministry of Justice means a risk to the public that decisions are wrongly taken. Can the Minister give the House any further detail on that point? The Government confirmed in the other place that they had
“certainly not ruled out the possibility of using magistrates.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 15.]
That has raised particular concerns, because magistrates have varying levels of experience and, as adjudicators, would be dealing with prisoners on sentences over and above their usual sentencing powers.
Furthermore, there has been no formal process of consultation on the adjudicator proposals, despite the significant changes that they would mean to the scope and function of the Parole Board. The Government committed themselves in the other place to present further reports to Parliament before this policy is taken any further. Will the Minister confirm what these reports will contain, when he expects them to be laid before Parliament and whether any further consultation will be carried out in the meantime?
The Government have failed to carry out an equality impact assessment on the introduction of adjudicators. Will the Minister explain why? This is perhaps the most crucial point. Until we know what proportion of those who are subject to recall have protected characteristics—I include in that young people, elderly people, people with a physical disability, those who suffer from a mental illness and those with other protected characteristics—and until we know whether those who will undertake the job are qualified to deal with those characteristics, we will not know whether the new system is fit for purpose.
Ministers have cited the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Whiston to show that the creation of a recall adjudicator will not be incompatible with human rights obligations. However, Justice has suggested that
“the case does not provide a full proof justification for the new position, as compared with the independent and suitably qualified Parole Board.”
Can the Minister offer the House any specific assurances on that point?
Finally on this matter, what assurance can the Minister give that the new system will be as robust as the current process? Risk assessing whether prisoners can be released back into the community is a complex judgment and the Parole Board has more than 40 years’ experience in it. Reducing administrative burdens is all well and good, but the cost of it must not be to cut corners and jeopardise public safety.
I welcome the Lords amendments that clarify the sentencing for driving and knife offences, as well as the new offences of police corruption and ill treatment or wilful neglect by care providers. The last of those was recommended by the Francis report. Although the Opposition are disappointed that the Government are not implementing Robert Francis’s recommendations in full, we are pleased that they are implementing his recommendations in this instance.
Those changes highlight the fact that this is a rather different Bill from the one that was first presented to the House earlier this year. The Government’s initial impact assessment confirmed that the measures in the Bill would create nearly 1,000 additional prison places. Since then, the Government have added several new offences to the Bill, many of them tabled just days before a debate in Parliament, with no specific impact assessment, and rushed through with limited opportunity for proper scrutiny. That is not a proper way to legislate. At the same time, our prisons have lurched further into crisis, with overcrowding and violence spiralling. Now that the Bill is back in the Commons, will the Minister give us the updated number of prison places it will require and where they will be provided?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her proposals that became Lords amendments 73 and 143, which tackle child exploitation. She has championed those changes since the Bill’s Committee stage in the Commons. It is a testimony to the campaign that she has run and to the parliamentary inquiry she led alongside Barnardo’s that the Government have accepted her amendments and included them in the Bill. I also welcome Lords amendments 70 and 71, which relate to the creation of a new offence to tackle the increasing problem of so-called revenge porn.
The Lords amendments that relate to personal injury and fundamental dishonesty are very flawed. They will require a court to dismiss in its entirety any personal injury claim when it is satisfied that the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest, unless it would cause substantial injustice to the claimant so to do. Last Wednesday, I spoke at the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers’ autumn conference, where I heard the concern that, once again, the Government are stacking the deck in favour of defendant insurers. On these proposals, APIL commented that
“there is no provision in this clause for the defence to be dismissed. The rule of law demands a level playing field”.
It stated that the clause
“tilts that playing field firmly in favour of defendants and their insurers who pay compensation to injured people.”
It might be more appropriate to have a criminal standard of proof when questions of fundamental dishonesty are at issue.
There are minor changes on the new sentencing scheme for serious offences and to allow the President of the Supreme Court to report to Parliament on matters that concern that Court and its jurisdictions—those, we approve. There is also a large number of technical amendments. As I said, those are uncontentious.
The Bill has been going through the two Houses for almost a year and there are some things that we welcome either for technical or policy reasons, but there are a number of issues, which we debated earlier this evening, on which we are fundamentally at odds with the Government, principally in relation to secure colleges and judicial review. Any impartial observer would say that whatever the merits or demerits of the Bill, the way it has been presented has been somewhat chaotic. It is not good practice to begin with a moderately sized Bill and have to pack it with additional amendments throughout Committee, Report and Third Reading in both Houses, and on that basis it is perhaps not surprising that the other place has found so much to criticise.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 118, 126 and 142 will make posting revenge porn a criminal offence, and I rise to support them. I have been campaigning on behalf of women who have contacted me to get a change in the law to make posting revenge pornography a crime, and today we have a chance to make a change that will literally transform the future for many people in our country. Nude or sexually explicit images taken as part of a private relationship and always intended to be private should stay private. People should expect better treatment under the law, and the amendments would ensure that that is the case in future.
The seemingly growing industry of revenge pornography, where images are posted for all to see, is completely unacceptable in our country and the law must reflect that. The current mishmash of legislation does not provide adequate protection. The posting of such images is often a one-off and therefore not subject to harassment legislation, or an image could be deemed not to be grossly offensive and therefore not subject to the Communications Act 2003 or the Malicious Communications Act 1988. There is therefore a need for a new law, and the Bill provides that opportunity.
I pay tribute to the Crown Prosecution Service which has attempted to provide better guidance in this area. However, as the police made clear in evidence sessions on revenge pornography with the Lords Bill Committee held during the summer, it is not necessarily against the law to post such pictures online. The amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will close that loophole and provide comfort to hundreds or perhaps even thousands of men and women in this country who have had nude or sexually explicit images of them posted without their permission.
The law must keep up to date with the ever-evolving changes and challenges thrown down to us by the internet and digital technology. What is illegal offline is illegal online, but the impact of having a nude or sexually explicit image posted on the internet for thousands or even millions of people to see is entirely different from the impact of a similar image being distributed offline, and I believe that the law should reflect that. We need the law to keep pace with the internet, and I commend the Minister for listening to the arguments and being prepared to take action.
There are those who have said that a new law is not needed. Some have gone so far as to say to me that if a woman has a nude or sexually explicit photo taken in private, she has no right to expect protection under the law if that image is made public without her permission; that in some ways it is as if she was “asking for it”. I completely reject that argument as, I hope, will every Member of the House. The law needs to protect men and women and to send a clear message to the perpetrators of these heinous acts that their actions are not tolerated by this society or in criminal law.
I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Trish Morris and Elizabeth Berridge in the other place for working with me, and for making the case so powerfully and so successfully to enable us to debate these amendments today. I also pay tribute to Women’s Aid, the Safer Internet Centre, Ban Revenge Porn, and many others who have written to me in support of the amendments over the past six months. I thank the ministerial team and their officials for listening to the arguments and for acting, and I urge Members across the House to support the amendments.
If images are posted online, victims want them to be taken down quickly. Protocols put in place by internet service providers and social media in relation to child abuse images prove beyond doubt that the industry can, through its own actions, come together to remove illegal images effectively and swiftly. Good progress on child abuse has been made by the industry, working with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and other law enforcement agencies. The Minister perhaps needs to look at that work as a template for the sort of action the industry needs to take on the issue of revenge pornography. We need an industry-wide code of practice for removing revenge pornography to ensure that people have certainty that action will be taken.
The incidence of sexting among under-18s is now put as high as 20%, so the volume of potential revenge porn images in the future is alarming. Indeed, one in five reports from industry received by CEOP relates to self-generated indecent images of people under the age of 18. What will the Government do to put a stop to the already illegal practice of sending nude images of under-18s through mobile phones and then uploading them on to websites? This seems to be becoming increasingly accepted as part of society today, but it should not be. It is illegal and the Government need to act to stop this ticking time bomb of images that could haunt the next generation of people into adulthood.
Victims want help. They want an industry-wide reporting regime. They want help to be available. The Safer Internet Centre, which was established to support professionals who work with children, is now receiving calls from adults affected by revenge pornography, as they have nowhere else to turn to. In September, I met the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, the industry board that looks at these issues. I set out my concerns and asked the industry to take action. I asked for there to be an industry-standard reporting mechanism, an industry-standard response time for taking down illegal images of adults and support for victims through a helpline. This sort of industry-wide approach is what we should all expect from a mature multinational sector of our economy. We should not expect the burden of removing illegal images from commercial websites to be solely the responsibility of the police—the industry has an obligation to act too. If websites are hosted in more obscure countries, splash pages should be used to block illegal pornography images from being viewed in the UK in exactly the same way as they have been used to block child abuse images. It is a tried and tested methodology that can address this problem. I look forward to the Minister confirming today how he can handle the logistics in the future, working of course with other ministerial colleagues in other Departments.
I applaud the Government for acting when some were resistant. The Ministers have shown foresight and their actions will be warmly welcomed by those who have had to endure the appalling consequences of revenge pornography being posted online without their consent. On behalf of all those women—and the men affected, too—who have contacted me, I thank the Ministers for their work. I hope that in their response today they are able to provide some reassurance on the questions I have posed.
Dr Huppert
I, too, would like to speak to amendment 70. I will not detain the House for too long, as some of the points have already been raised. I called for this amendment when the Bill was going through this House and in the Queen’s Speech. It was very helpful after that to get the support of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) in her Westminster Hall debate.
There is a gap in the law that we are closing. It is surprising that, while there are many laws that touch on the issue of revenge porn, none of them quite tackles the essential issue. People were being harmed and a clear wrong was being done, but nothing could be done because there was a hole in the law. I am therefore delighted that the Government accepted the case. There has been substantial debate in the other place and I pay particular tribute to my colleagues Baroness Grender, Baroness Brinton, Baroness Barker and Lord Marks who tabled amendments in the other place. Between us, we have managed to get the Government to work out the amendments.
I pay tribute to the victims. I have spoken to many of them, but in particular I pay tribute to Hannah Thompson who has played a very key role in speaking out publicly. That was a very brave thing to do about something that feels very shaming. We should remember her work and pay tribute to her. She will protect many people in the future. The psychological trauma can be huge, as the right hon. Lady has already said. We have seen people face the shame—the sense they did something wrong—when it was someone else who behaved badly. People have lost confidence, they have lost their jobs and, in some cases around the world, they have committed suicide. I therefore welcome the Government’s steps to make this a new offence. It is absolutely the right thing to do. It sends a message that revenge porn should not be tolerated and people should not be able to share these intimate images, entrusted to them, and expect their actions to be completely unpunishable.
That will not be enough, however. Although the right hon. Lady spoke about automatic processes to filter these things out, there will be challenges. The work of the Internet Watch Foundation—I declare an interest as one of its champions—on child abuse images is fantastic, but it cannot be directly mapped on to images of revenge porn, because the images themselves are not the issue; it is about intent and consent. It is hard to distinguish automatically between an image shared voluntarily, which we should not be criminalising if the person is over 18, and an image shared involuntarily, which is the issue that the amendment would tackle. It is not as easy as in the case of child abuse images—not that that is trivial or easy either.
Maria Miller
For clarification, I was clearly pointing out that once an image had been identified as illegal, the same technology could be used to remove it from the internet. Obviously, this is about data-matching the images.
Dr Huppert
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about there being scope for data-matching images, and there is some nice work being done on technologies for hashing an image so that it can be identified, but it will be harder than in the case of child abuse images.
As I said in an intervention on the Minister, we need a substantial improvement in education not just around this offence—ideally we want a situation where no one is ever prosecuted under the offence because the message has been sent so clearly that people simply do not share intimate images of former partners or whomever—but on the much broader issue of sex and relationships education. For me, this is fundamentally an issue not about revenge or pornography—the term “revenge porn” is not ideal—but about consent. We need a system where, particularly through education, we get people to understand what consent is about: what can be agreed to and what cannot be agreed. Whether it is sexual assault and physical violence, emotional assault or the taking and spreading of such images, it should be about whether consent has been given. That is the education I would like to see. The Government should have compulsory sex and relationships education for everybody at school to tackle these issues of consent, and they should do what they can to ensure society changes so that we have that focus on consent. I welcome the amendments very much, and I am grateful the Government have agreed to them.
Very quickly, amendment 73 was led by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who did a fantastic job. I had the privilege of co-sponsoring the amendments, but she did the work, and I am not in any sense trying to claim credit. The amendment will make a big difference to grooming. Her approach to the amendments—working constructively with Ministers, discussing the issues, not trying to play party politics, but making the case sensibly and pragmatically—has delivered her success, and she should be very proud of getting the law changed to protect young people. Perhaps there is a lesson there for other right hon. and hon. Members about how to get the law changed.
Andrew Selous
I thank all Members who have contributed to this wide-ranging and considered debate; the number of points raised confirms the importance of the amendments we have made during the Bill’s passage. As I set out, the Bill represents the next stage of our reforms to deliver a cost-effective system in which the public can have real confidence. The amendments in the other place have advanced and improved the Bill, and I thank its Members for their continued scrutiny.
Hon. Members have raised several issues that I shall address as best I can in the time left. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) touched on the issue of recall adjudicators. He will be aware that the Government decided to legislate now because of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Whiston, which was handed down on 2 July and so only recently opened the door to an alternative mechanism that does not require determinate sentence recall cases to be reviewed by a court-like body. I am of course conscious that the change has been brought forward at a late stage in the Bill’s progress, but it was necessary for us to use the opportunity that the Whiston judgment has afforded us.
Maria Miller
Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the industry to take action and put in place a code of practice to ensure that those affected by this dreadful crime know where to go, who to report the offence to and how long it will be before the images are taken down? People want certainty; they do not want the uncertainty that currently prevails.
Andrew Selous
Yet again, my right hon. Friend speaks very wisely. I agree with the challenge she has put to the industry. She is right to do that and I hope it will pay attention to the debate in this House. I am with her in the demands that she has quite properly placed on the industry in expecting it to fulfil its proper social responsibility in this regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge talked about the important role that victims have played, and I think he did the House a service by putting on record the role that victims have played in describing the terrible ordeal that they have been through. That has certainly helped inform our debate.
These amendments address a number of issues that have been brought to our attention by Members in the other place as well as those brought forward by the Government. I firmly believe that they enhance and improve the Bill, and I am proud to say that we are tackling the appalling behaviour known as revenge pornography, which has featured considerably in tonight’s debate. We are also addressing an important lacuna in the reporting restriction framework and introducing recall adjudicators to go some way to alleviate the pressure on the Parole Board. These and other measures are not only critical, but absolutely necessary. I urge the House to support them.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Remaining Lords amendments agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 5 to 34, 75, 123 and 124
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments.
That Dr Julian Huppert, Andrew Selous, Mr Andy Slaughter, Karl Turner, and Mr Ben Wallace be members of the Committee;
That Andrew Selous be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Damian Hinds.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Business without Debate
Political and Constitutional reform
Committees
FIFA World Cup Bids (Serious Fraud Office)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I have called this debate after several weeks in which FIFA, the governing body of world football, has once again been dragged through the mud. FIFA stumbles from one crisis to another, dogged by persistent allegations of bribery and corruption, involving some of its most senior officials, and unable to shake off the perception that it is a rotten organisation that is not fit to lead the world’s most popular game. It appears that some very ugly people have control of a beautiful game, and I believe that it is time that FIFA was subject to the full force of international law, not just left to investigate itself.
At the heart of the current crisis lie the persistent claims of bribery and corruption surrounding the bidding process to host the World cup tournaments in 2018 and 2022. These are serious allegations—that millions of dollars were paid by bidding nations in bribes to members of the FIFA executive committee in return for their votes. These are not just private matters for the FIFA family, as its president, Sepp Blatter, seems to want the world to believe. They are potentially criminal matters, which are of interest to law enforcement agencies around the world. For several years the FBI has been running its own inquiry into the bidding process, investigating whether corrupt payments were made to officials in return for their votes using servers and payment systems based in the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
In response to the widespread allegations that have been made, FIFA—through its ethics committee—launched its own investigation, led by the American attorney Michael Garcia. We were all promised that the process would get to the truth, that it would be transparent and that it would be independent from FIFA, but that has been far from the reality. FIFA has investigated itself, and has found itself to be not guilty. It set up a process which was always guaranteed to fail, and which is at the heart of my reason for initiating this debate. It was always going to fail because FIFA has no legal powers to pursue an investigation even against people within the organisation, let alone people outside it. It does not have the judicial powers that would enable it to request access to private correspondence and bank records. In fact, it could only request evidence that people were willing to supply.
According to information published in the most recent edition of The Sunday Times, it was also clear that FIFA could offer no anonymity or protection from prosecution to people who complied with its requests and took part in the investigation. Indeed, members of the England bid team told the newspaper that they had felt able legally only to supply information for which FIFA asked, and had not felt able to volunteer information that would otherwise have been helpful.
We know that the Russians told FIFA that all the computers containing e-mails and documents relating to their bid had been destroyed, and that they therefore could not comply with its request for information. As for the Qatar bid, we know that FIFA’s investigation report highlighted its concern about the role of consultants in that campaign, but stated that as those consultants had no official role in football, it had no jurisdiction to pursue them.
What angered me, and angered many football fans around the world, was the fact that, instead of acknowledging the limitations of its own inquiry, FIFA pretended that this was the last word, that there was nothing more to be said, that the World cups would go ahead in Russia in 2018 and in Qatar in 2022, and that no action would be taken against the bidding nations—although there remained the option of taking action against individuals. FIFA seems to pursue a line which involves corporate innocence, but individual potential guilt that warrants further investigation.
The world responded with alarm to the results of Michael Garcia’s inquiry. Of course, FIFA has banned the publication of the full Garcia report. Sepp Blatter is sitting on it personally, and does not want the full 430 pages ever to see the light of day. However, Hans-Joachim Eckert, chairman of the FIFA ethics committee, published a 43-page summary of the report, which Michael Garcia said contained
“numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations”.
FIFA has now realised that people will not buy its white-wash, and has handed over its own investigation of the allegations of bribery and corruption surrounding the World cup bidding process to the Swiss authorities and the Swiss Attorney-General, believing, it said, that the report contained evidence of “unlawful” activity. FIFA has also stated that other “relevant national investigatory authorities” have a responsibility to investigate the allegations of bribery and corruption in the World cup bidding process.
Over the past few weeks I have written to the director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green, asking him whether the SFO—as one of the '”relevant national investigatory authorities” described by FIFA—would look into these matters. He has assured me that the SFO has been monitoring the situation closely, and that it would act if it believed that it had the jurisdiction to do so. Furthermore, in a letter to me dated 25 November 2014, Alun Milford, the SFO’s general counsel, wrote that
“every reasonable line of inquiry, including working closely with appropriate overseas authorities, is being pursued to ascertain whether the director has grounds to open an investigation.”
I want to ask the Solicitor-General a number of questions. Can he confirm the following: first, that the Serious Fraud Office has entered into a process to determine whether or not it will open an inquiry or criminal investigation; secondly, whether the SFO has received a request for mutual legal assistance from other bodies, including the FBI; thirdly, whether the SFO has approached the FBI and the Swiss authorities regarding their investigations into FIFA; and fourthly, whether the SFO has, or might reasonably expect to, make a request to the Swiss authorities to view the Garcia report produced by the FIFA ethics committee?
The SFO has the jurisdiction to investigate events involving UK companies and citizens around the world, and under the Bribery Act 2010 has far-reaching powers to investigate any organisation that has commercial operations within the UK. I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General could confirm that it does indeed enjoy those powers and that there is a substantial difference between the powers that existed before the Bribery Act was passed by Parliament and the situation now.
A series of events falls within the jurisdiction of the SFO to investigate. We know from reports that the FBI has been working with the former FIFA official Chuck Blazer, that he has held meetings on behalf of the FBI where he has sought information from other football executives and other people he has met, and that he conducted some of these meetings, where he was under FBI surveillance, in London during the London Olympic games. Those meetings would be under the jurisdiction of the SFO and with the knowledge of the National Crime Agency, as is normal practice.
We know from the reports published in The Sunday Times this weekend that the England bid team gathered intelligence from around the world on not just the activities of members of the FIFA executive committee, but the World cup bids being prepared by other nations. It was alleged in these reports that this information contained intelligence passed through the British diplomatic network and intelligence services back to the FA. This information has never been fully published.
I served on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2011 when we conducted a brief inquiry into the FIFA bidding process and invited people to submit evidence. The FA had the chance to respond at that time and did not do so. We took evidence from Lord Triesman, where he laid out substantial allegations against members of the FIFA executive committee, in his view seeking bribes in return for their votes. The FA launched its own inquiry into that and made no reference at any time to this intelligence information that it had gathered. I certainly believe that that information should be made available to the SFO to support its investigations and inquiries and to help it determine whether it can open a criminal investigation.
We know from Lord Triesman’s evidence that there were allegations against key FIFA executive committee members, including that Jack Warner—who is a senior member of FIFA, and who became embroiled in a scandal with Mohamed bin Hammam around the attempt to rig, as people saw it, the presidential elections—was at the heart of the substantial allegations made against the Qatar bid and that he received from Mohamed bin Hammam large payments that were intended both for himself and to be channelled to other FIFA executives. That is the substance and meat of the serious allegations that were made, and we know he had meetings with England officials during that bid process, including Lord Triesman, who states that Jack Warner effectively asked him for payment to secure rights to broadcast football matches in the Caribbean that Jack Warner already owned.
We heard that UK companies were involved in the Qatar bid and that PR executives, including Mike Lee of Vero Communications, worked closely with the bid process. We also know that other executives and companies were involved, such as Nigel Rushman and Rushmans, which offered a specialist service. It helps its clients bid for major global events. On its website it states that it was cheering Qatar all the way in 2010—and there are other reports that it still works closely with Qatar—and that its services to clients boast
“insightful people with enormous amounts of data and knowledge at their finger tips. Much of this sports event bidding information is not available elsewhere.”
If it has relevant information related to the FIFA World cup bids, perhaps it would be interested in sharing some of that with the SFO. There is also the role played by people like Peter Hargitay from ECN consulting group, who made millions from its consultancy work for the Australian 2022 World cup bid, and had previously asked for over £4 million to do the same for the England 2018 bid.
There is also the role of the Qatar bid whistleblower Phaedra Almajid, who provided information to The Sunday Times newspaper regarding the Qatar bid for the FIFA World cup, alleging that Mohamed bin Hammam, the former vice-president of FIFA, had established a network to support the payment of FIFA officials, to secure their votes for Qatar in the World cup bidding process. Phaedra Almajid gave evidence to Michael Garcia’s inquiry into this matter, including the reason why she had later retracted the evidence that she had first produced for the UK media as a whistleblower. Despite being promised anonymity by Michael Garcia, she was clearly identified in the summary of his report produced by Hans-Joachim Eckert. She feels that there has been a deliberate attempt to discredit her, and she has given me a statement to support that. In it, she discusses for the first time the pressure she was placed under to withdraw her allegations.
That statement is relevant to the debate and to the jurisdiction of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate these matters, and I should like to share part of it with the House. She says:
“I never set out to be a whistleblower. I have provided the information about what I witnessed as part of the Qatari bid in confidence, because I believe the World Cup bids should be won honestly. I continue to support an honestly awarded World Cup bid for the Middle East. The most publicised effort to discredit me relates to an affidavit I executed in July 2011. The facts surrounding that affidavit demonstrate that it was coerced and based on a promise that was never kept. I provided documents, emails, recordings and data to Mr Garcia showing the following facts:
In early June 2011, a senior official of the Qatari bid contacted me, urging me to recant information I had provided anonymously to the British media in late 2010 and early 2011. Initially, I refused to recant, as I knew what I had witnessed. I was then informed that a legal injunction had been issued against me in the State of Qatar in the amount of one million dollars for breach of my non-disclosure agreement. The Qatari official threatened to enforce the judgment against me internationally. I finally agreed to sign a recanting affidavit upon the Qatari official’s promise that I would receive in exchange a legal letter that they would not sue me. Their agreement to this deal is confirmed in numerous documents and recordings.
In early July 2011, a lawyer from a London law firm representing Qatar’s Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy came to Washington DC and presented an affidavit to me. I resisted signing it because it alleged that I had lied about what I had witnessed and altered documents, which I had not done. Finally, under threat of being sued and upon a promise that I would receive the legal letter, I agreed and signed the affidavit. I then requested my letter, but the Qatari officials changed the deal saying that, before I would receive it, I had to give media interviews about my affidavit, contrary to their promise of anonymity. After objecting, I gave those interviews, as the Qataris and their lawyer kept assuring me that I would receive the legal letter. Those assurances are recorded.
In September 2011, as I was continuing to demand my legal letter, three FBI agents came to my house unannounced. I had not contacted them. I told them all I knew about the Qatari bid, the threats against me, the affidavit and the Qatari refusal to give me the legal letter. At their request, I agreed to co-operate with them. In October 2011, at the FBI’s request, I spoke to a Qatari official who confirmed that there was a deal to give me the legal letter in exchange for the affidavit. The FBI agents recorded that conversation on their equipment. I continued to demand my letter from the Qataris and their lawyers. Finally, in October 2011, instead of sending the promised legal letter, the London lawyers for the Qataris sent me a letter accusing me of harassing them and threatening to sue me if I continued contacting them. I discontinued demanding my legal letter under that new threat of being sued by the Qataris’ lawyers.”
Ms Almajid does not name the London law firm in her statement, but I have been told that it was Olswang.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I sought his permission beforehand to intervene on him, and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of his speech. He has outlined clearly the position that the whistleblower took in outlining what had been happening. Does he believe that it is now time for our Government to call on FIFA to give protection to whistleblowers, wherever they might be within that organisation, to ensure that they keep their jobs, despite what they have said, and that they are protected from prosecution?
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a serious point. That is at the heart of my reason for raising this matter in the House tonight and for contacting the Serious Fraud Office about it.
What Phaedra Almajid’s story tells us is that she co-operated fully with Michael Garcia’s inquiry and feels that her evidence has not been treated seriously and that, if anything, FIFA sought to discredit her for coming forward and co-operating with its inquiry. It also demonstrates that the FIFA process offers no guarantees to whistleblowers—people coming forward with information—whereas if they approach the proper authorities in this country, such as the SFO, or the FBI in America, they could discuss in confidence serious matters of concern to them. That is why a proper investigation and inquiry led by international agencies, including the SFO, will be the only way to get to the truth, and to encourage whistleblowers and protect them in coming forward to share their information with us. I believe some of these whistleblowers have genuine grounds to be fearful of the consequences of coming forward.
Other individuals supported the network that Phaedra Almajid describes and supported Mr Mohamed bin Hammam in his work, and little has been understood or acknowledged about them, and certainly not fully investigated. They include Najeeb Chirakal, who was suspended from football by FIFA in 2012 for failing to co-operate with its investigation into bin Hammam; Amadou Diallo, who worked for FIFA’s Goal Bureau for six years and was later alleged to be involved in bribing African football officials on behalf of the Qatar bid; Mohamed al-Mehshadi, a former FIFA Goal Bureau chairman and an insider who accompanied bin Hammam to key meetings in 2010 in Cairo and Moscow connected with the World cup bids; and Rahif Alameh, who resigned in 2012, having been for more than 50 years the general secretary of the Lebanese football association, following years of allegations of bribery and corruption.
There is a huge list in press reports and documents of names of people and allegations of the roles they played in seeking to secure votes for money in the bidding process for the World cup, and I think we see a system that was corrupt. People have been asking whether it was the fault of individual nations bidding, but we see a total system that had been corrupted and by an organisation that people have no confidence in. In 2010, when the 22 members of the FIFA executive committee cast their votes, they were determining which countries should host the next two World cups. That was unprecedented, and people have their own ideas about the reasons for it. Since that time 18 of those 22 members have faced allegations of some sort or current investigations into their conduct and whether they were involved in some sort of scandal involving the way they cast their votes. Just less than a third of the 22—seven of them—have been forced out of football because of their actions and activities. They have been banned by FIFA and forced to stand down because of their involvement in practices that were not considered suitable for a member of the FIFA ethics committee. That includes people such as Jack Warner, Chuck Blazer and Mohamed bin Hammam.
When we consider that 18 of the 22 face some sort of questioning of their role, that seven out of the 22 have resigned and that Russia and Qatar, coincidentally, both won the right to host the World cup by winning margins of six votes, we see why many people would say that the weight of allegations is so great and the stink of corruption that has stayed around this process for more than three years now is so strong that we can have no confidence in that process and therefore no confidence in the decision to award the World cup to those host countries. Those host countries deserve to have these allegations brought out and the world of football deserves to know what happened. If the SFO or the FBI were able to investigate these matters and bring criminal charges against people involved in that process, it would be impossible to see how it could continue. My concern and the reason for raising this tonight, is that without the involvement of organisations such as the SFO and the FBI, which is already involved, it seems impossible that we will ever get to that truth. It is only external pressure that will lead FIFA to change, and we need to act together to save football from FIFA.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), and I congratulate him on his terrier-like tenaciousness in pursuit of this matter. It is a serious matter because football—the beautiful game—has occupied the lives and memories of millions of us. A lot of us, as children and young people, looked forward to the World cup, which came round every four years, with great enthusiasm. I must confess that rugby is my first love, but World cups very much form part of my memory. That shows why this is serious, because anything that calls into question the integrity of those responsible for administering the biggest tournament in the world has to be a matter of huge public interest, both here and abroad.
The issues that my hon. Friend raises tonight are clearly important. I have to say that it is not within my living memory that Wales has been in a World cup—1958 was the last occasion. None the less, it is right to say that I have had a fraternal interest in the prospects of the England team in all the World cups that I have watched over the years.
But seriously, tonight we are here to deal with the question of jurisdiction and the potential role of British prosecuting authorities, which could include the Serious Fraud Office. I say that because the SFO has criteria that allow it to become involved in the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud. It is not perhaps correct to make an assumption that if criminal offences were disclosed within the jurisdiction that it would indeed be the SFO that would be the investigating authority. My hon. Friend is right to couch this debate tonight in the terms that he has, because what is being alleged is potentially serious fraud. The question is the position of British prosecutorial authorities in relation to that conduct, wherever it was committed and at what time it was committed. I will deal in turn with the questions that he raises.
My hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that the SFO has been following closely the emerging allegations about the bidding process, and that the director of the SFO, David Green, is considering whether it is appropriate to open a UK-based investigation. It would not be right for me to go into the detail, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the SFO is engaging with appropriate overseas authorities in this matter, and is seeking their co-operation in terms of the sharing of material that would allow the SFO to make an informed determination about whether there are reasonable grounds to investigate an alleged offence in this jurisdiction.
Damian Collins
Is the Solicitor-General able to say with which authority the SFO has been engaging?
The Solicitor-General
My hon. Friend has echoed some of the detailed questions that he has asked, and it would not be right for me either to confirm or deny the existence of any mutual legal assistance arrangements that may have been reached. That is an operational matter that is beyond my remit. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him in that respect, but what I will say in response to his main question about the process is that the SFO will consider all information brought to its attention, and that includes information from any alleged whistleblowers. The director may then decide whether it is appropriate to open an inquiry and whether he has jurisdiction to do so.
The director has demonstrated that the SFO is well prepared to take on difficult and high-profile cases. Currently, there are investigations into LIBOR manipulation, Tesco, Rolls-Royce, Barclays and GlaxoSmithKline, and the manipulation of foreign exchange rates. Those are all matters of great public interest that have a considerable international dimension. I recognise that the FIFA matter falls very much into that category, but the jurisdictional issues that are at the core of this debate are complex.
I am unable to comment on the allegations relating to the bidding processes for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World cups except to say that it is clearly in the interests of football generally for this matter to be resolved properly and for any wrongdoing to be fully investigated. That is why I fully support the move by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who has written to FIFA to ask for full disclosure of the Garcia report. FIFA has in the past asserted a commitment to be more transparent and accountable. Obviously, the best way to do that would be to release the full report. Members will be aware from media reports of the steps that FIFA has been taking in the past week or so and of the criminal complaint it has made to the Office of the Attorney General in Switzerland.
As I have said, the jurisdictional issues are complex, but I shall dwell on them for a moment for my hon. Friend’s benefit. He has asked two questions, one about jurisdiction and another about the applicable law at the material time. FIFA’s headquarters, as we know, are in Switzerland, and it was in Zurich that the bidding process was concluded back in 2010. The FIFA executive committee comprises 28 employees originating from 27 different countries.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the SFO’s jurisdiction over any allegations surrounding the bidding process is not clear cut. It is entirely possible that allegations surrounding the behaviour of one country during the bidding process might be best dealt with by the authorities in that country, or that allegations relating to the process as a whole might be best dealt with by another. I accept, however, that my hon. Friend has raised his concerns that the constitution of FIFA has the effect of making it difficult for law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions to apply the law, but it is clear that FIFA’s constitution does not shield its members from criminal liability. The fact that the individual concerned might be a member of FIFA is irrelevant to the question of criminal jurisdiction, and when that is the case I would expect the law enforcement agencies in the jurisdictions concerned to work together to achieve the right results. If UK jurisdiction is engaged, the SFO will play its part.
If the SFO uncovers offending over which our criminal courts have jurisdiction and that meets the director’s criteria, the director will consider whether to open an investigation, whether it points to wrongdoing abroad or here. Relevant to the decision would be the issue of whether the SFO would be the best placed body ultimately to investigate and prosecute offences. As I have said, that depends very much on the facts. Other international partners might prove to be better placed to investigate and prosecute.
Let me deal with the applicable law. Bribery can be prosecuted under more than one piece of UK legislation, depending on the facts of the offence and its timing. The Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011. It has a more developed extraterritorial reach than its predecessors, but it is not retrospective and so applies only to offences committed wholly after that date. Actions before that date are covered by other legislation, which in the case of England and Wales law is the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, and its jurisdictional requirements are not identical. Therefore, as I have said, the timing of each allegedly corrupt act and its location affects the ability of the SFO to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute.
Those are just some of the factors relating to jurisdiction and applicable law that might be relevant to the director of the SFO’s decision on whether to commence an investigation in the UK. Depending on the particular facts, UK legislation might not cover the allegations.
Let me turn to the discretion of the director of the SFO. When determining whether to commence an investigation, the director must have “reasonable grounds” to suspect serious or complex fraud. Even when there are such grounds and the SFO case acceptance criteria are otherwise met, offences might still be able to be prosecuted in more than one jurisdiction. When that is the case, prosecutors will work together to determine where allegations are most suitably dealt with.
A number of issues must be considered. Prosecutors need first to identify where a prosecution can take place and how many relevant jurisdictions there are. There is usually a preliminary presumption that prosecutions should take place in the jurisdiction where most of the criminality occurred, but other factors need consideration, such as delays that might be caused, the likely whereabouts of witnesses, evidence and suspects and so on.
I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are anxious that these matters should be brought to a head, as time is ticking on and 2018 is not as far away as it seemed in 2010. We have had the Brazil world cup and are now moving on to the next round. But I urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to be patient. As strong as his feelings are in relation to how FIFA has conduced itself, it is right—and an important feature of our criminal justice system—that decisions on whether the SFO is to proceed, and if so how, are for the director of the SFO. As I have said, his office is following developments very closely.
In any event, quite apart from its own processes, FIFA has made a referral to the Attorney-General’s office in Switzerland, and the Swiss are therefore already seized of some aspects of the matter. The SFO continues its own review and stands ready in principle to work alongside colleagues in Switzerland and around the world on this matter.
Damian Collins
Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that it would be possible for the SFO to make a request to the Swiss authorities to see the Garcia report, and that the decision could be made without referral to FIFA?
The Solicitor-General
As I have said, issues of mutual legal assistance are very much operational matters for the SFO, but in principle such requests can be made. However, I think that it is right for us entirely to cede responsibility for those decisions to the director and to the SFO itself. The important principle here is the independence of prosecutorial authorities, as I know my hon. Friend understands very well.
I will draw my remarks to a close by once again thanking my hon. Friend for bringing this issue, which is not just of passing concern, but of huge public concern, to the attention of the House and for talking frankly about the position of whistleblowers. I reassure him that the prosecutorial authorities in this country have well established procedures and protocols for dealing with alleged whistleblowers, from whichever source they come, and that, as I have said, the SFO would properly consider any information brought to its attention that may be material to these matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Planning application—Bozeat (Wellingborough)
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 5 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
Backbench Business
(9 years, 5 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
Palestine
(9 years, 5 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
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to ending the conflict in Palestine.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and I thank the many Members who have indicated that they wish to participate in it. It follows an important debate on 13 October in the main Chamber about the recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. Many Members who indicated that they wished to speak in that debate simply did not have the opportunity to do so, because of the shortage of time.
Given that the British Parliament has expressed its view on the importance of moving forward at this crucial time for both Israel and Palestine, this is an opportune moment to address the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, which is now home to 200,000 illegal Israeli settlers; the restrictions on access to the al-Aqsa mosque; and the ongoing denial of Palestinian rights. That is the context in which the recent outbreaks of violence must be understood. Tensions are running high, and it is difficult to predict how, in the current climate, the situation in Jerusalem will unfold and what the consequences will be for Israel, Palestine and the stability of the wider region.
We cannot yet know the implications of recent events, but we know one thing: on the current trajectory, we are headed towards further violence, further oppression and further turmoil. That issue is of great concern to Members from both sides of the House who care about a just and lasting peace and about the welfare of the people of Israel and Palestine. The renewed spiral of violence is indicative of the failure of the international community to broker lasting peace in the region. There is a palpable sense of frustration from the UK public, which is reflected in the fact that more than 124,000 people signed the e-petition that brought about this debate. Many outside the House are bemused by the fact that the policies of successive Governments remain unchanged, despite their repeated failure.
Before the start of this debate, I was chatting to someone who described the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Our position on the Israel-Palestine conflict meets that definition exactly. It is now almost 20 years since the Oslo accords and the road map to peace, and we seem to be further away from peace than ever. However, the British Government stubbornly refuse to change their foreign policy.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought this very important debate to the Chamber. He says that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. Is he as dismayed as I am that the current and former Foreign Secretaries have consistently said that the building of illegal settlements in Palestine narrows the window of opportunity for a two-state solution, yet they have failed to do anything about it?
Grahame M. Morris
I respect the current Foreign Secretary and previous Foreign Secretary; I believe that they are men of good will, as is the Minister. Unfortunately, however, our rhetoric falls short of action. We need to address the situation on the ground and see how we can move things forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has implied, we have witnessed an alarming expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. Estimates suggest that some 560,000 illegal settlers now control 40% of the land area of the west bank.
We need to think about a number of issues. The construction of an illegal de facto annexation barrier continues unabated. Restrictions on movement continue to be a daily source of outrage for ordinary Palestinians. The economic decline and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which we have debated in this Chamber on previous occasions and which has been caused by a cruel and highly illegal blockade, has left 1.8 million Palestinians without adequate shelter, sufficient food or access to safe drinking water. Not only is the status quo immoral and illegal, but it lays the foundations for the next major escalation.
It is not enough to focus exclusively on negotiations while failing to hold Israel accountable for its human rights violations and its continued annexation of Palestinian land. More than half the members of Israel’s Government, whose political positions range from the right to the far right, reject the two-state solution and the international consensus out of hand. Recently, the Israeli Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said:
“I am not looking for a solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and maintain relations in a way that works for our interests”.
By “our interests”, he means the interests of the Israeli side. This summer, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who had previously claimed to support a two-state solution, let his mask slip and revealed his true intentions:
“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”
For decades, Israel has maintained the rhetoric of peace and negotiations for an international audience, while simultaneously entrenching and deepening the occupation. Now even the rhetorical fig leaf of a negotiated solution has been stripped away, leaving Israel’s expansionist aims naked and clear for all who have eyes to see.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent role he is playing in the debate. He will be aware that one of our former distinguished colleagues, Martin Linton, has prepared an excellent briefing for the debate. Among the disturbing points that he made was the fact that there were 182 Palestinian children in Israeli prisons in September 2014, and that Israel is the only country systematically to persecute children in military courts. That, and much more about the way in which children have been treated, is wholly repugnant.
Grahame M. Morris
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, as the Minister and other Members know. Other Members have been to the occupied territories and seen how Palestinian children are treated. They are not treated as Israeli children—the children of settlers—are; Palestinian children are subjected to a different system of law, in military courts. That is one of the many issues, such as the demolition of Bedouin villages, which I have also seen, and the failure to tackle settler violence—
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman have anything to say about the 19,000 missiles purposely fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Israeli towns since Israel withdrew from Gaza? Does he have anything to say about the murders and the continued terrorism from Palestinians—particularly the recent incidents in which people were murdered while they were praying in a synagogue in Jerusalem?
Grahame M. Morris
I want to place on the record the fact that I condemn all violence unreservedly, irrespective of which side it comes from. I believe that all right-thinking people from both sides of the House take the same view. My contention is that we must find a way to move the process forward, and that is why I have secured the debate. I am certainly not here to condone any acts of violence, but may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that more than 500 Palestinian children and almost 2,000 civilians were killed in the brutal and vicious assault that was the disproportionate reaction of the Israelis in Gaza? We have to bring the dreadful cycle of violence to an end.
I have tried to allude to some of the root causes of the tension and frustration, such as child prisoners, the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements and the detention of political prisoners—including eminent, peace-loving individuals such as Marwan Barghouti. All that simply exacerbates the situation.
The thing that worries me and many people in this Chamber and across the country is that Israel is being allowed to achieve its goals through force, regardless of how illegal and counterproductive to peace its actions are. Israel is seemingly able to do that without any accountability. There is currently little economic pressure to prevent Israel from continuing to colonise and annex as much of the west bank and East Jerusalem as it wishes.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware that 274 Members voted to recognise the Palestinian state. Sweden has already recognised it, and France looks as if it will do the same. Does he agree that such recognition would put pressure on the Israelis to get back to the negotiating table? Does he agree that the UK should do that?
Grahame M. Morris
I agree, and I hope the vote sends out a number of messages—and not only to our own Government and the British people, whom this House reflects. Some 40 right hon. and hon. Members from the Minister’s own party supported the motion and spoke with great passion and conviction about the need to move the process forward in a fair, just and equitable manner. The views of the British Parliament are important not only here in the UK, but internationally.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Does today’s turnout, which is impressive for a debate of this type, emphasise how the Government have not responded positively to that resolution of the House of Commons? The Government’s response is totally unacceptable. It was an all-party resolution, and we expect a better, stronger response from the Government than we have seen so far.
Grahame M. Morris
I agree with my hon. Friend. Another purpose of this debate is to take the momentum from that previous debate and put various points to the Minister on what we can do to move things forward, level the playing field and encourage a return to negotiations. Part of that has to involve applying further pressure to the Israeli Government, perhaps through economic sanctions and by highlighting some of the iniquities of trading with illegal settlements on the west bank.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
The danger of my hon. Friend’s contribution is that he is coming at the problem from only one direction. Does he not agree that the same pressure has to be applied to the Palestinians so that they come to the negotiating table? Ultimately, all their problems will be solved only if the two peoples start dancing together in a tango, rather than looking at the problems through the prism of one side.
Grahame M. Morris
The purpose of this debate is to identify some of the obstacles to moving forward to a just and equitable solution. It seems as if many of the obstacles that I and other Members have mentioned in relation to child prisoners, the demolition of Bedouin villages, settler violence and illegal settlements, are a consequence of the occupying power’s actions. We must address those obstacles and help to defuse the tensions and growing violence in the west bank—particularly in Jerusalem—before we can move forward. I hope to develop that argument.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)
In the early part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman rightly made the point that the failure is that successive Israeli Governments have always been content to manage the problem, rather than find a solution. If we are to move forward, how do we break the mindset in Israel that simply says, “Let’s manage the problem and let the west get on with it”?
Grahame M. Morris
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, because the status quo is not acceptable to anyone other than the Israeli Government, who are able to achieve their ends, deepen their occupation and continue their annexation unhindered, largely protected by a diplomatic shield. We need to make the Israeli Government aware that that is no longer acceptable.
If the truth is stretched thin enough, people start to see through it. A consequence of the recent incursion into Gaza, where there was a dreadful loss of life and wholesale destruction of property, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, clinics and the only power station, is that people are now perhaps starting to see through the veil of propaganda that the Israelis put out about their seeking a just settlement. That certainly seems not to be the case.
Grahame M. Morris
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and then I will make a little progress.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a powerful case on such an important subject, about which we all feel so passionately. Does he agree that our Government have a duty to behave responsibly on arms licences? I asked the Secretary of State for Defence about that last week and found that 68 licences were granted in the six months leading up to the summer before the crisis in Gaza. That is £7 million-worth of arms, which surely does not fit with our principle of responsible exports.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I encourage Members, whether they have been in the House for four years or 40 years, to keep interventions short—more than 30 Members want to speak, and I will announce the time limit in a moment—and to ensure that all mobile phones are switched to silent.
Grahame M. Morris
Thank you, Mr Pritchard.
I am grateful for the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, because I was going to refer to her question. I have some suggestions for how we might move things forward. All parties in this House agree that the two-state solution is the way forward, and it has been the stated foreign policy objective of successive Governments for decades, but there has been a gap in the rhetoric of Ministers—this is not a criticism of the current incumbent, because I know he is a man of good faith who is seeking a solution.
Grahame M. Morris
It is also not a criticism of the Minister’s predecessors, whom I admire greatly. I know they made tremendous efforts, but there is now a growing gap in credibility between rhetoric and action, which is unacceptable. If we want to see an end to the horrifying cycle of violence and abuses of human rights, and if we wish to bring both parties to the negotiating table in good faith, we need to close that gap.
A new approach to diplomacy must be based on the protection of civilians, equal respect for human rights, equal respect for the security and sovereignty of both Israelis and Palestinians and actual respect—rather than just rhetoric—for international law. When the Israeli Government recently gave their final approval for the construction of 2,610 houses in one of the most sensitive neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, the British Foreign Secretary said that he “deplored” the decision. That is a strong word, but how many times have we heard Ministers deploring the actions of the Israeli Government without backing it up?
What should we do? Members, and hopefully the Minister, may wish to consider my proposal that we put an end to trade with and investment in illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. Those settlements are illegal and constitute a grave breach of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. Our Government and EU Ministers regularly decry Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise as a great barrier to peace and say, quite rightly, that the settlements threaten the viability of the two-state solution.
Grahame M. Morris
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I am just going to finish this point. I have been generous in giving way.
Although the EU and UK Ministers have criticised Israel, it is clear from the 2012 “Trading Away Peace” report that the EU imports 15 times more goods from illegal Israeli settlements than from Palestinian enterprises. We have reached a contradictory situation in which we economically sustain the very obstacles to peace—the illegal settlements—that we so often condemn as individuals in government.
Settlement products are the proceeds of crime. They are illicit goods, the product of a brutal occupation and the exploitation of the occupied and their resources. By trading with those who produce them, we financially encourage them. Those settlements are built on the foundations of immense suffering—that of the Palestinians who have seen their homes destroyed, have been expelled from their own land and are living under brutal oppression—yet we make the illegal settlement enterprise profitable for the occupying power. That seems to me a gross injustice. Personally, I do not think that we should have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. The UK Government should work at EU level to ensure that such products of suffering and exploitation are banned.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, there is overwhelming evidence that we should also end the arms trade with Israel, based on United Nations evidence that serious breaches of international law occurred before, during and after the most recent assault on Gaza. One need not be an expert in international law to know that shooting tank shells at children sleeping in UN shelters, launching missiles at small children playing on the beach in Gaza and bombing sick and injured patients lying in hospital beds are immoral and criminal acts. The UK should have no part in them or in supplying arms and components that allow such things to happen.
I will give way now to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who was keen to intervene.
Ian Austin
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the settlements. I want to see them dealt with, and I believe that they can be dealt with by a process of negotiation and compromise. Some 80% of the settlers are on 6% of the land. That can be dealt with through land swaps, which were the basis of talks as far back as Camp David and Annapolis. Other people can be moved, and some could stay and live under Palestinian sovereignty, just as there are and always will be Palestinians in Israel. The settlements beyond the major blocks account for 0.4% of the territory. The problem is not insurmountable, as my hon. Friend seems to suggest, but does he agree that Hamas’s terrorism and extremism are a much bigger barrier to the peace process than the settlements?
Grahame M. Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I reiterate for myself, and on behalf of all right-thinking people, that we do not seek to condone or excuse any form of violence. I wish to condemn acts of violence wherever they come from, as I am sure do all Members.
Grahame M. Morris
I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind, as I have been generous in giving way. A lot of Members have indicated that they want to speak, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his opportunity.
To respond to the specific point about trade, I point out—[Interruption.] Well, in terms of economic pressure—[Interruption.]
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. If there are to be interventions, they must be made in the normal way so that they can be recorded in Hansard and picked up by the media.
Grahame M. Morris
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. On applying pressure to move things towards a negotiated settlement, trade is rather asymmetrical and there are strong arguments to support it as a legitimate tactic for bringing about negotiations, because the obstacle seems to be that the Israelis achieve their ends through the status quo and have no interest in pursuing a peaceful solution.
There was a tremendous outpouring of emotion from the British public this summer. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in protest, not just in London, where there were huge demonstrations with more than 100,000 people, and where 50,000 protested outside the Israeli embassy, but all across the great cities of the north, in my region, and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as in smaller towns and villages. The protests did not come from the Palestinian diaspora; they came from people with a burning sense of injustice at the completely disproportionate actions of the Israeli Government in relation to Gaza, and people who had seen some of the horrors perpetrated against Gaza. They showed the strength of feeling among the UK population. It behoves the Government to do something about the issue.
In such circumstances, I believe that all arms export licences should be suspended. Moreover, given Israel’s record of violating international law, the arms trade with Israel should be completely banned in both directions. The UK and the European Union have some of the world’s strictest rules in place for controlling the export of arms and components. Considering that Israel already has a history of using UK-supplied arms in the occupied territories, including Gaza, in breach of those rules, there is no excuse for the rules not being enforced. The UK’s relationship with Israel may have been profitable for arms companies, but it has had a devastating impact on the people of Gaza, which at the current rate of progress will not be rebuilt for many decades.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for the fact that I will be intervening and then leaving; ironically, I am going to a sitting of the Select Committee on Justice. Is it not true that any country currently allowing the arms trade with Israel is complicit in the crimes that Israel is committing against the people of Palestine?
Grahame M. Morris
We need to search our conscience and consider how those arms and components have been put to use, and ask ourselves whether that complies with British policies and our sense of decency, if we are to be consistent in how we approach our dealings with Israel and other countries. In my view, if we fail to set clear parameters, targets and consequences, including economic sanctions, for failures to end violations and make progress on the peace process, we are perpetuating the conflict.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech and being generous in giving way. Does he agree that it is crucial as part of that international pressure to get the stranglehold on Gaza lifted so that the people there can properly develop their economy and society? That in itself would contribute to a two-state solution by turning off the tap that feeds extremism.
Grahame M. Morris
Absolutely. That is an excellent point. I hope that we will play our part through diplomatic pressure, through our influence with the EU and directly with the Israeli Government to lift the blockade and siege of Gaza on humanitarian grounds. I firmly believe that Israel’s security considerations could be addressed; there are means to do so with an international monitoring force.
Britain bears a tremendous deal of historical responsibility for the conflict, going back to the Balfour declaration when Britain held the mandate for Palestine, but our efforts to resolve the conflict have been demonstrably inadequate. We are at a tipping point for the middle east, so it is critical that the UK and the wider international community are honest brokers for peace and take practical action to tackle the root causes of the conflict. Only when Israel ends its policy of occupation and colonisation of Palestinian lands will a genuine peace between Israel and Palestine be possible.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has set in this debate. Does he agree that the UK should focus its diplomatic efforts on strengthening the authority of men and women of peace in the region, given the serious concessions into which they would have to lead their people in order to achieve a negotiated two-state solution?
Grahame M. Morris
That is part of the purpose of this debate, and of the historic vote that took place two weeks ago. We need to send out a number of messages to our Government and the Israeli Government, and a message of encouragement to the Palestinians engaging in an honest endeavour to find a peaceful solution. Yes, I agree.
I will conclude my remarks now, because I know a lot of Members are keen to participate. We have had decades of talk about peace, but to no avail. Now it is time for action, and I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the points that I and other Members put to him in this debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. We have 30 Members who wish to speak. The time limit I am setting for each speech is four minutes. Members will be aware that if they take an intervention, that adds another minute; they can take up to two interventions, giving them six minutes. Members can do what they want—as always, we have a vibrant debate in this place—but they might want to consider taking a maximum of one intervention. Let the debate flow. I call Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Pritchard, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today.
Following the kidnappings and the continued missile attacks from Hamas on Israeli towns, this summer saw a terrible war unfurl between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. The ramifications of the conflict go way beyond issues of who is right and who is wrong. We are now at a standstill in talks between Israel and Palestine. The different parts of Palestine are ruled by entirely different entities, which, despite an agreement to band together, constantly oppose one another. When we talk about a Palestinian state, we need to decide which Palestinian state we are talking about: the one run by the Palestinian authorities in the west bank, or the one run by Hamas in Gaza. The recent terror attacks in Jerusalem point towards a general escalation of violence, which could lead to a third intifada.
Of course, our country, as promoter of human rights and democracy, has to be an active contributor to the peace process. However, the text of the petition that we are considering does not make it clear how we should achieve such an end, and that is where the main point of contention lies.
As a reminder, let me say that talks broke down in 2013 after the announcement of a deal between Fatah and Hamas to create a new provisional Government, incorporating the oppressors of the Gaza strip—Hamas—in talks with the Israeli Government, which the terrorist group refuses to recognize.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I ask this question as somebody who earlier today learned that his daughter had had a baby son in Israel this morning. Does my hon. Friend agree with me when I say that I do not want to see my grandson have to fight in conflict; that the value of life, whether it be Jewish or Palestinian, is equal; that we must strive, however difficult it might be, to find a peaceful way forward; and that the only way that can be achieved is by talking rather than fighting?
Robert Halfon
Of course, my hon. Friend is exactly right, and I wish him every congratulation on the birth of his grandson.
Would it not be the highest irony for two entities to enter into dialogue about the recognition of one entity when that entity itself refuses to acknowledge the other? As the promoters of democracy and freedom in the world, can we in good conscience endorse an organisation that holds as a principle the destruction of the Jewish state, that fires rockets at civilians from civilian areas and that glorifies the massacre of four praying men in a non-hostile area?
Our Government refuse, as they should, to recognise a Palestinian state before a final settlement has been agreed in direct peace talks addressing both Palestinian and Israeli concerns, and I firmly believe that that should be the case. Over the years, the Palestinian Authority has attempted several unilateral actions to achieve state recognition, routinely threatening to ask to join some of the biggest international organisations. Until now, these attempts have failed, because the UN, among others, has recognised the obstacle that that would create for direct peace talks and the creation of a long-term two-state solution. Attempts at unilateral action are not only a sign that the Palestinian Authority is not ready to negotiate with Israel, but an attempt to predetermine the answer to an issue that is absolutely crucial to the peace process: borders. Because it directly involves both countries, it is probably the one issue that should be settled directly between them, and to endorse unilateral Palestinian actions is to refuse the two countries the opportunity to discuss it.
It is ironic that the Palestinian Authority would go to such great lengths to avoid negotiating a deal with Israel, when the two successive negotiations that took place between the countries saw Israel agreeing at Camp David in 2000 to relinquish 97% of the disputed territories, and in 2008 to relinquish 93% of them, with land swaps as compensation for the territories that would stay under Israeli rule. In terms of compromises, a peace deal between Israel and Palestine would have to address not only Palestinian concerns but Israeli security fears: more than 19,000 rockets have been fired at Israel since 2001—an average of four per day—and dozens of terror tunnels linking Gaza to Israel have been discovered.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a unified and prosperous Palestine, living in harmony next to Israel, is unrealistic so long as Hamas maintains its violent, rejectionist agenda?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The problem is that the increasingly frequent terror attacks are constantly glorified by Hamas. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) talked about being disproportionate, but if Israel did not have the iron dome system, thousands of Israelis would have been killed by the missiles fired by Hamas. If that had happened, would it have been seen as a proportionate response?
There is a lot of hard evidence showing that genuine humanitarian aid was misappropriated by Hamas diverting the resources from their original goal of saving the population and using them for the construction of the tunnels and the acquisition of arms. That cannot remain a peripheral concern to those who push for a peace treaty between the two countries. The problem of Israeli security is one that permeates every aspect of civilian life in Israel, so it remains necessarily omnipresent in any discussions between Israel and Palestine. That affects the problem of the reconstruction of Gaza, where the Israeli Government proved their good will by striking a deal with the Palestinian Authority in September, agreeing to a bigger influx of resources to Gaza under the supervision of UN officials. By contrast, Hamas has just glorified every single terrorist attack that hit Israel, including the death of a three-month-old baby girl—
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
There were not thousands of Israelis killed over the summer, but there were thousands of Palestinians killed over the summer, and 500 of them were small children, I dare say a little older than the grandson of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott)—I congratulate him on his grandson’s birth—but in many cases not much older. There has been an air of unreality about this debate so far. I had thought that Parliament, in this regard, was catching up with public opinion, but the speech that we have just heard and previous interventions seem to indicate otherwise.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is here in Westminster Hall today, is on record as saying that
“Israel lives in a tough neighbourhood”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 92.]
The problem is that Israel is living on top of somebody else’s neighbourhood, and the attempt to equate violence from the illegally occupied with violence from the illegal occupier is preposterous, and yet it has been repeated over and over again already in the short time that this debate has been going. It is a legal and moral right of an occupied people to rise up against their illegal occupier. And after all, it is not as if the occupation has just started: the west bank and Jerusalem have been illegally occupied for 47 years. How much longer do we expect the occupied people to wait for their rights?
All this poppycock about peace talks and the rest—there are no peace talks and there is no peace process. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) just said, there are not “two countries” involved in this. There is only one country, which is occupying the land of another. You would think, and perhaps it is the case, that Members in here have no idea how all this started in this very building, almost 100 years ago, when Mr Balfour, on behalf of one people, offered to a second people the land that belonged to a third people, without consulting any of the three peoples involved. We have a historic obligation greater than any other country’s to side with the victims of Mr Balfour’s act, yet there is no sign of it here.
Parliament recently took a decisive and important decision, but the Government have not caught up with it. They continue to support Israel and to license the export of arms to Israel. Israel is the criminal in this picture: in 1967, it was ordered by the United Nations to withdraw from the land it had illegally occupied, yet it continues to refuse to do so. We should not be trading with it, exporting anything to it or allowing the importation of anything from it. After all, that is what we do with other international law breaker.
I have very few seconds left—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They don’t like it up ‘em, Mr Pritchard. Well, some of them do. In the 15 seconds I have left, I can say only this—
Grahame M. Morris
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Balfour declaration, short though it was, insisted on protection for non-Jews, Palestinians and Christians in that territory?
George Galloway
It did so insist, but it was apparently written in invisible ink, for it has been forgotten by successive British Administrations and certainly ignored entirely by the state that came into being, decades later, as a result of the Balfour declaration.
In my remaining 45 seconds, let me say this. If hon. Members think that Gaza has been an erupting sore of enormous international strategic importance—and indeed it has been—they better start thinking about Jerusalem. The ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, the Judaisation of Jerusalem, the driving out of Christians and Muslims from Jerusalem, the closure of the al-Aqsa mosque for the very first time since Israel illegally got its hands on it in 1967 and the fighting that has been alluded to all add up to a crisis about to erupt.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
On the fundamental principle of whose land it is, the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) is right. What is more, the world more widely is beginning to take that view, and opinion across the world is changing fast. Those who think that Palestine belongs to Israel or that it should not be a state must realise quickly and deeply that they are on the wrong side of the argument.
Look back 30 years and think about where those of the right were in looking at the fate of Nelson Mandela. Look at world opinion now, when no decent person thinks he should have remained in prison. However, there are some even in this House who think that Palestine belongs to Israel and that greater Israel is what it should be. They need to realise that opinion is changing.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I have never heard Israel declare what its final frontiers ought to be. In every negotiation, it refuses to say what its borders ought to be.
Sir Alan Duncan
We are all prepared to ask for and await that detail.
To return to the few points I wished to make, opinion is changing, and it should change. We have had our vote, our decision and our debate—the first such debate in this House—on the recognition of Palestine. The day after that, I made what I intended to be a balanced and principled speech at the Royal United Services Institute about settlements and their illegality. I have a wodge—a folder—of hundreds of responses, the vast majority of which were supportive. Those that were not were invariably very rude—they seem to think that I am enjoying sexual relations with camels—but most of the Jewish opinion, from both Israel and the United Kingdom, was supportive. The Jewish voice in Israel and the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, is changing significantly in favour of a Palestinian state.
The litmus test of value and principle and of the rights and wrongs of this situation is whether someone thinks that settlements are illegal or not. They are. That land does not belong to Israel, and anybody who thinks it does is in the wrong. Furthermore, those who regularly and unquestioningly support the unreasonable conduct of the Israeli state are not doing Israel any favours. The sort of expatriate, extreme, let us call it right-wing, opinion that says that everything Israel does is right and justified because of violent attacks is condemning the Israelis’ children and their children’s children to a worse and less safe Israeli state. Those who really support the interests of Israel, as I do—I believe I do—should realise that it is acceptable to criticise the unacceptable conduct of the Israeli state, which I fear will condemn that country to permanent conflict.
The world has a chance to put pressure on Israel, which at this very moment is contemplating legislation that will remove the rights of Palestinians living in that country. Every single claim of moral authority and decency will be eliminated for Israel in perpetuity if that law is passed. I want to see an Israel with the true democratic values it espouses.
Ian Austin
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the proposed legislation on a Jewish state, but the truth is that the Israeli Finance Minister, Yair Lapid, said his party would vote against it; Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said that under no circumstances would she or her party support it; and the Leader of Israel’s Opposition—our sister party, the Israeli Labour party—said that the proposals are irresponsible and unnecessary. Even Israel’s President opposes them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise the wide diversity of opinion in Israel and even in the Israeli Cabinet. Cabinet members have threatened to collapse the coalition if those proposals are brought forward.
Sir Alan Duncan
I recognise the diversity, but that does not mean that all those diverse opinions are acceptable within democratic principles. Indeed, the President of Israel himself believes in a greater Israel stretching from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan. That, in my view, is not in the interests of Israel. I hope that the very same voices who oppose the law will now oppose settlements, demolitions, the destruction of olive groves and the disproportionate reactions. Why cannot a democracy such as Israel learn to underdo its reactions from time to time, rather than overdo them?
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern and the concern of many others that, despite what happened in the summer, the blockade of Gaza has made it incredibly challenging for people to rebuild their lives. Time and again, we see a cycle of violence devastating people’s lives. The European Union, including the UK, continues to give aid to restore people’s lives, but without a solution to the conflict, the cycle will continue and prevent humanitarian assistance.
Sir Alan Duncan
Let me make it clear that Gaza is not the Palestinian Authority, and nor is Hamas. I have known Mahmoud Abbas for more than 20 years. He essentially recognises the state of Israel. He wants peace. I have seen the maps, the proposals and the details that have consistently been rejected by the Israeli Government. If only the Israeli Government could step forward and say yes, we would have a two-state solution with two countries living side-by-side in peace. Mahmoud Abbas has even offered a demilitarised Palestine with some other kind of security guarantee, so there would never need to be a single Palestinian soldier posing a risk—
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
We debate in cosy Westminster, with tea and muffins down the stairs and the Christmas lights coming on, so let us hear from a Palestinian friend of mine, who e-mailed me a few days ago. He said:
“Clashes are daily occurrences now in Jerusalem. A week ago, things were about to calm down when a Palestinian bus driver was tortured and hanged in his bus. It instigated a lot of anger which mounted after the Israelis suggested that the man committed suicide, although Palestinian doctors who examined him produced evidence of torture on his body. As you may guess, the doctor who produced these evidence is summoned to questioning by the Shabak now.
A day after the incident, two men have committed a terrible act of killing four Jews in a synagogue near where the incident took place. Unfortunately, many Palestinians do not see a difference between civilians and militants in Jerusalem. They have started to consider even those who incite…the killings as fair targets even if they were civilians. And now on daily basis you hear about incidents of stabbings and lynchings all over the city. The Palestinians in Jerusalem are feeling hopeless, and since the torture and murder of the young boy Abu Khdeir in summer, clashes did not stop. More than 1,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem have been arrested in the past 4 months. Houses, especially in Silwan, are being captured by settler groups. Family houses of Palestinians taking part in any of the stabbing or killing incidents are being demolished, or will be demolished. Israeli officials and Israel police officials have given public orders to their men to execute any Palestinian who is involved in any incident on the spot.
This situation will only escalate. I’ve never seen that amount of fear and despair among Palestinians in Jerusalem before. Economic situation is on the low, settlement movement escalating, attacks on Al-Aqsa mosque is on the rise, and no one sees any hope. So I’m afraid that this will lead to the escalation of desperate acts. And more citizens will be seeking vengeance on their own and as they see fit.”
This is a man who is living it, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a living hell. We rightly talk about the horror of Gaza, on which the Israelis have imposed a total blockade. After killing 2,000 people and demolishing huge amounts, they are not permitting any real rebuilding. We pay too little attention to what is going on in the west bank and East Jerusalem. It is a living hell for the people who dwell there and want to live peaceful, decent lives. We are doing nothing about it. We get clichés from the Government. We get minor condemnations, but nothing is being done. Barack Obama could have backed up John Kerry when he made a proper effort to bring peace about, but he sat in the background.
Grahame M. Morris
My right hon. Friend is, as always, making an excellent contribution, but does the lesson of history tell us anything? When George Bush senior applied economic sanctions in 1990, that led to some progress at Madrid and at Oslo.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. You cannot appeal to the Israelis’ better nature, because they do not have one. You can, however, threaten them financially. When £10 billion of loan guarantees were withheld by George Bush senior, the Israelis scuttled off to Madrid. It is only sanctions and an arms embargo that work. The anticipation of a two-state solution, which we all support as a cliché, is bogus, because there will not be a two-state solution. The Israelis have the fourth largest military force in the world and nuclear weapons. They believe that they can get away with anything, but they had better take a look at how the Berlin wall fell. They had better take a look at how apartheid in South Africa crumbled overnight. They had better take a look at how peace was brought about in Ireland. They do not have time on their side. There are now more Palestinians than Israeli Jews—
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Pritchard, for your chairmanship, and I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for bringing forward the motion. He already made a significant contribution to the issue with the motion he proposed a couple of weeks ago.
An insightful article in Prospect magazine recently concluded:
“As one senior British official put it: ‘This is barely anymore about who is more right or who is more to blame. The question is where this is going for Israel, as well as the Palestinians, if the years continue to pass and there simply is no deal.’”
For more than 30 years, I have been a friend of Israel; I will not stop now. Israel needs its friends today as much as ever. I have perhaps not been a friend of Palestine in quite the same way. The last four years have enabled me to address that without, I hope, losing other friends.
I open my few remarks with a plea that it is time for us to search harder for an end to the polarisation that means we are either on one side or the other. We should widen that sense of friendship and support those seriously searching for a peaceful end to this long-running tragedy, whoever’s side they are on. We need to speak out continually for all those disadvantaged every day by the fact that there is no end to the dispute. They are on all sides—they are the victims of violence from a missile or from a bloody and wicked murder; the families who grieve; and those who despair of their children and grandchildren facing the same fate, of a conflict-riddled land, seemingly for ever.
Mr McCann
Does the right hon. Gentleman despair, as I do, that although even today we all say that we want to go in the same direction of a two-state solution, the inevitable undercurrent of different views in this place and in the middle east prevents us from getting to that destination of peace?
Alistair Burt
It is hard to get away from the history. We need to know the history, but it is a burden as well as an intelligence. If this matter is to be settled, some people have to rise above the history to get through the despair. It is an appropriate time—the events of the summer have given rise to yet another spike in extremist action on either side of the divide. Those actions threaten to make life yet worse and more ominous for all, as if it could be.
What could help the process? First, we need unequivocal condemnation of violence and murder from both sides—from the President of the Palestinian Authority and from the Prime Minister of Israel. In light of the fear that the increasing numbers of sectarian murders will add yet another element to the tragedy, which culminated, for now, in the abhorrent synagogue attack, it would be a good time for them to meet. They should physically stand together and say, “No more.”
Secondly, while there can be neither equivocation on nor justification of such murders, it would be a good time for each side to examine what can be done in their name to scale back all the elements that have contributed to a rise in tension and assisted in the failure of the Kerry talks. Those elements include the Palestinian Authority taking seriously the incitement against Israelis and stopping it; unequivocal condemnation of the reaction of Hamas and others to the synagogue and other Jerusalem killings; and no new actions on international recognition and activity, to which Israeli and US reaction would be obvious and unproductive. On the Israeli side, there needs to be a swift end to the threats on the Temple Mount and the holy mosque and a restoration of the status quo there. There needs to be an end to new settlement announcements and to the thoughts of new legislation on comparative rights for Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel, which was condemned here and by many voices in Israel.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
With his customary skill, balance and principles, my right hon. Friend is developing his speech well. Is there a place for the unilateralism we have seen displayed—not least in the vote a little while ago—which goes in contravention of the Oslo peace accords and the PA’s own declaration of principles?
Alistair Burt
There is a need for bravery at some stage and courage among the leaders to do things and face off their own people. Sooner or later they have to do that. Who knows whether unilateral action taken in concert with each other might be part of that. I do not know. Until the leaders are prepared to break the deadlock, we will get nowhere.
Alistair Burt
No, I will not, because I have had two interventions and I want to conclude. The debate is about what the UK should do, which all colleagues have addressed. The first thing is to never give up. A former Israeli Prime Minister told me a couple of weeks ago that a two-state solution is not a gift from Israel to the Palestinians; it is Israel’s security. The UK should therefore remain solidly behind efforts to restart direct talks and pull no punches with either state about the need for urgency. It should remain unequivocally for a two-state solution and be increasingly sharp with those whose actions and words tend against it. The status quo will not hold. It is not a problem to be managed; it must be concluded.
Secondly, the UK should urge Arab states, which currently need a revival of this issue as an acute item on their agenda like a hole in the head and which fear the possibility of its being used as a recruiter for jihad, to press heavily on the Palestinians. Although there has been some criticism of Israel for the failure of this year’s talks, President Abbas played his part, too. Hamas must end the war, and it must find no justification or support for its current position, but Israel should recognise the reality of the impact of this summer’s attacks on Gaza, whatever the justification, and ensure that there is no repeat.
Finally, despite provocation and despite the UK being urged to do even more, we should recognise the reality of our position. We are a supporter, including financially, of the development of a Palestinian state and friend of the security of the state of Israel. We must constantly encourage both and avoid making things worse by precipitate action or extreme statements.
However, the UK Parliament is entitled to take positions that it believes protect the two-state solution or signal its belief in doing so. I did not support the recent motion, as I still believe in and support the UK Government’s position that recognition should come at the end of negotiations, but the vote deserved to be taken seriously. Reactions in Israel were instructive, with the Government of the state of Israel mostly reflective, but with one or two Ministers lurching in the wrong direction and suggesting that vote supported terrorism. It did not. As David Aaronovitch recently said in The Jewish Chronicle, he might have voted for the motion himself, because it at least keeps the two-state solution alive—wise words.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
It is important to consider the context in which this debate is being held. This summer, Operation Protective Edge saw more than 2,000 Palestinians and more than 70 Israelis lose their lives, the continued building of illegal settlements and the expansion of illegal occupation. The ongoing siege is preventing the most basic of supplies, whether construction materials, food or medicine, from getting in or out of the Gaza strip. There are restrictions on holy sites, with all under-50s being banned from visiting the al-Aqsa mosque at times. A 14-year-old American Palestinian was killed by Israeli forces; four people were sadly killed in a synagogue attack; and just today a mosque was burnt down in the west bank. There is unacceptable violence on all sides, and it is a shame both on the international community and on this country given our historical relationship.
My proudest moment in this Parliament was when people from all parts of the political spectrum came together to vote for the recognition of Palestine. We should make it absolutely clear that the vote was to recognise the peace and justice that the Palestinian people need and did not condone the actions of Hamas or any other violent group. For anyone to suggest otherwise undermines this whole debate. It is also important that the Government take action following that vote to ensure that they recognise Palestine and press other countries across the European Union to do the same. I genuinely believe that international opinion and public opinion in this country are changing. Now more than ever, in the age of social media and 24-hour news, we can see what happens on the other side of the world and feel the pain and suffering of others. In that context, we must act.
Following up on what the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, the situation requires bravery and courage from political leadership here and around the world, but the big thing that is lacking is political will. There is not the political will in this country, or indeed globally, to do something about the situation. The lack of political will diminishes hope every single day for a generation of Palestinians and Israelis. Anyone who claims to be a friend of either Palestine or Israel must recognise that this is the last chance. We have heard that over and over again, but it is real this time. People are losing hope in the prospect of peace. If young people, both Israeli and Palestinian, lose all hope of peace, we cannot control the violence and destruction that will follow, which will for ever scar the international community and this generation of politicians.
Let us move forward with bravery and courage. Let us find the political will. Let us make it clear to the Israeli Government that it is no longer acceptable that they ignore the wishes of the international community and the demands of the United Nations, the UN Secretary-General and even the US Secretary of State and the US President. At some point, all of us must ensure that we are acting in the interests of international law and of peace and humanity. It is now that time. Unnecessary death and destruction are happening every day, and I do not think that anyone can stand by and watch it.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). Everyone who has spoken today has expressed a real concern that we must start to find a mechanism to move the situation forward. The petition simply asks us to do just that; it asks us to take some action, recognising the issues before us.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), who spoke with such eloquence about the situation in Gaza, used words that even the deafest of Israeli politicians could not fail to have heard. He spoke not only for himself and for the many of us who share his views, but for the vast majority of people who believe that it is unreasonable to continue with the current process. It is unacceptable for our Government and others across the world not to make every possible effort to put pressure on Israel to change its mind.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) introduced the debate, and I congratulate him on his speech. As he said early in his remarks, successive Israeli Governments have simply decided that it is better to manage the issue, but managing the issue only makes it worse for Israel in the long term. How on earth can the Israeli people ever believe that there will be a settlement giving them the peace that they crave when their Government humiliate the Palestinian people day after day? They are taking the lives of innocent children, and putting children on trial and imprisoning them for sometimes minor crimes. They do things that most of us would think not only unreasonable, but completely repugnant.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that international humanitarian law and its enforcement would be a good step forward?
Mr Hancock
If only somebody would enforce international humanitarian law! I agree entirely. The failure is that no one is prepared to take the next step. It is no good saying that there is a great resolution from the UN; I was at the UN last week and listened carefully to the words of the Secretary-General about the situation. Unfortunately, he knows that he is a political eunuch when it comes to providing anything that will really lead to Israel responding positively, creatively and helpfully.
The overwhelming majority of Palestinian people want peace. They were told that they would get justice on several occasions throughout several different presidential Administrations in the United States, but the United States, which still has the most clout, has failed to deliver the powerful pressure on Israel that would force it to look again. It is manifestly unfair for our Government to continue not to apply as much pressure as possible. If that means preventing our industry from selling weapons and other goods to Israel, so be it. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, the one thing that wakes up the Israeli public and Israeli politicians is when they are hit with financial implications, which is something that we must explore.
If anything is to be learned from today’s debate, let the real expression of concern in this House be included in Hansard so that others can read it. All of us have concerns about rockets being fired and about people being killed by tanks mowing them down on the streets where they live. The situation is horrific and everyone condemns it, but that is not good enough, is it? Condemning something does not change anything.
What we need is a positive, hard punch that says that Israel needs to change. If not, it will become a pariah, similar to South Africa during the days of apartheid. Only when there was concerted effort against South Africa did it know that its time had run out. The Israelis have to be careful that they do not run out of time, because sooner or later the Palestinians will say, “There is no future for us here. We have no alternative but to continue what we have been doing.” That cannot be right, and it is not the solution that we want.
What we need is pressure from all the Governments who say that they want to support a two-state solution. Some 128 of them have now signed up, but what have they done since then to say that they would recognise a two-state solution? Very little—
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate.
My hon. Friend called for an end to trade and investment with the illegal settlements in the west bank. I agree, of course, and everyone else who looks at the situation would agree. Some have called for a complete ban on arms sales to Israel and others have called for a complete embargo on trade. I have no problem with those ideas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said, quite rightly, that the tourniquet around Gaza should be removed. I entirely agree.
We should be under no illusion, however. The Israeli Government are not in the slightest bit interested in what the British Government or the European Union say; their only interest is in not the words but the actions of the American Government, who will not allow Israel to go under.
The American Government provide more than $2.5 billion-worth of arms to Israel every year. They will never allow Israel to be wiped out. The people running Israel, such as Netanyahu, Bennett and Lieberman, are all “greater Israel” and settler people—Bennett is the leader of the settler movement and its spokesperson in Parliament—and they are out to colonise the west bank. Of course the Americans say again and again, “You’re wrong—you shouldn’t do it”, but in the Security Council they will always veto any proposals that could put Israel under threat in their eyes.
I used to believe in the two-state solution, but it is no longer viable. We have only to look at the geography on the ground: Gaza is totally populated by Palestinians; Israel is overwhelmingly Jewish; 40% of the west bank has been colonised by Israel; and there is a large Palestinian population in Jordan.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the demographics of Israel and Palestine. May I please implore him not to forget the existing Christian communities there, such as the Armenian Orthodox and various other communities? The problem is not one of only two sides, but of many sides.
Mr Godsiff
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says; of course there are many other religious groups. That is why Jerusalem is so vital: it is the main place of worship for a whole variety of religions.
Anyone looking in would say, “Well, Jerusalem ought to be like Rome.” It ought to be a holy city administered by all the religions, but the Israeli Government say that it is the capital of the state of Israel. We are dealing with people who, I regret to say, are not the same as previous leaders of Israel, most of whom were members of the Labour party and whom I had the opportunity to meet. The leaders of Israel now are not the same as Peres, Rabin or even Golda Meir. They are very different.
Mr Burrowes
The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is completely wrong on religious freedom. I spoke to persecuted Christians in Jerusalem on a recent visit, which is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They said that the only safe place for them in the middle east is Israel and Jerusalem.
Mr Godsiff
I hear what my colleague says and he is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but I repeat that the Israeli Government have no interest whatever in negotiating with the Palestinians or in trying to reach a settlement. I wish I could have better hope for the future of the middle east, but I despair—day by day, more and more—of whether there will be a solution. I fear that the only resolution will be through conflict. That is not what I want, and it is not what the people of the middle east want, but that is what is going to happen. I can see no desire on the part of the Israeli Government to negotiate and I cannot see the American Government doing anything to undermine the position of Israel.
I say again, therefore, that I view the situation in the middle east with despair. I hope that I am totally wrong, and that at the end of the day there will be negotiations—including with Hamas, which has to be involved—but I simply cannot see any of that happening. We may wring our hands in this Chamber, saying that we should do this or that, but I am afraid that people in Tel Aviv are not listening.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Unfortunately, we will now have to limit speeches to three minutes. I again encourage Members to consider the number of interventions that they take.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), a friend, on securing the debate.
At this troubled time in the region, what is needed above all is a de-escalation of tensions and the renewal of direct peace talks—the only way to achieve a lasting peace agreement. We should do all we can to make that possible, but isolating Israel through unilateral measures, threats and boycotts will certainly not contribute to reaching the peace that all of us in this place so strongly want to see.
Unilateral measures by the Palestinian Authority to seek early recognition of a Palestinian state are both premature and counter-productive. To endorse such actions is to reject the peace process entirely, and it certainly does nothing to ensure stability or to revive it. The Palestinian Authority and President Abbas have repeatedly threatened to apply to UN bodies for sanction as the state of Palestine, and PLO officials have stated their intention to resume accession to more than 500 international conventions and treaties as the Palestinian state. I can understand their keenness for such recognition, but in the absence of a willingness fully to recognise the state of Israel, those involved in the Palestinian authorities and organisations perhaps need to be a little more realistic.
Additionally, in October this year, in defiance of calls to return to direct talks, the Palestinian Authority issued a draft text of a resolution for the UN Security Council to pass; they reportedly intend to submit it formally in the near future. Worryingly, the draft resolution makes no reference to any of Israel’s legitimate security concerns and completely fails to address the recognition of two states for two peoples. Whatever side of that particular fence we sit on, surely that is a worrying standpoint for them to have. In neglecting to mention both those vital issues, the Palestinian Authority have further demonstrated attempts to bypass and undermine direct negotiations. That is more than unhelpful; it is the most obstructive and destructive course of action.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman called at the outset for a de-escalation of tensions in the region. Does he agree that the announcement of the intention for a new settlement has precisely the opposite effect and that if new settlements were to proceed, that would make the two-state solution totally unviable?
Karl MᶜCartney
There are many ways in which we can say that neither side is blameless. The right hon. Gentleman has his point of view, and I am sure I have mine.
In pushing for the premature recognition of a Palestinian state, the Palestinian Authority are refusing to face up to the difficult compromises necessary for a lasting agreement to end the conflict and are undermining the accepted framework of direct negotiations, in direct contravention of the Oslo peace accord. I am sure that the hon. Member for Easington is aware—I also presume that the Minister is—that the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas are still yet to respond to the United States framework document for peace, which Israel accepted, presented by Secretary of State Kerry in March this year. Israel’s historic peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994 were a product of direct negotiations. A final agreement with the Palestinian Authority must be agreed through the same means, for the sake of all sides—and especially for the sake of innocent families and children.
It is worth bearing in mind that the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral actions also predetermine the borders between Israel and the Palestinian state. That is simply a non-starter for Israel, as I learned when I visited Israel and Jerusalem recently with hon. Members from both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister recently stated that
“I look forward to the day when Britain will recognise the state of Palestine, but it should be part of the negotiations that bring about a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 295.]
That is a very sensible position. It is one that I fully endorse, and I am sure many other hon. Members do.
The sudden announcement of the Hamas-Fatah unity Government was a further set back to the peace process and played an important role in the collapse of talks with Israel. I hope the hon. Member for Easington—and the Minister, when he replies—recognises that it is unfeasible for Israel to accept a Government who contain an organisation committed to its destruction.
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent and thoughtful speech. Is he aware that the leader of the Palestinian Authority threatened to disband the Palestinian unity Government in September—just a few months ago—because he said that Hamas was operating a shadow Government? There is clearly no unity, so it is harder to negotiate.
Karl MᶜCartney
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I am aware of that situation, but thank him for raising the issue.
Israel has shown that it is willing to make tough decisions for the sake of peace. The concessions it has made to date should not be taken lightly. One need only recall the dramatic consequences of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005: Hamas’s brutal takeover of the Gaza strip was a far-reaching setback to the peace process. We are still seeing the consequences, with Hamas preferring to fire thousands of rockets into Israel at the expense of developing the blueprint for a functioning Palestinian state for its own people.
Last year, Israel made the painful commitment to release 104 Palestinian prisoners, many convicted of terror offences, in a concerted effort to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Several of those individuals have since resumed planning and executing terror attacks against Israel and Israeli civilians. Let us not, therefore, isolate Israel. To do so would endanger any prospect of peace.
Above all, we must strive to create the environment needed for peace negotiations. That requires a redoubling of efforts to persuade the Palestinians to abandon their divisive policy of unilateral declarations, so that the peace process can get back on track and an acceptable, forward-looking and forward-thinking agreement can be reached, for the sake of all sides.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
There are people in this Chamber who know far more than I do about the history of the part of the world we are debating, but I have read a few books and listened carefully to what everyone says, and I can guarantee one thing: the history of that conflicted part of the world does not mean that we can blame one side for all the ills that have taken place there over the years. There will be a lot of pain for both sides in moving towards a two-state solution, but almost everyone who has contributed to today’s debate recognises that that is what is required.
There are those who argue for a one-state solution. Let us be honest: there are those who argue for a greater Israel, but there are also those who argue for a greater Palestine. I have heard people who are in the Chamber today say, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” We know what that means, as well. A single state cannot bring peace, as it would ultimately undermine the national goals of one of the two competing national movements. Two states for two peoples is the only realistic hope.
The deadlock and the conditions that have existed for years are not the only obstacles to peace, but they guarantee that with each passing year the problem becomes more difficult to resolve, with more settlements, more refugees, more people drawn to terror, more victims, more resentment and more hate. Hon. Members should be assured that I condemn Israeli settlements in the west bank and the blockade of Gaza, and I believe the Israelis should end the occupation. The lurch to the right in Israeli politics makes that aim more difficult to achieve, but does not make it impossible.
I do not need to be prompted to say that, with the same vigour, passion and determination, I condemn Hamas, whose unrevoked 1988 charter rejects peace and promotes the killing of Jews. I condemn the use of Palestinians as cannon fodder every time Hamas decides to use innocent people as a means of achieving its political ends. I condemn the politicians who condemn terrorism publicly but then send letters of praise to the families of those who have died in the pursuit of terrorism, and I despair about the lack of political courage on the Palestinian side that prevents the final mile to peace being walked.
Mr McCann
Somebody said from a sedentary position, “No, it’s not,” but actually, it is. I am a member of the International Development Committee, and the Palestinian Authority Finance Minister confirmed that to us at a meeting, at which other Members were present. He wants to stop it because he cannot afford it and wants to spend the money on doing things that are constructive, rather than on paying high-scale salaries to those who have committed the most heinous of crimes and are in prison. I condemn all those actions.
My next point is the crucial one for those who would take umbrage at me for questioning the courage of the Palestinian leadership in moving forward. Arguably, the closest we have got to peace was the 2000 Camp David summit. Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak brokered a deal that covered all of the problems: security, borders, refugees, the right of return and, most crucially, Jerusalem. Once again, it was an Israeli Labour politician, Ehud Barak, who put his head above the parapet for peace. The deal was rejected—this is widely accepted—by Yasser Arafat, and that was the precursor to the second intifada. In March this year, when I was visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the IDC, we met the PLO negotiation team. After talking about the desire for peace, which I accept was absolutely sincere, I said to the PLO negotiator in private, “If the Clinton deal was put back on the table with 2014 prices, would you accept it?” Answer came there none. That is a very interesting position for someone who is supposed to desire peace.
Since 1987, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates and 13,348 contributions by Members.
Karl MᶜCartney
Does the hon. Gentleman have any breakdown of the statistics on whether those early-day motions were from Labour or Conservative Members?
Mr McCann
I am afraid that my fascination with statistics did not take me quite that far, but I am grateful for the injury time as it allows me to finish the point, which I hope is one that everyone can rally round. Since 1987, as I say, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates, 13,348 contributions from Members, 63 business questions and 2,539 oral questions. If we all back a two-state solution, as we say we do, and are not speaking with forked tongue, why do we not all get together after this debate—whether the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign or Labour Friends of Israel—and truly pursue peace together? If we are united and can show that we can unify around that point, perhaps those in Israel and Palestine who want a two-state solution can unite around it as well.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing this important debate on ending what has been a long and vicious conflict. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann); I do not say that only because I can actually pronounce the name of his constituency.
Although it is important to discuss peace talks and support for a two-state solution, I want to speak more about the effects that the hostilities are having on those living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I start by putting on the record that I condemn Hamas and its violent actions. I believe that Israel has the right to a safe and secure environment.
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
Last year, along with the hon. Gentleman, I was fortunate enough to be able to visit the middle east with the International Development Committee and spend some time in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. What struck me when I was out there was the comparative poverty and lack of infrastructure in the Palestinian communities, a large part of which is due to Israeli restrictions on the movement of Palestinians and their ability to trade. It is estimated that those limitations cost the Palestinian economy 85% of its GDP. Area C, which makes up the largest proportion of the west bank, is widely considered to be the wealthiest area in the region in terms of natural resources. Output from that area would be of huge benefit to the Palestinian economy and could increase its GDP by a quarter, but that is impossible due to Israeli access restrictions on the land.
Having seen the response of the Department for International Development to the recent report by the IDC on this subject, I hope that the pressure that the Government have brought to bear on the Israeli authorities will assist in alleviating the difficulties that Palestinians face daily due to the inhibitions on movement. It is not only restrictions on movement and trade that impoverish Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; building restrictions on Palestinians in Israeli-controlled areas are crippling private sector investment. Meanwhile, Israelis continue to build their illegal settlements, gobbling up acres of valuable land.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the point she is making. I should declare an interest, having visited the Palestinian Territories with CMEC—the Conservative Middle East Council —some years ago. Does it not strike her as extraordinary that there should be such strong opposition in Israeli circles to peaceful development in the Palestinian territories and that it is in the long-term interest of peace and security for Israel to see a prosperous and secure Palestine?
Pauline Latham
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his valid point. If the Palestinian territories could trade freely and could become more prosperous, they would have fewer problems and there might be an opportunity for the two peoples to live side by side.
What shocked me more than anything else when I was there was going to Hebron to see where Palestinians are living. Illegal settlements are built on top of them and the Israelis are throwing their rubbish down on to the Palestinians, who are not allowed to trade properly. They have to up a barrier to ensure that rubbish does not hit them. Palestinian children going to school in Hebron have been stoned by Israelis. That does not strike me as the actions of an educated nation. I was shocked by the way the Israelis were behaving. The whole process of denying Palestinians the right to a proper life changed my mind about how I saw the Israelis.
Sir Alan Duncan
Will my hon. Friend confirm from what she saw on her visit that she was reassured by the work of the Department for International Development with the Palestinian Authority?
Pauline Latham
I certainly was, and I feel that DFID could do more work over there. It could help more with planning permissions, and ensure that there are proper planning permissions instead of the Israelis coming in and tearing down buildings because they apparently do not have the right planning permission. Ending the gratuitous demolition of Palestinian buildings would create a much safer place for everyone to live in.
Ensuring that businesses can operate in the region would secure investment. The UK Government should be encouraging investment and entrepreneurship through their aid programmes, even more than at the moment. The Government have established the Palestinian market development programme, which is expected to support 480 companies in the region and should have a positive effect on local economies and Palestinian communities, but I wish that DFID would reconsider its position on the establishment of the private sector grant facility, which will provide finance up to 15% of private sector investment in projects in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That would not only create jobs locally, but establish infrastructure, thus improving the lives of those living in the west bank. There is a lot more to do and the Government can do a lot more to help.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I was appalled by what happened this summer, but despite all the difficulties, a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state is the only option that reconciles the interests of Israelis and Palestinians. There is no alternative that will end the bloodshed and provide justice, dignity and self-determination for both peoples with universal human and political rights, a free press and economic opportunities for all. Despite all the difficulties, this is not the time for people who believe in peace to give up hope. Peace talks have produced results in the past and have come close to a breakthrough on several occasions, and they can do so again.
Of course, a two-state solution faces considerable challenges—the status of Jerusalem, security, refugees, and the growth of settlements—but they are not insurmountable, given a willingness on both sides to negotiate, compromise and make concessions. The failure of the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to persuade their people to work together, to negotiate, to compromise and to eliminate the barriers to peace is a tragedy.
The biggest barrier to peace is Hamas. Its charter sets out its goals with an explicit rejection of Israel’s right to exist. It is an organisation that encouraged young people to strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves and civilians to bits in Israel’s buses, bars and restaurants. It is an organisation that the UN says stored its rockets in schools hosting displaced people, that uses hospitals as command centres, that threatens the media, denies equal rights to its citizens, summarily executed 22 people outside mosques after Friday prayers, and that Mahmoud Abbas accuses of plotting to kill him. Whatever people think are the rights and wrongs on either side, we all have to concede that it is difficult to see how Israel can deal with that.
Jeremy Corbyn
There are two points. First, Israel fails to say what its final borders are. Secondly, Israel did deal with Hamas in the ceasefire negotiations in Egypt. There is a basis on which talks can take place. It has already happened.
Ian Austin
I want to see Hamas commit to peace, I want to see the demilitarisation of Gaza. I want to see everyone in the region committed to peace and coming together to negotiate compromise, so that we can have a two-state solution: a safe and secure Israel with a viable Palestinian state, living in peace side by side. That is the only way—whether it takes a year, 10 years or 100 years, in the end that is the only way the situation will be resolved.
There is an idea that the peace process can be advanced by boycotts, disinvestment, sanctions and other attempts to delegitimise Israel. I think that would hinder the development of dialogue on which prospects for future peace and security rely. Britain’s role is to do everything we can to bring people together, develop dialogue, promote negotiations and build trust. Boycotts would just drive people further apart. Britain’s role must be to develop closer links with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, promote economic development, trade and investment in the west bank, reconstruction and demilitarisation in Gaza.
I would like to hear from the Minister what more the UK can do to get DFID, the British Council, the Foreign Office and NGOs supporting projects such as Cherish, One Voice and the middle east education through technology project. The goal of peace depends on two sides, Israelis and Palestinians, working together with international support to develop a viable Palestinian state—the viable Palestinian state I have believed in all my life and for which I have campaigned, alongside a secure Israel with peace and justice for both peoples. Is it possible? It has to be. Is it easy? No, of course it is not. It is difficult, but it is possible. Israel and the Palestinians need brave leadership and renewed efforts to achieve it and Britain must do all it can to support that.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and, indeed, the 124,000 petitioners on securing this debate. If they had any fears that interest was subsiding after the October vote in the House of Commons, today’s attendance here will reassure them.
The Israel-Palestine situation is obviously grim and we are right to keep on condemning each new low in the cycle of violence, whether it is the deliberate murder of civilians, even rabbis at prayer, or the disproportionate response by Governments to the murder of civilians, as we saw in the summer in Gaza, with 500 children among 1,500 Palestinian civilians killed.
There is a some sense of movement. There is certainly a sense of political movement outside Israel and that has been reflected in all our political parties, including the Liberal Democrat conference this year voting for recognition of Palestinian statehood, followed by the historic House of Commons vote. The French Assemblée Nationale will probably do exactly the same thing tomorrow. We have votes coming forward in the Australian Parliament and, at some stage, in the European Parliament.
There is a sense that people in the west have realised that we need some kind of direction to the Netanyahu Government. A corner was turned when President Obama told the Iraqi Government of Nouri al-Maliki that it was not enough to be elected: even in a tough neighbourhood and even when their country faces an existential threat, people also have to work for an inclusive, peaceful solution. I am afraid that the Netanyahu Government are not demonstrating that. We have to pursue a consistent path in the region.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we should still work towards the two-state solution. The only alternative is perpetual conflict. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) that the peace process is poppycock. It certainly needs kick-starting—frankly, it needs bringing back from the dead—but that does have to be done, and the pressure needs to be exerted on the more powerful party, which in this case is the Government of Israel. The Palestinian Authority may have committed diplomatic, political and negotiating mistakes, and I am sure it would be the first to admit that.
Mr McCann
On the point about Netanyahu’s Government, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather ironic that Bibi Netanyahu is not actually as far to the right as some of his colleagues in the Government? The problem he has to face up to, just as the Palestinians do, is that he has to have the courage of his convictions to take his country forward to a peaceful solution. He must face down those on the right of him in his Government and tell them that that is the way forward.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will come back to the dynamics of the coalition. Some of us in the Chamber are becoming increasingly expert as regards the dynamics of coalitions.
The contrast I was drawing was between the negotiating mistakes the Palestinians may have made over time and the Israeli Government’s unfortunate practice of physically undermining the peace process, particularly through the settlement programme, which is a much more serious step. What do we do in response? First, the Government must recognise Palestinian statehood. The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for that. Secondly, the European Union must look at the Israel association agreement, article 1 of which commits the parties to
“the consolidation of peaceful coexistence”.
Neither the settlement programme nor the new nationality Bill in the Knesset seems to reinforce the consolidation of peaceful co-existence. Article 2 of the agreement commits Israel to “respect for human rights”, and there are also questions in that respect. A formal review of the association agreement, with all the possible economic implications for Israel, must therefore be looked at. Thirdly, arms sales: Israel is a country of concern on the Foreign Office’s human rights list, and the Liberal Democrat party’s policy is that that should earn it the presumption of denial of arms sales.
The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is right that we must not fall into the trap of polarisation. It is right to highlight and celebrate the opinions of Jewish and Israeli moderates who are challenging the Netanyahu Government. It is right to highlight the range of opinion in Israel itself. That now includes Ministers such as Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni, who just this year talked about the settlement enterprise as
“a security, economic and moral burden”.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is movement in Israeli public opinion, particularly on the settler issue, but underpinning that there must be reassurance about Israel’s security and existence. That is also important, and it needs to be stressed if public opinion is to put pressure on Governments in Israel.
Martin Horwood
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would also say that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have accepted the Arab peace initiative—Hamas even briefly accepted it—which implies recognition of the state of Israel. There has been movement on the other side, so the pressure really is on the Netanyahu Government to demonstrate an equal degree of movement. Perhaps we will see movement if there is a general election in Israel—there is now talk of one being imminent if the rebellious statements from coalition Ministers continue.
We do need to see movement. We used to think that the worst possible option was perpetual conflict, but if we look at the middle east now, we see that that is not the case and that there are worse options even than an Iranian-backed Hamas. There are forces in the middle east even darker and more extreme backed by Sunni extremists. We really do not want the middle east to descend into the kind of conflict we have seen and for that to extend to Palestine. For that reason, we must support moderate Arab opinion in Palestine as well.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Many countries have already recognised Palestine, and their numbers are growing. Last Friday, French politicians debated a motion inviting the French Government
“to use the recognition of the state of Palestine as an instrument to gain a definitive resolution of the conflict”.
That goes to the heart of the matter. France is the latest European country expected to vote in favour of recognising Palestine, following this House’s groundbreaking, if non-binding, vote in October, official recognition by Sweden on 30 October and the symbolic vote by the Spanish Parliament on 18 November.
In response, Benjamin Netanyahu said that France’s vote would be tantamount to showing solidarity with Islamic State. He is quoted as saying:
“Do they have nothing better to do at a time of beheadings across the Middle East, including that of a French citizen?”
That was a reference to Monsieur Hervé Gourdel, a hiker from the Marseilles area who was murdered by his captors in Algeria in September—many Members will remember that tragic event. Monsieur Gourdel was deeply mourned by people in his locality, but Mr Netanyahu seems to recommend a limit to compassion—a view I do not share.
Given such comments, we see why the world needs to stand in favour of recognition—a stance that would bolster democracy in the middle east, rather than undermine it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that Mr Netanyahu is quite wrong to say that recognising a Palestinian state would support extremism? It would do exactly the opposite: it would bolster the moderate position in the Palestinian cause and make the two-state solution and peace all the more likely.
Hywel Williams
I entirely agree. We need to promote discussion, and that is one way of taking it forward. We need to give international legitimacy to the Palestinian people and reaffirm their right to land.
The UK Government and Governments throughout Europe and the world should recognise Palestine; otherwise, there will be no end to the blockade or the conflict, last summer’s war will be reignited and the tragic process will repeat itself on both sides. That is why I voted in favour of the motion in October calling for recognition. I said that the UK had a special responsibility as the immediate former imperial power, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as a guarantor of the Geneva convention and given our recent disastrous interventions in middle east affairs.
Hon. Members will recall that the vote in favour of the motion was 274 to 12. I was glad of the opportunity to restate Plaid Cymru’s position on the matter. I have also welcomed the decision by my local authority, Gwynedd county council, not to invest in or trade with Israel.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I actually live in the Gwynedd county council area, and I am fascinated by the fact that a majority of Plaid Cymru members voted to boycott Israel. However, the last time I contacted the local authority, it was still using IT systems using Israeli technology.
Hywel Williams
I am glad to hear from my constituent. That was the stance taken by Gwynedd county council, and that is the stance it will implement. It is clearly right to stop trade with illegal settlements, rather than just condemning their establishment. I hope the leadership shown by Gwynedd county council will encourage other councils in Wales and across the UK to do the same. I ask the Minister to back moves to stop trade with settlements and to follow the example of the Spanish Government by stopping the arms trade with Israel.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Unless something changes, things stay the same. In an attempt to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, two routes have been tried—one is violence, the other is negotiations. The violent route will not work. Israel has tried that route and the route of suppression, with attempts at ethnic cleansing, for nigh on 70 years, and that has not worked. That has been matched by violence by the Palestinians on the other side, which has usually resulted in their suffering even more. That has not worked for them, but it has not broken their will. Violence will not work.
The negotiations have proved unsuccessful: why? Negotiations usually require both sides in a dispute to concede something. What more, really, could the Palestinians concede? In Gaza they have given up the air, the sea, the land and indeed the water, as they have done in many other places. There is not much more they can give. Agreement can only really be arrived at when both sides in the dispute believe that the cost of not reaching an agreement is higher than the cost of continuing the dispute.
The Israeli Government have certainly suffered from the insecurity that they have brought on their citizens through the continuing dispute, but the cost of that insecurity has been overwhelmingly outweighed by the territorial gains that they have made and continue to make daily. Why should they engage in meaningful negotiations when they gain so much from the conflict?
Mr Mike Hancock
Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that they think that is a price worth paying?
Mr Ward
I believe that they do. I believe that the gains they have made as part of the grand design have proved successful for them, and they have considered the price worth paying. That could not of course have continued without the support of many countries, including our own, but most of all the United States. Our Prime Minister recently confirmed his deep commitment to Israel and said:
“When we look across the region and at the indexes of freedom, we see that Israel is one of the few countries that tick the boxes for freedom”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 915.]
However, Martin Linton has supplied the information that in the 2014 index of economic freedom, Israel is placed 44th, behind Macedonia, Latvia, Armenia and Jordan. Are those really the countries with which we should be comparing Israel, rather than France, Sweden or Italy? Is it possible to think of another democracy that flouts UN resolutions on a daily basis and remains a fully fledged member of the international community?
What can change? I was privileged to listen to Rebecca Vilkomerson two weeks ago when she spoke to a small group here in Westminster. Rebecca is the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, the fastest-growing Jewish organisation in the United States. It grew rapidly during the attack on Gaza. She suggested some changes as ways to bring about something different. The first was using boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. The cost to Israel of not negotiating seriously must be greater. I have an online petition with 80,000 names on it calling for the use of BDS as a peaceful means of applying economic pressure. At the very least that should apply to settlement goods, but I argue that it should go beyond that.
Rebecca also mentioned the increasing change among the Jewish diaspora around the world. Many members of the Jewish community are growing tired of Israel and are embarrassed by it and somewhat ashamed of it. The JVP is growing rapidly and adds a powerful voice.
The final area to be mentioned is public opinion, which has been referred to before. I am accused of pandering to Muslims. That is an insult to me—but I can take that. However, it is also an insult to Muslims and to the many non-Muslims who are sick and tired of Israel’s behaviour.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As on 13 October, there have been many powerful speeches today. I cannot hope to bring to mine some of the experience that other right hon. and hon. Members have shared with us, but I bring to it the concerns raised by hundreds of my constituents who signed the petition and contacted me because of their concern for progress towards a lasting peace. We must accept that such progress has time and again been frustrated by the Israeli Government, particularly through their continued policy on illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
After the world’s reaction to events in Gaza over the summer there was an opportunity for Israel to reflect and reach out, and to take steps to reopen the peace process. Instead, it marked the end of the conflict with the biggest ever land grab, appropriating 990 acres of Palestinian territory near Bethlehem. It was something that the Prime Minister was quick to condemn, rightly, and the world condemned it. Israel’s response was to give planning approval to 2,600 new housing units in a settlement across the green line. Words, clearly, are not enough. The international community needs to demonstrate that we are committed to moving forward.
The House’s decision on Palestinian statehood was an important step, but my constituents find it difficult to understand why there is not tougher action in some further areas. After the summer in Gaza, why is there not a comprehensive ban on arms exports to Israel? Given that something like 40% of the west bank is now under the control of illegal settlers—our Government condemn them as illegal—why do we not show our condemnation by taking measures to stop the trade on which those settlements depend, or by wider sanctions conditional on an end to illegal settlements?
I am proud that the university of Sheffield has made a practical contribution by offering a scholarship to a student from Gaza. Our first scholar, Malaka Mohammed Shwaikh, joined the university last year, and after completing her master’s degree, was elected by all the students of the university to be their education officer for this academic year. She is a deeply impressive young woman. I spoke to her earlier this afternoon and asked what concerns she would like raised. She asked for us to think about child prisoners, and drew my attention to the report that a week ago the Israeli authorities detained a 10-year-old child in the Silwan neighbourhood of Jerusalem. That is not exceptional; it is reported that since last June 600 Palestinian children have been arrested in East Jerusalem alone.
Mr Robin Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. Like him, I have been contacted by many constituents. Does he agree that one thing we must address strongly is our constituents’ concerns about human rights in the Palestinian territories?
Paul Blomfield
I do; I am grateful for the intervention and was going to make that point. Children are not only detained, they are tried in military courts. Many right hon. and hon. Members have seen that at first hand, although I have not. UNICEF makes the point that Israel is the only country in the world where children are systematically tried in military courts and subjected to
“cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
We are all appalled by that, but Malaka asked me to convey to the House that being appalled is not enough. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) talked about the many words spoken in the House on the issue, but Malaka wants those words to be matched with action. We want the Government to respond more positively to the House’s resolution on Palestinian statehood, and to work with partners throughout the world on taking firmer action to bring the Israelis to the negotiating table.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. First, I want to associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann). We have three minutes for our speeches, and he said most of what I want to say, but I will highlight a few issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) chuntered from his place when comments were made about the Palestinian Authority paying prisoners. I thought that odd, because when he was in the Ministry I had meetings with him time and again at which it was confirmed that British taxpayers’ money was not being used for that, but also that money was being made available by the Palestinian Authority to pay prisoners who had committed atrocities. It is important that the record is clear on that issue.
There is a need for honesty with ourselves when arguing for disinvestment from Israel. The point that I made about Gwynedd council in north Wales is not a silly one. It is all very well to posture and argue in favour of voting for something to make a difference, but ultimately, unless the Gwynedd council computer systems are to be switched off, the council is not being true to the demands being made. Similarly, when people call for disinvestment from Israel and take selfies with their iPhones of themselves protesting, they are being hypocritical because their iPhones would not work without Israeli technology. When people make those demands, they should think of the national health service and the contributions made to it by development in Israel. That context is important.
In talking about the need for a response to the sickening events of the summer, it is important to highlight the fact that the Iron Dome barrages in Israel intercepted 700 missiles. I suspect that if some of them had hit Israeli cities we would not be talking about a disproportionate situation, but about massacres on both sides—completely unacceptable to all hon. Members. Are we honestly to say that the debate should proceed on the basis of condemning Israeli success in protecting its citizens or of condemning Israel for that success? That, too, needs to be put into context.
I have visited Israel and the Palestinian territories many times, and both sides need to feel that they have a partner for peace. I remember meeting Prime Minister Fayyad, when he was in position. He said that he felt very strongly that Netanyahu was willing to talk about peace, but that the people behind him were not supportive. Within four hours, we were in Jerusalem, meeting Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said, “Prime Minister Fayyad is genuine about peace but the people behind him are not.” As the British Parliament, we need to try to encourage that ability to talk to each other, and we will do that by giving the parties encouragement, not condemnation.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
My constituents have been very animated about the prospect of this debate. They know about conflict and peace processes and they know all about excusery, whataboutery and blame games when peace processes stall and initiatives fail. They even know about when institutions fall.
My constituents also know outrage when they see it—as there was this summer, with the scale of the violence visited on the people of Gaza by Operation Protective Edge. They know that violence makes no contribution to upholding anyone’s rights, and violence on the part of any armed group in the name of any Palestinian interest will not advance the cause of Palestinian rights or a Palestinian state. Indeed, much of that violence is aimed against the very process that would lead to a two-state solution. Let us remember that the people carrying out the violence—with whom, according to Netanyahu, those of us who support Palestinian statehood are aligning ourselves—are doing it to undermine the two-state solution. They are totally opposed to that concept, just as some people in Israel are.
I have said before that if we are serious about a two-state solution, we need to create more of a semblance around a two-state process. That is why moving towards recognising Palestinian statehood is so important; it is the single biggest thing that those of us outside, representing the international democratic interest, can do. Doing that is not about a little token PR win for Palestine or about one in the eye for Israel; it is about trying to create a more equal process and trying to say that international standards will and do apply—not just to Israel, but to Palestine. Any Palestinian state that is created or recognised will have to adhere to all the legal instruments to which they wish to bring Israel.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful contribution. Does he not recognise from his own experience over recent decades that the heart of any successful negotiation is recognition of the legitimacy of the partner that someone is seeking to work with and legitimacy in the eyes of the international bodies? For that reason, we were right to back the vote on Palestinian recognition in October.
Mark Durkan
Absolutely, and our process shows that is true. It shows that if people are serious about negotiating a process, they have to recognise that it is not going to be a matter of them all converting others to their views. It will be a matter of convergence, so people, based on the integrity of their own position and knowing that their own interests and identity are going to be secured in the arrangements, can move forward to respect and accommodate each other.
In any situation of historic conflict, people need to recognise that they cannot be secure against each other; they can be truly secure only with each other. They cannot prosper against each other; they can truly prosper only with each other. That is why we need a two-state solution and why that needs strong international support. The issue is not about simply leaving things to the parties themselves and saying, “It is up to them to find enough will.” We cannot leave it to the parties themselves, any more than it was just left to the parties themselves in our process. International good will and interest has to find its standard. People also have to know that, whatever the outcome, the states created will fully adhere to human rights and conform to international law. They can hold each other to that and affirm those guarantees for all their citizens, whatever identities those citizens have.
Let us be very clear: Israel cannot go on believing that it can ignore all the world all the time and still buy arms and sell all the illegal settlement goods that it wants to sell. The public have got fed up; the international public are indignant at the failure of the diplomatic musings and all the excusery and ruses used to exercise a veto at the UN. That is why we have this petition and why people want to see us move forward on the basis of the vote that has already been held.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am sure that everyone in the Chamber today wants to see a prosperous Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel. I am certainly a supporter of the two-state solution and I voted for the recognition of Palestine in the recent parliamentary debate. I hope it worries all of us greatly that the situation in the region is once again at risk of spiralling out of control. Renewed efforts must be made to coax both Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table to secure the two-state solution, which I hope we all want.
We have heard much today about Israel’s actions and responsibilities. I am sure that all of us, whatever side of the argument we might be on, would agree that Israel is far from perfect. Some of its actions are undoubtedly counter-productive, especially and most visibly in its settlements policy, but in securing a final peace agreement the onus cannot simply be on Israel. Negotiations, as has been said, are a two-way process. It requires strong leadership from both sides and give and take, and the Palestinians have obligations to meet and fulfil as well. I suggest that what the Palestinians need and have never had is a Nelson Mandela-type figure who can unify the Palestinian cause behind a non-violent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The recent violence in Jerusalem cannot be seen in a vacuum. It has been fomented, I am afraid to say, by repeated, inflammatory and false allegations from the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas, accusing Israel of planning to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque and other Muslim holy sites. There has been no word at all about the fact that Jews were completely forbidden to worship at the western wall between 1948 and 1967, and a slight restriction on access to Haram al-Sharif has been inflamed out of all proportion.
President Abbas fanned those flames when he wrote a condolence letter to the family of a Palestinian terrorist, saluting him as a martyr. Palestinian Authority television opened a recent news broadcast by saying: “Good morning to you, good morning…to your hands preparing to throw stones and ignite the gasoline in the Molotov cocktails.” No peace can hope to be achieved with inflammatory statements such as that, from what is effectively a state broadcaster.
Mr McCann
I also want to place a point about Judaism on the record. Jewish people are particularly prohibited from taking their holy books to the original site of the holy temple for the Jews, where Jesus overturned the tables and the Prophet Mohammed rose up to heaven. The state of Israel is allowing people to go into that site and praise whatever religion they follow, but it prohibits its own people from taking their holy books there.
Mr Hollobone
That is in complete contrast to the Jordanian rulers between 1948 and 1967. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. How can it help the peace process when President Abbas says that Israeli Jews should be barred from the Temple Mount complex “using any means”? How can it help the peace process when President Abbas says that the Israeli moves on the Haram al-Sharif compound amount to a “declaration of war”, and when he calls for a “day of rage”? What is required in these circumstances is leadership and moderation.
In his fluent address opening the debate, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said that the purpose of the debate is to identify some of the obstacles to moving the peace process forward. I would contend that that incitement from the Palestinian Authority at the very highest level is not helping the peace process. Her Majesty’s Government need to tackle the Palestinian Authority so that these words of incitement and inflammation are stopped.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I start my contribution by thanking all the people who signed this e-petition and other petitions to ensure that the debate would take place, and all the people who have campaigned not just for months but for years for the recognition of a Palestinian state and justice for the Palestinian people. Those who have stood on wet and windy high streets on a Saturday morning collecting signatures do matter in a democracy, and this debate is, in a sense, the product of that.
In the short time available to me, I want to draw attention to a few points. First, I was asked to give a talk last week to a group of students at City and Islington college about the history of the whole conflict in the middle east. It was a fascinating discussion, which ranged from the first world war right up to the current situation. The students had an incredible sense of the historical importance of the vote that took place in Parliament recently, when we voted finally for the recognition of Palestine, but I argue very strongly that that is only one very small step that we need to take. A settlement has to involve an awful lot more than just the recognition of the state of Palestine. People should cast their minds back to Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and to the Nakba in 1948. The victims of those processes are still living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria; the Palestinian diaspora across the world is huge. They also have rights—they also have the right to return home and a right to recognition. That is extremely important. They should never be forgotten.
Secondly, any peace process requires Israel to say what it wishes its final borders to be. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) made many points, as did others, about the Hamas charter and what it is supposed to say. The reality is that Hamas is involved in a unity Government, and that is what provoked Operation Protective Edge this summer.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about Hamas’s charter, which refuses to recognise Israel, but the charter of Likud, the ruling party in the coalition, states:
“The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
Is that not a fetter to progress on this issue?
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. The Likud charter, which is not talked about too much by those who support the Government of Israel, says that in those very specific terms, and there has to be some recognition that the Prime Minister of Israel is a member of Likud and is in power because of Likud support.
Another point—there are many—is that half a million people are now settlers all across the west bank. Travelling around the west bank is travelling through an occupied land where the best land and the best water are taken by the settlers, the red-roofed buildings are built increasingly over Palestinian land and the massive concrete wall snakes around the place. If it was unwrapped, so to speak, it would stretch all across Europe. That wall divides farmers from their land, divides people from their water, divides children from their schools and makes travelling impossible. There has to be not just an end to the settlement policy but an end to the settlements. They have to go; they have to be withdrawn if there is to be any peace settlement.
Another issue is, of course, trade. Britain is a trading partner of Israel. We sell arms to Israel; we buy arms from Israel. Although some licences have been suspended or withdrawn, the arms trade goes on. If we are making engines for drone aircraft in this country and those drones are used for surveillance over Gaza and used to bomb the people of Gaza, as they were during Operation Protective Edge, we are complicit in what goes on there. That is what provoked an awful lot of people to sign the petition and make their views heard recently.
Gaza is under siege and has been under siege for a very long time. It has been my pleasure to visit Gaza on nine separate occasions during the past 15 years or so, and there is a feeling of depression and anger there at the way in which the people of Gaza are denied the right to work, the right to travel, the right to trade and the right to develop. Now, Egypt is joining in with that by developing a cordon sanitaire along the border between Egypt and Gaza, so I hope that when the Minister replies, we will hear some fairly robust remarks about the policies being followed by Egypt at present, which are compounding the siege of Gaza already being undertaken by Israel. A powder keg is developing because of the lack of freedom to travel, the lack of supplies, the lack of water and the lack of food. The people are crying out for recognition, help and support.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. I intend the winding-up speeches to start at 7 o’clock, or when half an hour of the debate remains if there have been Divisions in the House. Obviously, the more Members intervene, the fewer speeches we will get in. I call Richard Graham.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. Our debate clearly will not solve the long-standing problems and end the violence in Israel and Palestine, but it gives voice to the many feelings and frustrations of our constituents, 150,000 of whom signed the petition. In having this debate, we place uncomfortable truths on the record; we contribute to the changing winds of international feeling towards what is happening in Israel and Palestine today; we influence our own Government; and we ask awkward questions of all sides. That in itself justifies today’s debate.
Since I last joined a debate on this unhappy part of the world, on 17 July in this Chamber, much has happened, and it is worth recapping. The war that took place was the worst of the three in the past seven years, with 2,100 casualties on the Palestinian side, some 500 of whom were children. There are investigations of some 99 potential war crimes, but no report has been issued yet. Demolitions of homes in East Jerusalem have resumed and increased, and the settlements, which now encompass 341,000 illegal settlers, have substantially expanded. Some 160,000 of the Bedouins have been pressured to move from their traditional homes, and the al-Aqsa mosque was stormed at the beginning of November. Last but by no means least, and perhaps most dangerous of all, an Israeli nationality law was proposed very recently that would legally define Israel as a nation state of the Jews and strip Arab citizens of their basic rights.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
It is important to know that that Government apartheid Bill is going to the Knesset on Wednesday of this week to start its passage to becoming law.
Richard Graham
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention on the timing of the debate in Israel on the proposed nationality law. He is right. As our own Prime Minister said, if that proposed nationality law became law, that would turn Israel into an apartheid state.
Alistair Burt
I have been careful about not intervening because so many other hon. Members want to speak, but this point is very important. As has already been said on both sides of the House, the Bill is not being proposed by the Government of the state of Israel. It is clear that the proposal has split opinion both in Israel and in the Government, but it is not being proposed by the Israeli Government. I think, bearing in mind the content of my hon. Friend’s speech, he should be very clear on that.
Richard Graham
I am very happy to be clear on that. I do not think I said anything that contradicted it. I was going to quote the President of Israel, who said very clearly that other groups
“should not feel as the Jews had felt in exile”,
signalling his own strong disapproval of it. But the very fact that the nationality law has been proposed—we will see how much support it has in the Knesset—indicates a significant change in events since the July debate that is well worth highlighting.
Other winds of change are blowing outside Israel, in the response of the world to some of those events. It is worth noting that eight EU member states now recognise Palestine officially; Sweden is the most recent. There have been non-binding resolutions not only in this country but in Ireland and Spain, and tomorrow the French Parliament will vote on a non-binding motion. That indicates that world views are changing.
In previous debates, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for International Development, has talked about the UK tiring of picking up the pieces from countless incidents of violence in Israel and Palestine and has called for “meaningful political change”. Today, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east whether he shares the concern of the author of the EU document circulated to all 28 countries that we are moving to a situation where a two-state solution may no longer be possible. Does he share the author’s belief that if that were the case, action on illegal settlements would be necessary? Does he share my belief that the tragedy of what is happening in Israel is that its actions—settlements, the demolition of homes, a hardening of attitudes and even the consideration of a nationality law—are seriously against its long-term interests and may do long-term damage to that nation state, which our country did so much to bring into being?
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Like many others, I have visited Gaza. When I saw the refugee camps, I witnessed the exceptional adversity, prolonged suffering, misery and anguish that are being experienced in the region. That journey opened my eyes and confirmed what I already believed. As I stand here, I know that the situation in Gaza is far worse than when I visited three years ago. Everything has been affected, from supplies of food and energy to infrastructure and schools, and of course lives have been ruined.
Alongside the suffering in Gaza, one thing that stuck out for me was a briefing from the United Nations that showed the extent of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In my naiveté, I had never realised that the settlements were so extensive or so spread out across Palestine. Had any other country been guilty of such activity, which is illegal under international law, countries would have been queuing up to demand an end to it. Yes, the world speaks out, but sadly I see what is being said as empty words. There has been no end to the practice, but rather a considerable expansion of it. The practice must be stopped and reversed.
We all rightly condemn violence on all sides and loss of life as a tragedy. The Israelis have the right to defend their people, but they go too far with what amounts to disproportionate collective punishment against civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories. Those measures include arbitrary searches, detentions, increased checkpoint closures and tough restrictions on free movement, as well as the extensive settlement building.
Then, of course, there is the wall, which prevents people from going about their daily business, frustrates them at every turn and even separates members of the same family. Last month, we marked 25 years since the other wall—the one that split Berlin in two—started to come down, when families and two parts of a city were reunited. It is tragic that a new wall has been created, which splits the holy city of Jerusalem and deprives innocent people of so much. One day, I pray, it, too, will be shattered.
Having seen what I have seen, and having learned more as I have gone along, I still believe that a major contributory factor to peace could be the recognition of the state of Palestine through official channels. Adding the UK’s voice to the 135 states that already recognise the state of Palestine would not only validate the continued viability of the two-state solution but confirm our commitment to advancing peace in the region and send a strong message about the illegitimacy of the ongoing occupation. I am sure that the British Government have taken note of what our Parliament had to say on the question of recognition for the state of Palestine, and I hope that that historic step will be taken before too long.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing the debate, and I add my thanks to all those who signed the petition to enable us to have this debate.
We are all aware of the action in Gaza during the summer months, its effects on the people of Gaza and all the buildings that were destroyed. Before I go any further, to pre-empt any interventions, I condemn the actions of Hamas. However, I also have to condemn the disproportionate action of the Israel defence forces. When we consider the number of people—young children and civilians—who were killed during that action, we must all recognise that such disproportionate action does not allow any sort of peace process to take place. There are key issues following that action, such as the implementation of and support for the UN mechanism to facilitate the importing and use of construction materials in Gaza. There are problems surrounding agreement from Israel to allow unimpeded entry into Gaza for humanitarian goods and personnel. Urgent progress must be made on providing the people of Gaza with access to electricity and water, which are still not in place following the conflict.
The vote that was taken in this place on the recognition of Palestine has been mentioned, and the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan)—I was going to call him my right hon. Friend—
Mr Mahmood
It is close enough. He talked about the issues surrounding that vote. I think that the people in Israel who are hellbent on taking such action need to recognise the strength of that vote. The old dynamics are changing significantly, because the former controls on news and media have changed significantly. People have much more control of the media and the reports that they receive, and they are much better able to decide for themselves what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. If Israel is genuine about its position, it needs to pay heed to that. Other countries, such as France, are looking to take votes similar to the one that we have taken. It does not help anybody’s cause for the current position to continue. Unless Israel is prepared to move forward and deal with the problems, we will not get to where we want to be. As my—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate and giving voice to tens of thousands of petitioners. It has been more than 20 years since the famous handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, but the remarkable longevity of the Oslo dynamic stands as a testament not to Oslo’s utility but to its failure. The logic of Oslo and the many successive initiatives derived from it have rested on the belief that incremental progress on smaller-scale issues would build mutual trust and confidence between the parties and enable them to tackle tougher issues further down the road.
In practice, however, the opposite has been the case. A generation of Palestinians have grown up to witness a worsening situation on the ground, which stokes the fires of injustice that are escalating the conflict and endangering the entire region. The stipulation that Israel and the Palestinians would not be held accountable for violations was originally intended as a trust-building exercise for a future settlement, but it has, in subsequent decades, afforded Israel complete impunity for its actions. That has led to horrendous human rights violations and is extinguishing hope for a just political settlement.
A lot has been said about leadership today. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was a tragedy for both peoples, because Rabin was an Israeli leader prepared to make the tough compromises necessary to achieve a just peace. Without an Israeli Government who are prepared to compromise and negotiate in good faith, a refusal to hold Israel to account does not encourage negotiations; it leads to a culture of impunity that is seized on by those on both sides who reject any type of political settlement. Israel is the dominant party in the conflict, and it is afforded an unparalleled diplomatic shield by western nations. In the current dynamic, there is nothing to prevent Israel from doing whatever it wants and taking whatever it wants, to the detriment of both peoples.
The two-state solution receives the near-unanimous support of hon. Members—myself included—the British public, the international community and, most importantly, a large majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. A negotiated two-state solution will be achieved only if there are partners for peace on both sides. Sadly, the current Israeli leadership shows little appetite for political settlement, and the direction in which it is headed is destructive for Israel and devastating for the Palestinians.
Israel is a close ally of ours, and it has good friends here who can be instrumental in encouraging it to reach a political settlement in its own self-interest. For that to happen, our Government must apply pressure, both diplomatic and economic, to create the leverage to make possible the conditions that are necessary for a negotiated two-state solution.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I have two brief points to add to the excellent points that have already been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) asked a question about Israel at Prime Minister’s questions last week, and the Prime Minister held up Israel as an example of human rights and civic responsibilities in the region. I hope that he and others recognise that the enshrined racism that I saw in Palestine, which continues to be enshrined increasingly deeply in Israeli law, makes such a eulogy offensive.
From my talks with members of the French Parliament, it is clear that our vote on 13 October has been taken as an encouragement for the French Parliament to hold similar votes. That is a mark of the good work of this House, and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), in raising the issue of the recognition of Palestine.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). He is a skilful and persistent campaigner, as his success in securing the debate and the way he made his contribution demonstrate.
The continuing trauma, insecurity and devastation caused by the lack of a negotiated solution to the middle east crisis continues to be obvious and to provoke considerable concern in all our communities. More than 2,000 people were killed in the conflict in Gaza this summer, many of them civilians, including almost 500 children. The terrible loss of life has been followed by recent acts of terror in Jerusalem, including the horrendous attack on a synagogue during which one of our own citizens was killed. Whether one is a Palestinian living in Gaza made homeless by the recent conflict, or an Israeli citizen fearful of yet more rocket attacks, the absence of a sustained and indeed successful middle east peace process continues to benefit only those who are opposed to peace.
If we are to see an end to the bloodshed, to increase the economic and social opportunities for the people of both Palestine and Israel, and to ensure that the human and political rights of Israelis and Palestinians are respected, a two-state solution, still strongly supported by a majority of both peoples, remains the only result that can reconcile the interests of both. Many think that talks will never produce such a result, but I do not share that view. We have come close before to a comprehensive political solution, and other negotiations have produced progress. Without doubt, there are huge obstacles to navigate around and difficult issues to resolve, but we must remain determined to continue to work for a return to the negotiating table.
One thing that will be fundamental and that will seem to some a distant hope at the moment is the need to build relationships across the divide, and in so doing to build a little more of the trust—or, if not trust, the good will and tolerance—necessary to create the political space for negotiators to address the most difficult questions. In that regard, I commend the mutual support that the Israeli trade unions, Histadrut, and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions offer each other, as well as the strong support given by British trade unions to that dialogue.
As we have seen, the political vacuum created since the breakdown of peace talks in April has been filled by escalating tension and violence, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander),the shadow Foreign Secretary, warned at the time it would. The shocking murder of three young Israelis by Hamas and an equally outrageous subsequent killing of a 16-year-old Palestinian boy in East Jerusalem in June were the triggers for the violence and appalling loss of life in Gaza this summer.
Since the end of the conflict, tensions have been slowly rising again, with the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem in particular—I will return to that question—recent attacks on Israeli citizens and concerns about access to the al-Aqsa mosque compound at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. In the light of the history of that site and its significance, it is important for access arrangements to be maintained as they have been since 1967. I welcome pronouncements by Israeli leaders that there is no plan to change restrictions on Jewish prayer at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, but it is important that the Israeli authorities ensure that such assertions are matched by the reality on the ground. Leaders need to be clear that attempts by some to create further tensions on this issue will not be successful.
We all must also be clear in our condemnation of the recent violence in Jerusalem, including the particularly shocking attack on worshippers in a synagogue two weeks ago. Claims that the attacks can be justified are simply wrong. All those concerned have a responsibility to seek to reduce the tensions in Jerusalem and the west bank, not to inflame them. This country is both a long-term ally and friend of Israel and a long-term friend and supporter of the Palestinians, so it is vital for both sides that we encourage the reopening of negotiations to end the cycle of violence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) in particular said—my hon. Friend the Member for Easington also alluded to it—there is now an urgent need to accelerate the reconstruction effort in Gaza. With the region’s weather beginning to turn, there is considerable concern that the humanitarian plight of those in Gaza might be about to take an even worse turn. There is not enough cement or other building materials to allow the reconstruction of the estimated 100,000 homes that were destroyed in the conflict, never mind the other major pieces of infrastructure that have to be rebuilt, such as roads and sewage treatment works. Israel is concerned that without sufficient oversight of goods moving into Gaza, building materials could be used to rebuild tunnels into Israel or in other ways by Hamas.
I understand that the UN special co-ordinator for the middle east process, Robert Serry, has confirmed a further understanding of the trilateral agreement between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the UN permitting some 25,000 owners in Gaza to access building materials for the repair or rebuilding of their homes, albeit with, for example, UN-organised spot checks to monitor how the materials are being used. The news is welcome, but in the context of more than 100,000 homes damaged or destroyed during the summer’s conflict and more than 600,000 people affected, there are a number of obvious questions about whether the reconstruction effort is likely to meet the scale of the challenge faced by ordinary people in Gaza. Many still lack access to a consistent water supply, and blackouts are common for up to 18 hours a day.
It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response to the following questions. How confident is he that the agreement for 25,000 home owners to have access to building materials for home repairs will hold? Given the huge number of other homes that fall outside the scope of the agreement, what progress does he expect on agreement of a timetable for the many other homes that will need rebuilding or repair? Will he outline progress on removing unexploded ordnance in Gaza? How confident is he that access to basic services such as water, electricity, sewerage, schools and health care will be restored soon? Crucially, given the approach of winter, how confident is he that shelter will be made available for all those made homeless?
The UN is committed to assisting the Palestinians in their reconstruction efforts, and I welcome the UK’s contribution of £20 million, pledged at the Gaza reconstruction conference in Cairo in October, but the UN’s existing resources for the effort are woefully short, so perhaps the Minister will update the House on the level of money committed in Cairo and the extent to which the money pledged has actually arrived in the UN’s coffers. The concern clearly exists that it could take years to rebuild Gaza if the agreement on house repairs does not hold, is not accelerated, or is not delivered also for the other houses that need repair. If we are to avoid Gaza becoming what the Minister himself recently described as an “incubator for extremism”, it is in everyone’s interests, including Israel’s, to accelerate the reconstruction effort, and in so doing to create jobs, employment and, above all else, a little hope.
Returning briefly to the immediate prospects for peace talks, in the light of reports today of possible early elections in Israel, I recognise that an immediate resumption of talks is unlikely. Does either the Minister or the Foreign Secretary believe that the Kerry process made progress? What prospect does he see of further progress in the short to medium term?
If we are to move forward on this issue, the role of Arab nations, and especially Egypt, will be key. Among other questions, the recent Egypt-mediated talks were due to cover the possibility of construction of an airport in Gaza, after the closure in 2000, and the opening of a seaport.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
There was in fact an airport in Gaza—Yasser Arafat invited me to see it when it was opened—but tragically, for reasons my hon. Friend is describing so eloquently, it was never used.
Mr Thomas
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. What prospects does the Minister see for construction of an airport taking place? The Cairo conference also saw the EU agree to analyse the feasibility of a maritime link between Gaza and Europe; it would be useful to hear what progress has been made on that. Has either the Minister or the Foreign Secretary had discussions with the EU High Representative on this issue since she took office one month ago? Will he explain a little further the role he sees the EU playing in facilitating any dialogue that could lead to further peace talks?
As there is little sign of talks restarting, we need to look at other ways in which the international community can help to strengthen the moderate voices in both Israel and Palestine, alongside efforts to resume negotiations. The recent announcements of the annexation of yet more land and of further settlement building in the west bank harm the prospects for peace. We are clear that the settlements are illegal and will make it more difficult to achieve progress in negotiations.
In October, Labour supported the motion to recognise Palestinian statehood as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution. The motion reflected our long-standing support for the principle of Palestinian statehood. As the previous Foreign Secretary said, it is a matter for any Government to recognise another state at a point of their choosing. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made it clear that Labour supported recognition of Palestine at the UN back in 2011.
If we are to see a two-state solution, an early return to serious and substantial negotiations is essential. We have been close to that scenario before, and we need to encourage afresh the dialogue that builds trust, creates the conditions for talks and ultimately gives leaders the political space to take the brave steps necessary for the lasting peace we all want to see. The fact that we seem a long way from that possibility at the moment does not mean that we should give up—only those committed to violence would benefit from that. There are simply too many who have died—Palestinians and Israelis—and too many who have lost loved ones to give up on the possibility of peace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
This has been a fascinating and important debate. I am sorry that it did not take place in the main Chamber and that there has not been more time to debate the issues. I will not be able to cover all the points that have been raised.
I join the shadow spokesman in offering my condolences to the family of Rabbi Goldberg, who was sadly killed in the terrorist attack in the synagogue on 18 November.
I begin, as others have, by congratulating the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the 100,000-plus of our constituents who have called for the House to debate this issue. As expected, the debate has been vibrant and intelligent—I hope that the next debate we have on this issue takes place in the main Chamber.
The weekend just gone marked 67 years since the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which recommended the creation of two separate states of Israel and Palestine, with a special international regime for the city of Jerusalem. As hon. Members have mentioned, it is also 21 years since the Oslo accords. No wonder that Parliaments and citizens around the world are calling for debates, for leadership and for the implementation of the plans devised and agreed decades ago. Recognising Palestine is something that this Government—indeed all Governments—want to do. The key question, strategically rather than symbolically, is when we will be best placed to do so in order to help to secure a lasting solution.
I am going to try something I have not tried before as a Minister: I am going to answer the questions first, and if I run out of time, so be it; my speech will then have to wait, or else I will write to the hon. Member for Easington—although he would probably have said that he had heard my speech before, as it would not have differed from a previous one I have given. I will begin with the key points he mentioned. First, he talked about child detainees. Britain is very concerned about that issue. We have raised the matter with the Israelis and are asking them to continue a pilot scheme allowing individuals to be summoned rather than arrests being made at night. We are also lobbying for an end to solitary confinement. We are very much concerned about the issue.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned trading with illegal settlements. He will be aware of voluntary guidelines—it was his Government who introduced them—to enable customers to identify whether goods come from the occupied territories, so that they themselves can make a decision.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I recently met a group of Quakers from my constituency who have been working in the occupied territories. They specifically asked about the Government’s stance towards trading with illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Will the Minister give as much detail as he can as to the Government’s view on that issue?
Mr Ellwood
Given that I now have only 13 minutes left, I will write to my hon. Friend with more detail. However, I will say that the scheme I mentioned is working well and that supermarkets and others have adopted it so that customers themselves can have a better understanding of where produce comes from. I am pleased that has happened. The Government do not believe that boycotts would be helpful.
The hon. Member for Easington also mentioned export licences. He is aware that a judicial review is being undertaken on them, so I am afraid that I can say little more at this time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) spoke about the role of Hamas and its using its people as cover when firing missiles. At the peak of that firing, some 140 missiles were fired from Gaza into Israel. They were prevented from striking and causing deaths only because of the Iron Dome system, which I had the opportunity to visit when I was in the country two months ago.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) stated that Gaza is occupied. It is not occupied in the sense that the west bank is. Gaza has its own pressures because of the restrictions placed on it, but we want to see the Palestinian Authority move into that space of governance, so it can push out the legitimacy and the authority that Hamas claims to have.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) spoke passionately about these issues. He gave an interesting speech at the Royal United Services Institute on this matter and has talked about being able to be a friend of Israel while also being able to be critical. He said that criticising Israel for its conduct neither questioned its right to exist nor was anti-Semitic and that, similarly, standing up for justice for Palestinians is not in any way anti-Semitic. I make it very clear that we need to be able to have frank discussions and debates with our friends without being seen to be polarised, and I am pleased to say that we have done that today.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke about conditions in Gaza, as did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). I saw them for myself when I visited Shejaiya, where the situation is now compounded by the flooding that has taken place. I absolutely agree with the shadow Minister that more trade is required. Let us not just have the Erez crossing open; let us have Kerem Shalom and the Rafah crossings opened up. Indeed, on the maritime issue, I told Baroness Ashton and her successor, Federica Mogherini, what the EU could do—it could create a trade corridor from the maritime port to Cyprus where things could be checked to make sure they would not be used for tunnel systems and so on. That would allow trade to develop and goods to come out of Gaza, and it would allow the reconstruction requirements, which are absolutely necessary to support the 1.6 million people there, to come into the country.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Will he undertake to contact the Egyptian Government and to raise seriously the question of the Rafah crossing and the clearing of all populations along the border between Egypt and Gaza so that we can reopen that whole area?
Mr Ellwood
That is something I discussed with Foreign Minister Shukri very recently. Egypt is concerned about the black market that was used in the tunnel systems, which was why it created the buffer zone. The Rafah crossing is a pedestrian crossing and is not designed for vehicles. The key for me is to be able to get Hamas and Palestinian Authority officials to the talks that are taking place in Cairo. That is critical, and that is why the crossing needs to be open. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.
The shadow Minister also talked about electricity and water, which are vital. I go on record as saying that this very densely populated space will become unliveable, and when it does it will increase the problems, and extremism could start to incubate there. A simple solution, which has been done before, would be to splice into the Israeli electricity systems and waterworks to alleviate the pressures on infrastructure that we are seeing at the moment.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) spoke about managing the issue rather than solving it. I agree with that. It is not right simply to say a ceasefire is enough. We should do more. We should press for a long-term solution.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) spoke about the domestic challenges in Israeli politics. We talk about some of the stresses and strains in the coalition Government here, but those who have visited Israel will be aware that it has a vibrant coalition, and a Government and Opposition structure.
During the Prime Minister’s visit in March, a lot was going on in Parliament, which was very noisy and rowdy. He said that he had learned the word “balagan”, which means chaos in Hebrew, because of what was happening there. That reflects the domestic dynamics that are part of the challenges facing us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) spoke of Hamas’s role and its relationship to the Palestinian Authority. We must support the Palestinian Authority in taking full responsibility for Gaza. During my visit to Gaza a couple of months ago, its first Cabinet meeting was about to take place. That needs to continue, but unfortunately there are restrictions on movements, and I urge Israel to ensure that the goodness and influence that the Palestinian Authority can have in taking over responsibility from Hamas is allowed to happen. For that, it needs to get itself physically into the Gaza space.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) talked about previous initiatives such as the Camp David summit. Let us have some now. It is for the current generation and today’s leaders to find long-term solutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) spoke about the importance of trade, and again I agree. The Oslo accords referred to a trade corridor between Gaza and the west bank. There is a train line there that could easily be expanded—I brought that point up with the Israelis when I was there—and indeed a road corridor. That would allow trade, which is what the people want. It would allow the economy to start to flourish and provide a vision of prosperity that people could buy into. I pose the hypothetical situation of what happens if we do not allow the economy to thrive and do not sort out the infrastructure. Hamas could easily be replaced by something worse, such as ISIL. Where would that leave the landscape in the area? Those are the challenges that we need to be aware of.
The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke about Hamas’s tactics and what happened during the conflict. It was using hospitals and UN buildings to fire from, and using its own people as cannon fodder to stand in front of fire. That is simply unacceptable. We must support the Palestinian Authority to become the legitimate authority in Gaza. The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions about Department for International Development projects. That is obviously another Department, but I will write to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about debates in other Parliaments. I understand that one is taking place in France tomorrow, and there have been debates in Australia and other places.
The world is watching. It is deeply concerned about what is happening and worried that the opportunity for peace, which has been diminishing over the years, may be missed yet again as John Kerry starts the process of getting people back to the table. We should not forget how close we came last April due to his work and that of the others involved—I made that point in our last debate. We must pick up that process as soon as possible.
President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu continue to say that they are committed to a two-state solution, but they must both show bold and decisive leadership and avoid steps that make peace more difficult. That includes in the occupied territories. I visited E1 and saw how it would divide up the north of Jerusalem and the Bethlehem conurbation. It would cause massive problems in governance once a two-state solution was agreed.
The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about introducing sanctions. I do not believe that should be done when we are trying to get people back to the table. It would be a retrograde step bearing in mind where we are right now.
The hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke about the illegal settlements. I was saddened to go to a Bedouin camp where people have been told to move from one occupied area to another. They are goat herders, and they need space. They are being moved to a location that is clearly unacceptable for the lifestyle they lead. We ask Israel to recognise that that is unhelpful. When such decisions are made, it makes it more difficult for Israel’s friends to defend it against accusations that it is not serious about peace.
The hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) talked about the overall issue of recognising Palestine. Is it a tactical decision, a symbolic decision or a strategic decision? How does it fit into the plans that we are working on with the EU, the United States and the UN, and the resolutions that exist? We want to use recognition to assist the strategic process. As parties return to the table, now is not the right time to make that decision, because it would have consequences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) spoke about the tensions surrounding Temple Mount and Haram al-Sharif. It is vital that the long-standing status quo is observed and that we value Jordan’s role as the custodian of those holy sites in Jerusalem.
I think I have managed to cover everyone’s points, but perhaps they will forgive me if I have not. I would be delighted to speak or write to Members afterwards if I have missed anything out.
To conclude, we certainly recognise the strong statement made by the vote in the House last month and by today’s debate. We agree that Palestinian people deserve a sovereign, independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living in peace and security side by side with Israel. However, I am afraid we continue to reserve the right to recognise Palestine when that is most likely to lead to a two-state solution, delivering peace for Israelis and Palestine.
Britain is committed to seeing an end to the occupation and the creation of an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. However, urgent progress is needed—that has been reflected in this important debate—towards a two-state solution that delivers an end to the occupation. We will continue to engage with key partners to consider how best to support the parties in resuming serious dialogue.
I fully recognise the strength of feeling about the dispute among many people in Britain, and I am glad this debate has given me the opportunity not only to set out the Government’s position, but to listen to the concerns of constituents and hon. Members. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Easington for raising the issue, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions.
Grahame M. Morris
I thank you, Mrs Brooke, for chairing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for it. I also thank the Minister and the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), for responding to the various points that hon. Members have made. The fact that more than 40 hon. Members have made a speech or intervened indicates the strength of feeling on this issue.
Many issues have been raised, including economic sanctions, the expansion of illegal settlements, and arms embargos and restrictions. The key point was about respect for international law. We also heard about the Jewish state Bill, and Members’ concerns about a drift towards apartheid and the similarities with South Africa.
Grahame M. Morris
I am afraid I really cannot.
We also heard about the restrictions at the al-Aqsa mosque. Those are all important points, and I am grateful that the Minister has responded today or will respond in correspondence.
On the significance of the date, the Minister mentioned what happened 67 years ago. Because of that, 29 November is the UN international day of solidarity with the Palestinian people. It is quite instructive that Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, said this year:
“On this…Day of Solidarity, I call on the parties to step back from the brink.”
He also said:
“Long-term stability depends on addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. That means lifting the closure on Gaza, ending the half century occupation of Palestinian land and addressing Israel’s legitimate security concerns.”
To conclude, I must say that Israel has obligations as the occupying power. I appeal to the British Government and the international community to provide a counsel of hope, not of despair. As the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, if we are to take this issue forward, we need courage and generosity of spirit, and those were typified in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman),by the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) and, very powerfully, by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who made an excellent contribution about the benefits of outside help in resolving conflicts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to ending the conflict in Palestine.
Written Statements
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Competititveness Council
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Minister for Intellectual Property (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following statement:
The European Competitiveness Council will take place on Thursday 4 December and Friday 5 December. Baroness Neville-Rolfe will represent the UK on day one (industry and internal market). UK representation for the second day of the Council is to be confirmed.
The internal market and industry substantive agenda items are: proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on package travel and assisted travel arrangements, proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cableway installations and proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on personal protective equipment.
The objective of the travel package proposal is to update consumer protection legislation as it applies to holiday arrangements. This is to reflect the impact of technological developments facilitated by the internet, and the emergence of low cost airlines, since 1990.
The cableway proposal seeks to address some of the difficulties that have been experienced by some member states in implementing the existing Cableways Directive. It provides clarification on the scope of the cableway installations designed for transport and leisure purposes.
The personal protective proposal is to replace the existing Personal Protective Equipment Directive, which regulates the placing of personal protective equipment (PPE) on the EU market, by laying down the health and safety requirements to which it must conform.
There will be five non-legislative agenda items discussed at the Council: a presentation on industrial competitiveness - an agenda for jobs and growth, a policy debate on enhancing the single market in all its dimensions, draft council conclusions on smart regulation, draft council conclusions on strengthening tourism by leveraging Europe’s cultural, natural and maritime heritage and draft council conclusions on customs risk management.
There will be a number of non-legislative agenda items discussed on the second day of the council: a policy debate on science with and for society draft council conclusions on Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA), a European Research Area (ERA) Progress Report 2014; and Research and Innovation as sources of renewed growth.
In addition, on the space element of the Council there will be an exchange of views on the competitiveness of the European space sector as a key driver for the European economy. We will take this opportunity to set out UK views and council conclusions on underpinning the European space renaissance: orientations and future challenges.
Transport Infrastructure
(9 years, 5 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 announce to the House the details of the first road investment strategy, an ambitious £15 billion plan to increase the capacity and condition of roads for motorists across England.
The Government are investing in over 100 new road schemes over this Parliament and next, 84 of which are brand new today.
This major reform will add over 1,300 extra lane miles on motorways and trunk roads and fix some of the most notorious and longstanding problem areas on the strategic road network. These plans are published today in the first ever road investment strategy, which has been developed to keep the population connected and the economy growing.
Copies of the road investment strategy documents have been made available in the Libraries of both Houses and can be found on the Department’s website at: www.gov.uk/dft