House of Commons

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Thursday 11 December 2014

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

1. What steps her Department has taken to support the brewing industry in exporting beer.

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

Britain’s breweries are now exporting 1.1 billion pints to 113 countries every year. Thanks to UKTI’s efforts with the brewing industry, British beer is enjoyed around the world from Brussels to Buffalo to Bogota. Brewing is a valuable part of our £100 billion food and farming industry.

[Peter Aldous]

St Peter’s brewery in my constituency is a past recipient of the Queen’s award for enterprise and international trade. It has built up a successful export business to more than 30 countries, and it wants to grow further. To allow it to realise its full potential, will the Secretary of State work with me and the Treasury to consider whether the calculation of progressive beer duty relief can be changed?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I would be pleased to work with my hon. Friend and Treasury colleagues on that issue. I was delighted to visit his constituency last week to see plans for a new tidal barrier in Lowestoft, and in future I look forward to visiting St Peter’s brewery and perhaps sampling some of its fine ales.

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

2. What steps she is taking to assist dairy farmers in the south-west.

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

Earlier this week I attended the northern dairy conference. Farmers—including those in the south-west—are experiencing tough conditions with prices having fallen significantly since spring. On 19 November I hosted a meeting of the dairy supply chain forum and we discussed a number of action points, including better country of origin labelling for British products in the EU, opening new markets for exports, and investing to improve competitiveness and add value to dairy products through the rural development programme. The south-west Dairy Crest factory at Davidstow has benefited from such public investment.

[Mr Streeter]

As a result of dramatically falling prices, many milk producers and farmers in the west country are producing milk at a loss, which is clearly unsustainable. Can the Government offer any help, and any hope?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. At current prices many farmers are indeed making a loss, and at the dairy supply chain forum we discussed volatility. The last two years have been a rollercoaster ride for the dairy industry—it had a dire year in 2012, last year was very good, but this year is bad again. We have considered whether we can develop a successful futures market, for example in skimmed milk powder or cheese products, to help farmers manage that volatility in future.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

With volatility in the dairy industry impacting on farmers generally, does the Minister agree that the EU intervention threshold, which was agreed at 18p per litre in 2003, does not protect dairy farmers across the UK and is in urgent need of review? What representations will he make to Brussels on that?

[George Eustice]

I met Northern Ireland representatives from Dairy UK when I was in Brussels last week and they raised that point with me. The European Commission is looking at the intervention price, and our officials are working on what the appropriate price would be. Generally, an increase in that intervention price would tend to benefit other countries that have lower prices before it benefits UK farmers, but we are considering the issue.

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

The dairy price of 25p and falling means that farmers are producing at a loss. The dairy trade adjudicator can look at parts of the trade, but are there more ways to deal with the price, especially of processed cheese in the supermarket sector? The price of milk is dealt with by supermarkets, but processed cheese is not.

[George Eustice]

I have considered those issues, which I discussed last week when I appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. My view is that our grocery code, together with the adjudicator, adequately covers retailers, and the Competition and Markets Authority has powers to consider issues further up the supply chain. Our dairy supply chain code is working successfully—the recent review by Alex Fergusson confirmed that—but we must focus on making it work better.

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

Like many farmers across the country, dairy farmers do not trade directly with supermarkets but deal with processors and food manufacturers. Does the Minister believe that opening up the responsibility of the groceries code adjudicator would bring greater transparency to the marketplace?

[George Eustice]

As I said, the Competition and Markets Authority already has some ability to look further up the supply chain. The dairy supply chain code covers 85% to 90% of all production. Crucially, it gives farmers the ability to walk away from a contract at three months’ notice if they do not like it. They can shop around. The code is working successfully.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

3. What estimate her Department has made of the number of people who used emergency food aid in the last 12 months; and what steps the Government are taking to reduce food poverty.

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

Research published in February by Warwick university found no systematic peer-reviewed UK research on why people turn to food aid. Subsequent reports by the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty acknowledge that people turn to food aid for complex reasons. The best way of reducing poverty is to grow our economy and get people back into work. Since 2010, 1.7 million more people are in work. We have also increased the income tax personal allowance to remove more than 3 million of the lowest earners from taxation. Finally, we have helped the most vulnerable to have access to nutritious food by, for instance, providing free school meals, and through projects such as Healthy Start.

[Nic Dakin]

Does the Minister agree not only that we should applaud people such as those who work for the Scunthorpe food bank, who do an absolutely first-class job, but that we should be ashamed that, in this year, in this century, people in one of the most prosperous countries in the world are surviving on food banks?

[George Eustice]

I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the great work that food banks do. I have at least two in my constituency and plan to visit before the Christmas period—I met the leader last week. People turn to food aid for many complex reasons, including mental health problems. We should recognise that food aid is not limited to the UK and is a global phenomenon. We have seen a big increase in the use of food banks in the US and other European countries.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May I commend to my hon. Friend the “Feeding Britain” report, which was funded with support from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s charitable trust? The report makes recommendations to a number of different organisations, including directly to the food industry, such as encouraging the redistribution of fresh surplus food to food assistance providers and voluntary organisations. Will Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers meet the food industry and the supermarkets to go through the report’s recommendations for the food industry, and see what action the food industry and supermarkets can take?

[George Eustice]

Yes, we will meet retailers and the food industry. The Waste and Resources Action Programme already has a working group to look at how barriers to the redistribution of food can be removed. We have always been clear that the redistribution of food is far better than recycling, and it comes first in the waste hierarchy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We have not made enough progress in the three years since I introduced my Food Waste Bill, which tried to highlight the fact that up to 40% of the food produced in this country does not get eaten. Rather than just having voluntary discussions, has the Minister considered making the industry start to donate the food that would otherwise be wasted?

[George Eustice]

We made progress with the first two rounds of the Courtauld commitment. We have reduced domestic household waste by 15%, and waste in the supply chain has been reduced by more than 8%. There is further to go and more to do, which is why the third round of the Courtauld commitment set ambitious targets.

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

Is the Minister aware that the great benefit of food banks, particularly Isle of Wight and Trussell food banks, is that they are controlled and run by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the Government? Those on the Isle of Wight are brilliantly organised and supported.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The strength of those charities is that they are run by volunteers and are unencumbered by bureaucracy. That is one reason why we have resisted calls to put reporting obligations on them. We want them to focus on doing their good work rather than on filling out bureaucratic forms for the Government.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

4. How many water companies offer a social tariff.

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

Eight water companies in England and Wales offer a social tariff on top of the nationally mandated WaterSure scheme. Several more are in dialogue with their customers about introducing a social tariff next year.

[Andy McDonald]

I welcome Northumbrian Water’s WaterSure tariff initiative to help low-income families, and I applaud its work with the StepChange debt charity and the award winning Know Your Money in Middlesbrough, but only six water companies are currently offering a social tariff to struggling customers, helping just over 25,000 people in total. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce regional disparities in support and end this postcode lottery?

[Dan Rogerson]

The important point to note about tariffs is that they are funded within water company areas. As money comes from those areas, it is important that water companies discuss with their customers what the right level of support is, as there are different situations in different areas. The number of schemes is expanding. I, too, welcome what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the country. Northumbrian Water has worked hard to address these issues with its customers to ensure that it can take forward a scheme that works in its area.

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

Many of us in Yorkshire want not only a social tariff, but a social conscience. Yorkshire Water is owned by a Singapore investment trust, our electricity is owned by the Germans and our gas by the Chinese. Foreign companies, such as Lidl and Aldi, do not seem to have the same corporate social responsibility and social conscience as other companies. What is the Minister doing about foreign-owned utilities, such as Yorkshire Water, that do not have as much of a social conscience?

[Dan Rogerson]

We have a strong regulatory system that looks at not just the value for money and investment that companies offer customers, but the transparency of their business models and how they operate. Yorkshire Water, for example, has a good debt management programme to help people who have in the past struggled to pay their bills. We are making progress on a whole range of issues, and I welcome the fact that companies are upping their game.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) pointed out, rising water bills are adding to the cost of living crisis. With one in five customers struggling to pay, but only six water companies currently offering support to little more than 25,000 customers, will the Minister acknowledge that he needs to get to grips with this problem by adopting Labour’s national affordability scheme to end the current postcode lottery to which my hon. Friend referred, and to ensure that hard-pressed consumers get the support they need wherever they live?

[Dan Rogerson]

Since last year, water companies have been able to introduce schemes and they are doing so, but it is important that they take their customers with them and look at what works in their area. The schemes are not funded on a national basis. As I understand it, the Labour party’s proposal would not be funded on a national basis either, but in water company areas. It is important to look at the situation in each area.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

5. What progress has been made on implementation of the landing obligation for fisheries.

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

The North sea and North Western Waters regional groups agreed a discard ban for the pelagic sector earlier this year. Those plans were subsequently approved by the European Commission and will be implemented from 1 January. The Government are now developing the regional discard plans needed to support the introduction of the demersal landing obligation from January 2016.

[Dr Whiteford]

The landing obligation comes into effect for the pelagic fleet in three weeks’ time and the revised regulations are still not in place. Of greater concern to me, however, is that there will be no consistent compliance regime for our boats and boats from non-EU countries fishing in our waters. That is unacceptable and it is undermining confidence in the policy before it has even got under way. Will the Minister look once again at the proposals brought forward by the industry to sort this out, and speak to the Commission?

[George Eustice]

I have had many discussions with the industry on the importance of having a level playing field on enforcement. Norwegian boats and other third-country boats with access to EU waters are required to abide by the discard plan. On enforcement, we got agreement at the EU-Norway deal just last week to ensure that that is now discussed. A working group will discuss how we ensure a level playing field.

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

6. What recent discussions her Department has had with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the groceries code adjudicator’s ability to levy fines.

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

As the hon. Gentleman knows, policy responsibility for this issue rests with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. However, following concerns expressed by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week to both the Secretary of State and me, I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has responsibility for employment relations and consumer affairs, to bring this issue to her attention.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to hear that the Minister is on the case. Yesterday I received a written answer from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which said that cross-ministerial discussions are taking place. When are the groceries code adjudicator’s first investigations likely to conclude? Will the statutory instrument be laid by then to allow her the necessary tools, should she need them?

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I served on the Committee that considered the Bill that introduced the supermarket adjudicator, and I supported the introduction of fines. At the moment, this matter is subject to cross-Government discussions, and we anticipate an outcome some time in the new year.

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

Underlying the drop in dairy prices is the huge power imbalance between the small individual dairy farmer and the huge processor. It is not good enough that my hon. Friend is looking to beef up the voluntary code. Will he look closely at a statutory basis and extending the remit of the groceries code adjudicator to this very imbalanced relationship in dairy production?

[George Eustice]

If we were to have statutory oversight of the dairy supply chain code, we would have to put the code itself on a statutory basis. Because of EU legislation, however, that would make the code far weaker than what we have. For instance, farmers would not have the ability to walk away from contracts with three months’ notice. The course that my hon. Friend outlines would make things worse for farmers, not better.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of progress on improving the cleanliness of the River Thames.

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

We are making good progress on cleaning up the River Thames, particularly in tackling the increasing raw sewage overflows into its tidal stretches. Thames Water will reduce overflows when the Lee tunnel becomes operational in 2015 and through upgrades to major sewage works across London. Once operational in 2023, the Thames tideway tunnel will capture almost all the remaining sewage overflows into the Thames in London.

[Mary Macleod]

Thames Water’s Mogden sewage works in Isleworth is the second largest of its kind in the UK. The company has pumped raw sewage into the Thames 23 times in the last year, and residents have struggled with odour from the plant for many years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss a better way forward?

[Dan Rogerson]

I understand that Thames Water has spent about £30 million to address odour issues at the site and that Hounslow borough council is regularly monitoring it, but if issues remain for local residents, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss them.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

8. How many flood defence schemes will be built as part of the Government’s six-year flood defence programme.

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

11. How many flood defence schemes will be built as part of the Government's six-year flood defence programme.

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

With permission, I will answer questions 8 and 11 together.

We will be investing £2.3 billion in more than 1,400 defence schemes over the next six years, protecting at least 300,000 homes and reducing overall flood risk by 5% by 2021.

[Martin Vickers]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the proposals within the Humber flood risk management strategy for protecting 110,000 dwellings and 20,000 businesses. The £80 million announced in the autumn statement last week was extremely welcome, but when will decisions be taken on how to spend the £80 million, and will there be an early decision on future proposals?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and colleagues on their work to put forward such an ambitious proposal. The Environment Agency is considering the proposal in detail, and we will publish a review in July 2015. We were delighted last week to announce £80 million of funding to improve protection for more than 50,000 households around the Humber estuary.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Daniel Kawczynski. Oh dear, the fellow’s not here. Never mind. I call a Member who is always here: Mr Neil Carmichael.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

14. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for funding £750,000 of investment in protecting my constituency by improving and maintaining defences along the Severn estuary, notably at Lapper ditch at a cost of £500,000. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents, however, that this kind of investment and attention to the problem will be continued over the next few years?

[Elizabeth Truss]

This is the first time a Government have ever laid out a six-year forward capital spend proposal. It is an increase in real terms on the figure this Parliament, which in turn was an increase in real terms from the previous Parliament. We are also committing an additional £35 million for maintenance this year and next, which the Environment Agency has said will do the job of maintaining our defences.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that of the 1,400 schemes she has talked about, 1,119 are only partly funded and rely on 80% unsecured partnership funding and a 10% efficiency saving that nobody has yet identified? In fact, only 97 of those 1,400 schemes are both new and fully funded. She says that 300,000 households will have reduced flood risk, but this figure is the result of homes going from the category of “low risk” to that of “very low risk”, while the number of homes at “significant” and “high” risk of flooding will go up by 80,000 in the next six years. Will she also confirm that in order to get these figures to add up for the Treasury, she has had to value human life at zero?

[Mr Speaker]

Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I always feel that I am on the receiving end of a learned academic treatise, but a question would on the whole be preferred.

[Elizabeth Truss]

In this Parliament, we have already raised £140 million in partnership funding, which is 10 times the amount raised by the previous Government. This means that we are able to go ahead with more flood schemes and protect more homes than they were able to do. As I have made clear, the Environment Agency carried out a detailed assessment showing that overall flood risk will be reduced by 5% as a result of this funding. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor outlined his plans to give tax relief on private contributions to flood defence schemes, thereby making it likely that even more private sector companies will want to invest in flood defences. We are making it happen.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

9. What recent discussions her Department has had with brewers on packaging waste.

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

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), met the British Beer and Pub Association in March this year to discuss the producer responsibility regime for waste packaging. Officials have also met the BBPA as well as the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and individual brewing companies to discuss packaging waste.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the Minister for being a long-standing supporter of the beer and pub industry. Will he join me in supporting the Sustain initiative by the BBPA, which is not only increasing compliance but reducing packaging costs to the brewing industry? Does he agree that this shows we have a listening Government, who listen to the industry about the glass recycling targets, which has saved the industry £15 million a year as a result?

[Dan Rogerson]

I echo my hon. Friend’s words about the steps the industry has taken and I thank him, too, for the work he does to support this important industry. The scheme he mentions has come from within the industry: it is new and not for profit, has an excellent compliance scheme and is a good example of how the industry can organise itself to recycle more and to bring down the cost of compliance.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

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

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

We have made strong progress in cleaning up our rivers, which are now in far better health than they were 20 years ago. Pollution from sewerage works, for example, has gone down significantly, and phosphate pollution will fall by a further fifth and ammonia pollution by a further sixth by next year. Overall, this Government have improved over 15,000 km of rivers—and I am sure you will be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that this is equivalent to the length of the Amazon and Nile combined, but we know that more needs to be done.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am enlightened by my hon. Friend’s answer, but does he agree with me that farmers who have managed their land and watercourses for many years are well placed to know how best to preserve them, and that if their watercourses should become blocked, they should be allowed carefully to clear them?

[Dan Rogerson]

We wish to remove unnecessary burdens from farmers and landowners that might discourage them from undertaking their own watercourse maintenance. Seven new river maintenance pilots were launched in October, and these will test how we can ease consent requirements for watercourse de-silting, and improve partnership working, while ensuring that the environment is protected and, where possible, enhanced. The pilots form part of the catchment-based approach, which will ensure that discussions take place with all those involved in river maintenance, while achieving wider environmental outcomes through transparent decision making that involves and integrates environmental interests with others in these local steering groups for the pilots.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

12. What recent assessment she has made of progress on the England coastal path.

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

We are making good progress with coastal access. It has been implemented on three stretches of the coast in Cumbria, in Dorset, and in Durham, Hartlepool and Sunderland. A further stretch of the coast in Norfolk will be open tomorrow, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that additional funding will be made available to complete the coastal path around England by 2020.

[David Rutley]

I welcome the announcement that funds will be provided to ensure that the path is completed by 2020. As co-chair of the mountaineering all-party parliamentary group, the pinnacle of APPGs—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Thank you. As co-chair of the group, I pay tribute to the important and pioneering campaign of the Ramblers, supported by, among others, the British Mountaineering Council, which has demonstrated the strength of public support for this vital path. Does the Minister agree that the path will help to reduce physical inactivity, as well as encourage the local economies of coastal communities?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am tempted to say that my hon. Friend speaks from the moral high ground, given his involvement in making the case for the healthy enjoyment of our countryside. Walking is a great activity, improving health and well-being, and coastal access will bring real benefits, giving local economies a vital boost by encouraging tourism.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

What an opportunity, Mr Speaker! The coastline of England is a magnificent tourist attraction, with the potential to regenerate the economies of rural industries. Let us get on with it: let us provide access to the whole of the English coast, and tell the world about our glories.

[Dan Rogerson]

I think that that was a question, although I am not entirely sure. In any event, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the sentiment, with which I entirely agree.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was operating in the spirit of a poet, and we are obliged to him for that.

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

13. What plans she has to encourage communities to contribute towards flood defences; and if she will make a statement.

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

We are on course to generate up to £140 million of additional partnership funding during the current Parliament. Our success in that regard means that we can protect even more homes—an extra 300,000—by 2021, and deliver £30 billion of benefits to our economy.

[Mr Bellingham]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her announcement 10 days ago, which was welcomed in my constituency. I am particularly grateful for her announcement of grant in aid for the long-term funding of sea defences along the Wash. Will she assure me of the Department’s full support for the community interest company project which is being led by my constituent Michael McDonnell?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I was delighted to hold a flood defence forum with my hon. Friend earlier in the year, when we also discussed the undertaking of a dredging pilot by internal drainage boards for the Ouse Washes. I am very keen for DEFRA to work with him and his constituent to ensure that we leverage the maximum possible funds for the important scheme to which he has referred.

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

15. What estimate her Department has made of the number of people who used emergency food aid in the last 12 months; and what steps the Government are taking to reduce food poverty.

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

As I said earlier, the recent report by the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty concluded that people turned to food aid for complex reasons. The Government believe that the best way to help people out of poverty is to help them into work, and with that in mind we have created 1.7 million jobs since 2010. We are also helping the most vulnerable to have access to food by means of, for instance, free school meals and improvements in the welfare system.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister may speak of “complex reasons”, but every week my office and I deal with people who have lost their benefits because of sanctions or confusion over delays in the payment of disability living allowance. This weekend I met a woman who had £1.37 to get her through the next week. Will the Government acknowledge that their decisions and their aggressive sanctioning are driving hundreds of thousands of people to food banks?

[George Eustice]

In fact, the timeliness of benefit payments has improved: 90% of payments are now made on time, which is an improvement on the position under the last Government. As for sanctions, the Department for Work and Pensions and jobcentres are ensuring that hardship payments are available to those who need them because they have been sanctioned.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Is it not a plain fact that pre-prepared food costs much more than food that is cooked at home? Will my hon. Friend join me in praising schools that teach children from both poor and wealthy families how to cook?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Our new school curriculum for primary schools includes learning to prepare basic dishes and understand more about food. If we can teach people to prepare their own food, they will find that it is often far cheaper than pre-packaged food.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

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

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

DEFRA’s priorities are leading the world in food and farming, protecting our country from floods and animal and plant diseases, improving the environment and championing the countryside and improving rural services. Bees and pollinators play a vital role in the health of our environment and economy. That is why on 4 November we published our national pollinator strategy. It sets out the first ever wild pollinator and farm wildlife package for farmers, commitments from major landowners, and how everyone, from schools to parks and gardeners, can do their bit to contribute.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. On her recent visit to my constituency, she saw and tasted for herself the excellent food and drink products that come from the area, produced by many excellent local companies. What role do businesses like these have in boosting British exports?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I had a very interesting visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. Food and drink exports are now worth nearly £19 billion, and businesses like the one I visited play a key role in that growth. I enjoyed visiting Taylors of Harrogate, which now exports Yorkshire tea to China, and Bettys, with its confectionary brand, is part of our contribution to breaking the £1 billion mark in exports of confectionary around the world.

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

The Secretary of State has ministerial responsibility for food production and processing, so it is concerning that yesterday she transferred a question about campylobacter contamination in chicken, which had been on today’s Order Paper, to the Department of Health. The Food Standards Agency has said that 70% of chicken on sale in Britain, much of it produced here, is contaminated by campylobacter. That is higher than the salmonella infection rate in poultry in the 1980s. What is she doing to tackle this totally unacceptable state of affairs?

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

I can tell the hon. Lady that there is a project being run by the FSA and BOC to try to develop a treatment system of blast-chilling poultry to deal with this disease. Earlier this year the FSA ran an information campaign to raise awareness among the public of this problem, and as she is aware, the FSA has also recently published information about the incidence of campylobacter in poultry among a range of retailers.

[Maria Eagle]

The Minister sounds complacent. He has no plan to deal with this scandal, beyond transferring questions about it to other Departments. Food poisoning caused by campylobacter contamination in the poultry industry costs our economy and the NHS £900 million a year in days off work and treatment costs. It kills an estimated 100 people and makes 280,000 people ill every year. When will he stop being the mouthpiece of the food poisoners and start being the champion of consumers?

[George Eustice]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that, as she well knows, the FSA is the responsibility of the Department of Health. The FSA leads on food safety issues, including campylobacter. It is the FSA that has decided to publish this information, so it is right that the Department of Health should lead on this issue, but I totally reject the notion that I have been complacent: within the first week of coming into this job a year ago, I had our chief and deputy chief veterinary officers give me a briefing on the issue.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

T4. There are 11 microbreweries, and even the Holmfirth vineyard, in my Colne Valley constituency in West Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend and the Department continue to support the success of the UK brewing industry, especially the businesses in my constituency, which are exporting their ales across the world, including to Australia?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on his work in promoting the brewing industry in Colne Valley. I know the Magic Rock brewery ales from his area are available as far afield as Australia, as he mentions, and there are other famous Yorkshire brands like the Ilkley brewery, which I visited recently, as well as the Black Sheep brewery, which are selling around the world. This is thanks to the GREAT Britain campaign and UK Trade & Investment, which are doing so much to promote our fantastic beer.

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

T2. There is concern about recent reports that indicate that the Government intend to bring forward the badger cull to early next summer in order to cull badger cubs. If these reports are accurate, is it not further evidence that this Government have reached new levels of desperation? It is cruel and it is bad science. The mass culling of junior badger cubs now is not a substitute for a serious TB strategy.

[Elizabeth Truss]

It has always been for the cull companies to decide when to start operations. The reality is that we inherited the highest level of bovine TB in Europe because the Labour party did nothing when it was in government. We are dealing with this with a comprehensive strategy that involves cattle movement controls, vaccination in the edge areas and culling where the disease is rife. That approach has worked in Australia, where the disease has been eradicated, and it is working in Ireland and New Zealand. We are determined to continue with that approach.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

T5. I thank my right hon. Friend for bravely and rightly extending the flood payments and reliefs that were given to the communities that were flooded at the start of this year and to all those, including in Nottinghamshire, that were flooded in 2013. As a good Yorkshire girl, she recognised the injustice that was being done to the midlands and the north and she put it right. Will she join me in thanking all the groups in my constituency, including the Southwell flood forum, and those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) that have campaigned on this issue over the course of this year?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I certainly thank my hon. Friend’s constituents, and I also thank him for the fantastic work he has done to promote this cause. It was right that we were able to bring forward those grants and I was delighted that, in the autumn statement, we were able to confirm £700,000 for flood defences in Southwell, which will benefit 235 houses.

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

T3. Mr Speaker, you will know that Newcastle is a thriving hub of life science, digital, creative and video gaming industries, but not everyone who works in the city lives there. People tell me that when they go home to rural Northumberland, they wish that this Government had delivered on Labour’s fully funded commitment to universal broadband for all by 2012. Does the Minister agree with them?

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

I welcome what the hon. Lady says about the industries in her part of the world. I would say to her that broadband is being taken forward. It is increasingly passing more and more homes in rural areas like my constituency and other rural areas around the country. Labour left us a legacy of an aspiration to do this; we are actually delivering on it and making a difference. We have further to go, but this is making a huge difference to those rural communities.

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

T7. The Marine Management Organisation says that it cannot meet me to discuss the disposal site at Rame Head South because of a judicial review. Will the Minister support my call to withdraw the existing licence and apply for a shorter one so that a new site could be investigated, the River Tamar could be dredged and we could care for the marine environment?

[George Eustice]

I understand that lawyers representing both parties in this judicial review are in discussions. I think the hon. Lady will agree that we need to ensure that we can continue to dredge the Tamar, which is a vital to the important port of Devonport. Also, I have always made it clear to her that I am willing to have meetings with residents, with the dredging company and with her to see whether it would be possible to identify an alternative site for the longer term.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6. Around 10 million turkeys are slaughtered each year for the Christmas market. The vast majority are intensively reared and kept in sheds containing up to 25,000 turkeys, with no fresh air and very little light. They are fattened up so fast that they collapse under their own body weight. It is almost certainly too late to save this year’s turkeys, but what is the Minister doing to improve animal welfare standards in the future?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady should recognise that there are a number of free range turkey farms, and that these are growing in popularity as demand increases. I can tell her that we are in the process of reviewing all our animal welfare codes, and having discussions with the industry and with animal welfare groups such as Compassion in World Farming. It is our intention to get the new codes in place as soon as possible.

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

T8. One of the side effects of hydraulic fracturing at depth is the huge amount of contaminated water that has to be disposed of. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take a close personal interest in the first fracking application, because at this stage Third Energy has had no detailed discussions with the relevant water company about how to dispose of the contaminated water safely?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Fracking is safe and has low environmental impact if it is done responsibly. The Environment Agency has been working hard to get the licensing process in place to make sure that groundwater is protected. I will certainly be keeping a close eye on this issue and working closely with the Environment Agency on it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The landing obligation for fisheries is potentially a disaster for the Northern Ireland fishing industry, and it is to be introduced in January 2016. What discussions have taken place with the fisheries Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the effect the discard policy will have on the nephrops fisheries in the Irish sea?

[George Eustice]

I have regular meetings and discussions with representatives from the Northern Ireland industry, including earlier this week, when we discussed our approach on the total allowable catch—TAC—for nephrops for next week’s December Council meeting. The landing obligation contains many flexibilities: there is a de minimis; we can bank and borrow quota from one year to the next; and where there is high survivability we are able to put species back. There are sufficient flexibilities in the regulation to make this discard ban work, but there is detail we need to resolve, which is why we are issuing a consultation in the new year to begin that process.

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

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), across rural England there are many concerns about the safety of the exploitation of shale gas, so can the Secretary of State confirm that no site will be given the go-ahead without approval from the Health and Safety Executive as well as the Environment Agency? They must be satisfied that any site will comply with strict safety criteria.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right about the HSE, and of course the local planning process also has to be gone through. I commend to him the paper produced by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. They looked at these issues in detail and at experience from other countries, which shows that, provided the correct environmental regime is in place, fracking is safe to carry out and does have very limited impact on the environment.

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

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

2. What representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on funding for maintenance of the fabric of English cathedrals that are older than 500 years.

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

The first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund has so far allocated £13 million to 41 cathedrals, both Anglican and Catholic, across England. The third and final round of this scheme closes on 17 January.

[Michael Fabricant]

My right hon. Friend will know that Lichfield cathedral is more than 800 years old—and its wiring is almost as old. If that wiring is not replaced, Lichfield cathedral will have to close because of insurance regulations. Will he make representations to ensure that the cathedral gets the money it urgently requires to replace its wiring and remain open?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I was grateful, as I am sure the whole House was, to the Chancellor for allocating £20 million for cathedral repair. I anticipate that Lichfield will apply in January in the third round of this scheme for about £1 million to, as my hon. Friend says, rewire and re-light the whole cathedral, and I hope that Lichfield is successful in that bid.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that when any restoration takes place he addresses the role of wildlife? He may have heard recently about the falcon living happily above York Minister, but will he ensure that bats are preserved in this country? They should not be persecuted; we do not want bats and badgers exterminated in our country. Will he make sure that bats are protected?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

There is a question on this issue later on the Order Paper. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that churches and cathedrals are places of worship—they are not field barns—and it is not appropriate for bats to urinate and defecate in churches, where people are trying to worship and have broader community activities, such as toddlers groups and lunch clubs for pensioners? We have to find a way in which churches can exist as places of worship without being disrupted by bats.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that “Baldry on Bats” on BBC Parliament will be an unmissable fixture.

Mr George Hollingbery is not here, so I call Andrew Stephenson.

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

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

4. What progress has been made by the Electoral Commission on its work in the 16 parts of the country it identified in January 2014 as vulnerable to voting fraud.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

5. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to reduce electoral fraud.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission has targeted 17 areas where there is a high risk of allegations of electoral fraud to ensure that returning officers and police forces have developed appropriate responses to address specific local risks for the May 2015 elections. The Electoral Commission has also worked with the College of Policing to publish detailed guidance for police forces on preventing and detecting electoral fraud. The Electoral Commission has worked with political parties to agree a code of conduct for campaigners and is developing a simple guide for voters about how to protect their vote and how to report electoral fraud.

[Andrew Stephenson]

Sadly, in Pendle, allegations of postal vote fraud are nothing new, with the dubious actions of certain Labour councillors being reported to the national press as far back as 2002. Serious questions were asked earlier this year on the letters page of the local paper about the rigging of Labour’s own parliamentary selection. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give me that fraudulent postal votes will not determine the outcome of the general election in Pendle?

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the threat of electoral fraud in his area. He will be pleased to hear that the Electoral Commission has called a meeting tomorrow for representatives of the 17 high-risk areas, including Pendle, to review progress on anti-fraud measures and to ensure that the May elections are as secure and as transparent as possible. The message must go out in Pendle and elsewhere that electoral fraud in this country will not be tolerated.

[Fiona Bruce]

If a constituent becomes aware of, or suspicious, that electoral fraud is taking place during the election campaign, what should they do about it?

[Mr Streeter]

My hon. Friend asks a very important question. The answer is that the constituent, if they become suspicious of electoral fraud, should report the matter to the local police force and, if possible, the local returning officer. Every police force should by now have specialist officers who are trained in investigating this thankfully rare but important crime, which highlights the fact that electoral crime in this country will not be tolerated.

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

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that I love bats—

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has bats on the brain.

[Mr Robathan]

Sorry, sleeping in the rafters.

[Mr Speaker]

We will hear more about that in a moment. It sounds racy and intoxicating.

[Mr Andrew Robathan]

6. What recent estimate he has made of the costs to churches of damage caused by bat infestation.

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

“Baldry on Bats” part 2: the full financial cost is difficult to calculate, but the damage to local and nationally significant cultural heritage is substantial. Approximately 6,400 churches are infested with bats.

[Mr Robathan]

Having come down from the eaves and woken up, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had any discussions with English Heritage, which, after spending a lot of money on restoring churches, then finds that environmental authorities do not allow the exclusion of bats from churches? It will not harm bats to be excluded from churches. They did not start there; they started in trees and other such places. We need to exclude them from churches because they are doing a huge amount of damage and wasting taxpayers’ money that has already been spent on restoring churches.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns. St Nicholas church in Stanford-on-Avon in his constituency is one of the worst affected churches in the country. We are carrying out research and work with Natural England, and we hope that that will offer solutions for managing bats in the worst affected churches in the country and, most significantly, financial help in carrying out those plans. Such work does help. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) has in her constituency St Hilda’s church in Ellerburn, which has successfully excluded bats from the interior of the church, and has now allowed the congregation back in the building to worship. Adaptations are also being made to Natural England’s licensing system, which will make it easier for consultants to carry out licensed bat work in churches.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I raise this point with some trepidation as the right hon. Gentleman got very cross with me when I raised it in a Westminster Hall debate on the same topic, but does he not accept that the Bat Conservation Trust has been doing some good work with some churches in helping to enable bat populations to live side by side with congregations? In some instances there are ways of managing this without causing a problem. Does he support the trust’s work?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Bat Conservation Trust is a worthy partner, but it and the hon. Lady must accept that churches and cathedrals are not field barns; they are places of worship.

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

What about the Baldry conservation trust?

[Mr Speaker]

We are not talking about the Baldry conservation trust, Mr Sheerman.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the full might of the Church of England be deployed in support of the Bat Habitats Regulation Bill, which is due for a Second Reading on 16 January 2015? That Bill would protect churches and deregulate the system so that bats did not get a free ride inside our churches.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

As I think EU Commissioners have acknowledged, no one expected the EU habitats directive to cover places of worship.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for his solicitous concern about the number of years that the congregation was excluded and bats seemed to be given a higher right of entry to the church than the congregation. We tried to do as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) proposed—allowing bats in the roof, with the congregation below—but it was simply incompatible.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am glad that after all this time we have managed to solve the problem at St Hilda’s at Ellerburn. It demonstrates that with perseverance and working together with Natural England, it is possible to come up with a solution that enables congregations to worship but does not harm bats.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

When I opened the Christmas fair last Saturday in Wessington church, I had loads of conversations with everybody, including the vicar. Not once did they ever mention that there were bats around. It is just conceivable that the bats were not there because the beast of Bolsover was in the church.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

“Baldry on Bats” part 3 has not contemplated the idea of getting the hon. Gentleman around to every church that is infested with bats to exorcise them, but it is certainly worth considering.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. Who knows? There might be a debate on the matter. I call Mr Oliver Colvile. Not here.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

8. What guidance the Commissioners are providing to parishes wishing to hold hustings before the general election.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Church of England intends to partner with other local churches to put on hustings for the 2015 general election and will adapt guidance published by Churches Together in Britain and Ireland and other organisations for use in its parishes.

[Martin Vickers]

Churches Together was one of only two organisations that arranged meetings prior to the last election where all candidates appeared. It is vital that we do all we can to encourage such meetings. As well as guidance, can my right hon. Friend give any additional help and support to individual parishes or Churches Together to arrange such meetings?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that all guidance produced for parishes for hustings meetings at the general election will comply with both the Charity Commission regulations regarding political activity and those of the Electoral Commission. As some of us know from previous general elections, Churches Together is experienced in organising hustings meetings in constituencies across the country. Those have been widely welcomed because they enable questions to be put on issues that might not otherwise be raised during a general election campaign, and I very much hope that will happen as much as possible at the general election next year.

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

9. What support is available for churches in need of repairs.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

In the autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer kindly extended the listed places of worship grant scheme, for which I am extremely grateful. This will be a one-off grant of £15 million to enable listed church buildings of any denomination to apply for assistance with repairs to roofs and rainwater guttering.

[Mr Nuttall]

Can my right hon. Friend give the House any further details about the criteria for applying for a grant and what the deadline is? I understand that there is a fairly tight time scale in which churches must apply if they want to make use of the scheme.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is right. The time scale is quite tight. Any church that has problems with its roof or its guttering should apply for funding. There is a website, www.lpowroof.org.uk, which shows all the details. Grants are available from £10,000 to £100,000. Repairing roofs is often unglamorous but very necessary work and there are a number of churches that require repairs to their roof.

As this is the last Church Commissioners questions before Christmas and the last question before Christmas, may I share with the House an observation? I saw yesterday in St Ethelburga’s church in the City, an old Saxon church that was bombed by the IRA and rebuilt, on the eastern window the prayer, “O pray for the peace of Jerusalem”.

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Further to the reply that my right hon. Friend has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) about the rather challenging deadline for bids, 31 January is the date by which churches have to get in their bids and my right hon. Friend will understand that vicars have seasonal commitments during the next few weeks. Is there any flexibility in that deadline for those who cannot meet it?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

If my right hon. Friend has a church in his diocese that wants to submit a bid, I am sure that the diocesan advisory committee and the diocesan office in the diocese of Winchester will make quite sure that it is submitted properly and fully by the deadline.

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

I very much welcome the answer given by my right hon. Friend. The Holy Trinity church in Twydall in my constituency is in urgent need of repair and would qualify. Rather than having to look this up on the internet, have all churches been written to as a matter of urgency with an explanation of the criteria and how to apply for this funding?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I have written to every right hon. and hon. colleague in the House explaining how they apply for these funds, and the churches and cathedrals division in Church House has written to every bishop, archdeacon and diocesan advisory committee. So there can be no excuse for anyone within the machinery of the Church of England not understanding that these grants have been made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are there and ready to be taken up, and if any parish that has problems with a roof or guttering gets in touch with its diocesan office, it should be able to get a properly submitted bid in on time.

Housing Development in Cheadle

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

This is the petition of 884 residents in Cheadle in my constituency of Stone in Staffordshire in respect of housing development in Cheadle.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire,

Declares that residents of Cheadle oppose excessive levels of housing development; further that the Petitioners believe that the prospect of new site allocation plans is simply unacceptable; further that the Petitioners believe that permitting for 1,320 houses up to 2031 is still well above local demand and unworkable; further that the Petitioners believe that there is much opportunity to develop nearby regenerating sites and the Potteries with affordable housing in the heart of existing road, rail and canal infrastructure, while protecting the environment and agriculture; further that recent housing proposals have been submitted to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council to build up to 190 houses on land off Thorley Drive in Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe that the Thorley Drive site is inappropriate and it is currently a group of fields used, for example, for grazing; further that the Petitioners believe that the access to the Thorley Drive site is dangerous as it is already very difficult for drivers to get out of the end of Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe that the surrounding road network cannot support the increasing number of cars and traffic which relate to developing the town with housing completions and commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocation of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation of 240 dwellings north of Cheadle; and further that the Petitioners believe that there are not the facilities or the infrastructure in place for the proposed housing.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to intervene in this matter to ensure that housing proposals that sit outside of the currently identified sites for completions and commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocations of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation for 240 dwellings north of Cheadle are rejected over the planning period until 2031 and further that the Petitioners request that the House urges the local council to reduce the housing allocation for Cheadle, preferably by moving a percentage to the Potteries and with no further development of Greenfield sites.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001411]

NHS Dental Services in Walsall South

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The petition is from the residents of Park Hall, Walsall and others. A similar petition has been signed by 437 people.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners wish to be able to access NHS dental services at The Dentist Surgery, Liskeard Road, Walsall. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage NHS England to award an NHS dental services contract to The Dentist Surgery in Walsall.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001410]

Business of the House

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

10:31

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 15 December—Motion relating to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014, followed by consideration in Committee of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (day 2).

Tuesday 16 December—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill.



Wednesday 17 December—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be debates on Opposition motions including one entitled “The Immediate Abolition of the Bedroom Tax”.



Thursday 18 December—Statement on the publication of the fourth report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on the operation of the national planning policy framework, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.



Friday 19 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 5 January 2015 will include:

Monday 5 January—Second Reading of the Serious Crime Bill [Lords].

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 18 December will be:

Thursday 18 December—General debate on business investment in outer-city estates, followed by a general debate on the future of Carnforth station.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business and the business for the first day back in 2015. I also thank him for the debate that he has granted for Monday on the firefighters pension scheme.

On Wednesday, we will once more stage a debate on the pernicious and cruel bedroom tax. Will the Leader of the House assure us that if the House votes again to scrap the tax, he will actually act and abolish it?

This week, the Government achieved the dubious distinction of losing its 100th vote in the Lords. They were defeated for the second time on their plans to curtail judicial review, and four former Tory Cabinet Ministers voted against them. This was after the Justice Secretary had to admit that he did not understand his own Bill, and in an humiliating apology correct his assertion in this House that clause 64 maintained judicial discretion when it does not.

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether his Government will now see sense and accept the Lords amendments? After losing yet another judicial review last week, should not the Justice Secretary now accept that instead of trying to abolish judicial challenge, he should just get on top of his brief and stop trying to implement unlawful policies?

A week after the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the mask has slipped and his baleful plan for Britain’s future has become clear. He has failed every test and broken every promise he made on the economy, including his promise to balance the books before the election next year. He hoped we would not notice the choice that he has made to cut public spending to 35% of gross domestic product, which would take us back to levels reminiscent of the 1930s before we had the NHS or a social safety net.

In the week when we were reminded that 4 million people in our country are now at risk of going hungry, it seems that the Tory solution is to blame the victims and tell those who cannot afford to feed their families that they do not know how to cook. We all know that the real problem is low wages and in-work poverty. Instead of their ideological obsession with destroying 60 years of social progress, what we really need is a fair and balanced deficit reduction programme that combines common-sense savings with an effective growth strategy. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on these competing visions for the future of our country?

The Tory Chief Whip has had yet another bad week. It seems that some of his ministerial colleagues took his declaration of a three-day week a little too literally. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was so amazed that he needed to be here on a Thursday that he very nearly missed his own debate on the Government’s flagship stamp duty policy. However, a generous offer from the Work and Pensions Secretary to lead the debate in his absence was enough to send him sprinting down Whitehall from the Treasury. While Government Back Benchers wasted time with points of order, he eventually arrived, flustered and visibly out of breath. What on earth were the Government Whips doing? Were they playing Candy Crush on their iPads? The Chief Whip is always bunking off; when he is here, he is causing trouble at the back of the class; and he never does his homework. I think the Education Secretary would be very happy to put him in detention.

The autumn statement appears to have had a peculiar effect on the Liberal Democrats. The Business Secretary told the Cabinet that it was “excellent”, with “Lib Dem fingerprints all over it”, before getting others to brief the newspapers that he really thinks that the cuts are simply not achievable. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury happily signed it off as a member of the quad, but then he called it

“a mix of unfunded tax promises, harsh spending plans and pandering to UKIP.”

The Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is proud of the autumn statement, but he was so desperate to distance himself from it that he fled 300 miles to Land’s End. We are all used to celebrities having “show-mances” to make the front page of Hello! magazine, but this must be the first time in history that two partners have attempted a “show-vorce”. They are leaking lurid details of their rows to the papers, and they have moved into separate rooms in No. 10 so that they can spin against each other. They have even resorted to “masosadism”—inflicting pain on each other while inflicting pain on themselves at the same time.

The Liberal Democrats must think that we have all fallen off a Christmas tree. Their cynical choreography has now reached such ridiculous levels that I am told that they are forming a Cabinet within a Cabinet in order to shadow their own Government’s Cabinet, and I bet there are still no women in it. It is less like Candy Crush and more like parliamentary zombie apocalypse.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Welcome back, Angela!

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we welcome back the shadow Leader of the House. We were entertained last week by her deputy, but mainly at his expense, so it is good for her party that she is back. She invented one or two new words in her question—[Interruption.] Well, to pick up on the Prime Minister’s invention a couple of weeks ago, we on the Government side know the definitions between those words: sadism is when the shadow Chancellor insists on giving us a speech; and masochism is when we ask him to read it out again.

The hon. Lady noted the debate on the firefighters pension scheme, which we have of course found time for next Monday. She asked about the spare room subsidy, which in our view is a basic matter of fairness, as has been explained many times. That will be discussed in the debate next Wednesday. She asked about the Government’s 100th defeat in the House of Lords in the course of this Parliament, which certainly shows a certain independence in the upper House, but of course that does not mean that the Government agree with its conclusions. It is crucial that judicial review continues to hold public authorities to account for the right reasons. In the Government’s view, the reforms strike a fair balance between limiting the potential for abuse of judicial review and protecting its vital role as a check on public authorities. We are disappointed by the outcome of the votes in the Lords and will now consider our next steps before the Bill returns to this House.

The hon. Lady attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for failing every test on the economy. Is not one of the tests reducing the huge deficit that was left behind by the previous Administration? Is not one of the tests reducing unemployment to a much lower level than we were left with? Is not one of the tests having 2 million apprentices in this country that we did not have before? Is not one of the tests keeping inflation under control? Should not one of the tests be having the fastest growing economy in the G7, as now confirmed by the OECD? I am not sure what the Opposition think the tests are if they think they have been failed. Those are the key tests of a successful economy, and they have come about only under this Government. She referred to poverty. The official figures show a reduction of 600,000 people living in relative poverty in the past four and a half years, including 100,000 in the past year. Only a continuation of our approach will succeed in continuing to reduce it.

The hon. Lady aligned her questions with the speech that the Leader of the Opposition is meant to be giving today, for which we should be grateful. It is clear that he has now finally remembered the deficit but is unable to think of anything to do about it. We understand from the now published recollections of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), that the Leader of the Opposition does not get “much of a look-in” from the shadow Chancellor on economic policy. That is exactly the same kind of dysfunctional relationship that we saw in the previous Labour Government, and it ended up with Britain having its biggest budget deficit in peacetime history. If Labour Members have now finally remembered the deficit, I hope they will choose it as one of their subjects for next week’s Opposition day debate, because then we can ask them why, if they believe that the deficit should be lower, they have opposed the entire £83 billion of welfare savings in this Parliament. That would be a debate to look forward to.

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Next week, will my right hon. Friend be publishing a Command Paper and making a statement to the House on English votes for English laws? Can he confirm that every party aspiring to government after the next election has addressed the English question? Will he promise that we will have a debate and an early vote on the options?

[Mr Hague]

I do intend to publish a Command Paper next week setting out options on, among other things, the question of English votes for English laws, and I will certainly seek to make a statement about that. The same three parties that contributed their policies to the Command Paper on Scotland were asked to contribute to this Command Paper. So far, there has been no sign of the official Opposition supplying any policies or ideas to put into it, and it will therefore reflect the views of the two parties in the coalition. I hope that we can have an early debate and, indeed, a vote on these issues in the new year.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, the Austrian Government put on a conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and some Members of this House attended it. More importantly, 158 states were present, including the United Kingdom. Given that we are a major nuclear weapons state, will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on the outcomes of the conference and the humanitarian consequences of the possession of nuclear weapons?

[Mr Hague]

These are of course important issues in which the right hon. Lady has a long-standing interest. Members of this House called for the United Kingdom to attend that conference, including at business questions, and I am therefore sure that the House will be pleased to note that the United Kingdom did so. There has always been a good case, over the decades, to debate these issues. I cannot offer such a debate at the moment given the business that we face, but she may wish to make representations to the Backbench Business Committee.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on energy bills and the subsidy of low-carbon energy? The Committee on Climate change has said that households already pay an average of £45 a year to support low-carbon power, and that that will rise to £100 in 2020 and £175 in 2030. In such a debate, we could highlight the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who has campaigned lots on high energy bills and the cost of living crisis, was responsible for the high energy bills and the cost of living crisis in the first place, because he set these increased energy bills in train when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and introduced the Climate Change Act 2008.

[Mr Hague]

It is certainly true that energy bills rose sharply under the previous Government. This Government have taken action to ensure that people can buy their electricity on the lowest tariff and recently introduced policies that will bring about a reduction in energy bills. There will be questions to the Department of Energy and Climate Change next Tuesday, so my hon. Friend will have an earlier opportunity even than a debate to raise the wider issues of renewable energy with Ministers.

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

Wednesday’s debate on the bedroom tax should be very interesting indeed. I remember when Tory MPs always referred to the poll tax as a community tax. Be that as it may, has the Leader of the House been given any indication of how the Liberal Democrats intend to vote next Wednesday? If they are so keen to separate themselves from the Tories, this is their opportunity to do so by voting against the bedroom tax.

[Mr Hague]

I am sure the Liberal Democrats are able to express their own views on how they will vote in any debate. I will point out again that in the Government’s view this is a basic issue of fairness. For someone living in private rented accommodation and in receipt of housing benefit, these rules applied under the whole of the previous Labour Government and we had a situation whereby neighbouring households could be treated unequally. Those points will, of course, be made in the debate.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

A report last week showed that Yorkshire got a £102 million boost from hosting the Tour de France in May, and I am delighted to have been involved in the bid that will mean that a leg of the Tour of Britain cycle race will come to Pendle and Ribble Valley next September. Could we have a debate on cycling, which would cover everything from continuing to fund Bikeability in schools to supporting fantastic British companies in the industry such as Hope Technology in Barnoldswick and Carradice cycle bags in Nelson?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend has some great businesses in this sector in his constituency and I have seen on visits to his constituency the great enterprise of his local business community. Cycling is phenomenally popular in Britain—I think we are now second only to Germany in the number of bikes sold each year in Europe. The Tour de France was certainly a great economic boost for Yorkshire. I wish my hon. Friend well with the work he is doing to make sure that further benefits come to Pendle. He is, of course, able to make the case for debates on such issues to the Backbench Business Committee.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Britain is suffering from major problems with addiction: there has been another report this week about the problems of gambling machines and addictive gambling; there are reports today about addiction to prescription drugs; and we have serious problems with alcohol, illegal drugs and even food. Is it not time that the Government gave time for a substantial debate on all of those issues and how the Government are going to address our major problems with addiction?

[Mr Hague]

Those are very important issues—I absolutely acknowledge that and agree with the hon. Gentleman. Most of them have been debated in the House at one stage or another, but they remain very serious problems here and, of course, in many other nations as well. I cannot offer a debate in Government time, given that the time allocated for such debates is generally controlled by the Backbench Business Committee, but the hon. Gentleman has made his case and I am sure he will continue to do so.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I first thank the Leader of the House for announcing a debate on the firefighters pension scheme following calls for such a debate from Members on both sides of the House last week? May I also ask him to allay the outrageous slur by the shadow Leader of the House that, because of the autumn statement, Liberal Democrats are saying one thing here and another thing elsewhere? Could he ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement to the House next week—if he can persuade him to come here—to confirm that that is an absolute slur, because Liberal Democrats have always said one thing here and another thing elsewhere? [Laughter.]

[Mr Hague]

We thought an end to the question similar to that was coming. At least the Liberal Democrats are not now saying one thing in one place and another thing in another place at the same time, which is perhaps an improvement on some past episodes. The Deputy Prime Minister gave very clear answers yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions—extremely clear, and actually extremely good answers—to all the questions asked by the Opposition. The answers included a clarification that the autumn statement was a statement for the whole coalition Government, with policies that we are pleased Liberal Democrats are also committed to.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Bearing in mind the debate next week on firefighters pensions, will the Leader of the House consider another item directly related to older people—the extension of the warm home discount scheme to Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is the only region in the UK that does not have such a scheme. In its fuel poverty statistics methodology, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has described fuel poverty as “a partially devolved matter”. May we have a debate on that partially devolved matter, and on extending the scheme to Northern Ireland?

[Mr Hague]

I think the hon. Lady has succeeded in raising the issue in the House without having a debate. I cannot offer any debates in addition to next week’s business, but questions to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will take place next Thursday, and she will no doubt wish to pursue the issue with the Northern Ireland Office and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Executive.

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

The Government said that they would review the decriminalisation of single dispensing errors by pharmacists. As my right hon. Friend knows, pharmacists can be sent to prison for such errors, but general practitioners do not have to face prosecution. The Government seem to be taking an age on this change, so may we have a statement or, for that matter, a debate to clarify when it will take place?

[Mr Hague]

We remain committed to removing the criminal sanction on inadvertent dispensing errors by pharmacists, but the issue is complex and it is vital to get it right. I am not sure that a debate is necessary at this stage, as there will in due course be a consultation on the proposals. I will inform the Ministers handling this matter of my hon. Friend’s concern that it should be done as quickly as possible.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), next February the Government will host a meeting of the declared nuclear weapon states in London ahead of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference next May, which unfortunately coincides with our general election. What plans do the Government have to make a statement to the House ahead of the P5 meeting in February, and will there be an opportunity to debate the British Government’s position ahead of the NPT review conference next May? The issues are obviously extremely important if we aspire to bringing about a nuclear weapons-free world.

[Mr Hague]

These are very important issues. The last NPT review conference in 2010 straddled the last general election, but that did not stop this country making an important and very positive contribution to it, and Members from all parties will want us to do so again. There will of course be several opportunities to question Foreign Office Ministers in the House before then, but I will certainly point out to them the interest shown in the House about having clarity on the Government’s approach to the forthcoming conference before the general election.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Please may we have a debate on apprenticeships? This week, we have passed the significant landmark of 2 million apprenticeship starts in this Parliament. More than 2,000 of them have been in my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency in the past two years alone. This week, there has also been an announcement about changes to the careers advice service to put a bit more emphasis on apprenticeships and vocational learning. If we had a debate, we could explore what more can be done to encourage people to consider apprenticeships as part of their future.

[Mr Hague]

This week the 2 millionth apprenticeship has indeed been reached, and such apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s drive to equip people of all ages with the skills that employers need to grow and compete. A further boost was provided, particularly for young apprentices, in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, and despite the efforts of Labour Members to deride them, such apprenticeships are real jobs with training. The locations and sectors where apprenticeships are available are determined by employers offering apprenticeships and recruiting apprentices, and there is a good case for a debate on the issue. I cannot offer one at the moment, but my hon. Friend may wish to make the case to the Backbench Business Committee.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Yesterday, Luton Town football club became the first league club to start paying everybody it employs, including subcontractors, the living wage. May we have a debate on why the really wealthy clubs—Luton is obviously not one of them—cannot also pay their staff the living wage?

[Mr Hague]

I cannot add to the debates currently before the House, but the hon. Lady has made her point and I hope that other football clubs will take note.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the House is currently awaiting the Government’s formal response to the review by Sir John Jenkins on the Muslim Brotherhood. Will that review be made available to the public in full, and if not, why not, and will he agree to a debate in Government time to discuss the Government’s official response?

[Mr Hague]

That work was requested by the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary—that is me. It is a report to the Prime Minister—no longer to me since I have moved position—and no decision has been taken on its publication. I will update my hon. Friend on that report so that he is fully aware of the position.

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

May I ask the Leader of the House for an early debate on home schooling when the House returns after Christmas? For many people home schooling is a good way of educating their child, but for many others it is not. Has he seen the estimates that suggest we do not know where up to 100,000 children in our country are, what curriculum they are pursuing, or about their supervision, safety and security? In an age when we are ever more worried about child abuse and child protection, may we have an early debate, because that area has got out of hand?

[Mr Hague]

I can see the case for such a debate. As the hon. Gentleman said, we live in an age in which we are extremely concerned about child protection. An important conference is taking place on that this week, and the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have announced further initiatives to protect children from abuse. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and I am sure he will make the case either for an Adjournment debate or for the Backbench Business Committee to table a motion on that issue.

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

Recently I picked up a card in the restaurant for vegan month, and we have also had vegetarian week. The Leader of the House is a great believer in fair play, so given that excellent beef and lamb is produced on grass throughout the country, which helps to keep our green and pleasant land the way it is, could we have a red meat month so that we can eat red meat sustainably?

[Mr Hague]

Every month is red meat month as far as I am concerned, and I always think it does me a lot of good. My hon. Friend makes a good case. We have a wonderful industry in this country, including an excellent beef farming sector, and its success is important to agriculture and the country’s overall prosperity. I will always do my best to promote its success, but whether we can institute a red meat month will be a matter for wider discussion among the House authorities.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is standing down at the next election, so could we see more of his true self during business statements? When he and I were

“young and easy under the apple boughs”

many decades ago, he had a visceral dislike of the Liberals and the Social Democrats. If the Liberal Democrats cannot even be bothered to turn up to business questions, does he agree that they should receive the same treatment that they meted out to poor people who have a spare room in their home, and be evicted at the next general election?

[Mr Hague]

I am surrounded by the Deputy Leader of the House, who is a Liberal Democrat, and the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the deputy Chief Whip and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, who is also a Liberal Democrat, so I think it is a little unfair to say that Liberal Democrats do not turn up for business questions, although it cannot be said that a lot of Liberal Democrats have turned up to ask questions. When the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and I were students, we made common cause in ensuring that Liberals and the SDP were not very successful at Oxford university in the early 1980s, but circumstances change. There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests, as has often been said.

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

In July, my constituents, Eve Michell and Shannon Rudden from Rainham Mark grammar school, attended the Government’s YouthforChange event, which encourages young people to get more involved in the international movement for girls’ rights. May we have statement on what plans the Government have to build on that success?

[Mr Hague]

I cannot offer an immediate statement, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. The Government will want to continue to support such initiatives, and to commend the good work taking place in so many parts of the world, to which he rightly draws attention.

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

On Monday, I attended the launch of the first direct flight from Manchester airport to China. I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating all those involved in securing that, including Cathay Pacific. With the Davies commission due to report in a few months, and with Treasury civil servants scurrying around working out the staggering public subsidy that will be required if a third runway at Heathrow is the decision, will the Leader of the House, as a fellow northern MP, bring the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Secretary of State for Transport to the House to explain to them that, pound for pound, it would be a better use of public money to spend it between the Mersey and the Humber estuary than on the public subsidy for Heathrow, which will make the northern powerhouse look like a drop in the ocean?

[Mr Hague]

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating everyone involved in ensuring that there is a direct service from Manchester to China. I hope it will be an extremely well used and successful route. We need airports in the north of England to be more successful, building on the success of Manchester, for the northern powerhouse concept to be successful. As he will know, the Government have announced a great deal of transport infrastructure investment in the north. I would differ from him on only one point: it is my belief that if regional airports are to be successful, it is important that there is additional airport capacity in the south-east of England, because without that, the regional airports lose their landing slots in key UK hubs. For the north to succeed, therefore, we also need the airports of the south-east to succeed. We need both.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what more the Government can do to reduce the illegal trade in wildlife—sensible actions that this country can take, although we do not necessarily need more regulation, which can have unintended consequences—following the conference that my right hon. Friend attended with the Duke of Cambridge earlier this week?

[Mr Hague]

There is a very good case for such a debate, and I hope my hon. Friend will make that case to the Backbench Business Committee. This country and companies based in this country can do a lot to prevent the smuggling of illegally obtained wildlife products. That trade is feeding corruption and even terrorism in other parts of the world, and is a moral outrage. I was happy on Monday to join His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge in Washington. He has asked me to chair the transportation industry taskforce on the issue, and I have been very happy to take that on.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Returning to the theme of saying one thing and doing another, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), may we have a debate in Government time on the impact of VAT increases on the UK economy? The Leader of the House will be aware that, before the election, the leader of the Conservative party categorically ruled out such increases, but he then introduced them. They are having a huge impact on small businesses in my community—my constituency—and particularly on the retail sector and restaurants. When a party of four go out for a meal, they have to take the Chancellor with them and pay his bill.

[Mr Hague]

The Chancellor had to take action on the vast deficit we were left by the previous Government. Yes, VAT was increased, but since then inflation has come down and even more businesses have been created. The figures released in the past three weeks show that there are 760,000 businesses operating in the country, the largest number we have ever known, and it is very important to bear that in mind. Businesses are succeeding and the deficit has come down.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

The UK currently faces a shortage of HGV drivers. One of my constituents, Mark, is an HGV driver. He contacted me to tell me—in fact, he showed me photographs—about the disgusting facilities that he and his colleagues have to endure at motorway service stations during their regulated breaks. May we have a debate on whether the Government should intervene to improve these essential facilities, and on whether to fund driver training for hauliers to attract much-needed new drivers into the industry?

[Mr Hague]

The Government accept that there is an issue with the recruitment of HGV drivers, which is a significant concern to the industry. We welcome the steps that the industry has taken to recruit a new generation of hauliers. The Government are working with the industry to identify ways to improve the situation. On facilities, there is a Department for Transport circular requiring all motorway service areas and truck stops that are signed on, or from, a strategic road network to offer free toilets with hand-washing facilities and free parking for two hours, so I hope there will be an improvement. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this matter.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

May I just ask the hon. Lady whether she has been here throughout?

[Miss McIntosh]

I slipped out to get a report, Mr Speaker, but I was here at the beginning.

[Mr Speaker]

We cannot have Members slipping out, but on this occasion we will accommodate the hon. Lady, who is an illustrious denizen of the House.

[Miss McIntosh]

The report is pertinent to my request, but I will take note and behave better in future, Mr Speaker.

Will my right hon. Friend find Government time to debate the recent annual report from the Government chief scientific adviser, “Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it”, which concludes that, like thalidomide and asbestos, fracking could carry unforeseen risks? Such a profound allegation should be considered in Government time before any fracking applications are considered locally.

[Mr Hague]

These are important issues. Hon. Members from all parties have strong views for or against fracking, and on the policies necessary to carry it out correctly. There will be questions to the Department of Energy and Climate Change next week, so that is the earliest opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the matter further in the House.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will have noted the recent report from the Environmental Audit Committee, on which the Government have a majority, which supported the Labour party’s policy for a national framework for low emission zones to combat air pollution. I know there is pressure on Government business and that the Leader of the House will be reluctant to make time for such a debate, but could he perhaps just announce from the Dispatch Box now that the Government also agree with the Labour party’s policy on air pollution?

[Mr Hague]

I think the Ministers responsible might get a little anxious if I made off-the-cuff announcements about changing Government policy on the spur of the moment, so I will resist the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation to do so. It is open to him—as I have said to other hon. Members, particularly in relation to a Select Committee report—to pursue the case for a debate with the Backbench Business Committee. That is partly what Backbench Business and Westminster Hall debates are for, so I encourage him to pursue the matter in that way.

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

Next year, we will have almost reached the 100th anniversary of the murder of 1.5 million Armenians. May we have a debate on that issue?

[Mr Hague]

There is always a good case for a proper understanding of history—I am a great proponent of that—and that requires its discussion. We will be commemorating many events a century on over the next few years through the centennial anniversaries of the first world war, but I cannot offer a debate specifically on the subject that my hon. Friend raises, although I know it evokes strong feelings in this country and many other countries, so he might need to pursue the matter in other ways.

Points of Order

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

11:10

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you give the House some guidance? Quite rightly, there are certain barriers and hurdles that you put up before granting an urgent question, but in recent weeks I have noticed the increasing number of statements that the Government are making. What hurdles do the Government have to clear? Time after time, we find we do not have time for Bills and that the Government do not announce Bills or meetings at important conferences; instead, they make these pie-in-the-sky, “this is what we’re going to do about roads, rail, health” statements. It is not a genuine use of the House’s time. They are manipulating the timetable to promote policies for the next general election. What advice can you give the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, because it is important to be clear about the constitutional position on these matters. Urgent questions are decided by the Speaker, and there are criteria that inform the decision, but the making of a statement by a Minister is a matter for the Minister; it is not within the purview of the Speaker. There is a courtesy that the Minister will tend to begin by saying, “With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on—”, but that, I emphasise, is a parliamentary courtesy. The decision to volunteer a statement is a decision for the Government. I think the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman’s complaint is that this is not a good use, in every case, of the House’s time. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, but it is one reason why many people have favoured the creation of a House business committee, to which I know the Government have long been committed, but which is yet to materialise—but I am sure it is only a matter of time.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you provide some clarification regarding money resolutions for private Members’ Bills? In answer to questions I have put to the Leader of the House, he has informed the House that money resolutions have not been laid because the two parts of the coalition cannot agree on whether they should be approved. Surely, by tradition, a money resolution should automatically be laid if a private Member’s Bill gets a Second Reading, and then it is up to the House to approve it. Should not the money resolutions be laid automatically?

[Mr Speaker]

The norms regarding the laying of money resolutions for Bills that have secured a Second Reading do not currently apply. Yes, what the hon. Gentleman describes was the norm in the past, but that norm predated the coalition Government—[Interruption.] Although his brow is furrowed, he knows the essence of this matter is that government has to be seamless. The Leader of the House has explained to him that unless there is Government agreement, a money resolution will not be tabled. The truth is that the hon. Gentleman’s concern relates to a particular Bill—

[Mr Bone]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, he might have a wider concern. However, there are people in the Government who would be happy to table a money resolution for the Bill he wants to see progress, but not for another Bill, and the Liberal Democrats take precisely the opposite position. The Leader of the House will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the thrust of what I have said is accurate.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is an interested party in these matters, but I hope he is not seeking to continue the debate. If he has a genuine point of order, we are all agog.

[Andrew George]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the intro. I think there is a matter at stake here that should detain this House because the pre-eminence of Parliament is being challenged, in the sense that the Government are defying the will of Parliament by refusing to grant, or rather to table, money resolutions in respect of private Members’ Bills. What the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I are seeking to achieve through your advice and support, Mr Speaker, is to ensure that the will of this Parliament is respected, and that the Government can be challenged when they refuse, as they have chosen to refuse, to table a money resolution in support of private Members’ Bills that have the clear support of this Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I would be very sympathetic to somebody else being able to table the money resolution in compliance with, and following on from, the Second Reading approval by the House. However, such a right does not currently exist, and the Speaker cannot create it. I think the fairest thing I can say, with very considerable sympathy for the hon. Gentleman and for the hon. Member for Wellingborough, is that Leader of the House is in place and has, appropriately enough, an air of gravitas about him. He has heard what has been said and he is weighing the matters in his scholarly cranium, and we may hear further and better particulars in due course—or not, as the case may be. We will leave it there for now.

Backbench Business

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Fishing Industry

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Twentieth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Documents considered by the Committee on 19 November 2014, HC 219-xix, Chapter 2]

11:16

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.

May I first express my delight in moving this motion and opening this debate, which is a great honour? I have participated in more fishing debates in 38 years than Britain has had quota cuts in its fishing catches, and I am afraid that it has always been a long-term rearguard action to prevent the decline of fishing. Such rearguard action has gone on ever since Prime Minister Ted Heath abandoned British fishing to the common fisheries policy. The fishing industry became, in the words of a Scottish Office Minister, “disposable”. Equal access to our common resource signalled a smaller and far less powerful British industry, and it inevitably precipitated endless haggling, with British Ministers fighting for our fishing.

We have had these annual debates, in which we always voice the problems of our fishing industry in different areas and try to incite Ministers to go away and fight for fishing. Ministers have said, for example, that they were going to fight for Britain in the December European Council meeting at Brussels and come back proclaiming victory—yet fishing continues to decline. They have not proclaimed a victory as complete as Ted Heath’s under the Maastricht treaty, which claimed game, set and match to Britain. That is a facetious point about Europe as an introduction to what I really want to say.

We have fought a rearguard action, which is now reaching its nadir. The forthcoming Council in December threatens a disaster for the industry because the conservation campaigners are proposing 40 quota cuts, with only 27 remaining stable or being increased. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has called this a “breathtaking galaxy of cuts”, which will decimate the industry, so we are at a turning-point because the cuts to quotas threaten the viability of the fishing industry, especially the English fishing industry. The Scottish industry is inevitably stronger because it is nearer the fishing grounds and is better protected by its Ministers and its Government than the English industry has been.

There is a particular threat to the south-west, which will suffer the brunt of the cuts. If the cuts go ahead, there will not be enough quota to maintain a viable, profitable fishing industry throughout the year, and the industry will be forced to reconstruct itself by means of bankruptcy rather than decommissioning, or any other sensible policy. What has happened to the Bristol channel is a standing warning of the fate that will overtake the industry if the cuts proceed. Endless cuts have led to minute quotas, forcing the big vessels out and tying up the smaller ones. Many fishermen have gone bankrupt, and the only processing factory in the area has closed down. The cuts pose a threat that what has happened to the Bristol channel will happen all over the country.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the quota cuts continue year on year, the fishing industry in the south-west could be completely wiped out, like the long-distance fishermen for whom he has a history of fighting?

[Austin Mitchell]

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. That is the danger that I want to avoid. I am inciting the Minister to fight to protect the industry in order to prevent that eventuality, because what happened to the Bristol channel must not be allowed to happen to the rest of the country.

The prospects for the wider industry following the European Council meeting are gloomy indeed. The problems are compounded not just by cuts in the total allowable catches, but by the discard ban, which is to be introduced in two stages. That will be very messy and difficult. I believe that a discard ban is impossible unless every fishing vessel is equipped with closed-circuit television so that catches can be monitored. Alternatively, perhaps we could send unemployed Methodist Ministers to serve as observers on all the vessels—and Church of Scotland Ministers to serve on the Scottish vessels—to give us an honest account of what is going on.

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

I have long been an admirer of my hon. Friend, who is passionate about this subject. He has always said that it is possible for this country to have a healthy, vibrant fishing industry which also protects marine conservation and the environment. Will he reassert that view?

[Austin Mitchell]

That is exactly right. That is what I want to achieve, as will emerge from my speech, whether it proves to be passionate, discursive or very boring.

As I have said, the problems caused by the cuts will be compounded by the discard ban, which will be unenforceable. Moreover, if fish are to be expensively dumped in landfill rather than being discarded at sea, we shall need more ports at which to land them, and we do not have those ports, because they are being closed. In Lowestoft, for instance, everything has closed down. That, in turn, will be compounded by the landing requirements, which have not yet been specified because of the process of co-decision making. All that is compounded further by the rush to marine conservation areas. Conservationists want 127 of them, which is just daft. It is excessive. Those conservation areas will create a patchwork quilt of different regulations and requirements in different parts of the North sea, with which the fishing industry will find it impossible to comply.

Why are we faced with all this? We are faced with it because the common fisheries policy was not revised in the way in which it should have been in the recent 20-year revision. That revision provided an opportunity for power to be transferred to the regions and the regional advisory councils, and for the industry to control its own fishing, policing itself and maintaining its own stability. However, Brussels would not give up control. The result is that the policy is still controlled by diktat from the top and is enforced in the different areas. It is still decided on quotas and, if we have quotas, we are going to get discards, because those in mixed fisheries will catch fish that are not on their quota, and what is going to happen to them? The more they cut quotas, the greater the discards. We will face that problem as a result of this Council.

The common fisheries policy has always been enforced through political imperative. In the past it was the political imperative of doling out paper fish to all the states in the EU. Each got a catch, and inevitably the result was overfishing, with fish created to please the politicians and to be given to national entities. The political imperative has now changed; it is now to propitiate the conservation lobby, which is playing far too big a part in policy decisions, as opposed to the interests and concerns of commercial fishing and having a viable fishing industry. The conservation lobby is playing a part because it is strong in the European Parliament, which is the home of playaway politics and funny politics of all kinds.

Clearly, the conservation lobby has been very persuasive in the European Parliament. That is a sad change. I remember that 10 years ago the World Wide Fund for Nature and the British fishing industry co-operated in developing a plan for fishing that would lead to investment and, therefore, build towards a sustainable fleet and a sustainable catch, which is what we needed. We did not get the investment money from Government, however, so the conservation groups have moved on and are now demanding the close-down of the commercial industry, or restrictions on it that are so great that it will be impossible for it to carry on.

The conservationists are painting a picture of our seas being fished out by rapacious overfishing. It takes no account of overfishing by other countries, however, because we cannot effectively control our own waters if they are subject to incursions by other fishing fleets, which ours are. That was the argument that we had about bass in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago. It was an argument about whether the leisure industry, the returns on which are compounded by including hotel bills and travel and all sorts of expenses, produces a bigger economic return than the commercial fishing of bass, and it left out the French rapacious overfishing of bass and took no account of the French decimation of the stock. Similarly, discussion of the shellfish—lobster and crab—fisheries off Yorkshire took no account of the smashing of the pots of Yorkshire fishermen by French trawlers, which has been taking place.

We cannot have the kind of conservation policy that the conservationists want unless we have national enforcement in national waters, because the nation state has that interest in conservation. If we have a collective policy in which other people cheat and are given excessive quotas, which they maintain and defend, it is difficult to do what the conservationists want, which is to let the stocks build up.

The aim has been to cut down on commercial fishing in order to build the stocks and support the small boat industry. I have in my hand one of the pamphlets, with a touching picture on the cover. It is entitled, “Championing coastal waters and communities”. Small boat fishing and commercial fishing are not necessarily at each other’s throats, however. Both are essential. Small boat fisheries do not go much more than 12 nautical miles out. They are not catching the kind of fish caught by commercial fisheries—high-volume, low-return fish such as herring. They are not supplying the markets in the same way as the commercial fishermen are, so while it is necessary to support the small boat industry and fishing communities, it is also necessary to support and maintain commercial fishing.

The conservationists are trying to create panic and a fear that we are going to decimate our waters and cut down on commercial fishing. They are being financed by American money: $50 million has been provided for campaigning by the Pew organisation, plus another grant from the Oak Foundation. That is why the campaign is so well-oiled, so vociferous and so effective. The British fishing industry does not have the resources to combat that kind of propaganda. The campaigners want to tie the industry down.

The conservationists have an admirable ideal, which I share. We have to achieve sustainable fishing with a fleet that is matched to the fishing opportunities, but we will not achieve that through the brutal enforcement of targets using excessive haste. A term much used by Grimsby fishermen is “festina lente”—take it slowly. I say to the conservationists, let us do this in rational, reasonable, slow steps. Or, as the Prime Minister would say, “Calm down, dears!” Fishing has changed. It is no longer done by the kind of rapacious privateers that we used to see. Stocks are building up, and fishing mortality has halved in the north Atlantic since 2000. The amount of discards has also been halved through technical conservation measures, which is the most effective way of doing that. We are also seeing the biomass building up, very slowly in some cases but very fast in others. Look at North sea plaice: it is now abundant, and the biomass is at its highest level ever. Five years ago, North sea plaice was a threatened species. So there can be a rapid turnaround, and that turnaround is now going on, so let us take it as it comes. Let us balance the cuts with the development of the stocks.

We need to have sustainable catches, but we also need a sustainable industry. That does not mean just the small boat industry; it involves the commercial fishing industry as well. Grimsby has moved from being the world’s premier fishing port. I used to boast about that when I was first elected, but it is not a consequence of my election that it has gone from that to having perhaps only 20 boats. However, some of those boats are doing a good commercial job. Some are catching flatfish, for example. Large, tied vessels are catching North sea plaice and maintaining continuity of supply to the market. We need to sustain both: the small boats and the large, commercial vessels.

If these cuts go ahead as prophesied, the effect will be to decimate the small boat industry. It will be more serious than the conservationists envisage. We need profitable companies and profitable small boats. So why rush into the measures proposed for this coming year? Let us postpone the multiple sustainable yield target. Ministers have the latitude to postpone it to 2020, rather than introducing it in 2015. I urge them to postpone it, to maintain catches without cuts and to bring in the discard ban slowly and more partially—species by species—rather than promptly and all at once. We should let the build-up of stocks continue, and match the effort to that rather than to some target ordained in advance that is perhaps unreachable by 2015.

I urge the Minister, as we always do on these occasions, to resist the scale of cuts that has been proposed. I urge him to proclaim the need for both a sustainable industry and for us to develop a system—unlike this dictatorial one of setting quotas from the top and then enforcing them on the British industry—that listens to fishing and to the regional advisory councils. They are the biggest advance, and a necessary one, in giving us regional control, regional targets and a regional management system. We need to involve the fishermen more in their research. We need to open up to the industry the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which is far too secretive and far too scientific. The industry knows where the fish are and ICES does not necessarily have the same scale of knowledge. We need to stop trying to bully the fishing industry to fit into someone else’s plans, be it those for political union or for a conservation heaven achieved overnight.

We need to help the fishing industry; let us not restructure it by bankruptcy. Fishing has an interest in having a sustainable catch and a sustainable industry, because that is the interest of future generations. If we destroy our interest—if we cut down fishing drastically now and stop the training, the family connections, the growth of communities dependent on fishing and the investment by companies that has gone on—we are not going to be able to restore the industry later. So let the industry get involved in the management of the stocks. Let us recognise that it has a future and work to preserve it. Let the industry develop in its own way, rather than imposing these excessive cuts on it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman brought his speech to an unexpectedly sudden close, but we are extremely grateful to him. Let us hear from Mrs Sheryll Murray.

11:36

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is an absolute honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who has represented fishermen across the UK in this House for, as he said, 38 years. At this time of year, we should remember the wives and families of those fishermen who have lost their lives, and I ask colleagues to join me in paying tribute to them today. I also wish to thank the maritime rescue services, particularly the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the coastguard, and to pay tribute to the work of the Fishermen’s Mission, Seafarers UK and other welfare services that provide for our fishermen. Indeed, I am throwing myself into the sea to raise money for the Fishermen’s Mission on 1 January, so please think of me.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman and I am so glad that he opened today’s debate. I wish to thank both him and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for the way in which they have represented fishermen over so many years. Indeed, I have worked with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby for many years, particularly while working on behalf of Save Britain’s Fish, and I still believe today that UK fishermen would be better off out of the disgraceful common fisheries policy—I have often referred to it as the completely foolish policy. I believe that his greatest achievement was to introduce the Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Amendment Bill. I believe that had it been successful, the fishing industry would not have declined as it has over the past decade.

I now wish to discuss the quota negotiations due to take place in a few days’ time. The European Commission proposals are not good news for fishermen in the south-west—area VII, as ICES referred to it—who will be hardest hit if maximum sustainable yield levels, which is the maximum catch that can be taken from a stock without threatening its future, are achieved by 2015. I urge the Minister to put the case to extend the end date to 2020. Fishermen’s organisations say that such a move would comply with the regulations but lessen the effect of the massive quota reductions, which, if implemented, would be disastrous for the south-west fleet.

Let us look at some of the reductions. The sole quota in particular is to be cut by 60% in area VII d when it was already cut by 18% last year. The haddock quota in areas VII b to k, which affects fishermen in the Minister’s own constituency, is to be cut by 45% when it was cut by 32% last year. Those are just some examples of the cuts.

Another anomaly is the data-limited method of assessment. When the science is not precise, an automatic reduction of 20% is proposed for some stocks. It is a ludicrous method, as the system has been closed since October and yet fishermen are seeing an abundance of skate and ray stock. The proposal to reduce the skate and ray quota by 20% is totally unacceptable, especially when the result is the closure of processing businesses and the loss of jobs.

I am pleased that agreement has now been reached on the 12-mile limit—the past agreement is to remain in place until December 2022. Our territorial waters were agreed in the London convention of 1969 and, according to the spirit of the agreement, access to the 12-mile limit for other nationals with historical rights was always intended to be temporary. Forty years on, we need to see an end to other nations’ access, because those original vessels are probably no longer fishing or even in existence. The six and 12-mile limits should be exclusive for British fishermen, and that would allow our Minister to introduce measures for the conservation of bass without accusations of discriminating against them. Other member states must agree to implement any measures at European level. If they do not, UK fishermen would be penalised while other member states’ fishermen could continue to fish and land bass. Such measures would support both the commercial and the recreational sea angling sectors.

On quota management by the Marine Management Organisation, 30 years ago, fishermen were consulted through area committees on the setting of UK quotas. Over the years, we have seen much of the management responsibility for quotas move to the producer organisations, with the MMO responsible for the under-10 metres and the non-sector vessels. I urge the Minister to demand a review of the MMO’s quota management system, because errors have been made recently, particularly in relation to skate and ray.

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

One of the great mistakes of the previous Administration was to put the MMO not down in Plymouth but in the north-east, because we have an enormous amount to add to all of this.

[Sheryll Murray]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour across the Tamar that such a move would have created a lot of employment not only in his constituency but in mine, and it would have made use of those wonderful maritime institutions for which Plymouth is famous.

The Minister has a very hard task ahead of him in the forthcoming negotiations. I urge him to negotiate hard for UK fishermen, especially Cornish and south-west fishermen. If he feels that my 30 years of experience with the industry would be of any use, I would happily provide advice or even accompany him to Brussels. The least I can do for an industry that is so close to my heart is to offer it a future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I advise the House that there is no formal time limit, though an excellent example has just been set by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), and if each Member confines himself or herself to no more than 10 minutes, everybody will be satisfied.

11:44

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

I join the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), and not only on his speech. This is the last fisheries debate for both of us, as we are standing down at the next election. He is way ahead of me in terms of years. We have run the fisheries group for a number of years, but he has had 38 years at the coalface. We have not always agreed, and some of his comments today emphasise some of the differences between us, but he has been a stalwart supporter of the fishing industry and of fishermen, and he should be congratulated on that.

I took part in my very first fisheries debate in 1987, the year I was elected. It is interesting to contrast the debates that we used to have in those days with those that we have now. At the time, the main issues included quota and supplies, but there was a much more local aspect to the debate. The common fisheries policy was part of the debate, and illegal “black” fishing was a major issue until fairly recently. The Minister has a much easier time today than he would have had in those days, because it used to be a Government debate. That is a major change for us. We have to fight to get time for this debate.

When the debate was held in Government time, the Minister opened. I cannot remember many Ministers who got away in less than three quarters of an hour, and many spoke for over an hour, because there were many more fishing communities at that time. Sadly, many communities have lost their fishing industry, but the Minister had to deal with biting questions, an example of which has just been provided by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall, from every part of the country. He or—I am trying to remember whether we have ever had a female Fisheries Minister; I do not think we have—

[Sheryll Murray]

We have not, but we have had female Secretaries of State, including the present Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and one of her predecessors.

[Mr Doran]

The hon. Lady is right, but we have not had a dedicated female Fisheries Minister. I am not sure if that is a job for a woman, although the hon. Lady might reach that—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That was not a sexist remark; I know the fishing industry very well.

Things have moved on and today we will be discussing more or less the same things, but in different language. We will discuss the cod recovery plan, the maximum sustainable yield, discards, and of course quotas, scientific advice and the Fisheries Council, which meets later this month. Two issues that we certainly did not discuss in the 1980s was the power struggle between the Commission and the Parliament and the science, particularly the collection of data or failure to collect data. The hon. Lady referred to one example of that.

The structure of the debates in those days was different. As I said, they were introduced by the Minister. Another regular feature which I, for one, miss was the presence of the former Prime Minister, Ted Heath, at almost every debate that I ever attended. It might be thought that a former Prime Minister might have something better to do on a Thursday afternoon, but he was there for virtually all the debates that I was involved in. Of course, he had a reason. We heard something about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. The accusation that Ted Heath had sold out the fishing industry when he took the UK into the then Common Market was made regularly, often from the Labour Benches—my hon. Friend was one of those who did so—and in the later Thatcher years from his own side. It was fascinating to see him doggedly defend himself and his own reputation, and I have to say that I admired him for the way he did so. He came out of these battles often looking much stronger.

I must also confess to a soft spot for Ted Heath. I remember as a very young MP being in the Lobby when everyone seemed to be voting on the same side, apart from two or three in the other Lobby, and I found myself crushed right up against him. I made the usual kind of comment of a naive newcomer to this place, saying, “In all the years I marched and protested against your Government, I never thought I would be standing side by side with you in the Lobby.” His response was, “Young man, this will happen twice in every Parliament, on pay and hanging.” I do not think many Prime Ministers or former Prime Ministers would say something like that nowadays. It endeared him to me, I have to say.

We have very few opportunities to debate the fishing industry and, because the focus of such a debate at this time is usually the December Council meeting, we do not spend much time considering other issues, such as safety, which I am particularly concerned about. I have raised the matter from time to time over the years along with other Members, but we have never really had a debate when we could focus on it properly. As this is my last contribution to a fisheries debate, and as I have a particular interest in safety in other areas, particularly in the North sea and the oil and gas industry, I would like to say a few words.

The fishing industry has the reputation of being the most dangerous industry in the UK. In 2008, the marine accident investigation branch published an analysis of UK fishing vessel safety between 1992 and 2006. In that period, there were 256 deaths, which is a staggering number in any industry. The report suggested that there were signs of improvement towards the end of that period, but that was also at a time when the number of vessels and those employed were declining rapidly. There were fewer fatalities, but the proportion of deaths, given the number employed in the industry, stayed roughly the same.

I have been going through the records, and since that report was published there have been a further 59 deaths. Last year, there seemed to be a significant improvement when only four deaths were recorded. I have not seen the official figures for 2014, but I have been able to trace at least 10 deaths in the fishing industry this year. They include five deaths on one vessel, the Ocean Way, earlier this year. In addition to the deaths, there have been a significant number of reportable injuries, many of them serious.

The marine accident investigation branch produced a thorough analysis of the situation, and the more one reads, the clearer it becomes that many of the deaths were avoidable. On the causes of death, for example, significant numbers of fishermen have fallen overboard. There is a generational culture in the industry where workers have refused to wear safety jackets, or other safety equipment, such as harnesses, even when they are on offer.

On most larger vessels, there is heavy machinery and gear on board. Many injuries sustained by fishermen are caused by accidents with this equipment, and given the size of some of the equipment, these are serious accidents. Safety could be improved in many other areas. For example, there are often fires on board ship, alcohol is an issue in a number of deaths, and the condition of some vessels is not good, mainly because of age and deterioration. That raises the question of whether surveys adequately identify serious deficiencies. In one case this year, two deaths were caused by carbon monoxide poisoning because of failure properly to maintain and inspect a heater on the vessel.

The leaders of the industry are now well aware of the need to improve safety. For example, I am pleased that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has introduced a scheme that offers licence holders in Scotland free personal flotation devices. With the jackets, there is also an opportunity for a free instruction session. The evidence is that more fishermen will take the opportunity to have safety jackets, and that is an important step in improving the industry, but the condition of some vessels and proper attention to risk assessment and mitigation remains an issue.

Finally, I want to thank the industry organisations that I have been involved with over the years, particularly the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation—Bob Allan, Hamish Morrison and Bertie Armstrong were all chief executives during my time in Parliament—and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, where Barry Dees does sterling work for the English and Welsh side of the industry. Barry has excellent credentials, having been educated in Aberdeen, so I am particularly grateful to him. In recent years fish processing has taken over from catching in my constituency—very few of our registered vessels fish out of Aberdeen these days—so the processing industry has been important for me. The Aberdeen Fish Curers and Merchants Association, the industry body for the processing side, was run for many years by Robert Milne, although he has now retired and the organisation exists in a different form. I thank them all for their sterling work, particularly those who are in post now, because they have had to make that generational change, which I am sure will be discussed more later. They are key to the changes that the industry needs to make.

11:55

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and my friends the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for helping to secure it. I also pay tribute to my friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who has just spoken in his final annual fisheries debate. He has been a steadfast supporter of the industry in this place for almost four decades, and I wish him all the best as he leaves not for pastures new, but for fresh waters.

As we consider the future of the industry, my views are mixed. On the positive side, from the beginning of this year the new common fisheries policy is in place, which provides an opportunity for the industry and those who work in it to have a better future. Special thanks are due to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who worked so hard to secure that deal. However, there is a great deal of work to do to secure that better future, both for the industry nationally and locally in Lowestoft in my constituency.

There are numerous hurdles to overcome. Achieving maximum sustainable yields by 2015 where possible, and by 2020 at the latest, will not be easy. Neither will the elimination of discards, for which it is vital that the Government work very closely with the industry to ensure a smooth transition. Improved nets and gearing, good use of the best science, such as that provided by CEFAS in my constituency, and such initiatives as “Fishing for the Markets” will be vital, but it will not be straightforward.

The forthcoming meeting of the Fisheries Council on 15 and 16 December presents the Minister with a real challenge. Some of the proposed total allowable catches, if implemented, will place some fleets at real risk of being unable to survive, and the current parlous state of bass stocks must be addressed urgently. I also urge the Minister to take steps to stop electric fishing by Dutch trawlers inside North sea special areas of conservation, particularly the Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton SAC and the north Norfolk SAC. That activity is potentially in breach of article 6 of the habitats directive in an area where the UK has environmental obligations.

The issue that I really want to home in on this morning is the reallocation of quota. The fleet in Lowestoft today is a pale shadow of what it used to be. It is an inshore fleet of under-10 metre boats. Their fishermen, like so many of their colleagues around the coast, get a raw deal. Altogether they comprise 77% of the UK fleet and employ over 65% of its total work force, yet they currently receive only 4% of the total quota available in the UK. Unless that problem is addressed, they will continue to dwindle, and that will be a real tragedy for so many communities.

What is good for the under-10s is largely good for the ports in which they are based. They deliver significant economic, environmental and cultural benefits for their communities, many of which are among the most deprived in the country. The income they generate stays largely in their communities and permeates down a supply chain that has been built up over many decades but has sadly been much eroded in recent years. That is very much the case in Lowestoft, where it is now a small industry, although the infrastructure is still there and, with the right policy framework, it could deliver a lot more for the area.

The reallocation of quota is not an easy task. Fishing communities around the UK have their own unique special interests which they rightly guard jealously and fight for vigorously. In some respects, the Government could not be blamed for taking one look at the problem, placing it in the “too difficult” category, and moving on to the next challenge. This would be completely wrong and a dereliction of duty. It is vitally important that they, and all of us, face up to this problem. Article 17 of the new common fisheries policy sets out the criteria that member states should follow in allocating fishing opportunity. If the Government pursue that course and take full account of economic, social and environmental considerations for local communities, many of the problems faced by the inshore fleet can be addressed.

At present, under-10 metre boats fishing along the Suffolk coast receive what one fisherman described to me as a “miserable share of catch quotas”. The under-10 metre fleet is allocated a very small percentage of the TAC decided at European level, which is then augmented by swaps organised by the Marine Management Organisation from the producer organisations. Without these swaps, the under-10 metre pool would not exist. The MMO allocates catch limits to each vessel on a month-by-month basis. Individual skippers will be unaware of what their respective catch limits are until the envelope drops on their doormat at the beginning of each month. In practice, vessels can often end up with high catch levels for one species when it is not available and low levels for others when they are abundant. Reallocations of quota are neither predictable nor permanent, and they invariably take place towards the end of the season. This month-to-month, hand-to-mouth approach is not conducive to building a sustainable business.

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

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the MMO is maintaining its function in monitoring the data in a timely and accurate way, or even competently?

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. I would say that there is certainly room for improvement. The way in which we collect the data needs to be addressed, and I will come to that in a moment.

The work of fishermen still fishing out of Lowestoft in the inshore fleet should be contrasted with that of the seven affiliated vessels of the Lowestoft Fish Producers’ Organisation, which are now controlled by fishing interests based in the Netherlands and in Aberdeen. These large vessels hold fixed quota allocations totalling 79,097 units, but their contribution to the local economy is limited. When they were based in Lowestoft, they helped to sustain the smaller boats. Their departure has partly contributed to the collapse of the port as the capital of fishing in the southern North sea, and has exacerbated still further the decline of the inshore fleet. Across the UK, Dutch-controlled vessels fishing British quota boast a total annual turnover of £48 million, yet only 1% of the fish they catch is landed in the UK.

Article 17 provides the cornerstone for a root and branch reform to address these inequities and to ensure that economic, social and environmental benefits accrue to local communities. The judgment in the High Court in July 2013 in the case that some producer organisations brought against the Secretary of State for carrying out a very modest redistribution of unused quota—the case was dismissed—provides helpful guidance as to how we can move forward. Mr Justice Cranston was sympathetic to the view that fishing quotas and the fixed quota allocation system should always be considered against the backdrop, and based on the principle, that fish are a public resource. This dates back to Magna Carta. He also expressed the opinion that the producer organisations and their members have no proprietary interest in the fishing stock itself and that fixed quota allocations give no right to any specific amount of fishing stock in advance of the annual ministerial decisions on quota that will take place later this month.

There is a need for more information and a better understanding of what is happening in the industry. The fixed quota allocation register first published last December is a welcome step forward, but more information is required on how much quota is held by non-working fisherman, and on quota transactions. The current trading system is complex and opaque. This information will show who benefits from the nation’s fish resources and whether they are providing maximum economic and social benefit to their local communities. This is the first necessary step to the introduction of a new, fairer quota allocation system.

There is also a need to gain a full understanding of the under 10-metre fleet as to what percentage of those licence holders in receipt of monthly catch limits are active and how many may have made no or minimal landings in the past six to 12 months, and if not, why not.

[Sheryll Murray]

On the 10-metre quota, does my hon. Friend agree that the total lack of action and recording over a number of years by the Labour party allowed the sector to expand beyond what the available quota could allow it to stay viable?

[Peter Aldous]

Personally I would not want to be partisan, but mistakes were made during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

There is a need to establish how much of the under 10-metre fleet quota is gifted by the producer organisations and what the effect would be if those so-called gifts were withheld. It is wrong that one sector of the industry is so dependent on another for its very existence. With that information to hand, the Government could put a fairer system in place whereby the inshore fleet has proper representation on advisory councils; skippers of inshore boats obtain an increase in their monthly catch limits and are no longer beholden to the POs or dependent on hand-outs for their very existence; and quota is held by active fishermen who bring real benefit to their local communities, not by foreign vessels that turn out once a year or by inactive fishermen—slipper skippers—who hold quota as an investment and a trading commodity.

Conservative Members are committed to a referendum in 2017 on the UK’s future membership of the EU and a renegotiation of the terms of our membership beforehand. In those negotiations, the reclaiming of our territorial waters in the 6 to 12 nautical mile area should be a priority demand. The current system is unworkable and unfair, and that reclamation would allow the Government to put in place measures that properly protect fish stocks and the marine environment and give priority access to local fishermen who depend on those waters for their survival.

Much has been achieved in the past four and a half years in putting in place policies that will enable the industry to move forward and have a better future. However, the actual delivery is yet to come. It is complicated and a real challenge, but we need to get on with it, as time is very much of the essence. We are very much at the 59th minute of the 23rd hour.

In years gone by in Lowestoft, it was possible to cross the water from one side of the Hamilton dock to the other from boat to boat. Today the dock is virtually empty of fishing boats. However, if we put in place the right system of management, fishing will be able to play an important role in the future not only of Lowestoft, but of many other communities all around these four nations.

12:08

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

May I first congratulate all four of the Members who have spoken so far, whose wisdom and knowledge I cannot equal? I agree with almost everything that has been said. I do not represent a fishing area—Luton is about as far as it is possible to get from the oceans around our coasts—but I am nevertheless concerned about the marine ecosystem. I want to be able to continue to consume fish, and I am also concerned about the British fishing industry and the fishermen who work in it. I have spoken in probably most of the debates on fishing since I entered this House some 18 years ago. I am also a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, where I regularly speak up for fishing interests, sometimes to the amusement of my colleagues because Luton does not have its own fishing fleet.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about the common fisheries policy and what needs to be done for the future. I have said, and I say again, that I really believe that we must seek the abolition of the common fisheries policy for the long-term sustainability of fishing around our coasts, and for fishing stocks and the ecosystem. We will not solve all the problems until the common fisheries policy is got rid of, and until not just the 6-mile and 12-mile limits but the 50% limit and 200-mile limits are re-established. The only way to protect fishing in our seas is to return to those historical fishing limits, with countries maintaining and controlling their own fishing waters—way out to sea—around their coasts, and with every vessel being monitored and every catch landed in each country being measured. The only time that foreign vessels should be able to enter and fish in such areas is when they are under licence, on a vessel-by-vessel basis.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that inspectors in Spain live miles away from the fishing ports, but that those in my constituency in Plymouth are on fishermen’s backs every five seconds?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we monitor our fishermen very strictly, but other countries do not. Well, if they do not monitor their fishermen, let us exclude them from British waters until such time as they are properly monitored.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

The only thing I remember from a briefing by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation before a previous debate on fishing is that one of its spokesmen pointed out, in relation to conserving the herring stock so that there was a long-term future for the industry, “You do need to manage the North sea as a whole, because the herring do not recognise national boundaries.”

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. The point has often been made in such debates that fish have a habit of swimming between different areas of the sea. Nevertheless, Norway has not been a member of the European Union or of the common fisheries policy, but it has managed the stocks around its coast. Even though fish swim, there are greater concentrations of them where they are properly protected and managed in national waters. My own view is that when countries are responsible for managing their own waters, they seek to make sure that their fish stocks are sustained, but if they can just fish willy-nilly in other countries’ seas, they do not have that sense of responsibility and will not husband fish stocks even around their own coast.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that Norway has to enter into negotiations with the EU? As he says, fish do not swim under water with little flags saying that they belong to a certain part of the North sea or any other sea, so Norway’s situation is not quite as clear cut as he suggests.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. That has been pointed out to me before, when I have made the same argument, and it is true that Norway has an arrangement with the European Union. Nevertheless, if countries maintain their fish stocks—especially with the 50% limit, rather than just the 6-mile and 12-mile limits—and husband and manage them properly around national coasts, they get a concentration of fish stocks in those areas. I must say that if I were a fish and more likely to be caught in one area than in another, I would swim to the area where I was less likely to be caught, but that is just an aside.

The only way to guarantee that countries are responsible when it comes to fishing is to ensure that they manage their own waters and can restrain other countries from fishing in them. That is absolutely basic. As I say, I have made this point on many occasions. I am not an enthusiast for the European Union in general, but if there is one area of the EU that is dafter than any other it is the common fisheries policy.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that that should be one of the areas that the Prime Minister renegotiates back into the control of the UK when he carries out the negotiations in Europe?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Lady, who speaks so well on these matters, has made exactly the point I was about to make. For me, when the Prime Minister—it may be a Labour one—comes back with a new deal, the first thing I will want to see is the abolition of the common fisheries policy. If that is not in the deal, I have to say that I will not vote for the deal because it is so absolutely fundamental. One way to achieve that is to speak in this Chamber, as I do, and I hope that people in the European Union—in the bureaucracy in Brussels—are listening. If they are, they will know that if we get more exercised about these matters over time, we will in the end tell the European Union, if we are not agreed, that we are seeking to withdraw from the CFP unilaterally. I say that here as a warning for the longer term. I am sure that many people would agree with us on these matters.

I think I have made my point. I am not an expert in the sense that my hon. Friends are experts—they have made some very important and more detailed points about what is now happening—but, in the longer term, I believe that the common fisheries policy must be ended and that countries must be made responsible for their own fishing waters, with every vessel monitored and licensed. If foreign fishing vessels want to fish in our waters or our vessels want to fish in those of other countries, they must be individually licensed vessel by vessel, and both what they are fishing and where they land their stocks must be monitored.

12:15

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

It has been a great privilege to listen to the speeches of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). Like the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), I cannot possibly emulate the extraordinary accumulated knowledge of the previous speakers.

On 12 October, as I sat in my office in this place, a bomb was dropped on the northern Devon fishery. The Marine Management Organisation announced that the entire fishery would have to cease fishing for ray. Ray accounts for 60% of the landings in the northern Devon fishery. The fishery supports about 100 fishermen and their boats, and 650 fish processors. The industry is worth about £100 million per year. Local authorities together with local enterprise organisations clubbed together over several years and, some years ago, invested more than £2 million in a new fishing dock and quay so that fish processing could take place in Appledore. But at one stroke of the pen, the livelihoods of those people were wiped out.

Last weekend, Mr Tony Rutherford, the boss of the Bideford Fisheries, came to see me. He is always a cheerful chap, as northern Devon fishermen seem to be, and on this occasion he was looking for a silver lining. It is hard to find one, however, when someone wakes up one morning to the sound of a letter dropping through their letterbox or of an e-mail arriving on their terminal saying that they no longer have a business.

That situation cannot continue. I was shocked. I am a lawyer and I have no sea in my veins—I get seasick in the bath—but the truth is that, when I started to look at the reasons why this extraordinary situation had arisen, I was shocked. For example, I found out that the MMO had traded away more than 100 tonnes of ray earlier this year. Just a few months later, three months before the end of the season, it told my fishermen and the northern Devon fishery that they could not fish for ray.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the MMO seems to lack the expertise for quota management that it used to have? Will he join me in calling on the Minister to ensure that adequate quota management measures are put in place for under-10 metre and non-sector vessels?

[Mr Cox]

Of course I join my hon. Friend in doing so. I was about to say that; she has stolen my thunder.

[Sheryll Murray]

Sorry.

[Mr Cox]

Not at all. My hon. Friend has every right—probably a greater right than me—to make such a point, given her experience.

As I started to look into this question, simply applying such intellect and abilities as I have, I could not believe the absurdity of the system we are operating. I was contacted by several marine experts from Plymouth and the south-west who had worked with the MMO. They did not want to be named—that is perfectly understandable—but they told me their experiences of looking at the data. Frankly, if it had been done by an accountant, the accounts would not be signed off. The quality of the information, the timeliness, or lack of it, of the data processing—none of those things has been done adequately or robustly enough to make any proper statistical judgments about what is swimming in the seas or what quota has been exhausted. We are doing no more than informed guessing, and on the strength of that we are playing with the lives and livelihoods of decent men and women up and down the country.

Northern Devon fishery is a fine fishery that has pioneered conservation for many years. The island of Lundy, as many hon. Members will know, lies in my constituency and within the fishery. For many years the fishermen have agreed to no-take zones, and to allow the area to lie fallow for certain periods of the year. Around the country and the world that fishery has been praised as highly responsible and one that—if any deserve the name—warrants the description “sustainable fishery”.

Ray is abundant in the northern Devon fishery and the Bristol channel. When the stroke of the pen came down, the Cornish fisheries association still had 100 tonnes of its quota left uncaught. How can that be right? How can guessing about over-fishing in one area of England mean that fishermen in the northern Devon fishery—where ray is abundant and makes up 60% of the take, and where people have worked night and day to ensure its sustainability—should find themselves with nothing to catch and literally nothing to put on the table the following week for their families? It is criminal!

As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, we sometimes sit here and say, “It’s too difficult” and move on. However, occasions such as this are opportunities for Members of the House at least to put on record our forlorn and probably vain protest against the bureaucratic juggernaut that seems to be for ever steamrolling over common sense in its absurd and surreal way. If I sound indignant, it is because I have had to see so many fishermen in recent weeks, and I feel profoundly indignant on their behalf. They have no quota for sole or spurdog; they can catch a tiny amount of plaice, and their cod quota could be caught in a single day. How are they supposed to survive?

I believe, as does my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, that the time has come—I am addressing the Minister directly—to examine and review whether the MMO is fit for purpose and how its data processing is conducted. Has the Minister been to its offices and looked at its techniques and methods? Will he get a grip on that organisation, which has lost the trust of the fishing industry from top to bottom? If the information I have received from well-placed and expert sources is correct, something is gravely wrong with the system of examination, data processing and monitoring. I hear stories of data being processed weeks if not months late, and of inadequate or inefficient data processing. Those stories reach the fishermen I represent. If their livelihoods are to be in the hands of those people—a few months ago around 100 tonnes of ray were traded away and now fishermen have been told they cannot catch any more—the Government must be sure on their behalf that the MMO is doing its job properly.

Speaking directly to the Minister, for whom I have great fondness and regard, it is time for us to get a grip on the MMO and go in there, find out what it is doing, and insist on seeing exactly how it is processing the data. We must put experts in there to see whether the MMO will bear up to scrutiny as it should. If we do not do that, the continuing spiralling loss of confidence among the fishermen we represent will continue, and it will be fully justified.

12:25

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I commend the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), and thank them for their work throughout their years in this House on behalf of the fishing industry. As they have acknowledged, this will be their last fisheries debate, although the rest of us are hoping that that will not be the case for us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said, I look forward to this issue being discussed in Government time and not at the behest or whim of the Backbench Business Committee. It is too important a subject not to have a place in Government time if the Government believe the fishing industry to be important.

I want to touch on three things: first, my local fishing community; secondly, matters relating to North Shields fishing port; and thirdly I will mention some concerns that fishermen have raised with me. My local fishing community does not need to be reminded of how dangerous an occupation fishing can be. In North Shields this year we commemorated the 40th anniversary of the sinking of fishing vessel Gaul, which involved great loss of life. On 8 February 1974 the Gaul sank with the loss of 36 crew, including six from the North Shields area. It had previously sailed out of the Tyne as the Ranger Castor, and earlier this year a plaque was placed on the site where it berthed, bearing the names of those who lost their lives: John O’Brien, James Wales, James Woodhouse, Neil Petersen, James Mclellan and Ronald Bowles. I pay respect to them, and also to their families who over the years have persevered in their quest to find out what happened on that tragic day.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North reminded us, last month the Ocean Way, a vessel registered at Fraserburgh, sailed out of the Tyne and was lost some 100 miles off the Farne Islands, with the loss of a local skipper and two Filipino crew. We owe a great deal to the rescue services that work on our behalf, and I commend the Fishermen’s Mission, which plays an important role in local communities on such occasions. Although land based, I also congratulate the Tynemouth Volunteer Life Brigade, which celebrates its 150th anniversary this year.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that respect for the dangers that fishermen face comes from all parties of the House, and that we appreciate the dangerous job they do?

[Mr Campbell]

It is a pleasure to do that. That respect is something we all share and exists in fishing communities, whoever they send to the House to represent them.

North Shields fishing port is one of the most important ports on the east coast—certainly the most important port between the Humber and the border—and its regeneration over the years is taking shape with good-quality houses and some excellent restaurants. However, it is still a working fishing port that is responsible for hundreds of local jobs, and boats come from all over the United Kingdom to use its facilities, particularly the fish market.

There is a constant need for regeneration and renewal in such a historical place. The Western Quay regeneration is complete, but work needs to be done on the fish quay where fish are landed. I know from experience that schemes require the involvement of all sorts of different bodies, including the fish quay company, the local authority, the MMO and the Port of Tyne—it previously would have involved the development agency. European funding plays an important part, too.

I therefore have two questions for the Minister. First, in the past, regeneration has been agreed by all parties—until the question of money is raised, when they look out of the window or stare at their shoes. I am not asking the Minister for money. I am asking for a commitment on behalf of all the Government agencies that might be involved to use their good offices—and resources, if they have them—to ensure that that regeneration goes ahead. If it does not, the industry in the area could be in trouble.

Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the European Commission has launched a major investigation into previous funding in the region because of issues of governance? Is it true that the Commission has refused to sign off the €464 million for the region? What are the implications for schemes such as the fish quay at North Shields?

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, because it is potentially important to the fishing industry. I met the Business Secretary on the subject a few days ago. There is an urgency to Ministers’ devising a mechanism that is acceptable to the European Commission to enable us to access funds that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can access.

[Mr Campbell]

My understanding of the question of governance is that there is a problem predominantly in the local enterprise partnership, which needs to get a grip. It needs to give the necessary guarantees not just for the funding that has already been promised, but for future schemes, which I have mentioned. I hope the Government address that urgently.

I associate myself with the comments on the severity of cuts in general made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby in his typically powerful speech, but I want to concentrate my final remarks on the question of the landing obligation, or the discard ban, which is due to be brought in for pelagics at the beginning of next year, which is just a few weeks away, and for other fisheries in 2016.

Putting aside for a moment the question of quotas, which I know created the issue in the first place, there are problems with the implementation of the discard ban. To be honest, most if not all hon. Members in the Chamber signed up to it as a good idea to a greater or lesser extent, but now implementation is starting, the fishermen are beginning to realise how difficult it will be. It will be particularly difficult for small ports, but not so much for North Shields, which I believe will be able to cope. There is an urgency for small ports, and if it cannot be addressed, we should not go down the route of implementing the ban in the way in which it has been planned.

There are issues about waste going into landfill sites and an argument about what otherwise might have gone into marine ecosystems. As has been said previously, there are particular concerns about mixed fisheries. The north-east needs its mixed fisheries, and therefore that needs to be addressed. We need to learn lessons from countries such as Norway, and we need to consider phasing in. If that is not possible, the Minister needs to tell us why and to reassure fishermen on the implementation of the scheme.

In my experience, limited as it is in this matter in the House, changes in the fishing industry have been best when the scientists and the environmental lobby, but most importantly the fishermen, are signed up. When the environmental lobby is so powerful, we should remind ourselves that the most important environmentalists are the fishermen. They depend on the environment for their living. That has probably been passed down from generation to generation. We must ensure that, when new policies are implemented, the fishermen are part of the decision, and that, as far as possible, they can be reassured.

12:34

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

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) and I sat on the Backbench Business Committee when we gave permission for the debate. We did exactly the right thing. I think I got into some trouble for voicing my support and he duly told me off.

As hon. Members may know, I represent Plymouth, which has a global reputation for marine science engineering and research. That includes not only the Royal Navy, which is an incredibly important part of that reputation, but the university, which specialises in marine biological research. I recently hosted a reception on the Terrace for the university, which had done a lot of research with Interreg on the importance of marine activity to the industry.

The Plymouth Marine Laboratory is in my constituency. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to go there to meet some of my great scientists. He kindly came to see Interfish, a big fish producer in my constituency, in the summer, and I would be grateful if he came to meet PML, which has done a significant amount of work on climate change and provided a lot of evidence.

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend mentions the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. It is doubly useful for hon. Members to visit when they can because the chief International Council for the Exploration of the Sea scientist works there.

[Oliver Colvile]

Because PML is such a good scientific base, as a compromise, there is a minor MMO sub-office. As my hon. Friend may be aware, I am keen for it to come to Plymouth.

Plymouth also has the Marine Biological Association, which was set up in 1884 by Sir Andrew Huxley, specifically to have the big debate of the day on whether we could overfish waters around our country. This is the first opportunity I have had to express my gratitude to the Government for giving the MBA a royal charter in 2013. It is incredibly proud of that.

During the course of working for the debate, I visited Plymouth Trawlers, an established agency in my constituency based down towards the Barbican. I spoke to Dave Cuthbert, who has a wonderful e-mail address—it starts with “Davethefish”. He said that the coming of the December Council and the proposed cuts in skates and rays of 20% will create a major problem. It is exactly the same problem that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) described so precisely and so well. Dave the Fish said:

“Rays have been cut in quota for the last 3 years based on the fact that it is data deficient and automatically cut by 20%”.

Will the Minister propose that that cut does not go ahead? Dave the Fish says that the Minister will probably say that the automatic cut is recommended by ICES. However, if we are cutting in such a way and no longer taking notice of historical data—I understand that that is in article 17 of the latest common fisheries policy reform—what is the basis for the quota? I do not understand it. We either rely on the data available when the scientists have done their work, or go back to historical data. I have concerns about the historical data, because not all fish behave in the same manner over time.

The Minister will no doubt come back and give the standard reply that Dave the Fish has seen on a couple of letters—the letters state that the Government are “already compliant with their approach to quota allocation”. My friend Dave the Fish found those letters difficult to understand.

Dave the Fish points out that, under the fixed quota allocation, the same suspects have the same quota year on year to maintain stability. Nothing has changed, and large companies are buying every scrap of quota that becomes available. My hon. Friend the Minister may be aware that there are a large amount of boats under 10 metres in my constituency and they are most certainly feeling the effects of that. Indeed, during the course of my visit to the trawler company and the Plymouth fish market—the first electronic market in the whole of the south-west—I was stunned by the level of scepticism from the fishermen and those in the trade. I should be grateful if the Minister would look at how that might work.

I have always been incredibly keen to ensure that we have a significant amount of data before decisions are made on marine conservation areas. Such decisions must be evidence-based. The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) rightly said that support must come not only from scientists but fishermen too. This issue relates to the whole of the fishing industry, and that includes people’s livelihoods. On my visit, I spoke to people about the scallop industry, which I understand is the third-largest part of the fishing industry. They complained that the hand picking of scallops was not subject to the same regulation as commercial operations. It seems to be a bit of a mess.

My hon. Friend the Minister will be delighted to know that I have volunteered—I take on board all the incredibly important safety issues— to go out early in the new year on another fishing boat. I am afraid that the last time I went I was sick seven times. The awful smell of diesel and fish—a rather nasty cocktail—was combined with the boat going backwards and forwards and up and down, while I looked at the horizon. I am afraid to say that the only way I could get any kind of surety back into my being was to go and stand outside and enjoy the whistling rain and the enormous amount of coldness. I am quite fearful about doing this, but I am as determined as I was last time around not to say, “I’m a wimp and I need to go back.”

A daily and salient reminder of the importance of safety in the fishing industry is the wall in the Barbican that is plastered with signs paying tribute to those who have died while fishing at sea. It would be very helpful if the Minister could supply the relevant historic data. I wish him the best of luck in his discussions with our European Council colleagues in the very near future.

12:43

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be called in this debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), I do not have a fishing community in my constituency. We have anglers, as opposed to fishermen, on the River Forth.

I want to speak in this debate for two reasons. First, fishing communities need advocates from outside their communities too, no matter how fantastic the contributions have been from hon. Members across the House. We need to re-establish the connection between our fishing industry and fishing communities, and the wider population. Frankly, fish do not come pre-packed in Tesco, Morrisons, Waitrose, Lidl and so on—I do not want to get into trouble with anybody for not mentioning a particular supermarket. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminds me that we used to see fish on fishmongers’ slates. That is not necessarily the case nowadays.

Secondly, I have a family interest in fishing that I would like to put on the record. My son is a fisherman. He fishes out of a very small island community that is represented by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is not in his place today. The community has a significant inshore fishing industry. I echo the comments by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) that we sometimes forget just how dangerous it can be. It is not a very high-profile industry in the media, but the concern, when seeing spouses or children going out to fish, is real for many families. My son will be mortified that I have mentioned my particular concern in public, but sometimes we have to say these things.

I want to concentrate on the structure of the industry. Before I do so, however, I echo the comments that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall made at the beginning of her speech. We owe a debt of gratitude to the mechanisms that support both the onshore and offshore industries. I listened yesterday to a spokesperson for the Barra lifeboat. I understand from the log I have just read that it was called out yesterday and faced 14 metre waves. It is very difficult for us sitting here today to contemplate what 14 metre waves look like. The volunteers of the RNLI, men and women, deserve our thanks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) alluded to the structure of the industry. There is, without doubt, a major issue relating to the balance of quotas. I recognise that we need large fishing vessels, but we need to remember that the quota system was set in the 1980s, when the overall contribution to landings by small fishing boats was underestimated.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a place for both large and small vessels? Small vessels feed the market with day-caught fresh fish, while the larger vessels spend more days at sea and contribute quantity. There is a place for both.

[Mrs McGuire]

I was coming on to that exact point. Considering the balance in the industry is not about undermining the contribution of one, or ignoring the contribution of the other. The hon. Lady makes a valuable point.

The quotas were set 25 to 30 years ago, and there has been a decreasing allocation for small inshore fishing vessels. The 5,000 small vessels, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) highlighted, currently have only 4% of the quota. It is increasingly difficult for inshore fishermen to make their small businesses—for that is what they are—viable, but they are part of the supply chain and they bring money into local communities.

I do not accept everything that Greenpeace says, but it is worth highlighting the article alluded to by the hon. Member for Waveney. A large Dutch ship, the Cornelis Vrolijk, flies a British flag—my understanding is that one can get a British flag by registering and paying £111—and currently takes up an enormous proportion of the UK quota. All of the 34,000-tonne ship’s landings go to Holland. Nothing goes to any UK port. The implications for the local economy, the processing industry and so on cannot be underestimated.

I understand that one of the criteria for registering for a British flag is that an economic link with Britain be demonstrated. Will the Minister explain the economic link between the large vessels that are scooping up—legitimately—their quotas and Britain, which allows those vessels to fly a British flag without landing in Britain? What efforts will he make to rebalance the quota allocation? What engagement has he had with inshore fisherman? Can the UK take that process forward unilaterally or does it have to be part of a wider engagement within the EU?

It has been suggested, and I have seen nothing to the contrary, that the fishing industry will be represented at the Fisheries Council by the 7th Baron De Mauley. As Scottish National Members know, although I agree with their party on some areas, I have difficulties with some of its policies. However, I find it astonishing that this year’s fisheries discussions are not being led by the most experienced Fisheries Minister in Europe, the current Scottish Fisheries Minister. I do not know why that has happened. I do not know why the noble Lord De Mauley has been hauled in—an appropriate phrase, given that we are talking about fishing—to these discussions. Why should fishermen have confidence in somebody with no apparent connection with the fishing industry?

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

I think the right hon. Lady is labouring under some confusion. I will be at the December Fisheries Council next week, representing the interests of the whole UK. The purpose of this debate is for me, as UK Minister, to receive representations from Members throughout the UK. One major problem with being represented by the Scottish Fisheries Minister is that he would not be here, at this Dispatch Box, to take representations from across the UK.

[Mrs McGuire]

I hear what the Minister says.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I do not know how accountable an unelected Member of the House of Lords can be. However, does the right hon. Lady share my concern that the issue—for once—is not that he is unelected, but the effectiveness of his contribution and his lack of experience to represent the industry? It is a bit like playing the sub and keeping the star striker on the bench.

[Mrs McGuire]

When he winds up the debate, I hope the Minister will clarify the situation. Will the noble Lord be part of the discussions? Will the Minister be leading the delegation? I know he has great experience of, and takes a great interest in, the fishing industry, but in some circumstances it would be appropriate for a Scottish Fisheries Minister to represent the UK. The Minister has to prove that a Scottish Fisheries Minister cannot represent the views of the whole UK industry. Under the Labour Administration in Holyrood and here, the Scottish Fisheries Minister occasionally led those discussions. In the interests of mature partnership within the UK, and given the significant interest of the Scottish fishing industry in these discussions, he should tell us why the lead is not being taken by the Scottish Fisheries Minister. There might be a straightforward answer, but I think we need to be more mature in the way we co-operate across these islands in representing the UK in these discussions.

I will not be here, but I hope the next time we have a fisheries debate in this Chamber, it will be in Government time. It should not be the subject of a Backbench Business Committee decision, although the Committee has always been very supportive of holding this debate. The fishing industry is too important for the Government not to take responsibility for holding the debate in their own time.

12:54

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), although I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will resist her suggestion that the Scottish Minister should represent the whole UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) knows, that would certainly be an issue in our part of the world. Under the principle of relative stability, areas south of the Scottish border have had a difficult deal for decades, and it would be remiss of us to present the UK case as if it were primarily a Scottish issue.

[Sheryll Murray]

To clarify, to report back to the House, someone has to be a Member of Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for us to be represented by a Member of the Scottish Parliament, who could not report back to the Chamber, would be quite inappropriate?

[Andrew George]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, although I think this is a bit of a sideshow. Given that the Minister will be representing the UK, I do not know why we have had this rather unnecessary skirmish.

In my short contribution, I do not want to repeat many of the issues that other Members have articulated extremely well; there is much consensus, and I want only to repeat some of the themes. I think we all supported the reforms to the common fisheries policy in 2011 and the principles promoted in those reforms, but the situation now indicates that some of those principles are unravelling to the detriment of the fishing industry. That is the issue I primarily wish to address today.

In my opening remarks, I should also reflect on the enormous contribution that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) has made to fisheries debates over many years. We have agreed on much, but we have disagreed occasionally. Certainly, as I indicated to him the other day, I strongly disagreed when he decided to change his name by deed poll from “Haddock” back to “Mitchell”. It was a great disappointment, but I shall forgive him.

It is also appropriate that we reflect on the risks taken by those who work so hard to put fish on our tables. I engage in these fisheries debates every year, but when I reflect on my earliest days in the House, I remember that when I arrived here in 1997 we lost seven fishermen to the sea: three fishermen died when the Gorah Lass sank in St Ives bay early that year, and when the beam trawler Margaretha Maria went down we lost four members of our local community. If it was not already evident, that brought home to me how much of a risk these men were taking to ply their trade. Safety within the industry has improved, and as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said, the statistics suggest that we are not losing as many lives in the industry as in the past. Nevertheless, it is an extremely hazardous profession and the risks remain high.

I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said about marine conservation zones, but I believe that we should be doing precisely what the Government are doing and rolling out marine conservations zones. I served on the Committee for the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which introduced MCZs. I encouraged the then Government to adopt the amendments that I was attempting to introduce at that time, which were to the effect that the designation of the marine conservation zones should be based on science alone, but that the conservation plans for the zones should be subject to wider consultation. Unfortunately, it is the other way round in the Act, with consultation taking place before designation, and then no obligation to conduct consultation over the management plans. I am pleased that the Government are now taking note of the views of the industry and other stakeholders in the rolling-out of marine conservation plans and I think that is the right way forward. We must also ensure that the fishing industry is viewed as a major and very significant stakeholder and that we marry the interests of marine ecology with the sustainability of the fishing industry for the future.

I mentioned that I was pleased with the outcome of the common fisheries policy reform because of its emphasis on management for the long term. I and many others have campaigned for many years for more power to go to regional management. The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) mentioned the issue of a ban on discards, and I expressed my concern about implementation because of the difficulty of distinguishing between intended and unintended overcatch in the fish quota.

[Sir Robert Smith]

Everyone recognises the need to end discards, but the feedback we are getting now is that we need to phase it in much more gently, so that we can learn lessons and ensure that we do not do any unintended damage to the whole operation.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that the Government are phasing this in next year in respect of the pelagic sector and in the demersal sector thereafter. Lessons certainly need to be learned during the roll-out of the discard ban, particularly at the early stages, and we then need to adjust the method of implementing the discard ban in the light of those lessons.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall made an excellent speech and she was absolutely right about the implementation of the minimum sustainable yield targets. If the purpose of the 2011 reforms was to manage for the long term, one of the disbenefits stemming from implementation of the MSY proposals is that it is resulting across many sectors in significant short-termism, creating shocks within the industry, all of which are contributing to an environment that makes it much more difficult, in my view, to advance sustainable fishing. Management conservation has thus become much more difficult. The Minister will be aware of concerns not just about the many sectors already mentioned, but about the western waters area VII crab sector. The clunky and short-term approach is having a seriously detrimental impact on that sector in my part of the world.

I conclude, as I am keen to stick to the time limits, by wishing the Minister well in the forthcoming European Council discussions. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall about the importance of fighting to continue and to strengthen the protection of our 6 to 12-mile zones and of strengthening the role of regional management—an issue that we have not emphasised enough in these discussions. Many methods by which we can resolve the difficulties identified today involve making more decisions locally ourselves within the regional structure.

13:04

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). This afternoon, in common with others, I want to open my remarks by remembering all those lost at sea in the last year, and in particular by paying my respects to James Noble, the skipper of the Fraserburgh-registered Ocean Way, and crew members Jhunitzo Antonio and Michael PulPul who were all lost off the coast of Northumberland just a few weeks ago. My thoughts are with their families, friends, and the surviving crew members, and all those who have lost loved ones in this most dangerous working environment. In common with others, too, I would like to pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, who voluntarily risk their own lives to save others, to our coastguards, and of course to the Fishermen’s Mission and other welfare organisations that do so much to support our fishing communities.

I would also like to put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for all the work they have done as chair and secretary of the all-party group on fisheries. Even though we have not always agreed, it has been a pleasure working with them on behalf of our fishing and processing sectors, and as they both step down from Parliament next year, I wish them the very best for whatever comes next.

This time last year I highlighted some of the challenges we face in relation to the implementation of the landing obligation. Those problems have not diminished over the last 12 months; they have become more pressing, as the discard ban comes into effect for our pelagic fleet in the next three weeks. The pelagic sector has not had an easy run in recent years. Although we saw some progress in resolving the protracted mackerel dispute with Iceland and Faroe earlier this year, the trade sanctions imposed on the EU by Russia in response to the political situation in Ukraine have hit our pelagic exports disproportionately hard, and I know that the Scottish Government and indeed the UK moved very quickly to help the industry identify and develop new export markets. Although our mackerel saw a 9% fall in value last year, it remains our most valuable stock, and it supports hundreds of onshore jobs in my constituency in addition to those at sea.

Arguably, implementing the landing obligation should be easier for the pelagic fleet than anyone else because of the nature of the stock and the fact that there will not be much by-catch, but I understand that there are still contradictory regulations in force, and these regulatory inconsistencies do not look like they will be ironed out in time for the first phase of the landing obligation on 1 January. I understand that the so called “omnibus process” has been stuck in co-decision-making, and it would be helpful to get an update from the Government on where that has got to today.

Now, we could say that the sky is not going to fall in because the revised regulations are not fully signed and sealed, but I think it sends the wrong signal to our fishermen and undermines the discard ban before it has even got under way. That undermining of confidence is also relevant to the issue I raised with the Minister earlier this morning about enforcement and the lack of a consistent compliance regime that applies to all vessels fishing in our waters. It would be wholly unacceptable for our boats to be working to one set of rules, and third party states fishing in our waters to be subject to another—potentially less stringent—set of rules.

I was pleased to hear from the Minister this morning that some progress was made on this issue at the recent EU-Norway talks, and I hope he will take the opportunity today to spell out the detail and clarify whether it will actually deliver the level playing field that the industry is demanding.

The problems with implementing the landing obligation will get more acute when it is introduced for the demersal fleet in 2016, which is probably the source of the greatest concern. Progress has, I think, been pitifully slow over the last year, and time to develop workable solutions is now running out. It is going to be a whole lot more complicated to implement a discard ban for the whitefish fleet simply because it is a mixed fishery, and our fishermen are working in a context of quota shortages, choke species, lack of flexibility and a system of single species quotas that is simply no longer fit for purpose.

I raised the issue of choke species at the last fisheries debate, and the situation has not really changed. A good example that Peterhead fishermen have raised with me is saithe. They are seeing a lot of it, they do not have much quota for it, and it is low value, with no big market, but it is also quite a big fish, so selective gear is not going to help. What do they do? They cannot land it; they cannot discard it. Will they have to stop fishing for everything else? That would cripple the industry—and very quickly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has on previous occasions raised similar concerns about dogfish on the west coast of Scotland, with the one difference that there might actually be a market for that. If we are to have any hope of making this landing obligation workable, we absolutely need to move away from single species quotas. We need flexibility between adjoining ICES areas where there is evidence that it is the same stock, and that an appropriate quota is available. After speaking to industry leaders yesterday, I wonder whether we really need to look at some sort of phasing-in, because this process is not currently on track. I will be interested to hear the Government’s perspective on that.

I have focused on the landing obligation because it will present serious challenges to the industry a year from now if we do not get it right. We need to be absolutely clear about the fact that discarding is a symptom of poor fisheries management. It is not the fault of the fishermen, and it needs to end. We are in danger of making parts of our fleet unviable, with untold consequences for our processors, our supply chains, our exports and our fishing-dependent communities, such as those that I represent. Discarding has been caused by poor political decisions, not by fishermen, and it is incumbent on us to find solutions to it that are workable and do not jeopardise people’s livelihoods.

Let me end by saying a little about the December Council, and emphasising to the Minister that there must be no cuts in effort for the Scottish fleet next year. I hope he will assure me that the Government will make that a priority in the negotiations. I am very glad to learn that he will be at the Council meeting; given the severity of the issues affecting the south-west of England, it would be a dereliction of duty if he were not there. However, I fear that the spirit of the 2012 concordat with the Scottish Government has been lost in DEFRA’s revolving doors over the last couple of years, because it is not working as it should. Given that 87% of the United Kingdom’s key stocks are landed in Scotland from Scottish vessels, we ought to recognise that Scotland has an important interest. The Government need to work with their counterparts in Edinburgh—and, indeed, in other parts of the United Kingdom—to make the concordat operate much better than it is operating now.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

I will not, because Members behind me who represent big fishing interests are waiting to speak, and the hon. Lady had a fair amount of time in which to do so.

Our fishermen do a difficult and dangerous job in circumstances that are quite challenging enough without our making them worse. We need a workable discard ban, and we need it very quickly. This is the biggest challenge that the Scottish industry is currently facing, and Ministers have an opportunity to step up to it.

13:11

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

I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) for the way in which they have represented their constituents and the work that they have done for the fishing industry—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will, of course, also be remembered for the wonderful photographs that he has taken over the years—and I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). She is an expert on these matters, and it was her family who made the supreme sacrifice.

I was impressed by the oratory of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who is no longer in the Chamber. He is a wonderful advocate for the fishing industry. As I listened to him, I thought that if I myself ever needed an advocate, he would be my first choice, because I am sure that he could persuade any judge that I was innocent.

I am a lover of fish. I eat them, and I keep them in various tanks in my office. We are always celebrating births—one of our guppies recently had about 250 babies —but, unfortunately, I must report to the House that we have suffered a fatality. I am thinking of calling for counselling to cheer up the members of my team.

My constituency is a coastal community. Relatively few of the 646 Members of Parliament represent areas where there are fishermen; if there had been more of us, perhaps we would have been more effective in achieving what we did achieve, although I think that so far this has been a first-class debate. Fishing is a significant source of employment in my constituency, and it makes a significant contribution to our local economy. I wholeheartedly support the fishermen whom I represent, and I am frustrated by the fact that they hit a brick wall every time they express their concerns and make first-hand observations to the authorities.

My local branch of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations recently met representatives of the Marine Management Organisation, the Kent and Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, the Environment Agency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Thames Estuary Partnership, London Gateway, the Port of London Authority, and many other bodies. The meeting, which took place on 25 September, left my local fishermen completely confused and frustrated, as all those bodies seemed to be passing the buck and denying their regulatory roles and responsibilities.

Let me now briefly outline the three issues that concern me: environmental damage, dredging, and the unreasonable and harmful regulation from Brussels. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the referendum.

First, I want to say something about the 1970s and the neighbouring council of Basildon, the area that I represented between 1983 and 1997. Following the passage of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972, Pitsea became one of the country’s largest hazardous waste dumps. Some Members may recall the tragedy that occurred in 1975, when a lorry driver was killed by poisonous fumes at the Pitsea dump. The fumes had been caused by the mixing of his load of toxic waste with another chemical. During my time as Member of Parliament for Basildon I had a very good relationship with Cleanaway Ltd, which ran the site, but some of my local fishermen believe that the creation of the toxic waste dump in Pitsea was based on a flawed assumption. It was assumed that Pitsea lay over an impermeable clay bowl, into which chemicals could be safely poured, but it now appears that it was a clay wedge rather than a clay bowl, sloping down into the Thames estuary.

I appreciate that the concerns about toxic waste are based on suspicion and anecdotal evidence, but it is important for them to be taken seriously. It is unacceptable to fob off the representatives of an important industry that employs 13,000 people across the country and provides up to 20% of the employment in some of our coastal communities. It is difficult to say whether those concerns are exaggerated, but they are the genuine concerns of my local fishermen, and they should be listened to.

Before I make my remarks about dredging, which is my second point, let me make clear that I do not want the PR person from the company that I shall name to make a phone call to my office next week to be rude and try to shut me up. That is not the way to lobby Members of Parliament. If constituents have concerns, I for one will raise them, without being contacted by a PR company.

[Sir Robert Smith]

May I take up the hon. Gentleman’s point about not shutting up voices? Will he join me in congratulating both the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations on all that they have done to inform Ministers and other Members of Parliament of the needs of fishermen? Their voices should be heard and understood in our debates.

[Mr Amess]

I certainly do congratulate them. They do not fall into the category that I am about to share with the House.

There has been dredging in the Thames estuary by DP World and the London Gateway project. I appreciate the contribution that dredging makes to our economy and the employment that it produces, but there are fears that dredging may be causing the decline of certain species of fish. Fishermen in Southend West are mainly concerned about the disappearing stocks of Dover sole, smelt and cod. Local fishermen may not have the specialist equipment or the advanced measuring methods that are required for official investigation, but they do have years, if not generations, of experience of catching fish, and I trust them when they say that stocks are being reduced. I have been told that before dredging began in our area, a fair haul would be between 100 and 200 sole, whereas now it is just three or four. That is absolutely ridiculous.

There is also empirical evidence to suggest that the disappearance of sole, smelt and cod coincides with dredging. It seems that only the area close to the London Gateway project is affected, as stocks of fish in other areas have not suffered. That area includes Kentish Knock, near Clacton, and the area north of the Gunfleet sands. My local fishermen's hands-on experience leads them to believe that dredging is a real problem. They say that the continued vibration caused by the dredging in our area has caused the geological movement of liquid from under the ground. The liquid may be coming from toxic waste dumps such as the one that I mentioned earlier. Again, that is just an assumption, but it ought to be taken seriously. I think that there should be independent research on this matter, involving the fishermen themselves. Such research would, I believe. give us an answer to the question of the link between the effects of dredging and the declining stocks of certain fish.

DP World is a listed company trading on both the Dubai and London stock exchanges. It has 60 terminals all around the world and a revenue of over £3 billion. My local fishermen, on the other hand, only ever wanted to catch fish. They depend on the fish to feed them. Something needs to be done to ensure some fairness in this conflict of interests.

I shall end on the European Union and some advice to the Minister, whether or not he wants it. The fishermen complain about the latest proposed regulation coming from Brussels. It shows how out of touch the European regulators are. There is absolutely no way that the one-size-fits-all regulation practised by Brussels will ever work. My local fishermen are frustrated by the senseless ban from the EU on skate and ray fishery, introduced because of the alleged overfishing. This ban came into force in October and there are fears that it will make many businesses across the UK unviable.

My local fishermen know at first hand that some species of skate fish, such as the Thornback ray, are in fact the only species that do not appear to be affected in the Thames estuary. Numbers of skate in our area are so high that the fishermen in my constituency have had catches of half a tonne for a day’s fishing. The proposed 20% cut in the quotas for some types of fish for 2015 will be detrimental to the fishing industry in our country and we need to ensure that this is reversed. Fishermen report that the numbers of Thornback ray are at an all-time high and they struggle to understand why they are being penalised for the alleged overfishing, according to the rules set by EU decision makers who have no experience whatsoever of local fishing.

The full driftnet ban proposed by the EU is another piece of legislation that our local fishermen find frustrating. Driftnet is a method used to catch many species around our shores and it is probably one of the most environmentally friendly methods of fishing. The EU’s motivation in introducing such a ban is that there is a problem, but only off the coast of Italy, with swordfish, tuna, turtles, and dolphins accidentally being caught in driftnets. These are not common in our waters, so this just goes to prove how out-of-touch Brussels is putting our fishermen out of business for no reason.

When many years ago I met Commissioner Emma Bonino, I took her a bunch of red roses and planted a kiss on her cheek. It did not get me anywhere, so I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will use charm more effectively than I did, and I hope that if my party—the Conservative party—wins the next election and there is a referendum, fishing quotas will be at the heart of the renegotiation. I wish the Minister well in his meeting next week, and I hope that, as a tribute to the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Great Grimsby, we achieve what we have all gathered in the Chamber to achieve: fairness for the fishermen and fisherwomen.

13:23

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). He has been a Member of this House since 1983, which is a remarkable achievement of longevity, and longevity has been a theme of today’s debate—both the importance of longevity in the fishing industry and the longevity of some of my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), in standing up for the fishing industry. I have not been a Member of this House as long as they have, but I hope I can follow in their footsteps—although I do not have their wisdom and experience—by trying to do my best for the fishing industry in Hartlepool.

The fishing industry in Hartlepool is not a staple industry, as it is in some other constituencies, but, returning to the theme of longevity, it spans over 800 years. Generations of Hartlepool families have eked out a living—and they have often just eked out a living—by farming the seas and wanting to pass on their business to the next generation, but during my time in the House, and well before, that has been made increasingly difficult. It is not getting any easier for my constituents to be part of the fishing industry.

We have had an excellent debate, and I want to single out the contribution of the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Our constituencies share similar characteristics. Hartlepool’s fishing fleet, like his, is now composed almost exclusively of the inshore under-10 metre fleet.

I have asked my fishermen what their main concerns are and what they would like to be highlighted to the House and to the Minister this afternoon, and—as we have heard many times in this debate—they said that the quota levels have been a perennial problem for the under-10 metre fleet for many years. Whiting quota has been cut by about 18% this year, and my fishermen tell me that adverse weather conditions in the North sea have pulled some of the larger boats inshore, putting even further pressure on the small fleet. What will the Minister do to address the points about quotas when he goes to Europe on Monday and Tuesday? Will he call for additional support to be given in respect of The Hague preference?

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under-10 metre vessels are unique because they cannot migrate from port to port and area to area to gain a living, and because when they can operate is governed by the weather conditions?

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Lady has great wisdom and experience in this matter and makes a very good point, and she is absolutely right. The fishermen in the under-10 metre fleet in my patch will not be able to go further afield. They are tied—quite rightly—to the Hartlepool area and will not go much beyond it.

Discards have been mentioned a number of times. I think the whole House will agree that they are a scandal on economic and ecological grounds. We have all seen the pictures of good, mature, dead cod being thrown back into the sea. That is an absolute disgrace and a reflection of the fact that the rules the fishing industry has to operate under are dysfunctional.

Phil Walsh, a fisherman in my constituency, sent me an article from the ex-editor of Fishing News, Tim Oliver, which quoted an EU fisheries official stating:

“High levels of discarding are a persistent problem in this area, both in the whitefish and the flatfish fisheries. Accordingly, scientific advice calls for significant TAC cuts e.g. for cod and haddock.”

I had to reread that several times. That does not make sense to me or my fishermen constituents. How can it be right that higher discards result in lower quotas? Do increased discards not indicate that stocks, certainly in the North sea, are increasing?

Are discards not a vivid and tragic illustration that the policy on quotas simply is not working? Nobody wants the seas farmed extensively in the short term at the expense of long-term sustainability. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) made that incredibly important point. Generations of Hartlepool fishermen certainly do not want to do that, but I do not see how the current situation is helping the industry. The discard ban is also pushing further consolidation of quotas into the hands of ever fewer and ever larger operators, making it ever more difficult for the under-10 metre fleet to sustain a viable business model.

What are the Government going to do to ensure that they meet the requirements of article 17 of the reformed common fisheries policy, which the hon. Member for Waveney mentioned, and which requires member states to use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature, when allocating fishing opportunities? Article 17 should move the quota system away from a method based on what was caught before and away from a system that disproportionately favours those who caught the most in the past. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on the Front Bench says from a sedentary position, it should be based on science. My constituents want me to press the Minister on this fundamental matter that greatly affects their livelihoods, so how will his Government implement article 17?

Fishermen in Hartlepool also make a practical point in that the Marine Management Organisation needs to improve its reporting systems to ensure that there is minimal delay in quota managers getting landings data from the ports. My fishermen report that there have sometimes been significant delays caused by poor reporting lines, which have led to the failures to allocate the available quota for the under-10 metre fleet. That, in turn, has meant that fishermen in Hartlepool have not been able to keep their boats at sea fishing throughout the year. The lack of a prompt reporting line has endangered the economic viability and livelihoods of fishermen in Hartlepool, and that cannot be acceptable. This is something that could be changed for the better, and I hope the Minister will act on those concerns.

While the Minister is considering that matter, I hope he will also address a further concern. My constituents would like a great deal more clarity from DEFRA on what quota, including any uplifts, is going to be available under the demersal discard ban. Fishermen are telling me that this lack of information is preventing any sort of longer-term business planning. We need to look at the way in which the common fisheries policy and the annual quota have worked. I have made the point in the House before that the annual quota is detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the industry, causing fishermen to work in a knee-jerk, short-termist way. For many of the fishermen in Hartlepool whose fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and even great-great-grandfathers farmed the North sea, that seems a ridiculous way to ensure that the industry is sustainable over the long term. What will the Minister do to address this matter and move us away from the short-term approach towards a much more long-term, sustainable and ultimately viable industry?

I am very proud to represent in Parliament a town that has had fishing in its blood for more than 800 years. However, thanks to the treacherous nature of the North sea, it is a tough and dangerous living, and because of regulations and the short-term and often contrary approach of European policy, it is being made tougher. I want to see the Hartlepool fishing industry sustained for generations yet to come, but it has been stated loud and clear today that that will be achieved only if the Government recognise the concerns and act to ensure that there will be stock, a viable business model and a livelihood for Hartlepool fishermen for decades to come.

13:31

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow that eloquent contribution from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). Like others, I should like to start by paying tribute to all those fishermen who put their lives on the line to put food on the nation’s plate. No one knows more about the ultimate price that fishing families pay than my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), and I pay tribute to all that she has done in working for safety at sea. I cannot miss this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who worked at the Brixham maritime rescue co-ordination centre in my constituency, which has now sadly closed. I call on the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that response times and safety are maintained following the sad loss of the centre.

I pay tribute to everyone who contributes to helping to keep fishermen safe at sea, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the National Coastwatch Institution. I also pay tribute to all those who support those organisations, particularly the Fishermen’s Mission, which has played an extraordinarily important role in supporting those in Brixham and other communities who have been affected by the winter storms. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) referred to 14-metre waves. It is worth pausing to consider that 14 metres is higher than the top of the Public Gallery. Our fishermen go out to sea in quite extraordinary conditions, and we need to do everything we can to support them. Who could forget Fishstock in my constituency? I pay tribute to all those who made it happen, including Jim Portus, who led that venture. Who could forget the contribution made at Fishstock by the Fishwives Choir? I urge everyone to go out and buy their album to support the organisations that keep our fishermen safe at sea.

I want to talk briefly about crab fisheries. The Minister will be aware of the many historical injustices that have occurred in the crab fisheries sector, and the effect that they are having. We know, for example, that just under 2 million kilowatt days were allocated to the French, while only 545 were allocated to the UK. On top of that, there have been further sudden and drastic reductions that will have a devastating effect. The ports of Salcombe and Dartmouth in my constituency support 30 fishing families, and we know that every job at sea supports five jobs on land. Just one business in Salcombe, Favis, brings in a £2 million turnover to the local economy. The devastating impact on the local economy of the provision that I have mentioned is profound.

Is it not time, also, to look at the dangerous knock-on effects of the kilowatt days restrictions? Fishermen are dangerously having to cram all their work into short time frames, for example. Regarding the artificial cut-off time of midnight, can we not at least have some flexibility, and a recognition that a 24-hour period at sea is dependent on tides, not on an arbitrary midnight cut-off? I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point. Can we also have more support regarding swaps? Rather than having swaps negotiated by the industry at great expense, could that work be done on the industry’s behalf?

On a brighter note, I would like to thank the Minister for the support provided after last winter’s storms that allowed compensation packages to extend to static fishermen, and for cutting the bureaucracy from a level that I would describe as overwhelming to one that was merely impenetrable and excessive. That was a great help.

I shall not repeat the many points that have been made today about bass fisheries. That topic was also covered extensively in an earlier debate. I would simply reiterate that imposing a total allowable catch—TAC—quota limit involving further restrictions just will not work. We have already seen the historical injustices that resulted from a unilateral decision by the UK to ban pair-trawling, even though no such ban was extended to French pair-trawling. The irony is that French pair-trawling has continued in British waters, even though UK fishermen are banned from doing it here.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend recall that, when the then Minister under the last regime tried to introduce unilateral restrictions on British bass fishermen, he had to abandon them?

[Dr Wollaston]

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

We are all calling on the Minister not to penalise sport fishermen. Sport fishing is very important to my constituency because it attracts a large number of tourist visitors. Having a one fish-bag limit is illogical when the vast majority of mortality is a result of pair-trawling carried out by the French. I hope that he will hold his ground on that issue and press for a size limit so that the fish can at least spawn. That is a much more sensible way of trying to turn around the bass fishery.

I also want to mention demersal skates and rays. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) made an extraordinarily eloquent contribution, and I will simply state my support for everything he said rather than repeating it. I will expand on one point, however. I have spoken to fisheries scientists and I understand that one of the problems is that skates and rays are all lumped together as one. We know that some species might be quite rare, but as we have heard from the hon. Member for Hartlepool and others, some are not rare at all and, in my patch, the fishermen just cannot avoid catching them. The situation is completely illogical. Would it not be better to support fisheries scientists to work on board our fishing vessels to assist in clearly differentiating the species by practical means, so that they can be returned to the sea?

The irony is that a total discard ban will have many unintended consequences if it is not imposed in a nuanced way. We know that many skates and rays will survive if returned to the sea. Paradoxically, we would be changing from a system in which fish were discarded at sea and might have survived to one in which they are discarded on land. That is entirely illogical. Will the Minister address that point and assure the House that he will press for a nuanced application of the ban in relation to skates and rays? The measures will have a profound effect on the fishermen in my constituency.

A constant theme of this afternoon’s debate has been the lack of data and the effect that poor data have on our fishing communities. I urge the Minister to look closely at the effect on our plaice fisheries. Plaice have benefited in many ways from some of the sole restrictions, but we need to examine the way in which the quotas are being applied. For example, he will know that in some fisheries the areas D and E are accounted together but recorded separately. May I urge him to support at least the status quo in this and other areas and not a cut, as we need to increase the limits for sole?

We need to take a scientifically led approach, but we cannot do so if further drastic cuts are made to our science base. In the Minister’s discussions, will he insist that funding for our fisheries scientists comes directly from the EU, rather than from local budgets? That would be a very good use of resources. As we move towards landing everything that is caught, the collection of data will become easier, but there will be a considerable delay—an unnecessary one in the case of demersal species. In the meantime we face even more gaps in the data, and if further missing data results in an automatic 20% cut, that is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will strongly press that point when he goes to the European Council.

Finally, let me deal with the issue of the MMO, as looking at what has happened there provides a heart-sink moment. I can only reinforce the points made so eloquently by so many Members. It is unacceptable that fishermen are paying the price for the incompetence of others; in other sectors that would result in compensation, but it is not resulting in compensation for our industry. We are talking about bankruptcies and the loss of an industry that will not return. What is the Minister going to do to get a grip of the situation and make sure that that does not happen again? The “Have Your Say” panels were heralded by the MMO on 5 November—five weeks ago—but we are still waiting to hear the details. Perhaps he could also set that out in this answer.

Looking further afield, has the Minister seen the article published in PLOS ONE yesterday by Marcus Eriksen and others, which referred to the 5 trillion pieces of plastic now floating on the surface of our seas? It particularly deals with the effect of microplastics—very small particles that attract organic chemicals to their surface and enter the food chain. It is sobering to remember that the great Pacific garbage patch of swirling eddy current is now larger than Texas, and it is just one of many. We have to deal not only with microplastics but with larger plastics, which are so dangerous to cetaceans and turtles. Is that actually going to register on the agenda at some point? Perhaps it is not for the forthcoming Council meeting, but the article is an important publication and I hope the Minister will read it.

I wish the Minister success in the Council negotiations. I heard his predecessor say that the collective noun for fisheries Ministers is “an exhaustion”. It is worth being exhausted and I hope that this Minister will spare no effort in exhaustion on behalf of our fishing communities, many of which I am proud to represent. I wish him well.

13:43

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I realise that time is now short, so I will try to keep my comments brief. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) in their last fisheries debate. Both have been stalwarts of all the fisheries debates that have taken place since I entered the House. I particularly wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North, simply because of the help and support he has given me as a constituency MP with the fishing interests, particularly in the processing sector. Whenever I have been at a loss as to how to proceed with a case, he has been there with guidance and advice. He has done a huge amount of work on behalf of a particular group of processors who feel that they have been hard done by in the past because of the prevalence of black fish and the consequences it had on the industry, which he mentioned in his speech.

I will confine my remarks to the processing side because, as my hon. Friend said, very few boats are coming out of Aberdeen harbour these days. The fish market is in his constituency, just over the border and a stone’s throw from mine, but a vibrant processing industry remains in Aberdeen. In the north-east of Scotland the industry is worth £500 million a year, so it is still a big, important industry and it has not been completely overtaken by oil and gas, although that is perhaps what we talk about more in this Chamber. The processors feel a wee bit aggrieved, because they feel that they get left out in a lot of these discussions—this afternoon’s debate has been almost wholly about the catching side. They think that is perhaps because the catching sector has a much more effective lobby, and that is true in respect of the information I received for this afternoon’s debate. The processors also feel that they are not always listened to, but they are an important part of the sector.

The sustainability of the processors’ business is dependent on what the catching side does. They tell me that fishing is about hunting a raw material, and for processors that means spikes and troughs in their business, depending on the fish that have been landed. As their business comes in fits and starts, it is difficult for them to sustain their business throughout the low times. Strange things happen in the industry as a result of unintended consequences. For instance, if Scottish haddock is expensive, as it often is, it goes for fishmeal and the consumer gets the cheaper Norwegian and Icelandic haddock, all of which are bigger and are processed and cut to look like Scottish haddock. That cannot right, but obviously the supermarkets are looking for the cheapest raw material they can buy in order to sell it. The Government and the Scottish Government need to look at that problem.

The processors also tell me that there is an imbalance in the industry. They have lobbied Richard Lochhead, the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and the Environment, but they feel he is not listening and that they are somehow the poor relation when it comes to any decisions taken on the fishing industry. They also feel that they face a different problem relating to EU policy—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) will be delighted to hear about yet another thing he can beat the EU around the head with. It has been brought about because of the horsemeat scandal and the labelling. The processors tell me that the labelling that the EU hopes to impose on the industry will simply not be workable, because it will require them to segregate the different fish, and that will bring their production to a halt. Let me explain how that would happen.

A big processor does not buy its raw materials from a single source and it might make 20 to 30 purchases from 15 to 20 boats. From the scientific point of view, the vessels and the area of the sea that the catch comes from is important, but for processors to have to say which fish came from which purchase and from which boat is just too difficult—it is nonsensical. Their fear is that jobs could be lost as a result. They will continue to adopt, as they have managed to do over the years in the face of a lot of fairly cheap imports. That is still the case, because the supermarkets are putting pressure on the prices. If the supermarkets want breaded haddock, they want it at the cheapest price and they do not care whether it is Norwegian haddock or the much superior Scottish haddock. In this case, the cheapest is not the best.

As I say, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and for Aberdeen North. They say that it is their last fisheries debate, but I hope that it is not mine, and a number of hon. Members might feel the same. Our future is in the hands of our electors, but I hope that on fishing they feel that we have represented them well in Parliament this afternoon.

13:49

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

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I always seem to be the tail-end Charlies in these debates in the House. Like other Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) for the advice that he has given to me on the fishing industry. I also wish to thank him, on behalf of many families in Fleetwood, for the work that he and the late Mark Hamer did in fighting for proper compensation. They owe him a great debt of gratitude, and I am glad to have put that on the record.

I will try not to repeat what others have said, but I should like to touch on the matter of quotas. Although I am no expert on fishing, I, like other Members, have found that fishermen tend to be extremely generous with their advice, and I am most grateful to them for that. In particular, I thank Steve Welsh for all his help.

In the 1970s, something like 9,000 people worked in the fishing industry in Fleetwood, 8,000 of whom have now gone. When the Prime Minister renegotiates terms with Europe in the next Conservative Government, he must ensure that there is something on the common fisheries policy. If he does not, we do not need a crystal ball to know how the people in Fleetwood will vote when it comes to a European referendum.

Steve Welsh goes out to sea in one of the three remaining over-10 metre boats. He is concerned about the constant expansion of wind farms in the Irish sea. I encourage people to stand on Fleetwood front, as they will see lovely views of the Lake district, but in the past, they would also have been able to see the Isle of Man. But now between us and the Isle of Man is an array of wind farms. I do not know whether anybody has produced any studies on the impact of those wind farms on marine life. Perhaps the Minister could tell us if he knows of any, because all I have seen are contradictory views. Obviously, the wind farms have reduced our fishing grounds, but they are also posing a threat to both fishermen and ferries.

The other issue raised by Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), is that of quotas. I will not repeat what has been said, but let me mention William Bamber, William McGough, John Worthington and Rod Collinson, who are the under-10 metre fishermen in Fleetwood. Their livelihood in winter depends on hauling in the skate and the ray. As Members have so eloquently put it, what happened in October has had a dramatic impact on the few fishermen in Fleetwood.

We have heard about the science behind the quotas, but, like other hon. Members, I really do not understand where the figures come from. Funnily enough, the fishermen say that the skate is plentiful. They say that the measurements have been cut down. We only have their subjective analysis of what is going on and they say that there is no problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) said, rather than having a regional policy towards quotas, we use a one-size-fits-all policy. Will the Minister comment further on that?

Let me give a practical example now. One fisherman arranged a meeting with the Marine Management Organisation. Funnily enough, I had been trying to arrange such a meeting myself, but all I got was its staff asking my staff, “Why does an MP want to meet us?” I will continue to pursue that. The fisherman met the staff. He said, “Why can’t the under-10 metre boats have the logbooks that the other fishermen have?” The MMO said to him, “There’s nothing against you having a log, but we are not giving you one.” He was making a practical suggestion to improve what was going on and was simply turned down by the bureaucrats saying, “Logs are not for the under-10 metre boats, so we can’t give you one.” How crazy is that? Fishermen in our most sustainable fleet—the under-10 metre boats—are offering to help out by providing evidence that the Minister needs when he goes to his meetings. Like other Members, they do not want to see any cut in the quota. They want to challenge the fact that the under-10 metre boats have only 4% of the quota. The fishermen’s livelihood in winter is based around hauling in skate and ray, and at the moment that has gone. Soon there will be nothing left in the docks of Fleetwood.

Let me finish on a far more positive point. I know that this is not in the Minister’s area, but we still have fish processing in Fleetwood. We have 600 jobs in 29 companies in Fleetwood scattered around the docks. Some are based in 19th-century buildings. Tonnes of shellfish and fish come into Fleetwood nightly by truck, and are dealt with by our workers. It is a credit to them that their skills are still used to support a work force of 600.

There is one company that is trying to expand, but it is being held back by its premises, which are old-fashioned and do not meet the standards on which supermarkets insist for fish processing. An application has gone in to the Minister with responsibility for regional growth funds. I know that it is not the Minister’s area, but I assume that with this holy grail that we all want of Government singing from the same hymn sheet, he might be willing to have a word with the Department for Communities and Local Government about this application to build a centralised fish park in Fleetwood.

We want a modern building to house and sustain all the existing businesses, with a potential to increase employment by 25%. That bid is currently with the regional growth fund, and I am asking the Minister for his support. It has the support of Wyre district council, the county council, the Member of Parliament and all the businesses that flourish around fish processing in Fleetwood. It would be the new Billingsgate for the north, and possibly a great tourist attraction, as it would be displaying the traditional skills from which Fleetwood has benefited. Those skills have enabled the area to survive the depredations to the sea-going fleet. Such a development would put Fleetwood back on the map as a major centre of the fish industry.

13:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) for introducing this debate. I understand that he has taken part in 38 years of fishing debates in this House, so we will miss him when he is gone. Obviously, he has seen 38 years of change. The debates 38 years ago were probably good and positive, but today they are more negative as we see the effects of the bureaucracy in Europe.

I represent a constituency with a rich fishing industry. Portavogie is one of the villages that I represent. It used to have a vibrant industry, with 120 boats coming into the harbour. Now we have between 70 and 75, a third of which are boats of 10 metres and under. Again, we have seen changes in the fishing industry.

As we all know, fishermen do not have a nine-to-five job. Their work is dependent on the weather conditions and the seasons, which determine whether they can catch a certain type of fish. Last weekend, the film “The Perfect Storm” was on TV with its haunting tune, as was the series the “Deadliest Catch”. Those programmes underline the danger that our fishermen face whenever they go fishing. The fishermen are also dependent on EU fishing regulations.

Last week, we had a debate in Westminster Hall on the management of the UK bass stocks. The Minister was present. As we heard, the big danger for bass stocks at the moment is the fact that they are being fished as soon as they leave the nurseries at just six and seven years old. In his response, the Minister said that he would look at that issue. We hope that he can give us some reassurance on that matter.

At the end of October, the European Commission published its proposals for total allowable catches and for the fishing effort both for stocks managed exclusively by the EU and for stocks managed with third countries such as Norway or through the regional fisheries management organisations across the world’s oceans. For many stocks, more selective fishing techniques are urgently needed, so that young fish are not caught before they can reproduce and replenish the fish stocks. That is particularly urgent for fish in the Celtic sea and the western waters, where big efforts are needed to implement the selectivity measures advised by scientists. That will also help our fishing sector comply with the obligation to land all catches as of next year and to become more profitable in the medium term.

That is all very commendable, but it puts the pressure on. We need to bear in mind the introduction of the EU’s landing obligation on demersal fisheries from 1 January 2016. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) asked about that, and other Members have spoken about it. It almost crept up on us, and all of a sudden its implications for the fishing industry are real and will have a great impact upon us in Northern Ireland. That is because the TAC set for 2015 will become the benchmark from which quotas should be uplifted in 2016 to reflect the landing obligation. Therefore the figures for Scotland from 1 January 2015 will have an impact on the rest of us elsewhere.

Not only is the situation with cod in the Irish sea critical, but the situation with nephrops is no better. Nephrops is by far the most important stock in our fishing industry, which makes it vital to the local processing sector as well. In recent years the UK and Ireland have successfully made the case that the TAC must be uplifted above the “sum of the science” to account for consistent undershoots in the TAC. I was recently heartened to learn that the Irish Minister shares the same priorities for the Irish sea as I understand we shall shortly hear from the Minister.

As we look forward to next week’s negotiations, I am heartened that the priorities of the two member states with the biggest stake in the Irish sea fisheries are aligned—in other words, they are working together. Nevertheless, it is frustrating to hear that even during preliminary discussions with the Commission, the Commission continues to scorn the UK and Ireland’s arguments on some of these TAC issues. The threat remains that Irish sea priorities might fall in the face of the Commission’s intransigence. May I respectfully remind the Minister about the priority of decentralisation or regionalisation? Where does the Commission’s position fit into that policy in the face of a unified approach by the two most important regional member states in the Irish sea? Again, I would welcome the Minister’s observations on that.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) referred to the European Union and the referendum. It will be interesting to see how much effort is made in the Brussels talks to court us in relation to quotas and to ensure that we have pre-eminence in the discussion of these matters. In December 2012, it was argued that reducing the TAC to the levels of the ICES advice would be unnecessarily restrictive for countries with full quota uptake, such as Ireland and the UK, and could lead to under- exploitation of sustainably fished stocks. I shall not baffle the House with figures, but a comparison of the percentages that were allowed and then reduced makes it clear that, given the reduced landings from the area and improved cumulative science, we should be aiming for a slightly increase in the nephrops total allowable catch in 2015. That is the bottom line, and we hope the Minister will be able to deliver on that.

There is no directed fishery for Irish sea cod. This year, for a very short season, two vessels were involved in a fishery, under scientific investigation—the scientists are always there—during the early autumn of 2014. Unsurprisingly, during the rest of the year, these vessels fish for nephrops. So far, as I am sure the Minister is aware, the results seem to show that there is a good cod spawning stock biomass in the Irish sea, which augurs well for the future. However, the Commission has proposed a cut in TAC of 20% in line with the cod recovery plan. It is difficult to understand why, with signs of growth and bigger and better cod in the Irish sea, more restrictions are imposed.

This further reduction is likely to mean higher discards, even if the nephrops fleet lands less than 1.5% cod. Growing recognition abounds that with the significant reduction in fishing effort and fishing mortality in Irish sea cod, there must be additional factors at play with this stock. Although restrictions are necessary for the future of the fishing industry, I hope the Minister will give some thought to the cod TAC. The Commission has so far chosen not to make any proposal for effort reductions. Again, I should like to hear the Minister’s views on that.

In practice, the effort reductions have had little impact on the nephrops fleet as Northern Ireland has made full use of the facility to buy back all the effort we need through the adoption of highly selective fishing gears. In these circumstances, it is no wonder that for the past two winters fishermen have had to resort to accessing hardship funds from Government and elsewhere. Although it is a devolved matter, the Minister will be aware that hardship funds have been given to our fishing fleet primarily because it has had some hard seasons, and periods when it has been unable to fish at all. Last year there was such a period from mid-September to February. It was exceptionally difficult and if the hardship fund had not been available, the fishermen would have been in deep trouble.

What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister responsible for fisheries in Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill? I understand that those talks have not yet taken place. Have there been any discussions with the fishing organisations—Dick James from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation, Alan McCulla from the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, and Mark Palmer who represents the under-10 metre boats in Portavogie and in Kilkeel and Ardglass? Those three organisations have a lot of knowledge, and they are concerned that their opinion has not been sought by the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland, so I would be keen to hear the Minister’s views.

I am delighted that we are having this debate today. The Minister will represent the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We wish him well in Brussels. Being a glass-half-full person, I hope his discussions will be beneficial for the United Kingdom and will ensure that our fishermen do not have to access hardship funds through no choice of their own, but instead can fish the Irish sea and the seas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

14:06

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which was a Government debate and is now a Backbench Business debate. I join other Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). The second election campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby in May 1979 was my first election campaign as a party worker.

I take this opportunity to add my tribute to the bravery of our fishermen and those who have lost their lives in an incredibly difficult and dangerous line of work, as numerous Members have said today. The men who work out at sea take huge risks, and too many of them and their families pay the ultimate price.

We all appreciate just how important the fishing industry is to our country, but it is especially important to many of our coastal towns, so let me be clear. We in the Labour party believe that developing and maintaining sustainable fish stocks is not just essential for the marine environment, but is vital for the long-term health of our fishing industry. Labour believes that fishing is a public good which should be treated as such. That means that the Government have an important role in protecting the sustainability of both our fishing industry and the marine environment. We cannot divorce the economy from the environment and nowhere is that clearer than with fishing. Let me demonstrate the point: show me a series of declining fish stocks, and I will show you a declining coastal town.

I grew up in Grimsby, as many people in this Chamber know. As a girl, I witnessed a bustling fishing port—the biggest in the world at that time—and I clearly remember being taken down to the dockside by my father. I remember the numerous trawlers, the sense of busyness, the sense of pride of workers doing something they knew was incredibly important. But I remember, too, the decline as the years of plenty were replaced by years of what looked like famine. The devastation that it wreaked, both economically and socially, was vivid, with areas around the docks, such as East Marsh, suffering disastrous consequences. To this day, East Marsh, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby knows, is one of the most deprived wards in the country. Gone with the fish are many of the food processing plants that lined Ladysmith road when I was young. Findus has gone. Birds Eye has gone, no longer anchored by the town’s status as one of the greatest food towns in Europe.

As the daughter of a former Grimsby fisherman and someone who grew up in a coastal area, therefore, I fully realise the economic importance of activities related to the sea, fishing being a key aspect of all that. I absolutely believe that we need to learn our lessons. We need to understand that sustainable stocks go hand in hand with sustainable fishing and sustainable coastal communities.

The British fishing fleet is now much diminished, but it is still an important source of economic activity and contributes many millions to the UK economy. In 2013, it still directly employed some 12,000 people with a fleet of 6,400 vessels, and it landed some 600,000 tonnes of fish, at a value of more than £700 million. Plymouth, for example, is one of the largest fishing ports in the country—Brixham being the biggest— landing annually some 11.6 million tonnes of fish worth in excess of £13.5 million. It is not enough to reiterate the facts and figures. We need to secure our fishing industry by ensuring its sustainability, and we need to do that by respecting the fact that our fishing stocks are not just there to be plundered without any regard for their long-term survival. We need a plan to deliver both environmental and commercial fishing success.

Of course, the most important tool at our disposal in developing and maintaining sustainable stocks is science—good, credible data that is rigorously collected and rigorously analysed to underpin good decision making. Without good science, it will be very difficult to achieve our goal of securing a long-term fishing industry that is sustainable both economically and environmentally, and an industry that can continue to support our vital coastal communities. So my first question to the Minister today is: how confident is he that the UK can contribute robust scientific data to the European debate about sustainable fishing stocks? Will the Minister inform the House about the impact of Government cuts on the resources available to develop a more robust scientific base to fisheries policy?

If science is key to securing sustainability, we must also fully understand the importance of strengthening the contribution made to the industry by low-impact fishing practices, which are good not only for the environment but for the long-term interests of our industry. As was evidenced in the debate about sea bass last week, we know that our hard-pressed coastal communities secure significant economic benefit from fishing practices that are also less damaging to the environment. As I pointed out, some 884,000 sea anglers in England directly contribute some £1.23 billion to the UK economy. Their activities support a £2.1 billion contribution to the UK economy and 23,600 jobs, so we need to ensure that our plan, working in concert with our EU colleagues, takes account of the need to deliver more low impact fishing practices, and that is the proper context for any debate about quota distribution.

What then, is the Government’s approach to this issue? How prepared are the Government to incentivise the industry to make the switch to more sustainable practices? How hard are the Government prepared to argue in Europe for the conservation measures necessary to deliver sustainable stocks, particularly in relation to action to protect those all-important nursery areas and the spawning areas? How prepared are the Government to use Labour’s Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and the marine conservation zones enabled by that legislation, to help to deliver industrial and environmental sustainability? Labour is proud of its record on marine protection. Our Act offers a positive way forward, as it makes possible conservation measures, not just in relation to the nought to 6-mile limit but in relation to the 6 to 12-mile limit, because of course it gives the Marine Management Organisation the power to deliver new byelaws that relate not just to UK fishing vessels but to the vessels of all member states that have fishing rights in our waters.

Labour is not just proud of its record; we are clear about our support for continued membership of the EU and the need for positive engagement with it. This is particularly important to fishing. The EU represents the world’s largest maritime territory and is key to delivering a sustainable future. Rather than turning our back on it, as some hon. Members would have us do, we need to be taking our arguments into Europe, making the case for meaningful implementation of fisheries reform, in order to deliver thriving fish stocks and thriving fishing communities. Is the Minister committed to meaningful engagement with our partners in the EU or would he take the route suggested by some of his colleagues and prefer to shout from the sidelines? Reform of the common fisheries policy must bring with it a determination to deliver on the key changes, which as we all know are primarily focused on more regionalisation of decision making, a requirement for quotas based on maximum sustainable yield by 2015 and a ban on discards.

Maximum sustainable yields, as has been illustrated in the debate today, are a key tool for delivering a sustainable fishing future. They offer a way forward both in terms of recovering over-exploited stocks and securing their long-term future. However, it is also right that maximum sustainable yields be based on good science and good quality data, and that these data be correctly applied in the decision making process. This means adopting an approach that is rigorous but pragmatic; 2015 should be the assumed date for implementation of maximum sustainable yields, but we need to recognise that where the case is made scientifically for extending the time available to reach maximum sustainable yields, we should do so.

Fishermen and environmentalists alike are keenly interested in this aspect of CFP and they deserve to know where the Government have got to in terms of implementation. So, will the Minister update the House on how he plans to approach the implementation of maximum sustainable yields? Transparency is the key. Where the 2015 deadline is supported by the Government, give us the evidence for the decision. Where flexibility on maximum sustainable yields is supported by the Government, again, give us the supporting evidence. Our hard-pressed fishing communities and those who are passionate about our marine environment deserve nothing less.

Finally, there is the issue of discards. We know that the deadlines for implementation vary from 2015 for pelagic fisheries to 2016 to 2019 for demersal fisheries. We know that we need to deliver on this principle if we are to make real progress towards a sustainable fishing future, albeit we have had the demand and the argument made today for a more pragmatic approach to implementation. But we know too that, badly implemented, we run the risk of seeing quotas increased for those vessels that practise or have practised discarding, while those vessels that fish more selectively and hence more sustainably risk having their quotas cut in order to achieve maximum sustainable yields. Is the Minister prepared to argue for measures designed to avoid this undesirable and perverse consequence? Is he prepared to make the case for the adoption of more selective fishing practices by those vessels benefiting from quota uplift? In other words, is he determined to ensure that we do not sacrifice the principle of sustainability in an attempt to compensate those who have traditionally indulged in discarding? What will he do to ensure that the integrity of the ban is maintained?

We believe that the interests of the marine environment go hand in hand with the best interests of the fishing industry and of our hard-pressed coastal communities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) pointed out, we need to develop stronger partnerships with the fishing industry to shape the transition to that more sustainable future. More than anything, we need to be able to use good scientific data to underpin our approach to delivering that future. I await the Minister’s responses to the questions raised with interest and once again thank the sponsoring Members for today’s debate.

14:17

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

I congratulate hon. Members and the members of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries on securing the debate and on obtaining the support of the Backbench Business Committee for it. I also acknowledge, as a number of other hon. Members have, the commitment to the fisheries debate over many years of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). Once again, it has been a spirited debate with many questions, and I will try to cover as many of those as I can.

First, it is important to take this opportunity to remember the eight men who lost their lives at sea during the past year in incidents involving five vessels—the Eshcol, the Diamond, the Ronan Orla, the Barnacle 3 and the Ocean Way. The contribution from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about the importance of improving safety at sea was particularly powerful. We all recognise the difficult and dangerous work that fishermen do to bring food to our tables, and I know that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those men and offering sincere condolences to all the families and friends who have suffered loss.

Many important points have been raised in today’s debate, and I shall try to cover as many as I can. This year’s December Fisheries Council will be particularly challenging, with Commission proposals for reductions in the quotas of most stocks, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out. However, I aim to negotiate a fair and balanced package of fishing opportunities for our fishermen. The quotas set should be consistent with our objectives: they should be based on the best available scientific advice; they should aim to achieve maximum sustainable yield where possible; and they should help the industry with the transition to the discard ban.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I will carry on, because I want to cover as many of the points that have been raised as possible, including many that she raised.

In the run-up to the December Council, we have already secured successful outcomes in three major international negotiations on fishing opportunities this year. The outcome of the EU-Norway talks last week was particularly encouraging. The agreed increases in quotas—5% for North sea cod and 7% for haddock and plaice—show the benefits of responsible management. Some difficult decisions taken in previous years are now starting to pay dividends for the fishing industry in the North sea.

I am also pleased that the EU secured a three-party north-east Atlantic mackerel agreement last month. That sustainable agreement will bring around £250 million to the UK. The EU also successfully negotiated an agreement with the Faroes this week. The result is a very good one for the UK, providing our fishermen with opportunities to catch a number of species in Faroese waters, including 817 tonnes of cod and haddock and 696 tonnes of saithe.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), mentioned crab allocations in the south-west. I can confirm that just today a swap agreement has been secured with Irish producer organisations that will enable our very important crab fishery in the far south-west to remain open until the end of the year.

However, I recognise that there are challenges in other areas, particularly the south-west, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, and I have taken those into account when deciding our negotiating position. Let us be clear that we cannot increase quotas if the science does not support it. I do not believe that to do so would be in the long-term interests of our fishermen; if we fish unsustainably, we simply rob them of their tomorrow. If we want a long-term, viable industry, we must fish sustainably. However, while having science as our guiding principle, we have to ensure that we use the best and most up-to-date science available and take decisions that are right for the fish stocks and right for the fishing fleets that depend on them.

Last Thursday I had a meeting with Commissioner Vella in Brussels to begin the negotiating process for the December Council. I made a number of key points on the science. First, we should use the most recent data available where they are relevant. In the south-west, in particular, there is a lot of evidence of a late recruitment of haddock this summer, which we want to be taken into account in the December Council. Secondly, when it comes to data-limited stocks, we oppose simply having an automatic, precautionary approach. We believe that we should make the best possible judgment with the data we have, rather than having arbitrary cuts, and we have made that point already to the Commission. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby highlighted, it is important to have what we call mixed fisheries analysis. There is no point in dramatically cutting the quota for one species if it is in a mixed fishery, because fishermen cannot avoid it and will therefore end up having to discard it. Finally, we want to ensure that account is taken of the increased use of more selective gears.

I particularly welcome the progress that has been made so far in implementing the reformed common fisheries policy, especially in advancing regional fisheries management. The first part of the discard ban for the pelagic fisheries will come into force on 1 January 2015. That is a significant milestone in the new CFP. The new rules that will implement it were developed not in Brussels, but by regional groups of member states working together. I think that the new regionalised approach, as the hon. Member for St Ives noted, is working well. Rather than having top-down decisions from the Commission that the Council of Ministers must then try to mitigate and argue over, we are getting a multilateral agreement where member states with a shared interest in a fishery work through their differences and then take the solution to the Commission. We will shortly begin the work to prepare for the demersal discard ban in January 2016. The regional groups will meet early next summer to take those discussions forward, and in the next year we will issue a consultation to the industry so that we can take on board its views.

I know that fisheries closures have been a prominent issue this year, particularly in the Bristol channel. As a number of Members have pointed out, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) made a forceful intervention in that regard. The point I would make is that the closures are a last-resort mechanism used to protect the long-term future of the fisheries industry. He asked whether I have raised the matter with the Marine Management Organisation. I can confirm that after he raised it with me a month ago I had a meeting with the MMO to explore exactly what went wrong. It is going to set up a panel, which will include fisheries leaders. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes asked why that had not yet progressed. It has been in transition to a new chief executive, but John Tuckett is now in place. I will take up the issue with him, because I want us to learn lessons.

We must also recognise—I went through a number of these issues with the MMO—that managing quotas is a difficult task. The reality is that last year we had a very bad winter, so fishermen could not get out and catch their quotas. We then had an incredibly good summer, so the under-10 fleet, in particular, managed to catch its quota much more quickly than it normally does. Indeed, this is the first year we have had a problem with skate and ray quotas. In defence of the MMO, had it intervened earlier, that would have restricted the amount of quota that fishermen could fish over the summer. There is a fixed amount of quota, and we could not allow them to overfish it. I am sure that there are fishermen who would have said, “Now you’re making me go out and fish in November and December, but I could have caught the quota in the summer.” These are not easy issues.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon pointed out that the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation still had 100 tonnes of ray quota at the point at which the closure took place and wondered why that was. It turned out, when the figures came through, that 100 tonnes of quota were needed to cover overfishing that had already taken place in other parts of the fleet. He also mentioned a transfer that was agreed by the MMO from a Scottish producer organisation. We will want to look at that, but it has to be said that that was held by a Scottish producer organisation, not one in the west country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) proposed the idea of having compulsory log books for the under-10 fleet, which would obviously improve the speed at which we can get the data, but I am not sure that it would be universally popular with the under-10s. The reason we do not require them to have compulsory electronic log books is that they claim it would be disproportionate to the impact they have.

I will move on to some of the other points that were raised.

[Dr Wollaston]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

I want to carry on, because there are many questions that I want to answer in the time available.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that ICES advice is sometimes behind that which we can get from fishermen. We have a mixture of information and data that will inform the recommendations for the December Council, as well as work done by the Endeavour, a fantastic survey vessel run by CEFAS that goes to the same areas each year in order to get reliable data. We also sometimes put observers on fishing vessels so that we can look at the actual catch they are getting in practice.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible to delay implementation of MSY. The regulation requires us to implement it where possible in 2015 and everywhere by 2020, and that is exactly what we will do. We will implement it where we can by 2015. Where we cannot implement it, because the science does not allow us to, there is the possibility to delay until 2020.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) talked about haddock in the Celtic sea. There is a big cut of over 40% proposed for that. We are doing two things in that regard. In the summer I visited the fishing vessel of David Stevens in Newlyn, who has been doing some fantastic work, together with the MMO and CEFAS, on using more selective gears. That scientific advice has now been validated by the EU’s science committee, and we will be using it next week in the December Council. We also want to make more use of the most recent recruitment data.

My hon. Friend mentioned the approach to data-limited stocks. As I said, we believe that we should make the best use we can of the data. That will be particularly important for some species in the far south-west, notably monkfish, megrim and sole. In parts of the south-west, a roll-over is proposed, but there are some quite big proposed cuts in sole in the Bristol channel, and we shall be trying to mitigate some of the impacts of that.

My hon. Friend mentioned CFP reform and whether we could remove access to our fleet. However, the UK also benefits from access in the 6 to 12-mile zone of countries such as France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and many of these agreements even pre-date the CFP, so the matter is not quite that straightforward.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the issue of nephrops. I met Northern Ireland fisheries representatives earlier this week, and I am meeting them again later today, so they are been well represented. Back in October, at one of our stakeholder meetings, I met Michelle O’Neill from the Northern Ireland Administration, and she will be present at the December Council next week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and several others mentioned issues relating to the under-10 metre fleet. We are going to realign quotas, permanently, and that will give a significant uplift in quota to the under-10 fleet. We are about to put out a consultation on removing latent capacity from boats that have not been fishing. About half of them have not carried out any fishing activity at all, and we need to deal with that. A pilot has been run in Ramsgate to look at whether we could give longer-term quotas to some of the under-10 metre fleet. Earlier this year we consulted on whether the under-10 metre would want to leave the pool altogether and have the certainty of an annual quota. The fleet’s reaction to that proposal was mixed, and we have not yet made any final decisions on it. When we get into the new discard ban regime, there will be the potential for a quota uplift. We are looking at whether we can reflect the importance of the under- 10 metre fleet in making those decisions.

The right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) asked about the impact on ports and how they will cope with the discard ban. Two weeks ago, I met a whole load of representatives from the ports and we discussed some of these issues. We do have processing capacity to deal with some of the undersized fish, but there is often a logistical issue in transporting them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) invited me to the Plymouth Marine Laboratory. I attended a reception that the laboratory held a month ago, and I would be more than happy to visit it. DEFRA very much welcomes our partnership with it.

The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) referred to the role of the Scottish Government. I ought to explain what happens at the December Council. I think that we engage with the devolved Assemblies more than any other Department, and we recognise that every part of the UK has an important fisheries industry. At the Council, Richard Lochhead, Scotland’s Fisheries Minister, attends all the meetings where we decide our negotiating strategy, all the bilateral meetings that we have with other Ministers, and the trilateral meeting that we have with the presidency and the Commission. We talk regularly about the position that we take as and when we change things. All the devolved Administrations are fully engaged in the approach that we take to the December Council.

[Dr Whiteford]

rose—

[George Eustice]

I want to carry on because I am conscious of the time.

The hon. Member for St Ives asked about the roll-out of the discard ban. I think that fishermen sometimes forget about the various elements, and flexibilities, in the discard ban. If there is high survivability, fish can be put back. There is inter-species flexibility whereby someone who has, for instance, a lot of cod that they do not have quota for can count it as haddock. We start with the fish that define the fishery and finish with the smaller species. There is a de minimis exemption for people who cannot avoid doing anything else. We can borrow and bank quota from one year to the next.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) talked about the omnibus regulation. The legal position is clear: the new regulations take precedence over previous ones. The omnibus regulation was supposed to deal with that. As she said, there has been a bit of a problem in getting agreement between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and that is now at the stage of trialogues.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) asked about The Hague preference. We plan to invoke that in the usual way. We have also secured extra whiting from Norway through the EU-Norway deal. In recent years, we have diverted an extra 300 tonnes specifically to the north-east. The quota uplift that he mentioned will be finally decided in the December Council.

I hope that I have covered as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible. As I said, this is a challenging December Council. These meetings have a habit of going late into the night, although last year’s was an unusual exception. There are many challenging issues to address. I hope that I have managed to assure hon. Members that I am fully conscious of their concerns and will be going there to get the best possible deal we can for our fishing industry in the context of the science.

14:35

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

My colleagues and I were extremely grateful to secure this important debate and to have time made available for it in the Chamber. I thank those from across the parties who worked, through the Backbench Business Committee, to secure it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who have made major contributions to the fishing industry, and to fishing debates in this Chamber, over very many years. Their loss will be greatly felt in these debates in future, and I want to put that on the record.

We have had a very productive, sometimes passionate debate across a range of issues to do with fisheries in all the various fishing ports represented by Members right across the United Kingdom. This is all about sustaining the fishing industry offshore and onshore, because both are interlinked and both make a major contribution to our own local economies. Many Members referred to the problems associated with landing obligations. I hope that during his negotiations the Minister will be able to apply pressure to ensure that the amendments proposed last week by an MEP from Northern Ireland are eventually implemented, because they will ease the impact of the discard ban and allow a greater level of flexibility.

In my constituency, I have two fishing ports—Ardglass and Kilkeel. At the end of October, I was very grateful to the Minister for visiting to examine the work of the offshore fleet and the onshore industries. I well recall that we were picking prawns or trying to do some redress work to the prawns after they had been fished. In those two areas, fishing is at the heart of the local food industry and crucial to the local economy.

We pay tribute to those who continue to risk their own safety every time they go out on a fishing boat. We must protect their right to make a living, because they do it in some of the most challenging weather conditions. The weather can have an impact on the number of days that they can go out to sea. I know from my own local experience that the Fishermen’s Mission played a major role in trying to secure and provide the necessary financial help to beleaguered fishermen.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has a particular expertise in the fishing industry and serves with me on the EFRA Committee. She knows full well the risks that are associated with the fishing industry, and we all empathise with her in her loss.

I thank all Members who have spoken with such clarity, sense and purpose about the need to safeguard our fishing industry across these islands. There are different factors, considerations and emphases in each fishery. There are issues to do with the MMO, maximum sustainable yield, the reallocation of quotas, and The Hague preference. However, a strong common thread unites us all in our desire to maintain a strong, sustainable fishery and to ensure that we get a positive outcome from the Minister’s negotiations next week.

I was very much taken by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) said in pointing out that there must be collaboration between fishermen and those involved in the science. In my experience and that of the fishermen I work with, it is clear that the fishermen themselves know much more about what is in the sea than the scientists do. That has been borne out by today’s comments by many Members from various parties. Too often the fishermen are not listened to. My message on behalf of all Members who have spoken is: please listen to what the fishermen have to say about the impact of the current climate on fishing. A compelling case has been made.

As other Members have said, the industry has done a lot to improve gear practices and techniques to meet new regulations and limits. That has been the case in my own constituency and across Northern Ireland. The industry deserves credit for that. The Minister has seen for himself examples of those gears, which have been very much in the vanguard of the fishing industry and are innovative. Just as in previous years, fishing negotiations are vital in securing the future course of the industry.

On the challenges faced in Northern Ireland, nephrops, which are so vital to the industry, remain the primary focus of our attention. I am glad that the Minister referred to that. The catch limit for the species was announced after the Commission published its total allowable catches on 28 October, as there was a delay in making sufficient stock data available. Once again, there is a significant cut in the TAC limit for nephrops. The TAC limits for area VII nephrops have previously—this happened last year—been increased in response to Spain and France underutilising quotas, which protects countries such as the UK and Ireland with a full quota intake. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the priorities of the UK, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government have been aligned on what is best in quota requirements for a sustainable fishery in the Irish sea. I hope that will continue and that the Minister’s colleagues in other countries will listen to that in the negotiations. The same logic should apply this year, as the proposed cut in nephrops would be extremely damaging. I urge the Minister to take that on board and share the message at the meeting.

There remains no directed Irish sea cod fishery, and the industry, with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, continues to work positively in that area and agreed to relaunch the fisheries science partnership early in 2015. It will also begin a large-scale cod-tagging project and re-evaluate the assessment model of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, to make the best possible assessment of cod stock levels. It is hoped that the Commission, as indicated, will not pursue further effort reductions, in order to allow a focus on more important issues related to quota limits. I would like clarification in writing from the Minister as to why a cut to the TAC limit has been proposed when the Commission seems to have paused the long-term cod plan by not determinedly pursuing further reductions in efforts or days at sea. The TAC limit will simply lead to more unnecessary discards as part of the nephrop by-catch.

Thankfully, previous effort reduction has had a limited impact on the nephrop fleet, as Northern Ireland has made full use of the facility to buy back all the effort we need through the adoption of highly selective gears. However, it must be noted that the gear modifications have in many cases led to a loss of valuable white fish by-catch, putting further pressure on fleets. I mentioned discards earlier, and they have been at the centre of the reform of the common fisheries policy.

If there is one message that the Minister can take with him to Brussels next week it is that those Members who have spoken today clearly want to see proper regionalisation and decentralisation underpinning a sustainable fishery. If that can be done, we would be very pleased.

Once again, I thank all Members who have spoken. I wish the Minister a fair wind—to use a nautical phrase—in his negotiations. We look forward to a successful outcome, notwithstanding the challenges he faces in negotiating on behalf of our fishermen, including on the issue of landing obligations for pelagic and demersal fishermen, the whole area of discards and the need for further decentralisation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.

Ukraine (UK Relations with Russia)

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

14:45

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Ukraine and UK relations with Russia.

May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hold this debate this afternoon? I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who changed his diary so that he could respond to the debate.

Some might think that events in Ukraine have calmed down and that there is no longer the same conflict raging as a few weeks ago, as there is not nearly as much coverage of it in our own media. It has been superseded by events in the middle east and the threat from Ebola in west Africa, but the truth is that the situation in Ukraine is no better. It dominated a large part of the recent discussion at the G20, and the war, which has now been raging for several months, has led to more and more people being killed every day. Therefore, it is absolutely right that this House should debate the events in Ukraine and their consequences for our own relations with Russia.

I should perhaps start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I chair the all-party British-Ukraine group and I have received support from the British Ukrainian Society in that capacity.

It is difficult to believe that it was only a year ago that we saw the start of what has become known as the revolution of dignity. On 21 November 2013, after many months of negotiation on Ukraine signing the European Union association agreement, it was announced that it would not actually happen. That is what proved to be the catalyst for the protests, which became known as Euromaidan. The protests may have been sparked by that announcement, but they were not actually about the EU as such; they were, I think, much more about the overwhelming feeling of the people that they could no longer tolerate a corrupt and discredited Government who had sent a clear signal that, instead of moving closer to western values and the freedoms we uphold, they were turning in the opposite direction and moving closer to Russia.

Over the next few days, the numbers grew, and on 8 December—its anniversary was only a few days ago— 1 million people came out across Ukraine in the march of the million. They converged in Independence square in particular, and the Lenin monument was toppled. Today is the first anniversary of when the Berkut riot police first tried to attack the Maidan and the Ukrainian people came out in the middle of the night to resist the attack and defend the protesters.

It had been a peaceful protest by hundreds of thousands of people, but during the following weeks the protesters suffered beatings, disappearances and shootings. I want to take this opportunity once again to pay tribute to those who are now called the Heavenly Hundred, the activists who died in January and February in the Maidan. Like the Minister, I had a meeting yesterday with Vitali Klitschko, who is now the mayor of Kiev. He talked about the crimes committed against those people in Kiev and the fact that they still have not received any justice: nobody has been arrested for or convicted of those crimes. There is no question but that the people of Ukraine still want justice, and they look to their new Government to try to obtain it. I hope that they will concentrate on that, because the crimes that took place there were too great for no one to be held responsible for them.

Following the Euromaidan protest, events deteriorated. First, there was the Russian intervention in Crimea. The Russians already had a military presence at the naval base in Crimea, but there was then the illegal occupation and annexation of the entire Crimea. That was followed by the so-called referendum, which upheld no democratic standards whatever and was entirely bogus.

Since then, the situation in Crimea has got worse. We know that large-scale violations of human rights are taking place there. Both pro-Ukrainian activists and particularly Crimean Tatar activists have been persecuted, and a large number of them have disappeared. At the same time, there has been a large increase in the Russian military presence. We understand that some 50,000 Russian troops have moved into Crimea, with Iskander tactical missiles that can carry nuclear warheads and can reach Romania and Hungary.

The completely unacceptable situation in Crimea led to the first imposition of sanctions. Since then, attention has obviously focused on what is happening in eastern Ukraine.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am terribly sorry not to have been in the Chamber for the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I will have an opportunity to read it tomorrow.

One of the most remarkable things during the past year, as the hon. Gentleman will know, was when President Putin said that, for Russians, Crimea was as sacred as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Does that not show that there is certainly a tinge of madness in what is going on in the Kremlin?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is also an honourable friend, because I had intended to mention that. He is absolutely right that President Putin recently made a speech in which he referred to the sacral nature—I think he used that word—of Crimea to the Russian people because Prince Vladimir had been christened there. That all occurred before the present state of Russia emerged, so to seek to justify an entirely illegal occupation and the subsequent oppression of both the Ukrainian population in Crimea and the Tatar population seems to me wholly ridiculous. I must say that I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I obviously do not want to inflate President Putin’s ridiculous comments, but the west has a slight problem. Crimea was part of Russia from the end of the 18th century. It is heavily dominated by ethnic Russian speakers who wish to be part of Russia. It was given to Ukraine by a diktat of Khrushchev in 1956. Unfortunately, whatever one may think of President Putin, the Russians in Crimea have some right to self-determination.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I would not disagree with what my hon. Friend has said. However, in whatever circumstances it occurred, Crimea became part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine, as has been recognised since the war by all legal bodies. Indeed, it was accepted by Russia, which signed up to international agreements recognising that fact.

The wishes of the Russian-speaking community in Crimea are very unclear. Opinion polls taken before the Russian intervention showed that although a large number of people were Russian speakers and therefore different from Ukrainian speakers, the majority of the population nevertheless wanted Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. It is not at all clear that before the recent events in Crimea a majority wanted to join the Russian Federation. Certainly the attempts by the Russians to demonstrate that through what, as I have said, was an entirely bogus referendum are unconvincing. The argument applies most strongly in Crimea but in eastern Ukraine too. There are people whose first language is Russian and who feel a close association with Russia, but that does not necessarily mean that they want to leave Ukraine and become part of the Russian Federation.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. On his latter point, does he agree that the worst thing we in the UK could do would be to use that argument, or say, “Well, we’ve provoked Russia by talking about expanding the EU, and we have taken NATO up to its borders”? That would in some way excuse Russia’s actions and promote the myth—which emanates from the Kremlin—that the situation is somehow our fault rather than squarely down to Russia’s completely unacceptable aggression.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I will say a little more along those lines, but I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The idea that what has happened has been somehow at the instigation of the west and America ignores the fact that the people of Ukraine have the right to choose their future. They have overwhelmingly demonstrated—most recently in parliamentary elections, which I want to speak a little about—that they see their future as moving closer to the west and to Europe, and they do not wish to move away from that and back in the direction of Russia. We must respect their right to make that choice.

At the moment, the greatest violence is taking place in eastern Ukraine, and a war is going on in what is known as the Donbas region. There are violations of the Minsk accords every day. Civilian areas are being shelled, there are shootings, and an extremely fierce battle has been raging over several days and weeks for Donetsk airport, where despite the Russians deploying some of their best troops—the Spetsnaz—we understand that they have suffered heavier casualties and the Ukrainians have managed to repel them.

We are told by the Russians that there are no Russian troops in that part of Ukraine, but we know that there are regular movements of military vehicles across the border, and we understand that anything up to 10,000 regular Russian troops are in eastern Ukraine, not to mention the tens of thousands lined up along the border. So-called humanitarian convoys regularly cross into eastern Ukraine. The Red Cross or international observers have not been permitted to inspect those humanitarian white lorries, and local reports state that the most recent humanitarian convoys have contained ammunition.

The battle is fierce and has resulted in heavy casualties. In the summer a strong tank battle resulted in something like 70% of Ukrainian armour being destroyed by Russian forces. President Poroshenko has said that at the latest count, 1,250 Ukrainian servicemen have been killed and 3,000 injured, but casualties have not been only on the Ukrainian side.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Unpleasant though the alternatives are, given that Russia will clearly not allow pro-Russian forces in the east of the country to be militarily defeated, which is the least worse of these two outcomes? Either those areas are allowed to become relatively autonomous, or the situation is fought to a military finish, the only outcome of which—given that the west will not intervene militarily—would be Russian occupation of the whole country.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I will come on to what we need to do to respond to the Russian intervention. To some extent, I agree with my hon. Friend that we need political reform, but it should not only be about the two regions in Donbas. If he will forgive me, I will continue my current theme but I promise I will come back to that.

I want to talk not only about the fighting that is taking place in Ukraine, but about the massive abuse of human rights. We have Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers in eastern Ukraine, but confidence that they can monitor to the desirable extent is limited. I have heard criticism that they have been unable to carry out proper monitoring of the situation.

There has been a massive population displacement, from both Crimea and Donbas—something like 1.5 million people have been displaced, and that may well be an underestimate. Hostages have been taken. Nadiya Savchenko, the Ukrainian servicewoman who was elected to the Ukrainian Parliament, is being held in Russia. Wearing my other hat as Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I should mention that we are conscious that Oleg Sentsov, a distinguished Ukrainian film director, was abducted and is being held in Moscow. With my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), I attended a conference last week of the Council of Europe to discuss media freedom and the importance of the protection of journalists. We heard about two journalists who are being held hostage. There have also been a number of casualties among journalists.

If we listen to and watch Russian media, we get a completely different picture. There is no account of that whatever. The Russian propaganda machine is insistent that the Kiev Government are a bunch of fascist gangsters who have been imposed on the population. The Russians make regular claims of abuses by Ukrainian troops, and often produce photographs of bodies—it later becomes apparent that the photographs were taken during other conflicts many years ago.

Perhaps the most outrageous Russian media manipulation took place after the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH17. There was overwhelming evidence, which is now widely recognised throughout the western world, that the airliner was shot down by Russian separatists using a surface-to-air missile that they had managed to obtain. Despite that, Russian media initially told us that the aircraft had been shot down by the Ukrainians, because the Ukrainians had mistaken it for President Putin’s plane and were trying to shoot him down. Another claim was that the incident was a plot dreamt up by the west, which had flown an airliner full of dead bodies over Ukraine that could then be brought down to discredit the Russian separatists. Even this week, pictures have been produced in Russian media claiming to show a jet fighter that shot the plane down.

Despite the fact that those pictures were obviously faked, the concern is that a huge number of people believed the story. A substantial proportion of the Russian population—the majority—are convinced it is true. I therefore welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of the importance of countering that propaganda, which he gave me when I raised the matter with him after the statement on the G20. He said that President Obama had also recognised the need to counter Russian propaganda. I welcome the launch in this country of Ukraine Today, an English-language channel that will try to set out events accurately. I hope we and the Ukrainians do what we can to increase our efforts to get out the truth of what is happening. I welcome the intention of the new Ukrainian Government to set up a national public service broadcaster, which they have suggested could be modelled on the principle of the BBC.

What do we need to do to put pressure on Russia, and make it clear that its behaviour is unacceptable and that there must be penalties? Sanctions were first imposed after the annexation of Crimea and there has been a gradual escalation since then. Many people say that sanctions are pointless and have no effect, but they clearly are having a significant effect on the Russian economy. There has been a sharp downward revision in its prospects for growth, and they have affected the Russian currency and the Russian stock market. In my view, we need to do more. I would like to see a strengthening of sanctions. I recognise that that requires international agreement. The Minister and the Prime Minister have been at the forefront in pressing for the strongest response from the international community, but I have been alarmed by reports that some have been suggesting that perhaps we can now begin to relax sanctions. I hope the Minister can reassure me that we will make the case as strongly as possible that there is no justification to relaxing sanctions. If the current destabilisation continues, there may even be a case for strengthening sanctions still further.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

In January, the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will seek the reinstatement of its voting rights and the renewal of its credentials. There is a grave danger that some countries in the Council of Europe—possibly Germany, France or Greece—may vote to restore those rights. Is this not absolutely the wrong time to send the signal that what has been done by Russia is actually all right and there is no need for further sanctions?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I have not always been the biggest fan of the European convention on human rights, for other reasons. Nevertheless, membership of the Council of Europe requires one to subscribe to the basic conditions of human rights. Russia is so far outside meeting those standards that it would be wholly ridiculous to suggest that we should now reinstate its voting rights in the Council.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I, too, am a member of the Council of Europe. I personally think there is no real possibility of us voting to restore Russia’s voting rights, but I would be opposed to kicking Russia out of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is a parliamentary union that often involves states we do not agree with, but with which we may achieve some movement. It may be a forlorn hope, but jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.

[Mr Whittingdale]

That is very much my view too. We have to keep talking to Russians. I will come on to say something about that, and we should take advantage of forums, but the Council of Europe represents certain values. At the moment, Russia does not appear to subscribe to those values.

[Chris Bryant]

There were people who advanced that argument in relation to Fiji, but when we threw Fiji out of the Commonwealth it eventually—quite recently—returned to democracy.

[Mr Whittingdale]

These are discussions that will no doubt take place in the Council of Europe. There is not a complete contradiction between the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for North Thanet. The issue of voting rights is currently on the table.

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

On my hon. Friend’s previous point about sanctions, there is no doubt that if the Russians were to take further military action on any scale in Ukraine we should increase the sanctions regime. There are two areas on which we would need to increase sanctions: anything that could be regarded as military supplies, including French warships; and oil and energy, which would mean that our German friends would suffer considerably as the largest importers of Ukrainian oil and, in particular, gas. Do we not need to try to get all our European allies on board to make the sanctions regime work?

[Mr Whittingdale]

Clearly we do. I am sure the Minister will respond to that point, but my understanding is that we have been very active in pressing the case and I hope we will continue to do so. My hon. Friend refers to the possibility of having to strengthen sanctions in the future. My one concern—I hope it is misplaced, but I fear there is a reason for it to be taken seriously—is whether Russia might seek to move beyond eastern Ukraine and establish the land link between eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and at the same time acquire a seaport at Mariupol. There have been suggestions that that is in the Russian mind, and there is heavy troop build-up that might support the idea, but whether it happens we must wait to see. We must make it clear, however, that were it to take place, there would be severe consequences.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am sorry I was not here for the opening of my hon. Friend’s remarks. He is absolutely right about the risk of Russia’s seeking to annex land giving them a land link to Crimea. I cannot emphasise strongly enough to him and the House, as I have been warning for months, that this is Russia’s intention. Does he agree that this is not just a remote prospect, but a key component of Russia’s plans? Putin’s plan is to acquire a land link with Crimea and possibly then to link up with Transnistria, and leave Kiev and the bulk of Ukraine as a rump for the EU.

[Mr Whittingdale]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I gently remind him that opening remarks in a Back-Bench debate are supposed to be for 10 to 15 minutes. He has now been speaking for 25 minutes, although I realise he has been pulled into different areas by interventions. Members who wish to speak and would not like to be under a time limit should bear it in mind that the debate will have to end promptly at 5 o’clock. I hope he will concentrate on making his points and concluding his speech.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been tempted by my hon. Friends. As you point out, the debate runs until 5 o’clock, so I hope there will be time for everyone to speak.

Moving on rapidly, I want to talk about the economic challenges facing Ukraine, which is an area where I think we can do a lot more. The challenges are considerable. There has been a massive currency depreciation, the economy is likely to shrink for the third year in a row, and about 20% of production capacity in eastern Ukraine has essentially been lost. The immediate challenge is the winter. It is now 0° in Kiev; a few days ago, it was minus 15°, and obviously demand for energy will be high. Ukrainians are prepared to accept sacrifices—they told me, “We will take cold showers”—but it is important that the energy supply is there, and I am reassured that gas reserves have been increased and that the gas supply has now been reversed from Europe back into Ukraine.

What Ukraine needs, however, is investment. Yesterday, I chaired a session of the Adam Smith Ukrainian investment conference where we heard from business men that they wished to invest but needed the confidence to do so. There is still concern about the level of corruption, which is one of the greatest challenges facing the country. I want to make two, related suggestions that I hope the Government will consider. The first comes from the British-Ukrainian chamber of commerce, which is pressing for a political risk insurance scheme to be established. The World Bank already has the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, but it is limited in what support it can offer Ukraine, so the chamber of commerce has suggested that there be a special fund to provide political and conflict risk insurance.

Related to that, the Federation of Employers of Ukraine is assembling a private guarantee fund, and there are calls for a new Marshall plan for Ukraine, which I understand is getting support from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the French Government and America. So there are things we could be doing to increase the confidence of western investors that it is safe to invest in Ukraine.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I rise to intervene at the risk of infuriating you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope it will be taken on board that my hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way.

It is not just Mayor Klitschko’s Kiev that will need help through the winter, but the whole of Ukraine. If the present and only legitimate Government are to survive, do we not need to move immediately to give whatever support we can to help the Government survive through the winter and into the new year?

[Mr Whittingdale]

The challenges of the next few months, through the winter, are substantial, but hopefully the prospects will improve if they can get through it. I was encouraged yesterday that Vitali Klitschko seemed to think they were well placed to resist the problems of severe winter weather, but obviously it will be a challenge.

The real key to the future of Ukraine—this is the message we hear from every Ukrainian—is that there has to be serious reform and it has to take place quickly. It is essential that measures are put in place to prevent corruption, to make changes to political institutions and also to bring about devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) talked about semi-autonomous status; I would not go that far, but it is certainly desirable to devolve power and give greater responsibility to all the regions of Ukraine and to more local institutions.

I am encouraged in that I think the new Government under President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk are determined to make the changes and they have brought in as Ministers people with real expertise, some of whom have come from different countries. We have an American-born Ukrainian Finance Minister and there is an Estonian in the Government. That, I think, sends the message that wherever the expertise lies, the Government will take advantage of it.

Perhaps even more encouraging were the recent elections to the Ukrainian Parliament in October. The Russians made out that that would lead to extremists coming in. Indeed, they even tried to announce that extremists had been elected, but when the results came out, they showed that Svoboda, the right-wing party that had been in the previous Ukrainian Parliament, did not meet the threshold, achieving only 4.7%; while the Communists achieved only 3.9%. What was elected was a coalition of three parties, which are all now western-leading, pro-European and working together.

Perhaps most encouraging of all—I am coming to the end, Madam Deputy Speaker—is the fact that the new Ukrainian Parliament includes a number of young people who have come out of civil society and academia. Such people said to me that they previously never thought it worth getting involved in politics because the whole system was corrupt. Now they have chosen to stand for election and they are determined to take forward the reform programme. Let me mention two of them for a specific reason: Svitlana Zalishchuk and Aleksei Ryabchyn. They are young Ukrainians who have been elected, and they are also John Smith fellows, and I want to pay tribute to the work of the John Smith fellowship—not just in Ukraine, but in a number of east European countries, where it is helping to give young, up-and-coming politicians the experience and the opportunity they need through the fellowship. It is now paying off, in that those people are being elected to help govern their country.

I believe that we have a duty to try to help Ukraine in its political, constitutional and economic reform programme, and I very much hope that we will soon be able to ratify the European Union association agreement. Ten countries in Europe have already done so, and I hope the Minister will be able to say something about that. We have an obligation because we are signatories of the Budapest memorandum, which Ukrainians still feel strongly gives us an obligation to assist—not necessarily militarily, but at the very least to give all the help we can.

As was said earlier, Ukraine is in the front line, but it does not stop there. President Putin talks repeatedly about “Novorossiya”, which extends the border to Moldova, Georgia and the Baltics. We know that Ukraine is where the test is at the moment, but what happens there will have huge implications for global security. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I look forward to hearing both Front-Bench team responses in due course.

15:18

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

I apologise for not being able to stay for the winding-up speeches; I mean no disrespect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the Minister.

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) has said. The alarm bells are ringing here. Of all the international hot spots at the moment, this is probably the most dangerous and possibly the one that threatens the UK the most.

It is interesting that Ukraine is helping to flag up Russia’s direction of travel. Much as the Chinese attitude towards Hong Kong flags up China’s current direction of travel, what is happening in Ukraine flags up where Russia is going. My main concern is that unless there is a breakthrough—it does not seem very likely at the moment—this will become a frozen conflict, which we will have to live with for a long time.

Since the ceasefire was agreed on 5 September, more than 1,000 people have been killed. New talks were meant to start yesterday, but I believe that they will start tomorrow. Let us hope that we can then have a real ceasefire. The Russians are clearly breaking the old one. They are clearly sending in troops. They deny that, pointing to private militias over which they say they have no control, which is absolute piffle. Let me pick up a point that was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). It is feared that Mariupol will be the next target, so that the Russians can build a land corridor to Crimea along the south coast.

The economic situation in Ukraine is dire. The country is in recession, there have been serious outflows of cash and there is a drain on the reserves. The manufacturing part of the country is in the disputed areas in the east, and it is beginning to look as though the Russian tactic is to target that aspect of the economy and bring about an economic meltdown that will destabilise Kiev. In May, the International Monetary Fund pledged $17 billion; $10 billion, in one form or another, was pledged by others, but is proving much harder to collect. Despite those funds, however, the situation is deteriorating. It is estimated that at least another $12 billion to $15 billion will be needed, and there is a big question mark over where it will come from and who will supply it. Moreover, it is clear that much more money is needed to pay for the defence of the country.

All this is causing political tensions. Elections took place in October, and I think we were all pretty relieved about that, but the coalition is already beginning to look a little shaky. The House should send the message that coalitions can indeed be shaky, but together people can actually achieve something. I urge the members of the coalition to stay together and swallow their differences, because if the coalition were to fall apart now, it would be absolutely disastrous. It would send the wrong message, and would dampen the enthusiasm of those of us who are committed to supporting the country.

The other piece of political advice that I would give the Ukrainians is that they must stay close to the European Union. Throughout all this—through thick and thin—it has always been the European Union that has stood by them. The EU is the only body that has been able to stand up to Russia. It was EU mediation that sorted out the gas supplies, it is the EU that is brokering the next ceasefire talks, and it is the EU that is imposing sanctions and maintaining them. As I look around the Chamber and see some of my more Eurosceptic colleagues, I feel that I should point out that the EU sometimes has its advantages and its values.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will my right hon. Friend give way? [Laughter.]

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I would not object to being drawn on a lot of points, but I do not want to become involved in an argument with him about that particular issue. I do not think that the EU can be blamed for all this. There is much more to it in the history. Indeed, my hon. Friend has talked about the history himself.

I believe that sanctions are the only action that Russia will understand. When they were first imposed, they were described as “pathetic” , but—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon—they are working and proving effective, and they may yet be what brings Russia to the negotiating table.

After the unexpected visit of Mr Hollande, the President of France, to meet President Putin at the airport—which rather surprised us all—Putin told reporters, “We need to resolve” the conflict, and said that Russia respected Ukraine’s territorial integrity and wanted to see it restored. Good for Mr Hollande, I say, but can we believe it, and do we think it will happen? I suppose, in Mr Putin’s mind, such matters often depend on whether it is the morning or the afternoon, such are his mood swings. The House will be interested to know that they also appeared to resolve the helicopter carriers dispute, with Mr Putin saying that France can keep them providing it returns the money, which is an interesting straw in the wind, and it remains to be seen whether France does return the money.

More significant is the intervention of Angela Merkel who has made sweeping criticisms of Russia, and accused the Russians point-blank of creating problems. It is important to remember her background, as someone who comes from eastern Germany and who understands what it is like to be under Soviet occupation. After the G20 summit in Brisbane she warned that Russia’s ambitions stretched beyond Ukraine, which is a very serious accusation to make. She said that it is trying to make some Baltic states “economically and politically dependent.” She then went on to remind us all that article 5 of the NATO treaty applies to all allies, which is probably the most significant part of this, and reflects the concern being felt in Berlin at the moment about the developing situation. Of course, Ukraine wants to be a member of NATO so it has the umbrella of article 5, and the question for all of us is whether we could possibly defend Ukraine, and I am not sure we could, frankly, so I think we have to be very careful before we get too drawn into that debate.

The Baltics have to be our priority. I think the Baltics are a red line for us all, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has more than once confirmed from the Dispatch Box that that is the position of the British Government. I also welcome the deployment that has taken place there, and I am sure that if the situation in the Baltics deteriorates further, provisional plans are in place.

Over recent months we have seen 40 unusual aircraft intrusions into the region. The Russians are clearly testing response times, and they have been probing UK airspace, too, and I understand that right now the Royal Navy is keeping an eye on Russian warships doing exercises in the channel. The big question for us all now is whether we should be doing more on the defence side. That is something we will have to keep a close eye on.

My fear is that the situation will get worse before it gets better. No less a person than former President Gorbachev said in an interview with Tass, the state-owned news agency:

“Now there are once again signs of a cold war.”

This process can, and must, be stopped. After all, we did it in the ’80s: we opted for de-escalation and the reunification of Germany, and back then the situation was a lot tougher than now, so we could do it again.

This reflects the fact that there are serious tensions inside the Kremlin at the moment, and one often speculates about what on earth is going on there. There are clearly two camps. There is what is known as the Siloviki, those who have a background in security and/or the military, and there are the economic liberals who are concerned about the economic situation in Russia.

That dispute inside the Kremlin will intensify with western isolation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon pointed out, the Russian economy is now in freefall: the rouble is plummeting and the oil price is wreaking havoc with the Russian economy. What President Gorbachev did not say in his interview is that that is exactly what happened last time, and it may be that that brings Russia to the negotiating table—maybe Mr Putin’s conversation with President Hollande was not just a flippant remark, and maybe second thoughts are going on.

Russia is clearly now flailing around. It is resorting to the old tactic of unpredictable testing of EU reactions by cancelling the South Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Europe, which I suspect is more cover for economic weakness. That may force the EU to look more urgently for alternative gas supplies, which I think we would all welcome, even though it may well cause division inside the EU.

We have to keep our resolve. We have to keep united and stand by Ukraine both in NATO and the European Union.

15:29

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

I am delighted to have been able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for securing the debate. He and I went to Ukraine about a month ago and visited the Prime Minister, Mr Yatsenyuk. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) when he says that the situation in Ukraine is extremely serious. I have used parallels before, and there are parallels with the German annexation of the Sudetenland. First, they caused trouble with their own German speakers, then they used that as a pretext to go in with military force. That is exactly what has happened with Ukraine. Let us see where this might go.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I must intervene. It is a grotesque insult to Russia, which suffered appallingly at the hands of the Nazis, to equate in any way the Russian Government, for all their faults, with the Nazis. That is just the sort of remark that fills the Russian people with absolute despair. They were raped and pillaged and there were 50 million dead. I hope that my hon. Friend is not making any kind of equation.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Well, I’m afraid I am. Actually, if we look at what happened to the Russian people after the war, we see that they experienced significant suffering, just as some of the German people did during the war. I am just pointing out that what the Russians have done in Ukraine is just as unacceptable as what the German Nazis did during the war. As long as we understand that, we will all appreciate which way we should go forward.

Relations between Ukraine and Russia obviously remain tense, and that is a concern for the UK and the wider world. It is encouraging that the situation seems to have improved in the past few days, but there are still reasons to be extremely worried about the stability of the region and the impact that the situation could have on the United Kingdom.

As I said, I recently visited Ukraine with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and we met the Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk. We met the head of defence and the American and British Ambassadors to Ukraine. We also met the leaders of four political parties. My visit to Ukraine, which took place during the summer, showed me in demonstrable form the dire situation that Ukraine has found itself in since the current round of tensions with Russia began. The former President Victor Yanukovych sent his commissars around businesses and absconded with several billion pounds when he fled to Russia. That added to Ukraine’s already parlous financial situation, leading to the devaluation of the hryvnia against the dollar, with the currency hitting a 10-year low. Naturally, that has made it more difficult for Ukraine to buy much-needed foreign goods.

It seems that the situation in the region might have improved over the past few days, with the news that a ceasefire in the east of the country between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels seems to be holding, and with hopes of further talks in Belarus tomorrow. Let us hope that the day of silence called by President Poroshenko will hold, and offer real hope of a lasting truce, rather than simply being a lull before a new round of military action.

It is welcome that Russia has resumed gas supplies to Ukraine after months of difficult talks. This will be a substantial help to Ukraine during the winter. The annexe to the House of Commons Library briefing shows just how important this is to Ukraine, as it imports 25.1 billion cubic metres of Russian gas. I know that the Ukrainian Prime Minister will welcome this development, as getting through the winter was precisely what he was concerned about when we spoke during my visit. When I asked him what would be the most appropriate assistance for the west to give, he shrugged his shoulders and suggested everything from military uniforms through to the most sophisticated weaponry to combat the supplies being provided to the rebels by Russia. We know that the west is not going to supply any such sophisticated weaponry. As if to emphasise his point, he said:

“We have a very difficult winter to get through”.

Additionally, we have seen reports that TB, hepatitis, HIV and AIDS are spreading largely unchecked as a result of fighting in eastern Ukraine, caused by a lack of medical supplies. Luhansk and Donetsk saw the most deaths from TB in Ukraine last year and the highest co-infection rates of HIV and TB. This is yet another reason why it is in Ukraine’s interest to normalise the situation, so that the people are not condemned to suffer from those illnesses.

As I have said, the situation seems to have stabilised slightly. Reports of the ceasefire holding are much more encouraging than the reports we were receiving until recently which told of daily violations of the ceasefire. However, we must be open to the fact that relations between Russia and Ukraine remain tense. Ukraine is resolute against more land grabs by Russia. The Ukrainian Government are maintaining solidarity, as we heard, with their citizens in Crimea by continuing to supply them with food and water. The Prime Minister was most resolute that most Russian speakers in the east of Ukraine did not want to secede from Ukraine and be reunited with Russia, and that in the west of Ukraine there was almost 100% support for closer relations with Europe. Given that support for a united Ukraine, the Government are and should be committed to maintaining their territorial integrity, and we should support them in any way we can in that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon has mentioned, those statements from the Ukrainian Prime Minister were exemplified by the recent elections in Ukraine in October, when the old Party of Regions did not even feature on the ballot paper, while the President’s, Prime Minister’s and the Mayor of Lviv’s parties received a combined 54.93% share of the votes cast. That was a vote in favour of a pro-European direction, and it shows a clear intention of the people of Ukraine that they favour closer links with Europe.

However, Russia, has until now not been listening to the democratic results in Ukraine. The universal view we found in Ukraine was that Putin is not finished yet. So what is likely to happen? A minority thought he would carry out a big military offensive, including establishing a Mariupol corridor to supply Crimea. That is difficult in the winter because the barges cannot go across the Black sea. We were told that in such circumstances Ukrainians would defend themselves with whatever they had. However, as my hon. Friend said, we were also told that 70% of their tanks had already been taken out by the Russians. The majority view, and possibly the one to which I would subscribe, is that Putin will keep causing relatively minor trouble wherever he can in order to destabilise the whole country, with the aim of bringing about a failed state. At this point, the Americans and the EU would have to decide whether they wanted to bail Ukraine out. Many people think that Putin’s aim is to gain control of the whole of the north coast of the Black sea, including Odessa, and eventually, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, move along to Transnistria in Moldova. Certainly, the Romanians and the Poles, in neighbouring states, are very alarmed by that prospect.

The future of our bilateral relations depends on Putin’s strategy. Clearly, the illegal seizure of Crimea is sufficient rationale for Britain to lead Europe, along with the USA, in the implementation of strong sanctions. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, I alluded to the fact that if there were to be further military action along the lines I have indicated, for example, taking a Mariupol corridor, we would have to consider ratcheting up the sanctions regime further. As others have said in this debate, the sanctions have already worked, with a 40% devaluation of the rouble against the dollar, a plummeting stock exchange and the drying up of foreign investment, all of which is compounded by a falling oil price—it was below $64 a barrel yesterday. This has all pushed up the cost of Russian borrowing from just under 8% in December 2013 to 12% today, and has led to President Putin saying in his annual state of the nation address that Russia would go into recession in 2015, with the economy ministry predicting a contraction of 0.8% instead of the previous prediction of an increase in GDP of 1.2%.

If tensions between Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the rest of the EU are to be reduced, we must develop a more intelligent relationship between all these players. We must recognise that deep within the Russian psyche is the perception that their hegemony is being encroached on by the west; the Russians’ fear is that if Ukraine integrates further with the EU, their geopolitical sphere of influence will diminish. Geopolitics is incredibly important to Russia, perhaps more important than economic success. That could be why, despite the deteriorating economy, Putin’s personal approval ratings are currently running at 80%.

There are many areas where we could be co-operating with the Russians which we have simply had to close off. For example, we could co-operate in relation to the Islamic threat, as Russia faces a huge Islamic threat on its southern flank. There are many other areas on which we could be co-operating but are not able to do so at the moment.

If it is in Russia’s interest to have economically stable countries on its border, we must continue to emphasise the benefits of that. For example, it would be able to form strong bilateral trade agreements to its mutual advantage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South has said, the alternative is for Europe to diversify its oil and gas supplies away from Russia, which would hit it badly, especially with the low oil price at the moment. Russia may have started looking east towards China to sell its oil and gas, but it will always need the European markets, technology and expertise.

Closer economic co-operation between Russia and the EU was beginning to happen under Gorbachev, but it has since fallen off the cliff edge. We must try to reinstate that again. Improving economic relations and trying to convince the Russians that mutual economic success is more important than geopolitics will lead to better political and diplomatic relations between the UK, EU, Ukraine and Russia. After all, we are all Europeans at heart.

Although things may be improving slightly between Ukraine and Russia, relations remain incredibly poor. There is concern that this improvement in the past week or so is simply a lull to allow both sides to regroup. It is in everyone’s interest to improve these relations and to achieve stability.

To improve relations between Ukraine, the UK and Russia, we must remind the Russians that we are all Europeans and that, instead of suffering from sanctions, we could all enjoy much greater economic success by putting geopolitics to one side and co-operating. Allowing Ukraine to flourish, as Poland did, could be a huge benefit to Russia. We should be encouraging closer economic co-operation, which will in turn develop into closer political relations.

15:41

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What we are witnessing over Ukraine is a clash between two systems of international relations: the western liberal system held up by the US, the UK and Europe versus the more traditional power politics epitomised by Russia. That was highlighted by a comment by the US Secretary of State, who said:

“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in a 19th-century fashion”.

With all due respect to Mr Kerry, Russia has, quite simply, proved him wrong. We in the west like to imagine that our liberal system is the universal way, but the reality is that traditional power politics is much more dominant in the rest of the world. I make no defence of that; I just make the comment. Although our own actions are coated in thick veneers of liberalism and democracy, to which we no doubt generally adhere, this idealistic terminology masks the reality that we ourselves deal with the world through old-fashioned power politics.

For years, the EU, the US and the west generally have interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine in an effort to draw that country away from Russia and towards us—Ukraine has for three centuries been part of Russia. Russia has tried to counter those moves, and even though we might demonise Mr Putin, there is no conceivable leader of the Russian Federation who would not have done the same. The fact is that we are the liberal democrats and they are the strong men, but that is incidental to what is being done. We should also recall that Russia, Ukraine and other nations of the former Soviet Union do not enjoy the same advantages that we have enjoyed, so it is inherently unfair to judge them by the same yardstick.

We know that the Whig narrative of history is a myth. Anyone who believes the myth of progress after Auschwitz and Hiroshima must be wearing blinkers. Look at those photographs of modern free women studying in the universities of Tehran and Kabul in the 1960s and 1970s and then witness their condition, rights and appalling position today. Our rights and freedoms do not just arise out of the primordial fundamental; they are contingent on certain circumstances. We in Britain are not destined to be a parliamentary democracy with a prosperous economy; it has taken centuries of slow and gradual development with often quite arbitrary situations that has allowed our tradition of parliamentary democracy to emerge.

Seventy years of communism perverted the spirit of the people of the former Soviet Union and prevented them from developing the institutions, the habits and the traditions that we all too easily take for granted, whether here in the House or in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is precisely why we traditionalists and Conservatives have been so defensive and circumspect when it comes to altering the traditions of this House or the British constitution. To alter, change or abolish one portion thereof, no matter how small, may have numerous unintended and unforeseen consequences, with the potential to wreak havoc on the rights and freedoms that we have inherited from those who came before us.

Taking this into account, we must recognise how important it is to understand the Russian mentality. Russia suffered for decades under communist rule. Russia has experienced at first hand the future that we are marching towards and rejected it. We here all believe we are wonderful, enlightened, modern liberals, and of course we have totally and wholeheartedly rejected nationalism and all those other nasty things, but the Russians feel very keenly that they have been wronged. They were allowed to sit at the western table only when they were weak and ineffective under Yeltsin as their economy was plundered by criminal oligarchs.

Moscow has definite security concerns regarding NATO expansion in Ukraine. Likewise, I am sure we would have had definite security concerns had Ireland or Belgium considered joining the Warsaw pact. The US would have similar concerns if, for instance, Mexico had tried to join some Russian sphere of influence.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to back up my hon. Friend’s point. Twenty years ago, as the chief of policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, I repeatedly sent in papers saying that the expansion of NATO eastwards was poking the Russians in the eye, when we consider their history. That is exactly what we have done.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree.

Might it not be worth at least attempting to see things from the perspective of others and the perspective of most Russian people? Is it not wise to try to understand how we and our actions are perceived by them? How can we possibly make correct decisions about what to do if we have zero understanding of what makes other people tick? That is especially true if those people have extraordinarily different histories, not least the fact, as I said before, that Russian people suffered the most appalling tribulations as a result of invasion by the west within the lifetime of many Russian people.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but he is trying to paint Russia as a victim. What would he say about what Stalin did to the people of Ukraine? He starved them to death when that country was the bread basket of the Soviet Union. What about the Ukrainian people who have that deeply seared in their memory? Are they not victims too?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely right. I agree entirely with that. I am not pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian. I fully accept the appalling suffering of the Ukrainian people, particularly under Stalin, and the dreadful suffering that they experienced from the Nazi invasion. I am not making that point; I am simply trying to explain that the Russians have a point of view, and if we are to do the right thing, we must understand that. We may not agree with it. Nothing I say militates against a free, independent and prosperous Ukraine.

We have to wake up to the reality that many Russians think, act and feel differently from us, and that no amount of bullying on our part with sanctions will turn them into western liberals with our point of view. Not all Russians agree with what I am saying, but many do. Many take quite the opposite point of view from us. We in the west seem to have lost our critical faculty. We make the fatal error of believing our own propaganda and, worse, expecting other people to believe it too. None of us here believes Mr Putin’s propaganda. I do not support him or believe in him or defend him to the remotest degree, but why do we expect people in Russia, the Crimea or eastern Ukraine to believe our propaganda? They judge us not by our words but by our actions. Why should they do otherwise? Look at our immediate recognition of the seizure of power in Kiev this past February, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I make no defence whatever of the previous corrupt Ukrainian regime, but we preach respect for the law then completely disregard the Ukrainian constitution, article 111 of which lays out specific provisions for the impeachment and replacement of the President of Ukraine. These provisions were not applied, thus a succession, in the view of many, is at best irregular, at worst unconstitutional.

Let us remember 1993 in Russia. Yeltsin unconstitutionally dissolved the Duma and sent in tanks against a democratically Parliament, and the west backed him. What may have been the beginnings of a Russian idea of parliamentary sovereignty and the accountability of the Executive were nipped in the bud, with western powers nodding approvingly. It is all very well to pronounce the sacred inviolability of the borders of sovereign states, but when one does so, having undermined the borders of sovereign states as we did in Serbia, which many Russians point to, when we went to war over Kosovo, whose independence we now recognise, in their view it begins to look hypocritical.

Russia, we know, is certainly involved in the supply of weapons to the rebels in eastern Ukraine, but in Kosovo NATO forces—this is often mentioned in Russia—effectively acted as the air force for the Kosovan Liberation Army. In the war against Serbia, NATO forces bombed hospitals—this is what many Russians say—bridges, journalists’ offices, public markets and even the Chinese embassy. Russia has done wrong, but it has not done what the Nazis did in Ukraine.

Economically speaking, we are continually arguing for globalisation, the integration of world economies, free trade, allowing everyone to grow in prosperity together—all things that I and everyone else speaking in this debate agree with. Why, then, are we allowing politics to interfere with our economic links to Russia, which are very strong, and to frustrate Russia’s further integration in the world economy? Those who seek to undermine Mr Putin would be much wiser to seek to strengthen these links, to incorporate Russia much more closely in the wider world. Surely that would strike more deeply at the heart of Mr Putin’s separatist way of doing things, drawing the Russian people in rather than casting them out. Instead, we are playing into Mr Putin’s hands. Our cack-handed sanctions allow him to portray us as anti-Russian, thus further legitimising his position as the defender of Mother Russia.

Global economic recovery, we know, is extraordinarily precarious. Provoking crises with Russia risks unsettling the recovery, not just that of Russia but ours. With all due respect to the Ukraine, for Britons is it worth this possibility? One need not add BP’s significant investment in Russia, the billions of pounds of Russian money involved in the City of London, and European reliance on Russian energy. We must always remember that the existential threat to us is global Islamic jihadism, and Russia is an absolute crucial ally in that. Why put that at risk? Particularly at this time of commemoration, when we are looking back to the events of a hundred years ago, we must force ourselves to learn the lessons of 1914. Does anyone really think that the assassination of the Austrian heir to the throne was worth the suicide of Europe? We do not want to sleepwalk into a war, the likes of which we cannot imagine.

Ukraine is a beautiful country. It has deep traditions, a proud culture, a long history. We should wish the Ukrainians all the best in their journey as an independent people, but it is obvious, I am afraid, that there is no intrinsic British interest in Ukraine. Ukrainian relations with Russia, Belarus, Poland and others are for Ukrainians to sort out, no matter how divided a people they are, and they are divided, but there is unequivocally no single shred of a reason why the United Kingdom should risk war over Ukraine. Our priority should be de-escalation, and then facilitating dialogue between the warring Ukrainian factions and between Ukraine, Russia and the west. We need to foster a breathing space in which Ukraine can make suitable constitutional reforms to allow for autonomy, as has been said. We should not put the global economy at risk, and we certainly should not risk a European war—1914 is ever present.

Perhaps I have been a bit too harsh on liberal democracy. Let me finish on a positive note. I am profoundly pro-life and anti-war. I want, if it is not too naive a thing to say, for Ukraine to be at peace. I really believe in this noble theme.

I believe that there is a role for Britain and France, in particular. We have no historical axe to grind. Unlike Poland and the Baltic states, we have not been invaded or suppressed by the Russians. As for the Russians, they still harbour some justifiable historical fear of German expansionism, and with some reason today in economic terms. Unlike some Americans currently in power, we also have a sense of history. We recall from Woodrow Wilson’s time that good intentions are not always enough and can lead to war. We know that western Ukraine around Lviv was never part of Russia; it was first part of Austria-Hungary and then Poland. We know that in western Ukraine they 100% want to be part of Europe. However, many of us are also sensibly sceptical about the expansion of NATO and the EU into former Russian lands.

I believe that a solution can be brokered, and I believe that we can play a role. We must convince Russia that we have no intention of trying to detach Ukraine from Russian influence to bring it under our own. We want Ukraine to be what it should be: free; independent; not part of the Russian sphere of influence or the NATO or EU sphere of influence; and with a strong federal structure and home rule for the east. Why should we want to break the Russian economy? Why should we want to destroy Mr Putin? If he goes, we could get somebody far worse. No feasible Russian leader would ever accept the permanent loss of eastern Ukraine. Let us be an honest broker. Let peace be our watchword, not war without end.

15:56

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is 33 years since I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and it is a real pleasure to sit beside him in the Chamber today and listen to his very sensible remarks about a situation that might see him classified as a bit of a peacenik. [Interruption.] He snorts at the suggestion. However, the circumstances in which we met all those years ago were the depths of the cold war. We co-operated with our colleague Tony Kerpel and others sadly no longer alive, such as George Miller, to do everything we could to counter communist-inspired campaigns to undermine the defences of western Europe in general and NATO in particular. Therefore, I do not think that either of us has a track record of being soft on the Russians. Why is it, then, that without having compared notes, we both find ourselves today urging caution in this scenario?

My hon. Friend concentrated on his historical analysis. I will concentrate on a rather simpler analytical approach. It boils down to one clear proposition: do not make military threats that cannot be or are not intended to be fulfilled. If military threats are made under those circumstances and they are not then fulfilled, there is a danger that your credibility is undermined for a time later, when you might have to issue a threat of retaliation that you intend to fulfil, and your adversary will not believe you mean it. That is how wars can start by mistake; because people do not take each other’s statements of position seriously.

Why does that relate specifically to Ukraine? It relates to Ukraine because the danger of the approach we are taking toward Ukraine in our rhetoric is to lump that non-NATO country together with other countries that are members of NATO. I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), whom I congratulate on securing the debate and on the way in which he presented his case, that I agree entirely with his view of the condemnation-worthy activities that Russia is carrying out. However, I do not agree with saying that if Russia gets its way in Ukraine and in places such as Moldova and Georgia, then its next step will be to threaten the Baltic states, because we must not lump these things together.

NATO membership must never be offered glibly, lightly, or without thought of the consequences. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) agrees. We must consider the consequences of offering NATO membership without a serious intent to apply article 5 in circumstances of potential war. We all know what article 5 means: if any NATO country is attacked, the attacker is automatically at war with all the other members of NATO.

I never tire of making the point I am about to make. I have made it many times before and I am not going to be deterred from making it again; it is, indeed, a point about deterrence. In order for deterrence to work, it is not only necessary to show that if someone is attacked, the consequences—the retaliation—will be unacceptable; one must also show that it will be unavoidable. One must not give the potential aggressor any reason to gamble that he might be able to commit an act of aggression without facing the consequences.

When countries came together to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the intention was precisely to remove that uncertainty, which had existed in the 1930s. Then Hitler was able to gamble, while picking off one country after another, that the western democracies would do nothing. In fact, he got away with it in several countries, in a succession of aggressive manoeuvres, but then picked on one country too many and ended up involved in a war with the United Kingdom—or the British empire, as it still was at the time—on which he did not originally wish to embark.

By talking tough in military terms on the question of Ukraine, we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough suggested, in danger of avoiding the realities on the ground. As I have pointed out before, when Russia stood in control of the whole of central and eastern Europe, there were periods when one country after another tried to shake off the communist yoke. We saw it in East Germany in 1953; we saw it in Hungary in 1956; and I personally remember seeing it in Czechoslovakia when I was 16 years old in 1968. At that time, when Czechoslovakia seemed to have got out from under totalitarian control, I argued very strongly that we should offer it NATO membership in order to try to protect it. I realise now, because I am rather more experienced in the ways of the world, that that would have been a counsel of madness, because given our ability to protect the country that we would be promising to protect, the promise would have been totally lacking in credibility.

It totally lacks credibility to suggest that countries such as Georgia and Ukraine should be offered NATO membership. Not many people are present in the Chamber today, but I predict—I hope I never have occasion to see this prediction come true—that if the country about which we were concerned were a NATO member, the Chamber would be packed, and that is because we would effectively be debating whether we were prepared to start world war three on behalf of that country, whichever NATO member it happened to be.

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Baltics must be our red line. I was very interested to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham mention in an earlier intervention how, during his time in NATO, he had expressed concern about the extension of the NATO guarantee to so many countries from central and eastern Europe. I must say that I felt we were stretching the elastic to its limit when we extended that guarantee to the Baltic states, but I accept that we have a long history of trying to secure the independence of those states, stretching right back to the days of the Russian revolution itself. Therefore, there is a significant degree of credibility that we would be willing to resist militarily an invasion of the Baltic states, but that is not true in the case of Ukraine.

I can imagine four principal scenarios in Ukraine. The first is that, in an ideal world, Russia will have a change of heart, or sanctions will work and she will withdraw and restore the pro-Russian areas of Ukraine to Kiev’s control. I think that a fairly unlikely outcome. The second scenario, which in my opinion would be the best, would be an agreed decision to create an autonomous area within Ukraine, comprising the pro-Russian elements and territories. The country could therefore continue as a political entity, but with a loose federal structure.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend is talking about dividing up a sovereign nation. Surely it is a question of self-determination and up to the people of Ukraine to decide that.

[Dr Lewis]

Yes, in an ideal world it would be, but there is a slight problem with that scenario, namely that the Russians have the power to impose a solution and nobody else is willing to fight them to prevent them from doing so. That is the hard reality. We may not like the situation any more than we liked that in 1968 when Russia imposed its will with the crushing of the Prague spring; but I do not think anybody would suggest even now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it would have been right to provoke world war three at that time. In situations where we are up against people with a lot of power, we have to contain them until political affairs evolve gradually in the direction we want them to go.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

indicated assent.

[Dr Lewis]

I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with me.

Let me deal with the other two scenarios before drawing my remarks to a conclusion. The third scenario is a split. It would be either a de facto split, which is being referred to as a frozen conflict—in other words, the pro-Russian communities would end up in control of their areas, glaring at Kiev and vice versa—or a de jure split, which would obviously be a less satisfactory solution than an agreed decision to stay together with an appropriate amount of autonomy.

Finally—this is the dread scenario, which really could happen—if we really were crazy enough to offer military assistance to Kiev and encourage it to think that there would be enough military supplies to enable it to overwhelm its adversaries in the pro-Russian parts of the country, it is an absolute certainty that Russia would respond militarily. In any conflict of that sort, Russia would prevail and it would not then be content to confine itself to the pro-Russian areas; it would invade and take over the whole country.

It is what is colloquially called a no-brainer that if the Russians are determined—however wrongly, as my hon. Friends have variously suggested—not to let the pro-Russian provinces go, and they are not prepared to do so, the best outcome we can hope for is an agreed negotiation of autonomy for those areas. Such agreements are not unprecedented. It took us 38 years to reach some sort of agreement even in a province such as Northern Ireland, which was a rather less fraught or challenging situation than the one that we and the international community face in Ukraine.

16:09

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am delighted to take part in this very important debate. I am surrounded by some of my closest political soul mates, but I suspect that my view is slightly different from theirs. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on introducing the debate, but it is disappointing that a matter of such significance to the security of our country, and of Europe more widely, has not attracted the participation of more Members.

I agree with the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), that we face a very serious situation. My excellent hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my—also excellent—hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) were right to have been inspirational in setting up the Coalition for Peace through Security. Its work during the cold war contributed to the understanding in the United Kingdom of the need to face up to the Russian threat. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said about our not making threats that we cannot fulfil, and not offering NATO membership to countries that we are not prepared to send our children to defend and put their lives on the line for.

I agree with much of that, but my hon. Friends were instrumental in establishing the Coalition for Peace through Security, whereas we face a threat to our security and a threat to peace. I do not know whether anybody saw the BBC programmes on the “37 Days” leading up to the war. I normally fall asleep watching such things, but I was absolutely riveted during the programmes, because the language of the conversations 100 years ago was the same as the language we are using in this place and in the corridors of power today.

It worries me that we might be in real danger of sleepwalking into some sort of very substantial regional conflict. That is because our minds are on Syria, and on the Gulf and Iran. Not enough minds are on China, and on what it is doing in the South China sea, where it is building port facilities and runways on uninhabited atolls. We face a very turbulent world, which is the price we are paying for the fall of the Berlin wall: the balance of terror has been exchanged for a very unstable world.

It is important that we take very seriously what is going on in Ukraine at the moment, and that we look at the Russians’ intentions. We know their intentions without having to look in a crystal ball, because they have been there historically. I have already mentioned what the Russians did to Ukraine in the 1930s: they starved the people who were providing them with their food. As recently as 2008, we saw what President Putin did in Georgia: he successfully provoked the Georgians— Saakashvili probably should not have risen to the bait, but he did—and the result was that the Russians invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia with complete impunity.

We have seen what I warned would happen—forgive me for saying that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I could see what was going on in Crimea earlier this year. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough says about Ukraine having been part of Russia, and about the need not to poke Russia in the eye. Yes, Sevastopol is as important to the spirit of the Russian navy as Portsmouth is to the spirit of the Royal Navy, but that does not justify walking into Crimea and annexing part of another sovereign country, in explicit contravention of the Budapest agreement which was signed in 1994 by Boris Yeltsin, John Major and Bill Clinton. I accept that that agreement did not provide an article 5 guarantee of Ukraine’s borders, but it was a deal with the Ukrainian people in which Ukraine gave up a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons that could have threatened us all, in exchange for recognition of its borders. What are we to make of a man, in the form of President Putin, who has so flagrantly breached an agreement to which his country was a solemn party? Should we regard that as an aberration or a one-off, or as what I believe it to be, which is a complete lack of care for how Russia is viewed, and complete disregard for international norms?

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the pattern of behaviour that has formed over recent years. We probably had illusions a few years ago about where Russia might go, but sadly we have been very disappointed. He referred to the Budapest agreement. Does the way that Russia has abrogated those undertakings underline the fact that Russia also appears to be abrogating arms control agreements? Certainly the agreement on conventional armed forces in Europe is in tatters, and the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty is now being questioned. There is no progress on strategic arms reduction, but rather a big build-up in Russia’s nuclear programme.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and it all militates in one simple direction: Mr Putin does not seem to care for international norms or that his country has in the past signed solemn and binding agreements. That is why we need to be on our guard.

We have the examples of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as Crimea. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, I worry that Putin’s objective is to create a land link with Crimea—at the moment I believe there is a 5-mile gap across the Black sea. He has no intention of giving it up, so will he leave it as it is and reinforce it with air supplies or by sea? I believe there is a risk that he will go for Odessa, thereby denying the rest of Ukraine access to a port. If he moves further west he links up with Transnistria, leaving only a slight border between western Ukraine and Lviv, and around there with Poland, and the rest would be surrounded by Russia. He will then say to the EU, “There you are. You can have the rump of Ukraine,” and that will become isolated and perhaps not economically viable—I do not know. I do know, however, that we must be on our guard because Putin has acted with complete impunity—my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made that point. But if you make threats and do not follow them up, what is your counterparty to suppose?

The question that I go on to ask myself is this. There is Kaliningrad, that small Russian enclave on the Baltic coast, which is separated from the Russian motherland by a narrow strip of land between Latvia and Lithuania. If Mr Putin can with impunity do what he has done so far, what is to stop him saying, “I need a land link with Kaliningrad”? Article 5 of course stands in his way, but when I ask my friends, “Would you be prepared for your son or daughter to be sent off to go and fight for the Lithuanians or Latvians in the event that Mr Putin decides to annexe their territory and create that land link with Kaliningrad?” I sense no appetite for that. The question is, “Where is the British national interest in that?” People do not understand the significance of article 5—even in this House, hon. Members have been far too flippant about considering offering NATO membership to other countries without considering the consequences.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South was absolutely right: the red line has to be the Baltic states. We must make that red line clear to Mr Putin. We must say, “Thus far and no further,” and it must be followed up. We saw what happened to President Obama when he drew a line in the sand that was promptly blown away by the wind.

[Bob Stewart]

I wanted to back up my hon. Friend on that point. The Baltic states are a red line, and I would support moves to permanently position some of our troops in those Baltic republics, because that is a clear indication of our intention—just as Berlin was, where I served for two years.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who brings immensely valuable personal experience to such discussions.

I have referred to the Baltic states, but I should like to emphasise the point that was made by, I believe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South about the penetration of UK airspace by Russia. The Russians are doing that with increasing regularity, but for what purpose? Are they coming to look at our beautiful countryside? Are they inspecting our beaches with a view to, perhaps, acquiring some land in the lovely parts of Norfolk or Lincolnshire, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough? What are they doing? What about the periscopes in the Irish sea? If anything demonstrates the folly of giving up our maritime patrol capability, it is the recent discussion about our dependence on a number of other countries to track Russian submarines.

By their deeds shall ye know them. Mr Putin’s deeds are clear for us all to see. We therefore ignore them at our peril. That is the danger. What do we do? My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) is right: there are areas in which we have a common interest with Russia. We share the threat from Islamic fundamentalism—Russia is a Christian country. In the early part of the 20th century, there were great links between the Lancashire textile industry and Russia, and those links were developing, but that all came to an end with the arrival of the communist state.

I am pessimistic. I do not see how we can engage with Russia with all that Mr Putin’s history and his clear pattern of behaviour implies. We are in a difficult situation. It is perfectly clear that his economy is collapsing. He is doing like many in his condition do. We all remember President Galtieri of Argentina. He had troubles at home. What did he do? He went on a foreign excursion—he went for the Falkland Islands. We must bear in mind that, with the falling economy in Russia, there is a real risk that a policy of puffing up Russia’s status in the world through military action is enhancing Mr Putin’s standing with the Russian people.

Are sanctions a substitute for more robust action? Are we, by imposing these sanctions, helping to suppress the Russian economy? Perhaps we should be engaging in a little bit more gunboat diplomacy of the kind I have advocated a number of times in this House. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, but I say to him that we cannot deal with a man with such an attitude and such behaviour, whose personal advertisements consist of him in martial positions, bare from the waste up with a bandolier around his shoulder and carrying a gun, or standing over some vanquished animal—you couldn’t make it up! That is what this guy is doing, and somehow we have to appeal to the Russian people and some of the younger politicians in Russia to get them to understand that this is not the way to behave. If we want security in Europe, we have to find a way forward, and invading other people’s sovereign territory is not the way to do it.

16:26

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I was listening to it from afar and was stirred to come, hot foot, to the Chamber by the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I therefore apologise if my speech, which will be short, is a bit disjointed.

I am clear on Russia’s strategic military aim. My good and hon. Friends have alluded to it already and we are all talking along the same lines. In military terms, it is at the very least to secure a land corridor to Crimea. Some Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), have suggested that the aim is to go as far as Odessa, but I think that the immediate strategic aim is to get to Crimea. The Black sea is crucial as it is a warm water entry and exit point. In the 1950s, as everyone in the Chamber knows, Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders never believed for a moment that Ukraine would not be a part of the Soviet Union or Russia. Khrushchev gave it away because of that assumption.

As I mentioned in an intervention, 20 years ago, when I was chief of policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, I argued that we have to be very careful as we move eastwards. I was concerned at that time about the idea that the Baltic republics would become part of NATO, because militarily I find it very difficult to think of how to defend that situation, particularly when there is a Russian enclave to the west. That is a scenario we have already rehearsed in this debate.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I know time is limited, but I wanted to point out that the only way we can defend NATO countries that are out on a limb is by having tripwire forces. That would show a potential aggressor that, while they might occupy those countries, they would let themselves in for a very long war with other countries that would be able, eventually, to liberate them.

[Bob Stewart]

I totally agree with my hon. and very good Friend. That was exactly my role as a young officer in West Berlin—a British tripwire—in case the then Soviet Union decided to take over.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Some tripwire!

[Bob Stewart]

I am afraid I totally agree—some tripwire indeed. A big stumbling block, although I was not quite as big then.

[Dr Lewis]

You were in spirit.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend.

I slightly disagree with those who say that Putin alone is the problem. Putin is Russian, and he represents a Russian point of view, and the Russian attitude towards Ukraine comes from history. I totally take the point about how Stalin dealt with Ukraine, but fundamentally Ukraine is a sort of glacis plate—to use the old term—to protect mother Russia. I also understand that a lot of Russians feel antagonism towards NATO, because sometimes, looking at it from their point of view, it appears to have been quite aggressive.

Over the past few years, Russian anxieties have been well stoked by western actions. As we have discussed, there has been talk of Ukraine joining NATO. I remember reading carefully through the EU negotiations with Ukraine, and there, in one of the sub-paragraphs, I saw a couple of lines about the EU sending troops to start exercises in that country. Nothing could have been a bigger red rag to the Russians. I got it from the House of Commons Library, and I am sure it was publicly obtainable.

I totally support our policy of trying to stop Russian expansion, but despite the sanctions, which, as we have demonstrated, are biting, I suspect that de facto Russia will gain its land corridor, either by negotiation or by agreement, to Sevastopol. That link from Russia to Sevastopol and the Black sea fleet will be on dry land at some point. We will have to recognise that as a fact of life.

16:32

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on securing this debate. He talked about the EU association agreement, Euromaidan, the shooting down of flight MH17, the sanctions and the response. I am pleased that he also raised the potential influence of the John Smith fellowship programme on the current generation of Ukrainian politicians. I say that as a former trustee of the John Smith Trust. It is an organisation I have had an association with since its foundation.

During this debate, broadly speaking we have heard two views. We have heard the view represented by the hon. Members for Maldon and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that this has been an outrageous breach of territorial integrity that requires a strong response and which we cannot allow to stand. We have also heard the alternative view, put most forcefully by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that we should see this from the Russian point of view. Others perhaps fell somewhere between those two views.

I always hesitate to differ from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), but I do not agree with this metaphor about poking the bear with a stick. The problem with the metaphor is that countries are not bears, but knowledgeable institutions; they know the rules and they know about borders and histories, but the bear does not. I do not think the analogy sticks, therefore, and so I do not think we can absolve Russia of its responsibilities by using that analogy.

There are few more urgent issues facing us than what has been unfolding in Ukraine over the past year. The hon. Member for Maldon reminded us in the most stark way that here on the continent of Europe, a state’s territorial integrity has been systematically undermined by the fomenting, arming and backing of Russian separatists. Crimea has been annexed and parts of eastern Ukraine are effectively beyond the reach of the Ukrainian state. This destabilisation has continued, despite the Minsk agreement reached a short time ago. All of that is taking place against a deepening economic crisis for Ukraine, with a newly elected Government struggling to grip these twin security and economic crises. Beyond Ukraine, as has been referenced several times in the debate, there have been a number of incidents, such as transgressions of airspace, that remind us of how things were in the past. Of course, this situation dominated the recent G20 summit.

What is happening in Ukraine poses major challenges for us relating to security, stability and values. We cannot simply hope that it goes away. The first challenge relates to foreign policy itself. No one wants further to inflame a conflict with Russia, yet its actions in Ukraine cannot go unanswered. That is why it is right that both the European Union and the United States have imposed sanctions. Unity on those sanctions is essential, and we had a debate about them at the beginning of their imposition. It is important that states set aside short-term economic interests in order to communicate to Russia that it cannot do what it would wish, which is to divide and rule and pick off one state after another. Unity is key, and we must resolve to maintain the sanctions and to increase them, if necessary. In his response, I hope the Minister will clarify what further options on sanctions are under consideration at EU level, and what talks have taken place with the United States about differences between the sanctions regimes agreed at EU level and those operated by the United States.

The unified European response has been important, and it serves as a reminder, if one were needed, that there is a security dimension to EU membership and that by standing together we can be stronger in the face of what Russia is doing in the Ukraine. Of course NATO serves as the main alliance for our defence, and recent statements from a number of leaders reiterating their support for article 5 are welcome. However, it is also the case that the EU as well as NATO can use its collective leverage and its adherence to democratic values to resist land grabs and aggression. If this dimension is not always clear in our domestic debates here in the United Kingdom, it is certainly clear to many former Warsaw Pact countries, which regard EU membership, at least in part, as important in protecting them.

Now we know that there are politicians in this country who admire Mr Putin and what he has done. The UKIP leader has said that Putin is the politician he most admires. He has attacked some for their stance on Ukraine, but not Mr Putin. In fact, he has accused the west of “playing war games” in Ukraine. He is not the only nationalist leader who has expressed admiration for Mr Putin. We have also had Mr Salmond saying he admires “certain aspects” of Mr Putin’s policies. The state-owned “Russia Today” channel has written of the hopes it has invested in Mr Farage and his desire to see Britain leave the EU. Let me quote:

“In such a scenario, there are possibilities for Russian-British rapprochement on many levels”.

It also said:

“A UK exit from the EU could mean a dilution of the famed Trans-Atlantic alliance between Washington and London.”

Perhaps it is incumbent on all of us, particularly those who desire such a scenario, to take account of who will be cheering if they get what they wish for.

[Mike Gapes]

That does not just apply to people in this country, does it? Marine Le Pen has been bankrolled by Putin’s supporters, and far-right and nationalist groups in Hungary—Fascist groups—have also been given support by Putin.

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the recent £7 million loan to the French National Front party, and to return us to the question of who would cheer if the European Union were to fall apart at the hands of nationalist movements and parties. For the rest of us, such comments and actions are a reminder that we should not be cavalier in dismissing the importance of the security side of a strong and united European Union which believes in democracy and freedom, and stands opposed to Russian aggression. That is well understood by Angela Merkel, who, a few days ago, told Welt am Sonntag:

“Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine are three countries in our eastern neighbourhood that have taken sovereign decisions to sign an association agreement with the EU”.

She added:

“Russia is creating problems for all three of these countries”.

We cannot regard those countries’ actions as poking the bear with a stick. They have a right to sign such agreements if they wish.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I want to ask a very simple question, namely whether and to what extent the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is necessary to take action along the lines of that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Does he think that the European Union will actually decide that it will regain Crimea, and if so, how? Does he also think that we will effectively back up the threats that are being made with real action?

[Mr McFadden]

I think that the unified European Union response on sanctions has been helpful in that context, but, as I have said, NATO is our principal source of collective defence. Let me also say to my hon. Friend that if he secures the policy for which he has worked for many years, he should bear in mind who will be cheering most in the context that we are currently discussing.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I need to make some progress, and allow the Minister to wind up.

The issue between Ukraine and Russia is not the only relevant factor. We should also consider the economic health and the strength of democracy in Ukraine itself. Of course those issues are related, because as long as Russia backs the separatists in the east, it will be all the more difficult for Ukraine to recover and stabilise economically. Indeed, as well as the geopolitical aim that was referred to by the hon. Member for Beckenham, it may be a Russian aim never to allow Kiev to have full economic control of the east.

Ukraine has a new President and a new Parliament, and they have the urgent task of not only defending the country’s territorial integrity, but stabilising the economy and delivering honest government. There has been a 7% contraction in Ukraine’s GDP this year, and inflation is running at around 22%. The IMF now believes that, on top of the $17 billion aid package that was announced in April this year, a further $15 billion is needed. The Ukrainian economy is in deep trouble, and in urgent need of stabilisation.

In governance terms, too, the country needs both reform and help, and Britain could play a valuable role in that regard. In the early 2000s, this country offered help to new democracies of eastern Europe in the form of advice on and assistance in the running of Ministries, robust budgeting, and the transparency of actions. That help was valuable and important to those countries at the time. Would the Minister consider offering similar help to Ukraine at this difficult time—if it has not already been offered—so that it can improve its governance, enhance transparency, and increase confidence in the democratic process?

The situation both within Ukraine and between Ukraine and Russia poses great dangers for stability and for peace. A huge amount of commitment and vigilance has gone into developing a network of states that do not transgress one another’s borders and do not foment nationalist and separatist movements within states. We defend this settlement and realise its value.

Of course there is potentially a different future for relations between Russia and other European states. Russia could cease aggression. It could let Ukraine choose its own path. It could respect the territorial integrity of other states. That path would lead to the lifting of sanctions, it would improve conditions for the Russian people, and it would gain Russia greater respect in the world. So we should be firm, we should be resolute in helping, and we should offer our assistance to Ukraine in terms of the sanctions and the governance help I have set out, but we should also be clear that this alternative future remains open to Russia and that it is far preferable to the current direction of relations between us.

16:46

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on securing the debate and, indeed, on the commitment he has shown in this House for some time—and well before the current crisis arose—to understanding Ukraine, its people and its political priorities. I also thank all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate.

I want to start the substance of my remarks with Ukraine, because it seems to me that any fair appraisal of the diplomatic crisis we face needs to start with the truth that Ukraine today is an independent sovereign state with a democratically elected president and Parliament and internationally recognised borders, and is entitled, not only morally but in terms of international law, to take its own decisions about its national future.

Furthermore, that sovereignty, that independence and those borders were recognised by Russia itself in treaties that both accompanied and followed the break-up of the USSR. Those borders included Crimea within Ukraine, and until the armed intervention by Russia at the beginning of this year—an intervention, we should remind ourselves, that the Russians persistently denied almost to the day when they announced the award of medals to the soldiers who had served in Crimea—no territorial claim was made over the years since the independence of Ukraine.

The irony of the Russian intervention is that it has reinforced a sense of Ukrainian identity and Ukrainian nationalism not only, and most obviously, in the west of the country, but also in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine where those feelings were more muted. I saw something of that myself when I was in Dnipropetrovsk earlier this year.

Nor am I persuaded by the argument that Russia has somehow reacted to provocation by either the European Union or NATO. President Poroshenko has made it clear that he has no intention of even applying for membership of NATO, and his Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin made it clear at the most recent meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council that, while Ukraine wished to move towards NATO standards in terms of the effectiveness of its armed forces, this was going to take Ukraine many, many years to accomplish.

As for the idea that there has somehow been EU provocation, let us remind ourselves that the negotiations for an association agreement started as far back as 2007, during the term of President Yushchenko. They were carried through by President Yanukovych, who is never normally accused of being a foe of Russia. When I was in Ukraine in October 2013, I talked to very senior members of the Yanukovych Administration who assured me that the President had decided that that association agreement was what he wanted to conclude.

We need to be clear about what Russia is attempting to do. It is now attempting to prevent Ukraine from successfully building a unified, democratic society based on the rule of law. Rather, its intention—to judge from its actions—appears to be to try to keep Ukraine weak, divided, corrupt and dependent on Russia to determine what its international alignments and mode of internal self-government should be.

Under successive British Governments, we have encouraged and supported Russia to move closer to the values that have underpinned peace and prosperity since the end of the cold war. That is why the United Kingdom has supported the admission of Russia to the G8 and the World Trade Organisation and looked forward to its admission to the OECD. But now, under President Putin, we have witnessed a severe decline in support for those values, a crackdown on civil society and other voices of freedom and independence inside Russia, and a rejection of that offer of partnership. There are clear signs, too, that Russia is not prepared to see its neighbours move in that direction either—and not just Ukraine.

Reference has been made during the debate to the events in Georgia in 2008, but in 2014 alone we have seen increased Russian meddling in the internal affairs of Moldova, the description by President Putin of Kazakhstan as “not a proper state”, the abduction by Russians of an Estonian official from inside Estonian territory—the man is still being detained in prison in Moscow—and the seizure on the high seas by Russia of a Lithuanian fishing vessel, which remains in Murmansk and has not been returned to its Lithuanian owners. We have also seen the interruption of gas supplies to Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. That has been attributed to technical problems, but I think it is a political signal that the Russian Government were unhappy with the reverse flow of gas supplies to—

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not have time.

Those actions are based on a doctrine enunciated by the Kremlin: Russia has the right to intervene wherever it chooses when it claims that it is doing so in support of Russian speakers or ethnic Russians. Like hon. Members on both sides of the argument today, I believe strongly that there is a difference in terms of a defence commitment between NATO allies, where article 5 applies, and between friendly countries that are not part of the NATO alliance. Let us be in no doubt that the enunciation of that doctrine—of that right of intervention—was calculated to sow fear in the Baltic states, and it did so very successfully. Thankfully, it also resulted in a determined response from NATO and the deployment of additional NATO forces on exercises and patrols in the Baltic region.

[Dr Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sorry, but time is very short indeed.

We know that Ukraine needs support, and the United Kingdom has already spent money on a range of technical assistance programmes to support reforms of financial and economic governance, including tackling corruption. Through our conflict pool, we are also providing a range of programmes, including support for the reform of the Ukrainian armed forces and the supply of non-lethal equipment, as well as support for the OSCE special monitoring mission.

To answer the question from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), under the conflict security and stability fund we will improve on our record next year with a particular focus on defence and security reform and constitutional and public sector reform, and on the battle against organised crime and corruption in Ukraine. In my meetings this week with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine and with Mayor Klitschko, I made it clear that we welcomed an approach from the Ukrainian authorities in relation to other areas in which they might welcome United Kingdom know-how and technical assistance.

I want to return briefly to the subject of Ukraine’s Euro-integration aspirations and the need for reform. We have a substantial stake, as do other European countries, in Ukraine’s future, through €11 billion in the EU assistance package and a $17 billion International Monetary Fund loan. The EU-Ukraine association agreement represents a clear public commitment by both the EU and Ukraine to a deep relationship and close co-operation. It would be a great mistake for President Putin to see that agreement as a threat. A strong and prosperous Ukraine can only be in Russia’s interest, just as a strong and prosperous Poland has proved to be since the recovery of democracy in that country.

I was asked about sanctions. The answer is that our judgment about sanctions will depend upon Russia’s actions. If the Minsk agreement is implemented in full—if we see an end to the Russian reinforcements of the separatists, we start to see the withdrawal of Russian forces, we see Ukraine getting back control of its borders and the OSCE monitors able to deploy, and we see a genuine ceasefire—at that point perhaps we should consider whether any relaxation of sanctions might be appropriate. But, equally, if we see further military aggression, the EU has done a fair amount of contingency planning for the possibility of further sectoral economic sanctions. The Prime Minister personally and Ministers and officials at all levels are engaged with that work and in work to try to make sure that, despite different systems on the two sides of the Atlantic, there is coherence between the sanctions policy of the United States and that of the EU. I believe we have been able to deliver on that.

I wish to make it clear that our aim is not to cripple the Russian economy—the structural challenges that the Russian economy faces will do that. Russia needs to address those rather than focus on military intervention in its southern neighbour. Our aim is to exert a proportionate and reversible cost for Russia’s illegal actions and to persuade the Russian leadership that this crisis is better resolved through diplomatic means. I agree with those who have said that isolation is also not the answer either; we need dialogue with Russia to resolve this crisis. That is why the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have continued to engage with their counterparts in Russia, and are committed to doing so.

Going forward, we will offer our support to the new coalition Government in Ukraine, both bilaterally and multilaterally, as they need all the support they can get. We will help them with their reform programme and will monitor progress on their commitments and obligations tied to the association agreement, the related EU assistance package and the IMF loan. We will help to strengthen Ukraine’s economy, through technical assistance, to allow for better economic management and we will help Ukraine to address its energy security, through its need to modernise its systems and become more efficient and self sustainable.

We do not seek a hostile relationship with Russia. Indeed, for 23 years the United Kingdom has tried to build a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with Moscow, and we do not give up on that aim. But, equally, we have to be clear-headed about the actions that we have seen Russia take, particularly in the past 12 months, and act upon the basis of what Russia has actually done rather than upon promises that, so far, have not been implemented in practice. We will support Ukraine, we hope for a better relationship with Russia, but we must be realistic in preparing ourselves for a relationship with Moscow that, I fear, is going to be more difficult and more fractious than we had hoped. That is the choice of Russia’s leaders, who at the moment have chosen to treat Europe and the transatlantic alliance as a strategic adversary, rather than, as we had hoped, a potential partner for the future.

16:58

[Mr Whittingdale]

There is very little time left, so I will just thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. We may have come to this issue from slightly different perspectives, but there is no great disagreement between us. I did not suggest at any point that Ukraine should join NATO; indeed, I would have reservations about that at this time. Obviously, considerations for the Baltic countries that are in NATO are different from those that are not. What I do believe in is the right of the Ukrainian people to choose their own future, and they have made absolutely clear what they want. Every single party elected to the Rada in the parliamentary elections recently supports Ukraine moving closer to Europe and adopting western values and the values of a free and democratic society. We have both moral and economic obligations to help them. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said. I hope that the message will go out that this country supports the people of Ukraine and wants to help them achieve that future.

17:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Petitions

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

17:00

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is the petition of 884 residents in Cheadle in my constituency of Stone in Staffordshire in respect of housing development in Cheadle.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the constituency of Stone in Staffordshire,

Declares that residents of Cheadle oppose excessive levels of housing development; further that the Petitioners believe that the prospect of new site allocation plans is simply unacceptable; further that the Petitioners believe that permitting for 1,320 houses up to 2031 is still well above local demand and unworkable; further that the Petitioners believe that there is much opportunity to develop nearby regenerating sites and the Potteries with affordable housing in the heart of existing road, rail and canal infrastructure, while protecting the environment and agriculture; further that recent housing proposals have been submitted to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council to build up to 190 houses on land off Thorley Drive in Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe that the Thorley Drive site is inappropriate and it is currently a group of fields used, for example, for grazing; further that the Petitioners believe that the access to the Thorley Drive site is dangerous as it is already very difficult for drivers to get out of the end of Ashbourne Road; further that the Petitioners believe that the surrounding road network cannot support the increasing number of cars and traffic which relate to developing the town with housing completions and commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocation of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation of 240 dwellings north of Cheadle; and further that the Petitioners believe that there are not the facilities or the infrastructure in place for the proposed housing.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government to intervene in this matter to ensure that housing proposals that sit outside of the currently identified sites for completions and commitments to 240 dwellings, the anticipated new allocations of 400 dwellings in urban areas and the new allocation for 240 dwellings north of Cheadle are rejected over the planning period until 2031 and further that the Petitioners request that the House urges the local council to reduce the housing allocation for Cheadle, preferably by moving a percentage to the Potteries and with no further development of Greenfield sites.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001411]

17:03

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The petition is from the residents of Park Hall, Walsall and others. A similar petition has been signed by 437 people.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners wish to be able to access NHS dental services at The Dentist Surgery, Liskeard Road, Walsall. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage NHS England to award an NHS dental services contract to The Dentist Surgery in Walsall.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001410]

NHS Services (Devon)

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

17:04

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Last week, on 3 December, the Northern, Eastern and Western clinical commissioning group, responsible for commissioning health care on behalf of the population of Devon, excluding Torbay and south Devon, announced a package of cuts, restrictions and the ending of some treatments and operations altogether. The decisions included denying all planned operations to smokers and people with a body mass index of more than 35, the issuing of hearing aids to be restricted to one ear, and cataract operations to be restricted to one eye. Some treatments and operations were to be stopped completely, including certain varicose vein treatment, shoulder surgery and earwax removal.

In her letter to me, the chief officer of NEW Devon CCG, Rebecca Harriott, indicated that this was just the start. She wrote:

“Other measures are still being considered. Some will be for the longer term, but some will be announced in the coming months. We anticipate that there will be further measures for a full or partial suspension identified during December and for implementation from January.”

This constitutes the wholesale rationing of health care in Devon—rationing in the NHS on an unprecedented scale, as well as a return to the worst ever postcode lottery. It means that people in Devon—or most of Devon—who have paid and still pay their taxes in exactly the same way as everyone else in England will not be able to get the operations and treatment they need because of where they live. People over the border in Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall still will, as will those in Devon who are registered with a GP in Torbay or south Devon.

This is how the Royal College of Surgeons, the professional body that represents hospital doctors, reacted to Devon’s announcement:

“Access to routine surgery should always be based on an individual’s clinical need. The Government has been clear that restricting clinically necessary treatment on the basis of financial considerations is unacceptable. We urge the Department of Health and NHS England to review the situation in Devon.”

So my first question to the Minister when she responds is: will she review what is happening in Devon, as the Royal College has requested?

The professional bodies and charities representing the hard of hearing and partially sighted have also responded with outrage. Britain’s main deaf charity, Action on Hearing Loss, said that it is appalled by what is happening, pointing out that the decisions were made without any consultation with local people, health care professionals or the wider hearing loss sector. Paul Brecknell, its chief executive, said:

“This is a service that’s been available since the birth of the NHS. Hearing loss is a serious health issue, which, if unmanaged can lead to isolation, dementia and mental health problems”.

My constituent, Mark Worsfold, was born profoundly deaf and works as a radar scientist at the Met Office in Exeter. He e-mailed me describing the new policy as

“morally, legally and financially indefensible”

and he went on:

“I rely entirely on lip reading for communication. What many people don’t realise is how much of lip reading is guess work. Hearing aids can make the difference between highly educated guesswork and incomprehension. Having just one hearing aid doesn’t mean your lip reading ability is halved, it can destroy it completely.”

The National Deaf Children’s Society told me that the decisions made are “unthinkable and entirely unethical”, and called for their immediate reversal and the publication of the evidence on which the decisions were based. That leads me to my second question to the Minister. Will she publish, or will she require the CCG to publish, all the clinical evidence on which these decisions have been based?

The Royal College of Ophthalmologists condemned the decision to ration cataract operations to just one eye. A senior consultant told me that it is likely to cause people who are losing their sight to fall, particularly on stairs, and will lead to a big increase in hip fractures, one of the main reasons for pressure on hospitals, again costing the NHS more in the end.

On the proposed weight restriction, I was contacted by a constituent, Kate Bolsover, a former NHS nurse and care assistant, who said the following:

“I’m overweight due to having arthritis and severe issues with my spine that require heavy medication that increases weight gain. I’m doubly incontinent because of abuse from my ex-partner and I need an operation to fix that, but because of these cuts I won’t be able to have my operation, and without it I won’t be able to go out. I feel doubly discriminated against by an NHS I worked so many hours for with passion.”

Medical experts and health care professionals have told me that they believe the cuts and rationing announced in Devon breach the NHS constitution and Devon’s own CCG guidelines. These state that access to services should be governed by the principle of equal access for equal clinical need. They also believe that the cuts and rationing breach the clauses on discrimination in the NHS constitution, and the duty contained in it and the CCG’s own local framework to reduce health inequalities.

A number of people have told me that they are preparing legal challenges. The weight restriction alone, according to figures provided by the CCG, could affect as many as 11,000 people a year, and the smokers’ restriction even more than that. One smoker from Exeter e-mailed me this morning to say:

“I am a smoker yet I could be denied an operation here in Devon if I don’t give up. As a taxpayer, surely this must be illegal. I can’t refuse to pay my taxes, yet I can be refused to use a service I help fund. This is so wrong.”

Even the Minister’s own Conservative colleague, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, stung perhaps by suggestions that he might fail Devon’s new weight criteria, has told my local newspaper, the Express and Echo, that he believes that what is happening in Devon is “anathema and un British”. Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, told the Health Committee this week that he had “reservations” about what is happening in Devon. He said that all health organisations need to abide by the NHS constitution, and that the Government could step in if they do not.

So my next question to the Minister, which I have repeatedly asked in letters to Ministers and NHS England but to which I have had no reply is this: what assessment has she made of the compliance of what is happening in Devon with the NHS constitution? It requires equal access based on clinical need, it forbids discrimination and it requires health inequalities to be addressed. If when she studies what is happening in Devon in full she or Mr Stevens agrees with me that it does breach the NHS constitution, will she or NHS England intervene? Perhaps she already has, because less than an hour before this debate was due to start, a letter pinged into my computer inbox from Devon CCG announcing that it was dropping the weight and smoking proposals. That is right, Madam Deputy Speaker. Who says Parliament counts for nothing? However, this is no way to run our precious NHS.

I pay tribute to all those who have helped me and others with the campaign against this rationing, although the battle is not over yet. The rest of the rationing proposals remain in place, and that brings me to the underlying financial crisis facing the NHS in Devon.

In February, NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority jointly announced they were sending in consultants to examine and analyse the mounting financial crisis facing Devon NHS. Devon was one of 11 so-called “financially challenged” NHS organisations to be investigated in this way. The work was supposed to find out the underlying reasons for the particularly serious problem that we have in Devon. Was there something that the Devon NHS was doing wrongly? Were there areas where it could work better or more efficiently? Were there other underlying factors, such as the cost of caring for Devon’s disproportionately large and growing elderly population, which meant that Devon was underfunded in comparison with other parts of the country?

In spite of asking for months now for details of that investigation, Ministers and NHS England have failed to provide it. They still have not done so. Instead, the Minister’s fellow Minister, the Liberal Democrat right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), had the gall to go on BBC Radio Devon this morning and blame the £430 million deficit and resulting cuts and rationing on our local NHS spending money unwisely. When the Minister replies, will she explain what he meant by that? Where has Devon been spending money unwisely? Is she really saying that unwise spending decisions have caused a deficit this huge? This is exactly what the consultants’ investigation into Devon and the other financially challenged trusts was supposed to tell us. Will she now publish the detailed findings of that investigation so that we can know the truth?

As well as the cuts and rationing to treatment and operations that I have already outlined, Devon faces the closure of community hospitals and the highly successful and extremely well used walk-in centre in Exeter is threatened with closure. The Prime Minister and the Health Secretary keep claiming that they want better access to GPs, but things are getting worse. The Sidwell street walk-in centre in Exeter is a fantastic and vital resource for hard-pressed patients who find it difficult or impossible to see a GP at a time that suits them. Its loss would simply add to the pressure on already overstretched local GPs and my local A and E department.

That leads me to the impact of the NHS funding crisis in Devon on the acute sector. My excellent local hospital, the Royal Devon and Exeter, has during the last 15 years or so been one of the best managed and best performing hospitals in England. It recently and unusually missed the Government’s own watered down maximum waiting time for accident and emergency. It is also running a large deficit for the first time ever. When announcing the hospital’s intention to go into the red, its first-class chief executive, Angela Pedder, implied that if it did not, she would not be able to guarantee safe care.

We cannot debate the current situation in the NHS in Devon without mentioning mental health. The problem of inordinately long waits and the shortage of beds for young people has been raised by me and others in this place for the past three years. It was highlighted again recently when the deputy chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police tweeted his frustration at having to accommodate a young girl with mental illness in a police cell for two nights. When I asked the Health Secretary about that last week, he blamed poor communication. He was wrong. The girl was taken into police custody from a general hospital paediatric ward, where she should never have been in the first place, because there was no appropriate children’s mental health bed available for her. The reason it took several days to find her a bed is that she had been turned down for one by private sector providers who, under their contract, do not have to accept patients.

That case is not an isolated example. In the last year alone for which figures are available, 30 children with mental health problems in Devon were taken into police custody while suffering a crisis because there were no beds available. When beds have been found, young people have been sent as far away as Newcastle because there are none closer to Devon. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in full exactly what the Government are doing—not in the future, but now—to address the scandal of mental health provision for children in Devon. In researching for this speech, I learnt that at any one time there are between two and five children with mental health problems on the paediatric ward of the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital in my constituency because there is nowhere else for them to go. That is totally unacceptable.

I would also like to ask the Minister about concerns I have picked up about how well the various NHS bodies in Devon are working together. There seem to be particular concerns about the relationship between Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust and other NHS organisations in Devon. That was illustrated recently when Northern Devon decided to centralise stroke services in the rural market town of Ottery St Mary, rather than near the acute provision in Exeter, which is what the clinicians and all of the other organisations involved wanted.

Until a few moments before this debate, I had not received a reply to any of my letters, but several came pinging into my inbox just before. It is simply not good enough for MPs to have to go through the lottery of securing an Adjournment debate before they can get reasonable responses from health organisations and Ministers. I have now received a response to my letter to the head of the Trust Development Authority, David Flory, but it not particularly reassuring. He states:

“The relationship between Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust and North, East and West Devon Clinical Commissioning Group has been strained over the last two years. In 2013, arbitration was required to agree the 2013/14 contract and both parties needed mediation to address in-year issues.”—

it sounds like a divorce—

“The need for formal dispute resolution is often a symptom of deeper issues with local relationships.”

I have been raising concerns about that for months. What have the Government being doing about it?

I asked for this debate because of my growing frustration about the fact that the people of Devon, other Members of Parliament and I were not getting answers to the basic questions we were asking. As I have said, my computer has been pinging all afternoon with sudden responses to letters I sent weeks or even months ago, for which I am grateful. Of course, the most dramatic of them has been the climbdown by NEW Devon CCG with regard to banning operations for people who are obese or who smoke. The Minister, when she replies, might like to tell the House what role, if any, she has played in helping it to reach that climbdown.

However, the underlying financial crisis that I have spoken about today has not been addressed. If the CCG is now not going to do the things that it had already announced it would do, what is it going to do instead? It has already said that this is just the beginning and that more proposals for rationing and stopping treatment will be set out this month and next. Until the underlying financial problem is addressed and we know why there is a particular problem in Devon, it will not be resolved to the satisfaction of my constituents. I hope that the Minister can give answers to me and to the people of Devon now.

17:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate. He is right to say that Parliament is intended to bring these very important topics to the fore. In securing this debate, he rightly brings a very important subject to the Floor of the House, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. It is a matter of great importance to him and his constituents, but also to other Members in the area. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), as a Minister in the Foreign Office, and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), as a Government Whip, are unable to speak in the debate, but let it be noted for the record that they are here in attendance, representing their constituents, and have shown a keen interest in the matter and discussed it with me, as has the right hon. Gentleman.

I start by commending the work carried out every day by those working in our NHS, particularly in the area of Devon that we are discussing. At every opportunity in this House, we should, particularly as we approach the Christmas season, pay tribute to the fantastic work of our front-line NHS workers.

I turn to the service changes to Northern, Eastern and Western Devon—NEW Devon—clinical commissioning group. As the right hon. Gentleman set out, the CCG is facing significant financial pressures, with an end-of-year deficit of £14.5 million for 2013-14 and a similar deficit predicted for this financial year. To address these pressures, the CCG proposed some changes, which it described as “temporary”, to some of the services it commissions in the area. On 3 December, as he said, it announced that it was taking urgent measures to prioritise essential services and the requirements laid out in the NHS constitution.

We recognise that CCGs have to take resourcing decisions based on the needs of their local community, but blanket restrictions on procedures that do not take account of the individual health care needs of patients are unacceptable. Decisions on treatments, including suitability for surgery, should be made by clinicians, based on the individual clinical needs of patients. The Deputy Prime Minister made that point in response to the right hon. Gentleman at Prime Minister’s questions, and I reiterate it now. The right hon. Gentleman has given some very serious and moving examples of patients who would be affected by such blanket restrictions. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines represent best practice, and we expect NHS organisations to take them fully into account as they design services for their local populations and work towards full implementation over time.

With regard to the latest position, things have moved quite rapidly in the past 24 hours, as the right hon. Gentleman outlined. NEW Devon CCG announced today that it will no longer compel patients to undergo weight loss or stop smoking ahead of routine surgery. It confirmed that patients will instead be offered evidence-based guidance, as we would expect, on the benefits of weight loss and smoking cessation as part of their health care. As a former Health Minister, he would, like me, draw attention to the fact that both those things are generally desirable in terms of good health and the efficacy of treatment. The CCG also confirmed that it would not be restricting in vitro fertilisation treatment or caesarean sections on non-medical grounds.

In announcing its decision on weight loss and stopping smoking, the CCG confirmed that it will continue with a series of other measures that have already been announced, but those will be subject to public consultation in the new year, where appropriate. Discussions are under way to confirm the extent of that consultation. Today I had a telephone discussion with some of the key people involved, including the chief officer of the CCG and the NHS area lead. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to take a full part in that consultation. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman indicated some of the areas that he will wish to explore in that consultation process.

NHS England has confirmed that it is currently scrutinising the CCG’s proposals and is in close dialogue with it. That has been confirmed to the right hon. Gentleman, with a good level of detail, in a letter to him from the chief executive of NHS England, which I have had sight of. I hope that he has had that letter; I think he has.

[Mr Bradshaw]

indicated dissent.

[Jane Ellison]

If not, I apologise on behalf of NHS England. I was informed that the letter had been sent to him. I very much hope that it has pinged into his inbox by the time he returns to his office. If, by some chance, it has not reached him, I will certainly make sure that my office passes him a copy. I will also make sure that other right hon. and hon. Members who would want to have sight of the sentiments in the letter have sight of them.

NHS England has confirmed that it is currently scrutinising the CCG’s proposals. They are in close dialogue and I confirmed that myself in my conference call today. NHS England is seeking assurance that the proposals are in the best interest of patients, which we would all echo; that they are based on sound evidence, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded; and that they are subject to a well-planned process, including, if appropriate, public consultation.

On the next steps on financial issues—the right hon. Gentleman put this in the context of a longer-term concern—the CCG has stated that its financial projections are being updated in the light of the current pressures and the five-year system-wide assessment of a potential finance gap between resources and the cost of health demand, which the CCG considers will be £430 million, which is a considerable sum.

Devon was one of the 11 financially challenged health economies to be provided with intensive support by NHS England. I understand that the report of that work is due to be published shortly, along with planning guidance, which will be a joint publication with the NHS Trust Development Authority, Monitor and NHS England. The right hon. Gentleman does not have long to wait to see that detailed piece of work on the broader, long-term picture.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Does the Minister have any idea why it has taken quite so long? Did the CCG drop its smoking and obesity proposals before or after her telephone conversation with it?

[Jane Ellison]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with a response to his first question, as I am not abreast of the detail. The letter to him from the chief executive of NHS England is dated the 10th, so I think that answers his second question. I apologise that he has not received notice, but discussions were under way prior to my phone call with the local NHS leads, during which we touched on the issue.

As part of the work I was just referring to, an extensive, detailed analysis of services and costs in the NEW Devon health economy was undertaken. The NHS England area team director of finance has given significant support and challenge to the CCG to understand its financial position and to support the development of a financial recovery plan. The area team has also been engaged with the CCG through the quarterly assurance process and agreed a set of actions with time scales to improve the financial position.

I stressed in my conversation today the urgency of the matter and the clearly enormous public and parliamentary interest in it. Parliamentarians have a very important role to play in being a bridge between health officials and the public and the constituents they represent, as reflected by the interest shown in this debate by Devon MPs. The CCG and NHS England will meet next week to consider the CCG’s medium to long-term financial plans. It is an important meeting and I have asked to be kept abreast of those developments.

I will ask the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), to write to the right hon. Gentleman with more detail on the mental health issues he has raised.

The right hon. Gentleman has also raised concerns in the House and elsewhere about the walk-in centre. That is dealt with in some detail in Simon Stevens’s letter to him—I repeat my regret that he has not had sight of it—so if he has further concerns after reading it, he might want to raise them with the chief executive. However, he is, of course, always welcome to raise them with Ministers.

To return to the central part of this debate, I reiterate that policies providing for blanket restrictions on treatments for particular classes of patients based on lifestyle characteristics are unacceptable, and various Ministers—including, as I have said, the Deputy Prime Minister at PMQs this week—have made that clear. Any general policy on prioritisation of services must be robust, evidence-based and justifiable. In addition, any general policy must take account and make provision for an individual’s clinical situation, an example of which was given by the right hon. Gentleman.

CCGs have statutory duties to consult, inform or otherwise engage with the public about commissioning decisions, and duties to promote the involvement of individual patients in decisions about their care and treatment. We fully expect that the CCG will be mindful of those obligations when making any decisions. As I have said, I have stressed the importance of good communication, which is absolutely vital. I have had personal experience as a constituency MP, as well as a Health Minister, of communication not reaching the right people at the right time, resulting in confusion and sometimes distress for constituents and patients. It is therefore very important to get such things right, and I expect all local health economy leads to be extremely mindful of the need to involve local parliamentarians and other democratically elected people.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Does the Minister accept the importance not only of good communication, but of functional relationships? The letter from David Flory about the dysfunctionality of the relationship between Northern Devon and the rest of the heath economy in Devon is very worrying.

[Jane Ellison]

Functioning relationships are absolutely key to long-term planning. We have all recently seen the “Five Year Forward View” from NHS England, and the Government have expressed their support for the plans and intentions in that document. Co-operation and close working are at its heart, as they are at the heart of any local plans for the short, the medium and particularly the medium to long term. Functioning relationships between different parts of the health economy, as well as between the elected Members in the area, are therefore vital.

I feel confident that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to draw attention to that need. Indeed, throughout the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon have nodded in assent in relation to the importance of good communication.

Important meetings are coming up imminently, and I expect there to be good communication on their outcomes. I have asked to be kept abreast of them. Engagement with the public and others, including MPs, will take place next year on the issues that have to be consulted on.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I want to put it on the record that the obviously very important and long-awaited reply from NHS England is not one of the many e-mails that have pinged into my inbox today, so I would be grateful if the Minister ensured that I get it as soon as possible.

[Jane Ellison]

I feel sure that someone is already working on that, but as I say, we will try to get it to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible, and to let other interested colleagues have sight of its sentiments.

I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to engage with the consultation process, and to bring all their constituents’ communications to bear by feeding them into the consultation. I have asked to be kept abreast of those matters. As the right hon. Gentleman will see from the chief executive of NHS England’s response, this important matter is being taken extremely seriously both by Ministers and at the very top of NHS England, as well as by local health leaders.

I hope that the outcome of the discussions and consultations will be a good one—as we require it to be—for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and other members of the public in the area. We look forward to seeing how matters progress, and I again congratulate him on bringing this important matter to the Floor of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 11th December 2014 Westminster Hall

Thursday 11 December 2014

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

Health Systems (Developing Countries)

Thursday 11th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the International Development Committee, Strengthening Health Systems in Developing Countries, HC 246, and the Government Response, HC 816; Sixth Report of the International Development Committee, Recovery and Development in Sierra Leone and Liberia, HC 247, and the Government response, HC 863.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Dr Coffey.)

13:30

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate these three reports, which as it happens are timelier in their outcomes than we realised when we started them. The Select Committee on International Development decided that we should visit Sierra Leone and Liberia to see how the Department for International Development was working in post-conflict situations and how it was working with development partners, particularly the Americans, in Liberia. That was an interesting and informative inquiry. When we visited the two countries in June, Ebola was present, but at the time, it was apparently not imminently as out of control as it has become. At the same time, we had also been doing an inquiry into DFID’s role in helping to strengthen health systems. One can see a certain irony in how those things came together at the time we were conducting our inquiry.

I will take things in that order, concentrating on health and then adding a couple of points about the development programmes. In those countries where we have a bilateral partnership and health is a significant part of the engagement, DFID has a good record, supported by all the evidence, of using the funding to help build stronger and more effective and coherent health systems.

About half of DFID’s health money goes in that direction, but the other half goes to the vertical and multilateral funds, where we found much less concentration on building health systems, perhaps for the understandable reason that targets were being set to deliver reductions in malaria and HIV/AIDS and everything was set in those terms. However, to achieve those targets, an infrastructure for delivering them is ultimately needed. We were anxious to ensure that the money going into vertical funds left a legacy of stronger health systems. What has happened with Ebola vindicates the argument that we made.

In Sierra Leone and Liberia, we saw health systems that were beginning to show some signs of effectiveness, but as we now know, they were totally overwhelmed by the Ebola crisis, which they are incapable of handling. The Liberian system was probably in slightly better shape than Sierra Leone’s, but then it was ahead on the curve. Nevertheless, both of them were overwhelmed.

One thing we are clear about is that if the international effort now going into bringing Ebola under control is to have a lasting legacy, it should also go into ensuring that when the immediate emergency is ended, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, on which there is more of a French lead, have health systems in place that will be resilient and robust enough to withstand any further similar outbreak. The situation also makes it clear that strong health systems are an essential component of development and in the global national interest, because such diseases, whether resistant, endemic or epidemic, can spread everywhere if not contained in their own territory. Strong health systems are in everybody’s interest.

One disappointing thing is that although the African Union countries made a declaration at Abuja that they should spend 15% of their Governments’ budgets on health, of the 50 members, only six have actually done so. Although I commend DFID—I am looking at the Minister here—we must urge the development partners to share the commitment. Without their commitment, they will never achieve effective health systems, which requires both political will and commitment. Therefore, we conclude that we need to put even more resource into completing the job that had only just started in Sierra Leone, and ensure that the legacy of tackling Ebola is not just that we get it under control but that we leave behind something much more substantial for the future of those countries. That is essentially the major point we must make.

Interestingly, the evidence told us that the UK national health service has a significant contribution to make in this area, in a number of ways. First, contrary to some popular opinion, in a Commonwealth evaluation of health services across the developed countries, the NHS ranked top, as the best health service in the world. We know that it is not perfect, but we should not sell short what it can do. We are seconding people right now from our own health service to work in Sierra Leone; perhaps not quickly enough, but we are doing so.

However, several issues came to light. One is that there ought to be a permanent partnership across Government to use DFID and NHS capacity and expertise to help build those health systems. That was and is being done in Sierra Leone, but our inquiry revealed—my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised this issue with the health adviser this morning—that we are not training enough health service staff for our own needs. I argue, and to some extent the Committee’s recommendations suggest, that we should be training more than enough staff for our own needs, on the grounds that we could then second people abroad without leaving our own health service understaffed.

Although we have a policy of not recruiting directly into the NHS from a long list of developing countries in a worthy attempt to avoid brain-draining qualified health professionals from poorer countries, the fact remains that they are not prevented from coming here or applying, and there are doctors and nurses from Sierra Leone working in our health service when one would like to think they would be working in their own health service alongside our volunteers and secondees to tackle the problem. This needs a cross-Government approach and it is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but I ask him to take it on board that discussions with the Department of Health should address those issues, which are in the national and international interest.

I will touch on the reason why we went to Sierra Leone and Liberia before the crisis engulfed them. Those countries had been riven by civil war. The UK effectively intervened in Sierra Leone and ended the civil war, for which I can testify the people of Sierra Leone are extraordinarily grateful. It might amuse the House to observe that one sees more Union Jacks driving through Freetown than in Ayr. It is a declaration of appreciation. The partnership is constructive and is valued by both parties.

Sierra Leone is a bit of a forgotten country. The UK is the lead donor, and there are few others. It is literally a far-away country of which many people know very little, yet it and Liberia have an interesting history that is different from anywhere else in Africa. Liberia was settled by freed slaves from America in the early part of the 19th century. Interestingly, the country that first recognised Liberia as an independent state was not the United States of America but the United Kingdom, a fact that Liberians are anxious we should know.

I will say in passing, however, that some of us were a little shocked or bemused—I do not know which—by Liberia’s national flag and symbol. I think it has a ship with a pennant saying, “We came here in search of freedom.” The vast majority of Liberians never left, and there is a dichotomy between the freed slaves and their descendants, who are the elite, and the majority of the people, who have not had good governance over a very long period of time.

The current president is to be commended, in that the situation is changing and there is a much greater will to govern for the whole country. We made only a short visit; we were only able to go to Monrovia. However, people told us that while Monrovia looked a reasonable city, the rest of the country had virtually no roads, no infrastructure and no support. Again, that is a development challenge that needs to be addressed.

Sierra Leone was founded on a similar basis, by freed slaves from the Caribbean, and it has a definite Caribbean feel to it. Obviously, it enjoyed—I think “enjoyed” is the right word to use—administration by the British for many years, before it gained full independence. There is a legacy of roads and infrastructure that, again, the people value. However, it is still at a very low base; Sierra Leone is still a very poor, deprived country.

Our Committee recommends that, first, regardless of the Ebola crisis, we continue the current level of support. However, now we are where we are and both countries have been knocked back, the Department, although it has immediately given extra resources, needs to reassess its long-term programme, especially for Sierra Leone, which will need more resources than have so far been committed. That is not a criticism but a recognition of reality. We hope the Department will be able to provide those extra resources.

We made some criticism of the centrally managed programmes—we have engaged with the Department since on this issue—because, to say the least, we were a bit disappointed to find that we were not getting all the information on what the British Government are doing in Sierra Leone. We got it in bits and pieces from different sources. When the Committee visits a country where the UK has a bilateral aid programme, we almost expect—we have asked for this for many years—to get a full breakdown, or at least an assessment, of the bilateral programme, the multilateral programmes and engagement with the international agencies such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank; of course, it may not be an absolutely precise figure. However, we found that substantial programmes were being delivered in Sierra Leone that local DFID staff had no engagement with at all, and knew very little of. There may be good reasons for that, and we have asked DFID to give them if there are, but we still think that openness and transparency and an understanding of those programmes’ interaction would be helpful.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good point. He will recall that exactly the same issue arose when the Committee visited Brazil: it was only almost as we were leaving that we were provided with a comprehensive plan.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

My hon. Friend is right; in fact, it was actually after we had left. We have now learned—I am smiling at the Minister—how to ask the questions. We asked in general terms what our official development assistance was, and DFID said, “We don’t have an ODA programme in Brazil, but HM Government do.” On returning from Brazil, we found that the Foreign Office had a £40 million ODA programme there. We do not object to that; we just think we should know about it, and the reason for it.

We had a similar concern regarding Sierra Leone. It is a question of transparency and understanding. Such knowledge helps us to make a good case: we are doing much more in Sierra Leone than is apparent, so why not say so? Ironically, when we went to Liberia, where our programme is a lot smaller, everything had been thrown into the pot to make the budget look bigger. So, the exact opposite approach to that taken in Sierra Leone was being adopted in Liberia.

I get the impression that the Department has learned something from this dialogue, and that the situation will change. We have asked the Independent Commission for Aid Impact to look at the centrally managed programmes, simply because the Department has not given us a clear explanation of strategy, listing exactly what should be done through centrally managed programmes, what should be done locally, and why. What is the rationale for choosing one method rather than the other? We are not saying that those ways are wrong and do not deliver, but it is not clear what they deliver and why, and we would like some clarity.

As the reports state, it is absolutely right for the UK to be the lead donor in Sierra Leone. We have a degree of responsibility, and the partnership works and is appreciated by both sides. Playing a supportive role in Liberia, with the US, benefits Liberia and the UK’s interaction with the US, because the UK and the US have a strong connection. We urge the Government, perhaps once they have gone a little further in dealing with the Ebola crisis, to tell us how they propose to set out a reconstruction programme for Sierra Leone in the coming years, because that is what is required. We urge DFID to take on board our recommendations on strengthening health systems. In particular, DFID should use its influence with the multilateral agencies to ensure that, where they put aid money into health—whether through vertical funds or other health programmes—they build in the objective of leaving a legacy of stand-alone functioning systems.

We should also open a dialogue with partner countries to get them to make health a greater priority on behalf of their citizens, not least because the aid community’s prioritising of health is almost giving some countries an excuse not to do so. The scale of the challenge is such that the aid community will never deliver a sufficiently strong health system on its own, and nor should it. Unless there is a partnership and a willingness on the part of Governments to contribute, we will not get the result we seek.

Notwithstanding the Government’s formal response, I hope the Minister will pick up on the points I have made. We are very appreciative of what DFID is doing. The circumstances have changed. There were a number of criticisms, which I hope the Department will address. Our engagement in these two countries is extremely important, but it needs to be ramped up if we are to get them back on their feet after the crisis that has engulfed them in the last few months.

13:47

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I begin by thanking the Minister for the Government’s detailed response to the Committee’s report, “Strengthening Health Systems in Developing Countries”, which I will speak to. I also wish to put on the record—and not just because we are approaching the season of good will—our appreciation of the International Development Committee’s Clerks and assistants for their expert help and invaluable contribution to our reports, and indeed to all the Committee’s work.

Strengthening health systems gets to the heart of much of what the Department for International Development must now be about, as we move from the millennium development goals to the sustainable development goals. Aid must be proactive as well as reactive, seeking prevention as well as cure. Clearly there will continue to be epidemics and tragic random events of nature or war, such as the Ebola outbreak or the current crises in Syria or Iraq. That is precisely when a robust in-country health system becomes so important. A mature and progressive approach must focus on the long-term goals of building the organisations, in-country institutions and the attitudes that will enable developing nations to become truly independent and truly developed.

One of the ways that is done is through building the networks by which health care resources can be spread, establishing training institutions that can make health care systems sustainable and bringing Governments to account, so that they realise the realistic and significant benefits of prioritising health care. If the latter in particular is not done, much of the health care action that this country’s aid workers overseas seek to undertake will be only half done.

I am reminded of the time that the Committee visited Ethiopia. We saw some dedicated community health workers, who were funded by DFID. They were young women who were going out into remote rural communities and talking to women in their homes about how to improve their health and hygiene with 10-step plans. Those women were visited and revisited until the good practices had been embedded. However, we visited the clinic in the same region, to which these women would go to give birth to their children and have treatment if they were ill, and quite frankly it was filthy. What was of even more concern was that when we challenged the Government Minister on this issue, he responded, if I recall correctly, “Yes, hygiene is a problem in Ethiopia.” Unless we have more joined-up thinking on the part of the Governments and institutions of the countries in which we are seeking to support the health systems, we will, as I say, find our work only half done. That is why this has to be a priority.

It is good that DFID takes this matter seriously and that the Government have responded positively to almost all the recommendations in our report. It is also good that much of our report recognises the excellent work that DFID does. DFID is an acknowledged leader in this field, particularly in transparency and sharing information. Our Committee is always reminded, wherever we go, of its significance in the field of development around the world.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I agree, but does my hon. Friend acknowledge that we heard some evidence that, good as DFID was, it was rather hiding its light under a bushel, and that people felt that it should be doing much more to provide leadership and that it had slightly lost its edge in that area—not what it is doing, but in inspiring and encouraging others?

[Fiona Bruce]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts me, so I thank him for that pertinent comment. One of the thrusts of the report is that although DFID is in a prominent and influential position, it does not take advantage of that. Many of the Committee’s recommendations ask not for a change of policy, but for DFID to use its expertise and good practice to improve the practice and governance of the organisations, institutions and partners with which it works. It is good that the Government largely agree with that aspect of the report.

Let me turn to specific recommendations in the report. First, in response to recommendation 14, the Government state that they have shown leadership on working with women and girls,

“nutrition, female genital mutilation and early and forced child marriage, all of which require dismantling cultural barriers.”

I commend the Government’s work in this area, which gets to the heart of effective aid. It is not just about money pumped in or relief parachuted to problem spots; it is about dedicated work over time with locals on the ground to address fundamental barriers to health provision.

I cite, for example, the work done by aid workers in rural villages and rural communities in Ethiopia, where early child marriage involves children as young as six being married off and where children are even pledged to one another at birth. We heard a moving story of a young girl in her early teens who benefited from the teaching of some of the health workers in rural communities, who encourage young women not to allow themselves to be married early, but to stay in education and preserve their health and well-being, so that they do not end up with early sex and early childbirth. Instead, they can give themselves hope and a future and can contribute more fully to their communities than they would do were they married off early, which, in the misguided view on the part of their community, is somehow regarded as strengthening the community’s future.

It was really moving to learn that that young girl was only a few years younger than her older sister in her late teens, who had been married off early. She described how her older sister was already damaged and isolated, living almost alone, having been abandoned by her so-called husband, her education wrecked and her future looking very bleak. That is just one example of where the work of our DFID representatives, in strengthening health systems in a proactive, long-term way, is so effective.

Transparency is another area where DFID’s performance is exceptional in the field—if I remember rightly, it has been ranked second out of 68 countries. I commend this work. Will the Minister elaborate on the Government’s response to recommendation 6 in our report? The Committee recommended

“that DFID work harder to encourage its partners to make more data on their health systems strengthening work freely available.”

The right hon. Member for Gordon also mentioned that.

In their answer, the Government emphasised DFID’s good record, but regarding other organisations and partners they merely said:

“DFID will continue to set a good example to its partners on transparency and to encourage them to follow this example.”

Perhaps that could be more strongly stated. Perhaps the Minister will put some flesh on the bones of that statement. How will DFID seek to do that and what are its realistic aims and hopes in this area? The Committee’s inquiry showed that although DFID is world leading in this area, perhaps it is not leading the world as much as it could. I encourage the Minister to make use of DFID’s position, its reputation and its relationship with the various multinational organisations to have a greater impact in this area.

I now turn to recommendations that the Government partially accepted. I am pleased that the Government seem to be in general agreement with the Committee on how DFID needs to move forward to apply aid more effectively. Recommendation 4, for example, examines the need for an internationally agreed measure of

“system strengthening expenditure and efficacy as part of discussions about the post-2015 development goals.”

This is clearly an essential task over the next year.

The Government response states that such measures are not part of the post-2015 process. However, they also state:

“Some early thinking has been done about what would be required to develop a common framework for tracking health systems strengthening expenditure.”

Perhaps the Minister could expand on where that thinking is taking DFID and whether the Department has any time line on drafting such a framework.

Recommendations 15 and 16 relate to volunteering, which the Committee Chairman mentioned. I thank the Minister for his Department’s commitment to develop better frameworks and practices for volunteering in response to those recommendations. I should like to reflect with him, and with hon. Members in the Chamber, on the impact that nurses, doctors and even finance and management specialists—which the Committee made recommendations on—can have on health work in developing countries.

Let me mention the work of some volunteers with medical expertise in the Conservative party’s Project Umubano, of which the Minister—whom I am delighted to see here—is an august member, having been a part of that volunteer project virtually every year since its inception. Volunteers in the project go out for one or two weeks a year to Africa: Rwanda, Burundi and Sierra Leone. They are self-funded—so they are really on a minuscule funding basis—and go out there to make a difference in those countries. I remind the Committee of the difference that can be made, even in such a short time, and why it is therefore so important that we look at supporting volunteering from people with NHS expertise.

I should like to quote from an account from this year’s Umubano from Dr Sharon Bennett—who is, if hon. Members are not aware, apart from being a qualified and practising doctor, the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the former Secretary of State.

“This was my 8th year in Rwanda, and it was wonderful to return to this special place, where I have made so many friends and treated so many patients over the last decade.”

She speaks of spending time at the Umubano health outpost, a clinic in a fairly remote area founded by Umubano volunteers, who raised funds to build it, and opened in 2011:

“I am happy to report that it is thriving, and we are now putting together a proposal not only to do preventative clinics—HIV, immunisation, ante-natal—but to have a daily minor ailments clinic there. This will bring healthcare closer to this extremely vulnerable group of people.

Every year I see the Health Centre grow, in all ways. The dedication of the staff at the centre is truly humbling.”

She is speaking about the staff that the volunteers have gone out to help train as they set up systems in the health outpost. She said:

“My most happy story this year, and possibly from all my visits, was reviewing a young woman with her happy and healthy seven month old baby. The outlook for mother and child was very different a year ago. In 2013”—

Dr Bennett went out in the summer of 2013—

“she came to see me late on in her pregnancy, when she was very short of breath. She had been treated for a chest infection. However, when I examined her it became clear that she was in heart failure, caused by a valve problem in her heart. If this had gone undiagnosed, she and the baby would almost certainly have died in labour from the huge amount of strain that is placed on the heart during child birth. She was transferred to Butare Hospital and put on medical treatment to take the pressure off her heart. The baby was delivered safely. In February next year, surgeons will be visiting from the United Kingdom to give her a new heart valve.”

Is that not a wonderful story and a microcosm of what can be done if we encourage volunteering from this country to such countries?

I want also to touch on the wonderful structural work being done by Mr Sheo Tibrewal, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who has helped to set up a postgraduate orthopaedic course in a university in Rwanda. That is a wonderful piece of work he has done over many years. He has strengthened the structure of the university departments and ensured that medicine and dentistry are better able to implement a strategic plan, in conjunction with the Government’s work out in Rwanda. Those are just two examples of where volunteering can make a difference, and I am sure that, with greater support from DFID in conjunction with the NHS, we could see many more. Will the Minister update us on how deliberations on that are progressing? How can support be given to those NHS workers who would like to volunteer abroad, whether in the short or longer term?

That leads me neatly to recommendations 5 and 8, which touch on the difficult topic of how we can encourage other organisations or partners in other countries to take health system strengthening seriously. The Committee recommended:

“If DFID is not satisfied that system strengthening is being given sufficient priority by an organisation, and that organisation does not change, DFID should be prepared to withhold funds.”

That is strong—it may be a nuclear option—but as the Committee’s discussions with the Minister in Ethiopia showed, we have opportunities to challenge thinking at the highest level in those countries, and we should take them. I know how much those countries value the financial support and expertise that come from the UK and DFID, and we should not hold back from challenging Governments at the highest level on such issues.

The Government response rightly states:

“A decision to withhold funding to Gavi or the Global Fund would have a significant impact in developing countries”.

Although I am sympathetic to the Government’s caution, can the Minister satisfy the Committee that he intends to make progress in this area? Progress is vital and should not be seen as an optional extra. We should ensure that we take a tough line with Governments who are unwilling to take responsibility for the long-term health of their populations.

We also have a duty to take a tough line not only in-country, but in our country. That is critical. The Chair of the Committee touched on this, but we need to ensure that our people are made aware of the remarkable work done by DFID and representatives across the world, so that there is a greater degree of support than at present. The debate on the 0.7% Bill showed that there is a strong and vocal, but perhaps small group of people who are critical of what DFID is doing. One only has to look at the amount of private donations made to appeals to see how much the people of this country support what DFID is doing on international development. However, we need to spend some time focusing on that work to ensure not only that we challenge other Governments to take up the responsibility of communicating the importance of that work to their inhabitants and residents, but that we do the same here at home.

14:05

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

This report on health system strengthening makes some important recommendations. It states that DFID’s work in the health field is often strong indeed. The Government’s responses to many of our recommendations are good, and I note and value all those good responses, but I want to talk about areas where the Government and DFID in particular should think further, because there are opportunities to strengthen further the good work that DFID does in this field.

In much of the Government’s response, they highlighted good practice in DFID’s work, but they did not say enough to convince me that Ministers and the clinical advisers in the Department are strongly committed to improving DFID’s health work yet further, especially its value for money. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rightly said that members of the Committee have a responsibility to challenge Government at the highest level to improve performance, not only on health policies relating to our partner countries—the developing countries with which we work—but on the health policies of our Government that relate to development.

I will build my remarks around two fundamental principles that underpin good health care universally. The first commitment in the Hippocratic oath, which every doctor takes before they qualify and go into practice, is “First do no harm.” We need to ensure that our health policies on developing countries do no harm, but in one respect our approach to the health services we provide for our citizens does immense harm to developing countries. I asked the Library to produce the latest figures on the number of health workers from developing countries working in the NHS. According to the hospital and community health service monthly work force statistics for September 2013, there were 68,673 health workers from low and middle-income countries working in the NHS. Included among that number were 16,615 doctors and 27,032 nurses. If those health workers were working in developing countries, they would hugely strengthen those countries’ health systems. We need to consider whether the way we run the NHS is appropriate.

In recommendation 10, the Committee said to the Government:

“The staffing of the UK health sector should not be at the expense of health systems in developing countries. We recommend DFID work with the Department of Health to review its approach to the UK recruitment of health workers from overseas. This review should consider options for compensating source country systems, promoting training schemes that involve a temporary stay in the UK, and strengthening local programmes”—

in developing countries, of course—

“to enable more medical training to take place in-country.”

By use of the word “medical”, I think the Committee meant the training of health workers more generally—all professional clinical staff, doctors, nurses and other professionals supplementary to medicine. In their response, the Government agree with our recommendation, but there was not enough detail to make me feel that our health system, strengthened as it is by many tens of thousands of health workers from developing countries, will change to enable more of those workers to work in their own country. I ask the Minister to think about that. The first line of the Government’s response to recommendation 10 states:

“The Department of Health (DH) and DFID will continue to work together to review their approach to the UK recruitment of health workers from overseas.”

It is the word “continue” that makes me think that they will carry on doing what they do at the moment. The Committee asks the Government to instigate a review and to think outside the box about how we could manage the UK’s health system in a way that does less harm to health systems in developing countries.

I remember suggesting many years ago to John Reid when he was Secretary of State for Health that we ought to undertake each year, as part of our aid work, to pay the Governments of developing countries to train one nurse for every nurse from a developing country working in the NHS, and to do the same for other disciplines. If we really want to ensure that good health care here does not come at the expense of the health care of poorer people in developing countries, that is the least that we should do. If we wanted to go further than that, we could train two nurses for every one in NHS.

We must remember that it is not only the NHS that sucks in the terribly valuable and scarce resource that is developing countries’ health workers. The private sector also does it, particularly private care homes, which suck in nurses in huge numbers. In fact, the private sector has a more predatory impact than the NHS on the health systems of developing countries, because the NHS has for the past few years—I remember discussing this with John Reid as well—instituted certain safeguards regarding employing people from countries where we can directly see a detrimental effect.

I ask for a discrete review to be jointly commissioned by the two Departments. If the Minister has not come with a brief to say that he will do that—I suspect that he has not—I would like him to discuss it with his opposite number in the Department of Health. Once it has been thought through, they could respond in writing to the Chairman of the Committee. We need to do more. The joint work that the Department does with the Department of Health should continue—I do not want to stop any of that—but we need to go further. I encourage the Minister to say that he will at least go back and talk with his clinical advisers, the doctors who work in DFID, to consider the question of commissioning a particular, discrete review.

In recommendation 16, which refers to volunteering and about which the hon. Member for Congleton spoke so eloquently, the Committee recommended that

“NHS staff should be supported in seeking to apply their skills where need is greatest.”

I agree with that. The Government’s response states:

“Over 650 NHS frontline staff and 130 Public Health England staff have volunteered to go out to Sierra Leone to help in the UK’s efforts on the ground.”

I welcome that. I hope that the Minister will tell us how many of those 650 and 130 staff have gone to Sierra Leone, what the total British complement of medical staff, including military medical personnel, is and how long they will stay. The hospital and community health service statistics provide a country-by-country breakdown that puts the issue in context. In September 2013, 567 Sierra Leonean health staff were working in the NHS, of which 347 were professionally qualified clinical staff. If for six months, a year, or a couple of years—or however long is needed to help Sierra Leone to respond to, deal with and recover from the Ebola crisis—we send a few hundred British health personnel to the country, but we typically take several hundred professionally qualified health staff from Sierra Leone, one of the poorest countries in Africa, year in, year out, are we helping or hindering its response to the health crisis?

Why are we sending staff? We are sending them now because the crisis affects us. If the epidemic spreads, there will be more and more cases in parts of the world other than west Africa—or central Africa, which has also seen some cases. We are doing it out of self-interest. If we are concerned about strengthening health systems in west Africa, and particularly in Sierra Leone, so that they can deal with this challenge, and if we are concerned about helping to build more robust health systems to raise health standards in Sierra Leone, we need to change the number of Sierra Leonean health personnel that we attract to this country to work in our NHS.

In recommendation 18, the Committee proposes that

“DFID publish a clear health strategy”.

I want DFID to explain why it does health work. We know that it is good and valuable, and we know the many things it does that every sane person would support, but let us get down to the real basics: why do we do it? Why do we spend DFID money on health systems rather than on job creation or other development measures? We do it because, going beyond the first principle of doing no harm, we want developing countries to use their limited resources for health—both the aid that we provide and the rather greater resources that they generate from their own revenues—as cost-effectively as possible. Cost-effectiveness must be measured in terms of maximising the number of lives saved from preventable diseases and maximising good health, while minimising the burden of ill health and disease in the developing countries that we aid.

In the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is the UK’s health technology assessment system, a device called a quality-adjusted life year is used to measure the impact of a health intervention. I apologise for lapsing into jargon, but a QALY is a concept that marks each year of life that is lost through preventable disease. If somebody who would otherwise have lived to the age of 65 dies at the age of 45 through a preventable illness, 20 QALYs would be lost. If that person’s life is saved but they continue living with a disability such as blindness, the QALY will estimate what percentage of a person’s good life is lost. If they are a tailor, for example, they would lose their livelihood if they lost their sight.

We came across NICE International during our inquiry, and I would like to know whether the NICE principles of considering the cost-effectiveness of health interventions was being applied to the Government’s international health work. Does NICE International have a similar approach, and examine the impact of a health intervention? How many quality-adjusted life years on average does every £1,000 of locally or DFID-generated money buy, if the intervention is focused on immunisation, for example, perhaps through Gavi, the global fund for vaccines and immunisation? How many QALYs would that same £1,000 buy if it was sunk into maternal and child health, or into the purchasing and distribution of antiretroviral drugs for people with HIV and AIDS, and into backing that up with clinical interventions? Or the money could be invested in general health system strengthening, and training nurses in developing countries and encouraging them to work within the health system of that country; I implied earlier that we ought to do more of that.

We should be able to see how, if we targeted our resources better, the same amount of money could help more people, avoid more deaths and enable more people to return to good health so that they have viable and productive lives. For example, a woman with three children whose husband has died from AIDS and who is HIV-positive herself might be able to carry on looking after those children, instead of dying and leaving orphans for someone else to look after. We ought to quantify what benefit we get from different interventions.

DFID is well regarded internationally for its work on basic human needs, in health and education in particular. Other countries have especially strong records on using development finance to build infrastructure such as roads, which the European Union is much better at building than we are, or to support small businesses and create livelihoods, which I think the Germans do. We, however, are probably the global leader in using money effectively to provide for basic human needs. We should be proud of that, but if we could make our work more effective still, we most certainly should. That would improve the value for money that our taxpayers get from the money spent in developing countries to reduce the burden of ill health. Also, our practice would be copied by countries that look to the United Kingdom for a lead on how, through development assistance, we can strengthen the health systems of developing countries.

I want to mention one final recommendation. In recommendation 4, the Committee stated:

“It is impossible to know how well DFID is delivering its health systems strengthening strategy without knowing how much it spends or having indicators of its performance.”

I am not saying that we have to use QALYs, but they are certainly one indicator that it would be worth using. There are also other indicators. The recommendation continues:

“Nor can DFID allocate its resources efficiently in the dark.”

If we do not do the technical work of looking at how valuable intervention A is at reducing the burden of disease and disability by comparison with intervention B, we will not use as effectively as we might the limited money that we have for strengthening health care systems in developing countries.

The Government say that they agree partially. I want them to think further and to tell us what they will do to improve the technical work that their clinicians do, so that we can work out the effectiveness of health interventions. If we increase the clinical effectiveness of work done in developing countries, not only with our aid, but by the health system as a whole—funded by us, by multilaterals, by other donors and, more than anything else, by the country’s tax revenues—we will save lives. If we are trying to explain to our constituents why we put money into development assistance, saving lives is something that people understand, value and believe that we should do. That is why they think that the Government are right to respond to the Ebola crisis.

If we fail to do that, to raise our game and to do more to assess which interventions are most cost-effective, it will cost lives, because we will not be using the limited resources that we have as effectively as possible. None of us would want to explain to our constituents that we had simply not done the technical work to find out what works best, and so were spending their money less effectively than we might otherwise do in developing countries. Will the Minister think about that and write to us after the debate, once he has had the opportunity to discuss things further with his officials? Will he explain what more his Department could do to respond to the calls that came from our Committee?

It sounds as if I am complaining, but a lot of the Government’s response is good. I welcome it, but I was thinking out of the box in response to what the Government said about our recommendations. I want the Government to do 100%, not 50%, of what our Committee asked them to do. We have not got all the answers right; the Government have much greater technical expertise in Departments than we have in the secretariat of our Committee. Let us not be sloppy; let us be professional and focus on what we can do to improve the value for our health development money.

14:26

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Osborne, and to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who speaks with such knowledge and passion on these matters, and my two colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).

I was delighted when the Committee agreed to do a report on strengthening health systems, because the subject is not one that commands a great deal of attention. The report does not look at a particular country or disease, but instead seems more to do with bureaucracy than anything else, although that is not at all the case. As our report states, health systems are fundamental to the improvement of outcomes and self-sufficiency in health services in developing countries.

I hope that one of the sustainable development goals next year will be universal health coverage, which is impossible without strong health systems. Strong health systems are in place not only to provide better outcomes for life or to prevent morbidity and mortality, however important those things are, but to alleviate poverty, which is a direct responsibility of DFID. Strong health systems are also in place to increase fairness: if everyone has access to a health system, life chances are immeasurably improved. People who go to school and have worms are much less likely to be able to concentrate. If people have blinding trachoma, the consequences are obvious for their life chances. In so many other cases, disease brings not only disability—which we will discuss in the next debate—but an inability for people to fulfil their human potential. That is why health systems are so important to international development. In the Ebola tragedy in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, we have of course seen the consequences of weak health systems, to which my colleagues have already referred.

In this country, we have a unique thing to offer in the strengthening of health systems, which is our national health service. For all the brickbats sometimes thrown at the NHS—in my constituency we have had our difficulties, but I am glad to say that we are working through and overcoming them with the tremendous support of local staff and of the NHS as a whole—it gives us a system that is efficient, and acknowledged as such, and effective. It has its faults and failings, but it is not only chance that caused the Commonwealth Fund to put the NHS at the top of the league in an august company of health systems.

We have heard a little about the so-called problem of vertical as against horizontal programming in systems. I want to dwell on that a little. One of the things that people in our inquiry referred to was the great emphasis over the past 14 or 15 years, since 2000, on vertical programming, or disease-specific programming. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Gavi and other programmes have all been successful, but there is always the risk that they will focus entirely or mainly on the disease without looking at how they can strengthen the health system within the country, which would bring far wider benefits than simply the elimination or reduction in prevalence of that disease.

I do not think this is an either/or question—that we need either vertical or horizontal programmes. Rather, it is a case of using both. I will give a couple of examples of interventions I have seen that were made through, and so reinforced, health systems. In June we visited Sierra Leone. I was privileged to go into a village on the peninsula near Freetown and see the results of the mass bed net distribution that was taking place—at a time, let us remember, when although Ebola had not reached a critical phase, it was beginning to become significant. That mass distribution of bed nets still went ahead, as far as possible, and did so through the existing health system, weak though it was. The distribution was effective: I went into homes where the new nets had been installed, and people clearly viewed them as being of great importance, particularly for their children and for pregnant women, who are the most liable to be affected by malaria.

Those mass bed net distributions, often through health systems, have resulted in the tremendous fall in the incidence of and mortality from malaria that we found out about this week from the World Health Organisation annual malaria report—I had the pleasure of chairing the launch of that report, in the company of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, in my role as chairman of the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases. Work by the global fund, DFID, and the US and many other Governments has probably saved around 4 million lives—mainly of young children and pregnant women—in the past 14 years. Even if we concentrate more on health systems and horizontal work, we should never let go of the gains that have been made. It is absolutely vital that we do not return to the situation we saw in the 1960s, and again in the 1980s, when, after a really strong effort on malaria, we let our grip on it go and saw a resurgence of malaria across the world. Vertical interventions are vital when they work through horizontal health systems as well.

My second example is from Tanzania, where I visited a programme run by the Tanzanian Government with the support of Imperial college, London, and various NGOs, such as Sightsavers. The programme tackles neglected tropical diseases. Instead of looking at only one—lymphatic filariasis, for instance, or worms—it is tackling four of those debilitating diseases alongside each other.

In other parts of the world we find the use of pooled funds—for example, pooled health funds in South Sudan and Mozambique, the development partners for health in Kenya and the health transition fund in Zimbabwe. All are excellent examples of people coming together to strengthen health systems locally, showing that it is not simply about one person making their one vertical intervention, but everyone working to bring the money together and make the best use of it.

The WHO identified six key building blocks in health systems: governance, finance, the work force, commodities —mainly drugs—services and information. In all those areas DFID plays a major role. I pay tribute to NICE International, an organisation already referred to by the hon. Member for York Central. I was impressed by the presentation it made to the Committee and its evidence to us, and I am impressed by its work. It is an example of something that most people will probably not have heard of, but which is helping health systems around the world to learn from our experience and that of others to bring better health care to their populations.

We have already heard about the financing challenges. It is vital that developing countries live up to their commitments—in the case of African Union countries, the Abuja commitment to spend 15% of their annual budgets on health. At the meeting I referred to earlier, the leader of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance—she is a former Member of Parliament and Minister from Botswana—made the same point, saying that countries with endemic malaria have to step up to the challenge and cannot simply rely on donors to fill the gap.

Indeed, let us take malaria as an example. It would take $5.1 billion of investment every year to see the elimination of malaria within our lifetimes. At the moment, something like $2.9 billion is being given. To put that into perspective, $2.9 billion would run our national health service for a week. Another $2.9 billion—another week’s worth of national health service funding—would see the elimination of malaria in our lifetimes. Surely that is not too much to ask from both the Governments of countries with endemic malaria and the international community to eliminate a disease that even less than 200 years ago was rife in this country and within the past 50 to 60 years was still present and killing people in countries in the south of Europe.

The hon. Member for York Central covered the ground on the issue of the health work force extremely well, so I will not repeat his remarks, save to say that by some estimates there will be a shortage of 13 million health workers around the world by 2035. The estimated shortage at the moment is somewhere between 4.2 million and 4.5 million, although I would say it is probably more—another estimate I have seen is 7 million. Here we have worthwhile jobs and livelihoods that could be created immediately if the training capacity was there. We know the work is there, because there is a shortfall, yet we are not training enough health workers, whether in this country or elsewhere around the world.

Those are great job opportunities for young people. As I said in our evidence session this morning, I urge the UK Government to look at providing more spaces for training doctors, nurses and other health care professionals, so that our young people can enter those professions. I was shocked to see in a newspaper this morning that half of the schools in this country do not have anyone going for training as a doctor. That figure astonishes me. There must be several pupils in every school who would both want to undertake that training and be capable of doing so, yet it is not happening. Let us put our own house in order, while helping others as they do the same to theirs.

I will not dwell extensively on the other three pillars the WHO mentions—commodities, services, which are absolutely key, but are far too big a subject for this debate, and information—except to say that the supply of pharmaceuticals to rural outposts has been a real problem for many years. I remember visiting a place in Uganda where even basic malaria drugs were not available, yet those drugs were in stock in the central store in Kampala. It is not beyond the wit of man to get drugs out from Kampala, or any other capital city, to where they are needed. It takes a bit of leadership and imagination and, possibly, some work with the private sector, which often has the logistics to get the drugs out even if the Government do not.

I have a couple of specific points to mention. In our report, the Committee referred to the work of the health partnership scheme run by DFID through the Tropical Health and Education Trust. That is a tremendous programme, and I am glad to say that DFID has continued it and added another £10 million to its funding. Partnerships have already been created voluntarily, such as the one between Northumbria health authority and Kilimanjaro Christian medical centre or the King’s Sierra Leone partnership—there are many others, and most Members will have them in their constituencies. Those partnerships can receive support for their work training professionals on the ground in their own countries.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about health education, which we did not cover substantially in our report, but is vital. Community health education programmes can provide enormous benefits, particularly when they are not thrust upon communities. My wife ran a community health education programme in Tanzania for 11 years through a training of trainers programme, training up local people who were not health professionals to work with their neighbours on improving health in their families. The success, for a small amount of money invested, was enormous. It could be seen in the health outcomes. People improved the hygiene in their households by constructing toilets and things such as dish drying racks at very little cost, with great benefits for their children in particular, who were often the victims of diarrhoeal diseases.

In conclusion, I reiterate the importance of this subject. I am delighted that DFID takes it so seriously, but it must continue to do so. Health systems and good health are at the heart of every nation’s attempt to counter poverty and raise the livelihoods and well-being of its citizens.

14:41

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate the Select Committee on International Development on its two fantastic reports, the second of which we will debate in a moment.

I had the great pleasure of serving on the Committee at the start of this Parliament for almost a year and a half. Having worked with many of its current members, I can say that it is full of people who are dedicated to ensuring that we spread the values that we hold dearly in the UK around the world to maximise opportunity in the fight against poverty. Two of my former colleagues on the Committee—the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley)—are retiring before the next Parliament. We all wish them both the very best for the future. The fact that both of them have used their last term in office to try to improve the life chances of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world speaks volumes. The right hon. Member for Gordon has been a member of the International Development Committee since 1997, for which he deserves a special prize. I pay special tribute to the Department for International Development staff and health workers who have gone from the UK and elsewhere to help in the fight against Ebola and have risked their lives to protect the lives of others.

I am particularly pleased to be able to make the case for universal health coverage, as the Committee has done, given that the UK is a global leader on that issue. We should be the strongest global advocate for universal health care because our NHS is the envy of the world. It supports people from the cradle to the grave, and it is based not on people’s ability to pay but on their need. We should spread that health care model around the world.

In the current crisis in Sierra Leone, more than 1,600 people have lost their lives, and every week 200 to 300 people are dying and 400 to 500 people are becoming infected. That is a real and sad example of why sound health care systems are crucial. It also demonstrates why the UK and the Department for International Development are right to emphasise promoting private sector growth. Sustained economic growth, higher employment, strong infrastructure and other good development work can be lost in an instant during such epidemics.

Sierra Leone’s GDP growth has sharply declined, despite its positive growth in recent years. All its post-war achievements in the health, education, justice and employment sectors are in jeopardy. The Committee will know from its visits and from the testimonies it has heard that all the schools in Sierra Leone have been permanently closed, and there is a real risk of losing a generation. A generation of young people in Sierra Leone will never get the education they need to improve their life chances, get into meaningful work, break the cycle of deprivation, create a better life for themselves, their families and their communities, and create a better Sierra Leone in the process.

Let me compare three African countries with varied health systems. Sierra Leone, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, has about 136 doctors and just over 1,000 nurses for 6 million people. That is the equivalent of one doctor for almost every 50,000 members of the population. Sadly, since November, more than 100 health workers, including five doctors, have lost their lives to Ebola. It is even worse in Liberia, which has an estimated 60 doctors and 1,000 nurses for 4.3 million people.

In contrast, Rwanda has more than 55,000 health workers for its population. The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, said:

“If this had happened in Rwanda we would have had it under control.”

That shows the difference that a meaningful health care system can have. It demonstrates that there is no substitute for adequate local health care cover. If there is no functioning health service, a single outbreak can turn into a global crisis.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge Nigeria’s tremendous success in preventing the spread of Ebola? Some attribute that to the health systems built up through, for instance, the polio vaccination campaign.

[Anas Sarwar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I recall our many travels and our debates on many issues. I pay tribute to his first-hand experience of development issues and the work he did in Tanzania before he became a Member of this House. He is absolutely right to point to the positive interventions that the Nigerian Government were able to carry out because of their pre-planning and their thought leadership in advance, which enabled them to deal with the Ebola crisis. Sadly, Liberia and Sierra Leone were not able to do that, but the lessons from Nigeria and Rwanda can be learned by other countries.

Universal health coverage not only helps to prevent outbreaks and improve health outcomes, but can help to reduce inequality and tackle the fact that 100 million people a year fall into poverty. That is why universal health coverage matters, and why the UK must make it a top priority. The UK must use the opportunity of the 2015 negotiations on the sustainable development goals to push for universal health coverage to be a key element of those goals. I say gently to the Minister that we must be an active, vocal advocate for that agenda and use our experience, expertise and our influence with multilaterals and institutions to make our case. The report makes it clear that the Committee is frustrated that the Department and the Government are not using the strength of our voice to make that case on the global stage. I hope the Minister will address that point. I ask him to outline what advocacy work the Government have done on universal health coverage.

As DFID’s budget increases, more money is going to multilaterals, at the expense of the budgets of many bilaterals; I will return to that point. A World Bank study showed that the economic cost of Ebola could be as high as $33 billion over the next two years if the virus spreads to neighbouring countries in west Africa. Although I welcome the support given to multilaterals such as the World Bank, the Committee said in the report that it does not believe that many of our international partners give the same priority to the development of health systems as the UK. When they do, the same priority is often not given by the recipient Government. Let me give a practical example: only $3.9 million out of $60 million of EU health sector support given to Liberia was passed on by the Liberian Finance Ministry to the Health Ministry over a two-year period, leaving the Liberian health system struggling.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

I have looked into that criticism; the EU denies that it happened, and it has checked in Monrovia. I have asked for that matter to be reinvestigated.

[Anas Sarwar]

I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. In the spirit of transparency, and to ensure that we do not darken the name of any Government and that we have the strong trust of the people on every penny spent by the UK Government and by our EU partners, I encourage him to share any information gleaned from those investigations with the House and the Committee.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I am very glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in the international development debate. To clarify how this issue arose, we were told by the Health Department in Liberia that the money had been earmarked for it and that it had not received it—that the Minister of Finance had either held it back or was spending it elsewhere. I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, and I am interested in his reply that our Government have checked and found that that is not the case. I just want to be clear that this information was given to us in good faith and on the face of it, it was shocking. We just thought it was important, and if it has been checked and it has not happened, that is absolutely fine, but nevertheless, it was a significant factor. When money is given, sovereign Governments can, of course, in the end redistribute it, but the question of whether it went where it was meant to go should really be followed up on.

[Anas Sarwar]

The Chair of the Committee mentions an important issue, and it is right that the Committee raised it and that the Minister has looked into it. I think we would all welcome that information and clarity, but it also highlights an issue in recipient countries, where perhaps that information is not shared between Departments. That undermines both the way in which Departments can operate and the state-citizen relationship in recipient countries. That information should be shared with the Committee, and there should be a way to share that information with a recipient country’s Government, and particularly its Department of Health.

It would be interesting to hear what indicators are in place to measure how much of the money spent through multilaterals is used specifically on strengthening health systems, and in which countries, and how the success of that spending is measured. Transparency is again the key issue, in terms of gaining the public’s trust. That same principle should be reflected in our bilateral agreements, ensuring that where we do give budget support, an emphasis is put on universal health coverage by recipient countries. Aid should never be a blank cheque. Recipient countries must make a commitment to medium-term goals and take responsibility for long-term health system development. We should never be afraid to take a tough line with Governments who do not adhere to that principle.

However, we must not fall into the trap, as we often do, of believing that our biggest impact comes just from the money that we spend and the global influence that we exert. There must also be a recognition, as has been made clear by many Members today, that through our NHS, we have built up expertise, and if we share that, we can help shape global systems. We have the talent among our health workers to develop strategies and plans, to provide professional and personal development, and to manage and learn in a meaningful two-way relationship with recipient countries. That is why we should encourage volunteering, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) suggested.

I push the Minister to respond more thoroughly to the Committee’s recommendation to build schemes that are more co-ordinated, structured and scaled up. That should include detail on how the Government would support those people who choose to volunteer with specific benefits and entitlements. Such schemes would help to promote the good work that the Department and this country do on development and would also help build public support and trust at a time of public cynicism.

Linking that to the Ebola crisis, I want to re-emphasise the question that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central asked. We know that 650 NHS front-line staff and 130 public health staff have volunteered to work in Ebola-stricken west Africa, but how many have actually gone? We still do not have a specific figure from the Government, and I hope that the Minister will have an answer for us today. We should not shy away from giving all the support that we can to the people who are bravely volunteering their expertise and putting their lives on the line, in many senses, to go and protect the lives of others. We should absolutely support them.

[Mr Swayne]

Rather than wait, I can give the figures now. Thirty NHS staff flew to Sierra Leone on 22 November. A second wave of 25 arrived on Sunday 7 December. They will work on a rotation pattern of four to six weeks; then they will be replaced by others. Many more volunteered, but after negotiations with NHS trusts and others, the actual numbers travelling are somewhat lower. That is the picture so far.

[Anas Sarwar]

I thank the Minister for that response; I am sure that the Committee and many of the non-governmental organisations will be happy to hear that information. It would also be interesting to get information about the number of volunteers and health workers, or people with health expertise, who are not linked to the NHS, but are none the less based in the UK and who have gone to Sierra Leone and other territories specifically to help on the Ebola crisis, perhaps through NGOs or other schemes. I hope that the Minister can look into that for us.

The International Development Committee raised the important issue of the NHS pulling health workers away from Sierra Leone. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a powerful case about the no-harm principle that should be applied to the way in which we operate our education system and NHS system in the UK, so that we do not harm daily the very countries that we are seeking to help.

Sierra Leone is one of five African countries with an expatriation rate of over 50%, meaning that more than half the doctors born in Sierra Leone are now working in countries of the OECD. I have already mentioned the shocking doctor-population ratio. We can never find that situation acceptable. The right to migrate is not in question, of course, but it is unacceptable that a country with one of the weakest health systems in the world is, in many ways, subsidising the country with one of the strongest, if not the strongest.

[Mr Swayne]

I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said. It is a very difficult issue, because some countries export health workers and draw remittances from them as a positive in their balance of trade, or certainly their balance of payments. However, I recognise that difficulty and I shall surprise the hon. Member for York Central: we are commissioning a review of NHS use of foreign workers in exactly the way that he challenged me to.

[Anas Sarwar]

Excellent. I think we all welcome that announcement from the Minister; it is amazing what people can achieve when they think on their feet. It would interesting to know when that will be reporting and what impact assessment is being done on that, in terms of our health service here in the UK.

To give an illustrative example, 27 doctors from Sierra Leone are believed to be working in our NHS. The data do not record a level at which they are working, so let us assume, for argument’s sake, that all 27 are junior doctors. It costs the NHS just under £270,000 to train a junior doctor. It would represent a saving of £7.3 million to the UK if those doctors were trained in Sierra Leone and came to work in our NHS. The Committee noted that the UK Nursing and Midwifery Council register lists 103 nurses who were trained in Sierra Leone. It costs the UK £70,000 to train a nurse in the UK, so that is a saving of £7.2 million. Together, that would represent at least a saving of £14 million—if not more, if many of those doctors were GPs or consultants.

I welcome the Government’s agreement that the NHS needs to review overseas recruitment, and the fact that the Department of Health endorses the World Health Organisation global code of practice on the international recruitment of heath personnel, and implements it through the UK code of practice for international recruitment. It is important, as the Minister has outlined, that the Department of Heath works closely with DFID on reviewing the definitive list of developing countries that should not be targeted for recruitment of health care professionals.

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

Turning to the specifics of DFID spending, I think that it is unfortunate that DFID is cutting bilateral support, especially at a time when its budget is increasing and particularly after the historic vote last week, when, with support from hon. Members on both sides of the House, we were able to enshrine our 0.7% commitment in law. I note, though, that there were more Labour MPs supporting the Bill than MPs from all the other political parties combined.

Sierra Leone is a good example. In 2014-15, DFID reduced its bilateral budget for Sierra Leone by 18.6% relative to its commitment in 2013-14. That was central money that could have been used to strengthen health care systems. Since then, the UK has been the lead donor in Sierra Leone on the Ebola crisis, pledging £230 million of additional support as well as logistical support from the Ministry of Defence. That is of course to be welcomed. However, given that that crisis will have a lasting impact, will the Minster today consider reinstating the bilateral budget on a long-term basis?

It was unacceptable that, as the Select Committee found, DFID and the previous Minister—not the current Minister—did not know the total annual expenditure in Sierra Leone. I am sure that the current Minister would love to intervene to tell us the specific amount being spent annually in Sierra Leone. Equally, I am sure that if he cannot, he will, as with other things, go and investigate and report to the Committee how much we spend every year, not just in Sierra Leone but in every other country, in the spirit of transparency and accountability. I notice that he has gone slightly more silent than he was a moment ago.

[Mr Swayne]

No, I will be dealing with that matter.

[Anas Sarwar]

Also, how will DFID act on its commitment to develop indicators—knowing that they will be reviewed in 2015—and other mechanisms that allow it to track its investments in and impacts on health system strengthening in new programmes from 2015, both for use in its own work and to feed into global processes?

As we know from our UK experience, building an effective health care system requires sustainable revenue streams, if Governments are to fund these vital services. That is why greater tax transparency is crucial. Many of these countries suffer from the so-called resource curse: there is vast mineral resource, but that is not turned into a nation-building positive agenda. In 2011, Sierra Leone spent more on tax incentives than on its development priorities, and in 2012 it granted $224.3 million in tax exemptions. That is eight times the budget allocated for the health sector, which is $25.7 million. In addition, many of the tax incentives are negotiated between Government and companies behind closed doors, making the negotiation process extremely opaque and open to accusations of corruption.

To encourage domestic growth through tax collection, the National Revenue Authority of Sierra Leone needs to be fully involved in the negotiation and design of the exemptions. That is why DFID must make sure that its work with the National Revenue Authority links with its work with the National Minerals Agency, to ensure that Sierra Leone’s natural resource wealth is used to help to meet development objectives and not just for the benefit of a few international investors.

Finally, I want to deal with a couple of other key issues raised by the Select Committee. I see the Minister looking at me. He should not worry: I am almost done, and I am sure that he will be robust and succinct in his reply. A couple of other very important issues from the report have not been mentioned so far, but are worthy of comment.

First, there is the huge issue of female genital mutilation, which Sierra Leone is one of the worst countries for. I know that it is a politically sensitive issue in Sierra Leone, but that does not prevent the UK Government from doing something, or at least trying to do something about it. That is why it is important that the UK Government work with the victims and survivors of FGM to see what they can do to have a more meaningful programme and combat FGM in Sierra Leone.

The other important issue raised by the Select Committee was unemployment, particularly youth unemployment and the lack of formal jobs being created in the economy of Sierra Leone. Three million people out of a population of six million are unemployed, but only 90,000 formal jobs are available in the economy. An estimated 800,000 young people are actively searching for employment. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what work is being done to try to improve the availability of jobs and employment in the country, especially as DFID set itself a target of creating 30,000 jobs in Sierra Leone by 2015. How many jobs have been created so far? Does DFID expect to meet the target in the next three weeks? How is it helping to create jobs? What measures are in place to ensure that the jobs created are in line with the International Labour Organisation definition of decent work? How many jobs have been created using small business enterprises in-country, and have any British companies benefited from any of the investment to create employment in Sierra Leone?

I thank the International Development Committee again for its very thorough and rigorous report and for its continued work. We look forward to working with the Committee as it pursues the issues that are of interest to it and to the wider British public. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I know that I asked several specific questions, but I can tell from the way he has conducted himself already that he has very good answers for us.

15:06

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

It is a pleasure to follow such a well informed, if interrogative, speech from my opposite number, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). I thank hon. Members for their constructive, measured, informed and, if I may say so, welcome criticisms. They stand in some contrast to those made in other proceedings that have taken place at Westminster today—although this debate is not about Ebola, it is certainly stalked by and informed by Ebola.

I am glad that the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), referred to the flags being out in Freetown, because I believe we have a record of which we can justifiably be proud. We have launched an operation with military precision. We have put 850 military personnel on the ground, in addition to the NHS workers whom I have already mentioned, to support 750 beds, of which 282 are for treatment and 468 are the key, important beds for isolation. We have isolation centres in which people can be isolated while we determine whether they have Ebola. Seven out of eight patients will go home after what was just a bout of fever, for example; the others will go on to receive treatment for Ebola. It is a remarkable operation, costing £230 million, of which we have already disbursed £125 million, and people should not be critical of it. In Kerry Town, we already have 52 operational beds.

[Hugh Bayley]

I strongly support what the Government and the military are doing, and tomorrow I will visit the Army medical training centre at Strensall to see the hospital that has been created there, in which people are trained to deal with infectious diseases such as Ebola in a tropical climate. It is not just UK military medical personnel who are trained in that centre; military medical personnel from other countries, including the United States, use it because it is a centre of excellence.

[Mr Swayne]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will convey the Department’s thanks to Strensall for the magnificent work it has done in providing build-up training to for many personnel before they deploy to Sierra Leone.

[Hugh Bayley]

indicated assent.

[Mr Swayne]

As I said, there are 468 key isolation beds. We are supporting more than 100 burial teams—both the logistics and training, and their fleet. That has had a remarkable impact on the incidence of the disease. As I said in an earlier debate, people are almost most infective once they are dead. Removing bodies and dealing with local burial customs has been one of the main drivers of the disease. In the western part of Sierra Leone, in which a third of the population lives, we are achieving 100% burial within 24 hours, which will make a key difference.

Of course, the criticism will be made that we acted too late; that we should have spotted the problem earlier. Hindsight is the most exact of sciences, but when the Committee went to Sierra Leone in June, it was not obvious that the problem was going to be of the scale we have now discovered. Actually, in January DFID had already begun refocusing our effort in Sierra Leone to deal with the emerging problem. In July and August we started to pump in more money to deal with that. I was making telephone calls, I think in the latter part of July, to the chief officers of UNICEF, the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Health Organisation to try to ginger up their response. Many of those organisations are in need of reform. I have some sympathy for the World Health Organisation, which does not have at its centre the levers of power to bring about immediate change in the regions and countries in which it operates.

Equally, we must remember what was happening in the humanitarian community at the time. First, we were distracted by the terrible events in Gaza. Then, we moved swiftly on to rescuing people from Mount Sinjar, and all the time we had the ongoing crisis in Sudan. It has been a busy playing field for humanitarian organisations and workers to deal with.

Starting from where we are now, we certainly have a proud record. Clearly, there are lessons to be learnt, but, having looked at both the reports we are considering, there is no doubt that both Sierra Leone and Liberia are among the poorest countries in the world and that they were so even before they were struck by this disaster. Our aid reflects that: Sierra Leone remains one of the largest per capita beneficiaries of UK aid. In 2010-11 it received £51 million in bilateral aid, and £68 million in 2013-14. Owing to Ebola, I anticipate that that figure will inevitably fall next year—I suspect by about 30%—as a consequence of being unable to spend on the programmes we had identified. Of course, that will be completely augmented by the £230 million we are spending on Ebola.

I hope that 90% of our programmed spend on health will continue, but there will be instances where we will be unable to distribute bed nets in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) described. There will be an effect on our programmes, but we will seek to minimise that.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for his powerful remarks. The Committee concluded that, after a period of terrible civil war, Sierra Leone had made tremendous progress and was on the cusp of being able to go much further, when the Ebola tragedy struck. Will he commit the Government to being there for Sierra Leone as it emerges from the Ebola tragedy and seeks to build on its recovery from that terrible civil war? This is not the time to give up, but to reinforce our co-operation with and support for Sierra Leone.

[Mr Swayne]

Absolutely, I give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We have already established the post-Ebola team to take that work forward once we have got on top of Ebola. Of course, it will have to consider how we develop the programme on jobs and employment opportunities.

I was as surprised as the Committee, and indeed the former Under-Secretary, at the lack of a programme for female genital mutilation, as highlighted in the report. It is not within my bailiwick to commit to such a programme, but I accept that the Department has placed great importance on that issue, as our girls’ summit earlier this year demonstrates.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

One of the survivors in Sierra Leone, a brave and beautiful campaigning lady, told us that, the day before she met us, she received a phone call from a senior Government Minister threatening her if she continued to speak out against FGM. That indicates the scale of the problem. These secret societies in Sierra Leone have a powerful hold on the political class. We do understand how difficult the challenge is, but I agree with everyone who said that that is not a reason for not trying.

[Mr Swayne]

I agree entirely and take on board exactly what my right hon. Friend says about the secret societies and the role that senior females—the “cutters”—have in them. Given the priority that the Secretary of State has attached to gender and the role of women and girls, it is vital that we do not shy away from this challenge and put it in the “too difficult” box. We must deal with it.

[Anas Sarwar]

I completely support the Minister’s comments about FGM. He seemed to skirt quickly over the issue of jobs and employment, and he did not say whether he accepts that the commitment made to create 30,000 jobs by 2015 has not yet been met and will be reviewed after the Ebola crisis—or has that commitment been met?

[Mr Swayne]

I would be very surprised if it has been met, but I cannot answer that question now. Given what has happened, it is unlikely to be met, but it remains vital that we continue our work on employment, which should be taken forward by the post-Ebola team; however, much of that work has undoubtedly been disrupted by Ebola.

[Anas Sarwar]

Of course, Ebola has taken away the emphasis from much of the work going on in Sierra Leone. The Minister seemed to suggest that, after the Ebola crisis, the budget reduction in the bilateral agreement between Sierra Leone and the UK Government will be restored in full. We should remember that that budget was cut before the Ebola crisis, so is he suggesting that we will go back to the pre-crisis levels?

[Mr Swayne]

What I said—I hope I was not misunderstood—was that I expect the spend to fall next year, simply as a consequence of Ebola preventing us from fulfilling our planned programmes. Of course, we will be spending much more in Sierra Leone as a consequence of our commitment to dealing with Ebola, but I will come on to how we spend our money, whether bilaterally or multilaterally, shortly.

First, I want to deal with the questions the report raised about centrally managed programmes and how we co-ordinate with bilateral and multilateral programmes. The approach should work precisely as I described to the Committee a fortnight ago, when we discussed parliamentary strengthening: it must be context-driven. The country team, within the context it faces, examines exactly what is required and what our programmes are to be, and then goes shopping to find the best fit. That best fit might be a bilateral programme. I made clear then—I stick by what I said—that my prejudice is in favour of bilateral programmes and bilateral aid, not least because I want to see it badged with the logo: “UK aid from the British people.” That is important to me and, I submit, to our constituents.

However, it is clear that, in some cases, international organisations must have a role. If we are dealing with malaria, for example, which takes no cognisance of international borders, we will have more leverage if we deal with a large organisation that is dedicated to dealing with such problems. Equally, there will be times when it is desirable to take account of international expertise that might not be available bilaterally, or to use economies of scale, through working through a large global or regional organisation. They clearly have a place, and in my view it is for the country teams to work out what is the best fit.

I entirely agree with the Committee that it is completely unacceptable that the country team should almost be left out of the equation, and not know under precisely what terms the bilateral aid is being delivered, or what the projects are. So we are introducing a new protocol, to ensure that the country team will be involved in the specification, design and monitoring of any multilateral programme that affects their country. I believe that is fundamental. I retain my prejudice for acting bilaterally, but if we are going to involve multilaterals we must have that intimate connection with the programmes.

I was as shocked as the Committee was disappointed when I discovered that it is not immediately obvious how much money is being spent in a particular country. When I asked those questions, about countries for which I am responsible, I found it hard to understand that a straight, easy answer could not be given. Having now looked at the problem I can understand that to an extent we are at the mercy of the time-lag reporting of large multilateral organisations, or of the fact that it is not entirely clear how much of the administrative, scientific and research costs of a large multilateral programme are allocated to each country, or how that is done.

I understand the problems, but clearly we must be able to address those, so that we know and I can say with confidence “Yes, we may have reduced the bilateral budget to Sierra Leone, but actually we are spending more there because I am confident that with what we have put into a multilateral programme we will be spending a clear and understood amount in the country.” So things are changing. We have already begun a system of mapping expenditure from the multilateral organisations back to the country, so that we can have a clear idea of what has been spent. I understand that that is a largely administrative, manual process. We are looking for a much better solution to the problem towards the end of next year, but it strikes me as vital to address that.

What happened in Sierra Leone and Liberia was a powerful illustration of what happens when a country does not have robust health systems. That leads to a question, as well as a criticism: we are the largest bilateral donor, and have been working for many years in Sierra Leone and spending a significant amount of money on health—so why were the systems so lacking in robustness and so quickly overwhelmed by the crisis? We have been investing in important health care options in Sierra Leone. We have been training staff, providing for drugs and spending money on infrastructure, but we have also spent a lot of money on a programme to deal with malaria. We should remember that many more people in the region will die of malaria this year than will die of Ebola.

[Anas Sarwar]

That very issue has been raised with me by various NGOs working on the ground in Sierra Leone. They fear that issues such as malaria have taken a back seat, despite malaria costing more lives than the Ebola crisis. They fear that the funding that was going to those issues—or even the priority given to them within the country—has fallen down the scale. Does the Minister accept that, and, if so, what is being done to make sure that more lives will not be lost because of it?

[Mr Swayne]

None of us should accept that. We must be vigilant to prevent that from happening to our focus on important long-term development issues, and I will certainly make it my business to prevent it.

The investment that we have put into Sierra Leone has, I believe, made a significant difference; but we started from a very low base. The figures given to us—the statistics on doctors and nurses per head of population—are very low, and well below the regional average. I think the figure is 1.7 nurses to every 10,000 of population—I do not have it to hand; that is from memory—against a regional figure of 12. It is a very low base, and, frankly, it would have been a lot worse had we not done the work we did.

Building robust health care systems is vital; but what does success look like? What is a strong health care system? I believe that, ideally, it is a free one. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central challenged me and asked what we were doing about advocacy for universal free health care. I am glad to tell him, in case he was not aware, that tomorrow is universal health coverage day. We are making a presentation and speaking at an important event tomorrow—when I say “we” I do not mean myself personally, but DFID—promoting exactly that.

[Anas Sarwar]

You should be there.

[Mr Swayne]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind; but quite right.

Clearly, it is important that health care, if not free, should be affordable—it should not impoverish the recipient—and available within a reasonable distance. When people arrive for treatment there should be someone there who will treat them and is trained to do so and able to deliver health care, whether by means of drugs or equipment, or anything else. That implies a level of funding to cover trained people who can distribute the drugs, of which there should be a guaranteed supply, and the availability of equipment. Also, taking up that health care should not make someone worse than they were when they sought the treatment. That implies sanitation, a water supply and electricity.

[Anas Sarwar]

I am aware of the time, so I promise that this will be my last intervention. The Minister mentioned the Government’s presentation tomorrow, but my point was different. I was asking about advocacy not for what will happen but for what has happened. What advocacy are we carrying out on the international stage to demonstrate that we are the global lead on universal health coverage, and to make sure that it forms a key part of our sustainable development goals?

[Mr Swayne]

We have been negotiating with respect to the post-2015 agenda. We are, I think, by virtue of the fact that we have the largest free, universally provided health care system in the world, among the lead players. However, we have been in this business now for more than 30 years. We spend a quarter of our development budget on providing such health care, and it is vital that we drive forward that agenda.

How do we do that? It is horses for courses. Every country is different. When we create strong health care systems, we must recognise that countries require different kinds of support, depending on the state they are in. The Committee was right to say that we do not have effective measures to chart our success. We are leading funders in the field to identify such measures. We are funding high-quality studies and research to come up with ways to chart improvement in health care. The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) drew attention to the QALY measure, which is used by DFID, NICE and NICE International. Clearly, there has to be much greater knowledge about what works, particularly in low-resource economies. We have invested, and continue to invest, considerable resources into such study.

Health care strengthening requires a number of partners, and I acknowledge that that involves a tension, to which the Committee has drawn attention and which has been evident in the debate. One accusation levelled at large vertical funds, such as Gavi and the Global Fund, is that they do little or nothing to strengthen underlying fundamental health care systems. I understand that criticism, and I think there are elements of truth in it. I am less persuaded by the argument that because the targets and deliverables of the large vertical funds are so much more measurable, deliverable and reportable, we skew our budgets away from fundamental health care strengthening and into vertical funds. There must be an element of synergy. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford draw attention to the fact that bed nets were delivered by large international organisations through existing health care systems. The same thing can happen with immunisation. We must do better at negotiating with the funds to ensure that is the case, but we must recognise that that is not their primary objective and that they have a significant input into world health.

I agree that we must work harder at making our own experience and expertise count in the councils of the world. We are shy, to an extent, as the Committee has pointed out, and we need to take more of a lead. We will explore with the Department of Health new ways of making better use of what the UK has to offer. I have already dealt with the point about recruitment in an intervention. We must not allow the agenda of health care strengthening to slip backwards; it is fundamental that we drive it forward. I accept the Committee’s challenge on providing global leadership. To that end, I accept the recommendations that we have accepted. Most importantly, we will develop a framework to support health care strengthening, to tie all those things together and drive the agenda forward.

15:33

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I thank all colleagues who have taken part in this interesting and useful debate. I do not want to delay hon. Members, because we have an important debate to follow. I welcome the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) about reviewing recruitment into the NHS and the implications for developing countries. Alongside that, I suggest that the Minister have a dialogue with the Department of Health about training. If we do not train enough, we will not solve the problem. I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to more transparency of spend, which has been a frustration for the Committee for a long time. He has identified some of the problems and given some commitments, and I am grateful for that. In anticipation of the next debate, I would like to say that its shortness does not in any way qualify its importance.

Disability and Development

Thursday 11th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Eleventh Report of the International Development Committee, Session 2013-14, HC 947, and the Government response, HC 336.]

15:34

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I will try to be brief and simply highlight the main points. We decided a couple of years ago to do a report on disability. Although it took us a while to get round to doing it, for various reasons, the fact that we were going to do it had a galvanising effect on the Department for International Development, which found itself in a better position to explain what it was doing than might otherwise have been the case. Our announcing the inquiry well in advance was therefore quite a good thing to do.

The first thing we wanted to identify was just how big an issue disability is. There are reckoned to be about 1 million people suffering disabilities in developing countries, and they are mostly very poor—they are the poorest of the poor. They are not often visible, and they are subject to a lot of prejudice and stigma. They are often hidden away, disadvantaged and kept poor.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but did I mishear him or did he say 1 million?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The correct figure is 1 billion, and if I mis-said it, I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to put the record straight.

The challenge is huge, so we felt it was critical that the Department addressed it specifically and explicitly in a way that had not been done before. We issued a challenge, to which the Department has responded, which I think is a classic example of the galvanising and dynamic effect of the Committee’s relationship with the Department. We were disappointed when the Government rejected our recommendation for a disability strategy; however, we have been extremely pleased with the framework document that has emerged, so frankly I think we can park that disagreement. The framework document has been widely welcomed by organisations and others representing disabled people.

I would like to pay a personal tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), a former Minister in the Department, for taking up the challenge. When she came into the Department, she basically said to me, “I’m a junior Minister. I can only do a limited amount, and the best way I can do it is to pick up two or three issues and make them my own,” and this issue was one of them—the others were women and girls and female genital mutilation. She is a great campaigner. My understanding—the Minister may correct me—is that direct responsibility has been transferred to my right hon. Friend’s successor, Baroness Northover, who has also given me an undertaking that she is determined to ensure that the commitments made by her predecessor are taken forward.

That is all very welcome. Hon. Members will know that I have an interest in disability, having a grown-up deaf daughter and being chair of the all-party group on deafness. I have always recognised the fact that if nobody rises up and challenges the problems that disabled people face, and if nobody works with disabled people, their problems will not be addressed.

Having welcomed the framework, I want to ask a few questions. We think that the process has been enormously positive and that the framework is ambitious. The Department is doubling the size of the disability team, making new commitments in humanitarian response—water, sanitation and hygiene—and advocating for a disability-inclusive post-2015 agenda. Put simply, if the aim is to eliminate absolute poverty by 2030 and leave no one behind, it is not possible to do that without specific policies to address disability and the needs of disabled people. What is being done for the first year of the framework to try to achieve measurable impacts? There are more staff and there is more awareness, but will the Department set some objectives that it hopes will be met by the end of the year?

Will the Minister consider committing the Department to an annual stocktake or progress report? The current Secretary of State for Health used to be a member of our Committee—many of the best people in the House of Commons, including the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), have been members of the Committee—he recognised that the international community had set a commitment to halve the number of people with HIV/AIDS who were not receiving treatment. That was a five-year programme, but he insisted, and secured agreement, that the target would be hit only if we had annual reviews and targets. I commend his initiative. The Committee and the Government accepted the proposal, which ensured that the target was hit. The logic is that annual targets require us to keep our eye on the ball, whereas a five-year target can be left until there is a push upwards at the end, like a hockey stick. I ask the Minister to consider that.

There have been criticisms from some organisations that represent disabled people. Some of those criticisms are a bit sharp, and I will not report them here, but they boil down to the Minister and the Department needing to understand that organisations representing disabled people are not the same as disabled people’s organisations. Disabled people should be a visible part of the process of addressing disability in development. Indeed, people within the Department who have a disability should be encouraged to take part in the process and be a role model—I am not talking about tokenism, nor should the Department specifically recruit such people. Again, I hope the Minister might consider that. What specific measures will the Department take to engage disabled people’s organisations? At the moment, such organisations still feel that they have not been properly engaged. Some of them have been sharply critical, but that is the nature of such organisations. I get a lot of that in my work with the deaf community. Let us just take it is a practical thing to be addressed.

DFID has acknowledged that we are a long way from being in the lead on disability. I understand that a member of DFID staff has been seconded to Australia to look at their examples, and I hope that in a relatively short period of time, as in so many areas, DFID will be a leading world role model. I am glad that the Department is looking to learn from international partners that may be ahead of the game. What more might the Department do to build on the experience of international organisations?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green recently held a seminar on collecting data, and part of the problem is that, precisely because they are hidden, we do not know the exact nature of the challenges. I was invited to the reception at the end of the day, and I got the impression that people were pleased that that was taking place. A progress report on how data collection will be taken forward would be helpful.

As with the problems faced by women and girls, in the humanitarian disaster agenda we have been shocked by the lack of awareness of the needs of disabled people. If there has been a disaster, by definition there will be newly disabled people who have suffered injury, been shot or wounded, or been affected by that catastrophe. The needs of disabled people, as well as the needs of women and girls, must be prioritised in the immediate aftermath of disasters because they tend to be forgotten at a critical and vulnerable time. The World Bank has an ongoing review. It would be good to know how DFID, as a very influential player in the World Bank, is trying to ensure that the bank also takes a strategic view of the needs of disabled people.

Finally, people need support when they are disabled, but quite often those disabilities are preventable, whether they be caused by illness or accident—road traffic accidents are devastating. What will DFID do to reduce the incidence of disability? Yes, we must provide for those who are disabled, but we must also help to reduce the incidence of disability. The consequences of female genital mutilation can be catastrophic, as can the consequences of disease. We have had that debate, but it is relevant in this context. I draw out mental illness and incapacity, on which we took specific evidence. Mental illness is a major problem. Frankly, poor people have a higher chance of suffering mental illness, yet that is almost unrecognised—it is stigmatised. I ask that mental illness and mental disability be included in the strategy.

I have some practical suggestions. I say that I speak on behalf of the deaf community, but there are others with specific disabilities. Surely we can provide cost-effective access to wheelchairs, hearing aids and hearing tests, simple interventions on sight, and so on. How will that be built into the strategy, so that we can create partnerships? I suggest cross-Government and cross-society partnerships, because it should not all be down to DFID, although DFID can provide the leadership.

In order to ensure that other colleagues have an opportunity to speak, I will finish by saying two things. I am glad that the Committee undertook this report. More evidence was submitted to this inquiry than to any other we have done. The engagement and participation of disabled people throughout the process has been very strong. They were passionate about the need for the strategy. Having had a slight stand-off with the Department, we can honestly say that the disability framework is more than we might have expected, provided it is delivered. I therefore commend the report, and the Government’s response, to the House. I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions, because a wonderful declaration is meaningless without a series of measures and reports that enable us to make progress. I hope that in five years’ time disability will be mainstreamed and that the UK, once again, will have a leading role across the world in encouraging others to do the same.

15:40

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

This is not a minority issue. As the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) has said, around 1 billion people, or 15% of the world’s population, are disabled. The vast majority of those people, 80%, live in developing countries, where one household in every four has a disabled member. The marginalisation of those families holds back entire communities. Disabled people, for example, are three times as likely to be denied health care and more than six times as likely to be out of school.

As we have heard, if we meet the poorest person in a community or village in a developing country, they will almost certainly be disabled, but it can be even worse than that, as I discovered when I was invited to meet a leper colony in Tanzania. Those people were not within their community; they were outside their community. They were living on the charity of some of the poorest people on Earth, and they were in the terrible situation of being ostracised, which is the opposite of the inclusivity we have almost come to take for granted in our own culture in this country. There is an awfully long way to go on this issue in many developing countries.

That is why the Committee is so welcoming of DFID’s new disability framework. The Government have accepted and endorsed many of the report’s key recommendations. I repeat the Chairman’s question to the Minister: what is DFID going to do to reduce the incidence of disability caused by, for example, disease? Leprosy is just one example. We hardly ever hear talk of leprosy. I am sure many people in our country think it is a disease that occurred only in biblical times, but it is very real for the people I met. They were crawling, walking on stumps and managing on crutches. Leprosy is a terrible disease that can be treated and, indeed, prevented. Will the Minister look at this issue and consider what can be done to reduce the incidence of disability resulting from leprosy?

We are talking about helping the poorest of the poor when we commit to helping the disabled in developing countries. I commend the new disability framework, and I commend DFID for setting far-reaching plans to make its programmes more accessible to disabled people, strengthening its disability teams, providing extra disability training and taking a strong stand with external partners. All of that is welcome.

Like the previous speaker, I will be brief, but I will touch on recommendation 13 in our report, which flows into recommendation 14. Recommendation 13 states:

“DFID has taken an important symbolic step with its new commitment”

in 2013

“to make all directly-funded school buildings accessible to disabled children.”

However, we said that we wanted DFID to show more ambition and recommended that it

“choose one or two substantial sectors (e.g. health or education), and a small number of countries, to focus on. Within these chosen areas, it should then pledge to give disabled people full access to all its programmes.”

In response, the Government said that they

“will make further specific sectoral commitments in 2014 as we did in 2013 when we committed to making all directly-funded school buildings accessible to disabled children.”

As we are just a few days away from the end of 2014, can the Minister update the House on DFID’s progress on those “specific sectoral commitments”?

15:51

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

I will not speak for long, partly because, unlike every other hon. Member here in the Chamber, I am a complete international development novice, and partly because I am somewhat lacking in voice. However, I am not a novice with respect to disability policy, given that I am shadow Minister with responsibility for domestic disability policy. I particularly wanted to ensure that links between domestic and international policy are firmly on the table, as they are much alike in terms of the issues and challenges we face.

I am a bit less of a novice than I would have been if this debate had taken place six weeks ago, because I have just had the great privilege of visiting Rwanda as a parliamentary intern, under the auspices of Voluntary Service Overseas. I acknowledge the tremendous experience that VSO gave me—I am sure other hon. Members in this Chamber have had similar opportunities—and I place on record my interest, which is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I, too, thought that the disability framework produced by DFID in response to the excellent Select Committee report was an impressive piece of work, and I know it has been widely welcomed among disability organisations. It identifies all the right challenges that both international and domestic social policy must get to grips with. Other hon. Members have discussed the link between disability and poverty, which is often driven by worklessness, children missing education as a result of their condition, and thereby being prevented from achieving their full economic potential. Disabled people also experience poorer health outcomes and health service. As other hon. Members have mentioned, disabled people also face stigma, exclusion and isolation.

In addressing these issues, I want to highlight a few of the similarities—the read-across—between domestic and international policy, which I hope the Minister will find of interest. The UK, like many of our international development partner countries, is signed up to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. That rights-based framework—that lens—for how we develop our policy is important, and I hope he will say a little about how DFID perceives it and what he and his Department mean by giving reality to disabled people’s rights.

For me, an important example of that rights-based approach is people’s right to live independently and to live the life they choose. I am interested to hear how DFID is applying in different cultural contexts what might be perceived as a western cultural norm of independence and living one’s own life. I have come back from that visit understanding the clear importance of the family and family life in all international and domestic settings. It is also pretty clear to me that institutional life is rarely good for people in any international or domestic setting. I would be particularly interested to hear what the Minister has to say about DFID’s attitude to that.

I echo what the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), said about the importance of disaggregated data. He said that there are 1 billion disabled people in the world, which highlights how important it is to improve data collection. When I was in Rwanda, I was told that people with disabilities accounted for some 6% of the population. I am surprised that that number is so low. In this country, where one would expect the incidence to be lower, it is actually higher, some 10% to 12%. Frankly, I suspect that there is massive under-recording, even in respect of the worrying figure given by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot highlight enough the importance of DFID’s role in supporting effective data gathering, monitoring and validating mechanisms. Without those, we are developing policy and programmes somewhat in the dark.

I am pleased to see in the framework a reference to co-production, an ugly word for an important concept. Can the Minister confirm that co-production will not relate just to programmes specifically dealing with impairment and for persons with disabilities? Bringing disabled people into the development and preparation of every programme funded by DFID would ensure that they have their say in how all DFID programmes develop, so that in every case, every bit of DFID spending reaches everybody, including those with disabilities, even if the programmes are not designed specifically for them.

The other issue in which I take great interest, particularly informed by my history before coming to this House and my few days in Rwanda, is the relationship and engagement with non-governmental organisations and civil society. While I was in Rwanda, I had the privilege of spending most of my time working with civil society organisations through their umbrella organisation, the National Union of Disability Organisations of Rwanda. My experience was that there is quite a lot of work to do to support local civil society organisations.

The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right to distinguish between disability organisations, which are often big national and international names, and genuinely grassroots, disabled people-led organisations, which are less random in their approach than simply consulting a few disabled people. They involve an element of representation and organisation, but they offer a much more lived and real experience. That is not to decry the importance of the analytical approach taken by some of the bigger organisations, which is also valid; but we must hear the voices of those with lived experience.

Civil society bodies certainly exist in Rwanda that could provide help, but disabled people’s understanding of the mechanisms by which they could participate in and influence policy and the political process was underdeveloped. I invite DFID to consider how, in supporting building the capacity of NGOs and civil society, it could build effective advocacy capacity that is plugged into the political decision-making process in each of the countries and settings in which DFID delivers programmes.

Like other hon. Members present, I think the 2015 sustainable development goals offer a tremendous opportunity that we missed when preparing the millennium development goals. That opportunity is observably on offer now, as a number of the draft goals being discussed refer to disability. It is important that we ask Ministers to be utterly vigilant in protecting all the references to disability within whatever SDG framework eventually emerges.

We know how effective internationally agreed ambitions can be from the progress made following the millennium development goals on gender issues, and from the progress made on women and girls. I say to the Minister that this is an important line of argument that needs to be sustained on the SDGs, and I hope the Government will take a strong line on ensuring that the emerging framework reflects that.

I welcome the fact that the issue of disability and development has come into the spotlight, and I want to convey, through the Minister, to his Department and its staff that in Rwanda the work of DFID is very well regarded, and we as a country ought to be proud of that. I therefore hope that we will want to build on that strong reputation, and that the UK will continue to be a staunch and vocal champion of the rights of disabled people in developing economies.

I also ask the Minister to tell his ministerial colleagues in other Departments that what we are doing in developing countries is not just something we offer, but something from which we ourselves can learn and develop back here at home. Development is not a one-way trade, and nor is aid. We can learn much from our partner countries as they develop their own domestic strategies, sometimes with the aid of DFID’s support. But believe me, I saw in Rwanda a scale of ambition, commitment and willingness to vocalise and mainstream policy, in order to address the disadvantage and exclusion that disabled people face, that it would be really nice to see in our own country. I hope the Minister will consider how he can learn from other countries to inform our own domestic policies.

15:59

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and it is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I reiterate what she has just said, because we can learn from what we see of practice in developing countries.

I say that because one of the most memorable visits that I have ever made while I have been on the International Development Committee was to a hospital in Kabul that was run by the International Committee of the Red Cross. It was an outstanding place that cared for people with disabilities, substantially those who suffered from injuries caused by the conflict in Afghanistan. However, what was so remarkable about that hospital was that an extremely high percentage—the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the Committee, will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was more than 90%—of the several hundred hospital staff, including the chief executive, themselves had disabilities. They were an outstanding group of people doing absolutely great work. Sometimes we in this country could learn from the way in which the ICRC had organised that hospital, so that people with disabilities were not just on the sidelines but were absolutely at the heart of providing services to other disabled people.

Disability is also a fairly personal issue for me, because my father was disabled. It was only after his death that I discovered that our family nearly emigrated to Australia because, as a disabled man, he could not find work in this country. Fortunately, at the last minute he became a clerk in holy orders; a church in London offered him the role and he served there for 25 years. However, it took him a long time to find that role, because in the 1960s disabled people were, to some extent, marginalised in this country. It is tremendous that we have moved on so far in this country, although we still have considerably more to do.

I will focus on two aspects of this debate. The first is jobs and livelihoods. I have already mentioned the hospital in Kabul. However, 1 billion jobs are required in the world in the next 10 years, so sometimes the temptation can be to think, “Well, it’s difficult enough to create jobs and livelihoods for people who are able-bodied. How on earth are we going to be able to do so for people who are disabled?” But that is absolutely not the point. The point is, as the DFID framework recognises, that the issue of disability must be integral to every programme; it must not be an add-on. If we just leave things as an add-on, they will be parked in the “too difficult” place; we will be so engaged with the sheer process of trying to create jobs and livelihoods that anything on top of that will be too difficult to deal with. That must absolutely not happen.

The second aspect I will focus on is prevention. I chair the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases. We referred to NTDs in the first debate today. They affect the poorest people on this planet—something like 1.4 billion people in the course of a year. By NTDs, I mean worms, the so-called soil-transmitted helminths, Guinea worm, lymphatic filariasis—sometimes known as elephantiasis—onchocerciasis and trachoma, leishmaniasis and indeed leprosy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) referred to. In fact, NTDs not only affect the poorest people and cause morbidity and sometimes mortality, but they often cause disability. And they are eminently curable, or at least eminently preventable, often by very cheap interventions.

That is why I was thrilled that the last Government decided to make NTDs a priority, and this Government, through the London declaration on NTDs in January 2012, has continued that work, providing, I think, £240 million in total, including the money committed by the last Government, over a four-year period. I ask the Minister to ensure that that commitment to the prevention and treatment of NTDs is continued, because it has a huge impact on disability and the prevention of disability.

HIV/AIDS is another area where a lot of progress has been made, particularly in negotiations over the use of drugs, so that they are made available at a cheap price and so that countries’ health systems can afford to provide the antiretrovirals that were not available in the past. That must continue; there must be no let-up in the fight against HIV/AIDS or in providing support for sufferers in developing countries. There can be no two-tier world where we in the west have access to drugs that people in developing countries cannot access.

The Chairman of the Committee has talked about road safety. I am glad that in 2010-11 the Government had what I think was a change of heart on the provision of funding for road safety and decided to continue that funding. We were delighted about that, because the number of deaths on the roads in developing countries is enormous; it is in the millions. There are also tens of millions of disabilities caused by road accidents. I would like to hear from the Minister what progress is being made to ensure that all road programmes, whether we are talking about main trunk roads or rural roads, have a strong road safety component built into them.

When the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and I were in Dodoma a couple of weeks ago, we met the Tanzanian Minister responsible for rural roads and DFID staff who were implementing an excellent rural roads programme in Tanzania. The point we made was that when roads, even rural roads, are in a poor state, people can travel on them at perhaps 10, 15 or 20 kph. If someone causes an accident on those roads, they might cause some form of injury. However, if roads are upgraded so that people can travel at 60, 70 or 80 kph along them, and if children—indeed, everyone—along the route are not educated about what is happening and the danger that the road now poses to them if they treat it as they did when it was full of potholes and only traversable by vehicles at 10 kph, we will see a tragic rise in injury and death from something that at the same time is bringing development. I ask the Minister to comment on that.

Finally, there is the question of armed violence. I have already referred to the violence in Afghanistan, which has caused so much disability there and, of course, among members of our brave armed forces who have been injured there. However, there are many conflict states in which DFID is rightly engaged and spending up to 30% of its budget. I stress the importance of this issue, and ask what work is being done, or continuing to be done, to ensure that the kind of things that cause disability, such as improvised explosive devices, are dealt with, because conflict is probably one of the single biggest causes of disability. With that, I conclude my remarks.

16:09

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the International Development Committee on its tremendous report. I thank the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for their excellent contributions. As time is short, I will not go over territory that they have already covered. I am sure the Minister will address the points that they made in his reply. As I said in the previous debate, it is important that DFID shows global leadership on this issue to ensure that a key part of our development objectives, both as a country and through our partnerships in multilateral organisations, relates to people with disabilities.

I want to share a couple of stats with the Minister. An Australian Agency for International Development study found that only around 3% to 4% of people with disabilities actually benefit from current international aid programmes, despite the fact that one in four households has a disabled member. For far too many disabled people, having a disability means they will never get an education, never go into employment and never live independently.

In developing countries, 90% of disabled children never attend school. Sadly, the education goal in the millennium development goals will not be met, because as Handicap International notes, 19 million disabled children globally still do not go to school. It was only in late 2013 that DFID announced that schools built with its funding would have wheelchair access. Will the Minister say how many experts on disability currently work in DFID? The recently published framework, which we welcome, says that the central disability team has more than doubled. How many people who define themselves as disabled work in this team? The same goes for the disability expert group.

Real expertise and resources will be needed to ensure that the framework becomes a reality, as the Committee Chairman said, so although I welcome the framework, I would like to see disaggregated costs on a programme-by-programme basis, showing how this will be funded. This is a 12-month framework, so its success will need to be measured within a year. How will DFID act on its commitment to develop indicators and other mechanisms that allow it to track its investments, particularly as regards the promises set out in the disability framework? This will include being able to see exactly how disability is being included in DFID programmes; how many DFID programmes are collecting data on disability; the extent to which DFID staff have the capability to include disability in their work; the extent to which DFID is able to engage with multilateral partners in this area; and what UK development non-governmental organisations funded by DFID are doing on disability.

This year will be critical in setting the foundations so that DFID can set ambitious targets on what can be achieved in the following years, post the one-year framework. DFID should guarantee that all services and infrastructure that it helps support is fully accessible for people with disabilities, including schools, hospitals and water and sanitation facilities. That needs to go far beyond physical accessibility to ensure that all forms of communication and information are also accessible, including to those with motor, sensory and mental health issues.

The Committee recommended that the Government include more disabled people and groups in the design, development and delivery of programmes. What steps are being taken to include a representative portion of disabled people, so that they are involved in programme development? How many people have been employed under the guaranteed interview scheme so far? On that point, I welcome the Government’s setting that scheme up and congratulate them on doing so. That scheme means that any disabled individual who meets the minimum requirements will be guaranteed an interview. I also welcome the promise to develop guidance for training staff. Which DFID staff will undergo training? Will they be staff at all levels? Who will perform the training? Will disabled people be involved in giving that training?

On the important matter of engaging with disabled people’s organisations, obviously many of those will already have a working relationship with other arms of Government, including the Department for Work and Pensions, so what work is being done by DFID and the DWP to try to help build those relationships?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston would testify, many disabled people’s organisations have a difficult relationship with Government because of some of the changes coming through on welfare reform. How do we make sure that the difficult elements of the relationship do not impact on the positive work that the Government and DFID can do with those organisations?

The Committee Chairman mentioned stigma and discrimination, which are key issues for disabled people and their families, especially in relation to their going into employment or education. What work will be done to develop our education programmes, to try to tackle some of the cultural barriers and the stigma? That will not happen overnight. It will require work over many years. It is worth considering supporting not just people with disabilities, but their carers, as we do in this country. What work will be done in developing countries to ensure that we support carers?

We should not fall into the trap of thinking that only elderly people have disabilities. Many young people have disabilities as well. Indeed, there will be many young carers, so how do we support them? A child with a disability is three to four times more likely to be a victim of physical or sexual violence. Violence against women and girls with a disability is of particular concern. What will DFID do to ensure that programme staff include gender-sensitive disability staff?

On private sector development, of course we welcome the desire to have more people going into work, but according to Sightsavers, 80% of disabled people are unemployed in developing countries. As we look to develop the private sector, what specific work is being done to encourage people with disabilities into employment? What support are we giving the private sector to encourage people with disabilities to come into employment? Do we have any figures on how many disabled people have been supported into employment by the work that the Department has done regarding private sector development?

Finally, disaster management, including the Ebola crisis, was mentioned in the previous debate; what specific action is being taken to make sure that rather than looking at vulnerable people as a whole, we consider protecting disabled people in particular during disasters? Disabled people are often left behind in a disaster. What specific measures on that are put in place in our framework? What specific training is given to people providing disaster relief to ensure that disabled people do not feel the biggest impact of a disaster?

As always, we would welcome a response from the Minister on all these points. I apologise for the number of questions I asked; it was due to the short time I had to speak. I would quickly like to thank the Committee for its report.

16:17

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

I begin by dealing with the points raised about prevention. I agree entirely that it is highly appropriate. One principal area not touched on in the debate is the fact that for every birth that results in the death of either the mother or the child, 20 result in disability, so our emphasis on maternal health, and the health of women and girls, is fundamental to this. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) about the importance of dealing with disease. We continue our commitment to eradication of disease, including polio, and our work with Sightsavers. On roads, in Nepal we are putting barriers on to roads to reduce the number of accidents; that is an issue that we are alive to. With regard to conflict—my hon. Friend mentioned Afghanistan—we are putting significant funds into the International Rescue Committee to deal with rehabilitation and prostheses. This is an important part of the agenda.

I join the Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). This was a brief that she felt passionately about, and she made a singular contribution to it. She drove forward the issue of data and the ability to disaggregate. Just in October, she chaired a conference jointly with the United Nations on how we drive forward that agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) asked about the progress we are making on data; I largely put down the progress we have made to the impetus that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green gave to that.

We are prioritising national data systems. We have just managed to get the Washington Group questions on disability incorporated into our programmes in Burma and Yemen. We are developing new guidance on disaggregating data at programme level, and we have an important new commitment to disaggregating data on humanitarian support and disability. It is true that if disabled people cannot be counted, the temptation is to think that they do not count. We have to be able to count them and disaggregate.

On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the post-2015 millennium development goals, she is absolutely right: we should not lose the gains in the language from the output of the open working group and the debates that surrounded that. I am not convinced that we need a specific goal on disability, although I understand that I may have implied that in an answer to a recent parliamentary question. The reason why we do not necessarily need that specific goal relates to the difference between what constitutes a strategy and what constitutes a framework. The strategy is that no one should be left behind. It is about inclusivity, an end to stigma and all moving forward to the same place. The framework is about how we deliver that. Of course we will have to paddle under the water a lot faster for our disabled people to get them moving forward at the same rate.

The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right: it is fundamental that we cannot tackle poverty, including extreme poverty, unless we tackle poverty among disabled people. “No one left behind” is the key strategy behind what we are attempting to do. We have made considerable progress on inclusivity. We have a number of separate programmes that deal specifically with the disabled, but equally we have programmes where we are having to incorporate the needs of disabled people. In 2013, we announced that any schools that we fund have to be accessible. This year, we have new sectoral commitments on water supply and humanitarian programming, but there is no doubt that the International Development Committee set us some challenging goals. We have doubled the number of people working on the team and appointed a new champion, but in my estimation, overwhelmingly the most important thing we have done is produce the framework document.

I am surprised by the criticism levelled at the discussion with and involvement of disabled groups. We work very closely with disabled groups. The Department works with some 400 disability groups. In drawing up the disability framework, discussing it and getting it to the state it is in, we worked with disabled people’s organisations, including organisations of disabled people—not people representing the disabled—in Rwanda and Mozambique. In this country, we worked with disabled people’s organisations, but also—this, I suspect, is where the tension comes in—with the Bond Disability and Development Group. We included both.

[Kate Green]

I want to clarify exactly what I was suggesting. Based on what I was told in Rwanda, I absolutely recognise what the Minister said. Rwanda was one of the consultee countries in preparing the framework, and civil society organisations were able to have input. My point was that that needs to be replicated in how those organisations are facilitated and enabled to work with their national Government. From my observation, that is not happening in Rwanda. DFID has a role in thinking about how it uses the framework to replicate what he says was done in its preparation here.

[Mr Swayne]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The framework is not only to inform us, but to inform how we work with our partners, be they Governments or multilateral organisations. It is our key response. It was published on 3 December and will be published every year. The Chair of the Committee asked for an annual stocktake. The framework is a living document, and we will change and update it all the time to ensure that it works, but clearly we need an annual review as well. I would have thought that the ideal way to deal with that would be to have an annual session with the Select Committee, in which it interrogates the performance and the progress made.

There are not any targets in the document, as the Chair said, but that is because it is the first one and we are feeling our way, to an extent. It would be wrong to put targets in until we have bedded the thing down and seen the progress that we have made. We will use the document to build understanding of disability into every single member of staff, so that every single member of staff can take responsibility for ensuring that the principle of “No one left behind” is built into every one of our programmes. We will work with our multilateral partners to ensure that, and to make sure that they are taking account of disability. As part of that, we will develop the disaggregation of data.

There will be special provision for the agenda for women and girls who are in double jeopardy as a result of disability and being female, and the stigma that attaches to that. We will continue to prioritise research and evidence on what works in low-resource economies. The Chair of the Select Committee drew specific attention to mental health, and that is an area where we have to raise our game with the agenda. To that end, we have launched a study called the Programme for Improving Mental Health Care, in which we work specifically to see what we can do on mental health issues in low-resource economies.

I believe fundamentally that the framework is one of the most important things on our agenda, and it is vital to drive it forward. I recall having a conversation with a constituent who was disabled. She was giving advice on what was needed for a particular project. She said to me bluntly that people did not want our pity; they wanted our help, not only so that they could be self-sufficient and do what other people do, but so that they could be contributors to their community. The ambition of “No one left behind” has to be that disabled people become an asset to their communities and not a burden on them.

16:28

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I thank all colleagues from all parts of the House who have taken part in this debate. I said at the beginning that the shortness of the debate does not in any way qualify the importance of this big initiative. I am grateful to the Government for their response, and to the Minister for his response and his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). I feel encouraged that we will get real progress. Our Committee’s legacy will be to ensure that our successor Committee comes back next year to monitor that. I believe that we have made a good partnership with the Department and we look forward to seeing real progress.

Question put and agreed to.

16:29

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

Thursday 11 December 2014

Cyber Security Strategy

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

In November 2011 we published the UK Cyber Security strategy and each year since then I have presented an annual report to Parliament on progress against the strategy’s objectives. I am pleased to present the third of these reports to both Houses today alongside this statement.

The Cyber Security strategy set out the Government’s vision of “a vibrant, resilient and secure cyberspace” and set out four objectives:

making the UK one of the most secure places in the world to do business in cyberspace

making the UK more resilient to cyber attack and better able to protect our interests in cyberspace

helping shape an open, vibrant and stable cyberspace that supports open societies

building the UK’s cyber security knowledge, skills and capability.

To support the strategy we put in place a national cyber security programme backed by £860 million of investment to 2016. Through the programme the Government are working to:

further deepen our national sovereign capability to detect and defeat high-end threats;

ensure law enforcement has the skills and capabilities needed to tackle cyber crime and maintain the confidence needed to do business on the Internet;

ensure critical UK systems and networks are robust and resilient;

improve cyber awareness and risk management among UK business;

ensure members of the public know what they can do to protect themselves, and are demanding good cyber security in the products and services they consume;

bolster cyber security research and education, so we have the knowledge and expertise to keep pace with this fast-moving issue into the medium term; and

work with international partners to bear down on havens for cybercrime and build capacity, and to help shape international dialogue to promote an open, secure and vibrant cyberspace.

We have made significant strides towards all these goals this year and throughout the course of the programme’s existence. The long-term economic plan of this Government continues to make the UK one of the most secure places globally for cyber innovation and commerce. Notable highlights from this year include the inauguration of the new CERT-UK—computer emergency response team—which co-ordinates our national response to significant cyber incidents. CERT-UK has played a significant role already in protecting the Commonwealth games and the NATO summit in Wales from cyber threats. The National Cyber Crime Unit has led global law enforcement operations in conjunction with the FBI and other counterparts to target cyber criminals. We have also introduced a new scheme, Cyber Essentials, which sets a basic standard for cyber security for all organisations in the UK. Much of this work is done in partnership with business and the academic community and we are grateful to our partners for their co-operation and efforts, as it is clear that Government cannot deliver these goals on their own.

I refer hon. Members to the accompanying “Report on Progress and Forward Plans-December 2014” for details of achievements across all the objectives in the UK Cyber Security strategy and commend this to both Houses.

The report can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

Asset Resolution (Consumer Credit Act)

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

In February 2008, under the previous Government, Northern Rock was nationalised due to the financial crisis. In January 2010 the previous Government restructured the activities of Northern Rock between Northern Rock plc, a newly created company which was subsequently sold to Virgin Money in 2011, and the existing company, which was renamed Northern Rock (Asset Management) (NRAM). The balance sheet of NRAM is managed by UK Asset Resolution (UKAR).

In 2012, UKAR identified certain Consumer Credit Act (CCA) regulated loans in the NRAM portfolio where the annual statements and other notices were not compliant with CCA requirements. The CCA regulations only applied to loans of £25,000 or less. The period of non-compliance originates from changes to the CCA implemented in 2008, before the separation of NRAM and Northern Rock plc in January 2010. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury at the time this non-compliance was identified (Sajid Javid) informed Parliament, and UKAR has remediated the interest paid and other charges fully to affected customers for the period of non-compliance. This is another example of the significant cost to taxpayers of the failure of the previous regulatory regime.

After these mistakes were discovered, UKAR’s board commissioned Deloitte to conduct an independent enquiry into the specific circumstances of the issue, and any implications for UKAR’s broader internal procedures and controls. The report can be found here:

http://www.ukar.co.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2013/15-07-2013?page=6

In 2012, UKAR also discovered that incorrect documentation had been sent to certain customers with loans of more than £25,000. These errors also originate from when changes were implemented to the CCA in 2008, before the separation of NRAM and Northern Rock plc in January 2010. While these loans fell outside of the scope of the CCA, UKAR commenced declaratory proceedings in the High Court to determine whether customers who took out such loans are entitled to the same or similar rights and remedies as those customers who took out loans of £25,000 or less that were regulated under the CCA. This action was taken in order to provide clarity to UKAR and to its customers, and details of the proceedings, including an estimate of the cost of remediation, were published in the Treasury’s annual report and accounts for 2013-2014.

The High Court has declared that the defendants to the proceedings are contractually entitled to the rights and remedies applicable to a regulated agreements under the CCA (2008).

Accordingly, NRAM was in breach of its obligations by issuing documentation that did not comply with the CCA (2008), and by not re-crediting the interest payments and default sums paid during the period of non-compliance. UKAR, and UK Financial Investments, on behalf of the Treasury, will now carefully consider legal advice to establish whether an appeal should be pursued. UKAR have estimated the cost of remediating affected customers to be £261 million plus any future interest accruing on these accounts before remediation is made. The cost of any future interest amounts to approximately £3 million per month.

UKAR has performed well, repaying more than £12 billion of Government loans and actively managing the assets with the goal of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. The OBR has forecast that UKAR will have a positive impact reducing both public sector net borrowing and public sector net debt in the current fiscal year. This would be true even if remediation costs were paid this fiscal year.

UKAR will confirm whether an appeal will be pursued in due course. There is no need for customers to take any action at this time. Further details for customers can be found on the NRAM website: www.nram.co.uk

Land Registration Rule Committee (Triennial Review)

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

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

The coalition Government made a commitment to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state. The triennial review of the Land Registration Rule Committee (LRRC) is one of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) scheduled to commence during the first year of the second programme (2014-15). This is not a review of the policy relating to land registration to which the Government remain committed.

The review will be conducted as set out in Cabinet Office guidance, in two stages.

The first stage will:

Identify and examine the key functions of the Land Registration Rule Committee and assess the requirement for these to continue;

If continuing, then assess delivery options and where the conclusion is that a particular function is still needed examine how this function might best be delivered, including a cost and benefits analysis where appropriate;

If one of these options is continuing delivery through the Land Registration Rule Committee then make an assessment against the Government’s “three tests”: technical function; political impartiality; need for independence from Ministers.

If the outcome of stage one is that delivery should continue through the Land Registration Rule Committee as an NDPB, then the second stage of the project will be to ensure that they are operating in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance, using the Cabinet Office “comply or explain” standard approach.

When completed the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Private Rented Sector

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

The Government can announce that they have awarded the licence for the private rented sector housing guarantee scheme to PRS Operations Ltd, a subsidiary of Venn Partners LLP. Venn Partners’ bid was selected through an open and competitive procurement process, following a period of thorough market engagement.

The Government are committed to expanding the rented sector, including supporting the creation of a bigger and better private rented sector, in order to expand the provision of rented housing, boost economic growth, increase choice and improve quality for tenants. The private rented sector plays an increasingly important role in the housing market. It is now the second largest tenure in England, with demand predicted to grow.

The Government’s £10 billion housing guarantees schemes—comprising the affordable housing guarantee scheme and the private rented sector housing guarantee scheme—are working to reduce the cost of investing in new, additional affordable and private rented sector housing. Furthermore, the private rented sector housing guarantee scheme will help create a new market for institutional investment in the private rented sector.

The affordable housing guarantee scheme, as operated by Affordable Housing Finance plc, has already demonstrated considerable success—facilitating the investment of over £1 billion in new affordable housing, through the cheapest debt in the sector’s history.

On 11 June 2014 a minute was laid before the House setting out details of the contingent liability created by the private rented sector housing guarantee scheme. Under the private rented sector housing guarantee scheme, the Department for Communities and Local Government will guarantee up to £3.5 billion of debt on terms of up to 30 years for developers who commit to building new private rented sector housing, held long-term for private rent.

Venn Partners are now able to receive applications and we expect the first applications to be approved in 2015, subject to due diligence procedures. I am looking forward to working with them to deliver the scheme.

ABWR Nuclear Reactor

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

I have today laid before the House a draft statutory instrument containing my decision, as Justifying Authority under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, that the generation of electricity from the nuclear reactor design known as the UK ABWR is justified.

Justification is the first step in the regulatory process for practices involving ionising radiation and is required by EU law. Before any new practice involving ionising radiation—such as a new design of nuclear reactor—can be introduced in the UK, it must first undergo a high-level, generic assessment to determine whether its economic, social or other benefits outweigh the health detriment it may cause.

As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change I am the Justifying Authority and it is my responsibility to take these decisions.

Positive Justification decisions are made by way of statutory instruments. The draft statutory instrument which I have today laid in draft before the House is supported by a decision document, copies of which have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

The decision document sets out how I have considered responses to the public consultations carried out by my Department, how I have assessed the benefit of the class or type of practice against the radiological health detriment it may cause, and how I have come to the decision that it is justified.

In summary, the basis for my decision is that there is a clear need for the generation of electricity by the nuclear reactor design to which the decision relates, because of the contribution its deployment can make to the new nuclear programme through increased security of energy supplies and reduced carbon emissions. Against this, the radiological detriment to health from this nuclear reactor design throughout its lifetime and the management of associated waste will be low compared to overall levels of radiation, and will be effectively controlled by the UK’s robust and effective regulatory regime. I have therefore concluded that the reactor design should be justified.

The draft statutory instrument containing the decision is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will therefore be the subject of debates in both Houses of Parliament.

Copies of a statement to this effect, and of the decision document, have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on my Department’s website at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance-for-operators-of-new-nuclear-power-stations

Smart Meters

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Today, I am pleased to announce the publication of the third DECC annual report on the roll-out of smart meters, which fulfils DECC’s commitment to provide an update to Parliament on the past year’s progress.

Smart meters give consumers greater control over their electricity and gas use, changing the way we think about energy and helping to transform the retail energy market. By providing real-time information and bringing an end to estimated billing, the roll-out will enable consumers to save money on bills, make switching energy suppliers easier and faster, and help to restore trust in the energy market. Smart metering will also help reduce energy waste, with suppliers and networks having access to better information to support a sustainable energy supply.

This annual report reflects on significant developments in 2014. It covers the work that Government and industry are undertaking to ensure that the smart metering system delivers the expected benefits to consumers. Much of the framework underpinning the roll-out is now in place and responsibility for taking key elements of the smart metering programme forward is moving to industry and other delivery partners. For consumers the programme is driving real progress. Around 900,000 smart and advanced meters are already operating in homes and businesses, and the number of smart meters installed grows each month.

The annual report is being placed in the Library of the House and can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/annual-progress-report-on-the-roll-out-of-smart-meters

Development Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will attend the Development Foreign Affairs Council on 12 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 15 December, and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 16 December. The Development Foreign Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Italian presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.

Development Foreign Affairs Council

Post-2015 agenda

The UK remains at the forefront of the post-2015 discussions, building on the Prime Minister’s co-chairing of the UN high-level panel. Ministers will discuss the EU’s approach to intergovernmental negotiations on post-2015, including agreeing Council conclusions, and reflect on the UN Secretary-General’s synthesis report. The UK will use this discussion to make the case for a more simple, inspiring and relevant set of goals and targets.

Gender

The UK is an international leader on this agenda, as demonstrated by hosting the highly successful Girl summit last summer. In response to the UK’s call for the EU to show greater ambition on women and girls, the Commission will update Ministers on progress on the current EU action plan on gender equality and women’s empowerment, and set out a vision for its successor. The UK will urge the new Development Commissioner to take political leadership and deliver an ambitious gender action plan 2016-20.

Ebola from the development perspective

The Commission and European External Action Service will update Ministers on the latest developments. The UK will reiterate the urgent need to maintain momentum in tackling the immediate crisis, and focus on the social and economic impact of Ebola and on regional preparedness. Ministers will also reflect on what could be done in the medium to long term to support health systems and prevent future outbreaks.

Migration, refugees and development

Ministers will discuss the inter-linkages between migration and development, and will agree Council conclusions. The debate will inform a Commission communication due next year. The UK will be underlining the need for a communication based on sound evidence and analysis.

Foreign Affairs Council

Syria

UN Special Envoy for Syria, Steffan De Mistura, will brief Ministers on the Syria conflict and his plans to de-escalate violence. The EU continues to support Mr De Mistura. Ministers will agree conclusions that condemn the awful human rights abuses being perpetrated by Assad, the instability that violence is creating in the region and the dire humanitarian situation. The UK will argue for the EU to continue to support the moderate opposition in their fight against both ISIL and Assad, calling for Assad to allow the free flowing of aid to all who need it, and reiterating that Assad cannot morally or practically be a partner in the fight against ISIL.

Iraq/ISIL

The priority of this discussion will be the EU strategy on ISIL which is being developed following the August conclusions of the European Council meeting. Ministers will discuss the strategy and their support for it. The UK hopes the EU strategy will help the EU focus on areas where it can bring additional value to the coalition efforts and that it will ensure EU activity is fully co-ordinated and aligned with other coalition efforts. There is also likely to be an assessment of the situation in Erbil and the EU response to the foreign fighter threat.

Ebola

Ministers will take stock of the EU’s response to the Ebola crisis. The EU’s Ebola Coordinator and Humanitarian Commissioner, Christos Stylianides, will present a progress report. The UK will reiterate the importance of member states delivering the funds and staff that they have pledged. Ministers will also discuss how the EU might respond to Ebola over the medium and longer term, drawing on an EEAS-Commission paper. The UK will welcome the proposals for the EU to help rebuild countries affected by Ebola, but will stress that this must not detract from the current crisis response and that the EU’s long-term efforts must be co-ordinated with wider initiatives to improve the global response to health crises.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The High Representative is likely to brief Ministers on her joint visit with Commissioner Hahn to Bosnia and Herzegovina on 5 December, and on progress of a new EU approach to inject momentum into Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU accession process. We want conclusions to endorse the EU initiative, mandate Mogherini to negotiate the written commitment and that once the written commitment is signed, the stabilisation and association agreement will come into force. We also want to see GAC conclusions that refer to the annual enlargement package and endorse the FAC’s decision on the EU’s approach to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

General Affairs Council

Enlargement and stabilisation and association process

The General Affairs Council will discuss the Commission’s annual enlargement package (AEP), published on 8 October, and agree conclusions on the enlargement strategy and the western Balkans countries, Turkey and Iceland. The December GAC is the annual opportunity for the Council to take stock and give direction to the EU’s enlargement strategy and pre-accession reform priorities for individual countries. The Government’s views on the package were set out in my explanatory memorandum of 20 October 2014. We will broadly welcome the Commission’s approach in this year’s package, reiterating our continued firm support for future EU enlargement on the basis of strict but fair conditionality, with countries moving forward on merit as they meet the conditions. We will also take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of maintaining the credibility of the enlargement process, including addressing the concerns of many EU citizens around the impact of migration. We welcome recognition of this issue in the package.

Rule of law

Following an initial exchange of views at the November General Affairs Council and further discussions in COREPER, Ministers will consider the presidency’s latest proposals to strengthen adherence to the rule of law within the EU. The Italian presidency intends to focus discussion on the role of the member states, and in particular how to establish further dialogue within the Council to address emerging threats.

Strengthening inter-institutional annual and multi-annual programming

The Commission’s 2015 Work Programme is tabled for discussion at the General Affairs Council. The Italian presidency has also indicated its intention to agree a high-level political declaration on the Council’s intention to work with the Commission and European Parliament on legislative programming in future years. They are yet to confirm whether a draft text will be issued in advance of discussions at the General Affairs Council.

Friends of the presidency on improving the functioning of the EU

Following the final meeting of the friends of the presidency group on improving the functioning of the EU, the presidency will present its report and the GAC will hold a discussion on the recommendations.

Composition of the Committee of the Regions

The GAC will consider the current impasse on the Commission’s proposal of June 2014 to bring the composition of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) back in line with the Lisbon treaty which capped membership at 350. This was temporarily increased to 353 when Croatia acceded to the EU in July 2013. The UK strongly supports efforts to improve proportionality within the Committee of the Regions with a view to reflecting the demographic reality of member states. We will encourage the presidency to urgently facilitate agreement on a proposal that will allow the Committee’s mandate to be renewed in time and includes a commitment for a full review of the composition of the CoR during its next mandate period.

Preparation of the December European Council

The GAC will prepare the 18 and 19 December European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The December European Council agenda is expected to include strengthening growth, jobs and competitiveness and investment, and external relations issues—likely to include Ukraine and Ebola.

European semester and Europe 2020 mid-term review

The GAC will discuss the annual growth survey (AGS), which marks the beginning of the European semester process of social and economic co-ordination. The AGS is published alongside the alert mechanism report (AMR), the joint employment report (JER) and the Commission draft budgetary opinions on Eurozone member states. It sets out broad EU level economic and social objectives for the year ahead.

Europe 2020 is the European Union’s 10-year strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. A mid-term review of the strategy was launched with a public consultation in 2014 which ended on 31 October. The mid-term review is due to be discussed in each Council formation before being summarised and presented at the December GAC, ahead of the final presentation to the December European Council.

Follow-up to the June European Council

Ministers will have a thematic debate on the EU’s strategic agenda, focused on the subject: “The EU as a strong global actor”. I will set out the UK’s support for the strategic agenda as set out in the June European Council, and highlight the role of member states in setting EU foreign policy and the need for the EU to play an influential role in world.

Women, Peace and Security Implementation Plan

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, are today publishing an implementation plan for the “UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security for 2014-17”, which was published on 12 June 2014 (HC Deb, column 72-4WS, 16 June 2014).

The national action plan sets out our priorities on women, peace and security for the next three years. It is the guiding national policy document that provides the direction and vision to the Government and their partners as we work to ensure that women and girls are at the centre of our efforts to prevent, respond to, and resolve conflict.

The implementation plan published today establishes baseline data and target indicators for the national action plan. These will help us measure progress against outcomes at country level in the six focus countries set out in the national action plan: Afghanistan, Burma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Somalia and Syria. This is the first time that the UK has published a detailed implementation plan for our work on women, peace and security. The implementation plan helps capture the diverse set of initiatives to promote the protection and full participation of women that are taking place within the UK Government across our development, defence and diplomacy work. It is complemented by work undertaken through the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative and DFID’s strategic vision for women and girls. The implementation plan also helps set the global standard by demonstrating the UK’s determination to monitor our progress in delivering on our commitments.

We will report to Parliament annually on progress on all aspects of the national action plan, including in the six focus countries, beginning in autumn 2015.

I have deposited a copy of the implementation plan in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements

Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (George Freeman)]

I am announcing today the level of payment due from members of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) in 2015 to keep health service spend on branded medicines within the levels agreed under the scheme. The PPRS payment percentage for 2015 will be 10.36%.

The PPRS is a voluntary scheme agreed between the Department of Health, acting on behalf of the UK Government and Northern Ireland, and the branded pharmaceutical industry, represented by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), under sections 261 to 262 of the National Health Service Act 2006. The current PPRS commenced on 1 January 2014 and lasts for five years, ending on 31 December 2018.

The PPRS allows patients access to the medicines they need while maintaining affordability for the NHS and providing stability for industry in support of the Government’s innovation and growth agenda. There is an agreed, fixed limit on the vast majority of NHS spend on branded medicines with additional expenditure above this level paid for by the pharmaceutical companies. Spend will stay flat in 2014 and 2015. Annual growth will be limited to 1.8% in 2016, 1.8% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2018. Small companies with less than £5 million of sales a year to the health service are exempted.

In the interests of transparency we are publishing our estimates of aggregate PPRS payments in 2014-15 and 2015-16. It must be stressed that these are only estimates at this stage. The Department is committed to publishing outturn quarterly aggregate sales and payments data for the PPRS on an ongoing basis.

In England, PPRS payments are taken into account in the allocations to NHS England through the mandate. All the payments will go back into spending on improving patients’ health and care.

The Department has published a document setting out further details entitled “2014 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: revised forecasts and profile of payment percentages”. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements

Police and National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Bodies

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Anita Bharucha and Paul Leighton as members of the Police and National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Bodies. These appointments will be to 31 August 2017, commencing on 11 December.

Anita Bharucha is currently an independent management consultant and brings a wealth of experience to the role. Anita was a civil servant from 1993 to 2012 and served in a number of Departments including the Home Office, Cabinet Office, Northern Ireland Office, and latterly as a Director in the Ministry of Justice.

Paul Leighton is currently, a non-executive director on the Prison Service management board for Northern Ireland and Chair of its Audit Committee. Among the extensive experience he brings to the role is an understanding of the specific context of policing in Northern Ireland. Paul retired as Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in May 2009 and he has previously worked in policing in both Northern Ireland and the north-east of England.

These appointments have been made in accordance with the code of practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Police Integrity

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

On 22 July, Official Report, column 1265, I gave a statement to the House on this Government’s ongoing work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police. I informed the House that I would undertake a number of reviews, including an end-to-end review of the police complaints system and an independent review of the police disciplinary system, led by Major General (Retd) Chip Chapman. I am pleased to tell the House that these reviews have now concluded and the Government are today launching a public consultation on reforms to improve police complaints and discipline to better hold police officers to account and deal with misconduct appropriately.

I have always been clear that I believe the vast majority of police officers in this country do their job honestly and with integrity. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. They are cutting crime even as we reduce police spending. And the vast majority of officers do their work with a strong sense of fairness and duty. But as I have said before, the good work of the majority threatens to be damaged by a continuing series of events and revelations relating to police conduct.

This Government have carried out a radical programme of reform of the policing landscape. We have given chief constables greater operational independence, by scrapping national targets, while at the same time strengthening local accountability to the public through the creation of directly elected police and crime commissioners (PCCs). We have reformed police pay and conditions, established the College of Policing to improve police standards and beefed up the Independent Police Complaints Commission to take on all serious and sensitive cases. Crime has fallen by a fifth under this Government, according to the crime survey for England and Wales.

The reforms I am consulting on today will build on this programme of reform. The reviews show that the police complaints and disciplinary systems do not meet the standards that both the public and the police rightly expect. Those wishing to lodge a complaint find an opaque and bureaucratic system with insufficient independence. The police see a system designed to punish them, rather than one that provides feedback to help them improve performance.

The Government’s proposed reforms put the public at the heart of the system, replacing bureaucracy and complexity with accountability and transparency. We propose giving Police and Crime Commissioners the powers to handle complaints in a way that makes sense for their local electorates. This includes PCCs taking on responsibility for how complaints appropriate for local resolution are dealt with, making sure that issues are resolved quickly and effectively. We propose giving the IPCC new powers, strengthening its role as an independent oversight body and building on this Government’s commitment to transfer resources to enable the IPCC to investigate all serious and sensitive cases. We suggest the introduction of police super-complaints, a feature of the financial markets regulatory landscape, to allow designated organisations to present evidence of systemic problems to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), and give a voice to those who choose not to complain directly.

It is impossible to separate the police complaints and disciplinary systems and the Government’s reforms also address the way in which police performance and misconduct matters are dealt with. I am grateful in this regard for Major General (Retd) Chip Chapman’s thorough investigation and analysis of the police disciplinary system, which is published today alongside the Government’s proposals. On 18 November, Official Report, column 6WS, I announced proposals to hold police disciplinary hearings in public with independent, legally-qualified chairs and the intention to legislate in this Parliament. In addition, the Government are now seeking views on the majority of the remaining Chapman recommendations, which include benchmarking to ensure consistency of sanctions; streamlining and integrating the performance management and misconduct processes; and consulting on merging the disciplinary systems for police officers and police staff.

Finally, the Government have already announced a consultation on protections for police whistleblowers to ensure that concerns can be raised without fear of disciplinary action. Today’s consultation document contains further proposals, including strengthening the independent route for whistleblowing to the IPCC and allowing the IPCC to conduct investigations in a way that protects the identity of the whistleblower.

In addition, I am today announcing the commencement of the first triennial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that public bodies continue to have regular independent challenge. The review will focus on examining whether the IPCC is operating efficiently and whether its control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed.

These proposals are a key step of the Government’s reform of the policing landscape, ensuring that, where the public have concerns about their contact with the police, these will be dealt with in a transparent, fair and effective way. These reforms are vital for securing confidence in this system and in the work of the police.

We will be consulting on these proposals for eight weeks and will respond to the consultation before the end of the Parliament. The consultation document has been published as a Command Paper (Cm 8976) and copies will be available from the Vote Office. A copy of Major General Chapman’s report will be placed in the Library of the House. Both of these publications can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=home-office&publication_filter_option=consultations

I hope that those with an interest in these very important matters will take the time to respond to the consultation.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Courts and Tribunal Service Trust

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has prepared a trust statement providing an account of the collection of revenues which are due to be paid to HM Treasury. The statement includes the value of fines and confiscation orders imposed by the judiciary; fixed penalties imposed by the police; the value of collections; the balances paid over to third parties including victims of crime, the Home Office and HM Treasury; and the balance of outstanding impositions.

I am delighted that, for the first time, the Comptroller and Auditor General has been able to provide an unqualified audit opinion on the trust statement which recognises the quality and thoroughness of the work we have completed to address financial reporting issues previously identified by the National Audit Office (NAO).

The trust statement demonstrates that we have continued to maintain strong collection performance levels with more than £518 million in financial impositions collected from offenders during 2013-14. Victim surcharge receipts have increased by £28 million from 2012-13 to 2013-14—to around £38.5 million in 2013-14—providing additional funds to help support the victims of rape, domestic violence and families bereaved by murder and fatal road traffic crimes. To aid in the provision of these vital services a proportion of the additional victim surcharge receipts has been allocated to police and crime commissioners for innovative local projects to support victims.

HMCTS recognises the importance of the recommendations made by the NAO value for money study on confiscation orders and we are working with our partner enforcement agencies to address those recommendations and ensure that criminals continue to be deprived of the proceeds of crime. The agencies involved in the enforcement of confiscation orders, which includes the Home Office, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, take every action available to them to tackle outstanding debt including the addition of interest and imprisonment for those who do not pay.

The robust application of sanctions in relation to outstanding fine debt has resulted in a 13% reduction in gross debt relating to fine impositions since April 2012. The amount collected has increased in both 2013-14 and 2012-13 compared to 2011-12. Legislation introduced in December 2013 allows HMCTS to obtain data from HM Revenue and Customs and Department for Work and Pensions for the purposes of enforcing outstanding fines in a more efficient and effective way.

To build on improvements made in recent years in the collection of criminal financial penalties, HMCTS is in the final stages of a procurement exercise to determine whether an external partner can bring the innovation and investment in technology that HMCTS needs to further improve performance and efficiency. The continuing improvement the agencies are making, combined with our future plans, will ensure that more criminals pay and that taxpayers get better value for money.

Operator Licensing and Roadworthiness Testing

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the publication of two related public consultations that will close on 5 March 2015.

HGV Periodic Testing and Inspections Exemptions

Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing Exemptions Consultation

Historically certain heavier vehicles have been exempt from operator licensing and/or road worthiness testing. Some of the current exemptions are proposed for removal or modification either because of possible non-compliance with EU legislation or to correct anomalies between certain vehicles types that are currently exempt and those that are not.

The HGV testing scheme provides exemption for 37 classes of vehicle. We are proposing to remove or modify exemptions covering 10 categories of vehicle.

We are considering a modification to exemption number 15 in the current list of exemptions under operator licensing. Vehicles using this exemption operate in direct competition with other non-exempt vehicles and perform the same core function. Due to the commonalities between operator licensing exemptions and annual test exemptions the consultations will run in tandem.

The measures proposed are expected to improve road safety, update the legislation to reflect modern practices and ensure a fairer and more uniform approach for operators.

I have placed copies of the documents in the Libraries of both Houses and they will also be available on: http://www.gov.uk and http://www.parliament.uk/ writtenstatements

Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme

Thursday 11th December 2014 Written Statements

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

The Dartford-Thurrock crossing charging scheme account for 2013-14 is published today under section 3(1)(d) of the Trunk Road Charging Schemes (Bridges and Tunnels) (Keeping of Accounts) (England) Regulations 2003. A copy of the accounts will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Grand Committee

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

Thursday, 11 December 2014.

Female Genital Mutilation

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

13:00

Asked by

[Baroness Rendell of Babergh]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage prosecutions of offenders under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.

[Baroness Rendell of Babergh (Lab)]

My Lords, in the past 30 years there have been two Acts of Parliament concerning the law on female genital mutilation. The second one, in 2003, superseded and expanded the first, making the maximum punishment for carrying out genital mutilation 14 years’ imprisonment. In the past year, at last, and for the first time, FGM has been very much to the fore. Those of us who have always believed that schools have a major part to play in detecting which children are at risk of FGM have seen teachers alerted to identifying those in danger. Nurses and midwives—many of whom knew nothing about the risk, and who had among their patients those who were likely to have been mutilated and those who would be liable to be—have now been taught what to look out for. Young girls subjected to FGM as small children or recently in their teens have come forward, told their stories to newspapers and magazines and been featured in the many campaigns intended to put an end to what has long been known as a cruel and revolting practice.

This week, as part of the Government’s reducing and preventing crime strategy, mandatory reporting of FGM begins. The Home Office particularly wants to hear from health professionals, the judiciary, social workers, criminal justice practitioners, service providers and local authorities. Sanctions are to be applied if professionals fail to report FGM. This is an important step forward, but those of us who have worked against FGM have long been convinced that the best way of stopping it would be to prosecute the perpetrators. One single successful prosecution would do much. With a law in place allowing no mercy on perpetrators of FGM, making no excuses for them and uncompromisingly calling their action a crime and child abuse, a newcomer to the UK who had never previously heard of FGM, on learning what it was and what the law was, would refuse to believe that there had been no prosecutions.

In many countries where the law is similar prosecutions happen and are successful. There have been more than 100 successful prosecutions in France, in Italy and in Sweden, and there have been successful prosecutions in countries in east Africa as well. In Kuria East, in central Africa, the parents of a 13 year-old girl were prosecuted for employing a so-called circumciser to cut her and were sent to prison for three years. In France, girls are routinely examined by their doctors to check if they have had FGM or are in danger of having it. However, there have been no prosecutions here. The reasons given are that a girl will not go into court and give evidence against her parents about abuse carried out on her. In parts of Europe where girls have given evidence against their parents, they have never returned to their parents’ home after the case was over. The communities from which they, their parents or even their grandparents have come are known for the closeness of their families. Appearing in court and stating openly under oath what a mother or even a father did to them would be a betrayal many could not face carrying out. But to put an end to FGM such evidence almost certainly must be given. Perhaps we have to find a way to expand the law, to change the law, if we are to make successful prosecutions happen in future.

I have talked to surgeons from France who have carried out reversals of mutilation. Such reversals now include restoring parts of the genitalia, which used to be considered impossible. The time will come, it is hoped, when complete restoration can be achieved. One fine surgeon well known to me in London carries out reversals but has yet to restore sensation to the clitoris. But are we really to look forward to the repair of a hideous, brutally perpetrated wound—a repair carried out with great difficulty and enormous skill—as the only certain solution to the problem of FGM? What kind of a society uses circumcisers who are ignorant of medicine and surgery to deliberately maim young women and girls, who can only be restored to health and a normal life by the operations of a highly skilled surgeon?

The number of cases of FGM cutting in this country, in Europe and in Africa vary. Indeed, I may say that they vary wildly. At present we hear of 66,000 cases in the UK with a further 24,000 at risk, while a few months ago I heard the figures of 133,000 and then of 137,000. In Africa the figure is 3 million, but is liable to change according to who arrives at it.

The Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for International Development now recognise that tackling violence against women and girls, which includes FGM, requires a sustained, robust and dynamic cross-government approach, and that every department needs to play its part in addressing FGM. We hear less these days about the supposed cultural value of FGM or about not interfering with ancient traditions. Foot binding in China had to be banned, as did such practices as neck lengthening which result in disablement. We now hear less, if anything, about the value to society of the tradition of FGM and the need to retain it.

The Department of Health is working to improve the information collected by the NHS on FGM. Health staff may now have to include a type of so-called female circumcision in their attentions. This, which appears to be Islamic in origin, is now being practised in the UK, according to information reaching the FGM National Clinical Group. It claims to be close to male circumcision and involves cutting the area around the clitoris. It appears to have its origin in the Caribbean. Claims are made that it brings enhanced pleasure to men and women but, whether or not that bears any relation to the truth, the fact is that it too is illegal here. It is just another variation on a damaging cutting procedure, which every victim would be better off without.

The Department for International Development has established a £35 million programme to address FGM in Africa and beyond, which aims to end FGM in one generation. The Home Office’s action plan, the Call to End Violence against Women and Girls, has renewed its focus on protecting potential victims. The Home Office aims to use this plan to work closely with partners across government to help secure an FGM conviction. The Home Office has launched a statement which sends out a strong message to anyone involved in the practice of FGM. This statement is set out on leaflets, of which 37,000 have gone out.

The Home Office continues to work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the Government are doing everything they can to secure a prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecutions’ assessment is that it is now only a matter of time before a perpetrator is brought to justice. A doctor is due to appear at the Central Criminal Court in January, and if this case goes ahead it will be the first instance of a prosecution under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. One successful prosecution might arguably do more than cautionary leaflets. This case is long awaited and I hope it may take place, whatever the outcome, because 133,000 or 137,000 young women and girl children’s future lives depend on it. The publicity which it gives rise to alone will spread the news of what FGM is as nothing else can.

13:09

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh, who has espoused the cause of halting FGM for at least as many years as I have months. When I entered your Lordships’ House, I very much felt that I did so to represent music, culture and the arts, but what I discovered from listening to debates about FGM so appalled me that I became quite passionate in my own espousal of this cause. It is an appalling practice, and what really staggered me was that it is happening in Great Britain; I simply could not believe it. It is bad enough that it is happening in the way that it is in many countries—and I know that there are charities tackling that—but that this is going on in this country is completely staggering. I gather that some children are brought to this country to be subjected to FGM. Does the Minister have any figures not just on the people who live here who are being cut but on the ones who are possibly being brought here for that purpose? It would suggest that there is not a sufficient fear of the law.

When this issue was recently debated in your Lordships’ House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was asked about the discrepancy between this country and France, which the noble Baroness has just referred to. He said, with considerable justification, that France is a very different country from this one and that the idea of mandatory examination here would offend civil liberties and the mothers of young girls would be very upset. It is a fair point. I therefore undertook to ask several friends with young children how they would feel about it. Their initial response was exactly as the noble Earl predicted. However, when I said to them, “If the fact that you allowed your young child to be sensitively examined—however much you may baulk at it—saved five, 10, 20, 100 or who knows how many other children from being mutilated, would you feel differently?”. At which point they said, “If you put it like that, yes; I could not possibly refuse something that might save other children from this horrendous practice”.

I know that the Minister and everyone in his department and the Department of Health are very concerned about this—none of us doubt that. None of us wants to see this practice continue. We all think that it is barbaric. However, although progress is being made, we have not yet, as we have heard, obtained a conviction. I ask the Minister to consider—I use that word very carefully—mandatory targeted examination. If one is considering it one is not necessarily saying that it is going to happen, but the fact that the Government say that they may need to consider it would send a message to families who might be considering cutting their children. They might suddenly realise that they could be held to account. As far as I can see, this is a win-win situation for the Government. Even if it stopped a handful of children being cut, it would have achieved something.

I shall keep my speech very short because I have previously gone on and on about the barbarity of the practice. We do not need to hear those arguments again because we all share the same feelings about the practice. I simply ask whether the Minister will consider the possible mandatory targeted examination of children.

13:13

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for highlighting this important area and giving us yet another opportunity to air some of these complex but vitally important matters. I pay tribute to her determination in trying to keep this issue in the public domain. I also thank Her Majesty’s Government for the splendid, recently published action plan. It is encouraging that many people want to make an impact on this problem, across all the parties. That is the secret. We need to get cross-party support and expand it much more widely.

Yesterday marked the end of a 16-day campaign, the origins of which lie with the Women’s Global Leadership Institute. The 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence campaign began on 25 November—the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women—and ended yesterday, 10 December, which was Human Rights Day. A specific part of this campaign is to target the ending of FGM.

Within my own sphere of operation within the Anglican Communion, the Mothers’ Union, which has more than 4 million members worldwide, has participated in this campaign. Indeed, in my own diocese of St Albans we have recently had a debate on gender-based violence, including the horror of FGM. In response to that, we have committed ourselves as a diocese to campaign on this issue and to try to raise it across all sorts of different bodies and groups. As a direct result of that and other initiatives, in the last few days I have tabled a number of Questions to Her Majesty’s Government on the subject of FGM.

This debate is specifically about encouraging prosecutions under the 2003 Act—something which, as we have already heard, has not so far been accomplished, although I understand that that may change shortly. I also note that under the Serious Crime Bill, which is now having its Second Reading in the other place, we have been beefing up the legislation in several areas relating to this. For example, the scope for prosecuting someone for assisting an offence of FGM overseas is being extended to all residents of the UK, not just permanent residents. There will be a guarantee of lifelong anonymity for anyone who is alleged to have been the victim of FGM, which is more likely to make victims feel willing to come forward. There will be a new offence of failing to protect a girl from risk of FGM on the part of someone with parental responsibility for her, and female genital mutilation protection orders will be introduced. Those are all things which I warmly welcome. It is intended that they will help to prevent vacation cutting, while allowing the child to stay with her family and not be taken into care.

I know that a number of your Lordships will share my regret that one amendment was lost earlier in the passage of that legislation. It sought to add to FGM protection orders the words:

“For the purpose of determining whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a girl or woman, it is immaterial whether she or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual”.

I did not take part in the debate at that stage but I understand that the amendment was rejected because some people believe that it is already covered in the 2003 Act. However, in my mind it highlights that, while we are busy trying to pass more legislation, somehow we are not getting convictions under the existing legislation. We have already heard that there have been a number of prosecutions in France, and I think that just last month there was a successful prosecution in Uganda. I found myself wondering whether what we need is not more legislation but to work out where the blocks are. In particular, for example, do we need to get people from the CPS to go to France to discover what the problems have been in working through this? Are there other blockages? If Uganda is achieving prosecution, surely it cannot be beyond our wit to do the same. If this is going on, it is clearly established, because the evidence is there in some cases. I hope that we can take a close look at why we do not seem to make more progress.

However, I want to underline that, as well as hoping to get prosecutions, we need to work really hard on changing culture. Law is a blunt instrument. We have loads of laws on drugs and substance abuse and we try to enforce them, but, in that and other areas, we need to keep trying to get behind the issue which is causing the problem in the first place. We need to look at how we can help those very often traditional societies. I hear the point being made by my noble friends about sending out signals, but in some of these communities very few people are able to speak English, some of them do not listen to any radio stations that we listen to, and some of them are not able to read what we would call a usual English newspaper. The question is whether some of these signals are being heard. I spent some years working in Walsall in the West Midlands in an area with a large number of people of other cultures. In many ways, they were quite separate from what we accepted as the norm. As well as making a push on convictions, which will send out a strong signal, I hope that we can find ways of engaging much more with the leaders of these communities.

It is very often, I am told—I have no direct experience of this—the older women in the communities who push for this as the norm; it is not just men who see this as an issue. In particular, we need community leaders who are willing to say publicly that they not only do not agree with it, but that they would be willing to marry someone who has not had FGM. There have been one or two such statements and these will dig right into the culture and help us move forward. So, as well as making a push on the legal opportunities, the prosecutions, I hope that we will not lose sight of some very useful material in the national action plan about dealing with cultural issues at the same time.

13:20

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this issue. On Tuesday the House debated judicial review and its importance in ensuring that Ministers act according to law. In a country without a Bill of Rights, this is an essential cog to uphold the rule of law, as the House decided overwhelmingly. In my short speech I talked about how a government department that I was responsible for reacted to an adverse decision of the courts, and the non-statutory inquiry I set up, as Attorney-General, following criticism of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service.

I am confident that the current Director of Public Prosecutions, whom I know, with her long experience of prosecuting, can be relied upon to fulfil the proper tests for prosecution: the public interest one and the evidential one. But you cannot make bricks without straw. I think that the public interest test is clear. However, there seems, from the paucity of prosecutions, to be substantial difficulties in the presentation of evidence. Do the difficulties lie with the families, with the victims, with the medical profession? If it is with the medical profession, where is the Hippocratic oath? If there is fault, where are the disciplinary procedures of the medical profession?

According to the Times, yesterday the Home Secretary said:

“Doctors who perform cosmetic vagina surgery could be committing a criminal offence”.

She added that that would be a matter for the courts to decide. However, if there are hardly any cases for the courts to decide, how is the rule of law being complied with? The Home Secretary also said that,

“prosecutions were already possible under 2003 legislation which strengthened the ban on FGM”.

Well, it is good to know the obvious. In my view, it is high time that there was a high-powered inquiry, with the co-operation of the medical profession, as to where and what the problem is.

In my time as Attorney-General I had regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions, week in, week out, when we discussed significant and important cases. However, the decision to prosecute or not was for the DPP alone. Given the concern that so few cases are coming before the courts, and that there are prima facie cases that the rule of law is being flouted, how many times has the issue been raised in the regular meetings of the Attorney-General and the director? I have no doubt, given the significance of concern over this issue, that had I been in that chair, I would have raised it with my DPP, and I am sure that my DPPs would have raised it with me.

13:24

[Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, not just for raising this issue but for raising it again and again. We appreciate that because it reminds us all that we still have not done very much about this problem. I can remember in the early 1990s my very first clinical experience of this, so it is as recent as that. A patient had come to me for advice because she was planning to get married. She was a very intelligent girl, at university, from Somalia as it happens, and we know now that that is where the practice goes on. She came and I examined her and I honestly did not know what I was looking at. I did not know whether she had a congenital abnormality or what, and she told me about FGM. The patient herself explained it to me. In all the years of obstetric, gynaecological and general medical training and all the practice I had had up to that time I had never seen a case or heard about it. I think that really shows how recent the problem is, even for the medical profession.

In 2000, when I was in the other place, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health produced a report. We did a survey of attitudes to try to find out what was going on in this country. Out of the 240 doctors, nurses, clinics, schools and a range of facilities that we asked, we had only a 22% response. People just did not know about it. That was 14 years ago. Here I must pay another tribute to the NGO Forward which is headed by Naana Otoo-Oyortey because she, like the noble Baroness, has never left this subject alone. She comes back to us time and again. That survey showed there was very little knowledge and training, despite the fact that in 2002 and 2003 Ann Clwyd, whose Private Members’ Bill I supported, extended the prohibition to the practice of girls being taken abroad to have this done. Despite all of this and despite the efforts of the noble Baroness and others, by 2012 there were still no prosecutions in the UK.

A meeting was arranged with Keir Starmer in 2012, the then Director of Public Prosecutions, who was extremely enthusiastic and got a big group of people together to investigate why there were no prosecutions, and this action plan has been carried through by his successor. So things have been done at all levels. At the Girl Summit the Prime Minister said he was committed to prosecutions. Again this year the Serious Crime Bill, as we have heard, is planning to extend prosecutions to people who are habitually resident here and not normally resident. I expect the lawyers to explain the distinction to me. So things are happening all the time on this. Also this year we have been assured that information has been sent and training given to schools, doctors, nurses and midwives. Midwives are especially important because girls who had this mutilation at a very young age are now having babies and coming to our maternity hospitals and obstetric departments to have their babies, so that is a point when we can identify that they had it done. They are not necessarily very old.

Despite all this, and the passage of the summer holidays when we know girls have been taken abroad to have this torture done—there is no other way of describing it—we have no prosecutions. What has happened to mandatory reporting? Was it not going to be a duty of doctors, teachers, nurses and other groups to report it if they discovered a girl who had this done? How is the training of professionals progressing? What plans are there for prosecuting community leaders and even family members? As the Bishop mentioned, grannies like me in other cultures and societies will be the people who will be promoting traditional practices. What plans are there for prosecuting those people?

I have written here, because I was angry when I was writing it this morning, “Stop pussyfooting around”. I apologise for the language, but we really have got to stop it. All the child protection legislation that we have had over the years surely covers this. It is the most grotesque form of child abuse. It is horrible and violent. It causes untold physical damage to a woman and, we should remember, a huge charge on the National Health Service. We must remember all these things. Surely the legislation is already there, as it is child abuse. If a family member sexually abuses a young girl, he goes to prison. Why does he not in this case? It should be the same for FGM.

We do not need to have the child as a witness standing in court. It is the parents’ responsibility and if this has happened to the child, my view is that those parents should be prosecuted. I know that it will cause terrible hardship, fear and damage to a few families but maybe we have to have a few families go through this to make the point that it is illegal. It is grotesque child abuse. It must not happen and we must see a stop to it.

13:30

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the tributes paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, first, for giving us the opportunity to have what has been a very thoughtful debate on this issue and, secondly, for her tireless campaigning on an issue that—let us be honest—is so awful that most of us do not even want to think about it. However, we have to think about it and take action on it so her campaigning, and the way that she has drawn the wider public’s attention to this issue, is something that she should be very proud of and we are very grateful for.

I also welcome the Minister who is responding to this debate. As we have heard, there have been some debates that were responded to by the Department of Health. During the many debates on the changes that we were making to legislation on the Serious Crime Bill, it was the Home Office responding. It is appropriate that we also have a response from the Ministry of Justice, as there are specific issues related to that department. That just shows how important it is for those three departments, and others, to work together and be co-ordinated on this.

The scale of this problem is hard to comprehend. We have had some figures from the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, but there are thousands of young women and girls in this country who have been mutilated. For those who think that it happens somewhere else over there, it does not; it is happening here. There could be a young girl somewhere in the UK today who is being mutilated. It is that serious. The euphemism that we sometimes use of girls being “cut” belies the horror of what is really involved, which I think is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. It was right that the noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge and Lady Rendell, were also clear about the horrors of what is involved. When we spoke about this in debate on the Serious Crime Bill, I think that I was the first person to appear on “Yesterday in Parliament” in a programme that was given a certificate and a warning before it went out. I thought that it was important to say exactly what is involved, and in somewhat embarrassing graphic detail.

We are talking about thousands of young girls and women. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, made the point about these girls having children. It is estimated that up to 60,000 girls have been born in England and Wales to mothers who had FGM, which means that they have been sealed up after they have been cut and that the process of birth, where they have to be operated on beforehand, is extremely difficult. Whatever the numbers, we are talking about thousands. The process known as infibulation sounds quite a normal word for something that will continue to cause pain and trauma throughout the life of that woman. It is a mutilation that leaves permanent scars, on the mind as well as on the body.

The lack of prosecutions should concern us all. It would be fine if we thought that there was a lack of prosecutions because the law had been so successful that it was preventing this happening. However, we know that that is not the case and that thousands of young girls every year undergo FGM here in the UK.

I would like to raise two issues because it seems to me that the purpose of legislation here is twofold. We have such legislation in place, first, to try to prevent such mutilation occurring and, secondly, to take action against those who break the law. We had discussions in debate on the Serious Crime Bill on female genital mutilation orders, which the Government introduced in response to our proposals for such orders. They seek to protect young women from this vile practice before it happens, so they are similar to the forced marriage orders in their aim being prevention. By recognising all the problems in getting evidence for a criminal prosecution, they take the route that this is a civil measure to protect a young girl rather than a criminal measure.

The Minister was not in the debate because it was not his Bill, but I am sure that he will be aware of the discussions that we had. We have concerns about the process that the Government have chosen. Rather than placing such orders clearly and firmly in family law in a civil process, they are placed in a civil process within criminal law. I will not go into the detail now but all the advice that we have received from lawyers with expertise in this field tells us that this will make the gain of such an order more difficult, for some of the reasons that we have explained before. That is part of why we have had a lack of prosecutions for those who have committed FGM.

The Minister’s experience will tell him that lawyers dealing with family court cases and issues are not the same as those who deal with criminal law. We welcome the orders that prevent this happening and we welcome the Government’s support, but we just want them to be as effective as they possibly can be, because a child’s future depends on us getting this right. We want to ensure that there are no barriers for someone to seek an order to protect a young girl from being mutilated. We want to make it as easy and straightforward as possible, without any loopholes or problems. So before the Serious Crime Bill finishes its passage through Parliament, could the Minister bring his legal expertise to look again at this issue to ensure that we have got it right, because we have serious doubts that the orders as currently proposed will get as many prosecutions as they could if they were wholly within family law courts and not within a criminal prosecution, although it is a civil measure?

[Lord Faulks]

Does the noble Baroness mean orders rather than prosecutions?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am not talking about prosecutions—I am talking about the FGM orders that are currently civil orders that the Government have placed within criminal law to keep all FGM legislation the same. It is a very different process from prosecuting afterwards.

My second point is that we wanted these FGM orders to be based on the same principles as forced marriage orders, which have been significantly successful. One aspect on which I sought clarity from the Minister at Third Reading—I have also spoken privately to the Minister and have not yet got an answer—is whether legal aid would be made available for those seeking an FGM order as it currently is with forced marriage orders? The Minister was unclear on that in the House and although I have spoken to him since it seems that there is still a lack of clarity in the Government over whether these orders would attract legal aid. It seems impossible to me that they could proceed in any way without legal aid.

During the passage of the LASPO Bill, because of the changes made to legal aid by the Government, there was a specific provision was made for forced marriage orders, in paragraph 16 to Schedule 1. No such provision has yet been made for FGM orders. I find it strange that the Government would consider bringing in such orders without providing these young girls or those acting on their behalf to prevent them being mutilated with the ability to bring something before the courts and have legal aid. Are the Government intending to make legal aid available? If not, or if the position remains unclear, how does the Minister expect the orders to be obtained and how many does he think that there will be?

We do not think that the Government are wrong on the orders. On prosecutions, we believe that they share our objectives to stamp out this practice and hold those responsible to account. We believe that that is a genuine commitment from the Government. However, the laws that we have at the moment are not working as well as they should, or were intended to do. We have an opportunity in the Serious Crime Bill to make changes and get it right, but as the right reverend Prelate said, we need to have a cultural change as well. If it was made clear that successful prosecutions could be made under the existing law, that would help to drive a cultural change. If the expectation was that this was something that could be prosecuted, that would have an impact in those communities.

We all want to see those responsible for mutilating the genitals of young girls being prosecuted, and we want to see this twin-track approach whereby we prevent it happening in the first place and make a difference to the lives of these girls.

13:39

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for securing this important debate and for introducing it so effectively and economically. The fact that she has returned to this subject so many times is a tribute to her tenacity on what is such an important issue for all of us. This issue is very much in the news now; coverage of it has exploded. However, that was a long time coming and is due to many people, including those such as the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, who have kept the matter high on the agenda, and I pay tribute to her and to other speakers who have an equal interest in this important subject.

There is, I think, complete agreement that this is an abhorrent crime that affects some of the most vulnerable girls and women in our society. The Government are committed to preventing and ending the harmful and unacceptable practice. I agree that successful prosecutions are a key part of stamping out FGM and would send out a strong message on the rule of law, something to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, referred. There is a prosecution due in January. It is probably not appropriate to comment on what one hopes the outcome of the case would be, but, whatever happens, the publicity that will attend that prosecution should, I hope, send a strong message in itself.

The DPP announced the first prosecutions of FGM in March of this year. The first defendant is charged with carrying out FGM. The second defendant is charged with intentionally encouraging an offence of FGM and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring an offence. I am sure that it is a source of frustration to all noble Lords that while FGM has been a specific criminal offence for 29 years—the original Act—no prosecutions were brought. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, played a significant part in the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. The Female Genital Mutilation Act, which she steered through this House, extended significantly the protection that the law affords to victims of this unacceptable practice. The Act created extraterritorial offences to deter people from taking girls abroad, and, to reflect the serious harm caused, it increased the maximum penalty for any of the female genital mutilation offences from five to 14 years.

However, there has been increasing public concern at the failure to achieve a successful prosecution. Records indicate that no cases were referred to the CPS for a decision on whether to bring proceedings until 2010. In the last couple of years, a small number of cases have been reported to the police, which they have duly investigated. Some of those cases have since been referred by the police to the CPS for advice. However, the prevalence of FGM here—a study, part-funded by the Government and published in July 2014, revealed that approximately 60,000 girls are at risk of FGM in the UK—clearly should give rise to far more investigations and prosecutions than are taking place.

The CPS can, of course, only consider prosecuting cases of FGM which have been referred to it by the police following an investigation. However, the real problem has always been persuading victims to come forward at all. There are a number of challenges faced by the police in investigating cases of FGM. Many victims may be too young or vulnerable, or too afraid to report offences or to give evidence in court. As referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, the consequence of giving evidence and coming forward can be complete ostracisation from family or community: they may seem to pay a very high price. There may be evidential problems and other difficulties if cases are reported many years after the event. And of course FGM may take place out of the jurisdiction, leading to challenges in obtaining reliable and admissible evidence.

The CPS has been working closely with the Government, police, medical professionals and the third sector to address some of these challenges, and is now in a much stronger position to bring successful prosecutions against those who perpetrate this practice. The DPP wrote to the Ministry of Justice and to Home Office Ministers in February 2014 proposing changes to strengthen the legislation. The proposals were informed by a review of cases referred to the CPS by the police in which prosecutors had been unable to charge and prosecute. A number of areas were identified in which legislation could be strengthened.

As has already been mentioned, in July 2014, the Prime Minister hosted the UK’s first Girl Summit. At the summit, a package of measures was announced, including commitments to strengthen the law and improve the enforcement response. There has been reference to legislative changes included in the Serious Crime Bill. While I readily concede that legislation is not of itself the answer, it is nevertheless important that there is the appropriate legislative framework. Some of the cases referred to the CPS highlighted, in the context to which I referred earlier, that a prosecution for FGM committed abroad could not be brought if those involved were not, at the material time, permanent UK residents as defined in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Clause 67, which was included on its introduction, extended the reach to habitual as well as permanent UK residents. Many textbooks have been written about the different between “habitually” and “permanent”. I will not deal with the issue now, but it certainly covers those who seek to say that they were not permanently resident here. This means that it will in future be possible to prosecute a non-UK national for an offence under Sections 1 to 3 of the 2003 Act where that person is only habitually resident in this country.

More amendments were added on Report. It was thought that victims were reluctant to come forward because they did not want to be identified in the media, so lifelong anonymity is granted by Clause 68. We hope that will help to encourage people. I pay tribute to those who are courageous enough not only to come forward but to identify themselves—there are one or two. We hope that that will be followed.

Clause 69 creates a new offence of failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM and would make someone who has parental responsibility for a girl who has been mutilated aged under 16, and is in frequent contact with her, or who has assumed responsibility for such a girl, potentially liable if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a significant risk of FGM.

Of course, we are very keen to see the criminal law being used, but ideally one would want to prevent FGM happening at all. So, following a consultation launched at the Girl Summit, Clause 70 introduces the civil order referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to protect those at risk of FGM. She said that she is concerned that in the particular court in which such an order can be obtained the relevant experience may not be there for those who might seek an order and it would be better obtained elsewhere. We will consider that matter and I will pass on the concern that she has expressed. However, what is important is that wherever it is appropriate to seek such an order there is the relevant experience. We will work with the legal profession and others to ensure that the provisions are widely publicised and understood so that they can be proceeded with.

The noble Baroness asked about legal aid. I inquired specifically on this. The position is that we are considering the question of legal aid. I hear what she says about that. It is a matter which will be considered, I hope, in short order.

Safeguarding professionals are key to reporting FGM. The Government have committed to consult on how best to introduce a new mandatory reporting duty to ensure professionals report cases of FGM to the police. Alerting the police to actual cases will allow them to investigate the facts of each case and increase the number of perpetrators apprehended.

The CPS has appointed lead FGM prosecutors for each CPS area in England and Wales and local police/CPS FGM investigation protocols have been agreed with the 42 police force areas. That deals to some extent with the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the need to skill up prosecutors and the police to make sure that there is not just legislation but some practical understanding of the problems that are to be confronted here.

The Government have published multiagency practice guidelines on FGM, highlighting the risk factors that teachers, nurses, GPs, police officers and social workers should be looking out for during their work—matters on which the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, was keen to establish we were making progress. We are supporting and funding community engagement work to raise awareness of the issue. We are ensuring that NHS acute hospitals routinely record information relating to FGM and use it to support social services and police, as well as sharing it to provide appropriate healthcare for girls and women.

The Home Office has launched an e-learning tool so that all practitioners are able to undertake an introduction to FGM. There are reforms to social work, education and practice to protect children from FGM and other forms of abuse. There is also work to tackle FGM internationally, and DfID has announced a £35 million programme. The right reverend Prelate referred to our response to the Select Committee’s report and the action plan. I think that all noble Lords will agree that we have done all we can to grapple with this issue, although progress is frustratingly slow.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked whether this country was in some way particularly attractive to those who might wish to perpetrate this crime on young girls. Of course, one of the problems is that this is a largely hidden crime. However, the Government are committed to trying to stamp it out. They do not keep data on this matter but we are convinced that what we are doing will not do anything other than discourage it because of all the publicity and the various steps that we are taking.

As to the question of compulsory examinations, which the noble Lord raised on a previous occasion, I understand why he thinks that that is important. At the moment, the Government are not convinced that introducing medical examinations to identify FGM should be compulsory. I say “at the moment”; there are no current plans but the Government’s mind is not closed to these things. However, I do not want to mislead Parliament or the noble Lord by saying that they are actively considering that course.

There is very active engagement with foreign jurisdictions. We are learning from other countries, including France and common law jurisdictions in Australia.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned discussions between the DPP and law officers. As he will well know, they have regular meetings on a range of matters, including violence against women and girls. There was reference to Keir Starmer and his interest. Although I do not have personal knowledge of this, I am sure that such conversations continue under the current Government, and we know that there is a trial coming up in January.

I know that there was a debate about whether there should be a new criminal offence of inciting or encouraging FGM generally, as opposed to specifically. At the moment—indeed, it is the subject of one of the prosecutions—the Government think that prosecutions should relate to a particular offence rather than more generally, but I entirely take the point that it is important that community leaders outlaw this. Following the Girl Summit, 350 community and faith leaders from all major religions have condemned this practice, and we hope that that will continue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quite rightly pointed to the fact that this issue goes across government. Of course, the Department of Health, DfID, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the MoJ, the Solicitor-General and the Department for Education are all concerned with this. There are regular meetings, an FGM unit has been established at the Home Office, and the Government’s cross-government strategy is contained—

[Baroness Tonge]

I see that the Minister is drawing to a conclusion but I am bursting to ask him a question. Does he agree that female genital mutilation is grotesque child abuse? Therefore, why do we have to have all this extra wrapping around it? Why can it not just be dealt with like child abuse? I have had children brought to me in my clinics where teachers have suspected that sexual abuse has been going on. Why cannot the same thing happen with FGM? Why is it all so peculiar?

[Lord Faulks]

I do not think there is anything peculiar about it. There is no doubt that it is a criminal offence. In fact, France does not have a specific offence of genital mutilation; it simply has offences of assault and the like. Whether it is sexual abuse, assault or FGM, it is a criminal offence. So there is no special precaution about this. One of the points correctly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, is that we have left the exaggerated respect for cultural norms and traditions and we hear no more about that, I am glad to say.

Across departments, the Government are committed to doing everything we can to stamp this out. We hope its prosecution is a success, that more people come forward and that a complete consensus can be established to stamp out this abhorrent practice. This has been a passionate and well informed debate. The Government fully understand the concerns expressed here and outside and are resolutely committed to fighting FGM.

13:56

Sitting suspended.

Sharia Law

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

14:00

Asked by

[Baroness Flather]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of Sharia law in the United Kingdom, particularly on women.

[Baroness Flather (CB)]

My Lords, I have waited a long time to have the opportunity to bring this issue to at least some of your Lordships’ notice. I am extremely concerned about what is happening to British Muslim women. It is not about religious freedom or what we are trying to change, but what is happening in the everyday lives of British Muslim women. If we cannot protect British women, whether they are Muslim or not, then we are not providing the right kind of help.

In 2010, when we were discussing the Equality Bill, I tried to table an amendment to try to stop Sharia law impacting on women’s lives. I was told then that it was too late and if I brought this new topic into the Bill it would be likely that the Bill would fall. I had a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and several telephone conversations with her. I still have the letter. She said, “We will look at this seriously. Do not table the amendment. We will take it up later and look at it”. I had constant telephone calls from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He was then an adviser to Gordon Brown. He said, “Don’t worry, we will at look at this. We will look into what is happening to the women”. I am still waiting. They did nothing. I tried very hard to remind them that they had given me this undertaking—well, they would not call it an undertaking; it was about stopping my amendment. Since then I have spoken to Ken Clarke and he said, “Well, you know, it is their choice if they choose to go to Sharia councils”. Yes, it is their choice, and they do go—and my noble friend Lady Cox will talk more about choice. But a choice can be made only if you know what the choices are. A choice cannot be made if you are told, “This is your choice”. It was very short-sighted of Ken Clarke not to look into it.

I also had discussions with the Ministry of Justice, particularly about the Sharia councils. As your Lordships probably know, there are now more than 80 Sharia councils. As far as I know, they are not trained lawyers. I think they are imams who have some training. The decisions—please correct me anybody who knows more—are ad hoc on that particular case. There is no record kept. Nobody knows what previous decisions have been. Nobody knows what the next decision will be. So women cannot get a divorce—the councils put them off and put them off. This was also shown in a programme on television where a woman went every year to try to get a divorce but she could not. Some women, of course, have a registered marriage, which means that they are subject to British law and can get a British divorce, and they do. The problem there is if they go to an Islamic country their husband can come and claim the children. This, of course, is unacceptable to the mothers. In any case with Sharia, a seven year-old boy is given to the wife; girls are given at puberty. If the woman marries somebody else, it could be worse.

The retired Bishop of Rochester, who has studied Sharia, has said clearly that Sharia is discriminatory against women, not only in relation to marriage and children, but in most aspects. A woman’s status does not come up to more than half that of a man. Two women have to give evidence to equal a man’s evidence. When a Sharia will is made, a woman gets half of what a man gets. This is happening in our country today, here and now, and we are letting it happen. It is not fair: these women have come here to be with their husbands; they have been allowed to live here legally. We women spent the whole of last century trying to change women’s lives. We wanted equality—we are still fighting for it, but at least we do not have all these things happening to us.

I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, who said that we need to work with the Sharia councils. I suppose she means that it is work in progress, but I have not heard anything about what work has been done with the Sharia councils. The most important thing, if we cannot do without them, is that records should be kept. If they keep records, then we can look at the records and see whether there is a similarity between cases, or whether different things are happening in different ways. These women have no support from the community or the family, and only a third of women have their marriages registered, because the men work hard not to get the marriages registered.

It helps men in these ways. Polygamy allows them to have two or three wives. Many women have said that they were absolutely taken aback to find that the man had two or three wives already. They have control over custody of the children. They do not need to provide any financial support, and there is plenty of evidence that no support has been provided for the women. They cannot be charged with bigamy, because the other women are also not registered—they are just women in the household. I think that this is absolute abuse of the British system and it has to be looked at very carefully.

If a man brings a woman into this country as his wife, it should be legally essential for him to register that woman as his wife. Then, when the next wife comes, at least we will know how many wives he has. Your Lordships may remember that I said some time ago that we should not give benefits for an unlimited number of children, since those people who are in work cannot afford more than one or two children. At that time I did a radio interview and a man said, “I have three wives”. The interviewer asked him, “How do you manage three wives?” He said, “It is on a rota basis”. There are wives living separately from the household. One woman—my noble friend Lady Cox will talk about this further—says that she lives in the household, but she gets benefits which are used to pay the mortgage for the house. There is so much going on under the surface.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, feels that this is a religious matter. No, it is not a religious matter. It is not about praying to God. Did God really make us half as good as a man? We do not believe that any more. Maybe at one time people did believe that, but we are not half of a man. We are also people; we are also persons. I think that if Muslims come to this country, and if they bring a wife—or a husband—the marriage must be registered. Even just doing that will change many things in the system. Once the marriages are registered, the men will be subject to a charge of bigamy and subject to having to pay maintenance to the wife if they divorce her.

Another thing, of course, is that a man can divorce a woman by saying, “I divorce you”. I cannot understand how we can accept that today. Maybe 600 or 700 years ago it was fine, but it is not fine in this country today. Communities are moving backwards. Things are happening in schools which are unacceptable. They are trying to segregate girls and boys. In Birmingham there was a takeover of schools and Leicester University decided that girls and boys would sit separately when somebody came to speak to them. What is so amazing is that the university council said this was all right. Well, it is not all right; none of this is all right. We need to protect all British women, whether or not they are Muslim.

14:10

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, I start by apologising for the fact that I may not sound completely coherent today. I am suffering from a migraine and not able to see my notes properly, so I am going to have to guess at what I was going to say. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, for calling this debate as it is an important subject to be discussed but I urge her to read back the speech that she just made in Hansard. I say that because it is important for us to work out what it is that we are debating here today. If we are debating a series of headlines which regularly appear in the Daily Mail about what may have happened around the country, then that is a completely different debate. Invariably, as we have found out, those newspapers are incredibly good at headlines but carry very little factually. I urge the noble Baroness to look at a fantastic programme made by Peter Oborne—

[Baroness Flather]

The noble Baroness says I am relying on headlines and newspaper reports. I am not. There is so much evidence which has been collected by various researchers and taken from women. These are their own stories and views; this is not about headlines. I am sorry, I cannot accept that. It is an easy-peasy way to put it down.

[Baroness Warsi]

I urge the noble Baroness to listen to an incredibly interesting programme by Peter Oborne, “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim”, where he unpicks some of these stories about takeovers in Birmingham, girls and boys at Leicester University, et cetera.

Let me take this back to what I think it is about: a distinction between Sharia and Sharia law. Sharia exists in the United Kingdom in our multicultural society. Noble Lords will be aware that only this year Britain announced to a loud fanfare that we had become the first western country in the world to issue sukuks—Islamic, Sharia-compliant bonds with which we raise funds to finance government, among other things. We announced that we would put in place Sharia-compliant student loans, start-up loans and home loans to ensure that the Muslim community could take full advantage of the opportunities this country has to offer. We have Sharia in the form of dietary requirements, with clear responsibilities in relation to halal and to shechita under Jewish law. We have very clear Sharia responsibilities in relation to births and deaths—for example, the way in which circumcisions are conducted in hospitals around this country in accordance with people’s religious rights. Sharia, like other religious practices, is therefore an everyday part of British life and has been for many years.

However, what I think we are debating today is whether we have Sharia law. As I am sure the Minister will answer, we do not. We have one system of law in England and Wales; it is English law, and that is paramount. Even within Sharia law as those discussions go—predominantly those discussions in the Daily Mail—there are two distinctions. There is a civil aspect and a criminal aspect. A criminal penal code has never been part of a discussion in the United Kingdom but civil practices have been, predominantly in domestic situations when marriages break down, and so-called Sharia councils have been set up as an alternative arbitration system for people to resolve their disputes.

The most important point that the noble Baroness makes is that all women in this country deserve the same protection, irrespective of their religion. The noble Baroness says that this is an abuse of the system. My argument would be that it is a failure of the system that Muslim women find themselves having to go before Sharia councils, because the mainstream system in the form of the civil courts does not allow them the support and protections that they deserve.

Dealing with it on that basis, we must look at what the mischief is. It is that Muslim women are not protected in the same way as other women when their marriages break down. There is a simple answer to that: recognise their marriage. That would deal with the mischief and meet all the concerns that the noble Baroness raises today. If I conduct a Muslim marriage with a Muslim man which is recognised under English law, I am afforded exactly the same protections as any other woman who conducts a marriage in this country. This means that when my marriage breaks down, I do not have to go to a Sharia council but to the civil courts. That option has been presented to both this Government and previous Governments. It is a simple amendment which can be made to allow for the recognition of such marriages. It would mean, effectively, that if any further religious marriage were conducted, the man would be charged with bigamy. Both would be legally recognised and we would therefore have the evidential basis on which to put a case of bigamy. That is what it boils down to.

If the Government can formally recognise a nikah in the way in which many government papers have submitted that it is possible to do, we will deal with this issue. If, despite having that civil protection, system and recognition, there is still a thirst out there for alternative dispute resolution, let us make sure that the alternative dispute resolution has a code of conduct, that there is a sense of training and education for people who take part in it and that it is properly monitored. Let us also make it clear that the alternative dispute resolution option is subject to English law. That is the way in which we can deal with this issue, without any reference to the plethora of other issues which are not part of this debate.

14:16

[Baroness Cox (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Flather on initiating this debate on a very important subject. I appreciate the way in which she opened it. She did not rely on headlines but on some very substantive issues. I take the distinction made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, between Sharia and Sharia law. Sharia is much wider. It contains many aspects of ways of life, including times of prayer and so on, and no one can take issue with those. However, what we are looking at today are those aspects of Sharia law which adversely affect women in this country.

I take this opportunity to raise some of the concerns that are reflected in my Private Member’s Bill, which is currently in your Lordships’ House, with particular reference to aspects of religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination and threats to the fundamental principle of liberal democracy and of one law for all. However, first I emphasise my primary and fundamental commitment to the essential freedom: freedom of religion and belief, as enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I do so as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief.

There may be various institutions and aspects of different faith traditions which embody gender discrimination, both in policies and practices. If women are aware of the implications of these discriminations, make an informed choice and are happy to accept these provisions then they have every right to do so. However, where women and girls involuntarily suffer as a result of such policies and practices, this should be a matter of concern in a country committed to the eradication of unacceptable gender discrimination and the promotion of gender equality.

The concerns that I will highlight in this debate are associated with the fundamental tenets inherent in many interpretations of Sharia law, which are inherently discriminatory with regard to provisions for men and women. The establishment of Sharia courts or councils in this country has promoted the application of such gender-discriminatory provisions in ways which are currently causing considerable distress for many women. I am not relying on headlines but on talking to Muslim women and their organisations.

These provisions include unequal access to divorce. As has already been said, in many situations a husband can obtain a divorce merely by saying “I divorce you” three times. Women, on the other hand, have to obtain permission from a religious authority, often a Sharia council or court, and they may have to pay and fulfil other conditions. Sometimes their husbands will not give them money, so they are trapped in the marriage. One Muslim lady described to me how, in theory, she knew she could obtain a divorce. However, she had to pay for it and, as she could not obtain the money—her husband would not give it to her—she felt as though she was in a room with an open door to freedom, but tied to a chair so that she could not walk out of that door to enjoy that freedom. Conversely, the husband usually does not have to pay anything to obtain his divorce.

Another lady, a devout Muslim, described how her husband had divorced her. When she asked her imam for a divorce, he told her that she must bring her marriage certificate, but this was in her husband’s possession. When she asked for it, he told her that it was with his family, back in their country of origin. When her family there went to his family to ask for the certificate, they beat her younger brother because she was bringing shame on the family by asking for a divorce. She is a devout Muslim, so she will not remarry without a religiously-sanctioned divorce. She is trapped and, several years later, still very lonely in this country. When I asked an imam from a major mosque why a man does not have to pay, and indicated that it takes two people to divorce, I never received a reply.

Another problem for many Muslim women is their lack of knowledge regarding the implications of having only a religious marriage, without an accompanying legally registered civil marriage. This leaves them and their children without any rights in law if they are divorced. Many say that they are not told that their religious marriage does not simultaneously provide for a legal marriage, while others say that their husbands-to-be and/or the families discourage them from obtaining a legal marriage. Of course, this leaves the husband free to practise polygamy without breaking the law against bigamy. Another aspect of gender discrimination which often applies in the practice of Sharia law relates to polygamy. A husband is entitled to take up to four wives, provided he takes responsibility for making appropriate provision for them all.

[Baroness Warsi]

May I ask a question?

[Baroness Cox]

No, I am sorry; this is a timed debate. If I have time at the end, I will answer.

In many Muslim communities in this country polygamy is commonplace, although in this nation bigamy is legally forbidden. A report written by a courageous Muslim woman named Habiba Jaan, Equal and Free? 50 Muslim Women’s Experiences of Marriage in Britain Today, has just been published. In this report, Habiba describes the marital situation of 50 Muslim women in the West Midlands. Two-thirds of those who are married are in polygamous marriages. Some say that they did not know that they were a second or third wife when they were married. Of these, almost all said that their husbands fail to provide them with financial support, in contravention of Islamic teaching. Many of these women are desperately unhappy.

A related aspect of these practices of polygamy and unequal access to divorce is the number of children which one man may have. Several Muslim women have told me that men in their communities may each have up to 20 children. This clearly paves the way for children to grow up in dysfunctional families. Those children may become very vulnerable to disaffection, marginalisation and potential radicalisation.

My Private Member’s Bill, the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, seeks to address some of these problems by trying to ensure that women know their rights under law in this country, as well as by providing more protection for victims of domestic violence and outlawing the operation of quasi-legal courts. In another initiative last year, I moved an amendment to what was then the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. This would have made it a requirement for the celebrant of any religious marriage which does not also provide for a legally registered marriage to ensure that both parties to the marriage are aware of the implications of that. The importance of a legal marriage was also alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. For some reason which I fail to understand, the Government did not accept that amendment.

The heart-wrenching, award-winning documentary film “Banaz: A Love Story” depicts the true story of a young girl who was murdered by men in her family for bringing what they saw as shame on the family. A disturbing aspect of that film was the failure of the police to provide protection for Banaz, despite her having made several visits to the police station to seek help. The Government do not support my Private Member’s Bill or my amendment, on the grounds that they are unnecessary because every citizen in this country ostensibly has access to the law of our land. However, this implies that every citizen knows their rights, and this is clearly not the case. It also ignores the reality that many closed communities can put a great deal of pressure on families and individuals not to bring what they deem to be shame on the community.

The chasm between the Government’s de jure position and the de facto reality for so many women and girls in this country today is resulting in widespread suffering, intimidation and such gender discrimination as would make the suffragettes turn in their graves. I hope that in the Palace of Westminster, where there are memorials to those suffragettes for their achievements in obtaining votes for women at a very high price, our modern-day Parliament will not betray their sacrifices or their achievements. While respecting freedom of religion and cultural diversity, I do not believe that we should allow that freedom to override the law of our land or to deny women the knowledge of their rights and their freedom—genuine freedom—to access those rights. At present, we are looking the other way while many women are suffering in our country. That is documented by Muslim women, not by headlines I have read. We have responsibility in our country to protect and promote fundamental freedoms and gender equality. At the moment, we are seriously failing to do so.

[Baroness Warsi]

Perhaps I may come back on one issue that the noble Baroness raised. Does she accept that if we simply recognised a Muslim marriage—a nikah—as a legal marriage, it would deal with all the issues that she has raised today?

[Baroness Cox]

I thank the noble Baroness because that is just the point that I was making. It is more than the point I was making, because I have been told that that has not been deemed acceptable at the moment. We have raised it in many discussions and I would strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, if that could be accepted. The related point that I raised in my speech is that if any religious marriage—I am not talking only about Islamic marriages—does not bring in at the same time a legally registered marriage, the woman ought at least to know the implications of not having a legally registered marriage. At the moment, they do not even know. They are often told by their families that it is a legally registered marriage or think that if it is carried out in the UK, it will bring a legally registered marriage. At the moment, they are in a state of ignorance. The amendment that I moved would go one step towards remedying that situation so that they would at least know. They would not necessarily have freedom of choice because of the pressures put on them by families and local communities, but it would be one step. If the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, were to become an amendment I would support it wholeheartedly.

14:26

[Baroness King of Bow (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to touch on three areas during this debate: first, the areas where there are clearly no conflicts between the use of Sharia courts and the law of this land; secondly, the areas where there clearly are conflicts between the use of Sharia courts and the law of the land; and, thirdly—and I realise that this will be disappointing to some people in the debate—is the unfortunate conflation which I often hear between Sharia law, religious extremism and persistent forms of Islamophobia.

I start by saying that I admire virtually all the world’s great religions because, by and large, their original prophets exhorted their followers to be peaceful, empathetic and active citizens who treat others with humanity and humility. That is the theory. Nowhere is this clearer than in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and those around him at the birth of Islam. Personally, I wish that we listened more to what they had said, rather than less. I am Jewish—I should say that I am a Jewish atheist—but I studied Islam at university. I was very surprised to find that, as it turns out, by the standards of his time, the Prophet Muhammad was basically a raving feminist when looking at the situation surrounding him in the 7th century. The Prophet would never sanction what has been done in his name in recent times, whether to women in this or any other country, or what is happening at the moment to the enemies of Islamic State.

The disciple closest to Muhammad was his cousin, Ali ibn Abi Talib, who Muhammad himself brought up and who was the first person to convert to Islam. I mention him because he is considered one of the foremost experts in Islamic jurisprudence, which is what we are debating today. It is amazing to look at the letter that he wrote to the emissary he was sending to govern Egypt in 658 AD, because it is a lesson to us all today. It holds lessons for us when considering the conflicting views in this debate. On the selection of a chief justice to deliver judgments in legal disputes, he gave the following instruction. He said that he should choose,

“one who cannot be intimidated … one who is not self-centred or avaricious, one who will not decide before knowing the full facts, one who will weigh with care every attendant doubt … who will examine with patience every new disclosure of fact and who will be strictly impartial in his decision, one who flattery cannot mislead”.

With regard to having patience at the disclosure of every fact, I was interested to hear the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, regarding marriage. That is a very important thing to consider.

On bloodshed, he said—again, one can only wish that the leaders of Islamic State would follow Ali ibn Abi Talib’s commands:

“Beware! Abstain from shedding blood without a valid cause. There is nothing more harmful than this which brings about one’s ruin. The blood that is wilfully shed shortens the life of a state. On the Day of Judgment it is this crime for which one will have to answer first. So, beware! Do not wish to build the strength of your state on blood ... Before me and my God no excuse for wilful killing can be entertained”.

Given that the founders of Islam were so keen that Muslims were fair and just, and that they built their legal system on fair and just principles, why is there such uproar about Sharia in Britain today? Why does it so often seem that so much of our debate is governed by the Daily Mail? We have to weigh that Islamophobic hysteria against the problems and discrimination that have been shown to exist towards women within some rulings of some Sharia councils.

The obvious point is that, although Sharia gave women in the seventh and eighth centuries more entitlements than they previously had, today in some areas of Sharia, such as inheritance and divorce, it gives them less entitlement. As we all agree, everyone in Britain must be equal before the law. Thus, wherever Sharia does not conflict with this requirement, Muslims should have exactly the same rights as other religious groups in Britain, such as Christians and Jews, to seek guidance from institutions within their respective faith. At the same time, equally obviously, they must always have the right to take any dispute to a British court. I do not think that any of us disagree on that.

It is important to flag up that Sharia is different things to different people. Different Islamic sects interpret Sharia rulings differently. Even within sects, opinions and rulings vary among scholars. Therefore, it is difficult to use the broad-brush term “Sharia law”. One problem is the unregulated nature of the Sharia councils, to which attention has been drawn. This is where they differ slightly from, for example, the similar religious Jewish councils. Nobody really knows the number of Sharia courts or councils in the UK but I wonder whether the Minister can give us the latest estimate. The latest study in 2009 by Civitas suggested that there was evidence of at least 85 Sharia councils across Britain, but the number could be far higher.

It is also very important to distinguish between the actions of arbitrators or tribunals working on a formal level and those operating informally, and the difference between applying actual judgments and giving advice. It is crucial to make it 100% clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, did and as I think everyone here accepts, that Sharia law is not part of the British legal system, and there are absolutely no plans to make it a part of our legal system.

The Sharia councils that have been in existence here since the 1980s have to operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996. The Act allows for consenting adults to resolve disputes and conflicts, be they civil or commercial, as long as they do not conflict with UK law. The same applies to the Jewish Beth Din courts. Jewish families have that right. My mother was brought up in an orthodox Jewish family, although it was not that orthodox because her mother had converted. There was a question over whether her parents’ marriage was kosher, so to speak, and it was the Beth Din court that my family went to. I do not think that in a tolerant society it is up to others to say, “No, you can’t go and seek counsel from your religious institutions and organisations”. It is not the choice that I would make—as I said, I am an atheist and I take a secular approach on all matters—but I absolutely believe that it is the right of those who are guided by their faith to have that choice, and we have to ensure that that choice does not conflict with the absolute need for women in Britain not to be discriminated against because they choose to use a Sharia council.

In closing, I ask the Minister where we are up to in increasing the regulation around Sharia bodies, and whether he is convinced that their activities currently fall within the Arbitration Act 1996. Is he also convinced that they uphold fundamental human rights for all citizens, and what further action does he believe is required to ensure that they are properly monitored, so that neither women nor individuals from other groups face any discrimination, intentional or otherwise, for choosing to receive guidance and rulings from their religious faith bodies?

14:35

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for initiating an important debate. It is important to reflect on where we are now. I am glad to see that both the diversity and the gender balance in this House are alive and kicking. We have had contributions in a ratio of four to one: four women and one man. We have also had a healthy sprinkling of different religious identities: contributions from—if I may sum the noble Baroness up thus—a Hindu humanist; from a Muslim; from a committed—and, I know, strong—Christian, and from a Jewish atheist. I suppose that with a debate such as one on Sharia it is entirely appropriate that there is a slight bias towards a Muslim man responding to bring it all into proportion.

I stress from the outset, in order to make it abundantly clear—the noble Baroness, Lady King, made the same point—that Sharia law has no jurisdiction in the court systems of England and Wales: we do not recognise it. There is no parallel court system in this country. Again reiterating what the noble Baroness said, we have no intention of changing this position in relation to any part of England and Wales. I make that statement from the outset because it is important to get it on record—that that is the law of the land and the law of the land will prevail irrespective of what religious practice or community you may belong to.

A question posed very ably—I would expect nothing less—by my predecessor in this role of faith Minister is: what does Sharia and the distinction between Sharia and Sharia law mean? As we have heard—the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also alluded to this—Sharia can mean many things. Essentially, the first code of Sharia is: do not lie. That is perhaps a teaching and a learning for us all. It is also about halal food, and we see plenty of that. It is abstention from alcohol—I am teetotal, I can commit to that. It is also about service to charity and humanity. It is about welfare for all. If you look at the diversity of our great country today, specifically the Muslim community, the charitable nature of what they do is guided by Sharia law, which we are debating today. As law-abiding citizens of our great country they reflect that code of conduct in their charitable giving—their alms giving—to the poor, the needy, across the country. We are at the forefront of that. That is something that, across the country, irrespective of faith or religion, we should be proud of.

The noble Baroness, Lady King, asked specifically about Sharia councils. She talked about the figure of 85 in 2009. The Government have not made a specific assessment of Sharia in this country and are not involved in the administration—which she also asked about—of Sharia councils in any way. However, I emphasise again that the law of the land is supreme: regardless of our beliefs we are all equal under the law of the country.

I move on to some of the pertinent issues that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, gave some quite specific examples. I totally relate to them and they are true not just of one particular community but of many. Women have suffered terrible abuse and had terrible dilemmas. Because of limits on time, all I would say at this juncture is that she will know as well as I do—and as I am sure all noble Lords will agree—that the faith in its actual learning and theory protects women. It is unfortunate that we see practice failing with individual abuses or abuses in certain communities. These have to be eradicated and the full force of the law must apply.

Again, I need to make it absolutely clear that Sharia councils, Sharia courts—whatever name may be attributed to them—have no part in the court system in this country and no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of the decisions or recommendations made by Sharia councils or committees are illegal or contrary to national law, national law will prevail every time and where it does not criminal sanctions should apply. Any member of any community should know that they have a right to refer to an English court at any point, particularly if they feel pressured or coerced.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Flather, highlighted the fact that where women are vulnerable they are not perhaps informed or educated. Therefore, it is also important that we work with communities in identifying these women. As Minister for Communities I am encouraged by the programmes and am laying greater emphasis on learning English, empowering women in particular through language. There are some excellent programmes targeting these very vulnerable groups. I recently saw QED, a practical project in Bradford. Muslim women who came from abroad, as spouses of husbands, actually had the education and knowledge but did not have the confidence to extend themselves into the fabric of the country. It is projects such as that one about empowering women where a lot of our focus should be, and rightly.

I also pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, for setting up the integration roadshows. I am pleased to say that I will be nimble-footed from this debate because I am travelling up to Manchester immediately afterwards to conduct one of the integration roadshows. There we take some of the challenges facing different communities—in particular Muslim communities—that come out of practice that is founded not on the religion but unfortunately on interpretations that are removed from the faith. I totally take what the noble Baroness said. We need to tackle these head on.

[Baroness Flather]

Is the Minister saying that a woman who does not have a registered marriage and is trying to get a Sharia divorce can get a divorce in British law? Can she go to court without a registered marriage? I do not think that that is correct.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

No, I am not saying that, and the noble Baroness is correct to point that out. The same common law principles would apply in that case. I would like to clarify one thing. The point was made on a couple of occasions about access within Sharia for a woman to take a divorce. Again, this is the difference between theory and practice. The avenue does exist. There is the concept of Khula which allows a woman to take a divorce without citing a reason. The problem arises in certain communities because although some practise this very well, others unfortunately do not make it available. That is where the focus should be. I want to be absolutely clear that, in the context of concerns about Muslim marriages and Sharia councils, the Government believe that the key issue is raising the primacy of English law and the importance of a clear understanding of how English law works.

My noble friend raised the issue of recognising the nikah in terms of the law of the land. She will know from her experience as a Minister, and she also speaks very ably as a lawyer, that there are certain complexities that we need to address. This is far more than just a simple issue, a simple adjustment to make. It would need careful consideration before the Government could give any commitment. I am sure she appreciates that there are things that need to be discussed fully to balance out what the implications of that would be. I have already alluded to the importance of communities coming together to effect real change. We can amplify the message of those communities where women are not empowered to speak up and help them to get their messages out, but we believe that building integration is ultimately the responsibility of everyone in society.

This is a useful and timely debate. Let me assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Flather and Lady Cox, and, indeed, all noble Lords, that, as they know, I am personally committed to ensuring the eradication of some of the challenges we have seen, such as the evils of forced marriage. The Government have been very serious about this. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, we took steps by criminalising this heinous activity. As we have seen with FGM as well as with forced marriages, the important thing is first of all to ensure that this is communicated effectively, and that people understand what the law of the land means. It is important to make that accessible to all people and to educate people in that respect as well.

I wish to conclude my remarks today by thanking all noble Lords who participated in what has been a very useful debate. I again underline the fact that what defines our great country of Britain is that it allows people to practise, profess, propagate and preach their faith with great freedom and liberty across all boundaries. It does not matter who or where you are.

[Baroness King of Bow]

Before the Minister draws his remarks to a conclusion, could he give any further clarification on what if any legislative changes would be required to bring the activities of Sharia councils under further regulation at the present time? Or is it just a question of implementing guidance?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

There are no plans to legislate on Sharia councils in that sense. We believe that the rule of law should prevail, and I have re-emphasised that point. We see plenty of good practice within the Muslim community. For example, many Muslim communities employ a simple resolution to this question. Before any imam is sanctioned to perform a nikah ceremony, the couple are asked to produce a certificate of registration. That is a good practice, and it means that the civil marriage is registered prior to the Islamic marriage, ensuring protection for both men and women. It is right that we do not seek to interject in people’s religions from a government perspective, but where we see that there is good practice it should be shared across the country. That is certainly the approach that the Government are taking.

I note that I have a minute to go, so I will make full use of it by once again reiterating the Government’s commitment to ensuring that wherever we see abuse, whoever the perpetrator and whoever the victim, the Government will stand up strongly to provide protection. We have a strong record over the past four years of doing just that. Protecting religious identity is an important part of what defines our great nation, but not to the detriment of the rule of law. Ultimately, whatever religious practice one may follow and whatever religious community one may belong to, one thing prevails above all else, and that is the rule of law.

14:48

Sitting suspended.

Food Hygiene Rating Scheme

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the benefits of the mandatory display on food premises of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme certificate.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, the food hygiene rating scheme with its distinctive black, green and white certificates was launched in 2010. Indeed, I recall that on 10 December 2010, at the launch in the Bluewater shopping centre, six inches of snow fell while we were inside.

This scheme, which is a partnership between the Food Standards Agency and the local authority, has, on a voluntary basis, been adopted by all local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, except for one, which I will come to later. This is a remarkable example of a good, well thought-out, cheap idea which benefits both consumers with information and businesses with an incentive to raise standards in an easy way.

There are three things to bear in mind. First, it is not gold-plating; a top 5 score is only “very good”, not “excellent”, and the requirement is fully to comply with legal regulation. Secondly, it is a virtually no-cost scheme. The score is worked out during the normal environmental health officers’ inspection of the food premises, so it is not an add-on. Thirdly, it is about food hygiene rather than the factors used by the Good Food Guide.

With more than 50% of meals taken outside the home, food hygiene in the kitchen is important. There are more than 1 million food-borne illnesses, 20,000 hospitalisations and, sadly, more than 400 deaths. The scheme covers more than retail catering establishments, such as cafes, sandwich bars and restaurants. It includes, for example, school kitchens and the kitchens of care homes. Military kitchens are included, as are the kitchens in the Palace of Westminster. It is an open and transparent scheme because all the information about the hygiene scores is on the FSA and local authority websites, classified by location, so you do not need to be in ignorance. Parents can check the school kitchen score and families can check the hygiene score in granny’s nursing home.

A crucial factor, in addition to the cleanliness and how food is stored, is the record-keeping. I once heard someone say they that had a 3, which is “generally satisfactory”. They said that the hygiene was fine; it was only the paperwork preventing them getting a higher score, as though it did not matter. The paperwork and record-keeping are crucial so there is traceability of materials if there is an illness outbreak.

So the scheme is pro-consumer and improves business performance at almost no cost, but it is not gold-plating or the nanny state. It is a great example for the Cabinet Office of nudge policy. The public can eat where they want, but can choose to discriminate based on reliable, national, standard information. This national, locally operated scheme replaces lots of local schemes which were operating across the nation. A score of 0 to 5 means the same across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Notwithstanding the information on the websites, it is better if potential customers can see the score level before they use an establishment. Noble Lords will have seen many window stickers with a 5, which is very good. They will have seen rather fewer with 3, 2, 1 or 0. I should add that anything less than a 0 means the place is shut down. The low scores mean that urgent action is needed, which is carried out and regularly monitored. The rule of thumb that I have adopted is: if there is no certificate on the window an establishment has less than a 5. I know establishments at home in Ludlow—the food capital of the Midlands—selling fast food, bacon butties, hot dogs, et cetera, scoring a 5 which is proudly on the window display. Next door is a posher restaurant with nothing on the door. The website says that it is a lot less than a 5. That is why it is not displayed. Whenever I have checked, the ones without a sticker are generally less than a 5 score, but not always. Earlier this week—in fact, at 7 am yesterday morning—I did a walkabout in the Victoria Street area. In 20 eating places, I found eight with a 5 score and one with a 4 proudly displayed. That left 11 without any information on the door, so I checked them all on the website. Amazingly, five of them had a 5 score. Three had a 4; one each had a 3, a 2 and a 1 score. One of them without a score, in the new development in Victoria Street, was literally sandwiched between two restaurants which both had a 5. You have guessed it, it had a lot less than a 5 and hence it was not displayed.

Food is a devolved area and the food hygiene rating scheme is an excellent example of partnership in devolution. At present, Wales has to be the safest country in which to eat, because a year ago the Welsh Government introduced legislation for mandatory display. It is early days, but I am informed that compliance on scores has improved: low scorers wanted to improve because they had to display. The Northern Ireland Government have introduced legislation for mandatory display and legislation is going through in Scotland which allows for mandatory display. I want to press the case for England to follow.

I am not alone. One of the strongest supporters of the food hygiene rating scheme is the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. He saw the benefit to consumers and businesses straightaway and said so in his seminal report to the Prime Minister, Common Sense Common Safety. I shall give two quotations from his report. Page 34 says:

“It is clear that the FSA’s Food Hygiene Rating Scheme will do much to improve existing standards without adding bureaucracy or burdens on business”.

Page 35 recommends:

“Encourage the voluntary display of ratings, but review this after 12 months and, if necessary make display compulsory—particularly for those businesses that fail to achieve a ‘generally satisfactory’ rating”.

The “generally satisfactory” rating is a 3. Indeed, the noble Lord wanted to get local authorities joined up more quickly by legislating. The Food Standards Agency board took the view that if we could get a really good uptake in two to three years, we could achieve the aim more speedily via a voluntary route than by legislation, and that is what has happened.

Anyone can get a 4, which is “good”, or a 5, which is “very good”, as I have seen from dozens of visits when I had the privilege to chair the Food Standards Agency for four years between 2009 and 2013. It is not based on size, poshness, or prices. The score is converted from the regular environmental health officer inspection, as was brilliantly explained by an officer from the Suffolk Coastal local authority when I was there at the launch of the scheme. It is clearly not fair on the good performers that the poor performers can seek to hide the fact. Not everyone checks the website; not everyone is on the web. We need also to ensure that takeaways have to give the score to telephone orders.

MPs and Peers can eat here in the Palace, in one of a dozen restaurants, safe in the knowledge that the kitchens scored 5 in both Houses, although this is not always displayed. They might want to think about constituents having the same right to know. Legislation was drafted a while ago to bring this about. I think Ministers should add it to existing legislation: I do not see why it should not be done on Report on the Deregulation Bill after Christmas—everything else has been put there. However, it will need to be tweaked, if that is the case, to bring on board the only UK local authority which refuses to join.

I remind noble Lords that all 400-plus local authorities in the UK have joined this UK-wide scheme, except Rutland County Council. This leaves Wales as the safest place to eat for consumer information and Rutland as the least safe place to eat, for lack of customer information. Parents in Rutland cannot access the scores of the school kitchens, families cannot access the kitchen scores in residential homes, et cetera. Rutland County Council leaders have been asked about this more than once. I went to visit personally to explain the benefits of the scheme for consumers. They are doing the inspections; this is the point. The inspections are taking place, but not being a member of the scheme, they are not sharing the results with consumers or businesses. Most outlets in most places are good scorers, so why deprive businesses in Rutland of the commercial advantage of showing the scores to potential customers? In fact, insurance companies might want to take a look at the premiums for low scorers, but let us let the public decide.

The cost of mandatory display to the business, as one FSA official put it, is the time it takes to open the envelope received by all food businesses after the environmental health officer’s inspection, walk to the window and put the sticker on display. Why should England wait any longer? We should have English information for English consumers.

15:09

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, there are points when you prepare something and then somebody stands up and says it all and slightly better than you were going to say it, so it is an easy task to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—something I have managed to do throughout the time we have been in the House together. Sometimes I did not admit to it but, on this occasion, I am quite prepared to do so.

This is basically about making knowledge public. You have done a test, you have found out what is going on and you let the public see. That is what we are talking about here, as far as I can see. It is possible that I have missed something, but that seems to be the essence of it—making sure that at a glance you can tell what is going on. There is also the issue of letting the public know what the scheme means. I think a bit of effort needs to go into this. If you get a rating of 1, you may not know that is a bad score so possibly a bit of information is required. You need to know that it is 5 you are aiming for, not one, but that is a small quibble that can easily be corrected. You need to make sure that people know at a glance what it means.

The advantage of certificates being on display, as the noble Lord pointed out, is that it shows you have kept your kitchens clean, done your job and shown basic competence and you deserve a pat on the back and a small commercial advantage for that. Consumers have a right to know that, although they may prefer the chilli at the kebab shop down the road, they are playing fast and loose with their digestive systems—so let us let them know. This is not the nanny state; it is merely giving information about work that has been done. There is a very simple and good case for doing that.

Let us look at the wonderful example of Rutland. It is not a big county. I have this image of people wanting a sandwich and taking a short walk or driving for two minutes across the border because they have come to Rutland to enjoy the views but it is not recommended that they buy a sandwich there. It is ridiculous that somebody does not simply let the general public know when the work has been done. If there is another way of doing this easily and cheaply, I look forward to hearing about it. This is about taking information we have and presenting it. We have a scheme that seems to be working well. It is not offending anybody terribly. The overwhelming majority of the country is using it in a form which is easy to interpret. “Devolution can work” seems to be part of the subtext to what the noble Lord was saying. If we can get this going, we will make our lives a little easier and better and reward those who have done things properly. This is not a terribly difficult thing to do or something that will rock the world. It will make this a slightly easier and safer place to go and buy a sandwich at lunchtime. Surely, if we can walk away with that, it is a pretty good day here.

15:09

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring myself as president of the Royal Society for Public Health, which is relevant to this debate. I welcome the debate. I congratulate my noble friend on it and on the excellence of his leadership of the FSA between 2009 and 2013. With the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I had the privilege of taking a Bill through your Lordships’ House which created the FSA as a non-ministerial department, answering to the Department of Health. Noble Lords will recall that the reason this was done was because the BSE outbreak and the way it was handled had led to a loss of confidence in a Minister-led government department being able to give objective advice on food safety. The FSA has done a great job since it was established. It has restored public confidence in official pronouncements in relation to food safety and it must be congratulated on the success of the scheme to which my noble friend referred.

This is an important issue: food hygiene is not a marginal nicety. We know that as a result of food poisoning and so on, many people have a poor time of it. We also know that this is an area which puts unmeasured pressure on our National Health Service, in both primary and secondary care. It is therefore important that we do everything we can to make sure that in these outlets hygiene is of the highest quality.

It is remarkable that, on a voluntary basis, this scheme has been adopted by virtually every local authority in the country except Rutland. I have no doubt the noble Baroness will be able to inform the Committee of what is going on in Rutland, or is her advice that it definitely is not safe to eat there? We should be told. I assume that my noble friend ate in each of the 20 restaurants. He looks pretty good on it.

As the noble Baroness knows, we are debating the Deregulation Bill, which is proving to be of great interest. Mandation in this case would be warranted—as my noble friend said, it would cost virtually nothing—and would be of real advantage to the consumer. It is a pity that, given this wonderful scheme, not all food outlets put out information for the public to see.

Does the noble Baroness agree that the voluntary scheme—and, it is to be hoped, the mandation of it and of public display—is but one aspect of the strategy to improve food hygiene? For example, the Royal Society for Public Health does invaluable work issuing certificates in food hygiene. These are aimed at first-line workers in the food industry. This year, in 11 months, 37,000 qualifications have been issued in food hygiene and food safety in retail and in the catering sector more generally, of which 30,000 were at level 2, essentially to front-line staff.

I hope the noble Baroness accepts that, alongside my noble friend’s helpful suggestion, the work of the Royal Society for Public Health and other organisations in seeking to improve hygiene is an element in the required overall strategy. It will be good to hear from the noble Baroness about the Government’s overall approach to food hygiene alongside her response to my noble friend.

15:17

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate but I fear there is a serious danger of an outbreak of consensus. At the outset I emphasise that public health protection remains high on the Government’s agenda. Food poisoning continues to be a serious problem despite the excellent work of the Food Standards Agency, which works together with local authorities and the food industry for consumers and food businesses. The benefits of prevention are absolutely clear. Reducing food poisoning requires an all-encompassing approach and those involved at every point in the food chain must play their part. The Government must play their part, too, in helping all these players to take more responsibility to do everything they can to ensure that our food is safe to eat.

The food hygiene rating scheme—sometimes referred to as “scores on the doors”—plays a key part in this and I strongly support this flagship initiative. Telling people about hygiene standards in food outlets in a way that is clear and easy to understand allows them to make better choices and gives them the power to vote with their feet. The transparency that the scheme provides puts those businesses not meeting the grade in the spotlight. For those with the highest standards, it gives them the opportunity to show their consumers that they take food hygiene seriously.

To pick up on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about insurance companies and premiums for good scores, they are already starting to offer better premiums for ratings of 3 or more. Perhaps Rutland should be listening to this. The FSA is linking with those scores. With regard to his other point on the critical importance of paperwork, it is not about just paperwork or red tape but ensuring that a food safety management system is in place. As the noble Lord said, if there should be some sort of outbreak you would have an audit trail.

The FSA operates this scheme in partnership with local authorities and I am pleased to report that it is now running in all authorities in Wales and Northern Ireland, and all but one in England. The latest to join, the Royal Borough of Greenwich, launched it this year just in time for the tall ships festival in September. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had a major hand in securing local authority support when he was at the helm of the FSA’s board. I commend him for this and congratulate him on his success. He asked what sort of work is being undertaken to encourage Rutland County Council to join. I know that he worked really hard on Rutland—he has given us chapter and verse on that. However, the county council there remains concerned that local businesses could be disadvantaged by the scheme and wanted to see what impact it had elsewhere. This evidence as to what has happened elsewhere is available across England and Wales. The FSA now has results from independently conducted research and evaluation work that highlight the benefits that businesses are finding when displaying hygiene ratings, and show significantly improved standards in areas where the scheme is introduced. The FSA will be sending details of these findings to the council.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked whether it is safe to eat in Rutland. The irony is that it is, but nobody knows because they do not put the scores on the doors. I should also reassure the noble Lord that the FSA is continuing to encourage Rutland County Council to join, so that local businesses and residents can benefit.

Four years on from the Bluewater launch at which the noble Lord spoke, I can report that there is information on the FSA website on more than 436,000 businesses—a humungous achievement and a great feat in itself. More importantly, the scheme’s aims and objectives are being realised. It is working. It is driving up hygiene standards. Local authorities are reporting this but there is also hard evidence from independently conducted research. This shows that the scheme has resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of businesses with ratings in the top half of the FHRS scale and in those getting the top score. Importantly, it has also resulted in a significant reduction in those getting a 0 or 1. Businesses are all shifting the right way. This is really good news in terms of reducing consumer risk.

Continued success will increasingly depend on consumer awareness, and the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that ratings information is available at the right time and in the right place. Ratings are all published on the FSA’s website. I can reassure your Lordships, for example, that the eateries in both Houses have all achieved the top rating. Most people make spontaneous choices, however, so having the ratings at the point of choice is particularly important. A restaurant that looks promising from 100 yards away may not look quite so hot when you get to it and look at the scores. Voluntary display at food outlets is still relatively low but the FSA and local authorities are working hard with businesses—from the smallest independents to the largest chains—to highlight the benefits and encourage more of them to put stickers in their windows.

I am confident that this work will help to increase the visibility of the scheme and provide added incentives to businesses to improve, and, more importantly, that people will start to question and draw their own conclusions if they do not see a sticker on display. However, the noble Lord made an important point about making the display compulsory. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that doing so will increase the scheme’s potential to drive up standards and increase public health protection. The FSA has a clear position in favour of doing so. It has worked closely with the Welsh Government to introduce the legislation necessary for this in Wales, and is working on a Bill that is being considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The agency is now gathering evidence to demonstrate the case for similar legislation in England. It is monitoring the impact of the change in Wales and the early signs are promising. FSA monitoring data for the year since mandatory display was introduced show that businesses with compliance levels equivalent to ratings of 3 and above have significantly increased.

Any extra burdens on businesses that may result must also be considered. The scheme is certainly designed so that there is a level playing field and so that businesses are treated fairly, but ensuring that we do not add red tape by putting the scheme on a statutory footing is important. The FSA is exploring this. It will also look carefully at the impact on local authorities and monitor the impact of the new requirement for care homes to display the ratings given to them by the Care Quality Commission. I understand that there is a care home somewhere that proudly displays its sticker with one star, and noble Lords might wonder why. The Government will consider this evidence once it is available. I am really pleased that the scheme is making a real difference. It is equipping consumers with knowledge about hygiene standards in food outlets, and encouraging businesses to raise their game and strive to achieve the highest ratings. This is just the sort of initiative that the Government want.

I was pushed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the Deregulation Bill. My team has told me that it is perfectly okay for me to say that I am going to go away and talk to colleagues in the Department of Health. Deregulation is in the Cabinet Office, but I am sure that the Department of Health can talk to the Cabinet Office. Ultimately, in all this, improved public health protection is the winner.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn) (Con)]

My Lords, it is time for a cup of tea and a sandwich. The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4 pm.

15:26

Sitting suspended.

Drug Policy

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:00

Asked by

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to respond to the United Nations Secretary-General’s statement of 26 June 2013 on drug policy urging Member States to “conduct a wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options”.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I seek a response from the Minister to my Question, but I must first congratulate the Government, and in particular the former Home Office Minister Norman Baker, on the production of the report Drugs: International Comparators. The report benefits greatly from fact-finding visits and discussions with 11 countries. It is a great pity that the executive summary omits the key findings of the report, most particularly that there is no clear correlation between the “toughness” of an approach and the levels of drug use. This is probably the most significant finding, with very clear implications for drugs policy, and yet the executive summary makes no mention of it. The report also omits all the recommendations that I understand had been prepared by officials.

The report makes clear that the UK has experienced a recent fall in the use of traditional drugs. There are at least two explanations for this. One is a rapid rise in the use of so-called new psychoactive substances, many of which are of course extremely dangerous, and are in fact more dangerous than the original, traditional drugs. More particularly, the second reason is that, although the possession of illicit drugs remains a criminal offence, the police now focus fewer of their resources on arresting drug users. Therefore, fewer young people are criminalised and, as a result, many will quickly recover from their drug problem and return to school or to work. It is interesting that our police have to compensate for the failure of our politicians, is it not?

Nevertheless, the UK remains the overall highest user in Europe of the four most used drugs. This is an incredibly important point. We are the hub for the distribution of new psychoactive substances across Europe. We have no reason to be satisfied with our performance. What are the Government therefore doing to promote an open debate on effective policies, which we clearly do not have here? Which options are being actively considered?

Will the Minister also inform the House what the Government’s response is to the recent change in US drugs policy? The US policy shift was defined in the recent statement by William Brownfield, the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. The US of course drove the “war on drugs” for 50 years. Now the US is driving policy in the other direction, and is at last in line with the fundamental objectives of the UN conventions: the health and welfare of individuals. We have never had that before. Brownfield envisages changes in policy through shifting enforcement priorities, such as decisions not to arrest drug users and greater flexibility in interpreting the conventions.

The Brownfield doctrine, as it has come to be called, is based upon four simple points: defending the integrity of the core of the conventions; allowing flexible interpretation of the treaties; allowing different national and regional strategies; and tackling organised crime, which is fair enough. This is all incredibly new. Do the UK Government agree with these four points?

In support of the doctrine of flexibility, we can point to one of the key architects of the 1961 convention on narcotic drugs, Herbert May. We should not forget him. He argued in 1955—he was a man of foresight—that a central goal of the convention was to provide “greater flexibility” to the international system due to the likelihood of changes in circumstances—surprise, surprise—as well as medical and scientific innovations and research. Yes, Herbert May, this is precisely the argument behind the new Brownfield doctrine. The modern world cannot turn its back on the evidence of effective drug policies, nor can we turn our backs on the need for further experiments and evaluation of them.

What does this mean in practice? For the UK, much of the evidence is summed up in the Government’s excellent report, Drugs: International Comparators. On the basis of the evidence, the UK should be rolling out heroin-assisted treatment clinics and decriminalising the possession and use of all drugs. Heroin-assisted treatment clinics have been trialled and evaluated extensively in Switzerland, and introduced in the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Germany, Belgium and Denmark, with pilots in the UK. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reviewed recent studies of this approach and concluded that there is strong evidence for the efficacy of HAT, when compared with methadone treatment, for long-term heroin-dependent individuals who do not respond to other forms of treatment. HAT achieves, in its words, marked reductions in the continued use of illicit street heroin and, to a lesser extent, in the use of other drugs such as cocaine and alcohol. It also achieves improvements in physical and mental health, as well as reductions in criminal activity, compared with levels prior to entering treatment. Would it not be wonderful if we could achieve that here? Will the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government have only three pilots rather than rolling out this well tried and evaluated policy across the country?

The Portuguese model of decriminalisation of drug possession, which involves dissuasion commissions and an increase in spending on treatment rather than on prisons, has been extensively evaluated and found to be beneficial. The essence of the policy is that, instead of arresting and charging a person caught in possession of a small quantity of any illegal drug, that person will have their drug confiscated and will then be referred to the local commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction, composed of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. The main aim of the commission is to explore the need for treatment and to promote healthy recovery.

In the UK, a person found in possession of even a small quantity of an illicit drug is still far too often, despite attempts by the police to go in the right direction, arrested and will have a criminal record, with all the disadvantages throughout life that such a record brings. Can the Minister explain to the Committee what the Government see as the advantages of the UK system over the Portuguese model? The evidence suggests that there is no advantage whatever.

There are two other policies which merit an open debate, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General. The first is a transfer of the primary responsibility for drug policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health. Most of our European neighbours did this some years ago, and it would make an awful lot of sense if we followed suit. Of course, close liaison with the Home Office would be necessary to deal with certain aspects.

Secondly, also very important is the rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 to recognise the fact—not an illusion—that cannabis has medicinal properties. That is all that this would mean. It makes no sense to have Sativex, a cannabis-based medication, available on the NHS while having cannabis in Schedule 1, implying that it has no medicinal properties. We know that patients with multiple sclerosis and those suffering the side-effects of chemotherapy—very sick people—go to enormous lengths, travelling to Europe to pick up less than three month’s worth of cannabis. They say that it is the only thing that helps their symptoms. If they could obtain the drug just through a simple prescription on the basis of their diagnosis, would that not be a reasonable policy? Again, will the Minister agree to consider this proposal and ask the Home Office to undertake a serious study of the feasibility of such a change?

Finally, I want to put on record that the APPG for Drug Policy Reform, which I chair, is working with Latin American and European Governments to provide guidance across the world—it sounds a bit ambitious—on interpreting the UN drug conventions for the 21st century. The focus will be on the need to promote the central purpose of the UN conventions for the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and it will take account of the Brownfield doctrine. Can the Minister give the Committee an assurance that the Government will support an open debate on that guidance when it is fully prepared? The US, Latin America and Europe are all moving forward. Will the UK continue to be left behind?

16:08

[Lord Rea (Lab)]

My Lords, as the first speaker after the noble Baroness, I can do no better than say that I agree with practically everything that she said. I thank her not only for bringing this subject to your Lordships’ attention today but for the tireless work that she has done in looking at the international aspects of drug policy and in bringing together players who are not happy with the present policies. As she said, the 1971 Act, based on the 1961 UN convention, aims to reduce or eradicate drug use through legislation which treats drug users as offenders rather than as patients needing treatment and care. Many people, now joined by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, question the effectiveness of the war on drugs as currently waged, with most funds going into enforcement rather than the treatment of users. It has remarkably little effect.

At the risk of repeating several speeches I have made over the years in your Lordships’ House, I first became involved in the drug scene as a GP in a north London practice in an area where drug use was pretty rife. I practised in association with the UCH drug clinic, which had a methadone substitution programme. We found that drug abusers were very problematic patients and, despite the methadone substitution, we had several deaths from heroin overdoses due to the drugs having an unexpectedly high heroin content. Users were not satisfied with the methadone dose they were prescribed.

It is worth noting that, although heroin use has fallen among younger people in this country recently, death from heroin overdose continues at a high level. This occurs because the supply is totally unregulated, of completely unknown strength and in the hands of a criminal system. It became clear to me when I was in practice that most of the harm caused by drugs occurred because of the unknown purity and strength of the drugs. The need to regulate drug supply seems very clear since the current punitive approach is not reducing the levels of demand or of drug abuse. Regulating the supply of drugs needs to be in responsible hands, but this is not easy when the substances are prohibited.

I will leave that for the time being and go on to mention what we can perhaps do in the mean time to ameliorate or reduce the number of deaths. One thing is the use of needle exchange clinics, which greatly reduce the transmission of HIV. Luckily we have needle exchange clinics in this country. Not all countries do. I am glad to say that they continue to exist, as I am afraid they are still necessary. Another thing that can be done to reduce heroin deaths is to increase the use of naloxone, the opiate antagonist. Several drug clinics are now working with schemes to supply naloxone, with accompanying educational programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will perhaps amplify this when he speaks.

As the noble Baroness described, there is now some light on the horizon. The recent Home Office report on international comparators, which she described, has shown that less punitive policies can be more effective in controlling the effects of drug abuse. Like the noble Baroness, I hope that the Government can learn from the study of this document and start to move with the times.

16:14

[Baroness Stern (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling this debate and for her unflagging work to bring about a less damaging global drug control regime. In many parts of the world, she is seen as a leading engine of the movement to bring about change, and her energy, commitment and strategic wisdom bring great credit to the United Kingdom and your Lordships’ House. This is a small debate, but it is a contribution to the very big debates that the United Nations Secretary-General has called for.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has given us some very good news about the changed approach of the United States Government, at last. I shall begin with more good news. It was reported last week that Iran is debating ending the use of the death penalty for drug offences. I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Apparently 80% of Iran’s executions are for offences connected with drug trafficking, and the numbers are estimated to be large. We have the figure of 331 executions for drug offences in Iran in 2013. I was in Iran some years ago discussing criminal justice reform. I attended a meeting with a group of reform-minded young people. One man said, “We execute many drug traffickers in this country. We have a very draconian approach, yet every year the number of drug addicts increases and the volume of drugs entering the country grows. There must be a better way”. Indeed, there must be a better way than a system that leads to the execution of drug traffickers. I want to acknowledge the excellent work done by the Foreign Office to try to ensure that the UK does not support drug interdiction efforts that could lead to the imposition of the death penalty.

Of course, the execution of drug traffickers is just one—a most egregious one—of a range of harms that result from the current drug regime, which prioritises interdiction and punishment over treatment and other social measures. The effect on the prisons of the world has been disastrous. Prisons are full of an increasing number of small-time drug users and low-level dealers, all crammed into overcrowded, violent prisons. The health consequences are serious. For example, Hepatitis C, which is spread by injecting drugs, is rife in prisons. Research suggests that in some parts of the world the infection rate in prisons is at least 10 times higher than in the community generally. This is a harm that affects a segment of a country’s population.

The harm caused by the criminality and violence of the drug trade is incalculable. In Mexico alone, 50,000 people have been killed in the past five years due to drug and organised crime-related violence. Sick people suffer because the drug control system puts barriers in the way of providing opiates for pain control and palliative care. The damage caused by the current arrangements is also made clear in the report from the West African Commission on Drugs, chaired by Kofi Annan and the former Nigerian President Obasanjo. It notes the progress that west Africa has made. It states:

“Civil wars have receded, democracy has gained ground and our economies are growing. But a destructive new threat is jeopardizing this progress: with local collusion, international drug cartels are undermining our countries and communities, and devastating lives”.

Do the Government intend to participate fully in the upcoming debate about global drug policy? The Minister will know that DfID is regarded around the world as the premier development body. It is widely admired and seen as a model. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is similarly highly regarded for its excellent human rights policy.

Drug policy reform is essential both for ensuring further development in low and middle-income countries and for protecting human rights. Will the United Kingdom be in the forefront of the international process that is now under way? Will it support what DfID and the Foreign Office have done so successfully for many years? Will it be advocating an approach that aims to reduce harm and protect vulnerable people from violence and destabilisation?

16:20

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the amazing and valuable work of my noble friend Lady Meacher on making drugs policy more effective and relevant in today’s national and global situation. She has been indefatigable, and I admire her persistence.

I had been interested in drugs policy for many years before I met the noble Baroness, but I find myself very much in tune with her views. In 2001, I was asked to chair a Liberal Democrat policy working party on drugs policy. It was then that I first met my noble friend Lord Paddick, who at that time was a senior Metropolitan Police officer and was taking the lead in doing exactly what the noble Baroness has recommended—having his officers focus on the dealers rather than the users—and getting a lot of stick for it.

The thrust of our report was that the use of illegal drugs should be treated as a health matter rather than as a criminal matter. Even at that time we had evidence that the UK’s punitive regime was not working. Our objectives then, as now, were to reduce harm, address the crimes of those who destroy people’s lives by peddling drugs to them, and get the big drug money out of organised crime. We were aware then, as we are now, that whole families are destroyed by drug use and that addiction can be a major tragedy for families, especially when there are children in the household. So to say that the Liberal Democrats are soft on drugs is, and always has been, untrue: we have simply identified that the war on drugs has failed many of our citizens and we need to find a more effective strategy.

We were aware even then that a major barrier to a more imaginative approach was the usual narrow interpretation of the UN convention. Our report committed us to work with other countries to arrive at a consensus about how to move forward within the convention. So the UN Secretary-General’s statement of 26 June last year was particularly welcome to me, and it should be regarded as an open invitation to all countries to consider all options. That is why I am so pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has worked with the leaders of many other countries who have courageously spoken out and said that we need new approaches. We should not be frightened that the international community will condemn us if we do things differently.

The recent publication by my right honourable friend Norman Baker MP of a research paper called Drugs: International Comparators was particularly welcome. As he has said, we must look at the evidence without prejudice and consider carefully whether some of these new ideas might work for us in this country. Of course, different cultures and circumstances apply in different countries, and you can rarely transplant ideas lock, stock and barrel. However, there is often a germ of an idea that can be useful. It was clear from the report that there is no correlation at all between reduction in drug use and a punitive criminal justice approach. Indeed, pragmatism and a health-based approach are showing great results all over the world, and that is how we should approach it here.

I was surprised to read that there is little evidence that the special drug courts are reducing reoffending. I had the opportunity to question Norman Baker about that at a meeting yesterday. It seems that here is a good idea which has not produced the results for which it had the potential, merely because of the lack of treatment and diversion services that are needed to sit alongside a drug court system. It is a great shame that the resources were not made available, since many of the judiciary were very enthusiastic about this approach. I believe it could have worked, given the availability of the appropriate services. It has the potential, in particular, for helping addicted women to address their drug habit and keep their children.

I was also interested in the pragmatic idea of providing clean needles in prisons, which is done in some other countries. Apparently the law prevents this here. However, the law is currently failing abysmally to keep drugs out of prison. Indeed, the saddest thing is that some offenders go into prison clean and come out as drug users. Of all the things that would encourage them to go back to offending, that is it. I believe that we should find a way to provide clean needles under the auspices of providing medical services.

My main objective is to discourage young people from taking up the use of drugs at all through information and education. So-called legal highs, which are no such thing, have become very widespread, and this is worrying. I support a blanket ban, but at the same time I believe that a health and diversionary approach to users—not dealers—is the right approach, for these as well as the more traditional illegal drugs. I also support the pilot schemes for last-resort use of opiates for hard-core heroin users for whom other methods have failed. I hope that the Government will seriously consider a rollout of the pilots that have been successful.

Under this Government we have continued to try many innovative ways to discourage drug use and address its harms. However, the mood music is still punitive and the responsibility is still within the Home Office. I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would like to see a change in the tone of government rhetoric on drugs and a wholesale shift of responsibility for users to the Department of Health, so that the criminal justice system can be freed up to deal with the real villains, the dealers. I also hope that this and future Governments will become more open-minded about talking to other countries about new approaches within the convention and new interpretations of our international obligation, so that we can really start to fight drugs more effectively in the international community. This is what the Secretary-General wanted to see resulting from his statement.

16:26

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the cross-party group on criminal justice, drugs and alcohol. I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Meacher said. I thank her for obtaining this debate, and I salute her for her determined attention to all aspects of national and international drugs policy. I want to comment on two things in particular and then give one example of where I think the policy really needs to pull indecision together. I hope that the debate called for, when it happens, will have as its objective the production of a clear, consistent and continuous national policy which can be followed by all those who have any responsibility for dealing with users and abusers of drugs.

It first became clear to me that there was no national policy when I was in the Army and we had to guard two prisons because of strikes by prison officers. One of my military police sergeant-majors complained to me that he had seen two prisoners exchanging cannabis, had taken them in front of the governor and had been told to dismiss it because cannabis was common in prison. He said to me, “This is ridiculous—we kick out any soldier who is using drugs, yet this is going on in our prisons”.

I then found, of course, that there was absolutely no policy when I started inspecting prisons. Drug responsibility was in the hands of the director of nursing, which may have been a predicator of what America has adopted, but it was absolutely pointless because no governor took any notice of what the director of nursing said. No prison had any common policy on who was assessed when they came in. There was no common policy on treatment, no common treatment for withdrawal and no interest in people who might pick up stronger drugs on release and subsequently die. In fact, there was nothing, and there is still nobody in prisons who is responsible for making certain that there is a common policy in every type of prison.

Going further, I ask whoever conducts the debate called for to add two words to the words “wide-ranging and open”, and those words are “cross-party”. I feel that one of the problems that we have suffered from is the ping-pong between parties, which has led to nothing more than inertia. The real tragedy of the inertia is that it leads to ruined and lost lives because delay in doing anything will inevitably lead to that. Rather than risk one party saying this and one that, could we please have a cross-party consensus so that everyone will be able to follow the common national policy that comes out of it?

I raise the issue of the use of naloxone, which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned, because we were given a good briefing the other day in our cross-party group. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs gave advice to the Government on whether naloxone should be made more widely available in order to prevent future drug-related deaths and to help engage and educate those most vulnerable to suffering an opioid overdose in May 2012. Its advice was that, first, naloxone is a safe, effective, evidence-based, World Health Organization-recommended drug with no dependency-forming potential. Its only action is to save lives by reversing the effects of opioid overdoses, and it is already used by emergency services personnel.

The prevention of drug-related deaths, of which there were 1,957 in 2013, is one of the eight key outcomes for delivery in a recovery-orientated drug treatment system, which is what we claim to have. Currently, naloxone is available on prescription to people at risk of opioid overdose, but it will have its maximum effect on deaths if it is made available to people with the greatest opportunity to use it and those who can best engage with heroin users, such as their families and carers. They will, of course, have to be educated in its use, but that is not impossible. Following the 2012 report, Scotland and Wales conducted successful pilots and have since introduced national strategies for its use. England, which ran a programme, has had no similar rollout and none is planned until October 2015, three years after the report.

However, it is not going to be a national strategy but will be left to local authorities. One of the organisations in our cross-party group made a freedom of information request to find out how much knowledge there was of naloxone in the local authorities. It found that, of the ones that replied, 60 local authorities had no plans and had given no priority or money to naloxone; 10 were thinking about it; and 60 have local strategies, some of which are good and some of which are poor. I merely rest on that because the lesson of naloxone should be borne in mind when we are looking for a common national strategy.

16:33

[Baroness Warnock (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in expressing my extreme admiration for my noble friend Lady Meacher for bringing this debate. As has been said already, it is a tiny taster of the enormous debate we will have later. She has worked at an international level and has interested herself in the problem we are facing today in the United Kingdom and in a coherent government strategy which will lead to a revolutionary change of view.

I wish to say a little about the entrenched view that drugs are a matter of criminality. People of my age and of up to 15 years younger than me need to go back and think about the 1960s, which was when drugs hit the general consciousness. It was a time of student revolt and the introduction of the pill. At the time, I was the headmistress of a girls’ school, and we were completely ignorant of the drugs scene and absolutely terrified. We had the most terrible problems in Oxford with undergraduates occupying the Examination Schools and smoking cannabis just for fun. We knew where the cannabis came from. There was a kind of route that started in Birmingham and came down to Oxford and then London, and round and round it went. What I remember most about that time was the fear—the absolute terror that we felt and all parents felt.

If I had any success as a headmistress it was entirely because I had teenage children myself and therefore nothing shocked me. I had one son who still does me a great deal of good, but he did me great good then by being expelled from his public school for cannabis use. The school did not admit that but I knew it. This meant that parents realised that I was not going to be surprised or overreact or anything.

At that time, I must say, I was thankful that the use and possession of drugs was a criminal offence. The reason I was thankful was that I could threaten my pupils that if they were caught with possessing drugs or sharing drugs, if any drugs were found on school premises, I would hand them over to the police because they would have committed a criminal offence. This did restrain them. I felt at the time that the only way of preventing what started as recreational use but could so easily have become addiction—we did not know—was threatening criminal action. So I started off from that point in the 1960s, and I was very slow to change my mind. I did not think about it very much; it just seemed self-evident that it was the using of the drugs which had to be picked on and not the trafficking of them. We hardly thought about trafficking and where the drugs came from and the criminality that goes with drug trafficking. It vaguely passed our minds but it was not what we concentrated on; it was the use. I think that what we now need, and what my noble friend has done so much to get us to think about, is a complete change of attitude towards the use of drugs compared with the trafficking of drugs. This, of course, has the wide international consequences with which she has been and is so greatly involved.

The first thing that made me change my mind was that I had a very good former pupil who later became a victim of MS; she wrote to me, saying that she spent hours of her life trying to negotiate with all her friends to get hold of cannabis because cannabis-related drugs were the only thing that gave her any relief. That seemed to me such an appalling, inhumane attitude towards cannabis that from that moment on I started to think that drugs with a medicinal use, at least, must be treated in a different way.

The other thing is that I have family connections with Portugal, so I know quite a lot about what happens in Portugal, and how it works. I am simply defeated in trying to answer the question of why the Government do not give more attention to following what is in fact a strikingly successful model.

The final thing is, of course, you only have to look at the prison population to see that the so-called war on drugs just does not work and, therefore, it is inevitable that we must change our minds. So I beseech the Government to take a strong and revolutionary look at where we are and make some policy which is coherent, consistent and well understood.

16:39

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, I hope you can spare me two minutes in the gap. I, too, risk—as the noble Lord, Lord Rea did—boring noble Lords by repeating what I have said in your Lordships’ House many times before. Drugs are primarily a health problem, with significant social consequences, as we all know. It was for the historic reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, just told us about so very graphically that the establishment of the day, and the political establishment, decided to address what we now know is a health problem by using the criminal justice system to restrict drugs, a pillar of this policy being the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Indeed, the international comparators report says:

“Our legislative response to drugs is based in the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which continues to provide a flexible yet consistent legislative framework to control emerging harmful drugs and target illegal suppliers”.

The problem is it does not actually work and that is why we are having this debate today.

We have been given evidence that drug use in the United Kingdom has levelled out and is, perhaps, even falling. Most of the evidence comes from the national crime survey. I have to tell the Government that no reasonable, intelligent, well informed person outside either the House of Commons or the Home Office actually believes this to be true. Public opinion—well informed opinion—has moved on significantly. We know that drug use is not falling. Virtually every other piece of evidence tells us this. I ask your Lordships to push your minds back a bit; one of the reasons we were given for sending soldiers into Afghanistan was to eradicate the poppy crop, but the United Nations tells us that in the 10 years since we have been there the poppy crop has increased fourfold, and 80% of the Afghan poppy crop is aimed at the United Kingdom. Are we really pretending that a fourfold increase in production is aimed at a falling market? That simply is not realistic. At the other end of the equation, the numbers accessing treatment continue to rise, and there is some evidence that the waiting lists are continuing to rise too.

None of this would matter if the second plank of the Government’s drug strategy was working. In the introduction to the 2010 drugs strategy the Home Secretary said:

“This strategy sets out a fundamentally different approach to tackling drugs and an entirely new ambition to reduce drug use and dependence. It will consider dependence on all drugs, including prescription and over-the-counter medicines”.

I noticed that only last night when I was writing this as I was watching the television programme about the appalling rise in prescription drug use in this country. That clearly has not worked either.

Why is this so important? It is very simple. Millions of people in the United Kingdom take drugs. We can debate whether the number is going up or down or, probably, staying vaguely the same, but the number is in the millions. The vast majority of the people who take drugs in this country have minimal, if any, health or social consequences. They do not get arrested, they do not commit repeated acquisitive crimes and they do not visit A&E. The 350,000 chronic and chaotic drug users are the ones who cost us money and it is those people we should be spending our £15.5 billion on, not the remaining people in the population who do not cause us any problems.

16:42

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for the opportunity to have this debate today. She is a doughty campaigner for drugs reform. She and I have had a number of discussions on different issues in your Lordships’ House and although we may not always agree on policy, I think that we have a very similar goal as regards the drugs issue. I, too, welcome debate and believe that evidence-based policy is extremely important. A wide-ranging and open debate that considers all the options can only be the way forward. If we do not consider all the options we will be doing a disservice to those who are affected by drugs and to their families.

I was also struck by the noble Baroness’s comments on the new psychoactive drugs. We have recently had two areas of debate, in two different Bills, regarding drugs. One of the Bills was on drug driving, and the other was the anti-social behaviour Bill, which deals with the so-called and completely misnamed “legal highs”. One of the things that struck me was the communications that I received from families who had lost somebody. These family members had either died or been seriously ill from using these psychoactive drugs. The situation is horrendous. If you talk to young people now and ask them whether they know where to get these drugs, most will say that they know where to find them.

Unusually for me, I made a few notes before I came into the debate. I wanted first to listen to the debate—which has been very thoughtful—and then make a few observations. I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, speak before about Portugal, and when she first mentioned it I did not know about the Portuguese examples. I have since read quite a bit about it. There is certainly a great deal of merit in such an approach, and it seems to have successes. This should be fed into any debate that the Government undertake about the kind of approach that could be taken to get people away from drugs, and reduce the associated criminality.

Although the debate is concentrated on the end-user and the value of treatment rather than a punitive approach, we also have to recognise the serious criminality that goes alongside drug dealing. Huge benefits and profits are made by unscrupulous dealers and criminal gangs, who use this money to fund their other activities. It is a trade in absolute misery for others. It has to be a criminal offence; we can never deny that it is such and it should be treated as such. The availability of drugs has to be taken into account, and the point has also been made about prisons. Obviously, there have been some massive police successes and some amazing seizures. In my own county, where we have ports and airports and various ways of entering, there have been a number of seizures of drugs, and yet this does not seem to have a serious impact on the drugs that are available on the ground. This is partly because of the new compounds, the new psychoactive substances that can be manufactured.

Perhaps I was naive as a teenager, but I would not have known where to get drugs. I saw a noble Baroness smile; I do not think I was particularly naive. Talking to youngsters in schools now, I am surprised by the number of them who know far more than I do about this. They have far more knowledge of what is available. They even tell me the prices, which seem to me to be extraordinarily low. This can only be a matter of supply and demand.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to the ping-pong of politics. That is a great shame in a number of ways. Being a party-political hack, I consider that, although sometimes it is impossible to reach agreements between parties, there are areas where there could be far more of that kind of cross-party discussion, which would be very helpful.

I am conscious of time, but I wanted to raise one further point. I felt very sympathetic to the comments that were made in much of the debate, but I would have to put an alternative point of view about removing drugs policy from the Home Office and into the area of health. On face value, I would have considerable sympathy with that, partly because we recognise that treatment works. If you look at the figures, we have a much better record on treatment in this country than in many European countries. The number of opiate users receiving treatment in the UK is 60%, compared to only 12% in the Netherlands and 25% in Sweden. I recognise the enormous value of having health-based policies.

I do not know whether other noble Lords saw a recent article in the Guardian on 25 November. It was written by Paul Hayes, who is a former chief executive of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which works between the Home Office and the Department of Health. His view is that the only reason why Governments put money into treatment programmes is the criminality which goes alongside so much drug use. In the article, he writes that:

“The government estimates that drug misuse causes £15bn worth of harm to society—£13bn of this being the cost of drug-related crime—dwarfing the £5bn of health harm from smoking”.

His point is that that is one of the drivers which puts money into treatment. There is that driver of the Home Office recognising that this involves aspects of community safety, for example. In contrast, the Department of Health sees ongoing treatments, which are essential for many drug addicts, as being perhaps not the best use of their money. He writes:

“Put simply, the Home Office sees drug treatment as value for money, while the DH sees it as a wasted opportunity”.

He concludes:

“So what may appear at first sight as ‘common sense’, or a more liberal-minded approach to drugs misuse—by treating it as a health issue rather than a criminal activity—would most likely result in drug policy becoming the responsibility of a department”—

he means the Department of Health—

“that isn’t very interested, has a wealth of competing priorities, and a track record of seeking to disinvest from the very intervention that the proposal is designed to promote”.

I am not offering that as my particular view, but I think that it has to be included in the mix if we are looking at evidence-based policy.

16:49

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, along with other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling this Question. She has championed the importance of having a balanced and evidence-based approach to drugs policy, which I strongly support, and I am grateful to have the opportunity today to set out the Government’s action on this policy. We have debated drug policy privately and publicly, and, as many noble Lords have said, we seek the same outcome—the restriction of the supply of and demand for drugs to keep our nation healthy.

Our 2010 drug strategy aims to tackle the harm caused by drugs by balancing activity across three strands: reducing the demand, restricting the supply, and building the recovery of those who have taken to drug use or are dependent on drugs. We are reducing the demand for drugs by preventing their use in the first place through various strategies and methods. We are restricting the supply by tackling drug dealing on our streets, strengthening our response at the border and combating the international flow of drugs to the UK by disrupting drug trafficking upstream. There has been great progress in this area.

Many noble Lords, in different ways, referred to a proportionate approach to people caught in possession of an illegal drug. Our law enforcement officers take a proportionate approach and the vast majority of people caught in possession of an illegal drug are not imprisoned, with only 3% of offenders found guilty of drug possession last year being sentenced to immediate custody.

It is vital that the police and the criminal justice system have a range of measures available to them, including community-based interventions and referral to appropriate treatment, as well as tools to deal robustly with serious and repeat offenders, who cause the most harm in our communities.

Building recovery is important and we are doing it by supporting individuals to recover from dependence through timely and effective treatment, as well as through local services which encompass housing, employment and appropriate support to maintain a stable family life and a life free from crime. For example, we have maximised public health benefits for users through the legal provision of foil, which came into force in September 2014, and we have agreed the wider provision of Naloxone, to which a number of noble Lords referred, from October 2015. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, Naloxone can reverse the effects of opiate overdose. We will work with local authorities, prisons and others to ensure that it is available to those who need it and those who can administer it.

There are positive signs that the balanced approach is working. Despite the cynicism of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on this point, there has been a long-term downward trend in drug use over the last decade. More people are recovering from their dependencies now than in 2009-10 and the number of heroin and crack cocaine users in England has fallen to 294,000.

A number of noble Lords referred to the international comparator study. The Government need to continue to consider further options by looking to others to see where our learning and understanding can be enhanced. The challenges that drugs present in the UK and other countries are always changing and we need to stay abreast of developments around the world. That is why we recently published the findings of the international comparator study, which looked at responses to the misuse of drugs in other countries and makes clear that this is a complex problem. Each country’s social, cultural and legal context has shaped its responses, and what works in one country can be inappropriate in another.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has referred to Portugal in the past and she referred to it again today. The report on the decriminalisation work in Portugal is clear that the decrease cannot be attributed to decriminalisation alone. Drug use has gone down and outcomes have gone up, but there has of course been a significant investment in treatment in Portugal.

The study has made an important contribution to the ongoing development of and debate on drugs policy, and it provides us with a strong body of evidence on which to consider further responses to the evolving challenges of drug misuse. It has also reinforced our commitment to a balanced approach based on evidence, and we will continue to advocate for this approach to be pursued internationally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has spoken about the inaptly named legal highs. She responded to the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act that I proposed the other day. We have added a number of new legal highs, so they will now become illegal highs once the measure is implemented. We have led the international response to this challenge, putting in place a forensic early warning system, using innovative legislation to ban more than 350 substances and galvanising international action with partners at the UN and G7.

In December last year, we established an expert panel to look at this matter. The panel considered all available options for how the UK’s response to new psychoactive substances can be enhanced beyond the existing measures. I understand that the noble Baroness also contributed to this review, for which we are grateful. The panel made a large number of recommendations, which we are already taking forward, including developing proposals for a general ban, which we also talked about, similar to that introduced in other countries, such as Ireland.

We do not have much time left to deal with individual points that noble Lords made. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said that the ICS showed that there is no link between tough penalties and drug use. However, it does not say that there is no link or impact. It makes clear that approaches to drugs legislation and drugs possession are only one element in a complex set of factors that affect drug use, including prevention, treatment and wider social and cultural factors. It would be inappropriate to compare the success of drugs policies in different countries based solely on trends which are subject to differences in data collection.

The noble Baroness also talked about medicinal cannabis which is not used to treat multiple sclerosis. Other noble Lords made this point. Some years ago, I worked as a nutritionist with sufferers of multiple sclerosis, and I remember the campaigning that went on then to try to make Sativex available. I am very pleased that it is now available. We have no plans to legalise cannabis or to change our approach to its use as a medicine. I was not sure what medicinal cannabis the noble Baroness was referring to in treatment for things other than multiple sclerosis.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, made a very important point about the death penalty. I personally and the Government are absolutely against the death penalty for all sorts of reasons. I think the noble Baroness will understand that.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked what the Government are doing to get prisoners off drugs. The Ministry of Justice is taking various approaches, including piloting drug recovery wings, increasing the number of drug-free environments and developing and testing liaison and diversion services in police custody suites and courts.

I am rapidly running out of time. It is important to mention the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in 2016. In addition to leading the global response on new psychoactive substances, we continue to advocate for a balanced, evidence-based approach to drugs internationally. We agree with the UN Secretary-General that the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs will be a key forum for engaging in open dialogue on these issues. This event represents a unique opportunity to engage with all UN member states, international organisations and civil society on how we can improve the global approach to drugs.

On that note, I thank all noble Lords. I will reply in writing if there are any points I have not addressed. It would be great if we could have a cross-party approach on this.

Tuberculosis

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:01

Asked by

[Baroness Suttie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the rate of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom over the next 10 years.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to have the opportunity this afternoon to raise the extremely important subject of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom, and I am very grateful to colleagues for agreeing to take part in this debate.

Like all 13 and 14 year-olds of my generation in the UK, I had my BCG vaccination while I was at high school. I remember that we all compared our scars for months afterwards. We believed at that time that TB, like smallpox, could be eradicated from our society. TB, or consumption, was supposed to be an illness of poverty of times gone by. In Victorian Britain it was known as the “silent killer” and as many as one in four deaths were attributable to it. So high was the death rate, in fact, that TB has been estimated to have killed more people than any other infectious disease in human history.

Shortly after I was appointed to this House, I became involved with the APPG on TB. Much to my surprise, I quickly had many of my preconceptions shattered, as I learnt that TB has not, in fact, disappeared and remains a very real problem. While great progress has been made against the disease in the West, globally TB is as deadly as ever. The latest estimates from the World Health Organization are that the disease kills 1.5 million people every year. The Lancet estimates that TB kills more people than any other single infectious agent worldwide. To put it in context, TB kills nearly as many people every single day as have died from Ebola since March.

TB today is not the same disease it was 100 years ago. Our failure to develop new drugs or to properly apply the ones we have has given TB bacteria the chance to evolve new, drug-resistant strains. The issue of drug-resistant TB is particularly pertinent today, following the first report from Jim O’Neill’s AMR commission. The report estimates that antimicrobial resistance could cost the world economy $100 trillion over the next 35 years, and it cites TB as a major driver of that cost. In this context, it is no overstatement to say that MDR TB is a threat to social and economic well-being across the world.

A growing percentage of global cases are resistant to our best drugs. Patients diagnosed with multidrug-resistant or MDR TB face two years of treatment, taking 14,000 pills, which are often associated with permanent and debilitating side-effects and which have only a 50% chance of cure.

In June this year, I took part in a delegation to Romania looking into the Romanian experience of the treatment and prevention of TB. Romania has the highest incidence of TB in the EU. At one clinic, I spoke to a young mother of two children who had been diagnosed with MDR TB. She had already had half of one lung removed and was expecting an operation imminently to remove a section of her other lung. She was struggling with the harsh regimen of drugs for her disease and constantly felt unwell and nauseous. She was also deeply worried for her two young children, who were in the process of being tested to see whether they, too, had MDR TB.

Of course, this debate today is not about global TB; it is about TB in the UK. London is regarded as the TB capital of western Europe. Some parts of the capital have rates equal to those in sub-Saharan Africa. The BCG vaccination with which we are all so familiar provides far less protection than many think and offers no protection at all to adults.

I would like to focus briefly on three key areas: education and awareness; testing and diagnosis; and tackling the problem at source—namely, developing new and better medication and a vaccine that works. TB is infectious and airborne. When patients start treatment, they become less infectious. If there is a delay in diagnosis, they remain infectious for longer, allowing the disease to progress, and develop more severe symptoms, thus exposing others to the risk of transmission, so the first thing we must tackle is delayed diagnosis.

I am pleased that Public Health England and NHS England have, together with a number of other stakeholders, drawn up a collaborative TB strategy for England. I also note that this strategy acknowledges:

“An additional factor that frequently delays diagnosis is the lack of TB awareness among health professionals and appropriate training among social care staff”.

In short, it is a problem that high-risk populations as well as many healthcare professionals are currently insufficiently well informed about TB. Earlier this year when I visited Romania with RESULTS UK, we went to a prison outside Bucharest which had an impressive TB education programme that far surpasses anything I have encountered in this country. Will the Minister outline our existing TB awareness programmes, particularly in prisons? We are not going to reduce delays in diagnosis unless we make people aware that TB is a genuine threat to public health across the UK.

Of course, there are other ways to reduce delays between the onset of symptoms and the diagnosis of the disease. Find & Treat screens up to 10,000 people a year in the UK. It works with some of the hardest-to-reach people and yet has a treatment success rate higher than the national average. In fact, the service is of such sufficiently high quality that the clinical lead, Dr Alistair Story, who I met a few months ago, has been asked by the World Health Organization to participate in a working group exploring how to eliminate TB in low-burden countries. Yet the Find & Treat service is on an uncertain financial footing and, although seeking to expand, is unable to do so. Will the Minister commit to seeing the work of Find & Treat first-hand and support it in its efforts to scale up?

Find & Treat is also behind a project that I visited in North London known as Olallo. Olallo offers accommodation and social support for homeless patients receiving drug-resistant TB treatments. Patients receive free lodging, food, education and skills training to support them in finding permanent employment. The project is an exemplary demonstration of how we can support those with chaotic lifestyles. As a model it could also save us money. The average cost of treating a TB patient in a hospital is £500 a day, and even more in a negative-pressure isolation room, whereas hostel accommodation with all the additional social support can cost between £60 and £80 a night. Will the Minister detail what the Government are doing to support and expand projects like Olallo?

Finally, I would like to speak briefly about TB treatment. Every time I have spoken to a TB patient or a healthcare professional, the conversation has turned to the terrible treatment burden and the awful side effects. Patients have told me of the risk of hearing loss, blindness, liver damage and suicidal urges. Healthcare experts have explained the very real dilemma of having to put an MDR TB patient on treatment, knowing the misery that the drugs can bring. In the 21st century it is simply unacceptable that a patient should face the choice between a disease that could kill them and a treatment that could leave them permanently disabled.

I am proud that the UK Government are the second biggest public funder in global health research and development in the world. Investments and product development partnerships, such as Aeras and TB Alliance, are life-saving. The concordat between DfID and the Medical Research Council is practically unique in the developed world and yet there is much more that can and should be done. At the root of our global failure to develop TB drugs and vaccines is a simple truth: people who suffer from TB are usually poor and do not offer a market of sufficient scale to incentivise pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development. To put it more crudely, the commercial market has failed TB patients. In the face of this market failure, Governments must act. The UK Government could do even more than they currently do. We need to reclaim that thought-leadership and work with leading donors around the world to drive a new global consensus on overcoming the market failure in R&D for global health.

The response to the global HIV epidemic has been one of the greatest examples of the world responding to a global health threat, and HIV has lots of advocates and celebrity supporters. Ebola, too, has gripped the attention of the world’s media, and rightly so.

I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that TB was once known as the silent killer. If politicians, the media and Governments continue to be largely silent as the disease kills millions every year we will never be rid of the disease, not in the UK and certainly not around the world. I very much hope that the Government will lead the way to reverse this situation.

17:10

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for this important debate.

Many people think TB is a thing of the past. However, here in London, Newham has been named the capital of tuberculosis in Europe. With modern travel, the world is very small. I will mention a few points on the international scene before concentrating on the UK.

I was very impressed and moved recently by a film on drug-resistant TB, shot in Africa. The 2014 WHO report also states that the problem of drug-resistant TB is worsening, with an estimated 480,000 new cases of MDR-TB in 2013. This, too, may be an underestimate, since estimates of the true burden of drug-resistant TB across sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and eastern Europe are impaired by the fact that drug-resistant testing and treatment services are broadly unavailable at the majority of healthcare facilities.

Of greater concern was that of the estimated half a million cases of multi-drug-resistant TB around the world only 136,000 were officially diagnosed. It is perhaps more dire to note that 9% of those with MDR are estimated to have extensively drug-resistant TB or, in other words, that close to 50,000 people worldwide have a form of the disease that we do not currently have the necessary tools to treat.

TB is caused by bacteria. It is airborne and infectious, transmitted when a sick patient coughs or sneezes. TB has been estimated by the Lancet to be the deadliest disease in the world. The World Health Organization estimates that TB kills 1.5 million people every year. Like many other bacteria, TB is increasingly resistant to our best drugs.

We must not be complacent here in the UK. We have many demands on our NHS, but infections need controlling and preventing whenever possible. It is much easier to treat an infection in the early stages. Here in the UK, there were 7,982 cases of TB in 2013. This is a reduction of 10.6% over the previous two years. London, however, has the highest rate of any capital city in western Europe. Birmingham’s rate is even higher. Both are near the World Health Organization’s definition of a high-risk area. Before 2012, rates of TB in the UK rose steadily from the year 2000. Only 15% of TB cases in the UK occurred in people who had entered the UK in the previous two years. TB remains concentrated among the most deprived populations. In 2013, 70% of cases were resistant in the 40% most deprived areas. Nearly half of cases were among the unemployed, while 10% had social risk factors, including a history of alcohol and drug misuse, homelessness and imprisonment. More than a quarter of patients with TB in their lungs started treatment more than four months after the onset of symptoms. On average, patients in the UK wait 72 days between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis with TB. This increases the severity of symptoms and increases the likelihood that patients will transmit the disease.

There are two main reasons for this problem. Healthcare professionals in the UK often do not consider TB in the first instance. Thus, patients can be misdiagnosed. Patients can be reluctant to come forward due to stigma, lack of awareness of the disease and reluctance to access healthcare. In London, the Find and Treat service has overcome some of the challenges on the patient side. Find and Treat is a service based around a mobile X-ray unit in the back of a van which travels to hostels and other homeless places across the capital to screen marginalised and high-risk groups. I have visited this unit at work and I can tell your Lordships that it is run by enthusiastic, dedicated people. I assure your Lordships that if you had time you would find a visit most interesting. The unit even has access for a wheelchair, which is unusual. Most units for screening breast cancer do not have this facility.

The service frequently employs previous service users to offer mentoring to current patients, offering all-important social care and helping previous service users develop employable skill and experience. Find and Treat accordingly has a higher treatment completion rate than the UK national average, despite working with hard-to-reach, marginalised populations. The draft collaborative TB strategy for England recommended the scale-up of Find and Treat to become a national outreach service. This is welcome, but it must be done correctly.

TB is just one of several interlinked conditions across the UK that suffer from delayed and incomplete diagnosis. Some 30,000 people in the UK with HIV do not know their status. Half of all those with hepatitis C do not know their status. Some 630,000 people with type 2 diabetes do not know their condition and 11.5 million people are considered to be at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. These conditions are linked. People with HIV are 20 to 30 times more likely to develop TB. People with diabetes are three times more likely to develop TB. Hepatitis C and HIV infection are connected by similar methods of transmission. All these conditions are found predominately in areas of high health inequalities. Many of these people are unaware of their status and are not accessing healthcare. HIV, hepatitis C, diabetes and TB can all be screened for in less than 15 minutes.

I must declare an interest, as among the all-party health groups I serve on, I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Tuberculosis, the All-Party Parliamentary Hepatology Group and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Diabetes. Therefore, I agree with scaling-up Find and Treat to include these conditions. This would maximise the efficiency of the outreach service, making the most of a single contact with an individual to screen for multiple conditions. It would reduce stigma related to any single disease by making such tests part of routine health screening. It would target areas of high health inequalities, adapt a preventative approach to health and, most importantly, save money. The Find and Treat budget is under £1 million a year. The lifetime cost of HIV treatment in the UK has been estimated at over £300,000 per person, so an outreach service would need to help prevent only three cases of HIV to break even. Most importantly, an outreach programme such as this would save life.

We must do more to prevent these infections. I hope that in the next 10 years there will be a vaccine and more new drugs for TB, but I also hope that the Minister will commission her department to explore the possibilities of an integrated national outreach service for HIV, hepatitis C, diabetes and TB across the country. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

17:20

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Suttie most sincerely for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I acknowledge an interest in that my husband is chairman of the board of the Whittington Hospital, which is one of the hubs for the innovative TB Service North Central London, which I will mention later. I thank Dr Helen Booth, a consultant thoracic physician and TB clinical lead for that hub at the Whittington, for briefing material. I also appreciate the briefing from Results UK, the NGO that my noble friend mentioned. I also draw on evidence from the London TB clinical leadership advisory group.

I have no health background or expertise except some involvement in diabetes, but the more that I briefed myself on this subject, the more interested and alarmed I became. Having formerly had the privilege of being the elected representative for London in the European Parliament for 15 years, I was naturally very impressed with the fact that London, as has been mentioned, has the highest rates of TB of any capital city in western Europe—indeed, I believe, in the developed world—that the London Borough of Newham has rates equivalent to Nigeria, and that England is set to have a higher rate than the United States in 2015. These statistics are all very impressive. Unlike other major cities such as New York, Barcelona and Paris, London has not seen a reduction in TB rates, and accounts for almost half of the approximately 8,000 cases nationally. As a Londoner, I find this topic very important, and I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to it.

The evidence suggests that in London the majority of new cases, around 75% or 80%, are due to the reactivation of latent infections after TB has been acquired in a high-risk country outside the UK, but of course if that latent infection is reactivated it acts as a source of infection for those in close contact with that person, including their family and children.

I mentioned the North Central London TB service, the NCL, which is an innovative service providing holistic care to TB patients. It has seen reductions in TB rates. It includes the outreach service, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of the mobile X-ray and Find and Treat team based at University College Hospital, as well as a TB link project, which demonstrates the importance of an integrated social care team. It has introduced a cohort review into London and the UK, based on a New York model of TB control, and since 2007 it has had a united nursing, social care, outreach and administrative team. Lastly, it has concentrated non-in-patient services to two hubs in north central London—that is, the Whittington and the North Middlesex—instead of previously having had five sites. So this is a concentrated focus with consistent nurse leadership, avoiding the fragmentation of the nursing team and better able to tackle inequalities in the provision of care.

It has been mentioned that the national TB strategy is in preparation and I am advised that this needs to result in changes to the current model of fragmented care. However, as other noble Lords have said, it is important to acknowledge that success in TB control must involve agencies other than the health service and must address the social factors involved, which have also been mentioned. Homelessness is probably top of the list. It increases the likelihood of exposure to TB and also makes managing the care and treatment of patients very difficult. Treatment is quite arduous and requires a sustained commitment from the patient, which may be difficult in adverse social circumstances, particularly homelessness. It is a good illustration of why a co-ordinated approach between health and social care is vital.

Other factors include overcrowding, poor housing, poverty, poor access to health care, drug or alcohol dependency, HIV/AIDS and the social stigma which exists in certain individuals, cultural groups and society in general. This can lead to people having great difficulties with treatment compliance.

The rates of TB among the homeless community in certain parts of London have been recorded as up to 35 times higher than the national average. As the disease attacks people with reduced immune systems, the impact of rough sleeping, poor nutrition and chaotic lifestyles increases the chances of developing TB in the first place. Members of the homeless community are less likely to present to primary healthcare when experiencing symptoms. It is a vicious spiral because they are likely to remain infectious and transmit the disease to others, develop more severe and difficult-to-treat symptoms and increase the likelihood of developing drug resistant strains. Again, this is an illustration of the importance of taking a holistic view.

As I understand it, once a person is admitted, hospitals cannot discharge people without a home address, and a patient who cannot be discharged might cost the NHS more than £100,000 in bed fees alone. Not only is this expensive but it blocks access to in-patient treatment for other patients. One estimate that I have been given is that the cost of providing a hospital bed for a week would provide secure accommodation for all patients without housing for a year. So provision of housing can help break the cycle.

My noble friend mentioned the Olallo project in Euston, which is able to provide, on a more cost-effective basis, food, room, training, language skills and social support for TB treatment which helps the patient to recover. I am invited to invite the Minister to visit this project if she has not had the chance to see the positive impact of specialist accommodation.

Not only do we need a focused approach in the health service but a multiagency approach between the health service, housing authorities, the health and well-being boards of local authorities and other agencies. This approach goes a long way to account for the success in New York, Barcelona and Paris, which have achieved impressive and sustained reductions in infection rates. Not only do these cities recognise the problem but they have a unified, city-wide strategy to identify, treat and prevent transmission of TB.

That is the challenge in London, which is starting to be met. Significant progress has been made and now that the NHS and social care changes are bedding down there is a good prospect of success. A London TB control board has been established—I believe it has been suggested that control boards should be established nationally—which has on it all representative stakeholders. It is important that London, as the highest prevalence area in the UK, is an integral part of the national TB strategy.

Finally, I quote from Dr William Lynn, who is the clinical lead for TB and chair of the London TB Clinical Advisory Group, he said,

“health and social care (including housing) must work towards common, agreed London Wide service delivery and make the resources available to establish the detection and treatment of latent TB as the benchmark standard of care. Without this we fear that we will continue to fail the population of our Capital City and TB rates will not fall”.

17:30

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, on securing the debate and on her comments. I associate myself with her remarks about praising the work of the all-party group on TB, which does excellent work. I am grateful to it for a specific briefing on issues in Birmingham, which I am particularly interested in. We have always had excellent briefs from Public Health England and the Local Government Association and it is credible that so many experts are now thinking about how we are going to address what are clearly very important problems.

Like the noble Baroness, I thought that TB had been virtually eradicated. It clearly has not been and we need to do something about it. Noble Lords have mentioned that the UK has one of the highest incidences in western Europe but if your Lordships look at the local authorities most affected, including my own Birmingham, there is a strong correlation between TB and general poor health. For instance, if you look at the list of the 20 local authorities with the highest rates of TB per 100,000 population, which I think gives a safer comparator, many of them have other very real health issues as well.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that there is also an uncanny correlation between that list and the local authorities that have been affected worst by the funding formula switch. I ask her to reflect on this. It is rather ironic that if you read down this list of local authorities, which includes Manchester, Birmingham, Southwark and Hackney, many of them have taken huge hits in the changes to the local government funding formula. I know that some of this resource will obviously come from the Department of Health and that it has been ring-fenced, although health experts tell me they think that not all the money has actually reached public health. We can begin to see why; because of the squeeze on other resources in local government. The substantive point I put to the noble Baroness is given that, how can we ensure that the public health resources being allocated to local authorities are going to be spent on important issues such as TB?

The LGA and PHE produced a report called Tackling Tuberculosis—Local Government’s Public Health Role. It is an excellent piece of work and I endorse the fact that it should be the local authority that leads this work. The report has a lot of very good recommendations, such as that the scrutiny work of local government could address TB issues. There are also substantive recommendations, such as driving improvement through the overview and scrutiny committees and health and well-being boards. The report then says that:

“Local health service commissioners should prioritise the delivery of appropriate clinical and public health services for TB”,

and that local leadership should be promoted at all levels, with a senior co-ordinator being appointed,

“perhaps from the public health team”,

to take responsibility for TB. It recommends that local authorities:

“Encourage and empower the voice of people affected by TB”.

and use,

“‘TB cohort review’ and other methods to collect data to inform local needs assessment”.

It also says that they should:

“Facilitate appropriate access to information and services for underserved populations, such as homeless populations … Assist with supporting an individual’s social needs … Review how third sector organisations can help improve access to services and patient support”,

and,

“Ensure information about TB is cascaded into key teams—for example Children’s Services, Adult Services, Housing and Benefits, Citizen’s Advice”.

These are great recommendations.

At the heart of this is a recognition that if we are going to tackle TB effectively—to pick up the point the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made about London—you have to have one plan, an integrated programme and one body accountable for delivering it. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, see a way through to getting that single point of accountability through the local authority where it is absolutely clear who is responsible for reducing TB rates in the area?

This is very relevant to Birmingham. Unlike London, we have only one local authority, so it ought to be easier to get that kind of integration. None the less, we have three clinical commissioning groups, at least three NHS acute trusts which collectively provide a lot of clinical and preventive services, many GP practices and, because education plays such an important role in this, a lot of schools, academies and free schools as well as the local education authority. It is clear—the all-party group has also commented on this—that although the director of public health is taking this very seriously and giving leadership, at the moment it has not been pulled together into one plan with a commitment from everyone to sign up to it. That is really what is missing. There is a lot of good work with lots of outreach programmes. Working with sex workers in the city is one example. TB professionals have also conducted screening and health education in English as a second or other language, and through this route they have screened high numbers of people quickly and raised awareness of the disease among high-risk populations. So lots of good work is being done, but it does not quite hang together at the moment.

I want to put two other questions to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned the report published this morning on dealing with antimicrobial resistance. Of course, this is very relevant to TB. I have just glimpsed the report. Can the Minister say a little bit about any steps that the department is now going to take to find new treatments to tackle multidrug-resistant TB? Finally, the Collaborative Tuberculosis Strategy for England 2014 to 2019 was launched in March at a meeting organised by the all-party group. The strategy aims to learn from successful TB programmes internationally and adapt the learning to our specific circumstances in the UK. Will she give noble Lords a report on progress with the strategy and how she thinks it will be implemented?

17:38

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for securing this important debate, which has proved to be fascinating, and to all speakers for their informed and thoughtful contributions. I, too, commend the work of the APPG on TB and declare that a couple of years ago I, too, went courtesy of RESULTS UK to see TB in Zambia. I have many questions from noble Lords. Should I run out of time, I will write and post a letter in the Library.

There are considerable inequalities in the distribution of TB cases in England with respect to age, ethnicity, sex, location and socio-economic status. TB today is largely a disease of poverty and inequality. Underserved and marginalised members of our communities have the highest rates of TB and the greatest risk of onward transmission. The Chief Medical Officer has identified the inequalities associated with TB as an important priority for England and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has placed a duty on local government, clinical commissioning groups, Public Health England and NHS England to reduce inequalities.

In response to the high rates of TB, Public Health England and NHS England will launch the Collaborative Tuberculosis Strategy for England 2015-2020 in January. The draft strategy was widely consulted on in the summer of 2014, with the active input and participation of a wide range of stakeholders and partners across the Department of Health, the NHS, local government, Public Health England and the third sector. It is jointly developed to improve national TB control, with the aim of achieving a year-on-year decrease in TB incidence and a reduction in health inequalities, with a particular emphasis on bringing improvements in the areas with the highest rates of TB. NHS England and Public Health England are committed to resourcing the implementation of the strategy, and precise funding mechanisms are currently being finalised. The strategy will establish clear lines of responsibility for TB control at a national and local level, and provide a framework for the commissioning of TB services that takes into account all aspects of the patient pathway.

Most cases of TB are found in large urban areas: London, West Yorkshire, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Leicester and Luton. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, inquired about the situation in London. I have just asked my officials what role the London Assembly and the mayor have in all this, because that is the overarching body for all boroughs. Public Health England London advises the mayor on all health issues via the Public Health England London director, who also chairs the London TB control board, so there is someone who has a handle on all this.

To follow up on the issue of funding, there is no TB weighting in either the local authority or the NHS funding formulae, but there are special TB tariffs for TB care within the NHS tariff system. The majority of cases are in deprived areas. TB is more likely to occur among settled migrants, those with connections to high-incidence countries, ethnic minority groups, the elderly and those with social risk factors including homelessness, a history of imprisonment or drug or alcohol use. The lifestyles of those most at risk often mask the symptoms of TB, which can cause problems accessing and completing appropriate care. This in turn creates inequality in outcomes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, inquired about providing accessible health services to the homeless. This particular group can face great inequalities in accessing health services, yet their health can often suffer just from being homeless or living in poor quality temporary accommodation. Poor health, whether physical, mental or both, can also cause a person to become homeless in the first place. Homeless people may often leave health problems untreated until they reach a crisis point, and then present inappropriately.

My noble friend Lady Suttie asked about the response from global health R&D and the licensing of newly approved TB drugs. In 2012 Ministers of Health called on the WHO to develop a post-2015 global TB strategy in order to have a world free of TB and zero deaths, disease and suffering caused by TB. This is in recognition of the need to address the disease globally; in 2013 it affected nine million people around the world. As my noble friend has already told us, it has killed 1.5 million. To achieve this reduction, the strategy sets out ambitious global targets for the reduction of TB incidence and mortality and the individual costs of illness, with targets and milestones up to 2030.

The collaborative TB strategy contains 10 areas of action which will underpin local prevention and control services. It makes provision for a whole-system, evidence-based approach across the whole health and care system. Implementation will be supported by a small team working with local and regional experts ensuring delivery through existing structures. This structure will provide accountability, reinforced by national oversight provided by NHS England and Public Health England. A formal monitoring framework will be put in place with effect from 1 April 2015. It will monitor performance at local and national levels. Public Health England will provide annual monitoring reports on a suite of indicators relevant to the control of TB at geographical and organisational levels.

My noble friend Lady Ludford was talking about comparisons with major cities across the world. The TB strategy will address this issue. It should bring organisational change and funding improvements, focusing on TB control. There is a focus on public health in England because incidence is more than four times as high as in the US.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, inquired about the incidence of multidrug-resistant TB in the UK and asked why it was lower in other European countries. The incidence of MDR TB in the UK is not higher than in the rest of Europe. However, the proportion of multidrug-resistant TB cases in the UK has increased from 0.9% to 1.6%.

My noble friend said that London is regarded as the TB capital of western Europe. London has 35% of the UK total, with 2,965 cases reported in 2013—a decrease from the 3,403 cases reported in 2012. This concern is being recognised and work is currently under way to draft the implementation plan for London that meets London’s needs. A number of CCGs and local authorities with the highest TB rates are already working with Public Health England and NHS England (London) to implement latent TB case finding, and with TB Alert, a third sector organisation, to raise awareness within their communities. London has a TB service specification with key performance indicators that are being used to ensure that TB service providers are able to meet local population need. London is also looking in depth at the mortality of TB patients, scoping BCG provision and accommodation for “no recourse to public funds” TB patients and those with chaotic lifestyles.

My noble friend Lady Suttie inquired about general prison awareness issues. Much is being done to raise awareness of TB in prisons in the UK and to help to educate prisoners. This awareness-raising is arranged locally by health protection teams.

My noble friend made reference to the work of Find & Treat. My honourable friend Jane Ellison MP, the Minister for Public Health, met representatives of the Find & Treat service when they visited Parliament in March this year. Dr Alistair Story, the service’s clinical lead, has been involved in the development of the TB strategy and its plans for the expansion of an outreach service, similar to Find & Treat, for the rest of England. I would be happy to join any noble Lords on a visit to Find & Treat and Olallo.

The vast majority of TB cases can be cured when the medicines are provided and taken properly. Active, drug-sensitive TB disease is treated with a standard six-month course of four antimicrobial drugs with the support of specialist healthcare staff and additional support, as required, from social care support staff. Without such supervision and support, treatment adherence can be difficult and the disease can spread or manifest in drug-resistant form.

With regard to the issue of delayed diagnosis and what is being done to tackle it, poor access and late diagnosis result in more advanced and complex disease, with greater morbidity, mortality and cost. The Royal College of General Practitioners has an e-learning programme—which is available to all primary care staff—to raise awareness of TB, especially the signs and symptoms of TB disease.

As to R&D, the UK Government support a range of research programmes to promote the development of new diagnostics, drugs and vaccines. The MRC is one of the main agencies through which the Government support medical and clinical research. It receives its grant in aid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and supports a wide portfolio of research, including the current UK-based research into new TB drugs.

Through effective localised commissioning of TB treatment services, we are able to place patient safety at the forefront of the work in the UK. The collaborative TB strategy paves the way for this to happen. The measures contained in the strategy are comprehensive and far reaching. To ensure that they are brought to fruition, PHE and NHS England will oversee implementation, monitor progress and publish reports. The strategy will set out what needs to be done both at a national and local level. It will be aimed at a range of key partners, including in health and social care and the third sector at a local level, which will be empowered to ensure that the clinical priorities affecting their communities are effectively addressed.

Committee adjourned at 5.51 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 11 December 2014.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

General Practitioners: Hippocratic Oath

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Lord Trefgarne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether general practitioners working within the National Health Service are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, and if so, whether they will place a copy of the said oath in the Library of the House.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, there is no requirement for doctors to take an oath in the UK. Some medical schools may choose to include an oath in their graduation ceremonies, but that is not a requirement. When a doctor requests registration with the General Medical Council, before they can submit payment, and therefore as the final mandatory step, they must sign a declaration, part of which reads:

“I have read Good Medical Practice and understand my actions may be judged against the standards and principles it contains”.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is it not the case that the GP contract, with or without the Hippocratic oath, is now not fit for purpose, despite its 208-page length? Does my noble friend not therefore agree that it is time the contract was considered from top to bottom, particularly as regards the provision of out-of-hours and evening services?

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, the 2004 contract has been reviewed and renewed on an annual basis, and has proven to be a fairly robust document. The Government are not at the moment minded to change its basis. As for out-of-hours services—the nub of the Question—GPs can decide whether they opt out. Where they do opt out, the providers are inspected by the CQC and the local CCG.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that although there are several absolutely admirable principles embodied in the Hippocratic oath, its archaic language is totally inappropriate to the 21st century? For example, I do not believe that the noble Lords, Lord McColl and Lord Kakkar, would be prepared to swear that they would not cut for stone—and many doctors would be unwilling to honour their teacher as they do their parents. Is the Minister aware that the full original Hippocratic oath is fully reprinted in the Oxford Medical Companion, which I had the privilege to edit many years ago—and of which there is a copy in the Library?

[Baroness Jolly]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I congratulate him on his editorship. I had to rely on Wikipedia.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the first half of the Hippocratic oath is all to do with protecting doctors and that there is no mention of patients until way down the page? Furthermore—I used to read this out to my medical students—it contains a promise to supply “all the financial needs of those who taught me medicine”. None of them did.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I think that doctors have always been very good at looking after their own interests.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness acknowledge that many general practitioners and other medical professionals have sworn the Hippocratic oath and regard it as a very serious statement of principle? Does she acknowledge the view widely held among medical professionals that to perform the role assigned to them in the Assisted Dying Bill would not be consistent with the principles of the Hippocratic oath?

[Baroness Jolly]

That is an interesting point. The Government believe that any legal change should be made by Parliament rather than by government. However, doctors may choose to opt out of providing a medical procedure if it conflicts with their personal beliefs or values. The Assisted Dying Bill makes provision for a person not to participate in anything authorised by the legislation to which they hold a conscientious objection.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, while the GP contract is separate for Scotland and the modern Hippocratic oath is consistent with the ethos and the meaning of the proposals in the Assisted Dying Bill that have been debated in this House, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the principle of the oath being taken in its modern form, consistent with the duties of the General Medical Council, is a fundamental part of the service provided by doctors? Will she assure noble Lords that the ethos of the oath is a fundamental part of the training? On a wider front, could other professions that provide essential services benefit by learning and stating the principles of good professional conduct?

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, patients trust doctors with their lives and well-being and need to have confidence that they are competent in their field and abide by high ethical standards. Therefore, doctors must be registered with a licence to practise from the GMC.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Do the Government recognise that yesterday’s vote in the National Assembly for Wales that rejected the principles of the Assisted Dying Bill is compatible with the 77% of general practitioners who do not want that Bill to come in, and with the view of a high percentage of doctors who are looking after such patients full-time?

[Baroness Jolly]

That is the case.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, going back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will the noble Baroness repeat the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when this issue was raised a couple of weeks ago—namely, that the core part of the 2004 contract that the noble Lord complained about was negotiated in the 1990s by the previous Conservative Government? Will she confirm that?

As far as the oath is concerned, the noble Baroness will be aware that part of it states:

“Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient”.

Would Hippocrates be surprised by how few home visits are now done by doctors?

[Baroness Jolly]

I cannot say whether or not Hippocrates would be surprised. However, doctors—certainly, those in the out-of-hours service—are committed to home visits where it is decided that they are clinically appropriate.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, in my former constituency, a well respected GP said to me that no doctor can truly know his patient unless he knows him at home as well as in the surgery. Does she agree?

[Baroness Jolly]

I really do not have the experience on which to draw. It sounds like a good idea, but how practical it is I do not know.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that part of the problem with GP contracts is that GPs are independent practitioners who can negotiate their contracts, whereas hospital doctors, when they apply for a job, have to comply with the job description for that job?

[Baroness Jolly]

That is probably an issue for the BMA, the GMC and others to sort out.

Trade Balance

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:14

Asked by

[Lord Empey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the United Kingdom’s balance of trade will be in surplus.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Livingston of Parkhead) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK balance of trade will depend on a number of factors, including the exchange rate and economic performance of our trading partners. This Government will continue to make supporting our exporters a key priority.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Does the Minister agree that it is more than 30 years since our balance of trade was last in surplus and that the policies of successive Governments have been totally inadequate in tackling this fundamental economic weakness? We have no policy on import substitution and we give no incentive to companies to provide their staff with international trade and export qualifications. How can any country achieve long-term economic success and stability if this level of trade deficit continues indefinitely?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

I commend the noble Lord for his enthusiasm for exporting, although I think that he does the UK some disservice. We are the sixth largest exporter in the world—the second largest exporter of services. I agree with him that it has not been a key priority for past Governments, but it most certainly is for this Government. With regard to import substitution, while I would not refer to it in these terms, there is for instance the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of a Reshore UK service within UKTI to encourage manufacturers to come back to the UK. That is just one example of the many things we are doing to help our position in the long term on the balance of trade.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

Will the Minister do the House a favour by reminding us what the balance of payments deficit is at present, and then perhaps address the original Question about when we are likely to be in surplus?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

The original Question was on the balance of trade, not the balance of payments; they are, of course, two quite different things. The balance of trade is in deficit to around £30 billion; it is a deficit of about 2% of GDP, which is significantly better than under the previous Government, when it was on average 2.5% of GDP. As the UK is growing much faster than its partners it is difficult to forecast exactly when it will come to zero. Certainly the OBR expects to see a significant improvement going forward, but I am reminded of the words of J K Galbraith, who said that the only purpose of economic forecasts is to give astrology a good name.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

There has traditionally been a deficit on our balance of trade, but always this has been counterbalanced by a large surplus on our service industries. Will the Minister therefore pay tribute to them, including the creative industries and the City, for ensuring that?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

The noble Lord is correct that services have been and remain a very strong surplus for the UK. It has to be recognised that, increasingly, services and goods are becoming intermingled. I know that when Rolls-Royce sells a jet engine, almost half the value is a service. One of the things that we should cease doing to a degree is separating off goods and services, because increasingly they are the same. I commend our creative industries, our professional and financial services, our aerospace sector and, indeed, our growing motor vehicle industry which, of course, is the second largest producer of cars in the whole of Europe.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has reminded us that this country is a huge exporter of services—I think he said that we are the second biggest in the world. That will increase more and more as information and data will play the key role rather than actual physical products. Free trade in services is what we have not got—particularly in Europe but throughout the world. Will my noble friend reassure us that huge efforts will be made to free up the service trade so that our exports can prosper even more in the future?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

I certainly confirm that that is a key priority: both extending the single market to services, which we are pushing for in the EU, and the trade and services agreement, which is a plurilateral agreement between many countries. The UK is championing that. As such a large producer of services, we certainly support both those measures to increase trade.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, as business ambassador for life sciences and healthcare, may I ask what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the contribution of the life sciences industry to the UK economy?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

First, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution to life sciences, which is very much appreciated. The life science sector is hugely important. From pharmaceuticals onwards, the UK has a very strong position. The appointment of George Freeman as the Minister responsible shows how important it is, and the measures taken on R&D allowances and tax relief on the exploitation of IP in the UK will carry on supporting this industry. I was in Boston recently, talking to a number of life science companies that are thinking of coming to the UK.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches and then it will be right if we come back over to the Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that in the north-east we still have the highest proportion of manufacturing in the country as part of our economy? However, the large companies there, such as Nissan and now Hitachi, see membership of the European Union as absolutely critical to their ability to trade, particularly with Europe. They want to be in the north-east because of the quality of the workforce and because it is English- speaking, but they want the clear access to Europe. Are not the Government potentially putting this at risk, and will the Minister fight within his Government for this country to stay in Europe?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

The north-east, indeed, is one of our manufacturing powerhouses and is part of the UK that actually has a trade surplus with the rest of the world. The Nissan factory is producing more cars than the whole of Italy. I recognise that a number of exporters wish to remain in the EU but I also recognise that they wish to remain in a reformed EU—and that is what we on this side of the House are fighting for.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

At the start of this Government, only 30% of components in our successful car manufacturing sector were sourced in the UK. Can the Minister tell us how the Government’s industrial strategy has been seeking to improve this performance?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

The Government’s industrial strategy brings together academia, the Government and also businesses in producing a long-term commitment to the next generation of technologies and industries. I know that the motor vehicle industry in particular welcomes this. I mentioned earlier the Reshore UK proposal. These things together are helping significantly, both with companies coming back to the UK and, for instance, companies such as Gestamp, a Spanish company that recently announced a significant investment in the UK.

Passports

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:22

Asked by

[Baroness Rawlings]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government for what reasons British parents living abroad must wait for a minimum of eight weeks after having applied for their newborn baby’s first passport before they receive it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates)]

My Lords, it is necessary for the safety and protection of the child that we undertake a full and careful assessment of each application. First-time passport applications for children are subject to additional checks and overseas applications can require documents to be verified in the country of issue with the relevant issuing authority.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful and sensible Answer. Since I put down the Question, luckily, the eight-week advised wait for a newborn baby’s passport did not occur; it arrived nine days after application and the Home Office is to be commended. However, I would still like to ask the Minister for his reassurance that a minimum eight-week wait is not the norm but something of the past for low-risk areas, so as to alleviate the anxiety of new parents?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, we are always pleased to hear about a satisfied customer of the passport services, especially this year. That is good news. The reality is that delays can occur for three reasons. Sometimes they are caused by the passport service, and we are trying to bear down on that and improve on it. Sometimes the cause is the applicant not filling in forms or providing the necessary documents. Sometimes it is the country from which parents are applying for the overseas passport not giving in the documents in sufficient time. I agree that we should be doing much better.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

Does my noble friend happen to know whether the communications problems between the Passport Office in Liverpool and the Passport Office in London have been sorted out yet?

[Lord Bates]

Yes, for overseas passports it is Durham and Liverpool and we have put in an extra 1,100 staff to clear the backlog and improve our performance. Of those, so far 500 have been appointed and the rest will be appointed in the next few months.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

At the peak of the summer holiday season, the Passport Office had a backlog of more than half a million passport applications. Thousands of people who had booked and paid for holidays were left uncertain whether they would be able to travel. In an editorial on 10 July on the great passport backlog, the Times wrote:

“The Passport Office has failed. The minister responsible … has failed”.

The Times was right. What guarantees can the Government give that there will not be the same shambles in the first half of next year?

[Lord Bates]

There was a failure. That is why the Home Secretary intervened to annul agency status and to bring the problem into the Home Office to get a grip on it. That is why the delay in the process time for applications—which had sunk as low as 20%, which is appalling and for which we apologise—is now above 50% and heading towards 60% to 70%. That is as a result of the actions that have been taken and the grip that the Home Secretary has on the situation.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Can the Minister outline what powers an ambassador or consulate has in the event of an urgent need to repatriate a family with a newborn baby, because of either illness or tragedy?

[Lord Bates]

Where there are exceptional cases then it is possible to apply for emergency travel documentation. Of course, such a matter is dealt with through the local embassy and the local consulate.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, has the agency status of the Passport Office now been resolved? In that case, where does the ultimate responsibility for delays, et cetera lie?

[Lord Bates]

The ultimate responsibility now lies with the Home Office. We have taken that decision. Sometimes in the history of government it has been the case, when there was a problem, that we push it out and call it “agency status”. Here we have brought it in-house to get a grip on it. That is clearly happening.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

May I ask the Minister what the position is regarding records, in view of his last statement? Every time I have to apply for a right of abode every time I get a new passport—I still have only my Australian passport—I am asked to provide all the original documents of my husband’s birth, his parents’ marriage and my marriage. I do not know whether the documents are going to give out or whether I am going to be dead first. Is there no way that these things can be kept on record?

[Lord Bates]

Documentation is, of course, a critical element of this. The British passport is arguably the most prestigious travel and residence document in the world because of the security and steps we take to maintain its integrity. We cannot do that without having documents verified in-country to ensure that we award passports to people who are entitled to receive them. That is a key part of what we are trying to do.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, will the passport service remain for ever in the Home Office or will it be re-established as an arm’s-length body under new and perfect conditions?

[Lord Bates]

The most important thing we have to do is to get a grip on the situation to ensure that the problems that led to delays last year—an increase of some 1 million applicants over what was normally forecast and expected—are dealt with, that people get the service that they expect and that we keep the security of our borders as our highest priority.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has admitted that the real problem last year, in his words, was that there were a million more applications than normal. It was nothing to do with agency status. Has he thought through the law of unintended consequences? One of the reasons why the asylum figures and deportation of foreign prisoners were so difficult is that, after a long series of judicial appeals, someone could go to their MP. When the MP applied to the Home Office Minister, the case had to be opened again. Does the Minister think that bringing this back into the Home Office and thus permitting that has had anything to do with the escalation of the asylum and immigration problem?

[Lord Bates]

That is a possibility. I defer to the noble Lord’s deep expertise in this area. The problem that happened with the numbers was an issue of forecasting and therefore ensuring that we had the right number of staff. We are now confident that we have the right number of staff to deal with that. Where issues are raised with a Member of Parliament then they should also apply to the ombudsman, which can deal with these matters if it thinks there has been maladministration.

Food Poverty

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:29

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendations of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Food Poverty’s recent report, Feeding Britain.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this report is a serious contribution to an important and wide-ranging debate, which recognises the multiple factors behind demand for emergency food assistance. As a country, we have enough food to go round. We agree that it is wrong that anyone should go hungry at the same time as surplus food is going to waste. There is a moral argument, as well as a sustainability one, to ensure that we make the best use of our resources.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I pay tribute to my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro, for co-chairing the inquiry. When the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury launched the report, he said that a party -political approach will not solve a problem such as this because of its complexity. I wonder whether the Minister would agree with that sentiment and whether, therefore, a genuine cross-party approach can be adopted to implementing the recommendations of the report. In particular, will the Government liaise and work closely with voluntary agencies, with the food banks and with industry to address the pressing problem of food waste and redistribution, whereby millions of tonnes of perfectly good food are going to waste at great cost, at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are still hungry?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Government are very happy to do that. After all, the whole food bank movement is a major civil society initiative. I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that this is a long-term problem and that we should not approach it in a partisan manner. Perhaps I might quote from the report:

“How a society protects the poorest from what appears to be a fundamental change in the way economies of the Western world are operating – which results in cuts in their living standards”—

that is, those of the poor—

“faster than other groups – calls for developing a political agenda which can only be delivered over decades”.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that the number of families using food banks rose considerably during the recent half-term? What does he think is the reason for that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have been told by a friend who is involved in the food bank movement that demand for food banks has dipped when schools go back. The Government take some comfort from the fact that the expansion of free school meals in primary schools is clearly, therefore, a help in this regard, whatever the Daily Mail may have said in attacking the whole initiative.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords may be aware that I have been a member of this inquiry, which over the past few months has travelled from Birkenhead and South Shields to Cornwall and Salisbury to take evidence, as well as indeed taking evidence from a large number of witnesses and organisations in London, many of whom do outstanding work in their local communities. I would like to take this opportunity to say how much I regret the wording of my remarks at the launch on Monday, not least because they have overshadowed the 76 other recommendations in the report. I ask my noble friend to urge Ministers in the eight different departments responsible to read the report and its recommendations with great care.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that the noble Baroness, together with others, has put into this inquiry. I know that she has been committed to these issues for some years. Perhaps I might draw particular attention to the chapter on resilience in this report, which talks about the problems of families who do not have the skills or confidence to cook. I note that the Trussell Trust has been providing courses on cooking for some of those in order to help with diet, so that they eat well and spend less.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and I have taken part for four years now in the Live Below the Line extreme poverty initiative every spring, and I welcome very much her statement here today and the way that it was received in the House. I also chair the Cash for Kids charity in the west of Scotland and have done for three years. This year, we experienced a 12% increase in the number of families and children applying for Christmas grants for food vouchers, cash or gifts to ensure that they have some pleasure on Christmas Day. It seems to me that, regardless of what debates take place in 2015 on welfare benefits, the economy or other issues, it would be an absolute tragedy if that figure were to be increasing again this time next year. Therefore, I hope that the Government will indeed take this report and our discussions with NGOs and charities throughout the land on board, to ensure that the Government, the public sector and the third sector can work together to serve those families who are still going to be in need, regardless of the initiatives that we take on welfare benefits or other aspects of the economy in the immediate future.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for that. The report is also addressed to the utility companies and to problems such as having mobile phones on “pay as you go” tariffs meaning that you pay more. The poor pay more due to a whole range of structural reasons and the report therefore identifies a large number of targets to be addressed. It talks about debt, addiction, utility pricing, low pay, housing costs and mental health. The problem of low pay and the minimum wage, and how we increase pay, turn around troubled families and rebuild local social networks, are all part of the issues we need to address.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Food and Health Group, and I must say that we have had so much evidence over the years on why the national diet is inadequate, with malnourished people, obese people and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, correctly identified that responsibility for food in the national diet is spread across eight government departments. Does my noble friend agree that the time has come for a national food strategy?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

We do not need just a national food strategy. The Government are well aware of the complexities of this, which is why I am answering this Question on behalf of the Cabinet Office. This is a large, long-term problem. I was struck to read in the report that there are 1,000 food banks in Germany and 2,000 in France. It is not just a British problem.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, now that the report has identified a gap, particularly in relation to children when they are not in school, can the noble Lord, with that knowledge, assure us that the Government will address the issue with urgency?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, that takes a great deal of consideration and the Government certainly will do so. The report recommends that free school meals should be provided in the holiday period. That involves a lot of implications and cost, which the Government of course will have to consider.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of these people are living in multioccupancy buildings, with either shared cooking facilities or none, and have extreme difficulty in providing proper square meals for their families? Can that be taken into account when people are criticising them for not being able to support themselves?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I agree with that. Another of the recommendations in this excellent report, which I encourage noble Lords to read in full, is that landlords should be expected to supply basic cooking facilities and equipment. There was also some good material on encouraging people to grow their own food. I have had some association with the charity in Shipley that deals with people who have mental health problems, runs a series of allotments and indeed encourages people to grow their own food and then cook it themselves. There is a whole range of issues that we need to address, some of which the Government can address but quite a lot of which civil society is at least as well equipped as government in addressing.

Business of the House

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion on Standing Orders

11:38

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 16 December to allow the Taxation of Pensions Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Insurance Bill [HL]

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

11:38

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury be appointed a member of the Special Public Bill Committee in place of Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, resigned.

Motion agreed.

Economic Leadership for Cities

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:38

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

That this House takes note of the case for enabling economic leadership for cities.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have this opportunity to debate the case for enabling economic leadership for cities in the UK. I am grateful, too, to those noble Lords who will contribute today from all parts of this House. In particular, we look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of three Members on these Benches, each of whom has had personal experience as a council leader in driving economic growth and whose contribution to our debate will be very valuable.

My purpose today is twofold. First, it is reflective; that is, I want to look back at what the Government have done and what our cities have achieved since 2010. Secondly, it is about looking forward. We are experiencing a sea-change in our understanding of the economic importance of our cities; and by “cities” I mean the conurbation cities belong to—in essence, their travel-to-work areas. We are experiencing a rising self-confidence in our cities as local leaderships grasp the opportunity to do more to generate wealth and jobs and thus to reduce their reliance on London and the south-east. I am much encouraged by this, and, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do not mean for this debate to be exclusive: we should acknowledge the crucial role of shire counties and rural areas in wealth generation and the crucial role of London as a world city whose success means that it represents one-fifth of the UK economy. We may note that London has suffered less in the recession, but our aim should be to raise growth levels in other cities, whose tax revenues are very important to the rest of the UK, as well as London. It is, of course, now hugely expensive to live in London, with the result that there are many reports of young people moving out to other cities in the UK as employment clusters grow there, where the cost of living is cheaper and the quality of life is excellent.

I welcome the interim report by the Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England. It says that a handful of shires are now ready for devolved decision-making about public services and tax. It makes this debate on the economic leadership of cities even more important, because cities depend on rural areas and rural areas depend on cities. They complement each other, and they need to work closely together.

This is not about creating lots of independent city-states; it is about empowerment of our cities within a national framework so that they can grow faster and generate and retain higher tax revenues. It is about bringing local government closer together across boundaries so that it does not operate as geographical silos. Transport, skills and jobs, for example, all transcend an individual council’s boundaries in urban areas. This in turn means that governance structures are needed to which central government can effectively devolve. Such governance structures must have popular support. They need a direct link with voters, they must be inclusive of other political parties, and they must be able to demonstrate a clear capacity to share risk and investment and to deliver better outcomes. Simply dividing up the available cash in Whitehall and posting out cheques will not be enough.

We have learnt a lot since 2010 about what works and what does not. For example, we have learnt that devolution is a process, not an event, and that it is a two-way process. We have learnt that we must learn from doing things and that we cannot wait to move at the speed of the slowest. We have learnt that achieving growth in our cities is so very important because they have been underperforming for far too long and because it is through the tax generated by growth that they will be able to afford the public services that they aspire to. By any method of comparison that we might choose with similar cities across Europe, UK cities underperform. Seven out of our eight core cities in England outside London are below the national average in GDP per capita. Bristol is above, but Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield are below. UK cities represent 60% of jobs and output but, interestingly, they account for 73% of highly skilled jobs; they could, however, do much more. Similar second -tier cities in other countries are economically much stronger than ours. One of the problems is that, unlike those European counterparts, powers have been stripped away from local government outside London over recent decades. This has impacted on growth, so it is no surprise that cities outside London have been performing comparatively poorly. For example, in 2010, Manchester had a GDP per head half that of Munich and a fifth lower than that of Marseilles.

Having identified the problem, I want to pay tribute to the leadership on this issue shown by the Deputy Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues, who in 2011 took the first initiative to strengthen our cities through city deals and who have led those city deals and local growth deals since. The initiative was a vital step because it put cities centre stage. It said that cities were important and it put the onus on them to come up with deliverable proposals that they wanted to implement. It was a subtle but vital change in approach. Defining those cities’ increasing responsibilities has unleashed a rising confidence which can only get stronger.

Cities were prepared for it, of course, because English core cities have been pressing the case for investment and further devolved powers for at least a decade, and had done a lot of the necessary preparatory work. So the Government are committed to devolving power. They appointed a Minister for Cities, introduced city deals and growth deals for local enterprise partnerships, and now devolution deals, of which Greater Manchester is the first, I hope, of many. There were 28 city deals; 95% of the first wave actions are on track or have been completed, while 82% of wave two actions are on track or have been completed. Examples of action taken include growth hubs, innovation centres, earn-back programmes, gainshare schemes for the additional national tax raised, freedoms to borrow against future business rate income and localised youth contracts and apprenticeship schemes. In governance, several combined authorities have been established, with others on the way. Three joint committees have been established and two more are to come shortly. The Glasgow and Clyde Valley cabinet has been established. I turn to the growth deals. The Government have committed £12 billion over six years from 2015-16 to 2020-21 for local growth. In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced £1 billion of funding from that allocation for local enterprise partnerships to be allocated in January.

I conclude from all this that the pace of devolution within England is quickening. The speed and unity behind the announcement about Greater Manchester has been particularly impressive. The context is now one in which there seems to be general agreement that there is a relationship between growth and devolved powers. One has only to read all the reports published by organisations such as Centre for Cities, IPPR North, ResPublica, the City Growth Commission, the Local Government Association and the interim report of the Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England to realise this. But these were all preceded by the visionary report, No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth by my noble friend Lord Heseltine and by the work of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who led the North East Independent Economic Review, which made the case for devolved powers to drive growth and skills and for a combined authority, and talked about the importance of clusters.

There is now a public appetite for devolution within England; opinion polls show that. There may not be any more money for devolution unless it is raised locally, but there can be more effective joined-up delivery of public services, which would save money locally across Whitehall’s 50 spending lines and enable savings to be redirected into investment and growth. Devolution starts with a desire to take on the greater responsibilities that come from having more powers. Just expressing a wish for more powers is not enough. As Jim O’Neill, the chairman of the City Growth Commission, said recently, local leaders aspiring to take on greater responsibilities need to demonstrate that their councils and joint structures have the capacity to take control from Whitehall. That capacity-building is important.

May I make a plea here over words? I hear lots of demands for devolution of powers and freedoms, but it is not just about that; it is also about responsibilities. That is because you can have all the freedoms and powers you like; the real question is what you plan to do with them and how you will measure your success.

We have moved on a long way from the passing of the Localism Act 2011, which gave a power of general competence and helped to create the framework in which city deals, growth deals and devolution deals have been able to take place. It is clear that this is indeed a cross-party initiative at Westminster, as each of the main parties commits itself to the implementation of greater devolution. The crucial point now is this. Cities are thinking about their “functional economic geography” when making economic decisions. They are working across local authority boundaries for the benefit of their area as a whole, and they see growth as a central task of local government rather than just thinking in terms of local government being about provision of services.

One of the consequences of the Scottish referendum is that demands for further devolution within England have increased. We should note, however, that devolution within England is not dependent on what happens over devolution to Scotland; it would be happening anyway, but it may well be speeded up. I would make this further point: there is a huge difference between Scotland, which already had a Parliament, significant devolved powers and debated independence for two years, and English regions and sub-regions, which have no directly elected structures other than through their councils, many fewer devolved powers, and with a few honourable exceptions have not been thinking much about the detail of devolution at the sub-regional level. Defining what is wanted in detail, with clarity in governance and resourcing, is an essential prerequisite to successful devolution, whether it is urban or rural.

One of the indirect benefits of city deals is that they can have the effect of raising the aspirations of an area as a whole. I want to give an example briefly from my own part of the country. In October, some 300 north-east business leaders met in Newcastle to acknowledge the role of those who have helped to build the IT sector in the area into the thriving sector that it has now become, supporting some 32,000 jobs, with a further 2,000, I understand, expected to be added to the sector very shortly. Tech-based entrepreneurship is thriving in the area, fed by active early-stage investment and incubators, dynamic universities and a thriving corporate technology sector. Of course, one of the world’s largest business software firms, Sage, was founded and remains head -quartered in the city. Crucial to this success are the growing indigenous independents now coming together as a cluster to drive the local agenda for skills, collaboration and innovation in IT.

The north-east IT network, Dynamo, has established that the north-east’s current problem in IT is filling vacancies. Some 2,000 jobs were filled this year; for instance, Accenture hired 150 staff and the Government Digital Service expanded to 450 desks locally. Many local firms are now growing beyond 100 staff, some opening offices in other cities to tap new labour markets. Some of the growth is being absorbed by the boomerang Geordies, experienced locals who sought work away but are returning home as globalised markets offer career challenges on their doorstep. It is most encouraging. Indeed, to IT in the north-east we can add clusters in the automotive industry, pharmaceuticals, the process industries and the offshore, subsea and renewables industries. In a recent edition of the Observer, I read an article about Bristol, about its creative edge and about young people moving out of London to Bristol to share in its creative buzz. Clusters seem to be growing in our cities, and that is a very good thing. I conclude that Whitehall must now look increasingly to cities for innovation and growth.

In conclusion, what of the future? The Autumn Statement was very helpful, in particular, in outlining the things that are planned to put the north of England at the centre of growth. What we need now are cities that know what they want. That includes comprehensive city region strategies in transport, housing, skills and land use. They should understand how they will generate more resources locally. Secondly, the Government need to devolve fiscal powers. There is a danger that we will achieve devolution of functions only when we need greater fiscal devolution and three to five years’ funding of central government grant. We should accept and plan for differential devolution and ensure that city regions integrate with each other, particularly in transport.

In their 2011 report, Unlocking Growth in Cities, the Government stated:

“Cities are the engines of economic growth and they will be critical to our economic recovery”.

I hope we can agree. Recently, the City Growth Commission rightly said that sustainable growth and deficit reduction cannot be delivered from the centre. I hope we can agree. The House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee said this July that cities such as London and the core cities were ready to take greater control over their financing and borrowing powers. Areas to which any fiscal powers were devolved should, it said,

“demonstrably function as an economic unit”.

I hope we can agree.

I conclude that cities need greater control of their funding streams and clear powers and responsibilities. They need fiscal powers and the powers to build up their own resources, and devolving powers to cities should be the start of a much more ambitious process of devolution for the whole of England. I beg to move.

11:53

[Lord Lyell (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend for setting the seal and the pattern for a great debate today, with numerous maiden speakers, on matters of enormous importance. Your Lordships’ House also has somebody like me, an amateur.

Now, 11 November 1967 was quite an interesting day for me. I happened to be in London at the weekend and I went down to Buckingham Palace to the Guard Mounting. There was a horde of young gentlemen there in blue outfits. It was clear from the way they spoke that they came from elsewhere. They were from Liverpool. They were attending an afternoon event. I joined them. We had a tremendous day out. They said I must go up to Liverpool so in 1968 I went to Liverpool. I had been there only once, in 1957 when I was a young soldier. I went in April 1968 and I walked for three and a half miles from another afternoon event back to the station. I was interested in huge areas of what I would call inner Liverpool—not Kirkdale or Kirkby or Huyton—that were being renewed and were capable of being redeveloped.

Every schoolboy in Scotland, England or elsewhere will know the history of Liverpool, with its huge port centre. It was and still is a great centre for commerce and ideas. I read a great deal to try to prepare. But I knew of one thing in Liverpool: the enormous docks. The pattern of trade has changed noticeably, certainly in my lifetime and especially over the past 20 or 30 years. Now we have enormous containers and other methods of transporting goods, all kinds of apparatus, but they arrive and they come from all over the world. Liverpool is not sleeping at all. I understand that there is a £350 million project to improve the deep-water quay so that the world’s largest container ships can come to Liverpool, to Merseyside, to carry on the great tradition of the Port of Liverpool.

What is the geography? Liverpool, with a new port of that nature, is far nearer to the manufacturing centre of the Midlands than other ports around the coast elsewhere. Time is money, so save it. The city of Liverpool has carried out economic leadership off its own bat. I understand from a Financial Times survey that between 2010 and 2012, when it was difficult throughout the United Kingdom, the city of Liverpool created 12,800 private sector jobs. There was a loss of about 5,000 jobs in the public sector because of cuts in various government departments. That shows the wonderful capacity of the city of Liverpool, and cities like it, of two words: “can do”.

As I an amateur, I know of one thing. The main industry that comes to my mind and is splattered throughout the newspapers, not just the financial press but other sectors, is the enormous motor works at Halewood. There must be something in the spirit of the people who work there—and of the city—and their attitude. I understand that it is very nearly a three-shift system, producing Jaguars, Range Rover Evoques and other enormously high-quality vehicles that go all over the world, revitalising industry in Liverpool. That is enormously encouraging.

I spent a happy evening in Liverpool in May this year. Since April 1968, the waterfront, down at the docks—Albert Dock and Kings Dock—has changed unbelievably. Why? It is the people of Liverpool. I have a great close tie with the city. I was taken ill in 2006 and I received telegrams and good wishes from people I had not necessarily met in the course of my job. My great affection does not always clash with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but never mind. It is a great institution that has looked after me. Those men in blue in November 1967 encouraged me to go and take a look at what this great city does in the north of England, what it can do and what it will do in the future. I very much look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister will say about this part of the north of England, which I will be passing through today on my way home. I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on securing this debate for us this morning, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on his clear attachment to and love of Liverpool—although I am advised that he is an Everton supporter. I also look forward to the three maiden speeches we will hear today. The notion that local councils—particularly cities; and I am happy to accept the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for that term—with strong local leadership can be a force for economic progress is, of course, not new. But moving forward on this agenda has been given impetus by what my noble friend Lord Adonis has set out in his report, Mending the Fractured Economy: the link between economic growth and the living standards of ordinary people has been broken, and this dictates a fundamental reform in order to secure more balanced growth. This converges with the recognition that the scale of spending cuts facing local authorities will most effectively be delivered by the chance to join up, reconfigure and innovate at local level.

As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, concluded in his report No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth, too many decisions are taken in London without a full understanding of their local impact. I certainly agree with that. But he asserted that local authorities have been relegated to service providers—increasingly, commissioners of services—and that local economic leadership has all but disappeared. This is too sweeping an assertion, doubtless many noble Lords here today will know of the engagement of their local council in regeneration activities and a partnership working with the local business community—driven in many instances by the support of RDAs. It belies the leadership role of the Core Cities Group over some 15 years, I believe, and in particular its work which culminated in amendments to the Localism Bill—as it then was—agreed by an all-party consensus, which allowed Ministers to transfer local public functions from central government to local and combined authorities.

As we know, a range of city deals followed, not homogeneous arrangements, underlining the diverse needs of cities—and there are more to come. Important as they are, however, it is difficult to maintain that such arrangements are transformational; step change is required if the true potential of our towns and cities is to be realised. We should remember that the Secretary of State still holds the whip hand in these deals, being required to determine whether any transfer of functions would promote economic development or wealth creation or increase local accountability.

What should change entail? It raises issues of funding, powers and coverage. Again, as my noble friend Lord Adonis has proposed, we should devolve funding of £30 billion over the next five years to combined authorities, local authorities and LEPs to cover key economic levers—housing, transport, skills and business support. Of course, how funding is devolved is important and we must not replicate the past with endless bidding processes and bureaucracy, nor allow the Treasury to strangle such initiatives.

This agenda brings with it the thirst for more taxes to be devolved to English cities. City Centred campaigns for council tax, stamp duty land tax, business rates, annual tax on enveloped buildings and capital gains property disposal tax to be devolved. It properly asserts that this would be Exchequer-neutral because central grants to cities would be cut.

We would go some way along this path by giving control over the full revenue from business rates, which we would in any event reform, to powerful new city and county regions which come together in combined authorities. It would be an incentive to do so, but we would not insist on their needing to have an elected mayor.

It is important that there is scope within the system to address the differing needs and resources of local authorities and scope for a safety net for local economic shocks. This will be especially important in the near term, given the current local authority funding arrangements, which have hit the poorest areas the most. Of course one way to devolve economic power and funding would be to relocate more civil service posts outside London.

So far as combined authorities are concerned, we can look to Greater Manchester as a beacon. It in particular has been leading the way, and we should congratulate it and indeed the Government on its new deal with the Treasury. The opportunity to promote a northern powerhouse is obviously to be welcomed. It will build on some of the existing strengths of these regions, including in science and technology, and it chimes with my noble friend Lord Adonis’s proposals for a long-term innovation strategy.

However, these opportunities are not just about big cities, however important, nor just about the north. We need to mend the link between growth and living standards across the UK, so we will propose that local authorities covering any part of the country—Norwich or Luton included—will be able to become combined authorities, again with devolution of powers and funding. We would devolve funding to all local areas that reform their LEPs and create formal governance structures across local authorities at regional level, so that every part of the country would have the chance to make its decisions over how to invest in skills, infrastructure and business.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord’s time is up.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry, I shall wind up now. All the evidence shows that the economic benefits of devolving powers to local areas are too great to ignore. Devolving powers to cities is a start but not the end.

12:06

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, listening to other Peers’ maiden speeches has been quite a revelation for me; some have been amusing, some quite touching. Anyone who had the privilege of hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, must have been moved by his highly personal story. On the other hand, I now know that there are seven Smiths in the House—a quite useless fact but one that I cannot get out of my head. I thank everyone who has made my introduction and my stay here so welcoming: my long-suffering supporters, my noble friends Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord McNally, and my mentor, my noble friend the one and only Lord Addington.

I also thank the officers, the staff and of course the legendary doorkeepers. On my second day in the House, I decided to come in early—be my own man. I took my place on the third row, in prime position. The House began to fill up. To my surprise, a doorkeeper came across to me. “Lord Goddard?” he politely asked. “Yes, I am.” “Lord Goddard of Stockport?” “Yes, yes.” He actually knows who I am after one day in the House. “Lord Goddard of Stockport, the Liberal Democrat Peer?” By now, I am the emperor penguin, chest out and proud as punch: “Yes, I am that Member”. The doorkeeper leans in and whispers in my ear: “Perhaps the noble Lord will wish to follow me across the Floor to the Liberal Democrat Benches. You are actually sat in the Labour Benches”.

As the realisation of my predicament dawns on me, I slowly follow him down the steps and across the Floor of the Chamber. I can see the Members politely smiling at my mishap right around the Chamber. I go from emperor penguin to Donald Duck in 30 seconds. At the bottom of the stairs he mercifully administers the coup de grace: “My Lord, I’m sure you will be safer sitting here”. Many new Members are confused by the geography of the Palace of Westminster, but I managed to get confused over the geography of this Chamber. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not be putting my name forward for overseas visits in the foreseeable future; I fear that I could be lost to the House for ever.

I turn to the Motion being debated today, which I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shipley for tabling. I want to spend a short time reflecting on Greater Manchester’s journey towards achieving greater control over the decisions that affect us all locally. It is a journey that has been made in partnership with government, recognising not only the economic potential of English city regions but their leaders’ capacity to make the right decisions for those places. Greater Manchester’s 10 leaders have an unrivalled history of collaboration, characterised by consistent leadership and hard work over many years, first through the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, established in 1986, and then through the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the first in the country, marking a new phase in our collective ambitions. The combined authority provides us with strong and effective governance and has statutory responsibilities for transport, economic development and regeneration. As a Liberal Democrat vice chair of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, I was uniquely placed to help frame and deliver those unique opportunities.

Our leadership has evolved from a “bottom up” approach—it is vital that Members understand that—to meet the Greater Manchester agenda and ensure the ownership and commitment of the 10 leaders. We have worked out which functions are best delivered at the Greater Manchester level and which are best delivered at local level. We also have been able to develop a highly effective partnership with business leaders, helping to shape the strategic direction and oversee the delivery of key growth functions. There is no equivalent comprehensive partnership anywhere else in the country.

In March 2012 I was one of the four leaders from Greater Manchester who pitched for, and were successful in securing, the first city deal in the country. That city deal secured a broad-ranging set of arrangements to deliver jobs and growth to Greater Manchester. Three aspects of that merit particular attention.

The earn-back model is a ground-breaking tax-increment financing scheme which means that £1.2 billion of investment made by our councils can be earned back as real economic growth is delivered, to then be reinvested in further schemes.

The Greater Manchester Investment Framework combines different government funding streams into a single pot, making it easier for investors to access the finance they need. Because the fund is a loan, not a grant, it can be recycled to make better use of scarce resources. New skills pilots will deliver an extra 6,000 apprenticeships via small and medium-size businesses.

The devolution agreement, signed in November, is quite simply an agreement designed to drive growth and reform public services in the quickest possible way.

I recognise that the full devolution of Greater Manchester’s public spending will take many years to deliver. Our road map proposes that the functions and resources for public services be devolved in a staged manner to enable the city region to be financially sustainable and economically successful, providing early wins for both Greater Manchester and the Government.

Finally, I thank Sir Howard Bernstein, chief executive of Manchester City Council, and Eamonn Boylan, chief executive of Stockport Council, for their support over many years. Today Sir Howard and I share a wider smile, following our beloved Manchester City’s win in Rome last night against all the odds. As my mother used to say to me, “Do good things for others and sometimes good things will happen to you”. Thank you.

12:12

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, it is my great pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lord Goddard of Stockport on his excellent maiden speech. He will be a very welcome addition to the Liberal Benches and also to the whole House. His work in local government and his wide experience of partnership working, particularly in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, will be of great value to us, especially in deliberations such as this one. He is most welcome.

I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Local Government Association, a current LGA vice-president and a previous leader of Bradford Metropolitan Council, where I am still a councillor. I know that all councillors here today, and those who have been councillors, fully appreciate the importance of today’s debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for initiating it.

Bradford, as most noble Lords probably do not know, is the fourth-largest metropolitan district in England, after Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield. It has the eighth-largest economy in the United Kingdom, creating more than £8 billion of added value. And Bradford is not alone. The potential of the United Kingdom’s cities is enormous. The City Growth Commission has already reported that, if the UK’s top 15 metro areas realised their full potential, they could add almost £80 billion to our economy by 2030. Of course, this is not just about individual cities but about networks of cities, in the north and in the south, coming together to drive economic growth. Already we are seeing more powers for Greater Manchester, and the Chancellor, in his speech on the Autumn Statement, said that his,

“door is open to other cities who want to follow its cross-party lead”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/14; col. 314.]

Throughout debates on cities, Core Cities is mentioned as if it indisputably represented the largest economically. While in no way trying to undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of Core Cities, I point out that, at the time, it was formed as an interest group of one political persuasion. Economic reality is a little more complex. As an example of complexity, Leeds city region, an area of a combined authority, is polycentric: Bradford, which is within that combined authority, has a population of over 500,000 people. The role of Bradford and other cities such as Wakefield and Huddersfield, which are not members of Core Cities, should not be underestimated.

However, today’s debate goes beyond cities. Two-thirds of Bradford district is rural. The commission on the future of public services in non-metropolitan England has already noted that these areas account for half of our country’s population and economic growth. The fact is that all people can benefit from decisions being made closer to them, whether they are from a big city or a rural community.

When it comes to economic leadership, certain powers are ripe for devolution—such as skills. That will be crucial for low-wage, low-skilled economies such as Bradford. Getting people the right skills should help keep employment levels stable as the area’s populations grow. The evidence for a local approach to skills is convincing. Pilot schemes that are run in my part of the world help nearly three in five young people who take part to go into education, training or employment. That is more than twice the success rate of the national scheme. In just 18 months, a council-led youth job scheme created 105,000 jobs, instead of 7,500 from the national equivalent.

Beyond skills, research by Ernst & Young shows that applying lessons from community budget pilots could save up to £20 billion in five years. However, local areas, including cities, do not just need more local decision -making; they also need more financial freedom. That is what “economic leadership” means—giving local areas the freedom to raise and spend money at a local level. Last week, the Chancellor announced a business rates review, which is something that the Local Government Association and the business community have called for. We must ensure that councils are properly involved in the consultation. The Local Government Association has proposed devolving the setting of business rates and discounts to local authorities. It also proposes that 100% of business rates income—including business rates growth —be retained by local government. The reforms proposed by the Local Government Association would set councils on the path to greater self-sufficiency and would give councils greater financial certainty in their future.

The cities agree that, while policies such as city deals, the regional growth fund and the Localism Act 2011 have made important moves towards localism, they still do not deliver the economic leadership and security needed for cities to control their own destinies. There is now a real opportunity to push this agenda forward, and this is the perfect time for all political parties to push forward with this important reform.

12:18

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, of this important debate, and the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which was very thoughtful and amusing. I am sure that he will make a great contribution to the House.

My reflections will be on the issue of the Scottish referendum and from my experience as a Member of Parliament in the other place for 23 years. In Scotland, the most important question was that of the currency. The SNP proposals were described by Jim Sillars of that party as “stupidity on stilts”, and Paul Krugman commented:

“If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled”.

We can see that today, with oil at $65 a barrel—the White Paper had Scotland breaking even at $115 a barrel.

Yet almost 45% of people in Scotland voted yes, and there were many reasons for that. In my campaigning, I found a few: first, people wanted a fairer, more socially just Scotland; they thought, “We couldn’t do any worse, so why shouldn’t we vote yes?”; and they had lost faith in the ability to bring change through the ballot box. The fundamental issue is that there is an increasing distance between the political process and the people, but the referendum demonstrated that people are interested in politics—we saw tremendous turnouts of 85% to 90%. So there is a clear desire for increased devolution and a recognition of the special characteristics of other nations and regions in the UK.

However, there is a remoteness to our politics, whether in Westminster, Holyrood, Cardiff or Stormont. What I have witnessed, with Holyrood, is devolution to Scotland but not devolution within Scotland. Let me give my own experience of how difficult devolution within Scotland is. As MP for West Dunbartonshire, I witnessed the closure of the J&B bottling plant in 1997. Instead of letting Diageo depart simply with warm words of regret and a cheque for the local community, I held its feet to the fire and established a task force, which I chaired, comprising local enterprise companies, local authorities, trade unions, local companies and the community, as well as Diageo.

Tying down that local public/private partnership was not without its difficulties, but in 2011 I departed, after 14 years as chair, of what has become known in the local area as Lomondgate. What is the audit of that? Four hundred and thirty jobs were lost by the J&B closure; at the end of 2013, the audited accounts showed that we now have 702 full-time equivalent jobs on that 40-acre site—that is 2% of West Dunbartonshire’s resident workforce. We have contributed £182 million gross value added regionally and £65 million nationally. The major achievements include: attracting the BBC to us as a production location for “River City”, which is Scotland’s equivalent of “EastEnders”; attracting Aggreko, a company that started almost in a back room in Dumbarton in the 1980s but is now a FTSE 100 company, with 400 jobs; and bringing in housing and leisure investment of more than £40 million, accompanied by capital investment of £62 million.

Independent economic forecasts estimate that, by 2019, there will be 1,971 gross full-time equivalent jobs accommodated on that site. That is a net cumulative regional gross value added of £510 million, plus £192 million contributed nationally. What does that mean in terms of public funding? Public funding for that project was less than £500,000, so the net return on investment is more than £1,000 for every £1 of public money. That is a tremendous outcome.

And what are the lessons? This would never have been achieved if it had been left at national level. The public/private partnership had to be locally devised and driven, and Diageo had to fulfil its community responsibility. If Westminster or Holyrood—or even the local authority—had been running it, they would have been too remote and that would not have happened. To end up with this successful outcome, day-to-day project management was needed to drive it. This is not just about satisfying local needs; it is about powering those with the ambition for their areas, and the skill sets to realise their potential. I conclude by saying that if we take the concept of subsidiarity to its natural conclusion, we will not end just with devolution to cities alone.

12:20

[Lord Scriven (LD) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I rise before you today with a sense of pride—pride in the fact that I come from a very humble background: born in a council estate in Huddersfield, the son of a refuse collector and a hospital cleaner—but also with a sense of nervousness. As I look round the House at all the experience, the wisdom and the knowledge, I understand that in my five minutes I have to share some of my experience as leader of Sheffield City Council.

I thank noble Lords for the warm, generous and open welcome they have given me, for the advice they have given me, and for playing to my male vanity: never in the past 25 years have I been called “young man” so often as in the past two months. I thank them, too, for their advice on giving this, my maiden speech. I have been given two recurring themes: keep it short and sharp and keep it non-controversial. Those who know me know that I will struggle in the next four minutes, but I will do my best. I also want to thank all the staff who work diligently, quietly but effectively to make your Lordships’ House work so well, and I give my personal thanks to the doorkeepers.

I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley for introducing the debate. Why have I chosen this debate in which to make my maiden speech? I am steeped in localism and local government and I love my adopted home city of Sheffield, where I have lived for 18 years—a city that is green, open, welcoming, industrious and nonconformist. I suppose that is why I chose that city as my adopted home. As a former leader of Sheffield City Council, I understood that, in a global world, city areas are key to growth. The Royal Society of Arts points out that 62% of all economic growth across the world in the next 10 years will come from city areas. There are examples from across the world of cities such as Boston, Hamburg and Bilbao, which have been given powers and autonomy, reinventing themselves and growing. They all have greater powers, autonomy and financial control than city areas in the UK.

In the UK, our journey has just started, but there is further to go. I shall explain how Sheffield’s journey started and some of the things that we have done in the past couple of years. The debate on city area versus rural area or town area can become sterile. The real issue is not one of lines on maps or administrative boundaries but of where real businesses are located and of where real people travel to and from work: that is the economic area. Sheffield city region comprises areas as diverse as the Derbyshire Dales and the city of Sheffield, and political leaders drawn from the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative Parties—even, initially, an English Democrat mayor—who understood that for our people and businesses to succeed we needed a certain skill set, infrastructure and plan to enable businesses to grow.

The area contains 1.8 million people, with an output of £28 billion per year. There are 700,000 jobs in the area and 47,000 businesses. It is our real economic area, not designed by a bureaucrat or by a line drawn on a map but by people who live, work and invest in that area. In the past four years, we have achieved a number of things. Thanks to my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who happens to be the MP for Sheffield Hallam, through the city deal and the Local Growth Fund more than £500 million of public money has been handed back to the area to enable us to have autonomy and control. The key areas that have come up are skills, skills and skills, infrastructure, access to finance, transport and housing. We have used that money to make sure that local control, local decisions and local knowledge were used to design schemes such as the Sheffield city infrastructure fund, where more than £221 million of public money was put in one pot, leveraging in an extra £500 million to enable investment in 15 infrastructure schemes. A £130 million skills bank has been created to enable local employers to create a demand-led skills scheme, so that people are skilled up for existing jobs and jobs that will exist in the area in the future.

As time is short, I end by saying that, as I sit down, I do so with the sense of pride I felt as I stood up, but with fewer nerves, thanks to the gracious way that noble Lords have listened to my speech. I hope to play a full and active role in your Lordships’ House and promise to keep my future interventions short and sharp. However, I cannot promise that I will always be non-controversial or conformist. As the saying goes, “You can take the boy out of Sheffield, but you can’t take Sheffield out of the boy”.

12:29

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I take this opportunity of formally welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, of Hunters Bar, to your Lordships’ House and I congratulate him on such an excellent maiden speech. It was my privilege to work with him in his time as leader of Sheffield City Council. He was and is held in great respect by the faith communities and many across the city and region. As he said, he is a native of West Yorkshire and, like me, was called to live in South Yorkshire. It will be apparent to many already that he brings significant experience of leadership of one of our major cities. I know that he will be an excellent advocate in this House for Sheffield and its region, and for the north of England in the years to come. I thank him for his short, sharp, non-controversial maiden speech and, in particular, for his emphasis on the reality of the city region and on collaboration across different perspectives. It was a speech so deeply steeped in local experience, yet with a truly international perspective.

I warmly welcome the debate. The economic flourishing of our cities and regions is key to the economic prosperity of our country, as so many have said. The city I know best, Sheffield, as you have already heard, is poised and well placed to take advantage of the new deal for cities. It has a long history of manufacturing and craft, particularly in the steel industry. There is a flourishing partnership between manufacturing, local government, the universities and the voluntary and faith sectors. The quality of life for many is high. The city has the highest retention rate of graduates of the two universities of any city in the country. Recently Sheffield City Council committed to the aspiration of becoming the fairest city in Britain—a reference not to its natural or physical beauty, as some would say it is that already, but to greater equality of wealth and opportunity into the future.

The question of economic leadership for cities is complex. The proposals made by the Government and others have, perhaps naturally, reflected a focus on the creation of unitary authorities and new kinds of city mayors. There is a paradox, it is thought, that most of the larger cities are seeking greater economic devolution but have turned down by referenda the possibility of mayoral systems. I believe that there is wisdom in the cities which declined to have a mayor, according to their local circumstance. Local democracy is a vital part of economic leadership. That leadership needs to be broadly based, using the gifts of all. That broad base is often better served in a medium-sized city through a council leader and cabinet model of leadership than through the creation of the new office of an elected mayor. New structures of government should not be a condition of greater investment or devolution of powers.

The strengthening of economic leadership for the future will rest in the long term on the widest ownership of the democratic process locally, which encourages local people to guide and lead their own communities. This in turn will stimulate the vital integration of skilled migrant and ethnic-minority communities in the life of the city. A new forum for engagement between civil society and the Muslim community began recently in South Yorkshire and is an excellent example of this.

Investment in transport and infrastructure is vital across the region. There needs to be excellent leadership in manufacturing, finance and chambers of commerce. The city region needs to be able to compete in global markets. Its ability to project a vibrant and positive image is enhanced through sporting connections, tourism and developing a global brand. We saw a brilliant illustration of this in Yorkshire earlier this year in Le Grand Départ, which has had a significant effect on the local economy and morale.

Sheffield Cathedral has recently celebrated its centenary, together with the centenary of the diocese I serve. This has been marked by a £3 million reordering of the medieval church to make it truly a place for all people and contributing to building confidence across the whole region.

Economic leadership for the long term depends to a high degree on investment in education and skills locally. Earlier this year, I made a visit to the Sheffield College, a fine example of a further education college which has reshaped its curriculum by listening to the needs of local industry. There is a specific focus on the needs of local manufacturing, the digital industry, tourism and sport. I hope that the present Government and the next Government and all parties will have the courage to continue to develop an ever stronger and more coherent vision for local democracy leading to the economic growth of the cities, working through parish, district and city councils, which can enable even more citizens to give of their time and skills for the flourishing of our great cities.

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, this is a time-limited debate, so when the clock shows five minutes, please sit down. That will give the Minister a chance to respond to this very important debate.

12:35

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of a London borough. I guess I am a sort of city dweller. I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley for introducing this important debate. We have heard two remarkable maiden speeches already from my noble friends and I am looking forward with confidence to a third one.

It is true that the road to the city across the centuries has been the road to the hope of a better and fuller life. We see that in waves of demographic movement even today in many a megalopolis in the developing world. Cities must be centres of new enterprise and we must encourage and cherish successful businesses and business leaders who we need to keep our cities great.

However, no city is immune from change. The greatest cities of England before 1700 were, after London, Norwich, Bristol, Newcastle, Exeter, York and Great Yarmouth, in that order. Of course we can regret past decline in places such as Lowestoft or Nottingham, which shaped my childhood. But for Lowestoft or Yarmouth you cannot put the herring or the gas back in the North Sea. In Nottingham you cannot reverse the war on tobacco, the fall of lace from fashion, the sourcing of textiles from the developing world, or the environmental movement’s successful felling of “king coal”.

History shows that cities cannot stand still in resentful nostalgia. Today they must diversify, embrace new technologies and invest in education and skills, as other noble Lords have said, working with employers, such as in the new enterprise and education campus we plan in our own authority. I welcome so much what the Government have done in assisting that through city deals, partnerships, educational reform, support for small business, infrastructure investment and much else. It is quite a long time since the Government took such a committed interest in our cities.

While I agree with much that other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Goddard, have said, I have some concerns. I share the views of the noble and right reverend Prelate on this. I do not share the rather faddish obsession with new statutory political structures in what seems, at times, a rather hasty response to the referendum in Scotland. I do not think the answer to city decline is more law about local government structures. Waste, churn, conflict and cost have followed almost every past statutory interference in local government structures.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Shipley that we need more joint working, co-operation and bottom-up partnership, but there are mechanisms already for that. We also need local flexibility and freedoms and not single institutional models pedalled in clever professorial lectures and imposed by statute. Each city must choose for itself, but it is ridiculous, for example, in my own city of Nottingham to say that it cannot solve its economic problems unless the suburb of West Bridgford is put under the same authority. If the fad for constitutional change leads to the submergence of the concerns of those who work in cities but live in small communities around them—and to governance without consent—then I would not board that band -wagon. I say yes to partnership and yes indeed to devolution, but with super-authorities I am not so sure. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench, who understands suburban communities very well, will make it clear that these will not be imposed—by our side, at least—whether by statute or by the effective blackmail of conditional resourcing.

I underline this issue for London. We already have a regional super-authority in London. The most slow-moving, bureaucratic and least accountable parts of London government are the Molochs of the GLA’s transport and planning departments. Co-operation and partnership work well across London and are developing further from boroughs upwards. It would be folly if, in a constitutional spasm, we were to identify more devolution with more central powers for a mayor, or sanction new governance that enables the piling of ever more taxation on already heavily taxed suburban communities.

In conclusion, I agree with the right reverend Prelate. There is a spiritual element, in the largest sense, to the conundrum of city revival. After all, cities were once identified by their cathedrals and enhanced by local philanthropy. People today are crying out for a sense of being rooted, with some idea of permanence and security. The spirit of place matters enormously in that. It is a great motivating force and a binding element. Whatever change we may contemplate in our cities and their surrounds, do not let us stifle that spirit of place, wherever it is found, or fail to hear the diverse voice of smaller communities.

12:41

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very timely debate. I welcome it enormously. I particularly welcome the fact that it comes from someone else from the north-east. The case for more economic opportunity for our cities is irrefutable. The intellectual case is there and has been made in different ways by people from different sides of the House already. I want to come at this in a very different way.

As many will know, I never represented a city in the other place. In fact, I live in a part of County Durham, which I think is an amazing place. I am very privileged to live there. I was born in Sunderland. We were always really proud that it was a bigger city than Newcastle. I say all of that because there are rivalries and issues around what we mean when we talk about cities here. We have to be very flexible around that. I want to talk about why we have not before now done what we have done and what that balance between the centre and the locality has to take account of in our country.

This debate is very important in the context of other important areas of debate in this country. One is the size and role of the state. There is a real argument to be had about that. The Chancellor has raised it; he is trying to tell us that he has not really raised it, but it is absolutely there: what sort of state do we want, where we do want power to lie and how are we going to develop that? We cannot sort that out today. I am a bit worried that the Government want to sort it out on the back of a fag packet before January, but there is a lot to think about and a lot to do about that.

The other issue is the one that we are being told will be sorted out on the back of a fag packet before January, which is devolution. Devolution is a huge challenge to us. It is a particularly huge challenge because we live in a very small country, where we see daily on our televisions and read in our newspapers what the world of the media thinks about what is going on in different places and comparing them. One of the great challenges for those of us who are committed to effective local government with new fundraising powers is what is described all the time as the postcode lottery rather than as an issue of democratic decision-making. I can tell noble Lords that that is what Governments run away from. When I was Local Government Minister between 1997 and 2001 we would agree to do a particular thing. For example, we agreed that the police would be given autonomy over how they spent their grant. The headlines after nine months were all about how many police were being taken off the beat. At the end of the year the Home Secretary said, “I’m going to ring-fence the money around numbers of policemen and not let them decide—they’re not going to spend it on policemen, they’re going to spend it on back-office stuff”. So we have the huge challenge of how we are seen as doing things. I do not see that as easy.

We live in a global world where the public have less and less confidence in what that global world means and how it affects their individual position and their community. They used to trust Governments and politicians to sort out for them what they needed, if you like, in order to live in their community in the way that they wanted to live. That trust has gone. We have to recreate the trust in different ways; we do, and local government does. Because we are a small country, we have problems in terms of the way in which the press and media report it. All the maiden speeches today, which I welcome, are from Liberal Democrat leaders who lost their seats after the election. That is the other thing that happens. When you get into Government, your local government base slowly starts to erode, and therefore the confidence of Government to give more powers to local government disappears as local government is then going to be running what they did.

I have lots more to say, but my time is up. We have to think of the broader things. Of course we want more economic power for local government, but how are we going to do it and how are we going to hold our nerve, particularly in devolving more financial powers?

12:46

[Baroness Janke (LD) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege and honour to join your Lordships’ House. I stand today as a former leader of Bristol City Council, not as one who has lost her seat. I am still a councillor in Bristol and I stand here in the hope of sharing some of the ambitions and hopes for that great city with your Lordships in the debate today.

First, let me thank your Lordships for the warm welcome that I have received here. I include my supporters, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who are not only parliamentarians but have long experience in local government. Secondly, I add my thanks for the advice, professionalism, kindness and good humour of the staff in this place. The doorkeepers have already been mentioned, but I, too, would like to add my thanks for the many times that they have rescued me from the labyrinthine corridors and staircases of this magnificent building. Who knows, I might not even be here today if it were not for their good advice on finding some of the best routes.

On my own background, I was born in Liverpool, which is a great and proud city. We have already heard in the debate about Liverpool and its achievements. I am a teacher and have taught in a variety of settings: primary, secondary and adult. I have taught modern languages, including English as a second language, and economics. I have also taught in a number of different locations, in London, Paris, the west coast of Scotland and Bristol. In addition, I have served as a councillor in the London borough of Kingston upon Thames and of course Bristol. It is a great privilege, in a debate on cities in this House, to be able to talk about Bristol in the week of the 150th anniversary of the Clifton Suspension Bridge.

Bristol is a city of innovation and technical excellence: whether we talk about the suspension bridge, Concorde, Airbus or Wallace and Gromit, it is testimony to the high concentration of technical expertise, which is underpinned by two world-class universities. Bristol is the most economically successful city in England, with the exception of London. Bristol is also the European Green Capital and a place where many of the new green industries and organisations choose to have their base and headquarters; it is a very green city.

So it is with great pride that I wish to speak in this debate. Yet, coming even from a successful city like Bristol, the question is constantly being asked: why cannot cities take their own decisions, invest in infrastructure, invest in housing, and invest in the growth that is really going to address the needs of their people? As my noble friend Lord Shipley has said, the IPPR report really outlines the case for economic improvement in performance in English cities. They have lagged behind the average GDP per capita. Only Bristol has bucked the trends. This, of course, is in stark contrast to other cities in Germany, Italy, Sweden and France, which are at the forefront of economic growth and have outperformed even capital cities.

The report of the City Growth Commission recommends a range of powers that could be devolved to what are called “metro areas”; and I agree with what has been said today: there should be no tight imposition on what those boundaries should be. However, there is a recommendation about financial flexibility and this, as other speakers have said, is the key to giving powers, whether it is to our regions, county regions, city regions or whatever configurations emerge. The London Finance Commission and the Communities and Local Government Select Committee have outlined ways in which revenue and taxes could be raised at local level and add to the rates of economic performance of our cities or city regions.

In conclusion, the many reports of such groups as Core Cities, the Centre for Cities and the City Growth Commission and others that have been mentioned provide ample evidence to support major change. As I have said already, it is important that new configurations, whether they are federations of existing local authorities, county regions or city regions, should be voluntary and locally inspired. One size will not fit all. The ambitious and visionary proposals that are coming forward from all parts of the country are a huge encouragement and are opportunities that we must seize. I hope that the constitutional debate will give us the opportunity to move forward on these major issues. I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley for raising the debate, and I thank noble Lords for their attention.

12:52

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. She has just made an excellent start to her House of Lords career, as indeed have our other two debutants today—if one can refer to the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Scriven, as debutants on these occasions. As part of her background, the noble Baroness described her great wealth of local government experience that she brings from just about every corner of the country. That will make an enriching contribution to the work of this House as we proceed on this important issue of devolution within England. She remains a member of Bristol City Council, and first-line experience will therefore be brought to our deliberations. We look forward to many more well informed contributions from her in the years to come.

Our great cities, which boomed in the 19th century, had a lousy 20th century. There were two world wars, a prolonged depression in the 1920s and 1930s, and even in the post-war recovery, much of the rebuilding was shabby and ugly—and industrial decline set in. Very few new industries emerged in that period. Then there was the collapse—in some cases the partial collapse —of many of the cities’ staple industries in the 1980s. The result was some of the worst city centres in Europe outside the Soviet bloc. One had only to go to, say, Rotterdam or Hamburg—industrial cites both—to see the graphic differences.

In the 1990s, the cities began to improve—quickly in some places, more slowly in others. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, deserves a mention in despatches for his contribution on Docklands, Liverpool, Manchester after the bomb, and now Hull. What a record that is. A new spirit began to emerge; remember Glasgow’s “Miles Better”, and Manchester’s impressive but perhaps improbable bid to host the Olympic Games? At least it stirred London into action.

In the more benign economic conditions that followed after 1993, big improvements became evident. Substantial public expenditure was a significant factor, enabling public/private deals on property; a retail and entertainment boom; expanding universities; and inward migration flows for the first time in a long time began to play a big part. Since the financial crisis of 2008-09, the cities have shown significant resilience in the face of the pressures: perhaps the pressure was greater in the smaller towns surrounding the newer city centres.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley said, the core cities underperformed the national average on GDP per head. There are still large areas of deprivation where poverty is all too evident and there is a shortage of solid private sector activity aside from discount stores, fast food outlets and betting shops. All the main parties are persuaded that devolution will help, spurred on by Scotland and perhaps by what has happened in London. City deals offer new opportunities for these cities to make further progress, with the Manchester city region setting the pace. I welcome these moves: they are overdue and I hope they can be widened. For example, Exeter is a city that I know, and it is beginning to do quite well. It needs to get help, encouragement and recognition for its contribution.

However, the condition of a lot of these cities remains fragile. The core cities are still heavily dependent on public expenditure, not just the local authority but the hospitals and universities as well. After the Autumn Statement, if we are going back to a state that is the same size as it was in the 1930s, what kind of guarantees and assurances can the Government provide that devolution will not be a devolution of responsibility with a big shortage of resources?

12:56

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for taking a lead and introducing this debate. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and on their fine maiden speeches. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Manchester-China Forum.

In the limited time we all have, I want to echo other speakers today in setting out and agreeing with the historic case for city regions to have greater leadership and responsibility in running their own economic affairs. Indeed, in my view, Britain became great largely because of the rise of its modern industrial towns and cities and their ability to project and trade in and with the world. After a century or more of centralisation, events at home and abroad are giving rise to the rebirth of the city cluster as the premier organising force and source of growth in the world today.

I have witnessed this at home in and around Shoreditch, one of the fastest growing and most creative places now in the world. I have witnessed this first hand in my travels to places like China, which have been built on strong cities with a degree of fiscal devolution and talented city governance. I have also witnessed this over the last few years in the Greater Manchester area, where I produced a report on the potential of the city region, and others like it, to do more together to attract and support two-way trade and engage with international investors. There is no doubt in my mind, in light of the success of the model built in Manchester, London, and elsewhere, that providing greater autonomy to city regions to oversee their own economic development and inward investment can enable us as a country to engage more with the world and grow our economy overall.

Of course, there is always more we can do to spread this model of strong, internationally engaged cities and to encourage co-operation between our many metros to attract firms and investment. We could do a lot more to harness local diasporas, which could provide great connectivity with the world, including many international students who now study in most of our great cities and should be encouraged to help us connect even more with other cities around the world to help our businesses find new markets and create local jobs.

Beyond this direct model of enabling economic autonomy within city regions for trade, and other ideas such as granting tax-raising powers—already mentioned by others in this debate—there would be a positive impact on the social economy as well from greater fiscal and political devolution to city leaders, which would spur enhanced levels of social innovation and ultimately social venturing.

In our media-dominated age, it has become increasingly difficult to get new, big ideas birthed at the centre—I know that, having been involved in one or two—and then tested and piloted from within the Whitehall industrial complex. City regions, which by necessity will have to do more with less, need to innovate and pool their own resources, and try out new ideas and solutions that fit local needs and have the potential to improve the state of the nation as a whole. In this light, I welcome the use of city deals, most notably that recently agreed with Greater Manchester, which seek to reward a city region’s ability to deliver matched investment, growth and efficiency through joined-up and innovative approaches, such as the earn-back scheme.

In the model of cities competing and at times collaborating to develop new social economy solutions to thorny social problems, Whitehall ideally ceases to be the monopoly provider and commissioner of policy and practice. Instead, it will curate and learn, highlight and spread best practice, rather than seek to dictate its practices dogmatically. It should focus more on foreign policy, more nuanced immigration control, defence and the reduction of monopolies and oligarchies so that consumers and workers alike can get a better deal.

Devolving greater powers to cities economically is not a total panacea and there will be risks. Over the years, voters have shown a wariness of local kingpins who might go AWOL if given too much power, so the centre and others will need to play a role in fostering broad-based local leadership and utilising emergency powers if corruption or incompetence threaten to undermine a city region—as we have seen perhaps in Tower Hamlets. An independent process that would trigger such interventions will be needed to avoid undue central interference.

Alongside this there is a risk that having different tax levels and other policies across the country might make doing business more complex and costly, although both the Americans and Chinese seem to have found ways of coping with this. These risks, though, are worth running, because unless we do something, the current unsustainable economic inequalities and the political instability that they engender will continue. It is time to incentivise city regions to have greater powers. Finally, I would be interested to learn from the Minister what the centre is thinking of doing and how it will reshape itself as more powers are transferred to city regions over the years.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this is a timed debate. I note the wealth of experience and expertise on this fascinating subject. However, we are now almost five minutes behind where we should be. If noble Lords make sure that they finish when four minutes is still being shown on the Clock, that will allow the Minister time to speak at the end.

13:01

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, as a councillor in the late 1960s, I helped woo a major company to Norwich with a package of site, planning consent, key worker housing, roads and training. Sedgwick became the second largest reinsurance company in the world. Some 15 years later, another major financial company wished to relocate in order to expand. I tried hard. I offered a site, housing and TLC, but highways and planning consent were for the county. The company did not want the hassle of negotiating with two very different authorities, so it walked. I lost 600 good jobs for Norwich and for Norfolk. What was the difference? It was the disastrous 1974 local government reorganisation, with its alpha male obsession with size. Despite our cathedrals, university, research parks, international airport and 600 years of unitary status, Norwich became a district council, the largest in the country, and larger than a dozen or so unitary authorities.

Today, we are still the regional capital of East Anglia, providing half of Norfolk’s jobs—and half of those jobs are in knowledge-intensive industries—as well as most of the leisure, retail and media services for Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. Our economic multiplier effect stretches far beyond our formal functions. Like other mid-sized cities, we think that we are focused, energetic, fast, innovative and entrepreneurial. We strive to do all this within the constricted boundaries, functions and revenues of a district council. We are fettered, and yet we are the key city of East Anglia.

This debate from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is superbly timed. Cities drive our economy. They are where things happen, but that potential is not limited to the great core cities. Mid-sized cities like Norwich and Luton are also key. They contribute £162 billion to the national economy alongside the £173 billion of the eight core cities. Some have a manufacturing or maritime identity, such as Coventry and Plymouth. Some share interdependent economies, such as Southampton and Portsmouth. Yet others are self-contained, travel-to-work centres like Norwich and Sunderland. All of us are driving growth and turning around the life chances of the deprived, the ill educated, the ill housed and the overlooked.

What do mid-sized cities such as ours need to grow our local economies? It is, of course, unitary status, as do Cambridge and Oxford, if we are to fulfil our potential to transform our knowledge economy into knowledge jobs. Who, in the recent Pfizer bid for Astra-Zeneca, spoke for Cambridge? Nobody. Combined authorities really work only where there are shared goals. Despite this, Norwich has formed a Greater Norwich Growth Board, a partnership that will drive forward our city deal to spin off new businesses from our research park, plan our wider growth programmes for 13,000 more jobs and 3,000 more homes, and attract the £2.5 billion private sector investment we need.

Over and beyond unitary status, we need additional economic powers and flexibilities, which have already been cited in this debate. First, we should localise the ineffective government Work Programme. Secondly, we need commissioning powers for the wider public services, irrespective of elected mayors, to work with the private sector and public agencies. Thirdly, all publicly held land within a city should be brought into a single property board to make the best use of development sites. Fourthly, on finance, ring-fenced funding should be removed in order to encourage new funding models, along with funding for five years for greater stability. I could go on.

Above all, we need a culture change within Whitehall and at Westminster. They need to understand that local government is about local difference, so they should respect our sense of place and encourage diverse structures, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said. They should stop being hung up on size and stop trying to impose on us the macho model of elected mayors. As a leader, I could do everything a mayor does, and consensually. Trust us: we are better at doing most of this than central government. Finally, that utterly insulting phrase, “earned autonomy”, should be banished from the Westminster and Whitehall mindset. My Lords, I wish.

13:06

[Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on giving us the opportunity to talk about these issues. He and I share a pride in Newcastle, of course, and in particular in Newcastle United. My mind goes back to the 1920s, when I was born. One never loses the link with where one was born. You follow the history and activities of your area over the years.

I also want to congratulate the staff of the Library on producing the document for today’s debate. Quite frankly, over the 30 years that I have been in this House, I have had to call upon the service of the Library many times. It has always been good, but I cannot recall such a comprehensive and helpful document as the one for this debate. The name attached to it is Russell Taylor, who compiled it. I just want to say that we are all indebted to him.

I was the leader of the London Borough of Enfield in the 1960s. When the reorganisation of local government took place, we finally had Southgate, Edmonton and Enfield. Edmonton was solidly Labour, Southgate was solidly Conservative—although they called themselves ratepayers—and Enfield was sometimes Labour and sometimes Conservative. One of the lessons I learnt was this. When you are trying to weld together a common purpose, you have got to be prepared to give as well as to take. It is not easy. What was reinforced for me at the time was how much pride there is in territory. We wanted to get Edmonton and Enfield in with Tottenham, along with the Lee Valley Regional Park, but we did not get it. However, I am very pleased to say that, 50 years later, that has been taken care of.

The other thing that I want to emphasise is that there are problems with an amalgamation of any kind. The House knows of my background with the co-operative movement. In Tyneside in the 1960s, 31 separate co-operative societies were brought together—at that time, by the way, there were 1,000 individual Co-ops in the country and now there are fewer than 20. All amalgamated by agreement, but it has not been easy. In my view, one has to keep in mind the sensitivity of people who patently are seen publicly as having lost out on the argument. People do not forget that they have lost out and they wait for the opportunity to get back at the other people.

In London in the 1980s, a reorganisation took place, and at that time the structures that we are talking about now were regional authorities. It was an attempt by the then Government to try to co-ordinate what was going on. What happened, of course, was that the Labour GLC became very Bolshy. It used to have great posters, which you could see across the river from here, simply pointing out the number of people who were unemployed in the London area. That irritated Mrs Thatcher so much that she decided that when her time came—and it did—she would abolish not just the Labour GLC but all the other economic entities.

I make no complaint—I am watching the clock and I will sit down before it gets to the number five because, as a former Chief Whip, I know my place in this House. All I want to say is that I wish those who are going to make the decisions well. Having already committed myself to sit down, I will not drop any other pearls of wisdom. Thank you.

13:11

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, the subject of this debate, enabling economic leadership in cities, can be interpreted in a number of ways, but the aim is clearly a constructive discussion on how we encourage economic activity in our cities and give people the tools, the skills and the space to flourish. With ever more people moving to cities, it is clear that our economic future is dependent on these urban centres. As we well know, where you have a critical mass of people, there is a growth in creativity and economic activity; thus cities should be nurtured. I think it is precisely this sentiment which is the driver behind the city deals agenda currently being implemented. The drive towards localisation, and the understanding that local communities themselves best understand what they need for economic growth, is a really positive and ambitious step.

Twenty-six city deals have been announced and each of these has its own unique formula or mix of priorities in deciding how to spend funds and create an environment for growth. In the limited time available to me, I shall make a few points on my own city of Glasgow and on the £1.2 billion Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal. It is hoped that this will create 29,000 jobs over the next 20 years and unlock a further £3.3 billion of private investment across the city region. The proposals as to how this money will be used are available for those interested. Up to 20 major infrastructure projects across the city region, including rail and road, have been proposed. Among several employment schemes there is a £9 million scheme proposed that will work with more than 4,000 vulnerable and unemployed residents currently in receipt of employment benefit, along with life science research and medical technology projects. This is an exciting time for the city.

For this strategy to be the kind of success that we would wish for, true leadership and vision are required to make the most of it. This is an opportunity for generations to come and should not be squandered. First and foremost, there has to be complete transparency in implementing these projects. A fair chance must be given to the SME community to benefit from contracts, as ultimately they are the real drivers for future economic and job growth. Part of our consideration has to be about public procurement so that some of the benefits of this injection of public funding filter down to SMEs. A lot of thinking and discussion has taken place in Scotland on the subject of public procurement—certainly, as far as my own involvement is concerned— for the past decade and a half,—but I know for a fact that it goes much further back than that. We are sadly still far from the ideal situation of a fair bite of the cherry for SMEs, but perhaps that discussion is for another time.

I would suggest that we offer affordable space in the heart of the city for small-scale manufacturers such as weavers, potters and all manner of artisans. When do young people see someone making something with their hands and then selling it for a profit? These are basic principles to encourage enterprise and at the same time bring back vibrancy, creativity and industry to the city centre. I would add that along with affordable industrial and commercial space must come better public transport and affordable, accessible parking. In Glasgow, those at the helm of the revival of the city have to take into consideration the current prohibitive access to the city by their draconian use of parking meters and other road regulations. According to a BBC report on 2 September 2014, Glasgow city imposed £3.2 million of bus lane fines in 2013, one of the highest figures in the UK. I refuse to believe that there were so many people in Glasgow deliberately breaking the law.

I would suggest that, when we come to implement these major projects, true leadership means talking to ordinary people in the street—the workers and the small businesses. We have become too accustomed to dancing to the tune of interest and lobby groups. While there is most definitely a place for these groups as experts on many social and environmental issues, there is also something to be said for speaking to those who simply work, live and breathe in the city.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for securing this debate and I congratulate the Government on the city deals initiative. I am confident that true leadership at the local level will bring rich rewards to our cities and communities.

13:17

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I find myself in this House agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, far too often, to the consternation of my friends in the north-east, and I am very glad that he initiated this debate. I also find myself slightly out of place in that I have only ever lived in either London or the English countryside and my football team is Millwall. Nevertheless, I have developed a great love for the English cities, although over most of my lifetime there has been a sad relative decline of those cities, as my noble friend Lord Monks said. That has turned around a little in recent years, and the city centres certainly look a lot better than they did 20 years ago, but there is still much deprivation, dereliction and lack of economic activity.

We need to emulate in our key cities the performance of European cities and the performance of our own cities back in Victorian times. Relative to the national economy, they should be leaders, whereas at the moment many of them are followers. To do that, I commend the reports of my noble friend Lord Adonis and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who has been praised much in his absence.

That sometimes requires bringing together a city region rather than observing the local boundaries, such as they are at the moment. Issues of transport, planning, housing, skills, employment, training and regeneration require crossing what are very tight boundaries within our urban areas. In my own area of housing, you need a wider area of approach than current city boundaries allow. This can be done. You can create combined authorities and co-operating councils without necessarily unravelling the whole of English local government; you can do so without recreating regional structures or metropolitan counties; you can do so without requiring a mayor in each of these areas; and you can do so without any net increase in central government spending.

But it will work effectively only if those combined authorities are supported by the local authorities within their area, and by business within their area, and—more importantly perhaps—only if the Treasury is prepared to let go of a lot of things, including the expenditure identified in the various reports and control of business rates. Not only the Treasury but all Whitehall departments have to eschew their ring-fencing, their requirements, their stipulations, their minimum standards and so forth. It is not only the political and administrative apparatus; the media and the public at large need to get rid of their obsession about the postcode lottery, because there will be different solutions in different parts of the country and quite rightly so. That is what local democracy is about.

More specifically, we have to allow the new city regions and local government generally, contrary to existing Treasury rules, access to borrowing powers so that they can genuinely invest in housing and infrastructure in their own areas. It means a genuine absence of strings on block grants and it means that there are at least some discretionary powers of local taxation. That is what happens in all those European cities we are seeking to emulate.

We must also recognise that partly because of the dominance of London and the south-east in our whole structure, any move to city regions will require a significant redistributive process from the centre. London has twice the level of value added per head even than Manchester. That means some serious redistribution will still be needed. The recognition of the dominance of London means that the strategy within which we are attempting to recreate our cities also has to do something about the overheating of London and the south-east. As my noble friend Lady Hollis said, it also has to do something about the other parts of England. I would add Exeter to her list of areas that require unitary status. Unless we do something for the shires and the small towns of England, the cities will not prosper. We need a balanced approach.

This debate is about economics and devolution of democratic powers. But the terminology of devolution is going to undermine the importance of this debate. This is not the same as legislative and political devolution to Scotland and Wales, and the constitutional arguments should not be mixed up with the arguments about economic autonomy.

13:22

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in the register that my wife is the statutory Deputy Mayor of London and a local councillor in London. So I welcome this debate, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as I know first-hand that great cities need great economic leadership.

I find it particularly interesting to debate this issue here in the House of Lords, where cities are perhaps underrepresented relative to the countryside. This is partly because of our age profile, as young people go to cities. But the truth is that the cost of houses means that many noble Lords cannot live in London. Indeed, the cost of living in cities is generally higher than outside them, partly because of higher housing costs. For that reason, the London living wage is higher than the minimum wage.

The Government’s emphasis is on building new garden cities; one to be built in Bicester was announced recently. I declare another interest in a property company building homes there. Garden cities will certainly have less air pollution than bigger city centres, where levels of dangerous PM2.5 particles are much higher. Perhaps we can give the Green Party some credit for helping us to focus on building new towns that will be cleaner and greener.

A city is only as good as its people and we have to ensure that the younger generations are capable of economic leadership so that our great cities compete globally. That is why I am so happy about the work being done to improve economic and business competence among young people. I have been very impressed by a fantastic charity called Young Enterprise, which does exactly that. It operates in nearly half the schools in the entire country, teaching children to operate small businesses. That is exciting because more young people should be encouraged to go out and get some real experience, take some risks and see how far their new ideas go. That way, we will be bringing through a much bigger and more talented group of people, with knowledge of economic leadership.

There are reasons why we are not yet seeing enough young people coming through with the right leadership skills. They should experience leadership in school. But between supply teachers, a lack of autonomy for good teachers, a wide variety of first languages and large class sizes, children do not get the leadership they need. It is extraordinarily difficult for a teacher to both teach the material and inspire the students. This is something that people just do not talk about enough.

We know that cities work well. They make people more efficient. As they get more efficient, they become more prosperous. Will cities become the new heartlands of Conservative voters? But what is a city? Could a whole group of people and businesses in the countryside connected to the internet operate as efficiently as a city—but without the traffic jams and bad air pollution that we suffer from in cities?

We know how important cities are for a nation’s economic growth. In the UK, cities occupy 9% of the land but provide 61% of the output. But do we need different economic leadership in each of our cities? If economic leadership means inspiring young people to contribute to the economy, I am thoroughly in favour of it. If it means the ability to come up with new taxes, I am against it. The most valuable economic leadership comes from the family. No economic leadership from any city could ever compete with taxpayers deciding what to do with their own money.

13:26

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the three maiden speakers from the Liberal Benches on their contributions. I look forward to hearing from all three of them in future. I particularly single out—I hope without upsetting the other two—the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. As some noble Lords know, Stockport is my home town. It is traditional never to criticise a maiden speech and I hope the noble Lord will not think that I am breaking that tradition when I say, as a former chairman of Stockport County Football Club, that his espousal of the cause of Manchester City will not be universally satisfactory in the town itself.

In the short time open to me, I wish to make just two points. My first is to express concern, not about the motives behind the debate today—I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on the fluent way in which he moved it—but I have never believed that devolving power without resources is a sensible way to run things. We have been here before. It was a Conservative Government who created the metropolitan county councils, as my noble friend Lord Graham reminded us. Of course, that was partly out of a political motive as the Conservative Party could not win the big cities at that time and thought that by extending the electorate and taking in the suburbs it might be able to do so. When that proved to be fruitless, it promptly abolished the metropolitan county councils using the excuse of the abolition of the GLC. The previous Labour Government decided that some of the powers we are discussing today could perhaps be administered by the regional development authorities. The incoming coalition Government abolished the RDAs and replaced them partly with the LEPs—in my view a totally undemocratic group; women make up far less than 50% of the membership and as far as I am aware there are no women at all in the West Midlands LEP. There is nothing particularly democratic about that.

My second point is about resources. As I have indicated, if there is no money to do these things, there is no point creating a structure to do them. I was struck by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord True. Like him, I am rather against Whitehall and Westminster dabbling in local government. I was a councillor during the passage of the Local Government Act 1972 referred to by my noble friend Lady Hollis. If the electors had felt differently, I might have been a member of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council before the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, but democracy prevailed and my candidacy was rejected. But I do not feel that the structures set up by the 1972 Act were necessarily more efficient, democratic or fiscally responsible than the authorities that they replaced. I remain to be convinced that the devolution of powers that is behind this debate will work without adequate financing.

It is traditional in your Lordships’ House not to get too involved in politics, although what we in the other place called the Front Bench below the Gangway on the Government’s side is pretty adept at it when it comes to attacking my own party. This Government have waged a fiscal war against local government, and they show no signs of relenting. In the West Midlands, I am not alone in expressing my concern that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that in future greater Birmingham—a greater Birmingham authority or a greater Birmingham structure—will have an elected mayor. I remind your Lordships that it is less than three years since the citizens of Birmingham, including me, voted not to have an elected mayor. Flouting democracy in that way is something that we ought to regret in this House. I see the Whip and I will sit down in a moment. I voted on the wrong side: I voted for an elected mayor. The fact is that, according to the LGA, by the end of this Parliament the real-terms reduction in government funding to the city of Birmingham will be 41.5%. In the borough of Sandwell, where my former constituency lies, it is 39%. These freedoms—the freedoms spoken about in this debate—are valueless without adequate and proper funding, and that is not what we will get under a Conservative/Liberal Democrat Administration.

13:30

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I also congratulate my three city and urban colleagues on their maiden speeches. Certainly if I ever thought of looking back at my own, I am never going to again, given their erudite speeches.

It was not seen—or not noticed—much this week, but an OECD report came out which talked about inequality of incomes nationwide across all OECD club members—the developed nations. It pointed out very strongly, perhaps controversially, that the greater the income inequality within an economy, it forgoes economic growth over that period and thereafter. It calculated that in the UK over 1990 to 2010, we lost some 10% of growth because of inequality.

If this is controversial in terms of population incomes, I guess it is not in terms of regional disparity. It is quite obvious that where we do not have economies fully functioning within our nation state, we are losing economic output, incomes and jobs and creating unemployment. In the short time I have in this debate, I want to talk not about the metropolitan areas but about that other 91% of our land mass: the non-metropolitan and rural areas. These include important cities like Norwich and Exeter—its economy is vibrant at the moment. It is perhaps important to realise that those non-metropolitan areas provide some 56% of England’s economic output. That leaves only 44% for the metropolitan areas, but four-10ths of that is London. That illustrates what a great issue this is. I do not dispute it at all in terms of other non-London metropolitan areas, particularly the northern challenge.

It is really important that rural areas and non-metropolitan areas stay very much on the agenda in terms of this wish and momentum towards devolution, which I welcome strongly. Non-metropolitan rural areas have specific problems that maybe metropolitan areas do not have; transport, getting to work, access to services —particularly in rural areas—the digital divide and, in particular, affordable housing. Apart from those specific areas, there are a lot of similarities. That is why the solution towards devolved government is equally important in that part of our kingdom as it is in metropolitan areas. It is quite clear that cities such as Manchester have the capability for devolution to take place. I welcome that they are ahead and moving forward. But I believe strongly that, after those initial larger metropolitan areas, rural areas and shires are equally able and competent fiscally, in terms of their administrations and in their strength of culture and identity, to move forward on this agenda as well. I give the example of Cornwall where I live. We already have a unitary authority—a competent and very successful administration that is able to move this forward.

In the last few seconds of my speech, I ask the Minister whether she will guarantee that there will be no discrimination between metropolitan and non-metropolitan and rural areas, and that there will be a road map for such local authorities and areas. It is quite clear that we ignore non-metropolitan areas at our peril. They should not be an afterthought. They have a great role to play in the economic future of this country.

13:35

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—and indeed the arrival of his new colleagues on the Lib Dem Benches. But I was surprised, from his opening remarks, to hear that somehow the clocks started in 2010. In 2010, as you will recall, the Lib Dems did not demur from the coalition Government’s reduction, or taking away, of the regional economic organisations. This of course is another example of stop-go—and now we are going again with more funding and providing more impetus to these areas.

It is, however, excellent that the House of Lords is debating the issues of urban areas. We had a discussion on planning a month or so ago. I believe it would be advisable for the House of Lords to have a Select Committee to review all the relevant aspects of the development of urban areas. There has been a circular note from the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—and if noble Lords are minded like me that this should be a very topical and appropriate area for the House of Lords, I ask them to write in with their views, as I am doing. If they would like to copy me in with what they say, I would be very pleased.

Another important feature of this discussion is that the Government Office for Science has been producing documents. Maybe these have the statistics that have been referred to. For example, in August it produced The Evolving Economic Performance of UK Cities: City Growth Patterns 1981-2011. There are interesting and surprising results in it. There are statistics of employment, population, output and productivity. The biggest qualitative change seems to have been in small and medium-sized cities, and these seem to be the ones most successful in employment, health, environment and output. The largest cities have either grown, like London, or have, as it were, reduced in northern areas —northern cities—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

Whether or not they are growing or not, there seems to have been a significant growth in inequality in these large cities—also inequality in health. Indeed, Sir Michael Marmot has pointed out that the mortality for males between one part of London and another may be affected by as much as 20 years. In fact—this might have been raised earlier—as Jonathan Glancey wrote in his powerful essay in the book on London’s environment, the morality of London is more like that of piracy than civic duty. I applaud Sheffield for remarking that this is an important area which cities should think about.

Over the past 20 years in the medium-sized cities mostly in southern England—Telford, for example, is counted in the north in these statistics—there has been a substantial rise in population and in output. For example, the economics of these areas has been associated with services, commerce and retail. But a clutch of northern cities have experienced a much lower population growth and output growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, explained.

The surprising result of these government reports is the question of whether high-tech cities are the future. Surprisingly, it shows that in the high-tech Meccas of Oxford and Cambridge, where Nobel prizes abound, the average income and growth rate have in fact not been very impressive. The argument given is that a lot of these people work in the public sector and, as noble Lords all know, if you work in the public sector you have pretty low pay. The cities that are in fact growing fastest in population and productivity in income are those such as Milton Keynes and Crawley.

The other feature of these high-tech cities—I have some experience in this area, having been a city councillor in Cambridge and set up a company—is that quite a few companies have been set up and then all sorts of takeovers have occurred. Very few significant companies have grown, so it is very far from the Silicon Valley phenomenon. ARM is of course a great company in Cambridge, as is Oxford Instruments in Oxford. In fact, if you are involved in running a company in Cambridge you will get endless e-mails from people in London saying, “Can I invest in your company?”. However, you know that it is a trap; they want to raise the value of the company and then sell it off. It is all a kind of gambling operation as opposed to a long-term investment using companies to develop services and products. The word “start-up” in the English language now almost means a company that is on a path to making a lot of money for someone who then sells it off.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we are very short of time.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

The other important feature of the cities is that we have not yet developed enough of the citywide companies, such as those in France, that are developing cities around the world.

13:41

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, on their excellent maiden speeches. They add lustre to the distinguished group of former and current leaders of local authorities in the House who play such a big part in our debates, and who will promote even more forcibly in future the cause of cities in our deliberations.

I note that the past or current leaders of Newcastle, Bristol, Luton, Sheffield, Bradford, Norwich, Cambridge, Stockport and Sutton have all spoken. Indeed, Sheffield has been doubly blessed by having both its Lords spiritual and Lords temporal taking part in our debates. As the noble Lord, Lord True, noted, the spiritual dimension to our cities—of course, the definition of a city historically is a place with a cathedral—is an important part of their life and vibrancy. One might also add sport—most football teams are city-based; I have nothing against cricket but it is very notable that football has had a great revival in the past 20 years—and universities and places of learning, which are predominantly based in cities.

The Library Note that my noble friend Lord Graham referred to as excellent says that although cities account for only 9% of land use, they account for 54% of the population, 59% of the country’s jobs, 61% of output, 73% of highly skilled jobs and 60% of new businesses. However, I hope that we are not going to see in future, as we have not seen in this debate, a pitting of the rural against the city. As many noble Lords emphasised, without strong cities we would not have strong rural areas. We need to see regional growth—cities and their hinterlands working together and forging much stronger partnerships together in future. As my noble friend Lady Hollis said, cities drive growth, in neighbouring areas as much as in the city regions. We need to ensure much stronger collaboration in future between the urban areas, the suburban areas and the rural areas—which, to be frank, have too often in the past seen their interests as being in conflict. If we are to have a successful economy and society in future, they need to align their interests much more strongly than has sometimes been the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his excellent introduction to this debate—I pay tribute to the work that he has done with the Deputy Prime Minister and others on city deals—said that what we are about is emphatically not forging independent city states but enabling cities to grow faster and bring wider benefits to their wider regions. I entirely endorse that approach, just as I very much endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord True, that the last thing we want to see is a repeat of the great error of the 1960s and 70s—my noble friend Lady Hollis referred to this—which was the belief that endless local government reorganisation itself would produce better-run cities and more growth. We need to see more collaboration between authorities, but not an endless redrawing of boundaries. Indeed, we are just about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the London boroughs; the last thing that we need to see is more navel-gazing and redrawing of lines on maps.

As many noble Lords said, though, although there is great potential in our cities, unless that potential is realised we face a bleak future. The challenges are enormous. We went through the middle period of the 20th century with almost all our cities in decline, in terms of their ability to sustain jobs but also in terms of the quality of their cityscapes and, for the most part, their city institutions. There was also some spiritual decline that went with that, in the sense of a great loss of faith in the capacity of cities to regenerate themselves and to be a driver of growth and enterprise in the way that they had been in the Victorian period.

My noble friend Lord Monks put it well when he said that although there has been some revival—he referred to the revival of many city centres—it is, as he put it, still very fragile in many areas. In too many cities the city centre has been rebuilt but, if you go just a mile or two outside it, you still have council estates that are in a poor state with very high levels of unemployment. There are many areas of great wealth in most of our cities but, cheek by jowl, some of the very poorest areas of our country are located there, too.

In reviving cities—I put London fairly and squarely in that camp, alongside Manchester; they are two of our greatest success stories—the challenges of growth are as great in many respects as the challenges of decline. Our growing cities have a huge problem of a shortage of housing and weak infrastructure, and transport systems that have been underinvested in for a large part of the 20th century and simply cannot cope with the numbers when these cities are growing. We are seeking to address, at one and the same time, the challenges of past economic failure and weakness, which need to be addressed systematically, and the mobilisation to the fullest extent of the resources of our cities, such as the great enterprising side of our cities that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, referred to—the Shoreditch and Tech City clusters that are replicated across so many of our cities. We are seeking to address the problems of the past but also to equip our cities with the infrastructure without which they will not be able to flourish in future.

That can happen, in our judgment—and I think this judgment is shared across the House—only if there is more devolution of responsibility to the cities in terms of being able to take charge of their own destiny. With that devolution of responsibility must come the devolution of funding and some element of fiscal devolution, too, so that cities are actually able to take advantage of more of the proceeds of growth than has been the case in the past. In the second half of the 20th century, not only did we centralise functions too much on Westminster and Whitehall but we centralised too much funding on Westminster and Whitehall and we largely removed the fiscal base of local government, which is why our local authorities have a smaller share of their spending covered by locally raised taxes than almost any other democracy in the world. The debate is now taking place about how we can start to reverse that trend.

In my view, all three of these need to proceed in tandem. We need more powers devolved to our local authorities, and to groups of local authorities working together through partnership arrangements of the kind that we have seen in Greater Manchester with combined authorities. We also need more funding to be devolved, and we need the capacity for our local authorities to raise more of their own funds and share more in the proceeds of growth. The measures that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, set out in his report, and which I set out in my report, all move in the same direction in this respect: we need to see more devolution of functions that are crucial to growth, particularly functions in relation to skills, transport and economic development, passed down to local authorities or groups of local authorities. The funding needs to follow those functions. We are going to have some very difficult debates about how funding will be devolved in that respect.

We also need to see that there is more fiscal capacity at the local, city and regional level. My report sets out proposals, which have been endorsed by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, for significant devolution of business rates so that the full growth in business rates, allowing for redistribution, takes place within an existing system; so that the full proceeds of growth in business rates are secured by local authorities; and so that other local property taxes, specified in Tony Travers’ report, are devolved as well.

My time is up; I will say just one thing in conclusion. Unless we have a programme of systematic devolution of functions, funding and fiscal powers over the next 20 years, the problem will not be simply that we will be unable to tackle our individual city problems, great as they are; we will not provide that strong and visionary leadership in our cities, without which there will be no future for them.

We have so many leaders and past leaders of local authorities here, all of whom have a vision for their cities and their localities. One cannot have vision when it comes to politics without having power. Local leaders need the capacity to set out visions of growth, of jobs and of revival and regeneration for their cities, but they will not be able to set those out with any conviction and carry local support behind them unless they also have the powers necessary to deliver policy programmes and visions. We need, therefore, to see from Government —and any Government which follows this one—not simply aspirations for more devolution but real, solid proposals for devolving functions, powers and, increasingly, tax-raising powers as well.

13:17

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Shipley, who brought forward the debate today, for his work on devolving new powers to our cities and regions. My noble friend was involved in the city deal negotiations and—together with my noble friend Lord Heseltine, who is not here today—he played a key role in helping to secure a number of agreements. I would like to place on record my thanks to him for his crucial role in these discussions. He is a key figure on this agenda, and has been for many years, and it is fitting that he was leading today’s debate.

It is also fitting that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is here today. I pay tribute to the work that he has done over the years in getting us to where we are today. He has been very much part of the cross-party approach that has in fact led to this, as has my noble friend Lord Heseltine. This cross-party approach—which has not been talked about much today, but is actually very much seen here today, with all the noble Lords who are from cities and from local government—has enabled some of the big shifts in devolution that culminated in the announcement by the Chancellor in November of devolution to Greater Manchester. I do not think that, without the other parties, this could have happened and I must place that on record.

I must also declare not just an interest in this matter but a very great enthusiasm because, like my noble friend Lord Goddard, I was at the start of what has become the first devolution deal for Greater Manchester, and it is a great pleasure to talk about it today. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches. I am delighted that so many—my noble friend Lord Goddard, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke—have chosen to make them in this debate. All are from a local government background, which is great.

My noble friend Lord Shipley’s comments were very helpful and very constructive, as were those of many noble Lords. He talked first about not disempowering London. I think this is a crucial point. In the conversations that we were having in local government 10 or 15 years ago, we did have a bit of a tendency to whinge about how much London got and how we were so badly done to. I think the narrative has moved on in a far more mature way, to be not about how much London has got and how much it has grown—because, actually, that bodes well for all of us in this country—but how cities outside London can punch above their weight in terms of progressing growth and unlocking their growth potential. I think that was a very good point to make at this stage.

Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Shipley, have talked about not creating city-states and about the link with the rural areas and the inner cities. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, we should all collaborate to create a better economic outlook for our country. My noble friend also talked about how this is not just about posting out cheques from Whitehall —if any noble Lord has studied the devolution deal for Manchester, that is very clear. It is based primarily on a proposition to government about growth, based on making better use of the funding that would be coming down to Greater Manchester anyway. It is about not just using it more efficiently but getting to the point where city regions like Greater Manchester are not recipients of public funds but actually become net contributors to the Treasury.

This is very much about accountability. Several noble Lords have asked, “Do we want a mayor? Do we have to have a mayor?” What I think the Government expect is a very clear accountability and leadership role. Certainly, in Greater Manchester, the advent of a mayor in 2017 is not going to create another layer of government. It was very clear that that was what Greater Manchester did not want, and in fact the Government did not want to create another layer of bureaucracy but to enhance what was already there, to create clear leadership.

My noble friend Lord Shipley also talked about underperforming cities. The figures are stark when one compares the different regions of this country with the south-east. The north-west is the second most productive region outside the south-east, but its productivity lags behind by some £30 billion, and that figure is not shrinking, so something does need to be done. This is a radical proposition, but it will be done by increment. We hope it will help to enable areas outside the south-east to punch above their weight and to unlock their potential to do so and to shrink that gap.

My noble friend also asked about the government commitment to devolution to cities. I do not think there needs to be any greater demonstration of this Government’s commitment to devolution to cities, certainly in starting with Greater Manchester. I do not think that, by this time next year, every single city in the country will have a devolution deal; there needs to be a step-by-step process where this agenda is advanced. My noble friend also talked about the pace quickening. I would like to see a sort of point of no return, whereby—a hopefully successful—devolution to Greater Manchester paves the way for other cities and, indeed, rural areas to follow.

My noble friend also talked about responsibilities—I think we have covered this—and also about functional economic geography. Certain things have to be done at scale and across local authority boundaries. In fact, that already happens, as it did with the regional development agencies with things like transport. It is very difficult to deal with transport in a single local authority area, because it transcends authorities and authority boundaries. He also talked about Newcastle’s success and introduced what for me is a new term, “the boomerang Geordies”. I may be one of them, because I left Geordieland 30 years ago; I may return after my retirement—I do not know.

My noble friend Lord Lyell talked about his walk through Liverpool in November 1967 and about the renewal that it has enjoyed. He talked in particular about the port and the waterfront. I declare an interest, which is outlined in the register, in that I was executive director of Atlantic Gateway. There is no doubt that the recent developments of the superport in Liverpool, which is being developed in response to the expansion of the Panama Canal, will provide a fantastic post-Panamax terminal that will be able to receive those massive vessels that will cross the world. It will enable round-the-world shipping again and a huge potential in logistics and distribution and, going back to some of the papers that have been produced in the last few months, it will very much enable those east-west links to be taken forward.

My noble friend also talked about private sector employment. He mentioned Halewood and the Range Rover Evoque; if he has been there recently, he will have seen them all lined up, waiting to be shipped off. I understand that you now have to wait six months for a Range Rover Evoque, such is the demand for them. However, it also has such great potential to revitalise that area of Liverpool and indeed the whole Liverpool city region.

My noble friend also talked about the Liverpool waterfront, which is the most wonderful asset—Liverpool is so lucky. As somebody—I think it was Noel Gallagher —once said, “Manchester’s got everything apart from a beach”, and it is true. Manchester has plenty of assets, but Liverpool has that beautiful waterfront. He also talked about governance. Here I pay tribute to Mayor Joe Anderson, who has shown such strong leadership in Liverpool, and to how Liverpool and Manchester work so brilliantly together to take forward that whole agenda for growth in the north-west.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, talked about not allowing the Treasury to stymie progress. The proposition between local government or groups of local governments and the Treasury has to be crystal clear so that there is no room for manoeuvring as regards what was promised and what was promised to be delivered. As far as I know from Greater Manchester, which was the first deal to be done, the expectations and the expectations of the outcomes are very clear. The noble Lord also talked about how local authority cuts hit the poorest most. In fact, as I said in answer to a question the other day, the bottom 10%—in terms of the most deprived local authorities—receive on average 50% more money, so I must disagree with him on that. He also asked whether any area will be allowed devolution. There is a challenge to groups of local authorities to put forward propositions to government, and I think that the Government do not rule anything out as regards what they want to see put before them. As far as I know, there is no bar to propositions going to government.

I come to my noble friend Lord Goddard. I would say that we were “partners in crime”, but I do not mean that. We served on the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities for some time, both as deputy leaders, and we led the journey to become a combined authority that took place in 2011—I had gone by then, but he was still there. In his very amusing maiden speech he also talked about going to the wrong Benches. I nearly did that, but realised my mistake when I did not recognise any of the faces on the Labour Benches. He talked about the collaboration we enjoyed. That collaboration, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and other noble Lords, has been absolutely essential to our getting where we are today. We would not be here if we did not collaborate.

Another noble Lord made a very good point, which I want to bring out. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

Yes, it was.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It was, and there he is. He talked about a common purpose, and having sometimes to swallow the fact that you do not get everything that you want. That has been key to how we have worked together. If there was ever a handy tip I could give local authorities that wanted to achieve devolutionary status, it would be that: collaborate, co-operate, allow for the fact that you might have to compromise slightly, but you will get there in the end.

My noble friend Lady Eaton talked about skills and about local areas being best placed to respond to local need. That is crucial in devolution deals, and it is interesting that skills were mentioned in the first devolution deal we got. If local authorities do not engage both with employer need and therefore with those learning institutions, those skills will just not be there and we will have to import them from elsewhere, whether that is from home or abroad.

I am very conscious that I am running out of time and that I am not even half way through what I wanted to say. The noble Lord, Lord McFall, I think, made a point about the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal, which I think is one of the largest ever under the city deals—we wish it well.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Scriven’s maiden speech. It was uncontroversial, coming from a controversial man, as he promised us he is, and a young man—you sometimes feel very young when you come here. He mentioned the Sheffield city deal, which we wish well.

I will just try to pick up on some more points. My noble friend Lord True talked about avoiding faddish political structures in bringing forward devolution. I totally agree with that; to come back to a point I made earlier, Greater Manchester was very much against doing that—I realise that I am now completely out of time. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—

[A noble Lord]

Two more minutes.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Oh, I have two more minutes.

I totally agree with that, and in fact, Greater Manchester was very clear that it did not want a layering-on of structure, so it has decided to go to the model of having an 11th leader until 2017, when it will elect a mayor, but it will still keep that core of 10 local authority leaders. The noble Lord also asked about the imposition of local structures. That is not true in the sense that, as I have said, it is a proposition to government; whether it is agreed or not will be the result of a dialogue between local authorities. Therefore nothing will be imposed upon anyone unless they want it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, talked about being born in Sunderland. I was brought up in Hetton-le-Hole, so we have more in common than she thinks. You could not vote Tory there if you wanted to, because—well, they did not want to. The noble Baroness also talked about the size of the state and asked a crucial question about where we want it to lie. I think that trust has to be given by central government to local government. It is no small wonder that central government have taken what is probably the best and most worked-up proposition forward first. Hopefully, that will lead incrementally to such trust being built up between central and local government. The coalition are a Government who want to decentralise, not to create more state intervention—the noble Baroness clearly does not agree with me there. She talked about the back of a fag packet. This is not the back of a fag packet; it has taken years.

But I realise that my time really is up now. I thank all noble Lords, and I will write to anyone whom I have not answered fully.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this debate has now elapsed, and I must put the Question that the Motion be agreed.

Motion agreed.

AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

14:10

Asked by

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, one of my major purposes in raising this short debate is to emphasise a crucial point about public health across the globe. Currently there is vast concern about Ebola, and rightly so. It must be met with all the resources at our disposal. But at the same time we must not forget the even greater challenge posed by the three diseases that the Global Fund was formed to fight—AIDS, TB and malaria.

The figures for deaths tell their own story. In 2013 an estimated 1.5 million people died from HIV/AIDS; 584,000 people died from malaria, and an additional 1.1 million people died from tuberculosis. The burden is heaviest in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 90% of all malaria deaths occur, and—this is perhaps the most disgraceful statistic—in children under five. So, currently, three diseases account for more than 3 million deaths a year, to add to the mountainous totals over the past 25 years. AIDS is an example: the death toll so far is 35 million people. In addition, 36 million people are living with HIV, and in 2013 almost 200 million cases of malaria, and 9 million new tuberculosis cases, were detected.

Having said that, I do not want to downplay or understate the progress made, or the vast contribution that the Global Fund, and the President’s fund from the United States, have made. Without them the world would be in even greater crisis. The latest figures for the Global Fund show that 7.3 million people are on antiretroviral therapy for AIDS. It has tested and treated, or helped to test and treat, more than 12 million people for TB, and has distributed 450 million insecticide-treated nets to protect families against malaria. We have therefore made vast progress since those dismal and tragic days in the 1980s, when AIDS patients died and there was absolutely nothing we could do about it. I pay tribute to the clinicians, the nurses, the volunteers, and all those working for NGOs, throughout the world, who have made this progress possible.

Now we come to what is perhaps the most difficult challenge for any Government. In spite of the progress made, much more needs to be made, and it needs to be made urgently. As UNAIDS says in its latest report, only about three-fifths of countries have risk reduction programmes for sex workers, and 88 countries report that fewer than half of men who have sex with men know their HIV status. Most countries fail to provide drug substitution therapy, or access to sterile needles and syringes for people who inject drugs—even though that is something we started in this country back in the 1980s. Again, most disgracefully of all, antiretroviral treatment for children lags very substantially behind that for adults.

Not all the steps to combat these factors imply increased financial help. If the 80 countries that currently—and disgracefully—criminalise homosexuality were to reform that policy, we would take a massive step forward and reduce one enormous barrier to testing and treatment around the world. There is no question but that that could have a profound effect. I very much hope that in this debate the Government will underline their determination and commitment to do as much as they can to persuade those countries to reform their legal processes.

Just as certainly as that, sustained and increasing financial help is necessary from the nations of the world. Here I pay tribute to the Government for honouring the important pledge, made by Andrew Mitchell when he was Secretary of State for International Development, to add a further £0.5 billion for the Global Fund, as long as other nations join in. There is a slight question about that at the moment, because the total aimed at has not been reached.

Having just praised the Government, if I had a criticism of them it would be that that message about the increased aid should be made loud and clear. At the recent international AIDS conference in Melbourne, where there were Ministers and civil servants—it is by far the most important meeting in the AIDS calendar—we could manage no Minister or civil servant from DfID, and as far as I know, unless he attended very secretly, no British high commissioner. And that was in a Commonwealth country. We need to explain to the world what we are doing and why, and not allow other countries to paint us in terms of the British policy of the Victorian years.

I shall make one last point. With AIDS, antiretroviral drugs have saved millions of lives, but I wonder whether we should put all our eggs in one basket. I believe we should take heed of the warning given today by the review of drug resistance set up by the Prime Minister. Drug resistance can have a profound effect on HIV, TB and malaria. According to Jim O’Neill, who headed the review, drug-resistant infections already kill hundreds of thousands of people a year globally, and by 2050 that figure could be more than 10 million.

There will be further reviews, and I see that it is said, and emphasised, that the role of vaccines to prevent infections, in particular, will be examined. I declare an interest at this point, as a board member of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, a non-profit organisation, based in New York, dedicated to developing a vaccine for AIDS. It has been consistently supported by both parties—although this Government’s recent decision to cut help from £10 million a year to £1 million a year in one slash has not exactly helped. I could say more, but I will not, unless I am provoked, because the point I am making is a rather broader one than that.

Vaccines can take, and almost always have taken, decades to develop. This is not necessarily a natural area for Governments, with their four-year time limits—and perhaps even less so for Ministers, whose time limits are usually rather shorter than that. That is why it is so significant that the President’s fund in the United States, which obviously has a much longer timescale, is now devoting a small part of its substantial resources to research into prevention and vaccines. That is an extraordinarily important move and underlines the importance of prevention. Following that, I wonder whether the Global Fund should not do exactly the same thing and provide a more certain source of finance as well as underlining the crucial importance of prevention as well as treatment. That is the point about moving in that direction.

The Global Fund has made amazing progress but it is dependent on government resources from and around the world. The message for all those Governments is: for goodness’ sake, don’t stop now, for we are dealing with three of the main killer diseases in the world today.

14:20

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for initiating this extremely important debate and, indeed, for his long and distinguished record on these very important issues.

The Global Fund is a 21st century partnership. It works because it combines Governments, civil society, the private sector and people affected by these diseases. The genuine nature of this partnership ensures that there is unquestionable success. We should be proud that the UK contributed £1 billion to the fund in December 2013. This contribution will save a life every three minutes.

HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria disproportionately affect certain groups known as key populations. Despite progress within general populations accessing antiretroviral drugs for HIV treatment, key populations are being left behind in terms of access. TB disproportionately affects those working or living in overcrowded conditions, such as prisoners and labour migrants, particularly mining communities in South Africa. Also at risk are people living with HIV. They are over 20 times more likely to develop TB, and one in five AIDS deaths is from TB alone. HIV poses an increased risk to groups including young women, men who have sex with men, transgender people, who are often forgotten, injecting drug users, those in prison, migrant or mobile workers and sex workers.

Recently, the excellent report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS, Access Denied, published last week, highlighted as a key issue the lack of political prioritisation of key populations. Problems happen, particularly in so-called upper middle income countries, when global funders withdraw support and this happens before domestic Governments are able to pay market prices for antiretroviral drugs. So, will the Government encourage the Global Fund to reassess its decision to withdraw funding from key population groups in middle-income countries unless there is clear evidence of how funding for services and treatment will be provided to key populations? Will the Government pledge to work with the pharmaceutical industry and multilateral organisations to make newer and more effective ARV drugs available and affordable to all, including marginalised populations and people living in middle-income countries?

The sad reality is that HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB do not discriminate. HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death among young women of reproductive age in Africa, and the region’s young women are twice as likely to contract HIV as their male peers. This is partly due to their unequal status, which constrains women’s ability to negotiate condom use. It is therefore vital to develop a range of HIV prevention tools that can be used by diverse populations, such as female-initiated microbicides. Will the Government continue their support for product development partnerships and other approaches that are developing products targeted at such groups as women in low-income countries?

As I said earlier, sex workers are also at great risk from an increased number of sexual partners, greater exposure to sexual violence and the economic incentive to offer unprotected sex. Will the Government pledge their support for promoting health services and harm reduction globally as the most effective approach for addressing HIV and other diseases among sex workers and drug-using populations?

Much has been said in earlier debates about men who have sex with men, but the sad truth is that they are 13 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population. The current slide towards criminalisation in certain countries of people accessing HIV services does no good whatever. These include countries within the Commonwealth, such as Uganda, where a Bill is pending. Therefore, I would be interested to know what the Government are doing to promote—we have to promote this; we cannot impose it—a change of direction as regards homosexuality within these countries. Will they follow the recommendation of the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS to significantly increase the funding of advocacy groups within these countries that need the resources, such as the Robert Carr network or the Stop TB Partnership?

Finally, and probably most importantly, will the Government desist from trying to prevent the Global Fund working in so-called middle-income countries, where the poorest and marginalised are those most in need and where the Global Fund must continue to work if we are to eradicate malaria, TB and HIV? Make no mistake, the weight and influence of the UK on the Global Fund board is significant. Many middle-income countries are facing a perfect storm of bilateral donors and the Global Fund pulling out of funding very rapidly before national Governments have the time, support or money to replace essential HIV funding and programmes. I thank noble Lords and look forward to the noble Baroness’s response to my questions.

14:26

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I also congratulate him on consistently pursuing these issues and the work he is doing month after month, year after year. We owe him a great debt for that. I applaud the remarks made by the noble Lord opposite on middle-income countries and the Global Fund. I cannot remember his name. I do not watch television. You know where I am coming from. The noble Lord raised an important issue. In that context, we should remind ourselves that the Global Fund is a 21st century partnership designed to accelerate the end of the AIDS, TB and malaria epidemics. It is a partnership between Governments, civil society, the private sector and people affected by the diseases. The genuine nature of the partnerships it fosters is critical to the fund’s successes.

The Global Fund mobilises and invests nearly $4 billion a year to support programmes run by local experts in more than 140 countries. Following on from the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, thanks to the Global Fund, 7.3 million people are on antiretroviral treatment, 1.3 million of whom have been put on the treatment this year. Some 12.3 million people have been tested and treated for TB, 1.1 million of whom have been tested this year. Some 450 million mosquito nets have been delivered, 90 million of which were delivered over the course of this year. This has contributed to tens of millions of lives being saved in the decade since the Global Fund was founded. The Global Fund has set a number of goals in relation to its work on HIV, TB and malaria. These goals are due for delivery in 2016. It has already achieved 100% of its HIV goal, 115% of its malaria goal, but only 58.5% of its TB goal. The fund provides over 80% of international financing for TB, over 20% of all HIV funding and 50% of global malaria spend. As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, mentioned, the UK contributed £1 billion to the fund in December 2013. This contribution will save a life every three minutes.

I want to talk a little about the UK Government’s pledge. They made a renewed commitment to Gavi to invest up to £200 million a year for the period 2016 to 2020 to ensure that 76 million children can access life-saving immunisation programmes. The UK’s contribution will save another 1.4 million lives and will help Gavi to move closer to its overall replenishment target of—would you believe?—$7.5 billion.

Despite the shift in the burden of disease, and indeed the population, from low to middle-income, funding allocations from the Global Fund appear to be moving in the other direction, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, mentioned. The application of new funding methodology in Kyrgyzstan—a country with significant HIV and TB burdens—has resulted in an almost 50% cut in total funding for HIV prevention and treatment. Funding for HIV and harm reduction programmes in Ukraine is predicted to fall by about $30 million from 2014 to 2015, on top of a 71% reduction in domestic funding for the HIV epidemic.

Another eastern European country, Romania, was allocated no HIV funding for 2014-16 because it was perceived that there were no political barriers to providing services for people living with infectious diseases, and there is no political will for funding harm reduction. Despite countries having greater GDP, it does not necessarily mean that they are choosing to invest more resources in disease-control programmes. I cannot say this loudly enough: a reduction in Global Fund support can result in the closure of key programmes. That threatens a resurgence of disease in countries where there has been a general reduction in rates over recent years. HIV and TB are prevalent in middle-income countries in our neighbourhood. They are infectious diseases and do not respect national boundaries. Growth of these diseases in central Asia and eastern Europe could impact on the broader region. If we inadvertently facilitate a reduction of disease control in countries just because their GDP has increased to place them in a different World Bank income category, we risk a resurgence in the epidemics.

Finally, I want to talk a little about DfID’s role. We must recognise that our Government, as a major supporter of the Global Fund, should be congratulated on the work they do. Accordingly, the UK has significant influence on the Global Fund board. DfID has made a move to close programmes in middle-income countries and focus its efforts on a smaller group of low-income and fragile states. We should be using our influence on the Global Fund to ensure that it continues to support programmes in countries that receive from few or no other external donors, and not try to influence the fund to focus its efforts on the same countries that DfID currently targets.

I hope that our Minister will commit to work with UK representatives on the Global Fund board and with the Global Fund to develop a more gradual taper of support for countries with increasing domestic resources. It is important to remember that access to treatment is still being denied to too many people, with a total of 29 million now estimated to be eligible. As a final quote, Michel Sidibe, the executive director of UNAIDS has said:

“HIV has transformed from a death sentence to a chronic condition”,

that is treatable, enabling millions of people to live long, healthy lives. However, this is far from enough to end AIDS by 2030, let alone ever.

14:33

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, in political affairs there are always a number of things that cannot be repeated too often. As regards global health issues, it is impossible to overemphasise either the importance of the work done by my noble friend Lord Fowler over the past 30 years or the value of the leadership that he has provided and continues to provide to politicians across party dividing lines who have committed themselves to doing all they can to support those on the front line—the doctors, scientists, academic authorities, health workers and volunteers—leading a battle against three diseases, malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS, that wreak such havoc in large parts of the world today. Some of us taking part in the debate had the great good fortune to hear a few days ago from a number of experts who have dedicated themselves selflessly to releasing as many as they can from suffering and achieving immensely impressive results, particularly in Africa.

However, there are those who succumb to the illusion that the battle is far advanced and final success is in sight. My noble friend Lord Fowler is tireless in pointing out how much remains to be done. He has made that clear again today, as he did in his recent influential—and, I am sure, best-selling—book, in which he stressed the essential uncomfortable truth that we all need to bear constantly in mind. This is how he put it:

“The central problem that the world faces with HIV and AIDS today is this: it is the millions of people infected with HIV who, in spite of the medical advances and all the money poured in, remain untreated”.

There are millions of people united with us in the brotherhood of man who desperately need the treatment to hold their HIV in check but who are denied it.

That fundamental point was underlined in the authoritative report published on World AIDS Day last week by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. How welcome he is in this debate and the others that will follow. The all-party parliamentary group calculates that less than two-thirds of adults with HIV and three-quarters of the children living with it today are not receiving the treatment they require. Immense progress has been made, not least through the Global Fund, to which I, like other noble Lords, pay tribute, in extending access to the treatment that contains and controls HIV, and yet so much more remains to be done. The all-party report last week estimated that 55 million people will need HIV treatment by 2030.

It would be an immense tragedy if this country, which has made such a marked contribution to the progress so far, should falter now. However, without adequate funding our contribution is bound to falter, and the inimitably long period of experiment and trial needed to find an HIV vaccine will be extended further. That, I think, is the main cross-party message that this important debate seeks to deliver. Surely we cannot allow the defeat of pandemics that condemn millions to misery to be set back and weakened because of short-term factors in Britain connected with the coming general election. Rather, the main parties must stand firmly together, explaining, as my noble friend Lord Fowler constantly does, why the skills of our doctors and the breakthroughs achieved by our research scientists must continue to be placed at the service of mankind as a whole. We belong at the centre of the Global Fund, this remarkable international partnership that brings together Governments and the private sector.

The all-party report is entitled Access Denied. In her speech in response to it on World AIDS Day, my noble friend Lady Northover, who understands these issues so fully, referred to the need to address the numerous barriers that limit access to medicines. One of the most formidable of these barriers is the criminalisation of homosexuality in so many countries. In nearly 80 countries—too many of them members of the Commonwealth—it is a crime to be gay. In circumstances of such grotesque discrimination, gay people with HIV are not going to draw attention to themselves by seeking treatment, assuming that it is available. We have referred to this intolerable barrier to treatment—indeed, to simple human equality and dignity—often in our debates on global health and Commonwealth affairs in recent years. Like my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, I believe that we should emphasise this again and again. The statistics are stark. In Caribbean countries where homosexuality is not against the law, of every 15 men who have sex with other men, one is infected with HIV. In Caribbean countries where it is a crime to be gay, the rate of infection is one in four.

It is, of course, the Commonwealth countries that are most prominent in our minds. They are closest to us, united by ties of kinship, friendship and history. The Commonwealth’s collective institutions produced clear evidence in 2011 that where homosexuality has been decriminalised, HIV infection had failed. To the infinite sadness of us all, that has not led to widespread reform, even though the criminalisation of homosexuality is plainly incompatible with the Commonwealth’s new charter, to which all its members nominally subscribe. Some Commonwealth countries glory in oppressing gay people, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, in relation to Uganda. As for the Commonwealth as a whole, does it want to be seen as upholding or blatantly ignoring fundamental human rights? It cannot dodge that question.

14:39

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for today’s debate. It is an opportunity to thank this Government for their continuing commitment—a commitment started by the previous Labour Government—to funding for international aid. In times of austerity, there are those cheap political point-scorers who will say that international aid is a luxury which we cannot afford. They could not be more wrong. As today’s report on anti-microbial resistance shows, health issues are now global, and investment in the health of people in countries around the globe is an act of self-preservation for people here, too. Any political party that says it will cut foreign aid is not acting in the best interests of its own citizens.

That said, tackling these three big issues is very complicated. We have all sorts of different actors: academics, national Governments, researchers, scientists and not least the people themselves. By far the agents with the biggest impact are the global funders: the UK and the United States Governments are the biggest contributors to them. They have the most profound impact on what happens to everybody else.

I, too, want to echo the points that have been made by a number of speakers about the Global Fund’s current strategy towards middle-income countries. It is right that the Global Fund has gone through a process of refining its funding models. It is important that it should fund work in countries in ways which are compatible with the development of proper national health systems in those countries, including basic health systems, such as access to clean water. However, it is an unfortunate reality that, having gone at such a pace, the Global Fund is withdrawing funding from middle-income countries, such as Ukraine and Vietnam. It is having a devastating impact on those countries, not least on their marginal communities.

I want to echo what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden: it is groups within those countries that can have the biggest impact on their own Governments. I would therefore encourage the noble Baroness to commit to working with civil society groups to achieve that. I say that because of the searing experience I had of standing in a top AIDS clinic in New Delhi watching a line of women queuing up for their HIV and TB treatments. They were among the most powerless people I have ever seen. Recognising that they are in the position that they are in through absolutely no fault of their own makes a compelling case not to abandon them, just because they live in a country the economy of which is increasing.

I am proud to be part of the group that produced the Access Denied report. It covers a number of matters in tremendous detail, not least the matters of intellectual property rights and TRIPS agreements. I am not going to talk about that in great depth today, but I would welcome the opportunity to do so some other time. The Global Fund, as noble Lords have said, is an important player when it comes to research. Underlying the whole of the work to deal with these diseases is the issue of research, funding for basic research, funding for translational research, and funding for new medicines. We had the experience in India of talking to generic manufacturers who explained to us, as the commercial people that they are, that there was no market for paediatric formulations for HIV. That makes it even more important that Governments and funds, such as the Global Fund, continue to make the sorts of structural investment over a long term which enables other people to maximise their efforts.

Noble Lords will know that in the last 50 years there have been no new drugs for TB. There have been loads of new drugs for allergies and so on, because they are diseases of the west and there is a market. In the case of drugs for TB, there largely is not a market. It is therefore really important that the Global Fund continues to fund research.

In answering the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on 1 December, the Minister made some remarks about the funding of research which have caused some alarm among the lobby groups and civil society groups that work in this area. Will she commit to meet a cross-party group from both Houses along with some of those groups so that we can talk about that?

I think that we all understand that, now more than ever, there is cause to be efficient and effective in the way in which resources are deployed, but there are some decisions that we need to take, not just for the present moment but for years to come, which will, I hope, bind future Governments. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, epitomises in his work, this is something for the long haul. Things that are for the long haul require exceptional political commitment. Will the noble Baroness make that commitment so that we can all rest safe in the knowledge that the investment which has been made over the last 30 years will not be lost?

14:45

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by joining in the congratulations which have been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on his outstanding record over several decades campaigning against homophobia and for the eradication of HIV/AIDS. He continues with this work effectively here in your Lordships’ House, in his book, AIDS: Don’t Die of Prejudice, and in his many speeches and articles on what the world needs to do to eradicate a scourge that my noble friend rightly describes as the greatest public health threat in the world today.

The noble Lord rightly castigated the 80 countries that criminalise homosexuality and the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, mentioned Uganda in particular as having an anti-homosexuality Bill currently before its Parliament. It was not for this reason, I think, that we cancelled our budgetary aid to Uganda, but perhaps we ought to review our non-humanitarian aid to all the 80 countries to see whether any pressure can be brought to bear on them through fiscal means.

As has been said, the Global Fund invests some $4 billion a year, of which the UK provides nearly £1 billion as its share. This is a cost-effective partnership, bringing together Governments, civil society, the private sector, philanthropists and patients affected by the diseases. It mobilises programmes run by local experts in 140 countries, avoiding duplication or overlapping.

As your Lordships know, HIV and TB are closely linked and TB is the leading cause of death worldwide for people living with HIV. Last year, the Global Fund provided that all applications for support from countries with high incidences of both diseases should present integrated programmes to qualify for assistance. This is a great step forward in the response to TB, because country HIV programmes have often been significantly more developed than their counterparts that address TB. TB patients will benefit from the greater resourcing, expertise and reach of country HIV programmes. For some reason, DflD currently does not integrate TB into any of its bilateral HIV programmes. This needs to change. I would like my noble friend, when she comes to wind up, to say that we will follow the Global Fund’s example by requiring recipients of our bilateral assistance for HIV/AIDS also to integrate their TB/HIV programming.

There is also a case for the co-ordination of delivery systems for malaria diagnosis and treatment with programmes for TB and HIV. The APPG on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases points out in its latest report that,

“HIV and malaria frequently co-exist and the treatments most commonly used for each are now known to interact with each other”.

This would not be the case, I hope, with the first ever vaccine against malaria, RTS,S, developed over the last 20 years by GSK with additional funding by the Gates Foundation in one of the product development partnerships which are proving to be so successful in addressing the lack of commercial incentive to undertake R&D for vaccines, diagnostics and drugs for neglected diseases of the developing world. Does my noble friend the Minister think that we are likely to be able to eliminate these three diseases by 2030? On malaria, the APPG says that the Medicines for Malaria Venture has,

“the strongest anti-malaria … development pipeline that has ever existed”.

The rollout of the RTS,S vaccine before the end of the decade will be a significant milestone on the road to eradication. However, targets are needed for the post-2015 agenda, which is to be discussed shortly.

For HIV/AIDS, the fast-track approach of UNAIDS to ending the epidemic by 2030 is supported by a strong consensus, according to UNAIDS, which has identified headline intermediate targets for 2020. It recalls that African countries committed in the 2001 Abuja declaration to spend 15% of their budgets on health, but only six of them have met that commitment. Additional funding—the amount not specified—would be needed from donor countries; presumably, as the third-largest donor to the Global Fund, we are entitled to ask our EU partners to step up to the plate and contribute proportionately to their national income, as we do.

In conclusion, I am sorry to note that there was not a word about DfID in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, still less any mention of our commitment to the Global Fund over the next five years as we embark on the post-2015 agenda. The fund’s three-year pledging cycle does not fit with our five-year Parliaments, but it would be useful to hear from my noble friend what Mr Osborne has pencilled in for the 2016 round.

14:51

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for initiating the debate. I also thank him for his lifetime commitment to the battle against HIV and AIDS, and, more importantly, against the prejudice and stigma that all too often hinder treatment and prevention.

The Global Fund mobilises and invests nearly $4 billion a year to support programmes run by local experts in more than 140 countries. As noble Lords have said, thanks to the Global Fund, 7.3 million people are on antiretroviral treatment. About 12.3 million people have been tested and treated for TB. Some 450 million mosquito nets have been delivered. Of the goals it set in relation to its work on HIV, TB and malaria for delivery in 2016, the fund has already achieved 100% of its HIV goal, 115% of its malaria goal, but, regrettably, only 58.5% of its TB goal. As we have heard, despite the huge progress on malaria in particular, still more needs to be done. I was shocked to hear yesterday a DfID scientific adviser state that half the children in high-risk areas still sleep without nets.

The fund is short of its TB targets because countries do not have the capacity to run programmes of the scale of those for HIV and malaria. As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said, the fund provides more than 80% of international financing for TB, more than 20% for HIV and 50% for global malaria. As my noble friend Lord Cashman said, the UK contributed £1 billion to the fund in December 2013, saving a life every three minutes. Again as we have heard, the UK has pledged £1 billion to the Global Fund for the next 2014-16 round, but this funding is capped at a total of 10% of the total sum raised. The US contribution, which is huge, is also capped at 33% of the total funds pledged.

Sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, the Global Fund is still short of its funding target. Given its importance to the global response to these three diseases, what action have the Government taken to ensure others step up to the mark in this round of funding? Also, if these fail, will the Government commit to disbursing the full £1 billion, regardless of whether other countries pledge or not? As the noble Lord said, the Global Fund has led the way on integrating TB and HIV programmes as recommended by the World Health Organization. When I raised in an Oral Question last December just how integrated DfID’s bilateral HIV programmes were, the Minister agreed to write to me. In fact, in her subsequent letter the noble Baroness stated that DfID,

“responds to partner countries’ health priorities”,

including tackling TB/HIV co-infections. The noble Baroness assured me that DfID will ensure that this approach is followed where we have bilateral TB/HIV programmes.

Of the 28 countries DfID lists as partners, 14 are on the list of high-burden TB countries and two are on the list of high-burden drug-resistant TB countries. In which case, I am concerned as to why TB is not identified as a health priority in any of those countries. Does the Minister accept that DfID could better integrate its TB/HIV programme in its bilateral arrangements and help to build the capacity of national TB programmes? Further, there is a £2 billion a year funding gap for TB that the Global Fund cannot fill. TB is an infectious disease that does not recognise national boundaries. Failure to control the disease in one country can and will lead to resurgence in others that have successfully tackled the disease.

The Global Fund helps countries purchase drugs, diagnostics and vaccines to tackle the three diseases. However, for many conditions, such as paediatric HIV, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and TB—particularly drug-resistant TB—we do not have drugs of sufficient quality. I conclude by stressing the point I made on Monday in Grand Committee: there is a strong case for DfID to scale up its investment in R&D for TB, HIV and malaria to develop the treatments needed to eliminate these three diseases. I, too, would welcome the meeting suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to raise these issues and the concerns of many people.

14:57

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Fowler for putting this issue once again on the Order Paper, for his passionate and informative introduction of it, and for his long campaigning history in this field. He makes the point that, although progress has been made, there is still much to do. I fully agree with that. I also congratulate him on the publication of his book AIDS: Don’t Die of Prejudice, as was noted by my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Avebury. The concerns he raises in that book and elsewhere—the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and my noble friend Lord Lexden referred to this—about the discrimination and bigotry that surround this issue are, as noble Lords have indicated, of tragic significance.

Various noble Lords addressed the legal and societal barriers to human rights in this field. I can assure them that the Government are at the forefront of promoting human rights around the world. We regularly engage with Governments that violate these rights. We also support civil society groups that advocate for the relevant groups. I have just come from a meeting with Stonewall and the Kaleidoscope Trust. We explored how best to support voices in this area. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to engage in as effective a way as we possibly can.

Clearly, the level of prejudice is very striking. I saw that at first hand, when I visited South Africa recently. Representatives of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans -gender community told me of the difficulty they had, even in an environment where the law would seem to protect their rights, in accessing specialised services geared to their needs. I learnt also of the terrible plight of rape survivors in South Africa and southern Africa, about 30% of whom become infected with HIV, and who risk rejection from society. It is enormously challenging. AIDS, TB and malaria remain among the biggest causes of death and illness in developing countries. In 2013 alone HIV/AIDS killed 1.5 million people, malaria killed 584,000 people and TB killed 1.5 million people.

Progress has been made: new HIV infections are declining in many of the worst-affected countries; there has been a significant reduction in malaria incidence and deaths; and the world is on course to halve TB deaths by 2015, compared with 1990 levels. Clearly, the Global Fund has played a major part in this and that is why we are so strongly supportive of it. As my noble friend Lord Chidgey spelt out, since 2002, Global Fund-supported programmes have kept 7.3 million people alive with HIV therapy, distributed 450 million insecticide-treated nets, and detected and treated 12.3 million TB cases. These efforts to end the AIDS epidemic accelerated last year, with increases of 20% in the number of people being treated for HIV and malaria through Global Fund-supported programmes, and smaller increases in numbers being treated for TB. That is a truly remarkable achievement.

The UK has played, and continues to play, a critically important part in these successes. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are very active in seeking others’ help; that is one of the reasons why we have used the help as we have, in order to lever the other assistance that needs to come in internationally. We worked with the Global Fund to develop a new funding model that prioritises investments in countries with low incomes and a high burden of disease—countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, where over 11% of all global malaria deaths take place. The model has increased allocations to these countries by 40%. It is worth noble Lords bearing that in mind, as we seek to tackle the high burden of very poor countries that the Global Fund has identified.

One year ago, the UK pledged up to £1 billion to the Global Fund for 2014-16, but our contribution does not end there. For example, last year the UK worked with the Global Fund and others to pool our procurement of insecticide-treated nets—the most effective intervention to prevent deaths from malaria—and used our market power to drive sustainable reductions in prices. Noble Lords rightly highlighted the challenge of cost here: that is saving $140 million over two years. The Global Fund is now rolling out similar approaches across a range of commodities. Savings will be used to enable the Global Fund to reach more people with life-saving interventions.

However, although these achievements are impressive —and I think they are worth noting, as noble Lords flag up what else needs to be done—clearly we are not complacent. Improvements are not uniform in all countries; we have heard that referred to in this debate. Resistance to effective medicines is indeed a growing threat and devastating rebounds can occur quickly if there is any let-up in prevention and treatment efforts.

One issue in particular that is concerning is the impact of the AIDS epidemic on women and girls. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, referred to this. Every hour, 50 young women are newly infected by HIV. The infection rates are twice as high as in young men. The Global Fund, with UK support, has made a strong commitment to the health of women and girls, and we are very pleased that that is the case. It is increasing its own capacity and building capacity at country level to mainstream women’s and girls’ concerns into programme design. But the power dynamics within societies that underlie these problems will not be easily tackled, and we look to the Global Fund to redouble its efforts. Of course, programmes such as the use of microbicides are also relevant here, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said.

There were a number of specific issues that noble Lords mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned the AIDS conference in 2014. That happened to be held in the same week in July as the Girl Summit —which I hope the noble Lord was acutely aware of—and at which Malala spoke, among others, as I referred to yesterday. It was a stunning occasion and I was very glad to be able to be there. I was also happy to go to Australia; my noble friend will have to ask the previous Chief Whip about why I was not allowed to. Nevertheless, I was the beneficiary, therefore, of being able to attend the Girl Summit here, in Simon Hughes’s constituency. FCO colleagues from the high commission in Canberra attended the meeting in Australia on behalf of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord will know how committed we are in terms of the Global Fund and as far as tackling HIV, malaria and TB is concerned.

The noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Chidgey, and my noble friend Lady Barker challenged us on lower-income countries. We support the Global Fund’s new funding model, which funds the most cost-effective interventions where the need is greatest, which is in the low-income, high-burden countries; but we do ask the fund to focus more heavily on key populations in the middle-income countries, where they are investing. I hear what noble Lords say; but it is also important that we all galvanise here, to ensure that Governments themselves—such as the Government of India, where the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, saw what she saw and I have seen it, too—step up to provide those services. They cannot simply be underpinned because we have the Global Fund; we must make sure that we are not neglecting the poorest in the poorest countries for the sake of those countries in which something more can, and must, be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, referred to harm reduction. Clearly, we are firmly committed to supporting harm reduction to reduce HIV transmission in injecting drug users. My noble friend Lord Fowler referred to that as well. The United Kingdom has indeed—no doubt, chivvied along by my noble friend Lord Fowler—led in this regard.

We are supporting market shaping, which I think we have spoken about before. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and my noble friends referred to ARVs. We are working with others to try to ensure that we have got reduction in prices, to get ARVs to as many people who need them as we possibly can.

My noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about bringing together TB and HIV. We are well aware of that as a co-infection and it is part of our ongoing work. In 2011, when we reviewed this, that was one of the issues we particularly focused on. As noble Lords will know, we are working through UNITAID, UNAIDS and also the Stop TB Partnership and are seeking further product development research and market shaping for TB vaccines as well as HIV drugs and diagnostic tools.

My noble friend Lord Avebury invited me to suggest what the Chancellor might do in the future—in the year, I think, beyond the general election—which is an interesting suggestion. I am afraid that I cannot foresee exactly what will happen in that general election, though perhaps he can. But he will know that the Department for International Development’s budget is ring-fenced until 2015-16, and therefore the commitment that he might have wanted to see in the Autumn Statement was already in place in terms of the funding for DfID.

I am extremely happy to meet Peers and CSOs in the way my noble friend Lady Barker suggested, and if the noble Lord, Lord Collins, wants to join, I am very happy to talk about that and our support for research. I hear what noble Lords are saying about drug-resistant diseases. I have a personal interest in this issue, in that one of my children is currently being treated in hospital for such a thing. It brings into focus exactly what Jim O’Neill is saying. Looking at this whole area will be exceedingly important.

The Global Fund has made a fantastic difference. We have been a major support of it in terms of tackling TB, malaria and HIV. We will continue in that way. We welcome people’s engagement in ensuring that we are focusing as we should. We listened carefully to what noble Lords are saying but they should not doubt our commitment in this area.

Global Development Goals

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:11

Moved by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

That this House takes note of the case for establishing new global development goals in 2015.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I should start by referencing the register of interests, in which my interests in a number of development and charitable organisations are recorded.

On 8 September 2000, the member states of the United Nations agreed the millennium declaration and set out the millennium development goals, which aspired to transform the lives of those living with poverty, disease and lack of basic human rights around the world at the start of the 21st century. Those present affirmed their collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity, and they set out key values that should underpin their collective action to support peace, development and human rights.

Those values of freedom, equity and solidarity, tolerance, non-violence, respect for nature and shared responsibility were to drive the international community to action in the hope of eradicating many of the worst conditions in the world by 2015. In the 15 years that have followed, much has been achieved. By tackling disease, achieving gender parity in primary education, improving access to clean water and reducing extreme poverty, the lives of more than 2 billion people have been transformed. But of course much remains to be done. Progress has been inconsistent: around 1 billion people still live on less than £1 a day; millions of girls miss out on secondary school; safe sanitation is absent for hundreds of millions; and too many die or suffer from the impact of violent conflict.

So in 2015, we will not only celebrate the significant, if incomplete, success of the MDGs—and, indeed, the 10th anniversary of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, which did so much to prioritise change in Africa—but the global community through the United Nations will, I hope, agree a new set of goals, the sustainable development goals, which will be the engine for development over the next 15 years, with the aim of eradicating extreme poverty and delivering basic human rights for all.

Much of our political debate in the UK and globally over 2014 has been dominated by fears about migration, security, economic uncertainty, our climate and our planet. These fears cross national boundaries and are shared by people of different cultures and nationalities, and their solutions are truly global, not national. Surely we can agree, though, as we look ahead to 2015, that fundamental to tackling these fears, to help ensure a more peaceful, stable, prosperous and equitable world for future generations, is the need to lift those living in extreme poverty or in fear of extreme weather conditions, or lacking in basic human rights or provisions, out of those conditions and into a better future.

Surely a world that is more equitable, where more have opportunities, where women and men have the same rights and opportunities, where those marginalised as a result of their physical condition, their identity, their sexuality or location are recognised as having the same basic rights as others, would be a world in which it would be easier to deal with these great fears and uncertainties of our times. While the SDGs are ultimately about justice and solidarity, they are also about tackling these great fears of the 21st century and helping all of us live better, safer and more fulfilling lives.

For the first time, in 2015 the global community has a unique opportunity to bring together in one set of agreements goals about our climate, environment, development and inequality with the financial mechanisms and partnerships that are required to deliver those goals. For the first time—because any agreement will be built on years of consultation and involvement, with the record of what works and what does not, with access to 21st century technology and the means of accountability to ensure delivery and results—these goals will surely be built upon greater ownership and partnership than ever before. Tackling inequality must run like a thread through the new SDGs to ensure that all have access and rights. Reducing inequality between and within nations is fundamental to eradicating extreme poverty.

Just as tackling economic inequality will affect the delivery of every SDG, so too will the position of women. It is undoubtedly the case that on a local, national and international level, where women’s participation is guaranteed and women leaders can flourish, development is more successful and sustainable. The participation and empowerment of women, and the eradication of gender inequality in relation to property ownership, income and basic rights will be fundamental if the SDGs are to have the impact we demand.

Earlier this year, I experienced in the Philippines, as so many others experience every year of their lives, how extreme weather events and natural disasters can destroy years of hard work in economic and social development. Programmes that develop and strengthen resilience to such events must be built into the delivery of these SDGs so that the most affected and sometimes most marginalised communities can plan their development for the future, safe in the knowledge that their work will reap results for future generations.

Across all this, the principle of universality of rights will underpin the 2015 agreement on sustainable development goals, and the rallying cry will be, “Leave no one behind”. However, I should like to focus particularly on two key aspects that will no doubt be controversial and challenging in 2015 but must be central to the final commitment if it is to make a difference for the poorest people on the planet. The United Nations Secretary-General published on 4 December his synthesis report, The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet. It brings together all the work carried out so far on the SDGs and sets out six essential elements that must guide the work to strengthen, prioritise and deliver an agreement by September 2015. These elements—dignity, people, prosperity, the planet, justice and partnerships—are our pipelines to peace and sustainable development.

However, the delivery of the goals that we agree will be achieved only if we invest seriously in capacity in regional and continental organisations, and in national institutions and governments in the developing world. This includes: proper taxation systems and revenue authorities that can collect and disperse funds; courts and justice systems that protect the weakest and assert the fair and transparent rule of law; strong parliaments that hold Governments to account and government ministries that can deliver in education and health, and in the creation of jobs; and reliable, independent data collection on which to base decisions and measure success. Therefore, as part of the agreement on financing that will run alongside the newly agreed sustainable development goals after 2015, there must be genuinely concerted and consistent effort to invest in capacity and a willingness, in those nations where the vast majority of the extreme poor live, to support that capacity building and respect, accountable, open, fair and transparent systems and institutions that put people before those in power.

The second key aspect is peace and security. The draft sustainable development goals include, for the first time, a firm commitment to peacebuilding and a recognition of the importance of freedom from conflict and violence if those living in the most extreme poverty and with the worst level of human rights are to see their living conditions transformed. Draft goal 16 of the 17 published by the United Nations last Thursday states that the goal is to,

“promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”.

As Saferworld, with its particularly strong research and campaigning over recent months, and UNICEF, with its campaign on violence against children, have shown, implementing and agreeing this goal is going to be perhaps one of the toughest challenges of all. There will be many states in the UN that will see such a commitment as a threat to their national sovereignty and as opening the door to interference and intervention from Europe and North America. The UK can play a key role this year in reassuring these nations that this goal and this understanding are instead about delivering justice for those who live in the worst conditions in the worst places on earth.

Current projections are that, by 2030, more than 50% of those living in extreme poverty will be living in the most violent and fragile places. As many of us know from our experience in these places, access to schooling, access to health services, access to clean water and access to justice can be almost non-existent. The United Nations cannot only be about peacekeeping and other uniformed forms of security around the world. The member states and their global leaders must address these fundamental issues on the rule of law, with strong but accountable and open institutions, and they must give priority to those living in fear of violence, with the impact of conflict around them every day.

In conclusion, I want to stress the important role of the United Kingdom. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading member in the European Union and an active participant in the Commonwealth, the IMF, the World Bank, the G8 and the G20, we are uniquely placed to influence, even lead, this debate. I hope that the Government will do so, and I will ask four questions here today. First, what mechanisms have been set up to integrate and then promote our intervention towards the best possible agreement on sustainable development goals in September 2015? Secondly, what response have we given to the report of the UN Secretary-General, published last week on 4 December? Thirdly, what will we demand at the European Union Council meeting next Tuesday, given its responsibility to help shape the best outcome in 2015? Fourthly, will we insist that commitments on peacebuilding, on inequality, on gender and on resilience to extreme events be upfront in the final agreement? If we do, we will help to usher in an era of transformation that will deliver a safer, more prosperous and more just 21st century. I beg to move.

15:23

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that everybody in the House is truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for introducing this subject. We do not have enough debates—at least not in my view—about development, aid and the best way of going about these connected, but different, activities. I am grateful to him for his synoptic view of the scene. I confess that I approach the subject with a certain humility—and that perhaps makes me not the best possible person to follow the noble Lord—because I am a retired practitioner. I have to remember that I was a practitioner in the 1980s and 1990s and that the world has moved on, but in those days I was deeply involved with aid and economic development.

My interest in the subject arose a long time ago. There were two economists, Tom Bauer and Thomas Balogh: they were both immigrants—which is interesting —and both became Members of your Lordships’ House. They used to debate the philosophy of aid and development passionately on the Floor of this House, in a way that I have not seen us debating lately. Bauer was a market man. He believed in economic opportunities —a seizing of opportunities to trade and invest achieving a satisfactory return. His philosophy has been demonstrated to work in certain places, such as Malaysia and Brazil. His conclusion was that there was no reason to suppose that development could not be achieved all over the world in much the same way as it was achieved in western Europe and in the United Kingdom during the industrial revolution.

Balogh was much more a top-down Government-to-Government aid supporter. He was an adviser for a number of years to Harold Wilson. The aid orthodoxy of today is much more on the Balogh theme than the Bauer theme. As I said before, we do not have that much debate about it; we seem to hold similar views about the orthodoxy, which is probably something that makes me unsuitable to follow, because I am a Bauer man, not a Balogh man, and therefore in a minority—a quite familiar position.

My second interest in the subject arises because 30 years ago, I started about a dozen years with what was then the Commonwealth Development Corporation. At that time, it was a classic development finance institution: state owned and funded by Treasury capital, funding private sector economic opportunities and making modest profits that were liable to corporation tax. What it did was, in general, unattractive to fully market players, either because of the political risk or the risk of low returns. Therefore, what the CDC was doing then was filling gaps—doing things that other people did not quite want to do. That is my definition of a development finance institution: for it to be a DFI, it has to be prepared to do things that the market is not prepared to do—and of course to do them successfully.

My third interest, which is much smaller, is with the Hospital for Tropical Diseases—this relates back to the previous debate. CDC had some 250 people in 65 different locations, many of them tropical, and we needed the services of HTD. After retirement, I did quite a lot of work for HTD, including fundraising in order to move the hospital into more satisfactory premises.

I was, therefore, a bottom-up player in both senses. I respected and knew about millennium goals, in the sense that although I was pre-millennium, we were still aiming at much the same things that were codified in 2000. The problem is that bottom-up players cannot cope with millennium goals: they simply do not have the time. They are too big, too abstract and too distant from their lives. Take mobile phones in Ghana, tea in Malawi or marine offloading facilities in Papua New Guinea: while you are carrying out those projects and making sure that they are sustainable and generate returns, it is difficult to take time to think about the great, wide issues of the millennium goals.

With our experience as front-line operators, how should we think about the millennium goals and the aid programme? For my part, I think about striking a better balance in our aid programme between aid and economic development, as well as the contributions to the development goals. I will illustrate that briefly by taking the example of tea. The Commonwealth Development Corporation was responsible for starting the Kenya Tea Development Agency, which now has more than half a million growers and 64 tea factories. It has definitely been a sustainable enterprise and Kenya is now the third largest producer of tea in the world. But after that we went elsewhere.

I shall also mention Malawi, which is not a word-for-word accurate experience, but a good illustration. Malawi with its 17 million people is not abounding in economic potential. It is a difficult place with no access to the sea, and market players find it difficult to achieve returns there. So we started a tea property. We did our due diligence and saw that we had land with good soil, that water was available and that the climate was right—all of which would allow tea to be grown successfully. Tea needs a medium-term capital input. Tea plants are trees, but they are allowed to grow to only 30 inches high. However, they need time to develop, so you cannot pluck the leaves for tea for some years. You also need to build a tea processing factory, and therefore you must have capital. However, capital in Malawi was then and still is in very short supply.

We set up a nursery for the tea plants and for woodlots—because without timber for fuel, you cannot operate a tea factory. Immediately, we were creating jobs. We needed to make a road because you can bet your life that a lorry cannot get in and out of a remote place easily. Again, that is economic development and it creates jobs. Then there was the matter of housing and gardens for the people working on the plantation, as well as the school and the clinic, both of which we would build. We needed communications in the form of mobile telephones to contact the market in Mombasa and sell the tea. Lastly, women are very important in tea plantations because they are much better at plucking the leaves than men will ever be.

I should like to say in conclusion that this kind of activity is a way of fulfilling from the bottom up the millennium development goals. If I had to choose between aid and economic development, I judge that the contribution of economic development is the greater.

15:32

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McConnell for introducing this debate. His commitment to these issues is impressive, and I was particularly pleased that he emphasised the indispensability of solidarity. He is a living example of what solidarity means. We are having this debate in the context of another debate that is taking place about the 0.7% of GDP. Of course it is clear to me that if we are going to opt for 0.7% at least and maintain it, we have to be very clear about our objectives and what the money is for.

Against that background, there is also a certain amount of discussion about the relative merits of disaggregated targets and global targets. I believe that there is a matrix of interrelated issues and that we need both. Perhaps I may make two points to set the context. We cannot give too much priority to peace, security, conflict prevention and conflict resolution. Often, conflict disrupts any chance of meaningful development. We also desperately need security sector reform so that those who are responsible for ensuring security are accountable and treated with respect, and have a culture to which human rights are absolutely central. I also happen to believe that the recent arms trade treaty is highly relevant because the availability and circulation of arms across the world is undoubtedly aggravating conflict and increasing its damage.

The UN Secretary-General recent report on post-2015 development spoke of “dignity”, “people”, “prosperity”, “the planet”, “justice” and “partnership”. The objectives were to end poverty and fight inequality, to ensure healthy lives, knowledge and the inclusion of women and children, to grow a strong, inclusive—I emphasise that word—and transformative economy, to protect our ecosystems for all societies and for our children, and to promote safe and peaceful societies and strong institutions. We should seek to capitalise global solidarity for sustainable development. Perhaps in its concern for justice, it would have been good to see even more effectively spelt out the importance of peace and the inescapable significance of fair and just international financial and trade systems, as well as the need for human rights to be seen at all times as the cornerstone of any lasting well-being.

Saferworld, of which I am a trustee, has argued that while the disciplined and essential concentration on disaggregated indicators with benchmarks so that progress can be ensured at national level is important, it is equally vital to emphasise the indispensability of a shared set of common and universal indicators. They are central to creating a monitoring system that enables the evaluation of progress at a global level.

As the principal NGOs stress in the excellent briefs with which they have supplied us, rooted as they are in their authority of engagement and experience, what is now clear beyond doubt is the inseparability of sustainable development from climate change issues. Christian Aid, Oxfam, Bond and the others all speak out unequivocally on this, and they are certainly right. Already the poorest and most vulnerable people of the world—women, children, the elderly and sick—are suffering acutely from floods, landslides, coastal erosion, drought, famine and conflict. We may not be able to stop climate change—our unforgiveable inaction and prevarication for too long has accentuated this—but we can still moderate it. However, we can do so only with urgent and decisive action.

What the World Wildlife Fund has said is certainly challenging. Its report stated that,

“currently we are consuming globally 1.5 times what our planet can replenish. If everyone globally had the same living standards as the UK, we would need three times the resources that our planet can provide. However it is the biodiversity in low income countries that has experienced the greatest decline over the last 40 years, averaging 58% and reaching 83% in Latin America. A major contributory factor to this decline is from the high consumption patterns in wealthier countries, which relies on the exploitation of natural resources in the low income countries. By taking timber, fish and agricultural products such as soy and palm oil, we are exporting our environmental impacts”.

Of course, there are specific issues to be effectively addressed. UNICEF UK underlines that, while poverty and its lifelong physical and mental stunting effect on children is bad enough, there are still the issues of trafficking, exploitation, violence, torture and child soldiers. I sometimes wonder how on earth we can live with ourselves when we are able to contemplate trips into space for the rich or, indeed, garden bridges across the Thames, when millions upon millions of children are going prematurely to their graves, never having had the opportunity to begin to be what they might have been.

Age International graphically brings home that by 2050 there will be more people over 60 in the world than children under 15. Today’s 868 million older people will have become 2 billion. It estimates that 71% of those who die of non-communicable diseases are over 60, and some 80% of non-communicable diseases occur in low-income and middle-income countries. Like other NGOs, VSO brings home that women are two-thirds of the people globally who live in extreme poverty. While women undertake two-thirds of the world’s work and produce 50% of the food, they earn only 10% of the income and own only 1% of the property of the world.

I am convinced that if we talk about 0.7%, we must talk as passionately about what is necessary to make effective use of it. The people of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland desperately need a peaceful, stable world. For our own economic security, health and well-being it is absolutely essential. That is why we should have the post-2015 goals at the centre of our concerns—in whatever party we are—as we approach the general election.

15:41

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on securing this debate on the case for establishing new development goals in 2015. The noble Lord’s contribution to this House, particularly in the All-Party Group on the Great Lakes Region of Africa and other all-party groups, is highly regarded and gives insight into the challenges that face Governments. It also engages with NGOs and civil society in the international efforts to deliver the MDGs by 2015.

I declare my interests, which your Lordships may recall include being the elected chair of the Africa All-Party Group, the UK director of the advisory council for the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, and a director of the advisory board of Transparency International in the UK.

In my remarks, I plan to stress the importance of strengthening democracy in the developing world to deliver sustainable development goals post-2015, particularly strengthening parliaments and their ability to establish transparency, accountability and probity in their dealings with the executive arms of their Governments. Before I do that, I should like to refer to a number of the issues raised with me and with other colleagues by various aid and development organisations.

Colleagues have mentioned the Bond organisation. In its paper, Inequality in a Post-2015 Framework, it points out that the new post-2015 sustainable development goals offer a critical opportunity to tackle extreme social, economic and structural inequalities, which perpetuate poverty and social exclusion across the world. Saferworld has raised its concerns about security, and UNICEF is campaigning vigorously to tackle violence against children.

The Bond organisation argues that the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—should be reflected in the target and goal headlines in a balanced way. There is a call to tackle inequality and ensure that no one is left behind, with the belief that a post-2015 framework needs to be specifically aimed at reducing inequality within and between countries, as noble Lords have mentioned, and to tackle its underlying causes. Interestingly, in a recent address to the United Nations, the Pontiff, Pope Francis, raised inequality as a moral issue, condemning the “economy of exclusion” and its consequences, in views echoed around the world by religious and political leaders alike.

In addressing inequality as we seek to achieve the new SDGs by 2030, life chances and opportunities to be rewarded for your efforts and to realise your potential should not be determined solely at birth or be dependent solely on ethnicity or gender, age or geography. In that regard, I would be interested in the Minister’s views on how the UK Government think that the framework for the post-2015 development goals can best tackle inequality. Will the Government champion the proposed inequality goal in next year’s negotiations? What preparations are under away across Whitehall to respond to a global goal to reduce inequality?

As Health Poverty Action stresses in its case for new global development goals in 2015:

“Tackling inequality is fundamental to addressing poverty. This requires inequality to be mainstreamed across the framework, as well as a stand-alone goal on inequality”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its recent report that we are running out of time to prevent catastrophic climate change, where average temperature rises exceed 2 degrees, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, so eloquently described for us. Many developing countries are already experiencing the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation through increased floods and droughts and uncertain weather patterns.

There are substantial opportunities for the new framework to promote win-win outcomes by setting targets for actions that have benefits for environmental and other development outcomes. These include cutting waste, technology transfer and renewable energy. Will the Government support and champion a stand-alone goal on climate change in the new framework? What should a green thread look like in goals such as economic growth and governance? How can the United Kingdom be assured that the Government’s proposed reduction in the number of goals and targets in the framework will still achieve environmental sustainability and contribute to action against climate change and sustainable development?

The Bond Beyond 2015 UK group puts forward a strong case for accountability and participation, calling for a more comprehensive system, with the post-2015 framework underpinned by a robust and comprehensive accountability mechanism, incorporating commitments to monitor, evaluate and report on progress, applying to all countries, to all participants and to all people.

That brings me to engagement with parliaments. Throughout the United Nations Development Programme, through the Paris and Accra conferences, through the fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, and now through the first High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation in Mexico City, there has been a running dialogue on the role of parliaments in the development process. It has to be said that in some quarters of civil society, NGOs and the aid establishment, there has been a strong resistance to recognising any role at all for parliaments—the assumption being that donor and recipient nations need only work with them to achieve the aid and development goals.

Let us be clear: the only body that has the authority to approve and ratify state development—the only body that has a mandate from the people over development and state expenditure—is the parliament and the elected representatives of the country concerned. Only parliaments can insist on transparency, accountability and probity from the executive branch of government in actions taken on behalf of the people. That is why the brief on democratic governance issued by the United Nations Development Programme in January 2013 is encouraging.

In setting out the role of parliaments in defining and promoting the post-2015 development agenda, the UNDP makes the point that parliaments have often been sidelined in discussions on official development assistance—ODA—resulting in low accountability for budgeting of aid and its allocation to MDG achievement. The need for country ownership, government accountability and national policy was not sufficiently taken into account during the design and implementation of the MDGs and must now be highlighted as a requirement to ensure that a new set of objectives is attained. Those are not my words. They are the words of the United Nations Development Programme. We should listen to them.

Parliaments are at the forefront of these imperatives, because the play a critical role in meeting those requirements through their lawmaking, budgeting, and oversight functions.

15:50

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on securing this debate, which could not be more timely given the stage we have reached in the negotiations towards a new set of development goals to replace the millennium development goals in 2015. I declare my interests as president of the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Education for All. I would like to focus on what role Ministers are playing in ensuring that the post-2015 framework secures a good quality education for all and leaves no one behind by including and prioritising children and adults with disabilities.

I would like to start by commending Ministers on the way in which they have so far championed the concept of “leave no one behind”, which was such a powerful part of the report produced by the UN high-level panel co-chaired by the Prime Minister. I add to this a strong welcome for DfID’s new disability framework, which was launched last week at an event I chaired. I believe this will help to keep driving this agenda forward as it relates to disability. I also welcome the fact that the Government have maintained their commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid. I look forward to supporting the Private Member’s Bill on this issue, which I hope will shortly reach this House.

The UK’s commitment to 0.7% has enabled us to become a leading donor to support education for the most marginalised children and young people in the world. Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, DfID will support 11 million girls and boys in school and a further 1 million of the most marginalised girls to receive a basic education. Education is fundamental to ending the poverty, discrimination and exclusion faced by disabled people in developing countries. Yet it is estimated that in most countries disabled children are more likely to be out of school than any other group of children. In Nepal, it is estimated that 85% of all children out of school are disabled. In Ethiopia, less than 3% of disabled children have access to primary education. In some countries, being disabled more than doubles the chance of never enrolling in school. Disabled children are also less likely to remain in school and transition to the next grade. The exclusion of disabled children not only denies their human right to education but makes it impossible for the world to reach the millennium development goal of universal primary education, which was due to be achieved next year. Fifty-eight million children of primary age are still out of school around the world, and progress has all but stalled. It is estimated that disabled children may make up over one-third of the out-of-school population.

Disability has long been neglected as a niche area of development, deemed by many to be too complex or too small an issue to be core to development efforts. The millennium development goals failed to mention disability at all, yet we now know that disabled people make up an estimated 15% of the global population—approximately 1 billion disabled people. Disability is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. Fully 80% of disabled people live in developing countries, and the UN calls them “the world’s largest minority”.

The ongoing negotiations towards post-2015 development goals, to replace the millennium development goals, therefore represent a unique opportunity to reverse the neglect of disabled people by ensuring that the new framework explicitly includes disability as a core issue, and that the framework leaves no one behind, by measuring the achievement of targets by whether they are being achieved for all, including marginalised social groups such as disabled people, girls and women, the poorest or those living in vulnerable locations.

Last week, as we have heard, the UN Secretary-General published his synthesis report, The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments about this crucial report and the extent to which she feels it lays the groundwork for successful intergovernmental negotiations next year—in particular, whether the Secretary-General has done enough to push forward the “leave no one behind” principle, which was somewhat lacking from the UN open working group’s final report.

With regard to education specifically, I am also conscious that twin negotiations are happening in parallel next year with the Education for All process, led by UNESCO, and other negotiations on education as part of the main post-2015 sustainable development goal negotiation. There is thus a real risk of confusion, duplication and mismatch between what these two negotiation processes come up with. What is the UK’s position on that? What do the Government want to see happen? The obvious answer is that what the two processes produce in terms of education, goals and targets should become one and the same thing, but that is not what happened last time with the Education for All goals and the millennium development goals. Millennium development goal 2, on universal primary education, was only one of the Education for All goals that covered secondary education, adult literacy, quality of education, early childhood and so on, which has resulted in a lot of focus on primary education but much less on other areas of education. I would welcome hearing the Minister’s views on these negotiation processes and how the Government are ensuring that the goals, targets and indicators agreed reflect the need to ensure both that all people get a good quality education and that no one is left behind from development and aid efforts.

After months of deliberation, the open working group outcome report includes 17 proposed goals, including one on inequality. However, many countries are pushing for these to be reduced to possibly between 10 and 12, so that the goal on inequality is thought to be at risk. Oxfam has estimated that seven out of 10 people now live in countries where inequality is growing fast, so I strongly support the retention of a goal on inequality and I very much hope that the Government will as well.

15:58

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I welcome this debate. With others, I passionately support the case for establishing new global development goals in 2015. I note with appreciation the part played by the Government and the Prime Minister in the international dialogue, and I offer my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for tabling this debate. I welcome the passion and learning displayed in this House today.

I share the view that much has been achieved through the millennium development goals. Extreme poverty has been reduced by as much as half; there has been clear progress in the battles against malaria, tuberculosis and HIV; access to drinking water and sanitation has been improved; the participation of women politically has increased; and 90% of children in developing regions are attending primary school.

These are major achievements and should be celebrated and communicated much more effectively than is the case at present. There is a story to be told here. I have had conversations even in this House questioning the value of our overseas aid and what it can achieve. It is vital that the story be told to build hope and to present the case for change. My first call to the Government, to the charities and to the media is to use 2015, the end of the millennium development goals period, as an opportunity to tell the story more imaginatively and to describe in clear and imaginative ways the change that has happened. I ask the Minister in reply to offer us some reflection on the ways in which the Government will communicate all that has happened.

The Church of England is part of the worldwide Anglican communion. Bishops and other senior leaders are daily in touch with churches all over the world. Two days ago, I heard a vivid presentation from eight of our senior Anglican women leaders, who recently spent 10 days living and working in Kerala in India with Christian Aid. They were inspired by the progress they saw there, particularly in gender participation and its effect on development, and they inspired others. Last year I had the privilege of spending time with a church in the West Indies and observed it still wrestling with extremes of poverty and deprivation and the rebuilding of a society still profoundly affected by generations of past slavery.

As to communication, the new global development goals clearly call for a fresh way of seeing the world. For much of the 20th century, development has been about the rich giving to the poor in charitable aid. The world was seen and described for these purposes in a series of binary categories: rich and poor nations; the one-third or two-thirds world; the global north and the global south; the haves and the have-nots. These binary categories are now outdated, though they still have a powerful hold on our minds and our vocabularies. Our mental maps of the way the world is and the way it could be both need to be redrawn. The vision for the new global development goals needs to be and is of one world that is interdependent, developing and searching for pathways to sustainable, equitable growth and the flourishing of all.

The threat of climate change, the desire for sustainable growth, digital communications and the movements of peoples have all contributed to this sense of one world and the desire for a good globalisation. It is a vision profoundly rooted in the Judaeo-Christian vision of the world: a family of diverse nations, cherishing peace, seeking justice, nurturing wisdom and looking for the flourishing of all.

Finally, I highlight four vital themes for the new global development goals, also pointed to by others. I support and commend these four key principles developed by Christian Aid in a most helpful briefing paper which I commend to your Lordships’ House. First, I have already mentioned the need to battle the evil giant of climate change and to seek carbon reduction as a major goal immediately and for the next generation. If we fail to place this sustainable development front and centre, the effects on life on earth will be profound. Secondly, I would urge that gender justice must be a stand-alone goal. There must be targets to end violence against women and girls, increase participation and ensure economic justice for women. Thirdly, I support with others the principle that no one should be left behind in the eradication of poverty and the pursuit of justice. In particular, the world needs still better and swifter ways of responding to human and natural disasters and building resilience in the poorest communities. Fourthly and finally, there should be a renewed focus on global equity with a stand-alone goal of a fair global economic system and with targets on illicit financial flows and on global tax justice.

Many years before the Christian era, the remarkable prophet Isaiah of Jerusalem shared a radical vision of what it would mean to end poverty and live in peace. He prophesied:

“they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks”.

Conflict resolution, as other noble Lords have said, is closely related to sustainable prosperity.

We are citizens of one world. Much has been achieved; we need to tell that story. However, there is still much to be done. We need to set goals for gender justice, for global equity, to leave no one behind, and to close the gap still further between rich and poor.

16:05

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this debate, and congratulate him on the timing, which comes just a few days after the UN Secretary-General’s much anticipated synthesis report. There can be no more consistent and committed friend of international development than the noble Lord.

The topic of today’s debate is very similar to that of one I initiated in October last year, and the intervening year has been both momentous and challenging for the world, with a number of highs and lows. In June, the UK hosted the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, and here I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Helic, who was the inspiration behind the event and who remains committed to driving the agenda forward. We look forward to hearing from her in this Chamber before long.

In July the UK hosted the first and very successful Girl Summit, aimed at mobilising domestic and international efforts to end female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage within a generation. UNICEF co-hosted the event, and I declare my interest and pride as a board member of UNICEF UK. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said much of what I had intended to say about the current UNICEF campaign on ending child violence. The emergence of the Ebola outbreak and the rising threat of extremism have demonstrated the need to continue with a sustainable development agenda to ensure that the risk of disease and terrorism are lessened through education and equality for both men and women.

I take this opportunity also to thank the many NGOs and their staff and partners who are working in the field to beat Ebola, and in particular to commend Restless Development, of whom I am proud to be a patron, whose efforts in Sierra Leone are growing day by day. Its 1,700 volunteer mobilisers have gone through extensive training, equipping them with vital skills to bring life-saving messages to more than 3 million people in the largest social mobilisation ever to take place in Sierra Leone.

To return the topic of the debate, no speech about the successor agenda can be delivered without referencing the historic impact of the MDGs. In 1990, a decade before they were launched, more than 12 million children died each year before reaching the age of five; in 2013, fewer than seven million did. As other noble Lords mentioned, maternal and child mortality has fallen by almost 50% since 1990, and 2.3 billion people have gained access to clean drinking water during that time.

The reason the MDGs have been so successful is that they served to focus world attention on a handful of goals: eight of them, to be precise, articulated in 374 words. They communicated to the world that these eight objectives would be the world’s priorities between 2000 and 2015, and as a result, billions of dollars in development funds flowed into efforts to tackle the challenges. That said, there is much more to do, and we should not be distracted from the need to finish the job.

International development combined with globalisation has opened up many doors into and out of the developing world, as other noble Lords have said, and significant progress has been made to reduce the number of people living in poverty. However, the opportunities have not always been equally shared. Many people are still locked out. Many women, children and disabled people, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, so eloquently said, and many others have been prevented from taking advantage of the progress that has been made.

I mentioned the Girl Summit and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for her commitment to gender empowerment and to advancing the rights of girls and women as a top priority. I also welcome the fact that the UK is campaigning for a dedicated gender goal that addresses the causes of gender inequality and gender-sensitive targets integrated in that goal.

Earlier this year, in September, I was in a remote village in Zambia, where two young girls were reporting to the village elders what their hopes, worries and concerns were. They were the only girls in the room—and I was the only woman in the room. The chief and the other elders were, I thought, rather dismissive of what the girls wanted. I said to them, “I think that you should take these women, these young girls, on to your council in order to better reflect what girls really want in their community”. They said they would—and I hope they did.

Of 163 million illiterate young people in the world, 63% are female. Each year almost 5.5 million girls aged 16 to 19 give birth, effectively ending their chances of getting an education and earning a living. The World Bank study of 100 countries showed that every 1% increase in the proportion of women with secondary education boosts a country’s annual per capita income growth by about 0.3%.

As we know, DfID’s record on assisting women throughout the world has been exceptionally strong. Due to the department’s focus on the women and girls development agenda, more than 14 million women now have access to financial services, almost 3 million girls are in primary education and more than 4 million women are using modern methods of family planning. As an officer of the APPG on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, I would be remiss not to focus a few remarks on sexual and reproductive health and rights and the significant economic and social gains for individuals and families.

There are 225 million women and young girls living in developing countries who want to avoid pregnancy but are not able to use modern contraception. The consequences are huge: 754 million unintended pregnancies, 28 million unplanned births and 20 million unsafe abortions every year. Investing in SRHR has one of the highest rates of return in international development. For every additional dollar invested in preventing an unintended pregnancy, nearly $1.50 is saved in pregnancy-related care. Additional savings accrue across all sectors, from healthcare to education and employment. As Governments and international agencies consider and negotiate the goals for 2015 and beyond, I urge them to prioritise universal access to SRHR.

To sum up, the UK objective for post-2015 is to agree a simple, inspiring, measurable set of goals centred on eradicating extreme poverty. The goals should have sustainable development integrated across the framework, and should include what is referred to as the golden thread—conflict and corruption, justice and the rule of law, property rights, and open and accountable government. These goals should be supported by a new global partnership that ensures that together we mobilise a range of actors with sufficient resources from both public and private organisations.

The 17 goals and 169 targets produced by the Open Working Group are too diffuse, and the UK’s priority should be to define a more concise and compelling goals framework. We should beware a kitchen-sink approach that seeks to appease all the interest groups. In a world of increasing resource constraints, such an approach would be a recipe for disaster. The danger that countries will cherry-pick, or be subsumed, or throw up their hands and do nothing at all, must be avoided. Never before has the world had to face such a complex agenda in a single year. This unique opportunity will not come again in our generation. It must not be wasted.

16:13

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord McConnell for this debate, and for the enormous dedication that he has given over the years to this important subject. I would like to bring to the debate my experience as a former member of the Development Committee of the European Parliament, as the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the mid-term review of the MDGs, and as the leader of the delegation to the UN on the post-2015 MDGs.

I shall start by going away from my text and saying that if we bring forward the achievable and the attainable, we shall leave behind the majority of those who look to us to ensure that no one is left behind. Arguably, the MDGs have raised awareness of ending global poverty as an urgent challenge and a priority for global action. Assessments of the progress made in attaining the current MDGs show that, in the new post-2015 framework, a strong linkage between poverty eradication, fighting inequalities—all of them—and the promotion of sustainable development, as well as a single and universal set of goals with differentiated approaches, are crucial.

Poverty reduction is uneven and inequalities exist within countries, let alone between countries. This represents a major challenge, especially with the dubious concept of labelling countries “middle income” according to their GDP rather than real poverty, gender and inequality indexes. Access to early childhood development, education and training of the highest attainable quality for every child, young person and adult is an essential prerequisite for breaking cycles of intergenerational poverty and inequality. Yet sadly, as has been said, little progress has been made regarding gender equality and the empowerment of women. Globally, women and girls constitute a majority of those living in extreme poverty. Gender equality and women’s rights are necessary conditions for the success of the post-2015 global development framework. It is staggering—indeed, shameful—that every day an estimated 800 women in the world die due solely to complications during pregnancy or childbirth.

Ownership of all the millennium development goals and the post-2015 development goals is essential. The EU and its member states, such as our own country, are the largest donors of development aid and should remain the driving force during the next phase of the negotiations under the UN, promoting in particular the human rights-based approach, based on equality, non-discrimination, participation and inclusion in the design and implementation of the post-2015 framework. A human rights-based approach is the only way forward. That is why I welcome the inclusion of the promotion of a human rights-based and people-centred approach among the SDGs proposed by the UN open working group, reinforcing the principles of the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights of all people, without discrimination on any grounds, starting with the fundamental right to dignity of all human beings, with particular attention paid to: the human rights of women and girls, including the promotion of universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights; the protection of and respect for the rights of migrants and minorities, including LGBTI people and people living with HIV; and the importance of respecting and promoting the rights of disabled people.

Now is not the time to fail. That is why, sadly, I have to express real concern about the approach and attitude taken by the Government in advance of the UN September summit both at EU level and in New York. We have achieved much before because the EU took a single approach after long and timely discussions. That is not happening now. I am reliably informed—although I hope the Minister will inform me that I am reliably misinformed—that the Government’s intention is to reduce the number of goals proposed by the open working group, and to cluster them. That would not be helpful.

The UK Government are also not happy with the universality of the framework, which means that it would apply—this is extremely important—to all states and that targets would be fixed for every single state, including the United Kingdom. I cannot see the problem with such an approach: that which we demand of others, we should demand of ourselves and for ourselves.

To have weight in the debate at the UN, where there will be much opposition, it is important that the EU speaks with one voice on the issue. The United Kingdom Government are preventing that at the moment as they bypass the EU representatives in the negotiations in New York. It is one thing to complement influence, quite another to undermine it. I look forward to the detailed response of the Minister on these issues.

The draft conclusions are to be adopted imminently. They are very ambitious, especially when it comes to human rights and fighting inequalities. These conclusions need our support. However, I am again reliably informed that there are suggestions that the UK Government want to remove references to fighting inequalities. Sadly, I must end on this note: it is regrettable that on 25 November Conservative Members of the European Parliament voted against such an approach as I have outlined in a plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. I hope, indeed, that this is not a foretaste of what is to come.

16:20

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, that if we reduce the number of goals and the number of tasks, we may be in danger of losing some very important principles. I also agree with him on the need to tackle inequality, as a fan of the Equality Trust, and on the proposition that he carefully enunciated that unequal societies are not happy societies. Many of the evils that we suffer in the developed world are a product of our failure to tackle inequalities in our own society.

I also regret that, although the Secretary-General refers to this in his report, The Road to Dignity by 2030, published last week, there is an omission in the main goals, and even in the subsidiary tasks that are set out before us in the SDGs, of any reference to the greatest threat to the objectives of ending poverty, addressing climate change and keeping the rise in global temperature below 2 degrees centigrade, which is the inexorable rise in the number of human beings. I do not see any explicit recognition of that in the Secretary-General’s report.

In the draft sustainable development goals, also published last week by the UN open working group, goal 13 is to take,

“urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”.

This is recognised as the primary responsibility of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and I think there needs to be stronger linkage between the two strategies. Is it really possible to achieve 7% GDP growth in the least developed countries, and should we not distinguish between growth that requires consumption of energy, such as manned space travel or Formula 1 or nice garden bridges over the River Thames, and beneficial growth, such as the development of tidal power which could provide 42% of Scotland’s electricity?

On the continued growth of the human race, goal 3.7 calls for,

“universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes”.

If we coupled that with goal 5, which aims to:

“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”,

women would have the right to control their own fertility, and have access to the means of doing so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, 225 million women in the world do not have access to the means of controlling their own fertility. I am very glad to see that that is part of the new SDGs. In the developed world people have control of their own fertility. The problem is that there are religious and cultural obstacles to women’s equality in sub-Saharan Africa and the Islamic world that will not be easily overcome. There is good evidence to show that as women get better educated they will begin to take control of their own fertility, but where there is a long history of male dominance, that is not going to be easy to achieve.

I entirely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, when he said that conflict prevents any meaningful development. The emergence of extremist organisations such as al-Shabaab, AQAP, the Daesh and Boko Haram should be recognised explicitly as a major obstacle to women’s emancipation. Former members of the Secretary-General’s high-level panel, in an open letter in September, stressed:

“Freedom from fear and violence is the most basic human entitlement, and people demand peace and good governance as a core component of their well-being, not an optional extra”.

The nearest we get to this is goal 16, calling for “peaceful and inclusive societies”, but the language does not spell it out. The necessity of combating ideologies of hatred, murder and the subjection of women, and blasphemously claiming to be the true voice of Islam, needs to be on the final version of the SDGs presented to the General Assembly for approval next September.

My grandfather, who was born in 1834, had 12 children. They had large families in the 19th century because they expected high infant mortality. That is no doubt one of the factors behind the huge birth rates today in many less developed countries. But we know what needs to be done to complete the reduction by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, in the under-five mortality rate—goal 4 of the MDGs—in the countries that have not got there and to take the process much further. The WHO recommends 11 antigens for universal infant use and this should be incorporated in the post-2015 agenda.

That goal should be achievable even for the poorest countries with the help of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, to which I am proud to say this country is one of the largest contributors. But can my noble friend explain why in the five years 2011 to 2016 we contributed £1.3 billion, and now that has been reduced to £1 billion in the next funding round for the years 2016 to 2020? If I may refer to the previous debate, the Chancellor has had no difficulty in signing up to the renewal of the contribution to the former fund for AIDS, TB and malaria, so he ought to be able to do the same for GAVI.

I note that Germany, Canada, Norway and the Netherlands have all announced larger increases in the pledges they intend to make at the replenishment conference chaired by Chancellor Merkel in January. Are we really going to be the only country to give less this time, when the Secretary of State says:

“Investing in immunisation is one of the most cost-effective ways of saving lives and improving living standards, health and the global economy”?

The APPG on Child Health and Vaccine Preventable Diseases, of which I am co-chair, would like to see in the next 15 years the adoption of a more holistic approach to child health, integrating the vaccination programmes with the delivery of the WASH agenda for clean water, sanitation and hygiene, where there is still huge potential for disease prevention. Half the girls who drop out of school in sub-Saharan Africa do so because WASH is not provided. Many more drop out or miss school when they reach the age of menstruation for the same reason. We would like to see hygiene added to goal 6. This would be the place to refer to the co-ordination of the delivery of the WHO antigens with the WASH programme.

We also believe that there is tremendous potential in product development partnerships. I mentioned in the previous debate the example of GSK’s development, with the help of the Gates Foundation and many others in the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, of the world’s first anti-malaria drug RTS,S. In phase three trials, the drug reduced incidence of the disease by a quarter in six to 12 week-old infants at first vaccination, and by half in young children aged five to 17 months at first vaccination. In July, GSK sought an opinion from the European Medicines Agency on the quality, safety and efficiency of the drug. Assuming that the reply is positive, the WHO is likely to issue a policy recommendation before the end of next year, allowing African countries to develop schedules for the delivery of RTS,S and for their national regulatory agencies to consider applications from the manufacturers. Children could receive the vaccine by 2016, saving hundreds of lives.

There is broad reference to multi-stakeholder partnerships at the very end of the open working group’s draft list of sustainable development goals. My final plea to my noble friend, when she comes to wind up, is whether DfID would consider proposing that a reference to PDPs, which have such enormous potential, be added to goal 17 as a shining example of what these partnerships can achieve.

16:30

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, 2015 is set to be an important year for the UN in what is already proving to be an exceptionally testing period for the organisation. Two major sets of decisions will need to be taken next year: those on the policy framework to succeed the millennium development goals, which we are debating today, and those on climate change. Those two sets of decisions will have crucial implications for all the world’s citizens, whether they live in developed or developing countries. That is what makes today’s debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, so timely, topical and welcome, certainly to me. Inadequate policy prescriptions—or, worse still, failure to agree on anything meaningful at all in either of these negotiations—would have seriously negative consequences for the world’s prosperity and its security for a long period ahead.

When the millennium development goals were set 15 years ago in 2000, many regarded them, with a cynical shrug, as just more warm words from an organisation not short of that commodity. Some still take that view. This morning I read an article in Prospect magazine which suggested that the setting of these goals was a pretty worthless exercise—an article that completely ignored the distinction between the specificity of the millennium development goals of 2000 and the discredited, very general goals set in previous decades.

In any case, I think the millennium development goals have turned out to be a lot more significant than that prognosis. They set a course that has seen many millions of people lifted out of poverty in some of the world’s poorest countries, which have also seen remarkable improvements in education and health. However, those benefits have been too narrowly spread and too heavily concentrated in the rising economies of Asia, leaving what has been called the “bottom billion” of the world’s population—most of them in Africa—largely unaffected. Daily we are reminded by events—by the Ebola epidemic in west Africa and by the chaos and threats of genocide or violence in the Middle East and in parts of Africa—of how far the world still has to go and how fragile any progress made on development issues can prove to be if basic security cannot be addressed. I join those who have underlined that point in numerous contributions.

The case for setting out recalibrated goals for the period ahead seems, to me, unanswerable. For example, the Ebola outbreak has highlighted how important it is not only to conduct high-profile campaigns such as those against malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis, as the previous debate underlined, but to give far more emphasis to general provision of public health facilities.

In other areas that so far have been either neglected or inadequately treated—for example, removing discrimination against the disabled, on which I support every word that my noble friend Lord Low said, and discrimination against women and girls—clear objectives need to be set out. In some cases, which have emerged in prominence only since 2000—for instance, bringing the benefits of the digital economy and the revolutions in communications technology to a wider range of countries and a wider range of social groups within them—the challenge is to define sensible and sustainable goals. Those are the challenges that I see in 2015 and I hope that whichever Government emerge from next May’s general election will measure up to them.

However, we also need to realise that if we cannot respond effectively to the challenges of the climate change conference in Paris at the end of next year, much of what we set out to achieve in the form of development goals will prove to be unrealisable. A world beset by coastal flooding from rising sea levels, desertification and catastrophic climatic events will not be a world capable of achieving sustainable development. A world in which civil and sectarian strife spreads across whole regions, uncontrolled by the rules-based institutions that we have so laboriously built up since the end of the Second World War and the end of the Cold War, will fare no better. So the agenda that we face goes a lot wider than the simple setting of development goals. If a new policy framework of development goals is to be worth while, I suggest that we will need to ensure, in addition, that it does not just consist of words on paper but that the commitments subscribed to in New York in 2015 are implemented and monitored. Surely, there needs to be effective monitoring of the way in which both developed and developing countries, and both donors and recipients, fulfil the commitments they have undertaken.

Our own record in recent years, in particular the action taken by the coalition Government to ensure, even in a period of austerity, that we achieved the target of 0.7% of gross national income for our official development aid, is one of which we should be proud; but it is not unchallenged. No doubt, as the political debate hots up before the election and concentrates on future public spending projections, it will come under threat again. I very much hope that this House will now match the action taken in the other place by passing into law our commitment to the figure of 0.7% and that when she replies the noble Baroness will say that the Government—as they did in the other place—will lend their support to such a measure. I suggest, too, that it would be good if all three main parties in Parliament were to make sticking to that commitment a non-partisan objective in their manifestos. After all, it is a lot easier to sustain the commitment to 0.7% than it ever was to reach it in the first place. If we can do that, we will be well placed to give the lead in the debates over the 2015 development goals that will take place in the European Union, at the G8, at the G20 and, of course, at the United Nations for final decision. I hope that we will be there, giving that lead.

16:34

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on raising this very important issue today. As the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself has said, the millennium development goals have been the most successful global anti-poverty push in history. During the past 14 years, we have witnessed enormous progress in tackling some of the world’s most prevalent ills and providing for the needs of those in the very poorest and most disadvantaged communities. As other noble Lords have said, the setting of these ambitious and measurable targets has resulted in a worldwide halving of the numbers living in extreme poverty. Fatal diseases have been tackled and millions more people today have access to sanitation, clean water and primary education. It is important, therefore, that the progress made is strongly acknowledged and celebrated, but this is not a job finished; this is work in progress.

Although the targets were projected to be met by 2015, still around 700 million people across the world live in abject poverty and without many of the things such as healthcare and secondary education that we in the UK take for granted. As Amina Mohammed, Ban Ki-moon’s special adviser on the post-2015 development planning acknowledges, the world has changed radically in the last 15 years and we must now expand on progress, build on existing momentum and learn the lessons that the MDGs have given us. This is not the moment to give up the fight.

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in his recently released synthesis report, stressed the need for a renewed global partnership for development between the rich and poor nations in the context of the post-2015 agenda. Thus we need to look ahead, establish new goals and finish the job in hand. This will need a new approach, which needs to include caring for the environment and protecting the world that we live in —as the Secretary-General has made clear, you cannot have true economic development that does not recognise the importance of the earth’s natural systems, because climate change causes crops to fail and people to starve in poor countries.

At Rio+20, member states agreed to launch a process to develop a set of sustainable development goals—the SDGs—to build upon the MDGs and converge with the post-2015 development agenda. Whereas the MDGs concentrated just on developing countries, to really create a sustainable agenda we will need to treat people as active partners in development rather than passive beneficiaries of aid. It will need all countries, both developing and developed, to commit to good governance, rule of law and the fight against corruption, with targets and indicators relevant to every country and region. It will need everyone to be engaged to help deliver this: Governments, civil society, all ages—the young and old—and especially the marginalised groups, because we must ensure that no one is left behind, regardless of age, gender or ability. It is only by working together that we can deliver a truly transformational approach.

Some of the MDGs have delivered more progress than others, but one of the areas in which we still have a significant way to go is that of gender equality and the empowerment of women, which was millennium development goal number three. Globally, women are disproportionately impoverished and, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, told us, make up two-thirds of those still living in extreme poverty, form 60% of the working poor but earn only 10% of the world’s income and own less than 2% of the world’s property. Sixty-one per cent of the 123 million young people who lack basic reading skills are women. A survey of 63 developing countries also found that girls are more likely to be out of school than boys among both primary and lower secondary age groups.

Why is gender equality so important? It is because women have the ability to transform their communities if they are given the right tools and support. As Brigham Young once famously said:

“You educate a man; you educate a man. You educate a woman; you educate a generation”.

I find it incredible that there is still no country in the world where women are equal in political, economic and social terms, not even in the developed West. This is a missed opportunity. Even here at home, it is projected that by equalising men’s and women’s economic participation rates we could add more than 10% to the size of the British economy by 2030. In developed countries, gender wage gaps also persist. Only one in five parliamentarians worldwide is a woman; and VSO tells me that on current rates of progress women will not be equally represented until 2065 and will not make up half the world’s leaders until 2134. Domestic violence everywhere is often all too commonplace, with 35% of women across the world having experienced violence. A woman who has to fight for her existence at home has no prospect of working towards greater rights, higher status within society or helping her community.

In some countries, violence has become a pandemic and, where conflict occurs, rape is all too often used as a weapon of war. Sexual violence destroys lives, shatters families and breaks up communities. I therefore congratulate William Hague on his initiative to end sexual violence in conflict. He has put the spotlight on a war crime that has been ignored for years.

Today in war, 90% of the casualties are civilian—mostly women and children, yet women are nearly always excluded from the peace processes. Some 125 million women and girls have undergone FGM and one in nine girls in developing countries is married before the age of 15. The reality of this usually means that their education is finished and their prospects curtailed; many are condemned to a life of domestic servitude. Still, every day globally, around 800 women die in childbirth.

This was brought home to me when I visited Mali last week. Mali is one of the poorest countries in the world; it has a very high illiteracy rate and many women are married off at an extremely young age. Most girls there have undergone FGM and, as there is little access to contraception, they will end up having a large number of children. It is hard for the women there to do anything but just concentrate on their survival and that of their children.

Too many countries today still have a patriarchal society, with men dominating all the leadership positions, and with the societal norms and values working against women. I therefore welcome the recommendation of the open working group—established to develop the sustainable development goals for future consideration by the UN General Assembly—for a standalone goal on gender equality and the empowerment of women, a goal that so many of us have been calling for.

This new gender goal—goal number 5—unlike that of the MDG, has targets aiming to create policies and laws to ensure an end to discrimination and the elimination of violence and harmful practices, such as forced marriage and female genital mutilation. They also aim to ensure women’s full participation in decision-making at all levels and in ownership of land and economic resources. In particular, I welcome the reference to universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and reproductive rights, on which there has been pushback from some countries in recent years. This goal also emphasises the need to address stereotypes, mindsets and attitudes that reinforce traditional gender roles. I am delighted that not only has our own Government Equalities Office stated its support for this but it has also been championed by our Secretary of State for International Development and very much welcomed by NGOs and women’s groups.

We all hope that this strong and explicit goal on gender equality will remain in the final post-2015 framework. However, we are not there yet and intergovernmental negotiations will continue into next year when the final post-2015 development agenda is to be adopted at the summit scheduled for September 2015. Therefore, things can still change—and slip backwards—and some fear that global leadership is not strong enough. We look to the UK to provide a strong lead by setting out an inspirational vision for the future so that agreement can be reached for a renewed global partnership for development, which will enable us all, together, to meet the challenges facing us around the world today and help to transform the lives of those who live in poverty.

16:47

[Viscount Craigavon (CB)]

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, for this opportunity to bring us up to date on the language and methodology of development goals, I wish to concentrate on what I believe to be one of the most important areas. That is the population factor, which in many parts of the world is the key element—but not the only contributor—affecting development. It is also a key to sustainability in the long term. I shall focus on two aspects of this. The first is the recent responsible prediction, endorsed by the United Nations Population Fund—UNFPA—that world population is not expected to level off this century, as previously expected, but will reach a much higher total before beginning to come down in the next century.

The other aspect I will highlight is the recent report by the Guttmacher Institute—again, together with the UNFPA—called Adding It Up, which deals with the costs and benefits of investing in sexual and reproductive health. I am hoping that in both of these areas, the final version of the development goals will be framed to emphasise the importance of these aspects.

On the first, I have always tried to avoid trading numbers in population matters. The concept of world population has limited use, as there are so many regional and local variables. A new prediction in a recent paper in Science, with UNFPA support, is that the present world population of 7.2 billion will increase to 9.6 billion in mid-century and to almost 11 billion by the end of the century. This is against the more conventional scenario until now that the figure would level off at around 9 billion in the mid-century and thereafter decrease. The use of talking in these terms is then to look at how and why the figures have changed. Not everyone would support the new hypothesis leading to that change. All these predictions are expressed in terms of the probability of their being right.

What has changed is that the remarkable rate of fertility decline in both Asia and Latin America has not been copied in Africa, and in particular in sub-Saharan Africa. In some African countries, decline has stopped. The ideal family size there seems to remain on average about 4.6 children, and the level of meeting the unmet need for contraception seems to have remained unimproved for the last 20 years. These are generalisations, but they include populous countries such as Nigeria. The figures are merely signposts to highlight where things are and are not changing, whatever the cause.

The same paper also deals with the related but opposite matter largely in developed countries, and that is the potential support ratio—roughly the number of workers per retiree. Where there have been fast declines in population numbers, support for the older members of a population is put under pressure. The most extreme projected case is Japan, where the proportion will be 1.5 workers for each retiree. Both fast declines and fast increases in population produce their own pressures, but in both rational human intervention is possible, if not simple.

As I have said, these new and possibly alarming figures have been disputed, partly on the grounds that background assumptions might not remain unchanged over the lengthy projected period. For example, education and even climate change might alter the outcomes. But it is accepted that, over time, the UNFPA population projections, which are updated every two years, have been broadly accurate. I mention all this, and the new increased projection, partly to remind us that the common supposition that the size of the population is somehow magically sorting itself out into a kind of natural equilibrium is almost certainly not the case. In sub-Saharan Africa in particular there is still a large, unmet need for modern contraceptive services.

That brings me to the recent Guttmacher Institute report, also supported by UNFPA, on the costs and benefits of reproductive services. The commonly accepted figure for unmet need is around 200 million women wanting to avoid pregnancy but not being able to access contraception. Here the figure is confirmed in some detail as around 225 million. That is apparently one-quarter of all such women of reproductive age and is the same for the whole range of reproductive services and related health benefits. The report quantifies the investment needed to provide proper health services and the savings that would be made by so doing. The situation varies widely region by region. Providing all women with the healthcare they need would be cost-effective. The general conclusion is that for every £1 invested in contraceptive services, £1.50 is saved in consequential outcomes.

Finally, I urge that the ultimate version of the new development goals should emphasise the need for greater investment in sexual and reproductive health services. These investments are cost-effective, save lives and are the cornerstone of sustainable development.

16:53

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord McConnell for initiating this timely debate. The EU is calling 2015 the European Year for Development, with the intergovernmental negotiations commencing in January and with a view to finalising work in July ahead of the September summit to determine global plans for the next 15 years. As my noble friend said, last week the United Nations Secretary-General published an advance copy of his synthesis report which draws upon the Open Working Group proposals for 17 goals and 169 targets. Six essential elements are identified, although the Secretary-General does not detail explicitly how these elements should be used in the negotiations. I ask the Minister: what initial assessment the Government have made of the implications of the UN Secretary-General’s report? I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Cashman. Given that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have both commented on a number of occasions that 17 goals and 169 targets are “too many”, what will the Minister’s priorities be in the post-2015 negotiations? Which goals would she be happy to see either merged or discarded from the final list?

As my noble friends have said, our country’s commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable is not just morally right; it is in Britain’s national interest. Just as important is how our actions can help shape global opinion. We need to convince those who are able to do much more and empower others to stand on their own two feet. We need global agreement on tax transparency, need to ensure that companies pay their tax in-country, and need to support Governments to collect their own taxes to reduce aid dependency and foster good government. If we are to unlock development, the UK must push for bold and visionary global agreement on development over the next 15 years.

As we have heard in today’s debate, there are three vital areas that are the greatest areas of inequality that the world faces. First, we must set new global priorities to give everyone universal access to healthcare. Secondly, climate change is a development issue and must form an integral part of global effort over the next 15 years. Finally, we must protect human rights, as my noble friend Lord Judd so ably argued, working to help eliminate exploitation, to protect the rights of women and girls and to protect workers’ rights.

Ensuring that everyone in the world has access to affordable healthcare is essential to end poverty. It is deeply unfair that 3 million people die every year because of a lack of vaccine for preventable illnesses. As we heard in the previous debate, there have been 1.5 million AIDS-related deaths, when we have treatments that could have kept those people alive. Three-quarters of those living in low-income countries lack access to decent healthcare. In India, a middle-income country, the situation is the same. Universal health coverage reduces inequality and would prevent 100 million people a year from falling into poverty. It is the bedrock of human development. This year the Ebola virus has killed thousands across west Africa. The UK’s response to the humanitarian health crisis has been strong. However, the main issue here was health systems not being resourced or strong enough to deal with the issue. Universal health coverage, whereby there is access for all without people having to suffer financial hardship when accessing it, is the key way that we can make countries more resilient to health concerns such as Ebola before they become widespread emergencies. UHC is a clear and quantifiable goal. Will the Minister support UHC in the language of the health goal in the SDGs?

I turn now to climate change, which hits the world’s poorest people the hardest. It causes severe weather events. The poor live in areas that are most affected by climate change and lack the resilience to cope with drought, flood and food insecurity. Given the clear links between climate change, inequality, poverty and economic development—the most recent example, which my noble friend Lord McConnell referred to, being Typhoon Hagupit, or Ruby as it is known in the Philippines—yet again it appears that those who had the least were those who have lost the most. Does the Minister agree that a post-2015 agenda without a stand-alone goal on climate change will undermine the potential of the entire agenda?

Empowering countries to stand on their own two feet is not just about new powers for more Governments; it should result in changes for working people as well. Decent jobs under decent conditions for decent pay are a vital part of development, providing a permanent route out of poverty. But there are 168 million child labourers working across the world, and those who work in developing countries often work in ill defined jobs in the so-called grey economy. Formal employment would better ensure workers’ rights and avoid exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous companies. We need to stop clothing made by people working in horrendous conditions reaching our markets and we must demand action from major companies to stamp out child labour from their supply chains. Labour will reverse this Government’s decision to withdraw funding from the International Labour Organization and we will work with the International Trade Union Confederation to ensure that those who want to work hard can get on.

Finally, as we have heard in the debate, almost half the world’s wealth, totalling $110 trillion, is now owned by just 1% of the population. Seven out of 10 people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the past 30 years. As we have also heard, gender inequality is the most persistent form of prejudice but inequalities can occur across urban/rural divides or have different ethnic, religious or racial group dimensions. Discrimination on the grounds of disability is also a critical factor fuelling inequality, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Low. Given that inequality is an issue of pandemic proportions—which goes beyond simply ensuring that no one is left behind—I ask the Minister whether her Government are willing to commit to the need for a stand-alone goal on inequality in the post-2015 agenda.

17:02

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this debate. He has a formidable record in this field, as have all others who have participated in the debate. I knew that it would be an extremely well informed and deeply thoughtful debate, and it has proved to be so. What shines through is an understanding of why this is so important. The right reverend Prelate urges us on in communicating what has been achieved since 2000, even with the financial crash of 2008 onwards, in the relief of poverty. He is surely right.

As noble Lords know, the year ahead of us is absolutely key—as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made clear, not only on MDGs but on climate change and many other issues. A key moment, and the culmination of the subject of this debate, will be the summit in September 2015, where the world will seek to come together to agree a new set of sustainable development goals to take us to 2030. We believe that the international community has a duty to produce an inspiring framework that will put us on a sustainable development pathway to eradicate extreme poverty within a generation, building on the successes of the MDGs.

The United Kingdom has played an active role in the post-2015 development process to date. From my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the high-level panel to the recent Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, we have been extremely active. With the formal intergovernmental consultations on post-2015 running from January to July 2015, and with the report of the UN Secretary-General on post-2015 released last week, today has been a timely opportunity to reflect on the progress the international community has made so far.

First, I will touch on the work of the open working group. Over 13 sessions, member states in the group discussed a range of issues and inputs into the post-2015 agenda, and ultimately its July report proposed a framework of 17 sustainable development goals and 169 targets. The UK Government have welcomed the breadth and balance of this report and there are a number of extremely positive aspects to it. There is a strong focus in the proposals on the eradication of extreme poverty, and welcome goals on gender equality, peaceful and inclusive societies, and access to justice. There are some useful objectives on environmental sustainability and we will continue to work so that this is integrated within the agenda.

As my noble friend Lady Jenkin pointed out, the power of the MDGs was in their simplicity, and the ability for planning and finance ministries to take them in their entirety and to help define their national plans, rather than to pick and choose which targets were most politically expedient. We have heard from statistical experts and implementing ministries in developing countries that turning the current 169 targets into meaningful, measurable and manageable action on the ground would be nearly impossible. Making long lists—and we know this very well in this House—can result in whatever is missed out not being counted. This is why there is an argument for an overarching inclusive approach. Over the coming months, we look forward to working with other member states, civil society and technical experts to ensure that what we agree in September is a genuinely workable framework.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, what we surely cannot allow is failing to agree something meaningful. As noble Lords have noted, the UN Secretary-General released his report, The Road to Dignity by 2030. Tasked with synthesising the many contributions to the post-2015 discussions to date, the Secretary-General has called on member states to strive, with the highest level of ambition, to end poverty, transform all lives and protect the planet. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and others have said, he set out the six essential elements that member states should strive towards: dignity, people, prosperity, planet, justice, and partnership. The elements can provide a helpful organising framework for the negotiations to come, and they point towards a focused outcome on post-2015. It is important that the final framework is inspiring and that we can communicate it. That certainly provides food for thought.

We have also been clear on the need for a framework that can be monitored and implemented—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. I note the Secretary-General’s proposal for a technical review of targets to ensure that each is framed in language that is specific, measurable and achievable. One of the downsides of the MDGs was in effect the use of averages, which left many behind—although that was never intended. The UK remains a strong advocate of the principle “leave no one behind” and it is notable that the Secretary-General’s report also supports this approach.

Leaving no one behind must be, in our view, a key to the new goals. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, flagged an ageing world population. We know that around the world, as the world of work changes and as cities grow, there is a serious danger of older people, possibly increasingly infirm, being left out as economies may grow. Women are so often left behind, as we have heard. LGBT people may be left behind. Those with disabilities may be left behind. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his tribute for what we have done in terms of disabilities, particularly what my right honourable friend Lynne Featherstone has done to ensure that we include those with disabilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, notes, 15% of the global population has a disability and 80% of those with disabilities live in developing countries. That is why leaving no one behind is so essential.

Many noble Lords will recall the high-level panel’s proposal that no post-2015 target should be considered achieved unless met by all relevant social and economic groups and we are pleased that this has been reinforced in this latest report. Building on this, the report also emphasises the importance of data to the post-2015 agenda. The UK has been clear throughout that a data revolution is needed better to collect, use and open up data for maximum effect, bringing together all those who are relevant in this area. The noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Judd, and others have noted that as being a vital tool in this regard.

I note what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said in his opening remarks—others echoed this—about how essential it is that women are central to these goals. My noble friends Lady Jenkin and Lady Hodgson put the case extremely effectively for why women and girls must be front and centre. The UK Government have argued strongly for a dedicated goal that addresses the causes of gender inequality, as well as for gender-sensitive targets and indicators throughout.

I am also very glad that climate change and the environment have been integrated into the whole process of these goals, as there was a danger that the issue was just going to be running alongside. That integration is clearly essential, as noble Lords have pointed out; the noble Lords, Lord McConnell, Lord Judd, Lord Hannay and Lord Collins, my noble friend Lord Chidgey and others have all emphasised it and numerous NGOs have made that case, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, noted. Those in developing countries, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, are indeed the most vulnerable to climate change. It is also a matter of global security, as noble Lords have said. It is impossible to consider eradicating poverty by 2030 without addressing climate change, so we firmly believe that the framework must include measures in this regard.

On peace and security, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who is a member of another UN high-level panel, knows a great deal about the need to integrate development for global security, and this is all consistent with that. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and others mentioned this, and it will indeed be critical to ensure that peace and security, the ruler of law, access to justice and inclusive economic growth are reflected in the final outcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned universal health coverage. Health, including sexual and reproductive health rights, is a prerequisite for human and economic development and we are strongly supportive of universal health coverage as an essential means to achieve health outcomes.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, rightly talked about the need to integrate. He flagged education, which of course needs to be properly integrated. We do not want processes that duplicate but ones that are mutually supportive, and we will have to look right across the board as far as that is concerned.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey mentioned working with parliaments. Indeed, we support the need for effective monitoring and accountability at all appropriate levels for this framework and that very much includes parliaments, which play a pivotal role.

On universality, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, that the UK is clear that the next framework should be universal and all countries should have responsibilities in it, so it will apply to the UK. Discussions are continuing at the moment between departments in preparation for that.

There is more to the post-2015 agenda than goals and targets alone, of course. In July next year there will be a major conference in Ethiopia at which the international community will decide how best to finance the new framework, and the Secretary-General’s report acknowledges the importance of an ambitious set of means of implementation, including overseas development assistance and other resources.

I thank those who have paid tribute to the UK on reaching 0.7% of GNI devoted to overseas development. I think that the UK should be proud of reaching that goal, especially at a time of austerity. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the Government are fully committed to supporting my right honourable friend Michael Moore’s Private Member’s Bill, which will enshrine this, and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Kirkwood will be leading the Bill through the Lords, supported right around the Chamber, I hope. It is enormously helpful to hear the voices in support of the Bill. From the Government, of course, I shall be strongly supporting it.

It is because we have met 0.7% that we have been able to become such a significant donor for multilateral organisations, such as the Global Fund and Gavi. I heard what my noble friend Lord Avebury said about Gavi. I would gently point out that the United Kingdom is the largest donor to Gavi. Although, of course, I am absolutely delighted to hear about other countries increasing their level of commitment, that has to be measured against the enormous commitment that the United Kingdom Government have already put in. It is extremely important, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently announced up to £1 billion in direct funding contributions for 2016-20. That is in addition to our existing long-term commitments. I fully recognise the contributions that Gavi makes, as my noble friend outlined.

Significant progress has clearly been made over the past year in terms of what is being brought forward internationally. I will engage with my noble friend Lord Eccles, who has such a long and distinguished history on the economic side of development, not least through the CDC. We fully recognise that people are pulled out of poverty through the economic transformation of their countries. I absolutely agree with him. Our focus on human development, so that people have the education and skills to participate in our globalised world, underpins much of what we do. It is one of the reasons why we support the development of health systems, so that economies can power ahead. It is also why we ensure that we focus on governance, that that is strengthened so that, for example, countries can draw in taxation that they need to support their human development. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the importance of taxation. It is also why we seek the reduction in tariff barriers, to ensure that countries can trade with each other. The CDC, with which of course the noble Viscount is so very familiar, helped fund the expansion, for example, of mobile money in Kenya, including those who were outside the banking sector, enabling them to be brought within the economy so that it could move forward. Human development goes hand in hand with, and underpins, economic development, so I do not see a contrast between our approach in terms of underpinning human development and focusing on economic growth.

The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, was concerned about the reduction and clustering of the goals. I will come to this in a little bit more detail in a moment. We clearly welcome the breadth and balance of the report of the Open Working Group, but we are concerned about whether 17 goals and 169 targets are sufficiently focused and whether actually they then lead to leaving things out, because you can be pretty sure they are not going to be as comprehensive as you would wish.

We are moving forward into the next stage. There will be the intergovernmental negotiations, co-facilitated by the permanent representatives of Kenya and Ireland in New York, that help to define the final post-2015 framework. The United Kingdom will be an active participant in this process, and we will continue to work closely with other member states within and beyond the EU and with civil society and other key stakeholders to press for the ambitious framework we need.

The noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Cashman, spoke about the EU. We have advocated for a proactive EU approach to the post-2015 discussions, and, having worked closely with other EU member states and the commission, we are confident that the EU commission on post-2015 will reflect joint priorities and assist us as we try to secure an inspiring and implementable framework. The EU can be a very powerful group if its members work together—the noble Lords are absolutely right. That is why we have been working so closely together to try to have a common approach. I assure noble Lords that a great deal of effort has gone into that.

It was interesting to listen to the list of organisations that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, mentioned, in which the United Kingdom plays a leading part. The organisation he did not mention, which of course also influences this discussion, is the G77. He will know that those different organisations have conflicting approaches.

The MDGs were, largely, drawn up by one hand: by a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown, from the Benches opposite. The MDGs had a simplicity, and they had an effect. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, indicated, that was not widely anticipated. However, that is what happened, so all now recognise the importance of their replacement. It is excellent that the world has engaged in this area. The risk is that what is produced does not have the clarity and purpose of those first goals, in which case it will not guide and will not have the effect that we all wish. Of course those first MDGs had limitations. We are in the final stages now, and I welcome this debate and the engagement of all noble Lords here, who have such huge expertise and influence. I hope that all will apply that expertise and influence to ensure that what replaces the MDGs is directed at ending extreme poverty by 2030. That is why leaving no one behind, and the desegregation of data so that we know whether people have been left behind, is so critical.

As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, it is both morally right to address poverty and in our national interest to do so. The challenge is to secure the bold and visionary agreement that he so rightly seeks, as we all do. We live in interesting and risky times; there is so much to play for here. We must ensure that we work together, and internationally, to build on the remarkable achievements of the MDGs and put in place something that learns from them and is inclusive, and which renders the horrendous poverty and deprivation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, so eloquently pointed, a thing of the past.

17:22

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, I predicted on Twitter this morning that we would have a top-quality debate here this afternoon, and I was not wrong. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who participated in our debate for the quality of the contributions and the way in which we have covered so many issues in depth, but with real focus and passion, too. I am particularly delighted to have my noble friend Lord Cashman here, who contributed his experience in the European Parliament in this debate; perhaps we have missed that element in recent years in the many debates we have had to move this agenda forward. I thank the Minister for her responses and for her reassurances and information about the Government’s position.

I will make one other point in closing the debate. I met two teenage girls on a visit to the Central African Republic six weeks ago, who were in an internally displaced persons’ camp. However, they somehow struggled to get out from that camp and go to school each day before they returned home to collect water and perform other duties for their families, who lived in the camp all day, as they had for many weeks and months. If they had been sitting in the Public Gallery today, they would have been very proud to see the way in which we conduct ourselves in our debates. While there is a consensus of commitment, we are able openly to debate and discuss the priorities and the way in which we will take this forward.

To refer back to the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, we have come some way since those old debates, which were polarised between commercial activity on the one hand and government assistance on the other. Today, however, most of us accept that a combination of both will deal with global inequality and deprivation. I hope that our debate here in the House of Lords has taken that agenda forward into 2015 with some style and quality. I thank noble Lords very much.

Motion agreed.

UK and Sri Lanka: Bilateral Trade

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

17:25

Asked by

[Lord Sheikh]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage more bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Sri Lanka.

[Lord Sheikh (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important subject before your Lordships’ House. I have been a friend of Sri Lanka for several years and have visited the country on two recent occasions. I have met and spoken to several Sri Lankan government Ministers in London as well as in Sri Lanka, including the President, Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa. I have previously raised issues relating to Sri Lanka in your Lordships’ House. I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Sri Lanka, and I have supported the Conservative Friends of Sri Lanka. I have also enjoyed a highly successful relationship with the Sri Lankan high commission here in London, in particular with the former high commissioner, Dr Chris Nonis, who has been an outstanding representative of his country. He elevated the stature of Sri Lanka in the United Kingdom.

The observations I have made throughout this time have reinforced my view that Sri Lanka is, and should be, regarded as one of our most important bilateral trading partners. Trading links between the UK and Sri Lanka date back to colonial times. We introduced commercial plantations to Sri Lanka—first coffee, then tea and rubber. Over the years the Sri Lankan export product base has diversified significantly, most notably with articles of apparel and clothing accessories. The UK has increasingly imported a wide variety of items, including electrical equipment, bicycles, jewellery, ceramics and toys. In return, we export to Sri Lanka items such as iron and steel, machinery, paper, beverages, plastics and pharmaceutical products.

Both our political and economic ties have worn extremely well over the past 200 years. Today, Sri Lanka is a major emerging economy in south Asia. It is a market of over 20 million people, but its geographical location means that it can in fact reach a market of over 1.6 billion people. It also serves as a logistical trading and shipment hub for the region. Over the past decade Sri Lanka’s gross domestic product has grown at an overall rate of 6.4%. It grew by an astonishing 7.2% in 2013. Sri Lanka now has one of the fastest growing economies in the region and is expected to grow by 7.5% this year. The Sri Lankan stock market is on target to finish among the top 10 performing stock markets in the world this year. It now has a GDP per capita of $3,200, and the Sri Lankan Government aim to increase this to $4,000 per capita by 2016. In short, Sri Lanka undoubtedly holds massive potential for UK investors.

We must acknowledge that for nearly three decades Sri Lanka was torn apart by a civil war. Thankfully, that came to an end in 2009. The country has since made significant progress, including meeting many international obligations and engaging with the United Nations on post-conflict matters. A commission was established to strengthen the process of reconciliation and the Sri Lankan Government are currently implementing its recommendations. I have been assured that the Government are committed to the realisation of all human rights to prevent further conflict. I believe that now is the time for any Tamil diaspora which left the country to be encouraged to return and be resettled so that it may once again contribute to the well-being of the country. Sri Lanka’s future is undoubtedly looking bright.

Fortunately, we already have a foothold in the country. We are already one of the top five investors in Sri Lanka. The bilateral trade between the two countries has increased by 70% since the turn of the millennium, and we are its number one EU trading partner. In 2013, UK exports to Sri Lanka were valued at £167 million. It should be noted that the balance of trade has risen significantly in favour of Si Lanka in recent years. In the longer term, we must look to address this imbalance. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could clarify what action is being taken to achieve this.

As important as the volume of trade between the UK and Sri Lanka is the strategic significance of the type of trade. We are one of Sri Lanka’s closest business partners for higher education and professional training as well as for partnerships in the technology sector. These are vital skills that will help Sri Lanka to build and strengthen its economy in the long term and anchor the UK as a key partner in trading. There are already more than 100 British companies with operations in Sri Lanka that cross a wide range of sectors. These include HSBC, GlaxoSmithKline and Rolls-Royce. When I visited Sri Lanka, I was able to visit the Brandix factory near Colombo, which makes garments for Marks & Spencer. I found the operations to be very eco-friendly, with excellent working conditions which were commended by all. I have spoken on this point previously in your Lordships’ House. Sri Lanka also has many of its own home-grown success stories. During my trip, I also visited Millennium Information Technologies, a fast growing Sri Lankan company which was acquired by the London Stock Exchange Group in 2009. Its systems power several stock exchanges and depositories around the world.

Aside from our historical ties and the strong Sri Lankan economy and business base, there are many other reasons for us to promote and further bilateral trade. English is widely spoken across the country, providing many western countries with an easy means of communication with potential workers. The literacy rate in Sri Lanka now stands at about 92%. The commercial law of Sri Lanka is based primarily on the principles of English commercial law and English statutes, offering many companies a legal framework with which they are already familiar. Sri Lanka is the highest rated country in south Asia in the World Bank’s rankings for ease of doing business. Sri Lanka also has free trade agreements in place with India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. These can reduce import tariffs for some goods into those countries and thus help build the Sri Lankan economy further and allow British products to make their way through the supply chain.

Another key consideration is infrastructure. Following the end of the civil war, Sri Lanka is seeing a rapid and wide spread of infrastructure development. Connectivity is being vastly improved through several major road projects linking urban and rural communities. The Government are also improving and upgrading urban infrastructure facilities and basic services in towns and cities.

However, further modernisation is needed and the opportunities for British businesses are vast. The Sri Lankan Government have launched a major infrastructure initiative, entitled Five Hub Programme, which will provide opportunities for us to be involved. There is also an increasing demand for greater expansion in the leisure and tourism sector, including hotels and retail. This is and will continue to be a key growth area for British investors.

Another key area for further investment is education. The Sri Lankan workforce lacks critical job-specific skills, which could serve to undermine both private sector growth and public infrastructure development in the future. We must expand even further our role in providing and investing in higher education and skills training, helping the Sri Lankan workforce to fill the skills gap and become more responsive to the needs of the global market. In particular, I believe we could do more to build university-to-university contacts and become involved in creating colleges of excellence. There are also calls for greater facilitation of business visas for Sri Lankan entrepreneurs to travel to the UK. I hope that our Government will undertake to look at this. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether that can be considered.

Finally, I commend UK Trade & Investment’s recent trade mission to Sri Lanka, which I understand included representatives of 21 British companies. I look forward to learning more about its findings and hope to see more of these delegations in the future.

The future potential for Sri Lanka is huge, but it will be reached only through continued and expanded bilateral trade with countries such as ours.

17:37

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to join this debate and I thank my noble friend for instigating it. I go back 50 years with Sri Lanka, having worked there in 1963 for the Reckitt and Colman Group as a marketing manager, visiting every conceivable market in the year I was there. When I came back, I wrote a pamphlet in 1967 called Helping the Exporter. It even had to have a reprint, although there are not too many copies left nowadays. Before I came to the House I was a director of one of the major advertising agencies specialising in overseas trade, so I think I have a reasonable heritage to comment on trade between two countries.

The first thing I want to say is that Sri Lanka is very relevant to our country. The population is roughly 30% of the size of our own. I will not cover the same areas as my noble friend, but it is right to re-emphasise that growth since peace in 2009 has been roughly between 6.5% and the 8% at which it is currently running. I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on the trade mission that was put together at the end of November. I think our high commissioner, who I know is on his last few months there, put together a really good programme, and the feedback from the chamber of commerce in Colombo was very positive. Indeed, I shall quote one sentence from the welcome. Thankfully the high commissioner has put “Ayubowan” which is the traditional welcome in Sri Lanka. He says:

“With a Free Trade Agreement with China to be signed shortly adding to the existing FTAs with Pakistan, India, South Asia and Asia Pacific, Sri Lanka could act as a regional hub to over 3 billion potential customers”.

That is what it is all about.

I also inevitably did some research into, for me, a relatively new area, looking in some depth, not at the political scene, which I think I know backwards, but at the trade and commerce side. An excellent article appeared by a man called Jon Springer of Forbes Asia. He picks out a number of key determinants why Sri Lanka has such good opportunities for the UK to export there.

First, he picks out government stability. It is true that in 2009, once peace was there, there was stability on the ground. Added to that, there is now a railway system all the way to Jaffna. There are new roads, both up to Jaffna and down to the south-west. There is electricity, without permanent cuts, which was the situation for many years and certainly when I worked there. There is good electricity on tap. I would call that a rising peace dividend.

My noble friends mentioned the stock market. No wonder Sri Lanka is proud if our stock market is using software from Sri Lanka. I would be jolly proud if that happened. A friend of mine, a Tamil, is a director of one of the major companies, MAS, a major clothing manufacturer exporting all over the world. It exports here to Marks & Spencer and other retailers. I went round not only his factories, but the housing developments for some of their people. They are extremely well done. Yesterday, I went to Human Rights Day in the Foreign Office, where there was talk about the need for the corporate sector to show a proper response to its workers and others for whom it is responsible. In passing, I say to my noble friend that I thought yesterday’s initiative, Human Rights Day, was very good indeed.

John Springer also picked out a comment that I had also seen from Ceylon Asset Management, which, I admit, is at the far end:

“We expect 25% growth in the equity market on average per year for the next five years. If you think about it, that isn’t that much space on 7 to 8% growth in the economy annually. What people don’t realise is that on a per capita basis, Sri Lanka is twice as rich as India”.

I think that is probably blowing a trumpet a bit, but nevertheless, there is positive note there.

Then, of course, next door there is a big brother, but a very much changed big brother. Modi’s India is there with a link for Sri Lanka to be the hub for goods and services on their travels eastward to drop in to the brand new port at Colombo city. There is the additional new port down at Hambantota and the revitalisation of Galle harbour, by kind permission of the Dutch. All that means that this is a real opportunity for growth.

I have been a tourist in Sri Lanka on a number of occasions. I was a tourist in the very early days when if you were on the shore you ate fish curry and if you were up country you ate chicken curry. Today, there are wonderful hotels. I looked at the figures, which are astonishing. This year, it is estimated that there will be 1.6 million tourists and there has been a steady increase in the amount of money that tourists spend.

Sri Lanka is really becoming a middle-income country, although there are obviously poor parts of it; I think I know where they are as well. The real estate market is moving in Colombo and surrounding areas and that is a positive move. Are there risks? Of course, in every commercial world—and I was in it for quite a long time—there are risks. There is one simple thing that Her Majesty’s Government can take on board, which is supported 100%, I am pleased to say, by our high commission. If we want to do more trade with Sri Lanka, we have to speed up the process of issuing visas to those coming on a short-term visit to do business. Although the Foreign Office claims that it is to save money that visas have to be processed in Chennai, that is a nonsense. We even built a building in Colombo to do the processing. It is sitting there idle. What would be the net extra expenditure for a couple of officers to process the proper visas, maybe just for business visitors? That really needs to be looked at. That is my plea to my noble friend on the Front Bench.

There are some other handicaps. I will highlight three. One is the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill going through your Lordships’ House. Parts 7 and 8 and Schedule 3 require that shareholders holding 25% or more, or having some control over a company ownership, have to be kept in a register and that register must be made public. Admittedly, this applies only to UK companies, but I have to tell my noble friend on the Front Bench, as one who has worked and lived in that part of the world, as far as the Middle East and south-east Asia are concerned, nobody wants to have their public or any other public look at a register. That leaves them open to creative journalism and, I am sorry to say, one or two creative NGOs. There is ample provision to check on fraud, money-laundering and other provisions. However, I think my noble friend will have to pass on a message to his noble friends that that will cause a huge problem for trade.

I am sure there are those in the Chamber who wonder why I have not even mentioned politics. I have to mention it on a couple of issues, though. Here in the UK there is a challenge from the part of the Tamil diaspora that just pours out propaganda. I must get one or two things a week, telling me that dreadful things are happening every day, and, more importantly, that Eelam is still on the agenda—that is, the independence of the north and possibly the east. Frankly, that does not help anybody. What I find so disappointing about the Tamil diaspora is that the amount of money and investment that is going into the Jaffna region is so tiny that it is almost embarrassing to record how low it is.

Add to that the news we had yesterday or the day before about torture in Guantanamo Bay. There are allegations of torture in Sri Lanka. On my last visit, I did my level best to check with all the independent authorities whether there was any evidence of torture, particularly the ICRC, which said that there was none. However, we keep getting the odd report, without substantiated evidence, that there is torture. We need to take all those with a pinch of salt.

There are also claims that there is religious intimidation. I say to my noble friend that there is not. There is diversity of faith there. Certainly the Sri Lankan Government are not stirring it up one way or the other. Should we not reflect that mosques were burned down in Luton, Bletchley and Birmingham? We do not know who perpetrated that situation but we know that it is wrong. I believe that the Government in Sri Lanka will be equally keen to find out who is responsible there.

Overhanging it all is the OHCHR situation in Geneva, which, frankly, is not recognised by the Sri Lankan Government. Perhaps more importantly, it is not recognised by a number of Commonwealth countries, including India and Australia. We will have to see how objective it is, but sadly the UN does not have a great history of objectivity in what has happened in Sri Lanka.

I conclude by saying that we have a new high commissioner going from here to Sri Lanka. I hope that he will have really good knowledge of commercial matters and will deal with that with energy. Sri Lanka has a presidential election on 8 January. I do not know who will win; I wish whoever does all possible success. I know those elections, as does the Opposition Whip; I am sure it will be a fair and full election. I thank those who have enabled me to take part in this excellent debate.

17:48

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, on securing the debate. I thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for their speeches. The only regret is that the debate was listed, as it probably had to be, at the end of a long list of debates on the last Thursday sitting before Christmas.

The United Kingdom is proud of being a trading nation. It is important that, in general, the Government encourage and help British exporters. In a former life I was the Minister for DESO, which is now part of UKTI. I hope that I did my bit to assist at home and, especially, abroad. British trade means more economic activity at home; British exports mean more and better jobs for workers in this country. I congratulate the Minister on having one of the best jobs in government.

That is my starting point, but it is always vital to connect the general truth that trade is good with the real world as we find it. Defence exports in particular are, rightly, closely looked at. My first question to the Minister is this: why was more than £8 million-worth of arms—including shotguns, assault rifles and ammunition—granted licences for export to Sri Lanka in the first six months of 2014, as set out in data from BIS, and as reported in the Observer on 8 November? I ask the Minister—if he can help me—what criteria were used in deciding that this was a suitable transaction.

In economic terms Sri Lanka enjoys good annual growth, as we have heard. Since the end of the civil war, by and large trade has increased in both exports and imports between Sri Lanka and both the European Union and the United Kingdom. Of course, I welcome the expansion of trade and welcome the proposals in this debate by the two speakers who have already made their contributions. Obviously, tourism is an immediately attractive product—hardly surprisingly, given the beauty of the country. I can beat the noble Lord, Lord Naseby: I was in Sri Lanka before he ever stepped on to that island. When I was a boy living in Chennai and then Madras, my mother took me to Ceylon, as it was then, before the noble Lord ever went there as a young adult. Of course, those we must be envious of today are those lucky fellow countrymen of ours who were there to see England win the fifth one-day match, held over two days near Kandy. More seriously, it is in other areas of possible trade that, no doubt, progress can be made. The higher education and technology fields, where there seem to be considerable opportunities, are of great interest.

Sri Lanka enjoys preferential access to the EU market under the generalised scheme of preferences. However, the generalised scheme of preferences-plus status was temporarily withdrawn in 2010 and remains withdrawn. As I understand it, 36% of Sri Lanka’s exports go to the European Union: it is its largest market. Why did the withdrawal of the “plus” status happen in the first place, and why does it remain withdrawn today, nearly four and a half years later? The answer of course—although it may be uncomfortable to say so—is in Sri Lanka’s response to the legitimate concerns of the rest of the world about the behaviour of its Government and its military towards minority groups both during and after the end of its terrible civil war. Sri Lanka’s Government—again, I am afraid to say so—appear to have done all within their powers to block any effort to discover what went on and what may still be going on. The frustration of world opinion about this blockage has resulted in the setting up of an inquiry by the United Nations Human Rights Council, instigated by the United Kingdom, among others, under the auspices of OHCHR, which was referred to in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. The Sri Lankan Government have just gone on blocking: there is no access for the investigative team and a reported threat by the Minister for Mass Media in Sri Lanka that legal action may well be taken against those who testify before the Commission, if they breach the terms of the Sri Lankan constitution. This attitude has led to the respected House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, under all parties and under the chairmanship of a very distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament, to the following conclusion, in paragraph 37 of its recent report:

“Given the time that has passed since the launch of the international inquiry, and the constraints placed on the OHCHR team, we believe that the Government should be ready to consider all possible options, including sanctions, to convince Sri Lanka to allow access. We recommend that the Government negotiates with its EU partners to remove GSP status from Sri Lanka, if the Government of Sri Lanka does not allow the OHCHR investigating team into the country and uphold the right of human right defenders to engage with the UN human rights system”.

What is Her Majesty’s Government’s view on that recommendation? I ask again whether it was wise for a licence to be granted for the arms exports from the United Kingdom in 2014.

We have heard about the presidential elections due on 8 January next, which the world hopes will be fair and, of course, non-violent. However, the Financial Times argued in June that the growing tensions between the Sri Lankan Buddhist majority Singhalese population and the minority Muslim population are likely to affect the country’s business climate. Muslims in Sri Lanka are among that country’s most successful commercial operators; surely it is in Sri Lanka’s economic and human interest to ensure that its minority population is treated with respect and equality. That surely means assisting and not blocking the OHCHR commission, so that if wrong has been done it can be admitted and properly dealt with; and if it has not been done, that can be independently verified. Only in that way can the country move forward. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.

17:56

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Livingston of Parkhead) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sheikh for initiating this important debate and for his wider contribution to the relationship between Sri Lanka and the UK. I have to admit that I was concerned this morning when I came in and saw the annunciator saying that the final QSD today was on the subject of trade with Syria. It is a relief for all of us that this was incorrect. I also thank the other noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. We may have been lacking something in quantity, but it has been more than made up for in quality. I wish to ask my noble friend Lord Naseby whether he will give me a copy of his guide to exporting. It would be interesting for our team to see what, if anything, has changed since it was written.

Trade is important not only to the prosperity of the UK but to Sri Lanka and its people. However, the UK’s commitment to free trade goes hand in hand with our commitment to human rights. That point has been made volubly. I appreciate that there are divergent views on this issue. Let me set out the Government’s position. The UK co-sponsored the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution in March this year. This resolution requested that Sri Lanka make progress on human rights and reconciliation. As my noble friend Lord Naseby mentioned, it also mandated the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to undertake an investigation into alleged violations of international law by both sides of Sri Lanka’s conflict.

To echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, we continue to urge Sri Lanka to co-operate and ensure the protection of those providing evidence to the investigation, and to implement the recommendation of its own internal commission on resettlement and rehabilitation. Sri Lankan presidential elections have been called for next month. We have encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to invite international observers so that the elections can be fairly assessed. We understand that Sri Lanka’s Election Commission has invited the Commonwealth and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation to observe. We welcome these moves.

I want to pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. The first was on the subject of arms. As he will know from his history, the British Government have a rigorous policy of assessing all export licences to each country, including Sri Lanka, very much on a case-by-case basis. We seek not to export equipment where we assess that there is a clear risk that it might be used for internal repression, would provoke or prolong conflict within a country, or would be used aggressively against another country. The equipment concerned included antennae for military transport, carbon fibre tows, some software to do with internet access, and things such as sporting cartridges. On these cases, which we reviewed carefully, we decided that export licences could be granted. It is also something that we will keep under review, as we do with all countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, also raised the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The UK Government’s position on this is that it is premature to do anything more prior to the UN reporting on the matter, and we are expecting the UN’s report in March 2015. When we receive it, it will be appropriate for the Government to take a view of which, if any, of those recommendations should be taken up.

I turn to the subject of trade. The UK has strong family, historic, and—particularly today, even if I am a Scotsman—sporting ties. Of course, both countries are members of the Commonwealth. We have a strong commercial relationship. In Colombo, the Council for Business with Britain actually boasts 151 members across a wide range of sectors. Britain is Sri Lanka’s largest export market in the EU and the EU is itself the largest market for Sri Lankan goods. In 2013, bilateral trade was more than £1 billion. While my noble friend Lord Sheikh pointed out that this was weighed heavily in Sri Lanka’s favour, we have started to see some change. Last year, Britain saw an increase of 14% in goods and exports to Sri Lanka. Commercial contracts worth $3 billion to Britain were signed in 2013, as a result of the order by Sri Lankan Airlines for 13 Airbus aircraft with—I am delighted to say—Rolls-Royce engines. There are therefore, in a number of areas, positive signs of improved British performance.

We are Sri Lanka’s leading business partner—as was mentioned by a number of noble Lords—in the field of higher education and professional training. Some 28 British universities offer access to their qualifications through local education providers in Sri Lanka. A further two universities are currently considering establishing their first satellite campuses in Sri Lanka. It also hosts—and this hurts me, as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants—the largest number of Chartered Institute of Management Accountant members outside of the UK anywhere in the world.

The British Council has been operating in Sri Lanka since 1950. More than 200 staff deliver services across the country, including teaching English to more than 12,000 students a year at the British Council teaching centres. However, there are more opportunities—that has been made very clear by all the speakers in the debate—and more that we can do and are doing to help UK exports. As my noble friends Lord Sheikh and Lord Naseby commented, UKTI held a recent trade mission entitled, “Putting British Business on the Front Foot”. That was just at the end of November. During the three-day event, delegates from 21 British companies met potential Sri Lankan business partners from all parts of the country. They were briefed on new business opportunities and they heard from British companies. It is always very important to hear from British companies actually operating in Sri Lanka so that they understand the position on the ground. UKTI Colombo has already been able to assist with new business worth £15 million as a result of this trade mission and a further £17 million deal is now close to finalisation. In addition, a major British company is now considering entering the Sri Lankan market, and we very much welcome that.

Sri Lanka is actually the highest rated country in south Asia in the World Bank’s ease of doing business index. That is good, but we think that there are opportunities to improve the position still further. It can be done through a number of things. First, there should be a reduction in unnecessary red tape, albeit that that is true across much of the UK and Europe. There could also be improvements to security of contracts, protection from what is apparently arbitrary decision-making, and better transparency and governance. We are encouraging the Government of Sri Lanka to take steps to make it easier for British companies to do business there and to reduce the barriers to foreign investment. We believe that Sri Lanka and Britain can also build further trade relationships through the Commonwealth by utilising the expertise and drive found in organisations such as the new Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which I am delighted to say is being partially funded by this Government.

The Government will also look to hold further trade missions to Sri Lanka so that companies can understand the scale of the opportunities, as they are indeed immense not only within the country itself, but also as a regional hub. We will encourage exporters to look beyond the standard markets of the EU and the US and try to support them both across the UK through our regional trade advisers and on the ground in Sri Lanka through the high commission and UKTI. Finance and credit insurance are also important issues for exporters, particularly in countries like Sri Lanka. Last year, UK Export Finance provided almost £100 million of support to Sri Lanka. It has the further capacity and desire to support business with Sri Lanka going forward.

My noble friends Lord Sheikh and Lord Naseby raised the perennial issue of visas. While I appreciate that the perception of visas is an issue, some 99% of business visas were issued in under 15 days. For business people coming here, there is also an option for a five-day visa. We will continue to listen as issues arise, but with visas it is always important to separate issues of policy from those of process and perception in order to try to establish what exactly the issue is. However, we absolutely will listen if there are issues on a day-to-day basis going forward.

It is important to make the point that UK companies should not let some of the real difficulties of doing business in Sri Lanka blind them to what are also real opportunities, but they should also not let those opportunities blind them to the difficulties. UKTI is here to help them with both.

In conclusion, the Government want to build an even stronger bilateral trade relationship with Sri Lanka in exports, in imports and in investment. At the same time, we will continue to urge Sri Lanka to make progress on the important matters of human rights and reconciliation. In that way, and together with trade, Sri Lanka can secure long-lasting peace and prosperity for all the people of that country. I know that that is what all noble Lords most definitely wish to see.

Wales Bill

Thursday 11th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

House adjourned at 6.07 pm.