House of Commons

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Thursday 11 June 2015

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What assessment he has made of recent progress in improving disabled people’s access to public transport.

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

The Department for Transport’s 2015 annual progress report on promoting accessibility for disabled people on public transport has just been published, and it demonstrates good progress in achieving an inclusive transport system. The Government remain firmly committed to improving disabled people’s access to all public transport services.

[Chi Onwurah]

In Newcastle, we are proud that our Metro was the first in the country to be fully wheelchair accessible, and I hope that the Minister will support renewed investment in it. That vision of inclusive transport should by now include talking buses, given that the technology is so widely available, but the Minister has done nothing to ensure that is implemented and has cut by half the budget for accessibility, so when will we have inclusive public transport?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that 83% of buses operating in the UK now meet legal accessibility requirements, and that will rise to almost 100% by the end of next year. She is right to focus on talking buses—something that she and I have worked on with the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association—but we have been advised that the cost of rolling that out across the country is prohibitively high. However, another way—I am sure that she, as a highly experienced digital expert, will approve of this—is to make all data on public transport open-sourced so that applications such as the Next Stop app, which is being trialled in Leeds, can be rolled out. That would give a much more personalised service to disabled people accessing public transport.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister welcomes the progress being made across the country in improving disabled access, but will she look at the issue of theoretical access, where elevators are often left out of order for days, if not weeks, on end, making disabled access only theoretical?

[Claire Perry]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there have obviously been great advances in improving access for those with sensory disablement—sight and hearing problems. As people travel between the four regions, has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland to ensure uniformity in access for those with sensory disablements across the whole United Kingdom?

[Claire Perry]

I have had not had those discussions, because I have only recently picked up that part of my portfolio, but my predecessor might have done. I shall apprise myself of the facts and, if necessary, would be delighted to have that meeting.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

We all strongly support proper access to public transport for disabled people, which is absolutely essential. As the Minister represents a rural area, as I do, does she agree that some bus companies simply cannot afford to provide that? One way forward must be through dial-a-ride services, such as the one offered by Bradies taxis in Malmesbury, which I launched last Saturday, whereby elderly and disabled people in particular can ring up and find small buses to take them where they want to go.

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend, whose constituency neighbours mine, makes an important point. Of course, I was delighted that the Government made money available in the previous Parliament to support exactly that sort of community access scheme.

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

The Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones)—I congratulate him on his appointment—said at a transport event last night that his door would always be open. I invite the Minister and her new colleague to start with disabled people’s access to buses, because the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Transport Committee have all said that the Government’s exemption of bus companies from mandatory driver training is not working. The Government have ducked and dived on this: a review was first promised for 2014, then more evidence this January confirmed the disquiet, and this week I received a written answer telling me that there will be a research project—a review of the review of the review. Will she use the open door that her colleague spoke about to stop the buck being passed for disabled people on buses?

[Claire Perry]

All our ministerial doors are always open to all colleagues. I invite the hon. Gentleman to focus on the fact that almost 100% of drivers have now received some form of disability awareness training. We think that the future lies in providing public sector data, so that people can use an app themselves to make their specific journey. The cost of providing this across the UK can be prohibitive, but we will have 100% accessibility on all buses by the end of next year.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to deliver the road investment strategy.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to deliver the road investment strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

The road investment strategy, published in December 2014, set out ambitious plans for £15.2 billion of investment in the strategic road network between 2015 and 2021. The Department created a new Government-owned company, Highways England, to focus on delivering this plan. Highways England published its delivery plan in March this year, setting out next steps for the schemes starting construction or completing by the end of March 2020.

[Stephen McPartland]

The widening of the A1M between junctions 6 and 8 will release the economic stranglehold on Hertfordshire. Will the Minister update the House on the Department’s plans to start that work?

[Andrew Jones]

I most certainly can. As part of the road investment strategy, the A1M between junctions 6 and 8—the Welwyn to Stevenage stretch—will become a smart motorway. I cannot provide an exact start date for construction, but the next step is the detailed design and planning of the scheme, plus consultation with the local community to produce the best possible scheme. That work will be taken forward by Highways England. My hon. Friend has long been a keen champion of this scheme, and I will make sure that he is kept fully informed of progress.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

One of the things my hon. Friend and I agree on is the need for additional Thames crossings, but we potentially disagree about the location. Will he confirm that, before any final decisions are taken, he will fully evaluate the effect of free-flow tolling on the current Dartford crossing? Will he also look at whether what is currently proposed answers the question that was posed more than a decade ago?

[Andrew Jones]

It is rare, and always a matter of regret, if I ever have any disagreement with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that a new crossing is needed. There are encouraging signs that the Dart charge is already bringing some relief to congestion in the area, and I can assure him that its impact will be evaluated and monitored carefully. However, I have major reservations about the suggestion to look again at all the schemes, as I do not want to delay progress. It has taken 10 years to reach this point, and we do not want to blight any more homes. Highways England is developing options for both possible locations and will take those to a public consultation scheduled for late this year or early next. I will be happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend.

[Chris Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

A road investment strategy is only as effective as the bodies that are tasked with delivering it. Will the Minister therefore have conversations with Highways England about its catastrophic mismanagement of the Posthouse roundabout A483-A55 junction in my constituency, where delays to commuters and huge costs to businesses continue months after the work should have been concluded?

[Andrew Jones]

I will have monitoring meetings with Highways England every month for the remainder of the time in which it delivers our plan. I want to make sure that it is on top of this and delivering it. The Government’s ambition for the road investment strategy is significant, with £15 billion of investment, 127 schemes and 1,300 additional lane miles. It is a significant step change for our strategic road network. Its delivery is critical, and it is one of the top things that I will focus on. I will also focus on a method of communication from Highways England and me to all colleagues.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the most important decisions made in the previous Parliament was the decision to proceed with the Mottram bypass in my constituency, giving us the much-needed improved connectivity between Manchester and South Yorkshire. There are now a number of issues to resolve to take the scheme forward, particularly whether Hollingworth will benefit and whether we can build a new tunnel under the Pennines, which, if feasible, will be very exciting. May I trouble the ministerial team for a short meeting in this Session to advance these matters further?

[Andrew Jones]

Yes; I am happy to do that.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Before the election, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and I had a very useful meeting with the previous Roads Minister in connection with the A15, which provides access to the Humber ports. Although this is a local authority road, some involvement with the Department will be necessary. Will the new Minister meet me and all the agencies involved at an early date?

[Andrew Jones]

The A15 is a local road and this will be a local decision. I know that a business case is being developed. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend and local organisations such as the council or the local enterprise partnership. The key thing is to make the business case as robust as possible, and I will certainly help him to deliver that.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be very familiar with the A50. May I draw the Minister’s attention specifically to the A50 where it runs through my constituency, where the slip roads are frankly dangerous? The weekly number of blue light incidents is alarming, and the number of near misses is deeply troubling. The Secretary of State will also be aware of the situation just down the road at the Blythe Bridge roundabout. Will the Minister look urgently at what is going on with that section of road?

[Andrew Jones]

I am not personally familiar with the slip roads as the hon. Gentleman describes them, but I will be happy to take this issue forward. If he would like to contact me with any of his concerns, I will happily take them up with Highways England and then get back to him with an answer.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

3. What progress his Department has made on preparing for construction of the High Speed 2 rail line.

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

We are currently undertaking a very significant level of activity to prepare for construction of phase 1. Preparations include growing HS2 Ltd’s capability by bringing in senior teams with extensive experience of major rail and infrastructure programmes; commencing ground investigation works; progressing the procurement of contractors to undertake £750 million-worth of enabling works; and preparing to commence procurement of contractors for the main civil works this autumn.

[Maggie Throup]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware, many Erewash residents continue to live with the uncertainty of the location of the east midlands HS2 hub. Will he press HS2 Ltd for a final decision on the hub’s location?

[Mr McLoughlin]

May I welcome my hon. Friend and congratulate her on the fantastic result she secured in the general election?

No decision on the phase 2 route and station locations has yet been made. The Government intend to announce a way forward on phase 2 later this year. I certainly appreciate the uncertainty for those people around the route that is being talked about, but it is absolutely essential that we get the best possible connectivity to serve the whole of the east midlands. I think that we are all concerned to do that, but I certainly understand the concerns raised by my hon. Friend.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

To construct HS2 to Crewe, Manchester and Leeds, another Bill, or Bills, will need to be prepared. When will they be published?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Let us take one step at a time. As I have said, we have not yet confirmed the route. Once it has been confirmed, that preparation work will be undertaken. A separate Bill is being considered to deal with another stage to phase 2—phase 2A—which would go from Handsacre to Crewe.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that progress on the preparations for the construction of HS2 has been delayed because of the antiquated Victorian processes to get permissions to build a major project of this nature? What are the Government’s proposals to modernise and improve the procedures?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful question. It is right that we address people’s concerns, and I think that we are making the progress that was set out when HS2 was first promoted by the previous Government. The Bill before the House is making good progress.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

First, I welcome the Secretary of State back to his departmental position. I am sure we will find many areas of common interest and purpose within this portfolio to assist people in Scotland and across the UK.

On HS2, what meetings has the Secretary of State had with the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, Mr Keith Brown MSP, the Scottish Government Minister for Transport?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I note that Mr Brown said in another Parliament that he had not met me, but I have spoken to him on the phone on a number of occasions and am more than happy to arrange a meeting with him. It is very important that Scotland gets the benefit of HS2 from day one, and it will. Trains will continue to run on conventional lines once they come off the high-speed lines.

[Drew Hendry]

With respect to the Secretary of State’s keenness to make progress, may I urge him to meet the Scottish Government Minister as a matter of urgency? Will he confirm that he will undertake to do so?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will be more than happy to meet Mr Brown when a time can be found that is convenient to both of us.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

The Select Committee on HS2 will shortly visit the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, to see the stunning national jewel we are all trying to protect by getting extra tunnelling for the railway. May I invite the Secretary of State to visit the Chilterns with me—I know that he has visited on many previous occasions—to look at the AONB and to see why the tunnelling is essential to keep our manifesto pledges to

“build new infrastructure in an environmentally-sensitive way”

and to “maintain national protections” for AONBs?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As my right hon. Friend says, I have visited the Chilterns on many occasions, but visiting with her might be unresistable. [Hon. Members: “Irresistible!”] I might stick by the first word. I will go and investigate, Mr Speaker and report back to the House. If it can be arranged and fitted in with my diary, I will be more than happy to visit.

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

I welcome the Government’s renewed commitment to HS2 and look forward to the announcement later this year of the precise route for phase 2. Will the Secretary of State indicate whether any serious consideration is being given to advancing the date for construction of the Sheffield to Leeds section of phase 2? If it is, and if that goes ahead, what will that mean for the parliamentary timetable?

[Mr McLoughlin]

There is great demand from Leeds, Sheffield and other areas in the north for an accelerated programme, which I understand. It is right that we go through all the proper procedures. I am very pleased that all the attempts to judicially review the Department have been unsuccessful save for one, which was on a very specific item. It is right that we act properly within the rules and the law to enable those developments to take place, but David Higgins is certainly looking at that, and I very much support him in that objective.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the upgrade works to Birmingham New Street station are running more than a year overdue. What assurance can he give me that construction work on HS2 will not suffer a similar fate, causing disruption not only to my constituents in Lichfield, but to those of Mr Speaker in Buckingham?

[Mr McLoughlin]

How to curry favour, Mr Speaker!

My hon. Friend is right that there has been some overrun at Birmingham New Street station. There are occasions when big infrastructure projects overrun and do not come in on budget, but I point out to him the many projects that get done on time and well within budget. Crossrail is a fantastic tribute to engineering in this country, and it is on time and on budget. We are getting better at delivering such very big projects.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to reduce aircraft noise near Gatwick airport and its effect on communities living under the flight path.

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

The Government recognise that noise is the primary concern of local communities near airports. Aircraft noise has reduced significantly over the last few decades and the Government remain committed to working with Gatwick airport, the Civil Aviation Authority, NATS, UK airlines and the Gatwick consultative committee, which includes community representatives, to reduce and mitigate aircraft noise.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but add that my constituents are still suffering from the current airspace strategy. Will he confirm that environmental mitigation will continue to be part of the consideration in the implementation of airspace strategy?

[Mr McLoughlin]

In welcoming my hon. Friend to the House, I assure him that mitigating the aviation industry’s effect on the environment has been and remains a key factor of aviation strategy. We need to strike a fair balance in our policy between the negative environmental impacts of aviation and the positive economic and consumer benefits that the industry provides.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

When does the Secretary of State expect to receive the Davies report on south-east airports, and how soon thereafter does he intend to make a decision on the future of airports in the south-east?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I expect to receive the Davies report shortly. I will not anticipate at this stage when a decision will be taken. When the report is received, I will make a statement to the House.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that those Cabinet Ministers who have a constituency interest in either of the airports will not be part of the Government’s consideration of the Airports Commission’s work?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will act in a proper and open way in informing the House of the decisions they take once they have received the report.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

If Gatwick were to be given approval for an additional runway, what would the Minister’s intentions be if either the airlines or the airport authorities decided to remove direct flights between Heathrow and major regional airports such as Belfast, which are the absolute lifeblood of my constituency?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Until I have received the report I am not going to start discussing what may or may not happen. What I will say is that I know how important connectivity between airports is to both Northern Ireland and Scotland. Those slots are incredibly important. I will bear that in mind, as I know Sir Howard Davies will, once we have the report.

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

6. What recent assessment he has made of the condition of local roads.

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

16. What recent assessment he has made of the condition of local roads.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

Road condition statistics for 2013-14 show an improvement to the local road network, with fewer main roads requiring maintenance than a few years ago. The funding of just under £1 billion that we are providing to councils this year––enough to fix up to 18 million potholes––should continue that trend. I am launching a pilot today, and when we launch the scheme next year it will provide councils with an incentive to ensure they are being as efficient as possible and that taxpayers’ money goes further. That incentive will add up to £578 million by 2021.

[Sir David Amess]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Local residents are delighted with improvements to the A13 and A127, and with the record amount of money dedicated to road improvement, which is helping to deal with potholes. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that road safety is a top priority, with particular regard to crash barriers?

[Andrew Jones]

I can most certainly provide that reassurance to both my hon. Friend and the House. Road safety is at the heart of our programme; in fact, it was detailed as a key objective of our road investment strategy. Work on road safety was the first work I commissioned in the Department, which I did within hours of starting. I hope that that shows my personal commitment to this subject.

[Liz McInnes]

I am very pleased to hear that funding will be made available to councils to enable them to repair potholes. I receive regular complaints about the condition of my local roads, with potholes a major issue. I am not going to name each road individually because they are far too numerous to mention, but when will the funding be made available to Rochdale Council so that it can maintain the roads to the standard my constituents expect and deserve?

[Andrew Jones]

We have already announced a very generous scheme. This year, a needs-based formula is allocating £901 million across England, of which the hon. Lady’s council has already received more than £2.4 million.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Potholing has taken on a new meaning in the Ribble Valley and, quite frankly, it is dangerous when done in a car, on a bicycle or on a motorbike. The Minister mentions the £15 billion going into the road investment strategy. Cannot some of that money now be diverted, not into new roads but into existing roads to ensure that the potholes are filled once and for all?

[Andrew Jones]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in December a fund of almost £6 billion to take us up to 2021, running at £976 million per annum, to support local highway authorities with their highway maintenance. I am sure the feedback that I suspect we all receive from our constituents will be supportive of that.

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

The issue is not just about resources; it is about making sure that utility companies undertake proper reinstatement when they dig up the highway. Will the Minister look again at whether the regulations in respect of utility companies opening up the highways can be looked at afresh, so we can ensure our roads are reinstated to their proper condition?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point and I would be very happy to take that forward.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to promote cycling.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to promote cycling.

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

The Government are committed to doubling the number of journeys made by bicycle and to continuing the excellent progress we made in the previous Parliament when, thanks to a strong economy, we were able to invest record amounts in cycling. The Infrastructure Act 2015, which will shortly come into force, places a duty on us to produce a cycling and walking strategy. It will contain specific objectives and funding requirements to meet those objectives.

[Graham Evans]

Weaver Vale has many excellent cycling groups and initiatives, such as Pedal Power and Breeze, to encourage constituents of all ages to get on their bikes. Under the last Government there was record investment in cycling. Will my hon. Friend please confirm that the Government will carry on the previous Government’s excellent work?

[Claire Perry]

I know of my hon. Friend’s great interest in and support for local cycling. Indeed, as a keen Boris biker myself—or perhaps they will soon be known as Zac zippers—I am delighted to support both my own personal commitment and the Government’s firm commitment to making cycling the journey method of choice, particularly for short journeys.

[Alex Chalk]

As has been noted, cycling has been enjoying a renaissance in recent years. Will my hon. Friend reconfirm that new road schemes built by Highways England will be cycle-proofed to enable more of us to get on our bikes?

[Claire Perry]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He fought a marvellous campaign, and I know he is a keen cycler. He was also one of the first MPs to lobby me on behalf of his own rail services. He is doing a brilliant job. Yes, I can confirm that the Government are committed to cycle-proofing any new road scheme— a really important change—and we have committed £100 million to do just that.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is it not an act of the deepest cynicism for the Government, a few months before the election, to announce, in a fanfare of self-congratulation, a very modest increase in spending on cycling safety, only for that money to be axed in the first week after the election? Why should any of Britain’s millions of cyclists believe a single word the Government say?

[Claire Perry]

I am slightly disappointed, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a keen cyclist, and I am sure he will know and welcome the fact that when the last Administration came to power, cycle spending across the country was around £2 a head; that currently it is around £6 a head; and that in the cycle ambition cities, it will reach £10 a head. I have been assured that the cycle ambition city programme, which the previous Government introduced, will fully deliver its outputs. He should welcome that.

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

What steps is the Minister taking to make cycling safer, particularly in our great cities, such as London? There can be no greater deterrent to people getting on their bikes than their fear of cycling on busy roads.

[Claire Perry]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady has had some very scary cycle journeys. We have to continue to work with cyclists. Bikeability training—so we start young—is important. We also have to make sure that any new road scheme does what road schemes of old did not do, which is make sure that cycling is “baked in” to those road designs. She will also know that we are working closely with local authorities and Transport for London to make sure that any pilot changes to HGV requirements are looked at carefully and, potentially, implemented.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to alleviate road congestion.

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

The Government’s road investment strategy has committed £15 billion to deliver 127 schemes over the next five years. Some of these schemes will tackle long-standing congestion and safety problems as well as major capacity enhancements around Manchester. On local roads, a programme of local road schemes with around £1 billion of departmental funding has been announced.

[Jeff Smith]

Wilmslow Road, which runs through my constituency, is one of the most congested roads in the area, as a result of the large numbers of unregulated buses that pass down it. When does the Secretary of State expect progress to be made to allow the London-style bus franchising powers that Manchester needs?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We will say more about buses later in the Session, and I hope that that will answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but it is also true that buses need a good road network as well.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

21. The Secretary of State will be aware of the congestion at the Dartford crossing. It has been eased by the free-flow system put in place, but the administration of that system under the Dart charge scheme is woefully inadequate and has caused misery for my constituents. Will he, as a matter of priority, please address this issue and end this frustration for my local residents?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I certainly understand the frustration felt by my hon. Friend’s constituents. Indeed, the roads Minister has organised a meeting on this subject. This is a major change, however, and many people are saying that they are going through the tunnel and over the bridge a lot quicker. There have, therefore, been improvements, including in journey times, but the frustrations that his constituents face are not acceptable, and we will take them up with the company.

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made by the Government to ensure the affordability of bus travel for young people, particularly when, after September 2015, young people must attend work-based training or education until their 18th birthday—and bus travel is simply unaffordable now for many such young people?

[Mr Speaker]

Also, it can potentially relieve road congestion.

[Mr McLoughlin]

That is an ingenious way of bringing the hon. Lady’s question into order, Mr Speaker. I absolutely agree with her about the importance of bus travel, and we have seen investment in buses. I am more than happy to discuss in greater detail with the hon. Lady some of her concerns about the accessibility to buses.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State and the rail Minister will know from visiting Bath before the election—I thank them very much for that—air pollution and congestion are among the biggest issues in the Bath area. What does the Department have in process to invest in local roads, including in the long-awaited A36-A46 link road in my constituency?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his fantastic victory. I met him and the council leaders in his constituency before the election and I know that they had some positive plans for transport. Given that the council has become Conservative controlled as a result of recent elections, I look forward to working with it to see those plans taken forward.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would the Secretary of State and his Department support a strategic congestion commission for the city of York, where congestion is having a real impact on the environment, on businesses and on the lives of people living in our city?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is important for local authorities to come forward with plans, but they also have to ensure that those plans are right and proper for the city. I will be interested to hear of any plans suggested and I will look at them.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships on delivery of transport infrastructure projects.

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

I am delighted to say that this Government will spend an unprecedented £56 billion on transport infrastructure over the next five years. It is our view that this money is most usefully spent when organisations such as local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, which know best about the needs of local people and the community, are involved. That is why we consult them on every large national project and indeed why we are devolving local funding to them, putting them firmly in the driving seat for local decision making.

[Jo Churchill]

As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, my Bury St Edmunds constituency sits directly on both the rail link from Norwich through to London, which I know is due for improvements, and on the A14 road corridor that connects Felixstowe, the country’s fifth largest container port, to the rest of the country. Could the Secretary of State and Ministers visit the constituency to discuss a collaborative funding approach with the local enterprise partnership and other bodies to facilitate improvements on the A14 and the campaign for no more delays on that road?

[Claire Perry]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. I saw her predecessor enjoying a small glass of wine in Westminster only last night, and he wishes her well. I would be delighted to visit, with other colleagues if appropriate, to see what is going on in her constituency. She will know that the local growth fund is already providing £8 million-worth of investment in Bury St Edmunds, including in the eastern relief road. I look forward to seeing that and to hearing about other projects.

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

May I remind the Minister that many local enterprise partnerships and local authorities feel bypassed by Government policy at the moment when it comes to infrastructure? The northern powerhouse, which many of us have not yet fully assimilated, is one thing, but my constituents want fast improvement in rail and road infrastructure now.

[Claire Perry]

May I just gently say to the hon. Gentleman that there are some stunning examples, particularly around the Anglia region, where the east of England LEPs have been absolutely in the driving seat of delivering really good analysis and pulling in important amounts of funding? I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets involved with his LEP and makes sure that it has the right people on board, because LEPs can be very powerful agents of change.

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

Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government’s willingness to work with the Solent LEP and the Isle of Wight council to set up an island infrastructure taskforce to examine the future of transport on the Isle of Wight and cross-Solent options?

[Claire Perry]

During the last Parliament, my hon. Friend brought in a team to make that point, and they argued the case very assiduously. I am delighted to confirm that our Department is committed to working with him and local partners to deliver the infrastructure upgrade.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

It is welcome that the Government are saying that decisions on infrastructure projects should be made locally, but later this year a Conservative Secretary of State will decide on the Leeds New Generation trolleybus scheme, which is being forced on us because the Labour Government said that we could not have a bus-based scheme. Will the Secretary of State now intervene, and allow us to make our own decisions about what is the best transport system?

[Claire Perry]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should meet to discuss the matter—I should be delighted to discuss it further—but, as I have said, we believe that local people are best placed to make decisions about local transport.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the rail franchise system.

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

We continuously monitor a range of indicators, including performance figures and passenger satisfaction. Rail use is at its highest level since the 1920s: 1.65 billion passenger journeys were made in Great Britain on franchised passenger trains in 2014-15. The number of journeys made on the rail network has more than doubled since the introduction of the franchise system .

[Anna Turley]

Will the Secretary of State join me in urging Network Rail to upgrade the level crossing in Redcar town centre? West Dyke Road, which is a main artery into town, has been closed more than 15 times in the last year. Network Rail has promised upgrades, but they are not forthcoming. The problem is having a huge impact on small businesses, which are having to close, and also on bus routes.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. My hon. Friend the rail Minister will be more than happy to meet her to discuss the issue. Network Rail has a huge investment programme, and it is certainly trying to address the problems of level crossings.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

18. As the Secretary of State will know, I was very disappointed that, at the time of its franchise bid, it was not possible to persuade Virgin Trains to provide a service to Grimsby via Market Rasen. It is already running four trains a day to Lincoln. Is there anything to prevent it, under its franchise, from extending at least one service a day to Grimsby via Market Rasen in order to serve that huge rural area?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I shall be happy to look into the matter, but I welcome the fact that the new franchise on the east coast is producing some remarkable new services, which will benefit towns that have not had rail services for some 50 years.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

London Overground and Merseyrail have transformed stations and services that were unreliable and unsafe under the previous franchise holders. In stark contrast, the recent performance of franchise-holders such as Southeastern has been woeful on lines that Ministers had considered devolving to Transport for London before rejecting the plan. Notwithstanding the rhetoric on devolution, the reality is that progress has been as slow and inconsistent as commuters’ early morning trains.

There is a real appetite for taking on more services in the north, the west midlands and elsewhere. Is it not time to get on with that, rather than sticking with franchises that are failing passengers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

In 13 years, there was no devolution of rail services. We have done more to devolve rail services in five years than the last Government even considered possible, and I am very proud of that.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of progress in implementing Network Rail’s investment programme.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of progress in implementing Network Rail’s investment programme.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of progress in implementing Network Rail’s investment programme.

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

As the independent regulator for the railways, the Office of Rail and Road is responsible for overseeing and enforcing Network Rail’s obligations. The ORR reports twice a year on performance in “Network Rail Monitor”. The last report noted that there had been relatively successful delivery during control period 4, but that the expected progress had not been made in the early stages of the enhancement projects in control period 5. The Department is working with the ORR and Network Rail to ensure that the vital passenger benefits are delivered.

[Conor McGinn]

The latest figures show that the cost of rail season tickets held by commuters from Garswood, Rainford, Earlestown and Newton has risen by up to 25% since 2010. Can the Secretary of State explain to my constituents why the Government are allowing blatant profiteering that is ripping off passengers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am very pleased that in the last two years we have capped rail fares at RPI, and we have also promised to cap rail fares for the next five years at RPI, and that is what we will do.

[Nick Smith]

Costs are rising on the Great Western electrification project and there are fears that plans could lead to downgrading on the line to south Wales. The rail regulator’s website this week slipped out that only two of the four lines west of Newbury might now be electrified. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this option is being looked at and whether the project has indeed been downgraded, and what the consequences will be for passengers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not want to see any downgrading of our electrification programme. In the last five years we electrified some 50 miles, which compares favourably with the 10 miles managed in the 13 years of the last Labour Government. The electrification programme is a very big and ambitious programme and I want to see it delivered.

[Nic Dakin]

Any delays to the Network Rail infrastructure programme are a concern to those in the rail supply chain, including Tata Steel in Scunthorpe. Does the Secretary of State agree that essential track maintenance and renewal must go ahead in a way that does not affect the supply chain and threaten jobs?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The enhancement of the railways is important for the supply sector, but it is also important that that sector is competitive and provides Network Rail with competitive rates. We are all keen to see that. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there will be a £39 billion programme of rail investment over the next five years. We are also looking at investment in High Speed 2 and, so far as railway track is concerned, we are looking at investment in Crossrail, too.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of progress in electrifying the midland main line and whether that would be enhanced by electrifying the branch line through Langley Mill and Alfreton in my constituency at the same time?

[Mr McLoughlin]

May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his remarkable achievement with his majority? He has been a great advocate of further expansion of electrification on the midland main line, and I am happy to discuss it with him in more detail.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the rail investment programme is good but would be better still if we had more stations? He visited Stonehouse Bristol Road station in my constituency, which provides a very good example of why some stations should be reopened.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am pleased that we have seen some stations reopened and some announcements of new stations. My hon. Friend and I did visit that station in his constituency and I am glad that, with his increased majority, he will continue to make a good case for it in this House.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Although investment in Network Rail’s existing lines is welcome, my constituents in Lewes really want a second main line from Sussex to London, and the Chancellor kindly gave us £100,000 for a feasibility study in the last Budget. Will the Secretary of State update me on the progress of that study?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I know the Minister with responsibility for rail, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), is more than happy to discuss that project with my hon. Friend following her stunning electoral success.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Recent reports suggest that the Government are looking at breaking up and privatising parts of Network Rail. We know that under this Government Network Rail is still underperforming and needs to improve. That was again highlighted by the recent investigations by the Office of Rail and Road—and just ask anyone enduring the misery that is commuting into London Bridge at the moment—but does the Secretary of State agree that the last thing we need in the railways is more privatisation and more fragmentation?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the papers. I sometimes think he writes some of the press releases and then believes what he has written, but they always seem to be inaccurate. Network Rail has a very big job to do in delivering its enhancements, but it is no good complaining that the work inconveniences people because we are building a far better railway network, and that is absolutely essential.

[Michael Dugher]

That was not an answer, so we will try again. The Secretary of State’s own Department—this is not my press release—refused to deny recently that it was looking at changes to the structure and ownership of Network Rail. The truth is we need improved co-ordination across our railways, we need to put right the fact that the only people who have no say in the running of the railways are the passengers themselves, and we need more public control, not less. Can he now tell the House categorically that his Department is not looking at or considering options to break up or sell off parts of Network Rail?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I always look at all the suggestions that are put forward, whatever they relate to. The hon. Gentleman says that I did not answer his question, but what he means is that he did not get the answer he wanted. I did answer his question: we expect Network Rail to invest huge amounts of money in enhancing the system, and I want to see that being done by getting good value for money.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

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

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

It is good to be back. Five weeks ago today, the British people gave us a clear mandate to finish the job of fixing our economy, paying off our debts, modernising our infrastructure and securing a better future. I am glad to say that no time has been wasted since the election. We have already seen the completion of the tunnelling for Crossrail and announced the train companies shortlisted to transform rail services in East Anglia. We have also confirmed that high-speed rail and the northern powerhouse are priorities, which will help to end the decades-old economic gap between north and south. This Government will continue with that job and that challenge.

[Toby Perkins]

The Secretary of State seems keen to talk about increased majorities. Many of the 21,829 people who recently voted for me in Chesterfield are concerned about the state of our roads. They are saying clearly that the state of Britain’s roads is dangerous and damaging to people’s cars, not only in Derbyshire but across the country, and should be a major priority. When will the Government take seriously the issue of potholes, and when will we see a serious plan to get them sorted?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will address the question he has just put to me to Derbyshire County Council, because I have substantially increased the funding available to that council to fix potholes. They have got the money; let them get on with the job.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T5. I welcome the Secretary of State back to his place. In Lowestoft, we are now getting on with the preparatory work for a third crossing at Lake Lothing. A lot needs to be done in a short time, and I would be grateful if he could confirm that he will continue to work with me and the local community to get the crossing built as quickly as possible.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have visited the site of the crossing, which my hon. Friend is keen to see completed, on no fewer than two occasions. He is to be congratulated on the scheme, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have paid considerable attention. I have asked my officials to support Suffolk County Council and the local enterprise partnership in taking forward the scheme, and I understand that a meeting took place in Lowestoft last Friday to maintain the momentum. I am sure that my hon. Friend will keep up the pressure on us.

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

This was the week in which Ministers boasted that they were going to cut red tape by replacing the counterpart driving licence with an online system. That is a good objective. The trouble is that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s computer system has already crashed under the strain. Motorists who want to hire a car abroad now have to contact the DVLA online and obtain a code in order to access the same information that they would previously have had in their pocket, and if they do not hire the car within three days, they will have to go back to square one because the code will have expired. Mr Speaker, you could not make it up! Cutting red tape? It’s a mess, isn’t it?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The simple fact is that people do not have to do that online; they can phone. There was a problem on the first morning of the new system, but since then it has been operating successfully.

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

T8. I thank the Secretary of State for his tremendous support in helping us to secure a direct train service from London to Shrewsbury. Initial results from Virgin show that the passenger numbers are very encouraging. Our next priority is to secure the electrification of the line from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury. Will he meet a delegation from Shropshire, to enable him to understand the urgency of this matter?

[Mr McLoughlin]

All my colleagues are urging me to agree to extra investment and extra spending, and I am keen to do that where a good case can be made for it. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for rail will be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

T2. Can the Secretary of State clear up the confusion caused by the Chancellor’s recent comments about a separate rail franchise for Devon and Cornwall? He will be aware that those bits of the First Great Western franchise are the least profitable. Is there not a danger that they would be unviable on their own, and that we would suffer service cuts?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said what I would say as well—that we are always looking at ways to improve the franchising system and the service for passengers. I very much hope that new rolling stock will be announced for that particular line in the not too distant future.

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

What level of assurance can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents who most frequently use the Great Eastern and West Anglia lines that the outcome of the Greater Anglia franchising process will lead to new rolling stock?

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), on leaving us in no doubt of the importance of upgraded, improved rolling stock on that franchise. We are looking at all rolling stock options as part of the process and high quality points will be awarded for proposals to upgrade the franchise. The invitation to tender will be provided to bidders in August of this year.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

T3. Now that HS2 Ltd has declared that it sees no business case for extending the high-speed line to Scotland, will the Secretary of State confirm that it is now an England-only railway and that full Barnett consequentials for the devolved countries will be announced in the next comprehensive spending review?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not accept that at all. Indeed, I have said that I want to see services going to Scotland, and one of the points in the report by Sir David Higgins about faster services was that those will go on to north Wales as well.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for confirming a further announcement on phase 2 of High Speed 2, but a number of my constituents are affected by blight in relation to HS2 Ltd. Will he encourage representatives of the company to meet with my constituents to discuss the severe impact on their businesses and homes?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. With big infrastructure schemes such as HS2, announcing the route always brings problems for people living along it. I am more than happy to meet her and see if more can be done by HS2 Ltd.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. This week we have heard further reports of delays to the decisions about another runway in London. Will the Secretary of State comment on when he thinks that the Government will finally make a decision about whether to have a third runway at Heathrow?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady may read reports, but I suggest that she should not believe everything that she reads. We have not yet had the report. When we have had the report, I will make a statement to the House and set out the proposals and our intended way forward.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

One measure that would help enormously with aviation capacity issues in the south-east, in particular given the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), is the reopening of Manston airport. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his visit to that location only a couple of months ago. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report is now with his Department, so will he agree to meet me as soon as possible to discuss its implications?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and his neighbour to discuss the PwC report, although I have yet to see it.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

T7. The Secretary of State may be aware that a tender process is under way for the Northern rail franchise. Salford and Eccles is a densely populated urban area that requires good transport links to the rest of Greater Manchester and beyond but, like many northern cities, it enjoys a less than favourable rail service. Favourable rail services are essential for the economic growth and regeneration of areas such as Salford and Eccles. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the Northern rail franchise tender process provides for an increased level of rail provision, including more frequent services and better connectivity to our cities across the north?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I fully accept how important rail services are to the hon. Lady’s constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies, and that is why we are investing hugely in the northern hub. As she knows, investment that is finishing off at Victoria station at the moment is incredibly impressive. Furthermore, I am sure that she will join me in thanking the Government for announcing that we will get rid of the Pacers. They were there throughout the previous Labour Government, but we have announced that they will go after 40 years.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Maximising the number of contributors demands brevity, which in any case is expected of topical questions. In looking for the textbook example of the genre, my gaze focuses on someone with 27 years’ service, who can provide the tutorial— Sir Gerald Howarth.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, I am a practising aviator. Indeed, I believe I am the only Member of this House who performs aerobatics, and so I believe we can never have too many runways. In that spirit, may I ask him to assure the House that he has not ruled out additional runway capacity at both London Gatwick and London Heathrow?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Given your recent ruling, Mr Speaker, I shall say that I am awaiting delivery of the Howard Davies report. When I have it, I will make a further statement to the House.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

T9. Last week, I attended the handover ceremony at Enfield Town station whereby some suburban rail lines were transferred to London Overground. Its promise of a better service and cheaper fares is good news for commuters. But how does the Minister intend to ensure that all passengers, across Enfield and beyond, will get a fair deal, given that some are having to pay National Rail pay-as-you-go fares simply because their services are operated by Govia Thameslink Railway or Abellio Greater Anglia, and not London Overground? Will she put pressure on those companies to match London Overground?

[Claire Perry]

The Government welcome the devolution of these inner services to the Mayor and Transport for London, which, again, demonstrates our support for devolution when appropriate. However, many people using those lines will be coming from further afield, and the national franchising system provides the best way to secure rail services. We are freezing rail fares for the next five years and working extremely hard to deliver a massive infrastructure improvement that will benefit the right hon. Lady’s constituents, as well as those across the UK.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

A collapsed wall is blocking one lane of an already congested road through the centre of Shipley. That wall is owned by Network Rail. My constituents have been waiting for months for it to be repaired by Network Rail, but it keeps delaying and we now face a further three-month delay before the wall is fixed. Will the Minister get Network Rail to pull its finger out and get that wall repaired straightaway?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

May I say to the Secretary of State, given my knowledge of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), that he is very wise?

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is aware that the funding for the coastguard tug currently stationed in Orkney is guaranteed only until the end of this financial year. Will he convene a round-table meeting, perhaps involving Scottish Ministers, local authorities and industry representatives, to see how we might find a way of keeping this most vital provision in place in the future?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am aware of the vessel, partly because I visited it with the right hon. Gentleman in the last Parliament, and I am more than happy to meet him to discuss this matter.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that money allocated to the regional air connectivity fund has been safeguarded and that it will continue to support public obligation services such as that currently enjoyed by Newquay airport in my constituency?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have used that service on a few occasions in the past year, and it has been very much welcomed. That funding is there for the duration of that contract and then we will look further at things once it comes to an end.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Graham Allen. He is not here. I call Barry Gardiner.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Woodland Trust has identified 43 ancient woodlands that are threatened by HS2. Will the Secretary of State advise the House of the measures he will take in the ambitious infrastructure roll-out programme he talked about earlier to protect further bodies of ancient woodland?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is important that we do our best to protect woodlands wherever we can. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman that 2 million more trees are to be planted on the proposed route.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint colleagues; the demand is greater than ever, which is a very healthy phenomenon, but I am afraid that supply is finite.

Business of the House

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

10:34

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 15 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 16 June—Consideration in Committee of the European Union Referendum Bill (day 1), followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to landfill tax.

Wednesday 17 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on Opposition motions, including on productivity.

Thursday 18 June—Consideration in Committee of the European Union Referendum Bill (day 2).

Friday 19 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 22 June will include:

Monday 22 June—Second Reading of the Education and Adoption Bill.

Tuesday 23 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Finance) Bill followed by motion relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill.

Wednesday 24 June—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 25 June—General debate: subject to be announced. In future, this day will be allocated to the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 26 June—The House will not be sitting.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I read in The Times this morning, rather than hearing in his future business, that the Government plan to rush through their controversial plans for English votes for English laws as early as next week. We have had no detail on those proposals, and no debate is scheduled. Apparently, the Government plan to change Standing Orders and avoid having to legislate. As this is a matter of serious constitutional significance, may I ask the Leader of the House to confirm what his plans are, when he intends to bring them before this House, and how he intends to ensure that all Members have a proper chance to have a say in any change?

At his Mansion House speech last night, the Chancellor pledged to pass a law to ensure that he keeps his own promises. It is easy to see why he needs one, given his abysmal economic record in the previous Parliament. He missed his own deficit reduction target, leaving himself a deficit of £75 billion, and he borrowed £200 billion more than he said he would five years ago. It is no wonder that he needs an emergency Budget to clear up the mess he left himself in. He sprayed around £25 billion of unfunded election spending commitments, and he has no idea where he will find his £12 billion of social security cuts. Is the British Chambers of Commerce not right to say that the Chancellor is just as likely to miss his latest deficit target as he was to miss all the rest?

Last night, the Governor of the Bank of England declared in the City that the age of irresponsibility was over, and he called for tougher rules to drive out continuing major market abuse. Instead of political trickery to distract us from the Chancellor’s record, may we have a debate in Government time on the fair and effective markets review, and a statement from the Chancellor on the legislative action he plans to take better to control ethical drift in the City?

At the weekend, I actually thought the Prime Minister had broken the habit of a lifetime and done something prime ministerial by putting the interests of the country ahead of those of his party. At the G7, he briefed the press that his Ministers would have to back his position on the EU or else. He even dispatched the ever dutiful hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) to warn on the “Today” programme that Ministers who do not agree with the Prime Minister would have to quit the Government. But a few hours later, he was in full retreat. By Monday lunchtime, the Bavarian hills were alive with the sound of U-turns. I know that before the election he admitted that he cries at “The Sound of Music”, but it is not “Edelweiss” that gets him now; it is “How do you solve a problem like Back Benchers?”—talk about the Con Trapps!

Last week, I highlighted the Leader of the House’s poor record on answering written questions, and I am beginning to worry that his old habits are returning. I have now asked him this question twice but have had no answer. Given that the Prime Minister has pre-resigned, and the UK Independence party leader has unresigned, will the Leader of the House, who is a notable Eurosceptic, tell us whether he will have to resign to fight for a no vote in the looming referendum?

It has not been a good week for the smaller parties. UKIP launched an attack on Sainsbury’s supermarket because it mistakenly thought a supermarket chain was funding the EU referendum yes campaign; it has attacked the LGBT community as “bigots” after being banned from London Pride, the irony apparently being completely lost on it; and last night its former chief of staff went on TV and said that UKIP is full of

“rag-tag, unprofessional, embarrassing people”

and revealed that it had had to lock certain doors because the people behind those doors were too embarrassing to be seen.

And what about the Scottish National party? The vaingloriously self-styled Scottish 56 have now been in Parliament for nearly a month. They promised to make the Scottish lion roar at Westminster—

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Grrr!

[Ms Eagle]

But, as we hear, so far it has been more of a whimper. As of Friday, of the 1,300 oral questions asked of Government, as far as I can see they have barely managed one each. They tabled what they thought was a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, but it was so badly drafted that it was ruled out of scope and not selected, so they could not even vote on it. They tried to amend the European Union Referendum Bill, but forgot to put their leader’s name on the amendment. I am sure it was just a coincidence that the name of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) appeared at the top instead.

To cap it all, one of the SNP’s most senior Members, who has been here since 2005—

[Mr MacNeil]

Senior?

[Ms Eagle]

Most long-standing, anyway. He failed to vote on the Second Reading of the European Union Referendum Bill because he was cowering in the toilet in the wrong Lobby. In the light of all this, the SNP’s grand plans to shake up Westminster appear to be going rapidly down the pan.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me start with English votes for English laws, which the hon. Lady raised at the start of her remarks. I urge her not always to believe everything she reads in the papers. We will shortly make proposals on this front and we will discuss them in the House. There will be time for hon. Members on both sides to give them consideration and there will be a full and proper debate on them. We will naturally ensure that the House gets the opportunity to give them full consideration, as all parties would expect, and I will, of course, discuss them with her and with the other parties when we are ready to do so.

On the Mansion House speech last night and the Chancellor’s plans, the hon. Lady should take a look in the mirror when she talks about those who should be taking note of the need for better management of our economy. I remind her that this Government and our predecessor the coalition have over the past five years brought down step by step the largest peacetime deficit in this country’s history. Why did we have to do that? Because of the actions of the Labour party in government, by its own admission and that of many of its leading lights. I have been reading with great interest in The Times this week the post-mortem of Labour’s election defeat. What comes through most strongly is that the party never got to grips with the fact that it messed up the economy. If we need good practices in this country in future, it is to make sure that Labour does not wreck things again.

The hon. Lady also referred to the comments made by the Governor of the Bank of England. If she wants a debate on the fair and effective markets review, as I said earlier there are two Opposition days coming up shortly. The Opposition are, of course, free to have that debate. If it is a question of ensuring good practice in the City of London and in our banking sector, I ask her to remember who it was who knighted Fred Goodwin. This party has nothing to be ashamed of in our work to sort out a massive problem that we inherited. Labour Members should be embarrassed about how they changed regulation, knighted the people who messed things up for us and now pretend that none of that ever happened.

The hon. Lady asked me about resignation. I am rather enjoying our Thursday exchanges, but I reassure her that the first person to leave our discussions at the Dispatch Box will not be me. When she becomes deputy leader of the Labour party, as I am sure she will, she will be moving on to a new job in the very near future and I will be facing a new person across the Dispatch Box.

I am not only a little concerned by the fact that the hon. Lady has had only one new declaration this week; I am worried that I may be a jinx on Labour contests embarked upon by people who shadow me. Only this week I discovered that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who was my shadow in the previous Parliament and who is standing to be the Labour candidate for Mayor of London, has not even got the support of his own constituency party—it is voting for Tessa Jowell. May I seek the hon. Lady’s reassurance that her constituency party is supporting her for the deputy leadership of the Labour party?

Finally, this week has seen one of the great sporting events of this country in my constituency, and I have to boast about it. It is of course the Epsom derby, a magnificent event, attended by large numbers of people, a great race, a fine finish, a worthy winner in Frankie Detorri. I offer my congratulations to everybody involved in making it such a successful event. But the attention of the bookies is turning this week to a different race, a race that is taking place rather closer to this Chamber. Each morning at around 7 o’clock a queue of Labour Members of Parliament forms, a queue of Scottish National party Members of Parliament forms, and when the door opens there is an unseemly race for the seats. Given that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is involved in that race, I am concerned for his welfare, and I wonder whether we should order a health and safety investigation to make sure that no one is injured in this daily fracas.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Perhaps we can return to the important subject of the business of the House for next week. I look with some confidence to a senior stateswoman in the House to provide an example of the brevity that is required on these occasions. I call Mrs Cheryl Gillan.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

My inspirational constituent, nine-year-old Archie Hill, has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and with his parents Gary and Louisa has been campaigning to get NHS access to Translarna, the first treatment to address the underlying genetic cause of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The process for clearance by NHS England was stopped in December 2014 but the decision is due in the next few weeks. May we have an urgent debate to reinforce the desperate need for this drug for those individuals whose quality of life could be drastically improved by immediate access to Translarna?

[Chris Grayling]

I suspect that many of us in the House have constituents and families of constituents who have come to see us, having experienced the dreadful impact of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and our hearts go out to all those who suffer from this dreadful disease. The matter will be debated in Westminster Hall next week. It is a matter that is very much on the agenda of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I know that he will make more information available to the House shortly.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.

May I say to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) was merely practising his roar in the bathroom last week, and a very impressive roar it is too—[Interruption.]—as one can hear. When it comes to opposition, it sometimes helps to actually oppose, rather than voting with the Conservatives for two weeks in a row—Labour voting with the Tories, the Tories voting with the Labour party. The SNP Benches are where the real opposition takes place.

We all immensely enjoyed the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, and I understand that we are about to have a statement, not from the Chancellor but from a junior Treasury Minister, about the plans to sell off RBS shares at a knock-down price. I hope we are also going to hear something about the other stuff that was mentioned in the Mansion House speech last night, not least the proposal to put in place plans for a fiscal surplus, binding future Governments. To me that looks like setting in stone this Government’s austerity plans and balancing the books on the backs of the most marginal and vulnerable in our community, so we need to hear clearly the Government’s intention in that regard.

Next week we have two days on the Floor of the House to consider amendments to the European Union Referendum Bill, and there are still outstanding issues in relation to 16 and 17-year-old voters, the franchise and the date of the election. If the referendum date is not changed, we could face the ridiculous and absurd prospect next May of 16 and 17-year-olds being ID-ed in the ballot station as they get around to the business of voting in the Scottish Parliament elections, and being booted out and not allowed to participate in the EU referendum. We need to hear clearly that the Government are ruling out any prospect of an EU referendum on the date of the Scottish Parliament elections.



Lastly, it is quite clear now that the Government intend to rush through their plans for English votes for English laws. It may not be next week or the week after, but they have already said that there will be no legislation and no scrutiny. There are huge constitutional issues in this, not least for you, Mr Speaker, as you will be placed in an invidious political situation, where you may be asked to certify whether I and my hon. Friends can vote on significant issues that may have an impact on our constituents. We need a full and proper debate about this. We need to hear when the Leader of the House will bring forward the proposals and how we are to have full consultation and a full debate.

[Chris Grayling]

I have noticed the battle taking place between the two parties across the Floor of the House over who is the real Opposition. I suspect that battle will continue for some considerable time. All I would say to the House is that while it is going on, we will carry on governing the country and doing the right thing for our constituents.

The hon. Gentleman made a comment about the speech made at the Mansion House last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and talked about austerity. I do not think he quite understands what a basic and simple concept this is: it is a good idea that people live within their means. That is what we stand for. It is his party that stands for irresponsibility, and that irresponsibility is what got this country into a mess in the first place. It is absolutely right that we should be responsible in the future. I am just disappointed that Scottish nationalists simply do not understand that.

On the European Union Referendum Bill, of course I have seen the amendments SNP Members have tabled. They will be debated next week and we will see whether the House supports them.

On English votes for English laws, as I said earlier, we will talk to all parties in the House. Hon. Members will have time to respond and there will be a full debate in this House.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Who decides?

[Chris Grayling]

It will be decided by this House—by Members of Parliament, each one, individually, with one vote. SNP Members keep missing a point on this: we are not simply talking about changes for the future; we are also talking about the situation today. There are issues that affect my constituency on which the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can vote, but there are very many issues that affect his constituency on which I cannot vote. There are real issues of fairness in devolution and we intend to deliver that fairness.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

The Leader of the House recently joined me on a visit to Cannock Radio, and I am sure he agrees that it is a fantastic example of a small start-up business that provides an invaluable service to the local community. May we have a debate on the issuing of FM licences to local community radio stations such as Cannock Radio?

[Chris Grayling]

I very much enjoyed my visit to Cannock Radio, which I thought was a great example of a community radio station that is starting to have a real impact locally. I understand my hon. Friend’s point and know she will raise the matter with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and perhaps seek an opportunity for an end-of-day debate on the Floor of the House.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate in Government time on the ongoing migration crisis in the Mediterranean? Such a debate would give us all the opportunity to put on record our thanks to those serving on board HMS Bulwark, but it would also give us time to discuss the wider migration crisis and the terrible plight of refugees from Syria.

[Chris Grayling]

I believe that this is one of the matters that should be brought before the House shortly, and we are looking at that now. I share the hon. Lady’s view of the work being done by our armed forces, particularly the crew of HMS Bulwark, who are doing an amazing job in the Mediterranean. It is clear that the situation in the Mediterranean is not sustainable. A long-term solution will have to be found; we cannot go on and on with lives being lost in the way they have been. It is very much on the Government’s agenda, and it should and will be on this House’s agenda.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I very gently point out that Members who were not here for the Leader of the House’s statement should not expect to be called? People must be present at the start and stay if they wish to be called.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

The news of any job losses is disappointing, and it is concerning to hear this week that HSBC intends to make 8,000 staff redundant. Equally concerning is the news that it is considering moving its headquarters from the City of London. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate in which the Government can highlight what is being doing to ensure that London maintains its position as a global city and the global centre for professional and financial services?

[Chris Grayling]

We will all have been deeply disappointed by yesterday’s announcement by HSBC. We extend our good wishes, sympathies and concerns to all those affected, and I know that all the relevant authorities will do their best to help mitigate the impact of the change. It is vital that we maintain the competitiveness of our banking sector—something the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed last night. A Treasury Minister will be at the Dispatch Box shortly to talk about the issues raised last night, so my hon. Friend might have an opportunity to raise those concerns directly.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder affects at least 7,000 children born every year in this country. A new all-party group on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder will hold its inaugural meeting on 30 June, and I encourage Members to attend. The chief medical officer is carrying out a review of the advice given to pregnant women on how much alcohol, if any, can be taken during pregnancy. Has the Leader of the House had any indication from colleagues in the Department of Health on when a statement will be made to the House on the chief medical officer’s updated advice?

[Chris Grayling]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work he is doing. That is one of those issues that divide no one in this House politically. We all have an opportunity to be champions for those affected by some of the most dreadful diseases and health problems in our society. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health will have noted what he said, but I will ensure that his concerns are passed on to them and that they get back to him and indicate when a statement will be made.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Rural businesses in my constituency are disadvantaged in their access to superfast broadband. What progress has been made on our commitment to provide subsidised satellite services for those in the hardest-to-reach areas?

[Chris Grayling]

That has been a matter of concern for the Government, and indeed for the previous Government, over the past few years. We are working hard with providers, applying a push where necessary, to ensure that rural broadband is rolled out as fast as possible, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is working hard on the issue. I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to the Secretary of State, and I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the Department’s attention today. I also advise him to raise the matter at the next Culture, Media and Sport Question Time.

[Mr Speaker]

I also point out to the House that, in order to preserve the unique character of business questions, colleagues need to relate their questions to the business of the House for next week. That simply requires a Member, in pursuing the point of his or her choice, to remember to ask for a debate or a statement in the following week.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

May we have a debate in Government time on Lord Carter’s report on how £5 billion could be saved in the NHS between now and 2020, with particular reference to how, following the Lansley reforms, the Government would find it difficult to insist on value for money in foundation trusts?

[Chris Grayling]

We are grateful to Lord Carter for the work he has done in that report. The NHS faces significant financial challenges, and finding further efficiencies will be an important part of meeting them. The Health Secretary appears before the House regularly, and I expect that he will update the House in the near future on how he intends to respond to the report.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

In the interests of Members’ health—particularly yours, Mr Speaker—may we have a debate next week on the lighting in the Chamber? Is the Leader of the House aware that in 1988, when we voted for lighting in the Chamber, we lost daylight when the yellow film was put over the windows, but we gained these huge chandeliers? It is now possible—I will write to you about this, Mr Speaker—using liquid crystal display privacy glass to restore daylight to the Chamber and to cut the cost of the chandeliers by half by putting in LEDs, which would cut the carbon footprint by two thirds. Can we debate that next week?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you and I agree that my hon. Friend should write to us both with something we can put before other members of the Commission when it first meets.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State make time available next week for an extended debate on the subject of hospitals in south-west London—a debate he might like to participate in—so that we can look at the issue of funding for St Helier hospital? As £290 million was guaranteed under the coalition Government, I want to ensure that that funding is available when plans come forward for the hospital.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman and I share an interest in this issue because we share the same NHS trust. I am concerned to make sure that both hospitals have a successful future. If he wants to raise the issue, I suggest that he looks to bring forward an Adjournment debate. I suspect that we have not ended the period of debate locally. I know that we will both continue to be champions for our own communities.

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

May we have a debate or a statement next week about fly-grazing and straying horses? This problem is affecting many constituencies, and it has got significantly worse since the alterations to regulations in Wales. It is a big problem that the RSPCA and the police are struggling with.

[Chris Grayling]

I am very much aware of that issue. Many of our constituencies are affected by fly-grazing, and there are genuine animal welfare concerns about what is taking place. My hon. Friend is a seasoned requisitioner of Adjournment debates—she has one on Bangladesh next week—and I am sure that the subject she has raised is another on which she can continue with that.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I have selflessly discovered, purely for the benefit of colleagues, that if they ever want some easy fame, they should merely wander into the wrong Lobby and go to the washrooms. That seems to work a treat.

On a serious matter, may we have a statement in Government time on the financial support mechanisms for onshore wind—the cheapest form of renewable generation? Since an article in The Sunday Telegraph a week last Sunday, there has been huge uncertainty in the industry, affecting jobs, investment and businesses. Surely the Department of Energy and Climate Change should not be briefing newspapers when it seems to be unaware of the situation and the outcomes.

[Chris Grayling]

I noticed with interest this week that a police spotter helicopter appeared to sight a big cat in Glasgow; whether there is any connection, I do not know. The Energy Secretary will appear before this House in 10 days’ time, and that might be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue with her directly.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am very proud of the contribution made to my constituency by a significant number of the Nepalese community. Indeed, many of them came to this country following their service in the Brigade of Gurkhas. Given that that history extends back to 1815, may we have a debate in Government time in order to discuss the contribution made to the British Army in the past 200 years by the Gurkha regiment?

[Chris Grayling]

We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Gurkhas, who have served this country over a very long period. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does with the Nepalese community and with the Gurkhas. I also congratulate him on his re-election to this House. We will come back to this matter regularly. There will be opportunities to debate defence issues, and he will no doubt want to use those to raise the role of the Gurkhas, to praise them for what they have done, and to ensure that we have proper welfare support for them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Before our mission in Iraq creeps beyond the 900 mark, should we not debate the calamitous decisions that sent 632 of our brave British soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Helmand, lest we again try to punch above our weight militarily, which always leads to our dying beyond our responsibilities?

[Chris Grayling]

It is important to say that we all face a real threat from the growth of ISIL in the middle east, and it is right that the international community comes together to combat that threat. I remind the hon. Gentleman that our role in Iraq today—it is only Iraq, not Syria—is at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. That is a big difference from what happened 10 years ago.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Eleven thousand of my residents in Heathfield have been without a post office since the postmaster and freeholder unexpectedly left. We have been told that it will take at least three months to get a new post office, despite the local council providing a free parking berth. May we have an urgent debate to discuss why it takes Post Office Counters Ltd so long to bring in temporary, and indeed permanent, replacements for all constituents represented in this House?

[Chris Grayling]

First, may I welcome my hon. Friend to his place? I know he will be a very effective representative for his constituency, and it is clear that he has already started in that vein. My advice to him is that, while he could table questions or secure a debate, going directly to the organisation itself can, in my experience, be a very effective way of delivering results more quickly, and I urge him to do that.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Britain has a persistent and enormous trade deficit with the rest of the European Union, amounting to more than £1 billion a week and equivalent to 1 million lost British jobs. That is being driven by the overvaluation of the pound against the euro, the exchange rate having risen by a third since the post-crisis drop. May we have a debate on this serious economic misalignment and the damage it is inflicting on British manufacturing?

[Chris Grayling]

One of the great myths in this country is that manufacturing collapsed under a Conservative Government. In fact, it was during the 13 years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that manufacturing in this country fell by almost a half as a proportion of our national income. We have spent the past five years trying to turn that around. I am very pleased that this country now makes more cars than the whole of Italy. There is a lot still to do—we have a lot of mess to clear up—but people should not think that the problems of our trade deficit and our manufacturing sector were caused by Conservative Members; we are the ones who are trying to fix them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Next Thursday we will debate the European Union Referendum Bill in a Committee of the whole House, but unfortunately, if the Government make two statements, and if there also happens to be an Urgent Question, we would have only two and a half hours to debate the Bill, which means that we would only have time to discuss the first group of amendments. Could the Leader of the House make a statement next week to change the situation so that we can go past the moment of interruption in order to discuss the second group of amendments? Could he also try to ensure that no Government statements will curtail debate on that very important Bill in a week’s time?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. It is very important that the House has a full opportunity to debate the Bill. There is already a considerable amount of time available in the system for that, but I want to make sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel they have a proper opportunity to debate the amendments.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have already heard this morning of concerns about broadband, and those concerns are shared by all parties in all parts of the UK. The Leader of the House has already indicated that there is Government time available on 25 June. There are new Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Business, Innovation and Skills. Is this not a perfect opportunity for the Leader of the House to allocate time for Members to discuss broadband services in the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

I know that the issue is a matter of concern to Members on both sides of the House and in different kinds of constituencies. Of course, we will from next week have opportunities to debate matters of general concern on those days allocated for them, and I expect that subject to make an early appearance on that list.

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

Could we have time to debate the problem of rural roads? More and more lorries are getting larger and larger, and they are not able to use a lot of rural roads. When they are supplying supermarkets in rural areas, they are blocking roads. In places such as Exmoor, which I cover, that is becoming a serious problem. Please could we have time to discuss the situation?

[Chris Grayling]

Unfortunately my hon. Friend has just missed Transport questions, but I will make sure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a propensity—I suspect due to a dependence on sat-nav—for unsuitable vehicles to use roads that simply are not wide enough for them. I encourage all organisations that have logistics operations, including haulage firms and the major supermarkets, to make sure that their drivers take a smart approach to planning where they are going to go, and do not just simply follow the sat-nav.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Could we have a statement or debate in Government time on when the request for proposals for maritime patrol aircraft will be issued, and could that statement include a commitment to base such aircraft in Scotland?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns and I will make sure that they are passed to the Ministry of Defence. We have had Defence questions, but there will be several other opportunities to question Defence Ministers in the next few weeks, and I suggest she does that.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Many of us would like to see the fullest realisation of the Prime Minister’s vision for European Union reform and a fundamental change to our relationship with it. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement next week, and in subsequent weeks, to make sure that we are appropriately updated on the process of renegotiation?

[Chris Grayling]

I commend my hon. Friend for his work in this vital area and for his responsible approach. He is right to focus on the need for renegotiation and for a changed relationship. The status quo in our relationship with the EU is simply not in the interests of this country. What surprises me is that Labour Members have decided to support a referendum, but still appear to believe that the status quo is in our national interest, when it palpably is not. They need to make their minds up.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent statement or debate next week about the Cancer Drugs Fund decision not to make the drug sunitinib available on the NHS? My constituent Adrian Steel, who has kidney cancer, is having to pay for his treatment. May we have a debate on that as soon as possible?

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of the concerns, and these are difficult and sensitive issues. Our system was rightly established by the previous Labour Government to assess the effectiveness of drugs and whether they should be made available on the NHS. Some decisions are controversial and difficult for those affected by those illnesses. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns are passed today to the Department of Health. I know Ministers will want to return to the issue at an appropriate moment.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

The number of young people in and around Andover in my constituency who have tragically died at their own hand in the past few years has reached disturbing levels. Further, Veterans in Action, a charity based just outside Andover, is currently on a round-Britain tour raising awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder. Bearing in mind the striking maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), can the Leader of the House be persuaded to make time for us to debate mental health issues, and particularly mental health provision to veterans and young adults?

[Chris Grayling]

I take the issue very seriously. It is disturbing for all of us that the number of young male suicides has risen to a level not seen in a generation in this country. We need to get to grips with the problem. I am pleased that, in the last Budget before the general election, the Chancellor said he would make additional funding available for mental health work in the national health service. I commend all those who are working in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere both to raise awareness and to find ways to tackle the problem, which I know will come before the House regularly. I suspect there will be cross-party support for a debate in one of the Backbench Business Committee slots.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Channel 4 is a Government-owned company. This week, the chief executive’s pay was increased to £855,000. Could we use next Thursday to debate excessive pay at Channel 4 and how it can be brought under control?

[Chris Grayling]

Responsibility is paramount in top pay awards. There are times when it is necessary to pay a substantial sum to get the right person, but many of us in the House will share the hon. Lady’s concerns that organisations such as Channel 4 need to get top pay awards right, and need to be very careful about how they approach them. Next Thursday, we will debate the European Union Referendum Bill, so that might not be the best day to slot in a debate on top pay awards, but those standing for the chairmanship of the Backbench Business Committee will have heard her. Perhaps they will want to address top pay awards more broadly, and not simply in relation to the circumstance she mentions.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

We are fortunate in Colchester to have a fantastic zoo. I urge Opposition Members to visit so they can work on their roar.

Colchester is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country. Tens of thousands of homes have been built, but with inadequate infrastructure to support them. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on infrastructure in areas where there is high housing growth?

[Chris Grayling]

That is a significant challenge. We need to build more houses to ensure that the next generation can get on to the housing ladder, but we need to do so sensitively to protect the environment in which people live. That is a major priority for the Government. Of course, we must have the infrastructure in place to achieve that. That is why we are investing in roads and rail, and why we are seeking to ensure that, as our economy develops, we have an infrastructure fit for the 21st century. I assure my hon. Friend that, when he finds the moment at questions or through the Adjournment debate system to take those issues to Ministers, they will listen extremely carefully to the challenges his area faces.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House referred earlier to an upcoming debate on Translarna, the Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug. In Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister said that unfortunately, because he was off to the EU summit, he could not meet the six young boys going to Downing Street to seek his support in getting the drug for themselves. I am now writing to the Prime Minister to secure a meeting between them and Muscular Dystrophy UK. Will the Leader of the House help me to secure that meeting?

[Chris Grayling]

I will certainly pass on the hon. Lady’s request to the Prime Minister. He did mention that he had had a meeting with an affected family and one of the young people who was going to No.10 Downing Street. I know that in different circumstances he would have wished to meet them and I will certainly pass on her request.

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

Following the resignation of Mr Blair as middle east peace envoy—a bizarre appointment if ever there was one—will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate or a statement on the publication of the Chilcot report, which has been delayed for far too long.

[Chris Grayling]

All of us in government would dearly like to see the Chilcot report published, but as it is an independent report it is out of our hands. It is in the interests of the country to get the report published, to see the full details of what it says, to learn any lessons and to ensure that mistakes are not made in future.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that every Member of this Parliament has at least 1,000 constituents with undiagnosed heart arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat? Many of those who have been diagnosed are given the wrong treatment—even something as awful as an aspirin. Three wonderful new drugs approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence will stop people going from heart arrhythmia to a stroke. Can we make all Members aware of this real problem facing our constituents?

[Chris Grayling]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for making the House aware of that. He makes an immensely important point. This does affect people. A support group was set up recently by one of the Conservative association members in my constituency to help those affected. There is a great network of people who know and understand the condition, but I encourage him to continue to work to make Members aware. We can be a valuable conduit to people who have experienced problems and can tell them some of the things out there to help them to solve them.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Television programmes such as “Inside the Commons” have improved the public’s understanding of the workings of this House, including among those in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on the possible implications of any refurbishment programme at the Palace of Westminster on the workings of this House?

[Chris Grayling]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to this House and welcome him to this great building. I regard it not only as a vital heart to our democracy, but one of the great historic buildings of the world. It is absolutely the case that it faces big challenges. Hon. Members will have received an email from the Clerk yesterday inviting them to a briefing next week on the independent report on how we make sure the building has a long and successful future. There are some interesting and difficult challenges ahead. There are some difficult decisions to take. Instinctively, I think it is important that this building remains consistently at the heart of our democracy and that we do not end up being forced to move somewhere else.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

Dairy farmers in my constituency are struggling with falling milk prices and the failure of First Milk to represent them properly. If this is affecting the Stirling constituency it must be affecting constituencies across the country. Will the Government bring forward a debate or make a statement on this most urgent of issues?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely understand the issues the hon. Gentleman raises, which are shared by dairy farmers in the constituencies of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be next Thursday. I advise him to raise the issue directly with the Secretary of State then.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the statement that we will shortly have the Second Reading of the Education and Adoption Bill. Will the Leader of the House give consideration to a specific debate on school standards and Ofsted inspections? I know that Ofsted inspections are of concern to many hon. Members. It would give us an opportunity to highlight recent cases, such as Suffolk One Sixth Form College in my constituency, which, due to the excellent work of staff and pupils, has just moved from good to outstanding?

[Chris Grayling]

We are fortunate in this country to have some excellent schools that do a first-rate job for our young people and raise standards in a way that is essential to our future, but some schools do less well and some need a bit of a push, and Ofsted does an important job in making that happen. The purpose of the Education and Adoption Bill—the education piece of it—is to ensure we have the right mechanisms to continue to drive up standards. I hope that my hon. Friend will use that debate to raise some of the success stories in his constituency, and to address our strategy to ensure that things carry on getting better.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The under-10 metre inshore fishing fleet in coastal communities around England is urgently waiting to know when the Leader of the House will lay before Parliament the proposals in the Conservative manifesto to reallocate fishing quotas towards the under-10 metre fleet. When will this be coming forward?

[Chris Grayling]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact date, but the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be before the House next Thursday. I suggest that he puts his question to her then. I know she will try to be helpful.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Resources committed to key components of our foreign policy soft power capabilities, including the British Council and the British World Service, continue to fall at a time when the significance of soft power continues to rise. Will my right hon. Friend at least consider a debate in the Chamber on the importance of soft power, which is often referred to in passing but has never been properly debated, given that in this information age winning the story is just as important as winning any battles or conflicts?

[Chris Grayling]

I am concerned that the House has an early opportunity to debate some of the international challenges we face, and I hope that when we have secured the right opportunity my hon. Friend will raise what I believe is a very important issue.

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

The Leader of the House referred to investing in rail and roads earlier. Today’s Hull Daily Mail reports that the long-awaited upgrade of the A63 at Castle Street, which is vital to the Hull economy, will be delayed into the 2020s, as will the rail electrification. Both are essential and were promised in this decade. May we please have a debate in Government time on whether the northern powerhouse is no more than a slogan for places such as Hull?

[Chris Grayling]

The northern powerhouse is absolutely not just a slogan for places such as Hull. It is in the interests of everyone’s economic future that we have a strong set of northern towns and cities to provide a counterbalance to the south-east, generating the technologies, growth and businesses we need for the future. I cannot comment on what is reported in the hon. Lady’s local paper today, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will take note of her concern. She should seek to contact him directly or raise the issue with him the next time he is before the House, but I am clear that the Government have invested, and will continue to invest, in our infrastructure to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) about the Chilcot inquiry, I would be grateful if we had a statement confirming that no former Members will be sent to the other place until the Chilcot inquiry has been published, enabling Members to scrutinise the inquiry and the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and to have access to all the relevant information before anyone is sent to the House of Lords?

[Chris Grayling]

I know that the Prime Minister and the team in No. 10 Downing Street will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. I cannot guarantee that no former Member will find a new role in the near future, but, as for those who might be more closely linked to what took place, I am sure that his comments will be carefully noted.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

The Government recently boasted of being the workers’ party, which many of my constituents find absolutely laughable. If they really are the workers’ party, why are they planning to punish hard-working, low-income families with a £5 billion cut to child tax credits? When can we have an urgent debate on these proposals?

[Chris Grayling]

First, may I congratulate the hon. Lady on her wisdom, because I believe that she is the only Labour MP this week to add her name to the shadow Leader of the House’s tally? I hope she can persuade many more of her hon. Friends to do the same in the next few days.

We have seen the most enormous drop in unemployment across the country, and we have the lowest unemployment claimant count that we have had in this country for about 40 years. If that is not a sign of being the party of the workers, I do not know what is.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

My hero of the week is Adam Armstrong. When an error with his name was made in an online booking with Ryanair and he asked them to change it, they wanted £220. He quickly worked out that if he changed his name by deed poll to what it said on the booking and got a new passport, he could do it at under half the price. Genius! May we have a debate on aviation so we can expose these rip-off practices and put a stop to them?

[Chris Grayling]

We should always commend innovation when we see it, and that was certainly a fine example of innovation. There is, of course, another simple solution: “If you don’t like flying Ryanair, you can always try flying easyJet”.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

May we have a statement or a debate in Government time on why, at a time when this Government can find £100,000 million for Trident renewal, more than 1,500 RAF service personnel will lose their jobs over the next five years, further undermining our conventional defences?

[Chris Grayling]

Where we and the SNP differ is that in an increasingly unstable world, with a whole variety of new challenges, this does not seem to be a moment to scrap our nuclear deterrent. That is a point of difference and a point of principle between us, but Government Members stand by what we believe in.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

Today is the deadline for the Planning Inspectorate to make a recommendation to Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change after a long-running and hugely expensive public inquiry into the proposed Navitus Bay offshore wind farm. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on whether it is appropriate for this proposal to remain confidential until the Secretary of State publishes her decision on 11 September? In the meantime, will he note that this proposal is opposed not only by me, but by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Poole (Mr Syms), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and anybody else I have forgotten in Dorset?

[Chris Grayling]

I can understand the challenge my hon. Friend faces in trying to remember all the Conservative MPs in Dorset—there are now so many of them in his part of the world. As always, my hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituency and for the county of Dorset. I know that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will have listened carefully to what he said. It is a sign of the concern about this matter that an Adjournment debate has been called next Monday by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) will want to make a point in that debate. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, but she has to do this job properly in her role as assessor of the issues.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My constituent Mr Len Jones has seen the value of his British Airways pension put at risk by the trustees’ decision to change the basis on which those pensions are uprated. May we have a debate on the responsibilities of pension trustees to pension holders?

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of this issue because a constituent of mine is similarly affected. It is a difficult set of circumstances, and these are matters for the pension funds, the trustees and British Airways. I know that the hon. Lady and other Members feel strongly about this, so I suggest she raise the issue at Work and Pensions questions or seek to requisition a debate on the subject either on an end-of-the-day Adjournment or in Westminster Hall.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I am actively supporting the excellent local campaign to save the playing fields at Oundle primary school. May we have a statement from an Education Minister on the state of play with the sale of these important open spaces?

[Chris Grayling]

Fortuitously, Education questions are on Monday, so my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to raise a topical question there. My view is that we have to be immensely careful before developing any playing fields. We are going to see increased need for housing in future, but increased need for housing means increased need for recreation. We must make sure we have adequate supporting facilities to support the development of housing.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

May we have a debate in Government time on accountability in the NHS? Under the current system, we raise an issue with Ministers, who say it is a role for NHS England, which does not respond. A serious complaint that I put to Ministers was passed to NHS England 11 weeks ago, but I have had no reply. There is a lack of accountability, and we need to debate that.

[Chris Grayling]

It is unacceptable for Members of Parliament not to receive from NHS England a proper response to concerns. For many years, members of the public and Members here have argued that the NHS should not be a political football and that politicians should not be directly involved in the day-to-day running of it. That is what the last Government did, and I think we have ended up in a better place for it. Of course, it is not acceptable, as I said, that inquiries are not responded to. I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State, who can act for him.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I shall almost certainly not be able to accommodate everyone—there are simply too many Members wishing to speak—but maximising the number of contributors requires single, short supplementary questions, without preamble, and characteristically pithy replies from the Leader of the House

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Given the widespread interest in productivity, may we have a debate that will allow Members to identify their priorities for improving productivity throughout the United Kingdom?

[Chris Grayling]

I believe that the Labour party has decided to use its Opposition day for a debate on productivity, which will provide an opportunity to remind Labour Members of their very poor record in that regard.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House tell us more about the consultation that will take place on the issue of English votes for English laws, about the amount of time that will be allowed for the House to debate and vote on those matters and about the timing of that debate?

[Chris Grayling]

I will not give details of our plans today, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman that Members will have an opportunity to respond and a proper opportunity for debate. I shall set out our plans shortly.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

On Sunday, I was present for the unveiling of a new defibrillator on the outside wall of the Bay Horse Inn, a pub in the village of Roughlee. May we have a debate on the excellent North West ambulance service “Cardiac Smart” campaign, which aims to improve survival rates among those who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrests?

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is one of two Members who are volunteer responders. I commend him for his role in that extremely important work. I also commend his local ambulance service for what it is doing, which is enormously important. Effective first response and the presence of defibrillators can make the difference between life and death. The Government take it very seriously, and we are therefore providing additional funds for more defibrillators around the country to try to save lives.

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

In the early hours of Sunday morning, 21-year-old Dominic Doyle was stabbed in Denton. So far, five people have been arrested and charged. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on what more the Government can do to tackle the scourge of knife crime?

[Chris Grayling]

Any stabbing is both unacceptable and tragic for those involved. It would not be right for me to comment on the specific case because it is under investigation, but, by chance, the Home Secretary is sitting on the Bench near me and will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I know that she will choose to respond in due course when she can, given that the matter is currently being investigated.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

The loss of a family pet is a painful process, but it is amplified when the loss of that pet is caused by malicious poisoning by a neighbour. May we have an urgent debate on sentencing for the crime of poisoning animals and on animal welfare issues?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend has obviously experienced a shocking circumstance in his constituency. These are dreadful acts, and of course it is right and proper for them to be dealt with by the full force of the law. As I said earlier, the Home Secretary is sitting next to me, and I am sure that she heard what my hon. Friend has said.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In the last Parliament, the other place passed unwanted, ill-thought-out laws on caste discrimination, causing a great deal of concern in the Hindu community. The Government have said that they do not intend to enact those unwanted laws. May we have a statement on when the Government will repeal them?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I know that the matter has greatly concerned the community in his constituency. I will ensure that those concerns are drawn to the attention of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I will ask the Department to respond to him.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Enfield’s Labour council is putting our green belt at risk by buying up farmland such as Sloemans Farm. May we have a statement that will make it clear that Enfield’s green belt is safe in the Conservative Government’s hands?

[Chris Grayling]

During the general election campaign, the Prime Minister made some strong commitments in relation to the green belt. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, regardless of who owns the land, green belt provisions will still apply. The fact that his local council has decided to buy land does not mean that its decision will be given the go-ahead by the Planning Inspectorate or that it will be able legally to develop the land unless it is appropriate for it to do so.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House join me in passing his best wishes to those who were injured in Monday’s horrific crash on the M62, which closed part of the motorway for 20 hours? May we have an urgent debate on trans-Pennine motorway links, so that we can discuss congestion, alternative routes and new exits for the M62?

[Chris Grayling]

Our sympathies go out to everyone involved. We wish those who were injured a speedy recovery and commend all the members of the emergency services. Our firefighters cut people out of crashed cars, and our paramedics save lives. They do a fantastic job for all of us, as they clearly did in this instance. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are drawn to the attention of the Transport Secretary, but he may also wish to consider applying for an Adjournment debate.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House afford the House a statement on the Cardiff city deal? The Secretary of State for Wales is meeting 10 local authority leaders today to bring a consensus together in south Wales, and this is very important for the south Wales economy.

[Chris Grayling]

A lot of work has been put into this, and I hope a successful resolution will be reached. I encourage my hon. Friend to talk directly to the Secretary of State about this matter, but I will make sure his concerns and wishes are passed on.

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

The sustainable development goals are due to be adopted in New York in September and the House has not yet had a proper opportunity to debate them. Will the Leader of the House make time available on 25 June, when the Government have extra time, to permit that debate to take place?

[Chris Grayling]

I am very concerned to ensure the House has a proper opportunity to debate matters related not simply to aid and international development but to the challenges we face around the world, and I give my hon. and learned Friend a commitment that I will work to ensure there is an early chance to do so.

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

Neuroblastoma is a rare aggressive cancer affecting just 100 children a year in the United Kingdom, including Ruby Laura Young in my constituency, a two-year-old who is battling to save her life. May we have an urgent debate on the assistance available to all those suffering from this disease?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely understand the concerns my hon. Friend raises; a little boy in my constituency, Adam Bird, died four years ago as a result of this dreadful disease. There is an opportunity next week in Westminster Hall to raise and debate this issue. I know the Health Secretary will be listening carefully because when children are affected in this terrible way it is a matter of concern to us all.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

May we have a debate into the damning Ofsted report into the inadequacies of Sandwell children’s services, which was published last week and points to failures of leadership over a long period of time and a failure to protect the most vulnerable children in Sandwell? May we have a debate to see what the Government can do?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned when a local authority appears unable to address properly child safeguarding issues. As we all know, we have seen terrible events in other parts of the country where this has happened. One would not wish to see it happen in Sandwell. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue. I suggest that he come to the House on Monday to raise it directly with the Education Secretary and he may also, depending on the context of the debate, have an opportunity the following week to do the same in the debate on the Education and Adoption Bill.

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

May we have a statement from the Government on the progress of the Perry review into the decriminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence and any indication of when the review will be completed and available to this House?

[Chris Grayling]

The review is due to be completed in the next few weeks. I know my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary will wish to update the House as soon as possible after that.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the difficult situation many people, including in my constituency, find themselves in when county court judgments laid against them for non-payment of costs are made if solicitors offering no win, no fee arrangements and their insurers go bust?

[Chris Grayling]

I have not previously come across that issue even in my previous role in the Justice Department. It is clearly worth raising directly with Ministers. I suggest my hon. Friend looks to bring it up in an Adjournment debate.

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

May we have a debate on what the Government can do to make life easier for small businesses by cutting red tape? In the last Parliament, we had the one-in, one-out rule, then the one-in, two-out rule. Now that the Government are not constrained by the Liberal Democrats, surely we can have one in, three out, four out or even five out?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot promise whether it will be one in, three out, four out or five out, but I can promise him that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has plans to save £10 billion in costs by reducing red tape during this Parliament, which will make a real difference to business.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will recall his recent visit to my constituency, when we met an active neighbourhood watch group. These are vital organisations up and down the country. May I suggest this might be a useful topic for discussion in the general debate he has planned for a fortnight today?

[Chris Grayling]

I was very impressed by the work I saw when I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency. Our country depends on people who are prepared to get involved in their communities. They can make a real difference. That is clearly what is happening in his constituency. I note his request.

Anderson Report

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

11:39

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the Anderson report and the parliamentary consideration of investigatory powers. As the House will know, it is this Government’s intention to bring forward legislation relating to the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ use of investigatory powers and to have that legislation enacted before the sunset provision in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 takes effect on 31 December 2016.

In 2014, the Government asked the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to conduct a review of the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers, with specific reference to the interception of communications and the separate issue of communications data. David Anderson has completed that review, and this morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a written ministerial statement to lay that report before the House.

The report makes 124 recommendations, covering sensitive intelligence capabilities, and it extends to more than 300 pages. Following careful consideration by the Government and the security and intelligence agencies, I can confirm that no redactions have been made to the report prior to publication. I would like to put on record my, and the Government’s, thanks to David Anderson for his thoroughness and dedication in undertaking this important work.

As the report highlights, there is a range of threats against the UK and its interests from terrorism, both at home and overseas, to cyber-attacks from criminals. Many groups, not just the Government, have a role to play in ensuring that the right capabilities are in place to tackle those threats. We will continue to work closely with all partners, including the intelligence agencies, law enforcement and industry, to take all these issues forward and to continue to keep us safe from those who would do us harm.

David Anderson’s report is complemented by two further independent reviews in this area. In March, the Intelligence and Security Committee published its “Privacy and Security” report. This set out a comprehensive review of the intelligence agencies’ capabilities and the legal and privacy frameworks that govern their use. Later this summer, a panel co-ordinated by the Royal United Services Institute and established by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), will report on the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of the UK’s surveillance programmes and assess how law enforcement and intelligence capability can be maintained in the face of technological change. These independent reviews are each important and valuable contributions to the continuing debate about the role of our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, their use of investigatory powers and their oversight. The Government will need to give proper consideration to their recommendations, but I believe that collectively they will provide a firm basis for consultation on legislation.

I would now like to turn to the parliamentary handling of this legislation. The operation and regulation of the investigatory powers used by the police and the intelligence and security agencies is a matter of great importance to the security of this country and, I know, an issue of great interest to many Members. As David Anderson makes clear, it is imperative that the use of sensitive powers is overseen and fully declared under arrangements set by Parliament. It is therefore entirely right that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate those arrangements in full.

The Anderson review was undertaken with cross-party support and I believe that it provides a sound basis for taking this issue forward in the same manner. To ensure that that is the case, the Government will publish a draft Bill in the autumn for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament, with the intention of introducing a Bill early in the new year. Given the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, the new legislation will need to be in place by the end of December 2016.

I have said many times before that it is impossible to debate the balance between privacy and security—including the rights and wrongs of intrusive powers and the oversight arrangements that govern them—without also considering the threats that we face as a country. Those threats remain considerable, and they are evolving. They include not only terrorism—from overseas and home-grown in the UK—but industrial, military and state espionage. They include not only organised criminality but the proliferation of once-physical crimes online, such as child sexual exploitation, and the technological challenges that that brings. In the face of such threats, we have a duty to ensure that the agencies whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers they need to do the job.

I would like to finish by paying tribute to the vital work of the men and women of the intelligence and law enforcement community, whose work is not always known, whose successes often go unrecognised and whose efforts day in and day out are fundamental to keeping everyone in this country safe. I commend this statement to the House.

11:44

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and join her in paying tribute to the agencies and police and the vital work that they do to keep us safe. Because their work is so important, they need a robust and up-to-date legal framework for that work, and that is what they want as well. Their job is to protect our liberty as well as our security in a democracy.

I strongly welcome the publication of David Anderson’s report, which we all need to consider in detail. We called for the report in our amendment to the emergency legislation last summer, and we did so because we believed that the existing framework was no longer fit for purpose. The Intelligence and Security Committee has also called for a new framework. Technology has moved on, but neither the law nor the oversight has done so. The law is, in David Anderson’s words,

“incomprehensible to all but a tiny band of initiates...and—in the long run—intolerable.”

Reforms are needed. First, as the report confirms, it is clear that proportionate surveillance and interception are vital to saving lives and to averting and disrupting dreadful attacks. The Home Secretary is right to highlight the changing threats, and communications data have been used to tackle some awful crimes. The report refers to a case in which the US authorities found a movie file of a woman sexually abusing a four-month-old girl. Communications data were used to track the source of an email to a man in Northampton and, as a result, he and his girlfriend were convicted of serious sexual abuse of three children, all less than four years old. There is no doubt therefore that powers are needed and that they need to keep up with new technology. We cannot allow the sunset clause to let existing powers lapse without new legislation in their place.

Secondly, we have argued that, alongside strong powers, we need strong checks and balances and significantly stronger oversight of how the system works. I welcome the report’s proposals to strengthen oversight by introducing a new, stronger independent surveillance and intelligence commission, merging the existing system of commissioners, which I have long argued is not strong or transparent enough, and by introducing judicial authorisation of warrants. Both would be important steps, but their detail needs to be right, so that they do not add delays to urgent processes or detract from the Home Secretary’s wider responsibility to assess risks to national security and be answerable to Parliament. I believe that those reforms would strengthen the legitimacy of a long-term framework, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider and agree to them.

Thirdly, the report confirms some of the problems with the original draft Communications Data Bill, which the Joint Committee that scrutinised it at the time stated was too widely drawn—we agreed. David Anderson says:

“There should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case for it has been made out (as it has not been to date)”.

I agree with David Anderson and, again, I urge the Home Secretary to accept that recommendation.

I welcome the points that the Home Secretary made about a future investigatory powers Bill based in large part on David Anderson’s report being subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses and about how we will have the opportunity for cross-party debate. I also urge her to ask the business managers to schedule a day’s debate on the Anderson report, so that Members of all parties may discuss it fully and to foster a wider public debate to get the widest possible consent and legitimacy for the new framework. There has been a wider public debate in other countries, including the US, than there has so far been here.

Finally, David Anderson’s report calls for greater public avowal and transparency of capabilities and legal powers. Everyone understands that many national security operations need to be secret to be effective, but I urge the Home Secretary to consider that recommendation closely, too, as there needs to be sufficient transparency for us in Parliament to take responsible decisions on getting the legislation right.

We need freedom and security in our democracy, the powers to keep people safe and the checks and balances to protect people’s privacy and to ensure that the powers are not abused. The digital age is a wonderful source of freedom and opportunity, but it also brings new challenges from new crimes and new threats to our security. David Anderson’s report helps us to face both. We in this House now need to ensure that the report helps us to navigate both the opportunities and the challenges to sustain and to strengthen our democracy in a digital age.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the tone and approach she has adopted on these matters, which—as we all accept across the House—are incredibly serious. It is important that we have full debates about them, as we will be able to do. In the timetable I have set out, people will have an opportunity to reflect fully on the David Anderson report, and other reports that have already been published or will be published, so that when they come to look at the Government’s proposals, they will be able to do so against that firm background.

It is important to draw to the House’s attention the fact that David Anderson looked into all investigatory powers and techniques. He recognised the necessity of the powers and techniques. The issue he was looking at was whether the legislative framework we have is the right one. He has made the point that the current legislative framework is found in a number of different Acts of Parliament, so it is sometimes difficult for people to see the complete picture. Obviously, one of his purposes in his recommendations is to bring that picture together, and to look at the questions of authorisation and oversight.

The right hon. Lady mentioned two particular issues, one of which was access to third party data. David Anderson does not say that this should not be permissible or possible; he says that he would like to see a better case made for it than has been made in the past, but he does not reject the use of access to third party data. On judicial authorisations, he has come down with a particular point of view in that area, and it happens that the ISC took a different view. In looking at this carefully, the point that we will want to reach is ensuring that any decision taken in this area does not adversely affect the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary in relation to other aspects of Government powers and what they need to do, and where any arrangements made are seen to have clear legitimacy and also reflect the issue that the shadow Home Secretary referred to—that the individual who bears the risk, regardless of who takes the authorisation, is of course the Home Secretary. So we have to look at those proposals in the context of that complex mix of areas that we need to consider.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Mr Anderson said in the preamble to his excellent report:

“The current law is fragmented, obscure, under constant challenge and variable in the protections that it affords the innocent.”

He went on to say:

“A multitude of alternative powers, some of them without statutory safeguards, confuse the picture further. This state of affairs is undemocratic, unnecessary and—in the long run—intolerable.”

Of his 124 recommendations, the shadow Home Secretary picked up on perhaps the most important—the one relating to this issue of judicial authorisation. This country relies on ministerial authorisation more than any other country in the world, with the possible exception of Zimbabwe. Will the Home Secretary please look hard at this recommendation, with a strong recommendation that it is carried out and the transfer of power from ministerial authority to proper judicial authority takes place as soon as possible?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, we will look at that recommendation carefully, as indeed we will look at all 124 recommendations. Obviously, we will reflect on what David Anderson has said and on any further debate that takes place in relation to this. As I said to her, it is important that we recognise that the question of the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary is not just one that relates to the powers that David Anderson has been looking at, and we need to think carefully about this issue. I recognise the force with which my right hon. Friend encourages me to go down that route, but today I am not in a position, and do not intend, to say that the Government are going to do one thing or another. I think it is right that we reflect more fully on these aspects and make our proposals in the draft Bill that we will publish in the autumn.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party also welcomes the publication of this report, but we will oppose any plans to introduce what is sometimes referred to as a snoopers charter, that being a charter that would sanction the mass collection of data and mass spying on people’s private communications. Although the SNP is supportive of law enforcement and security services having appropriate access to the information they require, the appropriate checks and safeguards must be in place to ensure that the requirement to keep our community safe is balanced against the civil liberties to which we are all entitled.

This report seems to urge much stronger oversight of the activities of the police and the security services, which we welcome and, like others, I wish to single out the recommendation that warrants be authorised by senior judges. However, the new legislation is required to be more than just a change of name. There must be substantial changes in substance from the previous draft Bill, which threatened to impinge on civil liberties.

Cross-party co-operation in this Parliament has already forced the Government to backtrack on their plans to repeal the Human Rights Act—at least for the time being. In reaching out across the Chamber to MPs with concerns about civil liberties, my party will also seek to defeat any Government plans to curb civil liberties in the Bill. However, we wish to take a constructive approach, and I have four specific questions for the Secretary of State. First, will she confirm that the new legislation, which is to be introduced this autumn, will be more than just a name change and that it will contain substantial safeguards for civil liberties?

Secondly, under the summary of proposals, paragraph 10 says:

“A comprehensive and comprehensible new law should be drafted from scratch, replacing the multitude of current powers and providing for clear limits and safeguards on any intrusive power that it may be necessary for public authorities to use.”

Will the Home Secretary commit to implementing that proposal?

Thirdly, will the Home Secretary commit to engaging fully with her Scottish Government counterparts in so far as measures in any legislation impinge on the devolved competences? Finally, she has announced plans for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament. Will she confirm that representatives of the SNP will be invited to be part of that scrutiny?

[Mrs May]

I welcome the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) to the House and to her Front-Bench role. I was not able to do that when she spoke in the Queen’s Speech debate, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to do it now. I have to say, however, that she is wrong to refer to the snoopers charter. There was never any proposal for such a charter. The Government wish to ensure that our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies continue to have the capabilities that they need to keep us safe as people’s activities in communications increasingly move from the physical to the digital. It is about ensuring that the law and the powers are up to date.

The hon. and learned Lady asked me four specific questions. I have already said in my response to the shadow Home Secretary that one of the issues, as David Anderson has also said, is that legislation is spread over several different Acts, and it is necessary to bring it together in a single law. We intend to look very carefully at David Anderson’s proposals in relation to increased or changed oversight arrangements. We are talking about not simply rebranding an existing law but looking to see what legislation is necessary to ensure that these powers continue to be available with the right regulatory framework, the right oversight and the right authorisation arrangements into the future.

We have had to introduce two new pieces of legislation in the data and counter-terrorism area in the past 18 months. I hope that we can establish a law that can stand for some time, and that we will not have to come back to Parliament repeatedly with new legislation. When matters are devolved, we will hold discussions with the Scottish Government. As the hon. and learned Lady will be aware, national security is a reserved matter. She referred to pre-legislative scrutiny. I understand that discussions are taking place about the nature of the Joint Committee, and that is a matter for the business managers.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Speaking as somebody who during my four years in office was supposed to be an initiate of the regulatory framework under which our agencies are supposed to work, I heartily endorse what David Anderson has said about its comprehensibility. For that reason, I greatly welcome the Government’s move towards a new legislative framework. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that that framework should carry with it clarity and a degree of predictability and understanding, because without that the public will not be reassured that it might not sed? Equally, she might also agree that if we put together such a framework it is right and proper that we should give our agencies the powers they need to protect us, and not simply allow this to be an opportunity to prevent them from doing the job of protecting us, which in my experience they have been doing very well and ethically.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments and, in particular, for his last point. It is absolutely the case that our agencies have been and are working lawfully and ethically in everything they do. They have a difficult job to do and it is important, as he says, that we give them the powers they need. It is in everyone’s interests that the legislation is as clear as possible, but I am tempted to say that although I start off thinking that it will be simple to provide a clear piece of legislation, once parliamentary counsel and the lawyers in this House and in the other place get hold of it, the clarity tends to get a little lost. We shall see what happens.

My right hon. and learned Friend raises another important issue, which is the question of foreseeability. People should be able to understand not just how powers might be being used but how they might be used in future, and that is of course an issue that would need to be considered.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in thanking Mr Anderson for this excellent report. It is right that we should consider judicial scrutiny, and the approach of the Home Secretary to give this to a Joint Committee is the right one. It cannot be handled by one Committee. She will note that Committees in the previous Parliament—and individual Members—have talked about the fact that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was introduced in 2000 and needs to be updated. Does she agree that that is also on the agenda and that, as she consolidates these pieces of legislation, it is important that we consider that Act to ensure that our agencies have the right powers and that there is also a proper balance?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right and, of course, under his chairmanship the Home Affairs Committee touched on some of those issues. Some of the powers that David Anderson is talking about relate to RIPA and how it operates, and of course they will be considered as part of the new legislation.

[Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

May I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to recommendation 66, which appears in paragraph 14.82? The report recommends the abandonment of judicial approval for local authorities seeking to obtain communications data. My right hon. Friend will remember the abuses by local authorities and the reasons we introduced these safeguards. I do not think that the public would mind local authorities using those powers on matters to do with Prevent, but they would rather object to them being used in relation to a person applying for a school place.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I was pleased to work with him to ensure that we could introduce those extra safeguards in the operation of access to communications data and ending the intrusive use of these powers by local authorities. He is absolutely right. People will not want us to go backwards in how local authorities might use these powers. When intrusive powers are being used, it is essential that their use is necessary and proportionate, and I think that everybody would agree that their use in whether people were getting the right school places was neither of those.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the work that David Anderson has carried out on this important issue. Does the Home Secretary accept that there are many complications in all this, not least administratively, judicially, ethically and procedurally? As a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, may I ask her whether she will accept that the timetable she has laid down for the consideration of a draft Bill might be too tight? Will she give some consideration to whether it might be possible to renew the existing legislation if pre-legislative scrutiny needs to take more time?

[Mrs May]

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. We have the deadline of December 2016, which was put in consciously by the previous Parliament because it believed that it was necessary to look again at the legislative framework and that that should be done within a limited timetable. So I hesitate to suggest that we should at this stage say that that timetable should be changed. We should do what we can to ensure that we meet the timetable. I fully recognise that these matters are complex, and they raise issues in relation not just to what David Anderson has put in his report, but to other circumstances. It always behoves Government to make sure there are no unintended adverse consequences of any decisions that are taken in relation to that, and we will try to ensure that the maximum amount of time is available. At this stage, we should retain that December 2016 deadline because Parliament set it for very good reason.

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

This is a first-rate and comprehensive report, but I accept what the Home Secretary said; this should not be the last word on the matter. There are other reports and we will want to try to get this consolidated. Despite my involvement on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am increasingly of the view that we need to get public trust to ensure that judicial involvement is not simply a matter of oversight in relation to warrants. I very much agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). We need to get this right. We need consolidating legislation. It will be difficult, but we need to get it right both in this House and in the other place. That may take a little longer than the very ambitious timetable that my right hon. Friend has put in place, and I am glad that she is turning her mind to it in this way. Above all, we need consolidating legislation that does not potentially lead to what we have had in the past—a sense that arbitrage has been used because one piece of legislation is easier than another for the security services.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I thank him and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for the contribution they made on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which produced its own report in relation to these matters. My right hon. Friend is right about ensuring that there is public confidence and public trust. Some interesting figures are quoted in the David Anderson report from a poll taken of the public, which shows the significant trust and confidence that they have in our agencies, and the belief of the overwhelming majority that the agencies should have the powers they need to keep us safe. It is a feature of the British public that they have a more sanguine approach to the necessity of powers being held by the authorities than we may see reported elsewhere. But he is right: we need to look at these issues very carefully and ensure that that confidence is there.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are extremely sensitive and often complicated matters of which the House is treating with great care. I point out that we have another statement to follow. I want to accommodate colleagues, but somewhat greater succinctness is required.

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

The overwhelming majority of the population at the time would no doubt have supported 90 days pre-charge detention. It is the job of the House of Commons to determine what is right—to get the right balance between the acute danger of terrorism and civil liberties, not to talk about what the large majority of the public may or may not want. We are elected to make the decision that we consider to be correct. Is it not the case that the Home Secretary intends to bring in a measure—rightly, in my view, described as the snoopers charter—which the previous Government could not introduce in the last Parliament because their coalition partner would not agree? As far as I am concerned—obviously, there will be a good deal of controversy about this—the snoopers charter is a greater affront to civil liberties than any measure that has been introduced or proposed in recent years.

[Mrs May]

The response I give on that misnomer of a piece of legislation is the same as I gave the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry): it is no such thing as it has been described. It is about ensuring merely that, as matters increasingly move into the digital age, the agencies are able to have access to the same sort of data as they have had access to in the past, which is used in the vast majority of serious crime cases—not just in investigation, but in bringing prosecutions of serious criminals—and in counter-terrorism investigations.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the 90 days of pre-charge detention. I point out to him that the Conservative party opposed that measure, and I remind him that it was his Labour Government who introduced 28 days of pre-charge detention, and the coalition Government who reduced it to 14 days.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

For a pithy inquiry from the Government Back Benches, I think it wise now to look to a non-lawyer. I call Mr Mark Pritchard. [Laughter.]

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Good luck on both fronts, Mr Speaker, but thank you.

Is it not the case that the greatest civil liberty of all is the right to life? The Home Secretary is absolutely right that to call extra investigatory and surveillance powers for the intelligence services, with the right to legal oversights, a snooper’s a misnomer. Would the measure not be better termed a security charter?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said previously in this House, the issue of security and privacy is not a zero-sum game. One can only enjoy one’s privacy if one has one’s security.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has, in a welcome move, promised the House pre-legislative scrutiny of the legislation that will follow from Anderson’s excellent report. She says that it will include consideration not only of that report, but of the ISC’s recent report and the forthcoming report from the Royal United Services Institute. There is another report, however, which is still secret: Sir Nigel Sheinwald’s report. Although I understand that some of the details of that report are commercially confidential and cannot be released, can she make sure that Sir Nigel’s conclusions are available to those conducting the pre-legislative scrutiny?

[Mrs May]

I will look at that. The Prime Minister’s written statement today refers to the work that Sir Nigel Sheinwald undertook as the Prime Minister’s data envoy. As my right hon. Friend makes clear—I did not refer to this—in parallel to the new legislation, we will be taking forward Sir Nigel’s advice, including pursuing a strengthened UK-US mutual legal assistance treaty process and a new international framework. Sir Nigel was looking particularly at the question of the powers and capabilities in relation to cross-border matters and the international framework needed for that.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

In welcoming the report, I note that electronic communications and social media are powerful tools for the terrorist and their use and sophistication have been expanding very rapidly, but there remain concerns that the machinery within Government, and even more so within Parliament, to monitor and regulate through legislation is unable to keep up with that pace of change, which leads to concerns about safeguarding civil liberties. How does my right hon. Friend intend to use the opportunity of the report to address the mechanisms of reporting and oversight?

[Mrs May]

The previous Government acted to improve the mechanisms of parliamentary oversight by giving extra powers to the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC’s report on its consideration of matters surrounding the terrible murder of Drummer Lee Rigby showed a step change in the sort of information available and investigation of the operations of the agencies by the ISC and gave Parliament a much greater ability to look at such matters. However, I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s comment on the mechanisms overall and whether anything is needed in that respect.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

In coalition, the Liberal Democrats were right to block the snooper’s charter and in government the Conservatives are wrong to forge ahead with it.

On the subject of web logs, of which only Russia of the liberal democracies mandates the retention, will the Home Secretary allow proposals to track the browsing habits of 40 million UK citizens every week to be brought forward only if there is, as set out in paragraph 13b of the executive summary:

“a detailed operational case…and…rigorous assessment conducted of the lawfulness, likely effectiveness, intrusiveness and cost”

of the measures? Will she also confirm that, as David Anderson urges, no progress at all will be made on the question of third-party data until a compelling operational case has been made?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I take a different view from him on the communications data capabilities of the security and intelligence agencies and of law enforcement. These are important powers and it is clear that those powers are degrading, so the ability of law enforcement to catch paedophiles and serious criminals has been reduced, as has the ability of our agencies to deal with the matters they deal with.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to web logs. In the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, we took one step to increase the capabilities of the agencies in respect of IP addresses, but it remains the case that not all those IP addresses can be recognised and reconciled because of the inability to introduce the further legislation that his party blocked when we were in coalition.

Finally, it is not the case that that legislation was about investigating, mapping or monitoring the web browsing habits of 40 million citizens every week of the year. That is a complete misdescription of what was proposed, and I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman wants a proper debate, he stops using those terms.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

In my previous life, I prosecuted criminals for a living and I relied on evidence obtained under RIPA to convict the guilty. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the importance of communications data in the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime, including helping those who prosecute criminals to bring them to justice in court?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing her experience to this House. It is important that people recognise that this is not just a debate about what this House puts into legislation; it is a debate about the powers that our agencies have and the ability prosecutors then have to bring people to justice. Some 95% of serious and organised crime investigations make use of communications data, and such information is essential for prosecution in many of those cases. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is not in the Chamber today, because in his former incarnation as Director of Public Prosecutions, he was clear about the importance of communications data not only in investigating but in prosecuting criminals.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

As one of those who have struggled with the legislation for some time, I join in the welcome for David Anderson’s recommendation that the new legislation be written in non-technical language that can be understood by intelligent readers across the world. I also welcome his recommendations that RIPA parts 1 and 4 be replaced and for increased judicial oversight—something that I think RIPA lacked, so I am glad that it will be looked at again. Also, I will read with great care what is said about the bulk collection of data.

This is an important measure, which needs to be debated much more widely than is currently the case. I support the calls for a day’s debate in this Chamber, so that we all have an opportunity to debate the many issues relating to it. This is too important to be captured by a few voices. We need to have a more profound debate.

[Mrs May]

I am tempted to ask the hon. Lady that if she, a lawyer, could not understand the legislation, how does she think the rest of us managed? She will have seen the Leader of the House in the Chamber when the shadow Home Secretary called for a day’s debate, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will reflect on that point.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

We are all concerned about getting the balance correct between security and civil and human rights, and I have absolutely no doubt that the Home Secretary will devote her time to ensuring that, but is she concerned about reports that the social media websites in the United States are threatening to refuse to co-operate with legitimate requests for the provision of information about suspected terrorists and other serious criminals? If the reports are true, what conversations will she have with her American counterparts to ensure that that does not happen, and will she remind them during the course of those discussions that there is still a great deal of concern in this House and elsewhere about the lack of balance in the United Kingdom-United States extradition treaty?

[Mrs May]

On my right hon. and learned Friend’s last point, we did make changes to the extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States when we brought in the forum bar—I think that it has been an important addition—which ensures the balance between the UK and the US in the extradition treaty. We of course talk regularly with communication service providers and social media platforms, and I talk about these measures with my counterparts in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice in the United States. Of course, it is precisely those sorts of issues that the Prime Minister asked Sir Nigel Sheinwald to look at. As I indicated in response to the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), as a result of that work we will be taking forward work to enhance the mutual legal assistance treaty with the United States, but we will also be looking at a broader international framework within which the companies will operate in order to enable access to the data.

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

The report is a powerful vindication of the excellent work of human rights campaigners in this country who have long argued for greater proportionality in our surveillance laws. EU courts and now David Anderson have made it clear that the blanket retention of my constituents’ data is unlawful—it is against human rights laws—so will the Home Secretary confirm that she accepts that principle and will use it in future legislation?

[Mrs May]

David Anderson has been very clear that the powers that the agencies have are powers that they need. His questions are these: what is the appropriate oversight of, and authorisation for, the use of those powers; and what is the appropriate regulatory framework? That is what we will be looking at.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Consolidation of the law in a non-controversial area is an immensely difficult and technical task that is normally handed over to the Law Commission for years. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) is concerned about the amount of time we have for scrutiny after the autumn. If this law is being drafted from scratch, I do not think that my right hon. Friend has a cat in hell’s chance of producing it in the autumn. Just how advanced is the internal work on drafting the Bill?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), we have a timetable that was set by Parliament, because it believed that it was important that the powers in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 should not be allowed to continue for a significant period of time, so it was decided that the right end point should be the end of 2016. Of course, some of the issues that the report deals with have been looked at by the Home Office previously, notably in relation to communications data.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am grateful that the importance of thorough pre-legislative scrutiny has been recognised, but may I ask the Home Secretary to consider the recommendations relating to broader parliamentary scrutiny? In relation to recommendation 120, will she be wary of anything that might dilute the focus currently provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee? In relation to recommendation 122, will she ensure not only that public bodies, where appropriate and subject to the proper safeguards, provide the information to Parliament, but that Parliament has a proper means of testing and scrutinising that information?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his points about the recommendations. Of course, as I indicated in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), we have already increased Parliament’s power to look at those issues through the enhanced capabilities we have given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think that it is important that the Committee retains a clear focus so that we can be confident that it is able to bring the correct oversight to these matters, which is important and has been enhanced.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree with the Prime Minister that there should be no safe spaces on the internet for terrorists and paedophiles to communicate?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made. We should ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to ensure that there is no safe space for terrorists, paedophiles and other serious criminals to operate.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Having been involved in covert surveillance operations, I was always surprised by how many men and women it took to carry them out. Do our security agencies have enough people to do the job as well as it can be done?

[Mrs May]

Obviously we regularly look at the resources available to the security and intelligence agencies. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced before Christmas, the security and intelligence agencies and the police received a budget injection to cover a variety of issues. We look at that regularly and will continue to do so, most notably in the upcoming comprehensive spending review.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend referred a moment ago to IP addresses. Will she set out the work that the Government will do with communication service providers in taking forward the agenda she has set out?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, because of course, as I mentioned in my statement, it is not just a question of the Government working with the police and law enforcement agencies; we also need to work with industry. We meet the communication service providers regularly to discuss the use of the powers that the various agencies have, to ensure that the legislation is appropriate, and to look at the technological changes taking place.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Striking the right balance between liberty and security is essential in a free society, but on the issue of a snoopers charter, I invite the Home Secretary to give real weight to the opinion of David Anderson’s distinguished predecessor as independent reviewer, Lord Carlile, who said that the Communications Data Bill was

“a proportionate response to enable law enforcement and prosecutors to keep pace with the ever more connected world in which we live.”

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to mention Lord Carlile’s point about the previous Communications Data Bill. I believe that it was a necessary and proportionate response to the need to ensure that the agencies and the police continue to have the powers to keep us safe, to catch paedophiles, to prevent terrorism and to catch and prosecute serious and organised criminals. Those powers have degraded as people use digital communications more, so we need to update the legislation to ensure that the agencies and the police can continue to do their job.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

David Anderson rightly identifies trust as the issue at the heart of the matter. These powers obviously have a wider application, but in all the evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on Islamist radicalisation it was mistrust of the state that was used to manipulate and radicalise young Britons. While I add my voice to those welcome recommendations to strengthen judicial oversight, does the Home Secretary agree that it is essential to strengthen our counter-narrative efforts so that we can put the lie to those terror recruiters on our shores who are selling a glamorised and dishonest version of jihad, and so that we can reduce our need for these powers in the first place?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In the fight against those terrorists who are led by Islamist radicalisation to take action, and indeed those doing the radicalisation, we need to look very carefully at that issue. She is absolutely right about that. The Government have a commitment to bring forward a counter-extremism strategy. The strategy will be about promoting the values we share in this country; the values that make our pluralistic society what it is, and that make it a society that many people wish to live in and enjoy. We must ensure that our narrative against those plying a distorted view of Islam is strong so that we can encourage people to recognise that Islam is a peaceful religion, not a religion that is leading to acts of terrorism.

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

Robert Hannigan, the new head of the Government Communications Headquarters, has recently said that some technology companies are the command and control centres of terrorism because they positively fail to comply with Government requests to take material down in the post-Snowden era. Will these new measures help address that?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a very real responsibility for the communications service providers—the internet providers—in relation to the access that the authorities need for these powers. We need to make sure that the legislation is appropriate so that there can be confidence in it. The counter-terrorism internet referral unit has been, and is now, taking down about 1,000 pieces of terrorist material per week from the internet.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Technology moves on apace, and criminals are very quick to use new technology. However, the legislative process is much slower, and the Home Secretary has set out plans for detailed pre-scrutiny. What plans does she have to try to ensure that, as far as possible, the legislation is future-proofed so that we do not have to go through the process time and again?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. In fact, David Anderson himself has referred to the need to try to ensure that legislation can be technology-neutral so that it is, as it were, future-proofed. As I said in response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I hope that the legislation we will introduce is able to stand the test of time so that we are not constantly having to come back to this House with new proposals.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Writing about technology over the past 10 years, I saw a huge number of changes. I commend this report for trying to establish principles so that the legislation does not go out of date. Does the Home Secretary believe it is right that, as a nation, we have the same powers in the age of Snapchat and WhatsApp as we had in the age of the telephone?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes the very important point that as people move on to new means of communication, we need to make sure that powers and the regulatory framework for those powers has kept up. That is what we wanted to do in the Communications Data Bill, but we were prevented by our coalition partners. We will obviously be looking to introduce the necessary requirements in the new legislation.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, good—Mr Byron Davies.

[Byron Davies]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

In a previous life, having worked considerably in operational terms with RIPA, one of the difficulties I found was with the communications providers. What are the Home Secretary’s ideas for the legislation to make sure that it does not create problems in future?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. This is partly to do with the legislation and partly to do with ensuring that we maintain relationships with the communications service providers, to whom we talk to regularly about these matters. It is also about ensuring that this is the right legislation to give people the confidence that the powers are being used appropriately and where they are necessary and proportionate.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary and to colleagues. It has been a huge pleasure, both in the exchanges on the business question and in the exchanges that we have just enjoyed, to accommodate a very large number of new Members. I say in the gentlest terms, as a source of encouragement to new Members, that if they decide that they no longer wish to ask a question because it has already been asked—although that would set a dangerous precedent in the House of Commons—or for any other reason, that is fine, but if they are genuinely interested in being called, then, as old hands will be able to testify, persistence is a very important principle in the operation of the affairs of the House. In short, if you really want to get called—I cannot promise you will, but I think the record shows that I do try to accommodate most people most of the time—keep standing, and the chances are that you will get there in the end. Thank you very much.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

12:33

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the Chancellor’s speech at Mansion House last night.

First, I turn to the Royal Bank of Scotland. The £45 billion that the previous Government paid for the Royal Bank of Scotland represents the largest single bank bail-out in the world. The bank employs over 60,000 people in Britain and provides over a quarter of all small business lending in Britain. Its problems and its slow recovery have been one of the biggest drags on our economy, as many smaller firms know all too painfully. The restructuring of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the work that Ross McEwan and his team have done since have brought us to a decision point. This Government were not responsible for the bail-out of the Royal Bank of Scotland or the price paid then for shares bought by the taxpayer, but we are responsible for getting the best deal now for the taxpayer and doing whatever we can to support the British economy.

As the Chancellor set out, there is no doubt that starting to sell the Government’s stake in RBS is the right thing to do on both counts. That is not just our judgment—it is the judgment of the Governor of the Bank of England, whose views the Chancellor sought and whose letter on this issue we published last night. In the Governor’s words, “it is in the public interest for the government to begin now to return RBS to private ownership.”

He goes on to say that this

“would promote financial stability, a more competitive banking sector, and the interests of the wider economy.”

Indeed, he adds that

“there could be considerable net costs to taxpayers of further delaying the start of a sale.”

That is also the conclusion of the independent review that we commissioned from Rothschild and that was published last night. It says that beginning sales now, and increasing the free float, will improve the marketability of our remaining stake, and it means that we can expect to see larger sales on better terms in the future—but only if we start now. This independent report confirms that taking into account all the sales we have authorised of our bank assets, and the fees we have received, at the current valuations taxpayers can expect to make £14 billion more than they paid out.

In the coming months we will therefore begin to sell our stake in RBS. It is the right thing to do for British businesses, British taxpayers and the British economy. Taking all the bank interventions in total—Lloyds, Northern Rock, and the scheme fees—we are making sure that taxpayers get back billions of pounds more than they were forced to put in. Of course, given the size of our stake in RBS, the sales will take some years and are likely to involve all types of investors. With such a complex investment case, we have to start with institutions, but, as the Chancellor said, there is no reason why ordinary investors—in other words, members of the public—should not take part in due course.

I now turn to Royal Mail. As the Chancellor set out last night, the first sale of our remaining stake in Royal Mail has begun. The Government have today sold half of the 30% stake they retained in Royal Mail plc at a price of 500p per share. This sale has raised £750 million, and that money can be used to reduce public debt. We have said that we will dispose of all our shares in Royal Mail in this Parliament. We will continue to review the options in the light of our stated sale objectives, but there is no rigid timetable. Value for the taxpayer remains the priority. The Chancellor also announced last night that the Government intend to gift up to 1% of the shares of the company to Royal Mail’s UK employees, in recognition of their work in turning Royal Mail around.

Finally, the fair and effective markets review yesterday published its final report. The report sets out 21 recommendations to help to restore trust in the wholesale fixed-income, currency and commodity markets. The review was established by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England in June 2014 to help to restore trust in those markets in the wake of a number of recent high-profile abuses. The review is centred on four principles: first, individuals must be held to account for their own conduct; secondly, firms must take greater collective responsibility for market practices; thirdly, regulators should close gaps in regulatory coverage and broaden the regime holding senior management to account; and fourthly, given the global nature of these markets, co-ordinated international action should be taken wherever possible to improve fairness and effectiveness. As the Chancellor set out in his Mansion House speech last night, there is no trade-off between high standards of conduct and competitiveness. Implementing the reforms set out in the review will ensure trust in our markets and strengthen London’s global leadership position.

This Government have a long-term plan to make the UK economy the most prosperous of all the world’s major economies in the coming generation and for that prosperity to be shared widely across our one nation. The steps we are announcing today are a key part of achieving a new settlement for our public finances and for our financial services industry, and they will help us secure that bright future for all. I commend this statement to the House.

12:40

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new Minister to her role, but where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Should he not have the courtesy to come to House of Commons and answer questions on what might be one the most important financial decisions of this Parliament? Taxpayers deserve to know more about what is going on here. Why is it that when there are difficult questions, the Chancellor always blames someone else or sends someone else?

Taxpayers who bailed out RBS during the global financial crisis want their money back and will rightly be suspicious of any rush to sell. When RBS is still restructuring the business and awaiting a US settlement for the mis-selling of subprime mortgages, would a premature sale not pose a risk for the taxpayer? The Chancellor said two years ago that he would countenance a sale of RBS only when

“the bank is fully able to support our economy and when we get good value”.

Does the Minister really think that those tests have now been met?

Although we have always supported the eventual return of RBS to the private sector, is it not essential that the Treasury get back as much money as possible to help pay down the national debt? Why the rush when the share price is so far below the break-even point? RBS had to be bailed out urgently, but it does not have to be sold off at the same speed. The Minister should not give the impression, either, that the Governor of the Bank of England is telling Ministers that the price is now right, because he makes it very clear in his letter that questions of valuation are entirely for the Government.

Before Government Members start pretending that the RBS rescue was somehow not a matter of consensus at the time, we are not going to let them re-write history. The truth is that the Chancellor did not oppose the urgent rescue of RBS at the market price back in 2008. The National Audit Office says that the rescue price was “justified” and the Institute for Fiscal Studies says it was

“not obviously unfavourable to taxpayers”.

They know full well what the consequences would have been if the bank had gone under.

On the specifics, will the Minister clarify for the record exactly what the Government accept the break-even share price for the bank to be? The figure of a potential £7.2 billion loss might be understating things, because the Rothschild calculation she mentioned nets off the fees the Government have received from the bank since 2008.

On Lloyds, the Treasury has already pledged that shares sold through the Government’s trading plan will not be sold for less than 73.6p—the price the Government paid for them. What is the equivalent red line below which the Treasury would not sell an RBS share? Why can the Minister not give us more detail about precisely when the sale will commence and what impact she predicts it will have on debt reduction?

As for the extremely dodgy claim that if we roll everything together, stand on one leg and squint a bit, losses at RBS do not really look that bad after all, is not that a bit like saying, “I’ve sold the house and lost a fortune, but don’t worry because I got a great deal on the car”? Come off it! The Government cannot pretend they are not making a loss on RBS just because they are making a gain on completely separate assets elsewhere. At a time when the Chancellor is reportedly on the brink of axing £5 billion from tax credits for children of working parents, should not the Government be far more careful not to lose billions more by rushing a sale on RBS? Everyone knows that when it comes to getting value for money, they have poor form: just look at the fire sale of Royal Mail.

We have to ask what the real reasons for this hasty sell-off are. We saw in the March Budget that the Chancellor rushed forward asset sales in order to just about meet the Treasury’s debt target. Is he repeating the same thing before the emergency Budget, regardless of the best price for the taxpayer? Or perhaps this is the Chancellor trying to prove his ideological credentials as part of his leadership bid, to impress all those new Conservative Back Benchers. Taxpayers need to know that there are sound reasons for this and that he is not doing it just to suit himself. We have a hidden Chancellor and a hidden agenda. It is now for the Government to justify the claim that they are putting taxpayers’ interests first.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Clearly, the Chancellor is not dodging any difficult questions because I did not hear any difficult questions from the hon. Gentleman. It is a bit rich that the new shadow Chancellor has chosen to make his first attack on the Government’s economic policy by drawing attention to his party’s woeful track record on bank regulation and by publicly disagreeing with the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England.

Last week the hon. Gentleman told this Chamber:

“I have had plenty of time to reflect on the result of the general election. Obviously, we are disappointed with it and we will review our policies accordingly”.—[Official Report, 4 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 789.]

Clearly, that reflection does not include apologising for the lax regulation of our banking sector or realising that the British people do not want a Government who are committed to borrowing more, spending more and nationalising more. Above all, the hon. Gentleman’s reflection clearly does not include recognising that his mentors, Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, paid a high price for their intervention in the Royal Bank of Scotland. I will take no lectures on economic competence from an Opposition party that in office sold off the country’s gold reserves at an all-time low, crashed the banking system and the economy, and left us with the biggest peacetime deficit in our nation’s history.

I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He asked whether the Government will publish a break-even share price for RBS. I do not know whether he is Mystic Meg, but I do not know exactly at what price the sales will be made. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the Rothschild report that we have published today. Under his Government, it was forecast in 2009 that the bank interventions would result in a total loss of between £20 billion and £50 billion. We have turned the economy and the banking sector around, and as of this week the Rothschild report estimates that the overall sum total of the interventions will benefit the taxpayer by £14 billion.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

First, may I warmly welcome the Minister to her new role? She has a great job and I congratulate her on obtaining it. May I also warmly welcome her statement? We need to grasp that the loss has already occurred: it took place in 2008. It was made possible by poor regulation and it was made certain by shocking incompetence by the RBS board.

The Rothschild report was made available in the Vote Office only a few minutes before the end of the previous statement, so I have had only a brief chance to look at it. The overall surplus identified from the total sales of financial sector interventions is £14 billion, but a footnote makes it clear that that excludes the cost of funding. I gave the Minister only a few moments’ notice that I would raise this issue, but I would be extremely grateful if she could say what the cost of funding is and what the number would be, were it included in the table.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his unopposed re-election as Chair of the Treasury Committee. That he asks a question about the footnote illustrates his forensic reading of the published materials. As he knows, at the end of 2009 the estimate was that the cost of bank interventions would range between a £20 billion loss and a £50 billion loss. As of last week, the Rothschild report estimates that that situation has completely turned around, and that the overall recovery from the bank interventions is in the order of a £14 billion magnitude. The overall cost of funding on our Treasury issuance is at record lows thanks to the prudent economic management of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I welcome early sight of the statement.

The Government are fond of talking about long-term economic plans—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Absolutely. However, a sell-off is not a strategy, and a strategy for the banking sector is completely missing from the statement. My first question is this: is it not the case that there remains scope for a proper review of the options for the future of RBS, such as the consideration of creating challenger banks out of it? Secondly, yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland about the branch closures the length and breadth of the country that are being announced by RBS. Is that part of the price that people are expected to pay for this rushed sell-off? Thirdly, the statement mentioned concern about the drag on the economy and the poor performance in supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, so will the Minister explain precisely how the policy will further strengthen the SME sector?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome the new hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin). What a refreshing change it is.

The hon. Gentleman asks about Royal Bank of Scotland in particular. I gently point out that if the Scottish National party had won the independence referendum, there would be no ability to intervene in the banking sector in the way that the UK Government intervened.

The role that Royal Bank of Scotland plays as the most significant lender in the SME sector is critical. It has not been able to play its full part because of public ownership. The Bank of England letter states that a phased return of RBS to private ownership would promote financial stability and lead to a more competitive banking sector, in the interests of the wider economy.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her long-overdue promotion. Will she confirm that any cost calculation will have to take into account the fact that the sale will reduce the deficit, and therefore prevent any extra debt interest that would otherwise be incurred by this country? Will she tell the House that putting the banks into the private sector is not a matter of ideology, but simply because, as previous privatisations have shown, when companies are free in the private sector they make more profit, pay more taxes and serve their customers better?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his kind words of welcome. He is correct to say that we are not doing this purely for price reasons. It is important to take into account the wider economic impact. That is why I am grateful to the Governor of the Bank of England for highlighting the ways in which a banking sector free of public ownership will allow more capital, more restructuring and more competitive characteristics in our economy.

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

I, too, welcome the Minister to her post. In her statement, she rightly draws attention to the scale of the bail-out of RBS. For the avoidance of doubt, will she give the House a quote from the Chancellor, who was shadow Chancellor at the time, criticising either the bail-out in principle or the share price paid by the Government of that time?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words.

As the Chancellor made clear in his Mansion House speech last night, he was responsible for the decision point yesterday and for articulating a future path away from the situation he inherited. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Treasury predictions at the time of the interventions were that they would cost the taxpayer between £20 billion and £50 billion overall. The situation has moved on and the economy has recovered substantially from the largest recession in our peacetime history. It is time to put the banking sector into a new settlement, and to have a new settlement for our financial services.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Sir Mervyn King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, said:

“Why…did the Bank of England not do more to prevent the disaster? We should have. But the power to regulate banks had been taken away from us in 1997. Our power was limited to…preaching sermons.”

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bank of England now has the power to do more than just preach sermons?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and congratulate her on an excellent question. The tripartite arrangements for bank regulation put in place by the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath let the country down. The work of the last Parliament was to reframe our financial services regulation, so that the Bank of England could take responsibility, and so that we have a single point of regulation for the financial sector overall, supplemented by the important work of the Financial Conduct Authority on behaviour, and by the Prudential Regulation Authority. It is incredibly important that we have moved on from the tripartite arrangement. We do not want another situation in which the British taxpayer has to bail out a bank.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is it not just conceivable that this mad rush is being perpetrated because the Government know that, with more than 50 rebels on the Back Benches, they are likely to lose their majority sooner rather than later, and lose credibility in the process? This is coming from a Chancellor who has added more in five years to the national debt than all the Labour Chancellors put together. He has been blaming Labour for bailing out the banks, but he supported it. He is now bailing out his friends in the City.

[Harriett Baldwin]

What can I say? It is extraordinary. I do not suppose we heard that kind of rant when the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath was intervening in the banking sector. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that, in the single vote on legislation on Second Reading we have had in this Parliament, the Government won by a majority of 491. [Interruption.]

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

When the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has finished, may I welcome the Minister to her place? She brings with her a great wealth of experience from the City. Part of that wealth of experience is a full knowledge of the sunk cost fallacy. Does she agree that it is completely ludicrous to say that an investment decision made in 2015 should be based solely on the information known in 2008, and that that view betrays a staggering lack of knowledge about the investment process among those opposed to selling the stake in RBS at potentially a loss?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question, which shows his depth of knowledge. He is right. In my years of managing portfolios, what I paid for investments in the first place was a fact, but managers also have to factor in the future. None of us has a crystal ball. My hon. Friend’s words are wisely taken.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role at the Dispatch Box. Everyone agrees and understands that the RBS shareholding needs to be transferred to the private sector. The Rothschild report states that if shares were sold at the current share price there would be a paper loss of £7.2 billion, which by anybody’s standards is a lot of money. What the report does not show, however, is why the public benefits add up to £7 billion. Could the Minister explain that please?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Lady, who has great knowledge of these matters, for her question. Any estimate—and the one in the Rothschild report is no different—will be based on the current market conditions. The number that the report cites is, I think, as at 5 June. I note that the share price of RBS has performed well today; there will be different prices in the years to come. The Government have made it very clear that this will not be a quick process; it will take time. We can only project as at today’s prices the £7 billion figure, but it may or may not be a bigger number in the future.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only reason we can start selling off our stake in the bank is the growing demand in our economy thanks to our long-term economic plan?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. I know he has a great deal of experience in these matters. He is absolutely right that this is a key part of the long-term economic plan. We cannot have a healthy economic recovery without a healthy financial sector. I do not think that anyone in this place would argue that we can have a healthy banking sector when a large chunk of it, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, is in taxpayers’ hands.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think it would be prudent to have pre-scrutiny by Parliament, either through the National Audit Office or the Treasury Committee, of the Government’s objectives in the sale and the money they could be seeing? Will she also say a word about RBS’s liabilities? For example, there is currently a mis-selling inquiry into the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which my constituents are facing. Who will ultimately be responsible for those liabilities?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. I am sure the relevant Committees will take a close interest in this matter, because it is obviously a very large public investment. In terms of the liability side of the equation, he will be aware that there are a number of different pending regulatory matters that affect RBS. He will also be aware, as I think it says in the Rothschild report, that the market is aware of these things and will factor them into the price of the shares.

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

May I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to her post? I also welcome the shadow Chancellor, although I think we rather miss the more rambunctious approach of his predecessor. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) illustrated the fundamental investment fallacy of not selling things on the basis of an historic price. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the only reason the Opposition can take this foolish position is that clause IV may be out of their rulebook but it remains within their hearts?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very good point, very well made. It is absolutely the case that we are responsible for ensuring that, as we go forward from this decision point, we get the best possible value irrespective of what the previous Government paid, which was, in retrospect, too high.

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

I welcome the Minister to her post. One would expect that the duty of the Chancellor would be to sweat the assets as his disposal, but with the fire sale of Royal Mail and now RBS, the taxpayer is being let down, having had to endure all the pain of the worldwide economic crash caused by the banks with none of the gain in this case.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I really will not take any lectures on letting the country down in terms of economic management. The people who suffer the most when the banks fail, the regulatory system fails and the economy fails are the very poorest in our society. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the economic recovery, the clear turnaround in this portfolio of legacy assets and clearing up the mess that his party left behind is anything other than progress.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

It is right for the shadow Chancellor to say that the taxpayers want their money back. It is also right, and I hope my hon. Friend agrees, that people should listen to the Governor of the Bank of England when he warns that delaying the sale of our stake in RBS would lead to a considerable net cost for the taxpayer.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. I agree with her. She points out an important passage in the letter from the Governor of the Bank of England. He believes, for all sorts of reasons from where he sits as our overarching economic regulator, that it is important that we come to this decision point and staging post. I also emphasise that this process will take some time. It is not something that will happen today, tomorrow or the next day. The process of clearing up the mess left behind by the previous Government is a lengthy one.

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

I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her post. Will she tell us whether the Chancellor intends to make a habit of announcing policy to a roomful of bankers, based on a secret review by an investment bank with no public consultation? Did he even consider the alternatives, such as turning RBS into a network of local stakeholder banks, like they have in so many other countries, as a perfect example of localism in practice?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I think my right hon. Friend was delighted to be invited back to the Mansion House to make a speech again this year. The question the hon. Lady asks about locally owned banks indicates that she favours a system of public ownership of our banking sector which, overall, the Government disagree with.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Having worked on the sale of Northern Rock—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—may I congratulate the Government on their successful asset sale programme to date? As referenced in paragraph 2.2.2 of the Rothschild report, the benefits of these sales are not just direct for the taxpayer; they are indirect as well. They may result in increased lending and more mortgage approvals. Will my hon. Friend confirm that those indirect benefits will be taken into account when we judge the success of this programme?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and also welcome his wealth of experience and knowledge in this matter, which he ably demonstrates in his question. The sale will bring wider benefits to the overall economy. It will help us to continue to make progress in making the banking sector more competitive, and may result in a more competitive financial services sector and mortgage sector. That position is echoed not only in the Rothschild report, but in the Governor of the Bank of England’s letter.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

May I take the Minister back to page 11, table 2 and the footnote, because we did not get an answer when this was first asked? The table lays out not the forecast recoveries but just a statement of where we are at the moment, which could change. It does not include the cost of the funding of the interventions; in other words, the cost of the Treasury paper that was created to buy the assets in the first place and on which interest is being paid. Will the Minister please answer the question—what was the cost of funding the interventions?—so that we know the true cost, not the £14.3 billion?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the table is a snapshot of a moment in time. As time progresses, we will no doubt be able to pin down exactly the overall costs of clearing up the mess that Labour left behind.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I welcome today’s statement and the steps being taken to return RBS to private ownership. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the steps set out in the markets review will help to tackle what the Governor of the Bank of England has called a “culture of impunity”, which has been too prevalent in investment banking?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight a very important part of the Governor of the Bank of England’s announcement last night—the “Fair and Effective Markets Review”; bringing a range of fixed income, currency and commodity markets within the regulatory perimeter; and aspiring to be not only the most competitive country in the world in which to locate a financial services business, but the one with the best, cleanest and most competitive regulatory system.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join others in welcoming the hon. Lady to her new role. The sale price of Royal Mail shares last night— £5 per share—totally vindicates the cross-party conclusion of the former Business, Innovation and Skills Committee that Royal Mail shares were underpriced in the original sale. One reason was the over-reliance on institutional investors and the under-participation of the public. Will the Minister assure us that that lesson will be learned in the sale of RBS?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. A long time has passed since the initial flotation, during which the markets have done a lot better. The markets have welcomed the re-election of a strong Conservative Government who have turned the economy around and made huge improvements in our public finances. It is largely due to that that the price is so much higher.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

As we return RBS to the private sector, there are three alternatives. One is for the Government to hold on to the shares for as long as possible in the hope that the share price increases. The second is to sell the whole lot in one go and hope that we get the right price. The third is a phased sale that maximises the income for the taxpayer. Which does my hon. Friend believe is the right option?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend ably summarises a range of options. Today’s statement clearly illustrates that we have rejected his first option of doing nothing. The Government have never shrunk from making difficult decisions that are in the right interests of the country’s economic future. On the second option of selling everything in one go, it is not our opinion, given the size of the holding and as the reports make clear, that the sale can be done in short order; it will take a period of time—which leaves us with the third option.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Has the Minister read, “Freeing Britain to Compete”, produced by her party in 2007 and endorsed by the Prime Minister and, I believe, the Chancellor, which called for a vast range of regulation in financial services to be abolished or watered down, including in relation to money laundering? In particular, has she read the part that says that the Labour Government

“claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money”?

[Harriett Baldwin]

No, I have not read that report.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Is not the reason it is difficult to get our money back from RBS that, other than the Greek banks, no other major bank in the world is in such a parlous, unprofitable state, the root causes of which go back to the last Labour Government—a poor loan book, terrible misconduct, resulting now in catastrophic fines, and ill-judged mergers? Even if we sell the shares at a loss, would that not merely be a tragic reminder to the British public of the failure and economic incompetence of Labour?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I could not put it better myself.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

As I understand it, the stake was originally acquired for £5 a share and the Government are selling them for about £3.50 a share and claiming that the taxpayer is making a profit. On that basis, with the weekend approaching, is the hon. Lady prepared to lend me £20? I will give her a tenner back next week.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have just been informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) still owes him a fiver, which he lent him last week.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Having spent the last seven years working on the Lehman Brothers unwind and repaying creditors in full, I pay tribute to the thousands of RBS staff across the nation, including those at Cotton Street, Bolsover, for returning the bank to health. Will the Minister confirm that selling the initial stake will make it much easier and more efficient to sell the remainder of the stake?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend, who has a wealth of experience in insolvency practice that he has clearly put to good use in his first question. Rothschild and the Bank of England Governor have said that one of the challenges facing this stake is the illiquidity of the float—the stock is not liquid enough to be in any of the major indices, for example—so there are liquidity benefits and potential price benefits from putting an initial float in the private sector.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

May I welcome the hon. Lady to her post and say how much I agreed with the measured, sensible and absolutely correct points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)? I can confirm to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that the old clause IV is certainly alive in my heart. In 1983, I was pleased to stand for election on a manifesto that called for the nationalisation of the banks. Had the banks been nationalised—in public ownership and accountable to the public—all the profits would have accrued to the public purse and they might have been shielded from the world banking crisis. By giving RBS back to the private sector, are we not simply inviting more gambling, more greed, more irresponsibility and more crises in future?

[Harriett Baldwin]

May I express my thanks to the British people for ensuring that we have a Government focused on the economic future of this country, not on the failures of the past and the longest economic suicide note in history?

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Will she remind the House who gave Fred “the Shred” Goodwin a knighthood for services to banking?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for a good question that reminds us not only of the failure of the banking regulatory system under the previous Government, but of the rewards for failure. Labour allowed Fred Goodwin to walk away with an enormous pension and a knighthood.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role, but gently remind her that the current debt to GDP ratio is 80%, which is 20% higher than it was after a global economic crisis and our recapitalisation of the banks. On the current RBS share price, there would be a loss to taxpayers of £13 billion, if all the shares were sold today. Is this not incredibly insensitive to the millions of disabled people waiting for personal independence payments and to the carers who have seen £3.5 billion cut from social care and who are really struggling in this, carers week, and will she confirm that the Government will sell RBS only at a profit to the taxpayer?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady’s question started off very well by acknowledging the risks of high public debt. It is incredibly important for those people whom she rightly draws our attention to that we have a strong and healthy economy, and a strong and healthy financial sector is part of the solution. I am not sure, however, whether she is arguing that we should borrow more for longer by holding on to the shares for longer.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that just prior to the financial crash, the then Labour Government were running an underlying fiscal deficit equivalent to 6% of GDP—twice the level recommended for the EU? Is it not a bit rich, therefore, for Labour Members to dish out advice on both the management of the banks and government finances?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and he is right that I am not prepared to take any lectures on bank regulation, fiscal responsibility or economic management from the Labour party.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position, but only the Conservative party could come here and say that this is a benefit to the taxpayer when it is selling this bank at a cost to the taxpayer. This may represent another cash injection, but on this occasion there is nothing left to get taxpayers’ money back further down the road. Can she recall any time when her party criticised the price paid for those shares at the time we bailed out HSBC?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument. If he is such a Mystic Meg, perhaps he will tell me the date on which the price of this bank, which has been completely restructured over the last few years, will change. Rothschild has provided an estimate of the current state of the overall portfolio of bank interventions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that while in 2009 everyone—including Her Majesty’s Treasury—expected that these interventions would cost the taxpayer between £20 billion and £50 billion, evidence today suggests that it will be of overall benefit to the taxpayer.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind Members that if they want to ask a question, they need to stand. I am not always sure whether Members have changed their minds when they sometimes stand and sometimes do not stand. It also helps if we have brief questions and shorter answers, which should allow everybody into the debate.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It strikes me that the concern is about the process at the beginning of the sale. All the advice—from the Bank of England and Rothschild—is about phasing, which is part of the journey to return to profitability. May I suggest a rebranding exercise? Perhaps we should call this something different—I know what: a long-term economic plan!

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend and her excellent question. She is absolutely right that today’s statement announces a decision point on the journey of implementing our long-term economic plan. Part of that is returning the financial sector to its normal state of health.

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

The £3.50 share float price relies on pension fund managers who run Abbey Life, Aberdeen Management, AXA, Clerical Medical, Scottish Widows, six councils, Whitbread, Lloyd’s of London, BAE, Boeing and, of course, Legal and General and the university superannuation schemes, which have already ruled out buying any RBS shares. What they all share is litigation with RBS. Why would they use their customers’ money to buy shares in a company or a bank such as RBS, against which they are taking litigation?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman points out something that appears in the Rothschild report—that the bank still faces a range of uncertainties, particularly regarding regulatory action from America. The price today therefore reflects that information.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I welcome my friend and parliamentary neighbour to her new role—she has a tremendous wealth of City experience. My constituents would like to know whether the Government expect the share price to go up, in which case they ought to buy some, or whether it will go down, in which case we should sell considerably more.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my constituency neighbour for his question. As he rightly acknowledges, neither he, his constituents, the Government or the market have perfect foresight into whether the shares will go up or down. They will go up or down, and it will be a phased programme for reducing the holdings. Today we are announcing the decision point and the potential for an initial sale.

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

I, too, congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The Government have consistently talked about banking reform. I am particularly concerned about the small start-ups that find it difficult to access credit, especially in areas such as Hull where there is low private wealth. With the return to the institutional investors, will the Government now decide to have a national investment bank with a regional base that focuses specifically on small and medium-sized enterprises?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. She is absolutely right to highlight this country’s challenge on access to finance, particularly for the small and fast-growing sector for which bank finance might be appropriate, but it might want to move on to something else. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is looking at a package of measures to make sure that businesses in Hull and elsewhere are able to have a wider range of choice in accessing finance.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

As far as I can make out, the position of the Opposition is that if we delay this sale, the shares might go up by 35%, and they might break even, which would be a good thing. Of course, though, they might go down. Does the Minister agree that they have no right to speculate with other people’s money, particularly when financed by an overdraft? If they believe this, they should buy some shares themselves.

[Harriett Baldwin]

There seems to be no pleasing Opposition Members. They are not happy when Royal Mail shares go up and we sell them for more money; and they are not happy when the RBS share price is where it is today. They seem to argue that the best thing to do, in all these situations, is to borrow more, spend more and invest more in the banking sector.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister to her post and offer a sobering thought to the Chancellor, who might need it after his Mansion House speech. Given that the nationalisation of RBS was in response to an unforeseen sub-prime debt crisis in America, does the Minister agree that changes to the law to require a budget surplus every year might reduce the fiscal flexibility we need to respond to such a crisis in the future—even by renationalising the banks, if necessary?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to yesterday’s dinner got lost in the post—or perhaps he was not invited. What I do not understand about his question is why he seems to argue for ongoing fiscal irresponsibility, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment as Economic Secretary, and I congratulate the Government on further recovering our economy on behalf of taxpayers. Mention has already been made of the Governor of the Bank of England saying that, for the sake of the taxpayer, we need to get on with the sale sooner rather than later. Mark Carney also mentioned the need for stricter custodial sentences for those convicted of financial mismanagement. Although this is not my hon. Friend’s brief, will the Government consider it?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, and he is absolutely right that the Governor made a powerful speech yesterday, outlining the steps he and the regulators are taking to end the age of irresponsibility. The Government welcome the recommendations of the FEMA—fair and effective markets—review and hope that they will be taken forward internationally via the Bank for International Settlements and under the Governor’s leadership.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her new post. In a week when he have heard that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank is planning to refocus its investment and attentions away from Europe to the far east, what implications does the Minister think this sell-off could have for the long-term headquartering of the Royal Bank of Scotland in Edinburgh?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her warm words. The Government noted the points made by HSBC in its report this week. We are proud of the fact that the UK remains one of the most attractive and competitive places in which to locate a financial services company and a bank. It is essential, in making us fully competitive in that regard, that we take the steps we are announcing today.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. She said in her statement that the Government were not responsible for the bail-out of RBS, but does she not agree with the Governor of the Bank of England that public ownership

“prevented enormous financial contagion at a time when the UK financial system was extremely fragile”?

Will she also confirm that the Chancellor is on record as insisting that the money spent on saving RBS from collapse would be recouped in full? Can she explain why he has changed his mind, by telling us how the perceived public benefit from the sale to which she referred will exceed the £7 billion quantified loss that has been calculated in her own report?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman has failed to apologise for the regulatory system that allowed us to get into this position in the first place. The letter from the Governor of the Bank of England is on the record. The hon. Gentleman must accept that this is part of the improvement in the overall long-term economic outlook—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Gardiner, you must come back and wait for the next Member to speak. You know the courtesies of the House. Members must not do that. It is all about respect, and we must have tolerance as well, on all sides.

If the Minister has finished her answer, I will call David Nuttall.

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

The Minister experienced the singular disadvantage of being my Whip in the last Parliament. I am pleased to welcome her to her new position.

I regard this share sale as a tremendous opportunity for the Government to widen share ownership, just as the Government of the late Lady Thatcher did in the 1980s. May I urge the Minister to make as many shares as possible available to small investors, to make the application process as simple as possible, and to set the minimum level as low as reasonably possible?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend back to this place. Let me say what a joy it was to be his Whip for so many years. One always knew where one stood with him, and that also applies to the very sensible question that he has just asked. I think, though, that he needs to hold his horses in relation to RBS. As he will know, the manifesto on which he stood committed us to a wide retail offer of Lloyds Bank shares at some time in the not too distant future, and we will be dealing with that sale first.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend assure me that we will never return to the system of light-touch regulation that was advocated and encouraged by the former shadow Chancellor when he was City Minister?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House. He is right: over the past five years, we have taken painstaking steps to establish a system of regulation in the financial services industry that will ensure that never again will the taxpayer be forced to bail out a bank.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend will know, there is a direct connection between the tolerance of reckless and illegal activities in financial institutions and the destruction of valuable banks such as RBS. Will she confirm that she will allow the Government to give full force to any recommendations concerning the fair and effective markets reform that was announced by the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday? Will she also confirm that unlike the last Government, who showered honours on bankers who were reckless, this Government will bring the full force of the law to bear?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House. He has made an important point. In his speech, the Governor said that it was right to fine many financial services organisations that had behaved badly in both the recent and the distant past, because such behaviour reduces banks’ capital. Responsibility needs to fall on the individuals who are culpable, and also on the management of those individuals. Reducing the capital that is available through regulatory actions contracts the supply of lending to small businesses.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am a former Royal Mail employee, and a small shareholder.

How does my hon. Friend think posties up and down our great country will have responded today to the announcement of a 1% gift in shares, and the announcement of the continuation of our universal service obligation?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House. He speaks with great knowledge and eloquence about the real experience of the hundreds and thousands of men and women up and down the land on whom we rely every day for our post. I am delighted to be part of a Government who have enabled them to own shares in the organisation for which they work.

European Union (Finance) Bill

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

13:35

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a short but important Bill. Let me begin by explaining the background to it. A little over two years ago, at the February 2013 European Council in Brussels, the Prime Minister secured an historic deal. On the expenditure side, it meant that the EU budget was cut in real terms for the first time, and on the revenue side, it protected our rebate.

As Members will recall, under the financing arrangement that was agreed in 2005 and is currently in force, the then United Kingdom Government gave away part of the UK rebate. That has had, and will continue to have, an impact on the UK’s contribution to the EU budget. The European Commission estimated the cost at £6.6 billion over the previous seven-year financial framework, and in future it will cost us about £2 billion a year.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I was one of those who complained bitterly about the supposed renegotiation of the British rebate, which was actually a giveaway. What is the cumulative cost, and will the Government seek to reverse the position that was negotiated in 2005?

[Mr Gauke]

As I have said, the estimated cost over the previous seven years was £6.6 billion, and in future it will be about £2 billion a year. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making: he want us to clear up yet another mess that was created by the last Government, although I acknowledge that he was as disappointed by his Government as we were. As for what the UK Government can do about the financial position, let me explain what we did in the 2013 negotiations. Whereas the last Government had agreed to an 8% increase in the spending ceiling, we proceeded with an agenda that was in the UK’s interests. This time, the two sensible things that we could do to protect the British taxpayer were to get the overall budget down and to protect our rebate, and that is precisely what we achieved.

The agreement that the Prime Minister secured back in 2013 was good for Europe and good for the United Kingdom. At the time, some argued that it was not possible, and that the interests of the UK were in some way incompatible with the wider aims of the European Union, but the Government showed them that they were wrong.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Bill not endorse a system that takes £12 billion of our taxpayers’ money and spends it elsewhere on the continent, while we receive not a penny of benefit? If the British people voted “out”, they could presumably be given a £12 billion tax cut to celebrate our leaving the European Union.

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend has taken me in the direction of the wider issue of our EU membership. As became clear this week, the people of the United Kingdom will have an opportunity to vote on that, but this is the system that applies while we are members of the European Union. My right hon. Friend may wish to present his argument during a future debate, but what cannot be in doubt is that the Prime Minister’s achievement during the 2013 negotiations constituted a huge improvement on the record of the last Government. It protected the rebate, and it ensured, for the first time, that we were able to reduce the overall expenditure of the EU over the multi-annual financial framework period.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

Before I give way to the hon. Lady, may I welcome her to her position in the shadow Front-Bench team?

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I just wonder whether he intends to mention the debate in the House and the votes, particularly by Labour Members, that gave the Prime Minister such a strong negotiating position and played an important part in strengthening his hand at that time. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that?

[Mr Gauke]

It would be a bit rich for the Labour party to claim this success as its own. We have a record of a Conservative Prime Minister who was able to protect the rebate in full as it stood, and also managed to reduce EU expenditure. That is in stark contrast to the record the previous time this process was undertaken in 2005, when part of our rebate was surrendered at significant cost, as I have already set out.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend remember that at that time the House was sold a pup on the basis that Mr Blair said reform of the common agricultural policy would mean it would be cost-neutral, which turned out to be completely false?

[Mr Gauke]

As usual, my hon. Friend’s memory is correct. That was the argument; we were told this was part of some wider deal, but we did not see the benefits of that, as he rightly highlights.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

The issue of the CAP has just been raised. By 2019 Scotland’s pillar one per hectare payment rate will be the lowest in the EU. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for the full pillar one convergence uplift that was received, as was called for by the Scottish Government and supported across the parties in the Scottish Parliament?

[Mr Gauke]

The Conservative-led Government have a very good record in protecting the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, in terms of some of the changes we might have seen in the structural funds, we ensured all parts of the UK were treated fairly, which would not otherwise have been the case. So all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that of course the Government are determined to protect the interests of all parts of the UK, and, looking at the longer term future of the EU, the CAP does need the type of reform that was once promised and not properly delivered by the last Labour Government.

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

Let me make a little progress.

This Bill relates only to agreement reached on the revenue side of the EU budget. This is an area that receives much less interest, but is no less important—nor any less of a success for the UK—than the cut to the EU budget. I would like, however, to first remind hon. Members of the details of the deal reached on expenditure, before moving on to revenue, the nub of the Bill.

When others argued that the EU would never reform, and certainly would not cut its budget, we argued that a cut in the EU budget was the right thing to do, especially at a time when so many countries had had to make difficult decisions in their own budgets. We argued that EU spending should be focused on where it could provide real growth, in areas such as high-value research and development, and tertiary education—from which Britain’s universities are particularly well-placed to benefit. We made sure that the UK would not be overly disadvantaged by reductions in spending: so, for instance, we ensured that structural funds would continue to flow to our less well-off regions. Above all, we argued from the point of the view of the British taxpayer, who expects and deserves good value for money—and I should add that the British taxpayer is not unique in this respect. So the seven-year EU budget deal—2014 to 2020—secured by the Prime Minister represents a real-terms cut to the payments limit to €908 billion in 2011 prices. Overall spending on the CAP over this period will fall by 13% compared with the 2007-13 EU budget period. At the same time, spending on research and development and other pro-growth investment will now account for 13%, a 4% increase on the previous budget. That is a good deal for Britain, a good deal for the taxpayer, and very different from the previous time round.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Returning to the issue of the structural fund income to Britain, would it not be easier if we had control of those funds? We could allocate them better, and we would be better off by not having to contribute to the budget. Would it not be more sensible to have regional funds repatriated to Britain, so our Government can decide what and where to spend?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point and I think there is a case for particularly some of the wealthier countries in the EU determining their own priorities with the structural funds. Indeed, that has been looked at in the past.

[Stephen Gethins]

Since the Minister struggled with my first question, I will ask him another, this time on pillar two. If Scotland is getting such a fair deal, why will Scotland’s pillar two per hectare rate remain the lowest in the EU at about €12?

[Mr Gauke]

The deal Scotland gets includes support from the structural funds which have been protected as a consequence of decisions made by the UK Government in the last Parliament.

Turning to the deal secured on the revenue side, as hon. Members may be aware, the system by which EU member states finance the annual EU budget is set out in EU legislation known as the own resources decision—ORD for short. At the 2013 February Council, there was strong pressure from some member states, the Commission and the European Parliament to reform the way member states finance the EU budget. These included proposals to introduce a financial transaction tax and do away with the UK rebate, or at least change the way it works.

The Prime Minister stood his ground and made it clear that the UK would not agree to such proposals, nor agree to anything that changed the way our rebate worked. It was a specific objective for the UK that this new financing system would require no new own resources or EU-wide taxes to finance EU expenditure, and no change to the UK rebate, and that is precisely what we achieved.

The political agreement at the 2013 February European Council was accurately reflected in the financing arrangements which all EU member states agreed unanimously at a meeting of the Council of Ministers in May 2014. Under the agreement, which this Bill will implement, the Prime Minister protected what is left of the UK rebate, and this is maintained without any change throughout the life of this agreement.

The agreement also ensures there will be no new types of member state contributions and no new taxes to finance EU spending over this period. The new ORD does not make any changes to the way that the EU budget is financed. There are some changes in the detail of the ORD compared with the previous one, however. For example, it reintroduces reductions in the GNI-based contributions of the Netherlands and Sweden, and introduces small reductions in these contributions for Denmark and Austria. The UK will contribute to these small corrections, which will mean an additional £16 million in contributions from the UK per year compared to the last ORD; that is around 0.1% of our total gross contribution in 2014. Moreover, this will be largely offset by changes in other corrections.

[John Redwood]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister on defending Britain’s interests against a far worse settlement, but is it not also the case that under the pre-existing agreements if Britain grows more quickly than the euroland, which it is doing and appears that it will carry on doing, we will get caned by having to pay more tax?

[Mr Gauke]

Part of the calculation of member states’ contributions is based on the size of their economy. That means that bigger economies pay more and smaller ones pay less. As an economy becomes relatively bigger, it makes a bigger contribution. That is the factual situation; that is how it works.

I referred earlier to the corrections and the small reductions in the contributions from Denmark and Austria. The UK has always supported the principle of budgetary corrections set out at the 1984 Fontainebleau European Council, which gave us our rebate. In the absence of any meaningful reform on the expenditure side of the budget, we believe that those member states that make disproportionately large net contributions to the budget in relation to their prosperity, such as the UK, should receive corrections.

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

Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), will the Minister explain whether there has been any change as a result of the recalculation of gross national income as the European Union has moved from the European system of accounts known as ESA95 to the later ESA2010, which I believe includes more of the black market? Has that move had the effect of making our economy bigger?

[Mr Gauke]

That is not a matter that is related to the Bill. The own resources decision uses the same formula for this financial framework as it did for the previous one. The revisions to GNI to which my hon. Friend refers are a separate matter. The element relating to the hidden economy has on occasions been somewhat overstated in this debate, but yes, there was a correction of our GNI estimates and that did require an additional sum. He will be aware of how this Government negotiated to ensure that we did not have to pay that sum up front—we were given much more time—and that the rebate applied to it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that this own resources decision is based on ESA95, as the last one was, rather than on ESA2010, which has been adopted for other purposes.

[Mr Gauke]

The own resources decision—the ORD—contains an element that is based on GNI. There may be different ways of calculating the GNI as it is updated. This is not related to the Bill, however. The formula remains essentially the same, and the element that comes from GNI has not changed, although there may be changes to the way in which the GNI works. Indeed, there are changes on an annual basis, because there are revisions to the number.

This new ORD requires the approval of each member state, in accordance with their own constitutional requirements, before it can come into force. The Bill will therefore give UK approval to the Council decision. The passing of the Bill will be the final action necessary in delivering the deal secured by the Prime Minister in 2013. As a result of the deal, EU spending was cut in real terms and UK contributions are forecast to be lower in every year compared with the final year of the Government’s seven-year deal, by on average around £1.3 billion. In addition, our rebate, which is worth around £5 billion per year, is protected. This agreement is in our national interest. It represents a good deal for the taxpayer now and over the coming years.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to what the Prime Minister said in 2013. After the EU budget negotiations, he said:

“Working with allies, we took real steps towards reform in the European Union.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 571.]

Hon. Members will need no reminding that reforming the European Union is one of the key objectives of this Government. The Prime Minister has already had constructive talks with EU leaders on how best to address the UK’s concerns about how the EU is run. These concerns are not unique to the UK. Many in Europe agree with us that the EU is too uncompetitive, too democratically unaccountable and too inflexible to the concerns of citizens in its member states. They agree with us that reform is needed, and the Prime Minister, in turn, is confident that he can and will succeed in negotiating to reform the European Union and our relationship with it.

In February 2013, we saw the positive results of working with partners to achieve real change in Europe. We saw what can be done when we are tough, positive and determined in negotiations with our European partners. Our vision of an open, prosperous Europe can be achieved only on the back of financial discipline. That was the principle on which we negotiated in 2013, and that is a principle we will continue to apply. The agreement that will be implemented by the Bill will be good for Britain and good for Europe, too. I commend it to the House.

13:55

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his welcome. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill, but we will table some amendments that we suggest will improve it. Of course we welcome the fact that a cut was agreed on the seven-year payment ceiling for the European Union budget. This was made clear when we debated the agreement reached at the European Council in February 2013. I remind the Minister of the point I made earlier. The House had voted for a real-terms budget cut in October 2012, which of course helped to create a strong negotiating mandate for the UK. Labour votes in that debate, combined with a Conservative amendment, helped to force a rethink. It was clear at that time that the EU budget could not have continued to rise, year on year, when national Governments were implementing such difficult and deep cuts to public spending.

We all need to work to ensure that the European Union better reflects people’s concerns and that the people who pay for our budget contribution understand and approve of this use of their money. Most people probably do not understand how the EU budget is set or, within that, how our contribution is decided. The language used to describe EU finance is of course technical—the Minister has just used some of that language in his speech. We speak of financial perspectives, own resources decisions, resource ceilings for payments and enlargement-related adjustments. Over the coming months, in the lead-up to the EU referendum, we need much greater transparency in relation to how the EU uses our funding and how the multi-annual financial frameworks and annual budgets are agreed.

An area of concern that has been raised with the Prime Minister is the growing gap between the ceiling on spending commitments and the ceiling on payments. That gap, as agreed in the settlement of February 2013, is between €960 billion on commitments and €908 billion on payments. The gap has crept up from an average of 2.6% to the current 5.4%, and it is projected to rise to 5.7% from 2014 to 2020. When questioned on this during the 2013 statement, the Prime Minister said that the gap was “not untypical”, but we feel that it is important that the public can be reassured that this gap is actually manageable.

We believe that there must be a regular review of the level of EU budget spending and that the process of commitment and payment appropriations—and the gap between them—must be kept under review. There must also be a review of whether alternative arrangements may offer stronger budgetary control and improved transparency. It would help if the European Commission thought it was important to give more and better information on the budget and the budget process, and in language that members of the public could understand.

[John Redwood]

Is there any extra tax demand that the EU makes on us that the Labour party disagrees with?

[Barbara Keeley]

We are actually supporting the Bill—

[John Redwood]

So the answer is no.

[Barbara Keeley]

Yes, indeed. I am making the point that we need to make this process clearer, and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister would agree with that. It is a difficult technical process, but the people outside this place need to be able to understand it. In my view, they do not.

[John Redwood]

What do people not understand? The EU is taking £12 billion of our money, and this Bill is going to give it more.

[Barbara Keeley]

I think people do understand that. The point is that the benefits are not understood. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has his view, and other people have a different one. The process could be made clearer, and it is my contention that we will have to do that. As we put this important decision in front of people in the coming months, they will have to be able to understand this better than they do at the moment.

Interestingly, the European Commission recently sent hon. Members a document promising to tell us “How the European Union works”. We have a host of new Members with us today, and I do not know whether any of them have seen that document in among the mountain of material that has landed on them recently. It is a 40-page document, but it contains only two short paragraphs—indeed, 10 lines—about the EU budget. It does not give figures for that budget, nor does it describe how the money is spent. Yet in the months ahead, as I said, that will be a key aspect of the debate for the people of this country.

The debate in the House in February 2013 and other debates since have focused on the fact that substantial reform of priorities is still needed in the EU budget. We have had questions about the balance of agriculture spending, but the Labour party believes that growth and jobs should continue to be prioritised by cutting back even further on agriculture spending and other similar priorities. Spending on the common agricultural policy fell as a proportion of the budget from 55% in 1997 to 46% in 2010. We welcome the continued decline in agriculture spending as a share of the European budget; it will drop from 41% of EU commitments in 2014 to 35% in 2020. The difficult reflection for people outside Parliament, however, is that with agriculture making up only 1.6% of the total output of the European Union, why does it still account for 30% to 40% of the budget? There is still much more to do.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I welcome what my hon. Friend is saying, but although the proportion of the budget commanded by agriculture is falling, in money terms over the past eight years there has been a fairly significant increase of 26%—so agriculture is still increasing in money terms.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and that is why I am making the point, with which I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, that if we want more of a focus on growth and jobs in a smaller budget, which we do in the Opposition, there have to be further cuts and changes in priorities.

In the debate on the settlement in February 2013, the modest increase in funds targeted towards growth, infrastructure, research and development, and innovation was welcomed, but we also expressed concern that the balance away from agriculture spending towards the spending on growth and jobs was not sufficient. We need constantly to remind ourselves about unemployment —24 million people are unemployed throughout the EU, including 4.8 million 15 to 24-year-olds. In the UK, of course, we still have 735,000 16 to 24-year-olds who are looking for work. We want to see greatly increased investment in the funds targeted on growth, infrastructure, research and development, and innovation. We need the European Union to provide a better framework and strategy to achieve the growth in jobs. Our missions go further than that, however, and we also need the EU to act as a guardian of rights and protections at work. The Opposition want to talk about creating jobs and to focus on the right type of jobs and on the quality and security of those jobs.

We have supported a cut in the EU budget, but we will continue to press for a reform of budget priorities. During the passage of the Bill, therefore, we will call for a fundamental review by the end of 2015 of the budget priorities and of waste and inefficiency in the EU budget. Debates in the House have included many references to outdated practices such as relocating the European Parliament to Strasbourg each month, which costs €200 million a year. There are a number of other areas where savings can be made.

In previous debates, hon. Members from both sides of the House have suggested many ways in which money could be saved and inefficiencies prevented in the European Union, ranging from cutting spending on the House of European History Museum, costing a reported £137 million, to cutting export refunds. Hon. Members repeatedly raised the need to reform the CAP—today is no exception—and a number have also mentioned the levels of salaries and benefits for EU staff, including their differential tax rate and housing allowances.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech with many good points, but does she not think it strange that we are joining a club, paying all those billions of pounds, when for 18 or 19 years the auditors have not signed off its accounts? What other institution would the Government go anywhere near if they could not get the accounts? Do we not have to start with the basics, with that problem?

[Barbara Keeley]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will come on to that. Within the smaller budget that we will have, if we want to have different priorities and get new things done, clearly we will have to deal with inefficiencies and find savings.

Another suggestion for where savings could be made is to reform or repatriate EU structural funds. There are different views on that in the House, but it has been mentioned, as has reforming a number of EU quangos and agencies.

I have made a short list to show the level of pressure in this House for changes to be made to the EU budget and the wider EU institutions. The question of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) showed that we are now expecting future action on the review of such matters from within the EU. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has said in the past, an effective EU budget review means having

“a relentless focus on the justification behind detailed expenditure.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 304.]

In the debate on the multi-annual financial framework in October 2012, we called for a more effective and independent EU auditor—exactly the point made by the hon. Gentleman. We would then be able to examine the different programmes and their impact on the EU economy. It is time we had that. An auditor could also improve the accountability of spending on pro-growth activities, bringing together all Commission priorities under the auspices perhaps of a single Commissioner for growth.

Those are just some of the ideas. The feeling in this House now is that it is time for action on such things. We will call for improved transparency and accountability in the EU budget process to assist in developing what we see, which is a relentless focus on EU expenditure in future.

14:05

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). She reminded us of a number of things. She reminded us of the first flip in Labour’s European policy, when her party chose to join a small group of Conservative Members who were concerned about EU spending, which was perhaps the foundation for Labour’s flip in policy on the EU referendum that we saw this week.

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s words about trying to look at future EU budget spending and the need for significant control of that budget and the checks on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) talked about the accounts not being signed off for two decades. For 20 years there has not been a positive statement on or assurance of the EU accounts being signed off. I have to remind the hon. Lady that in all the time that her party was in office, not once did her Government ask a question about the EU accounts not being signed off. It was only when the previous, Conservative-led Administration came to office that questions were first asked.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman refers to what he described as the “flip” in the 31 October 2012 debate, but at the time we were referring back to a Labour position adopted on 12 January 2012 in a motion that ended with the words that we called

“on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the 2013 Budget and the forthcoming Multi-Annual Financial Framework are reduced in real terms”..”—[Official Report, 12 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 523.]

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Excellent. If we are going back in history, I guess I should share with the hon. Lady the fact that from 1999 to 2009 I was not in this House, but in the European Parliament. I sat on the budget and budgetary control committees, watching Labour Members of Parliament and Labour Ministers at the time not particularly bothering at all about EU spending, so I am delighted with the change of heart, because there is a need for focus on this area.

I do not intend to speak for too long because I know that a number of hon. Members want to make their maiden speeches. Small though the Bill is, it is, however, important and it deserves to have a decent amount of scrutiny by the House, which I am pleased to see that it will receive. The sole purpose of the Bill is to approve and implement the EU’s own resources decision, setting into legislation how the EU budget is to be funded, including the EU rebate. That is a big deal for us, because we stick in a massive contribution to the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2015 economic and fiscal outlook report gives the net contribution figures for our country to the European Union. I had a debate in the Tea Room with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who thinks that the figures are downplayed slightly, but they are the ones that I have to hand at the moment.

The net contribution for 2013-14 from Great Britain to the European Union was £10.2 billion; for 2014-15 it was £9.2 billion; and for 2015-16 it was £9.9 billion. Those are significant sums of money.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks it is right to use the net figure, or the gross figure after rebate, because with the net figure the spending that is netted off is spent according to the requirements of the European Union; it is not necessarily spent in the way that a British Government would wish to spend it.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My hon. Friend is completely right about that, so I thought I should also share with the House the gross contribution figures given by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its March 2015 economic and fiscal outlook report. The gross contribution figures were £14.1 billion for 2013-14, £14 billion for 2014-15 and £14 billion for 2015-16. We are talking about massively significant sums and this Bill therefore needs some scrutiny, because it is the one that tells us how the EU budget is funded.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

These annual sums bear a striking similarity to the amount the Chancellor is proposing to cut from welfare spending. I would much prefer to see welfare spending increased and spending on the European budget reduced.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is able to spread that message far and wide across the Opposition Benches. What he says is true: wherever we have a cost in our finances, we make choices in other places. This is a significant sum, but it is one we have chosen to pay over. We must therefore ensure that we allow ourselves, as this decision on the own resources decision rightly does, to keep a check on how our money is being spent.

The European Union Act 2011 requires this House to give approval to own resources decisions. There has always been an Act of Parliament that does that, but the 2011 Act was a good piece of legislation—again, Labour Members came to it late in the process. It allowed greater scrutiny of how the Executive choose to act in European matters; it introduced the referendum lock on certain things; and it made sure that we get a debate on significant matters such as the one before us today. Although we have always had an Act of Parliament in place to do this, I welcome the greater scrutiny.

I should remind hon. Members of what the “own resources” of the European Union actually means. What are these figures for and where do they come from? Well, 12% of the own resources budget is comprised of customs duties, including those on agricultural products; a tiny sum, less than 1%, is sugar levies; there are contributions based on VAT, which comprises about 13%; and the remaining 74% or so is based on gross national income-based contributions. A significant mix of different things goes into our £14 billion gross contribution to the EU.

Actual European spending is set by the annual EU budget, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the annual budget expenditure is governed by the ceilings set by the EU’s multi-annual financial framework. I was pleased to be reminded by him of the good job our Prime Minister did to ensure that the last MFF gave us an unprecedented real-terms cut in EU spending ceilings for 2014 to 2020, which was welcomed by Members on both sides of the House—it was eventually believed by the then Labour economic team.

Unlike the own resources decision, under EU treaties the multi-annual financial framework does not need the national approval of member states in accordance with their conditional requirements. Thus, it is already in force and this Bill deals only with the own resources decision. Alongside the agreement of the new MFF, we had this new own resources decision, which was formally adopted by unanimity by the Council in May 2014, and the Bill approves it for UK purposes. As the Minister said, the rules governing the UK rebate remain unchanged compared with the existing own resources decision. Alas, they do, however, repeat, and this answers a point mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Luton South—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

North.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I mean the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). They roll in the old rebate loss that the former Prime Minister Mr Blair negotiated in return for common agricultural policy reform that we never achieved.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister, one of which has been raised previously by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). The Minister mentioned the minor additional costs that this might bring to us, because there do seem to be some compared with the existing own resources decision. He talked about their being offset by other corrections and I wonder whether he could detail what they are, because I could not find them in the explanatory notes. I also seek clarification on the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset on the change in the European system of accounts. I did not quite understand the answer and I would appreciate it if he could go into a tiny bit more detail.

I welcome the Bill and the scrutiny it is giving to EU accounts, and I welcome the opportunity to talk about this in greater detail when we go into Committee next week.

14:15

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

It might be considered a trifle unorthodox to give a maiden speech leading from the Front Bench of your party, so I trust Members will forgive me but I am in fear of the Whips.

The Scottish National party will not oppose this Bill, and I would commend it rather more than my friend the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) would. As I am sure Members appreciate, the SNP takes a broader and more positive view of being a member of the European Union and, therefore, of funding it. As far as I could tell from her contribution, Labour wants to be tough on Europe without wanting to be tough on the causes of Europe.

Congratulations are due to the Government. Interestingly, if we look at the contributions the UK has made to the EU over the past 43 years, we see that the five years in which the UK made the largest contributions were the past five years. The £42 billion to £43 billion sum that the coalition contributed net to the EU in the past five years was roughly the same as the previous Labour Government had contributed in 13 years. The coalition therefore managed to double what it gave to the EU, which slightly contradicts the official position of the Government, which is to be tough on Europe. I can feel for some Conservative Back Benchers who are more anti-Europe in thinking that the line the Government take in public is not actually what they are doing in reality on the EU.

I am somewhat in awe of being here to make my maiden speech in front of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), as I recall that many years ago when I was teaching I used one of his books as a textbook, so I always treat what he says with great concentration and concern, but SNP Members are positive Europeans and we therefore will the spending for the European Union. The way I look at what we are proposing today and going to vote on later is that we are willing our contribution to the European Union to tackle austerity—quite the opposite of what the Chancellor is doing.

Interestingly, too, if we read the papers that come with the Bill, we find that the OBR reckons that in the seven years of the next spending period the UK will make much the same net contribution as it did in the previous five years. Although the Prime Minister has made much of the fact that he has got the formal budget of the EU for the next period down, Britain’s contribution in cash terms will be much the same. [Interruption.] Inflation will have reduced the real value, possibly by about 7%, depending on the outrun, but there is no cash reduction. We are going to be providing much the same contribution as we did in the past five years, so what has happened to the money that has disappeared with the reduction in the overall contribution limits? The answer is: other countries, such as Denmark and Austria, have negotiated smaller net contributions, in real terms and in cash terms. I can feel for the right hon. Member for Wokingham, because his Government are hardly managing to be as tough on the EU as they are pretending to be.

As this is my maiden speech, I cannot go home without saying a few words about my constituency. Given how technical this debate is, perhaps a few words of diversion before we get back to the serious business will not go amiss.

I have reached the age that we in Scotland call the age for “getting your bus pass”. I had expected that I would be spending most of my time after the referendum writing a few more obscure books on economics and tending to my improbably ambitious vegetable garden, but suddenly the good folk of East Lothian sent me here to represent them. I could not be more pleased. My first and foremost duty—I have to put this on record—is to represent all of them whether or not they voted for me.

It is a pleasure to be in this august Chamber. Many, many years ago, as a small boy in Drumchapel, I fell in love with history. In those days, the history we studied in school was not the history from below but, by and large, the history of this Chamber. It was, as some Members may remember, the Whig interpretation of history, which was that all history was about the ever greater improvement of the British constitution—now, there are not so many Whigs left.

I appreciated those lessons, because this Chamber has always been kind to people of my persuasion—Scottish nationalists, people who want self-determination for Scotland. Though most parties here have disagreed with us, we have always had a fair hearing. Whether it was the radicals of the Highland Land League who came here in the 19th century, the Red Clydesiders of the Independent Labour party, or Members from the Scottish National party—we have always had a fair hearing. We may have taken issue with the Executive over the years, but never with this Chamber; we have always had a fair hearing. Indeed, in the past there has been conflict between the Executive and the Speaker. I am sure that if that happens in the future, the Speaker can expect our support.

Let me say a few words about East Lothian, which is the lovely, beautiful flat plain just to the left of Edinburgh. It is a county of small towns—Musselburgh, Haddington, Tranent, Dunbar, Prestonpans, North Berwick and Cockenzie—where people think hard and work hard. It is not a big metropolitan area; it is a county of radical tradition. From the eastern side of Scotland, the area has for centuries looked out to the North sea, to Europe and to the Baltic. Our outward-looking views on Europe and the rest of the world come, I think, from that geographical position. This idea of building positive links with Europe is what animates me. The trade links between East Lothian and Europe brought in new ideas. East Lothian is the county that introduced Presbyterianism to Scotland. We had the earliest mining communities, which added to our radical tradition.

We are the county that gave the world John Knox and Andrew Fletcher. Fletcher was the person who would lead the opposition to the Act of Union. In this context, I must mention the most renowned MP from East Lothian, John P. Mackintosh, who passed away in 1974. He is still remembered. He was a great constitutionalist and a professor of constitutional law.

Mackintosh sat on the Labour Benches, but I was lucky enough to have an old friend of his and his former campaign manager helping me in my campaign. I have always said that Mackintosh was a hero of mine, because of his genuine commitment to constitutional reform in the UK and to home rule for Scotland. He was very clear that home rule was something different from devolution. Piecemeal devolution—granting a concession here and a concession there, a change here and a change there—has hardly resolved the issue of the Scottish desire for self-government. The moves have been grudging. If there has been tension on both sides of the Chamber and argument, fractiousness and debate, it is because those of us on the SNP Benches feel that we are getting piecemeal concessions. The majority of people in Scotland want self-government. We voted for self-government in the referendum last year. Home rule within the Union must mean home rule. Mackintosh argued for that. Perhaps if we had had home rule in 1970s instead of the piecemeal drip that we have had ever since, we might have been able to move forward, and we would not be holding this debate.

I have heard Members vie with each other over which is the most beautiful constituency in the UK; they are all beautiful. In East Lothian, we have a saying, which has been current for several hundred years, which is that East Lothian is the garden of Scotland, and it is. In the east of the constituency, lush volcanic soil has created wonderful arable agriculture and great dairy farms. To the south are the dark Lammermuir hills, which keep the wind off and on which the sheep still graze. To the north, there is a lovely sea coast, which has an important fishing industry. We have a wonderful verdant county.

I am here representing our farmers, and let me say to the right hon. Member for Wokingham that those farmers are not fans of the referendum or of withdrawal from the EU. They are hard working, and do not depend on simple subsidy. The uncertainty that will be produced by a referendum and by the possibility of Scotland being taken out of the EU—most Scots will vote to stay in—is the primary worry of our farmers. One reason I am standing here today is to argue in favour of staying in the EU and of defending the ability of our farmers to access the European market. However, I have not been sent to this place to give a travelogue.

I was asked one question time and again on the doorsteps in East Lothian: why is it that in Scotland’s garden—the bread basket of Scotland—hundreds of children go to bed every night hungry? If there is any place in this United Kingdom where there is a gap between the failure of this Government’s austerity policy and welfare cap and the ability to create food, jobs and economic activity it is in East Lothian. We cannot be the bread basket of Scotland and have children go to bed hungry every night. That is the contradiction. The Government’s dogged policy of austerity—austerity here and an attempt at austerity in Europe—is simply leading to social divisions across the UK.

I am talking here to those the Government Benches, especially the right hon. Member for Wokingham—I am using him as a foil, because I have spent many decades reading his economics and I want to respond rationally to him. We on the SNP Benches believe that we must maintain a serious approach to the deficit—that is not in contention—but the Chancellor’s austerity policies are an ideological fixation. The Chancellor wants to run a primary budget surplus out of ideological intent. Yes, we must reduce the deficit and the budget, but we can do it in an intelligent and rational fashion that does not lead to the social crises that are emerging in places such as East Lothian.

Why we should not run a primary budget surplus at the moment is quite simply because all the UK is doing is growing roughly on trend, but whether we do that over the next period is questionable. It is foolhardy to try to run a primary budget surplus if we are only growing at trend. What we should be doing is running a more modest deficit, probably at around 2% to 2.5% of GDP, roughly on trend, and continuing that to give ourselves the resources to solve some of the structural problems in the economy such as our massive current account trade deficit and low productivity. If we do that and grow the economy in a structural sense, that will ultimately give us the resources to pay down the deficit. I would rather do it in that rational, conscious fashion than have an ideological knee-jerk reaction.

I have wandered far, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have been very patient, so I shall draw to a close. We are in this place to have a rational dialogue, not to demand or to rampage. During my tenure, as well as representing as best I can the people of East Lothian, I want in some sense to help to heal the divisions between the four great nations of these islands. We want our self-government, and my final point to the right hon. Member for Wokingham is that I would like to see an English Parliament voting on English laws. That is what comes from Scotland’s having independence. I think that within a generation we will have four independent Parliaments in this Atlantic archipelago. We will co-operate, we will have a common market, we will discuss this and that and we will probably have a common defence policy, but we will achieve that by recognising the right of the four nations, and certainly of Scotland, to be self-governing and independent. The family of nations can then treat each other as equals.

Until we do that, we will continue to have to argue in this place for Scottish self-government and for our rights. Once we are a separate family, we will come together as four nations. What is wonderful about these islands is that we have four separate, wonderful nations, vibrant and creative. Co-operating as separate nations, we will challenge the world. Unless we do that we will continue to be caught up in the constitutional debate that has been going on for the past hundred years.

I commend the Bill, which says that Europe is a family of nations. So is the family of British nations, but for that to be a genuine family Scotland must be self-governing with its own sovereign Parliament.

14:32

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I praise the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), whose tour de force demonstrated the strength of speaking skills in the northern part of our nation. I am grateful to be called to speak today, because the financing of Europe is a matter in which I must declare an interest. As the husband of a French wife, I know all about foreign powers deciding on British finances.

It is an honour to represent the people of Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling in this wonderful House. Our beautiful towns and villages prove that England is today enjoying a bountiful summer. The fruits of our fields are enjoyed nationwide and I hope that this summer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be among the many who relish the Mereworth strawberries when you go to Wimbledon. I could give you a tour of my wonderful constituency based on the pubs, but for brevity I shall stick to the numerous towns and villages.

In the west, Edenbridge is a wonderful market town that once made cricket balls—indeed, the balls that Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge smacked out of the ground to the delight of Kent and England fans. Chiddingstone is home to one of the finest ales in our nation, Larkins, which will, I hope, one day be on tap here. A little further on is Wolf Hall or, as it is known on the maps, Penshurst. Sadly, these wonderful communities are not entirely tranquil. As I reminded my right hon. Friend the Secretary State for Transport this morning, Gatwick’s low flights are blighting our days.

A little to the east, our largest town, Tonbridge, is home to some of the finest schools in our country. I declare an interest again, as a governor of Hillview School, which is committed to the arts, to drama, to design and to fashion and through that enriches the lives of many young people. West Malling’s High Street shows that commerce and community can combine. The award-winning florists and shoe shops are indeed a delight to all. East Malling is more famous abroad than at home, as its agricultural research has introduced new varieties to farmers around the world, while at Hadlow College those innovations are translated into reality by the teaching of a new generation.

Our community is not cut off from modernity, but communications too often hamper rather than improve lives. Borough Green, for example, is shaken by heavy traffic while many across our area suffer from poor trains and failing phone signals. The response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and of the Rail Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), has been exemplary, and I look forward to seeing both issues improved with their welcome support.

I am not the first to campaign on these matters. The right hon. Sir John Stanley did so before most people can remember and, indeed, before I was born. In his maiden speech, he tested Hansard with the names of some of our wonderfully yclept villages: Wrotham, pronounced “Routem”; Trottiscliffe, pronounced “Trozlee”; and Ightham, pronounced “Item”. As I say them, I know that I am testing Hansard again 40 years later.

The House knows Sir John’s formidable legacy. His close links with the councils he served alongside and his dedication to every part of the constituency have left an integrated approach and exemplary work ethic that I am determined to maintain. Furthermore, his dedication to our country saw him serve as Minister for housing, for Northern Ireland and for the armed forces. That connection to the armed forces is very strong in Tonbridge and I am proud to join the line of representatives that our town has sent to this House still holding a commission in her Majesty’s armed forces. Sir John continued that tradition of service and his personal courage was clear both from the ministerial offices he held during the darkest days of the troubles and, perhaps most dramatically, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Baroness Thatcher. That really took courage. I wish Sir John and Lady Stanley well. They deserve our utmost praise and gratitude.

My time in this House is, to be honest, unlikely to match the length of Sir John’s, so I shall briefly outline my reasons for seeking a voice in the heart of our democratic Union. The first is the law. As St Thomas More, a former occupant of your seat, Madam Deputy Speaker, once put it:

“I would uphold the law if for no other reason but to protect myself”.

Though my learned father invariably displayed the judgment of Solomon, I learnt clearly that the rule of law is not the same as the rule of lawyers. Those are not just words of filial rebellion but a call for the sovereignty of the people—the fundamental principle of British governance reasserted many times since Magna Carta 800 years ago—that finds expression in this House, the court of Parliament, and not through the Queen’s courts nor Strasbourg’s.

My second reason for seeking a voice is dementia. That silent time bomb is affecting the whole community, both directly and as carers, and that in turn calls for community response. That is why I am working with the whole community to help Tonbridge, Edenbridge and West Malling to become dementia-friendly towns that can offer the support we need across west Kent.

Finally, I come to the armed forces. Having served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq and latterly as military assistant to the Chief of the Defence Staff, I know that numerical totems are for accountants, not soldiers. It is capability that matters and that is measured in assets and readiness. As we face an uncertain future in a world in which Russia threatens our allies in the east and Islamic-inspired violent extremism is redrawing the maps of the middle east, we must not only have the ships, the soldiers and the aircraft but must be certain that they are ready. Only by demonstrating our readiness on exercises and operations can we reassure our friends and deter our enemies. Deterrence is about much more than the nuclear boats that are the British people’s ultimate guarantee of sovereignty. It is about the morale and training of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Like a fiat currency, defence relies on confidence in our ability and only truly works when no one dares test it.

As we continue our debate on financing the European Union, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the only Prime Minister to have lowered the budget. I am also grateful and humbled to be the voice of my community in this Chamber. I will speak for the thousands who supported me and for the thousands who did not. I pledge to serve them all and the interests of our United Kingdom to the best of my ability, as long as the people of Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling will grant me that privilege.

14:40

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on their maiden speeches. They are very impressive new colleagues. I welcome them warmly to the House and look forward to working with them in the coming years.

I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on the Front Bench that matters pertaining to the European Union budget should be made more clear. EU finances are controversial and we ought to be clear what we are arguing about and make sure that our constituents understand as well.

The problem is that numeracy is not given to everyone, especially when it comes to very large numbers. I used to teach economics, and the first question I used to ask my students was, “What is the difference between a million and a billion?” Many of them did not know, except that a billion was probably a bit bigger than a million. When I put the question in terms of the number of houses that they could buy for £1 million and £1 billion —perhaps four for £1 million and 4,000 for £1 billion—the students started to get the message that £1 billion is a substantial amount of money, and many billions are even more substantial.

Our net contribution, be it £10 billion or £12 billion—there might be some debate about the precise figure—is a large sum. Rather than talking billions, I tried to work it out in a way that my constituents would understand. For example, it is the equivalent of about 3p on the standard rate of income tax. People understand that. It is getting on for £200 per person per year. People understand that. For a family of four, £700 or £800 a year is a significant sum, and that is what they are contributing net to the European Union. Our net contribution has trebled in the past six years since 2008. That trebling—people understand an amount multiplied by three—is a very large increase in those years. We do not know how much that is influenced by the poor deal done in 2005. Nevertheless, that is where we are today.

Much has been made of the UK rebate, which was reduced, as we know, but even since 2008 it has gone down as a proportion of our gross contribution. In 2008 our rebate was 38% of our gross contribution; in 2014 it was 25% of our gross contribution. In that sense we have lost out even further. The 2005 deal was described by The Economist at the time as such a bad deal that no deal would have been better than that deal. I have said a number of times in this House, to the previous Government as well, that if they are so worried about it, why do we not at least try to restore the position pre-2005? That has not been taken up. Personally, I would go further than that.

Our net contribution over 40 years has been on a substantially rising trend. It started quite small but it is now much, much larger. The cumulative effect on our economy, on growth and living standards, has been substantial. My good friend John Mills, who runs the Labour euro-safeguards group, has done calculations to estimate the impact on growth during that period and it is substantial. We could have been a richer country by some way, had we not had to pay a substantial sum net into the European Union budget every year.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech on this subject, as usual. Does he remember the only year when we had a net contribution from the EU? Was it not the year we had the Wilson referendum?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have the Library note. The only time we had a net receipt from the European Union, or Common Market as it was then, was in 1975.

The major problem for us has been the common agricultural policy, which has been the major drain on the EU budget and to Britain’s enormous disadvantage over that time. Mrs Thatcher’s negotiation of a rebate was based on the fact that our agriculture was very different from that of most of the rest of the European Union and we were substantial net contributors, which was seen to be unfair so we secured a rebate. That rebate is no longer as large as it should be. Nevertheless, we did secure a rebate, which arose because of the CAP.

The Prime Minister would do well to seek Britain’s withdrawal from the CAP in his negotiations. That is certainly one of my red lines in the negotiations. The common agricultural policy is not a good thing for anyone, and certainly not for Britain. Last year I went with the European Scrutiny Committee to Lithuania. Lithuania used to be self-sufficient in food. Now it is being paid not to grow things. Large swathes of the land of Lithuania are being left fallow because the farmers are being paid not to grow things under the CAP, which is nonsense.

If we were outside the CAP we could continue to subsidise our own agriculture at the same level as occurs now, saving vast sums of money for the Exchequer while subsidising our farmers at the same level; or, more sensibly, we could decide how and where we subsidise more precisely, according to our own needs and what is better for Britain. We might want to preserve Welsh hill farms which may not be so efficient but are part of our culture and our environment and it is nice to keep them going, but we would not necessarily want to give such large subsidies to very large grain farmers in East Anglia, and so on. We could target the subsidies more sensibly, according to what we in this Chamber think, rather than what is decided in Brussels.

We should also be free to buy agricultural products on world markets and not have to pay EU duties on such imports. The EU still subsidises the dumping of sugar surpluses on world markets, a nonsense which discriminates against developing and poorer countries that produce sugar. There are many nonsenses in the EU budget and, as was pointed out earlier, it has failed to be signed off by the EU auditors for more than a decade and a half—a scandal. No business could operate having been refused audit approval for 15 or 20 years. It would be illegal to do so, I suspect. I want to see the EU budget substantially reformed.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he wish to comment on the sheer difficulty of bringing about reform? In the October 2012 debate the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said that the British Government had asked the Commission to model cuts of €5 billion, €10 billion and €15 billion in staffing costs. I know that my hon. Friend took part in the debate, but it is worth looking at the Commission’s response to our Government when they asked for that work to be done:

“We declined as it’s a lot of work and a waste of time for our staff who are busy with more urgent matters…we are better educated than national civil servants. We’re high fliers, not burger flippers”.—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 297.]

If that is the response that we get, is it not time that we took a more robust approach?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend, who anticipates my next point: you do not go into a negotiation with the other side knowing that you will give way in the end; you go in making them think that if they do not give you something, you will walk away. Before entering this House, I spent many years working as a researcher in the trade union movement. Trade union negotiators do not go in quietly giving way to the employers. They start off with a tough stance and try to get something real out of those negotiations. We should be doing the same.

The new hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), currently the Mayor of London, has made the point that we should be prepared to say to the other side in these negotiations that if we do not get a satisfactory conclusion, we would not be resistant to the idea of leaving the EU. A strong negotiating stance is necessary to win anything at all. I think that should be our position. I have a number of other red lines, which it would be inappropriate to go through in this debate, but the budget and the many irrationalities and nonsenses within it, primarily the common agricultural policy, should be addressed in the negotiations.

14:50

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on their excellent maiden speeches today.

The greatest prize I won on 8 May was the right to serve. I will do my utmost to repay the trust that the people of South Ribble have put in me. As the first Member of this place of Iranian heritage, I feel a particular weight of responsibility on my shoulders. I have a voice in the mother of Parliaments when there are mothers in Iran who have no voice at all, and I have that voice because of the support given to me by my volunteers, my activists and my friends and family.

My father came to Lancashire in the 1960s to study textiles. He met my mother, who is from an Irish family. I grew up in Iran, but we had to leave because of the revolution. I spent the rest of my childhood in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), which is adjacent to my own. So I am Irish and I am Iranian; my children have the blood of England, of Wales and of Guernsey flowing through their veins; but above all, and particularly in this place, I am a proud Briton. We meet at a time when we are debating historic choices that will be put to our nation and will influence our role in the world for generations.

Some hon. Members have asked me, “Where is South Ribble?” They assume, because the river rises in Yorkshire, that it is in Yorkshire, but no: it is in the red rose county—the one that won the wars of the roses, God’s own county. I find myself saying that standing between two Yorkshire MPs—[Laughter.] The world has flocked to South Ribble over the centuries. We have a long history of trade and of traffic, including Viking invasions in the 9th century and Irish migration in the 19th, and today we benefit from the hard work of thousands of eastern Europeans who work in our fields. South Ribble has always exported—cars, buses and trucks from the world-famous Leyland Motors, fine salads from Huntapac, and delicious frozen pizzas from Dr. Oetker.

My constituents are open to the world and optimistic for the future, but they want a Europe that works for them, for their families and for our nation. Like many of my constituents, I have never had my say on our role in Europe, and I am delighted that the Conservative victory has meant that we are able to deliver that choice for the British people.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Lorraine Fullbrook. Lorraine was unrelenting in her work to protect and preserve the countryside and village nature of our constituency. She successfully led the fight against wind farms and was tireless in her commitment to protecting our area from flooding. She was an assiduous member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, reporting on matters such as female genital mutilation, immigration and counter-terrorism. Her no-nonsense manner and her sense of humour will be greatly missed both in this place and in the constituency. I wish her the very best in the next chapter of her life.

I also pay tribute to the first Member for South Ribble, the right hon. Sir Robert Atkins, who served with distinction in this House and later for many years in the European Parliament. His family’s tradition of service continues with the recent election of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins).

The tradition in a maiden speech is to take Members on a metaphorical open-top bus tour of one’s constituency, so, hon. Friends, jump on board a Leyland-made bus and hold on tight. Those of you who have been in my passenger seat, please be assured that I am not driving today.

Leyland is prospering as a result of the grit and resilience of its people and strong local leadership. Lancashire’s city deal is one of the largest, and it promises to bring further prosperity to the area through infrastructure investment. That will lead to thousands more homes and jobs being created. The initial investment is already in place and has contributed to the renaissance of the town as a hub for distribution and manufacturing. Companies such as Dr. Oetker and Waitrose are choosing to site operations there, and I hope that many more will join them. The forward thinking of South Ribble Borough Council, under the leadership of Councillor Margaret Smith, has meant that over the past five years more jobs were created in South Ribble than in Liverpool and Manchester combined.

Our bus now enters the rolling hills of Mawdesley and Eccleston. Eccleston is home to the first British winner of the Tour de France, Bradley Wiggins. His success in the Olympics is marked with a golden post box, and the villagers justifiably share his pride in this achievement, but for me the site is memorable because it is where I first reversed into a constituent in my car.

The River Ribble shapes the rest of my constituency. The beautiful, rich black soils of the floodplain grow some of the finest salads, tomatoes and brassicas in the country. The industry employs thousands in the villages of Banks, Hesketh Bank and Tarleton, as well as undertaking cutting-edge research. Those people are contributing to our nation’s food security, but they can continue to do so only with the right infrastructure. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s plans for the northern powerhouse and will do all I can to ensure that it extends up the M6 and into Lancashire so that my constituents can benefit from that great devolution. I will do all I can to ensure that the Green Lane link is built to improve conditions for growers and reduce congestion on village roads.

We now arrive at the northernmost part of the constituency, the town of Penwortham, the site of the final bridge over the Ribble. Hon. Members can now alight from the bus and stretch their legs—no doubt nervous that I might have taken control of the wheel at some point without them knowing. If the promise of the city deal is to be realised, we need another bridge over the Ribble. A new bridge would complete the ring road around Preston and, crucially, link the two parts of the Lancashire enterprise zone based at BAE Salmesbury and Warton. Those two sites employ thousands of people in the aerospace sectors, building the Hawk, the Typhoon and the F-35, so they are a vital part of our national security. They also have the potential to become hubs for advanced engineering and manufacturing.

The people of South Ribble play a vital role in bolstering our nation’s defences and contributing to our nation’s food security. As part of the northern powerhouse, they want to play their part in Britain’s future in the world. I thank them for the trust they have put in me, and I look forward to being their voice in this place.

14:55

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech. I commend the hon. Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) for her very entertaining speech. She spoke about her constituency with great passion and commitment. I also commend the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) for their maiden speeches. I thank the Whips on both sides of the House for sending most of their Back Benchers home, thereby significantly increasing my chances of catching your eye this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I also want to thank—for possibly the first time in a maiden speech—the air traffic controllers at Edinburgh airport, who this morning arranged for two high-altitude aircraft to fly at right angles to each other, presumably not at the same time, thereby creating a vapour-trail saltire that could be seen all across the constituency. How they organised that, and how they knew I would be speaking here today, I do not know, but they managed it somehow.

If I appear a wee bit nervous, I should explain that although I am now proud to call myself a Fifer, I was brought up very close to Cliftonhill, home of the mighty Albion Rovers. I supported the Rovers as a wee boy, and I am not used to seeing quite this number of people in one place—although since I left Coatbridge they have gone from strength to strength, and are now the reigning Scottish League 2 champions and will play in Scottish League 1 next year.

It is traditional to pay tribute to your predecessor, and I am delighted to be able to commend the contribution to the constituency and to Parliament made by Lindsay Roy during his almost eight years as a Member here. Lindsay was elected in November 2008 in a lengthy and often bad-tempered by-election in which I finished second, and it would have been easy for that to put divisions between us. I was leader of the council; Lindsay became the MP. We could easily have ended up on opposite sides, but thanks to Lindsay’s willingness to work together, we did so on a number of issues, as he worked with politicians across the political divide. Thanks to that willingness to work together, we prevented the threatened closure of our emergency medical out-of-hours service in Glenrothes.

I will be delighted to carry on working on a number of the campaigns in which Lindsay made a lot of progress but which are not yet completed. Those include reopening the rail link to Levenmouth, the largest population centre in the whole of Scotland that does not yet have a railway; making the much-needed and overdue safety improvements to the A92 trunk road; and ensuring that the energy park in Methil fulfils its potential to become not only a national but an international centre of excellence in the renewable energy sector, bringing much-needed and highly skilled jobs to an area that desperately needs them.

It is my intention to follow Lindsay’s practice and refer to the constituency as Glenrothes and Central Fife, because Glenrothes, although it is the town where I live, and I love it more than any town anywhere, represents only 50% of the population of the constituency; the rest do not like being told they live in a new town. I think it was insensitive of the Boundaries Commission not to take that into account.

It is a constituency that is literally built on coal. Although most of the coalmines had gone before I moved to Fife over 30 years ago, once a town has become a coalmining community I do not think it ever stops being that. The community spirit, the independence of spirit, and the looking out for each other get ingrained into the population, and thankfully stay there.

It is a constituency that has produced genuine working-class heroes who were brought up in difficult conditions, sometimes of extreme poverty, and yet achieved absolute greatness. It was the home of the radical socialist poet Joe Corrie, described by T. S. Eliot as the greatest poet Scotland had produced since Robert Burns. It was the home of Celtic and Scotland goalkeeper John Thomson, whose brilliant career was tragically cut short at just 22 by an accident on the football field, and who, even in that short time, had established himself as possibly the greatest footballer ever to pull on a goalkeeper’s jersey.

The constituency is the birthplace of Jimmy Shand, whom these days it is fashionable to mock. Jimmy Shand recorded more tracks than Elvis Presley and the Beatles added together. It was the boyhood home of Andy Thomson, who emigrated as a young man and is now renowned as one of the most successful indoor and outdoor bowlers in English bowling history, with seven world titles to his name. We have also produced great Scotland internationals on the bowling green such as Julie Sword and Lynn Stein, who have represented the nation with great distinction at Commonwealth and UK championships. It is the birthplace of Jack Vettriano, an artist who becomes more popular the more the artistic establishment appear to detest him. There is that rebellious element not only to Jack Vettriano but to most people who have been born and brought up in Fife.

The constituency is home to the mighty and all-conquering East Fife football club—at least they were in 1938, when they became the only team to win the Scottish cup from outside the top division. It is also home to the more recently formed East Fife Ladies football club, whose steady climb through the divisions is worth watching, thanks partly to the contribution of my late and very dear friend Arthur Robertson, but also to Liz Anderson, a coach who is already attracting interest not only from ladies’ football clubs but from the mainstream Scottish clubs, which would be very keen to attract her abilities. Watch out for that name—she will be coaching a national squad, I predict, before very long. Of course, the constituency is both the domestic home and the political home of Tricia Marwick MSP, who will undoubtedly go down in our history as one of our greatest ever parliamentarians.

Although the constituency is named after a new town, it includes sites of great antiquity. Dalgynch is the ancient capital of the kingdom of Fife, which has existed as an administrative and governmental unit since before the days of recorded history. It is possibly the only kingdom that is more ancient than the nation of the Scots itself. The constituency coast is home to the Wemyss caves, home of some of the most priceless works of bronze-age art anywhere and of possibly the oldest existing painting of a real object anywhere in Scotland. Tragically, the caves are in danger of disappearing as a result of the ravages of the weather.

There is a contrast in the local economy, with success stories in some industries and severe problems in others. The constituency, particularly the Glenrothes and Levenmouth area, is still reeling from the loss of the iconic 200-year-old Tullis Russell paper mill, the closure of the family owned retailer Sphere & Turret—which has led to a lot of job losses not only in my constituency but next door in North East Fife—and the closure of the Velux window factory and head office. In the past year, those closures have between them taken 1,000 direct jobs, and a similar number of indirect jobs, out of the constituency.

At the same time, the constituency is also home to the Balbirnie House hotel, which has won the Scottish wedding venue of the year award so often that most other hotels want it to be disqualified from taking part, to give them a chance. It is also home to the Cameron Brig distillery, one of only two places in the world that makes single-grain Scotch whisky that is good enough to drink. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here just now, because he mentioned the Epsom Derby earlier. I remind Members who may partake of Gordon’s, Tanqueray, Pimm’s, Archers or Smirnoff at any of the quintessentially English sporting events this season that they will be enjoying something that is produced in the heart of the Glenrothes and Central Fife constituency. So, as well as remembering the huge contribution we make to the sporting culture and social life of our neighbour, do not ever forget the contribution we are making to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s bank account.

I am going to break with tradition and not even pretend that my constituency is the most scenically beautiful in the whole of the United Kingdom. Even on the SNP Benches, I cannot compete with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) or with the Western Isles, Angus or East Lothian.

What my constituency does have, however, is people of genuine character and absolute integrity who will work tirelessly to give their families a good standard of living and for the benefit not only of themselves, but of others around them. By entrusting me to represent them, these people have given me the greatest privilege and responsibility I will ever carry. They are relying on me to put an end to the obscenity of benefit sanctions being inflicted on the weakest and most vulnerable in our nation. They are relying on me to put an end to the shame of 10,000 emergency food parcels per year in a single constituency—and it is not even the most deprived constituency in Scotland. They share my belief that, for such extreme poverty to exist in a Scotland that is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, is nothing short of criminal, and I am determined to change that for the better.

All of us can claim with some justification that we come here with the hopes and dreams of our constituents. I have been humbled and inspired in equal measure by the knowledge that the constituents who have entrusted my hon. Friends and me include a great many who for far too long have been told they have no right to dream. I am proud to speak with the voice of thousands whose voices have never been heard, not because they have nothing worth saying, but because nobody in this place would listen. I carry the awesome responsibility of shouldering the hopes of a people who are now waking up to the fact that the future is something to be faced with hope, not with fear.

The reason the SNP Benches are usually so packed is that one of the four equal partner nations in this Union has once again dared to hope and dared to believe in a better future. “Project fear” may have won the day in 2014. I am proud to stand here in 2015 as a representative of “Project Hope”, and “project hope” will prevail.

12:59

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

It is a wonderful coincidence—a fortuitous concatenation of circumstances—that I am able to congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), because I stood as the Conservative candidate in Central Fife in 1997, and I know that what he says is true: it is a constituency of wonderful people. They were incredibly kind to me. As hon. Members may have noticed, I am quite English—I come from Somerset. They could not have been more kindly to a young Conservative who they were pretty sure had no chance of winning. When the hon. Gentleman was singing the virtues of his constituents, I know he spoke the truth.

I now know—I did not know before—that, when I enjoy a glass of Pimm’s during the course of the summer, which I hope to do on occasion, it was made in Glenrothes. It is a wonderful constituency and it has a brilliant representative. I just hope the hon. Gentleman becomes a Conservative one day—the only way we will get a Conservative in Glenrothes is if somebody crosses the Floor.

We have had a cornucopia of excellent maiden speeches today. Sticking with the Scottish National party theme, the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) made his maiden speech from the Front Bench. I do not know who the last Opposition spokesman to do that was, but I know that the last Minister to do that was Harold Wilson, who made his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box in 1945. The hon. Gentleman is in very fine company, and made a very fine speech, with detailed points on the European Union, which I look forward to cross-examining closely in further debates.

The hon. Gentleman also revealed the extraordinary generosity of benefits in Scotland when he told us that he is eligible for a bus pass. Clearly, the age at which people get bus passes in Scotland is much lower than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I will not go on to the Barnett formula and how come bus passes for such relative youths are paid for.

It was a particular joy to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) make his maiden speech. He comes from a most distinguished parliamentary family—his uncle was the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster—but I am very reassured that he will claim the high ground for parliamentarians against paternal judges. Although paternalism is in many ways a very good thing, the supremacy of the House must be reasserted, even in the Tugendhat family.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend thinks he is going to test Hansard. He will soon come to know that there is no test he can set Hansard that they do not manage to pass with flying colours. However fast the bowling or however good the batting—to go back to the Tonbridge theme of M. C. Cowdrey—Hansard always catch the ball or take the wicket, depending which side they are on.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) took us on a charabanc tour of her constituency. I have a slight concern—she referred to the “first” constituent she reversed into. I wait for her further speeches and interventions in transport matters, or perhaps health matters, to discover how many of the hospitals locally have been filled with injured constituents. What a tribute it is to her electability that, despite her mowing down constituents right, left and centre, she has still been returned triumphantly. Even better, when she arrives at the House, she models herself on George III. It may come as a surprise to her, but I was listening to her opening paragraphs, and she said she gloried in the name of Briton. That was exactly what George III said—exactly his sentiments. How nice it is to have his late majesty at least alluded to in this Chamber.

I must not speak for too long, and after these pourparlers I must get round to talking about the European Union, because hon. Members may know that my favourite activity on a quiet Thursday afternoon is making speeches on the European Union. If the House is not debating it, I do it at home and make members of my family listen to my views on it.

Of course, we have to start with the basics. There is a fundamental failing in the Bill in its very title, because it refers to “own resources”. It is not “own resources”; it is our money. It is British taxpayers’ money. It is not some fantastic European lottery win that has suddenly been found, and it is not like the gold that the kings of Spain found in Latin America of old. It is not made-up money; it is real money earned by British taxpayers running to the tune of £14 billion a year.

We have to be incredibly careful about how that money is spent and how willing we are to award it. We have already heard that the accounts have not been signed off for 20 years. One may think, “Well it may just be some minor error that means they have not managed to sign them off.” Actually, it is because they think that about 5% of expenditure has not been properly accounted for; roughly speaking, a third of our contribution is not properly spent, or they do not have the right receipts for it. This House has a duty, one of our most ancient duties, to ensure that the Government spend money properly and, when they give it away to international bodies, those international bodies also spend it properly. On whether it is spent properly, I will give the House a note on how the EU categorises spending given to overseas bodies.

The EU, for the purpose of signing off the accounts, says that if it gives £1,000 to a United Nations project and the United Nations project is worth £10,000, and that of that £10,000 in the project £9,000 was stolen, it will maintain that 100% of the money it has given to the project has been correctly spent, because if a percentage correctly spent is equal to or greater than the EU’s contribution, it deems it entirely properly spent. So when the accounts are not being signed off because there is 5%, or just under, of fraud or dishonesty or error, the figure is actually understated. We must push on that continually to make sure our money is properly spent.

There is a lesson for the Government in their success. In the previous Parliament, from time to time—although not as often as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall)—I did not do as I was asked to by the Whips. On one occasion, however, I was loyal. I was the proper sycophantic fellow that people hope I might be and I supported the Government. When the Labour party—in its wisdom, on this occasion—tabled a motion saying that the Government must come back with a reduction in the EU budget, I thought that that was impossible. I thought we were asking the Prime Minister to go and argue for something that simply could not be done, but he did it. He got a reduction in the EU budget which will feed through to a reduction in our gross contributions—a real achievement. This is the lesson for the Government: it was a real achievement because the Government were bold and ambitious, and willing to try something in the European Union that was thought bound to fail. We are coming to a renegotiation and what one hears so far about the width of that renegotiation is not encouraging. Let us hope the Government learn from where they have succeeded. The message to the Government as we consider the Bill must be:

“Ask and ye shall be given. Seek and ye shall find”.

When they try, they can achieve things people do not expect them to achieve.

This brief Bill is actually at the heart of what Governments do. What we take from our constituents to spend must always be spent carefully. The £14 billion that we spend is essentially a reiteration of our overseas aid budget: it is money going from a rich country to a poor country. It is not going to subsidise the Germans, for example; it is going to the poor countries in the European Union. We are now looking at a total for overseas aid in the order of magnitude of £26 billion. We have a duty to make sure that that is spent correctly. We have a duty to try to reduce it if possible and the Government must be encouraged by their past successes.

15:18

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Thank you ever so much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is a difficult act to follow, but I will try.

I have been a bit slower than some of my fellow 2015 intake at getting around to making my maiden speech, but as a former university lecturer who is used to speaking in one-hour bursts, and with 43 years in Ealing behind me, I wanted to do justice to the magnificent seat of Ealing Central and Acton. With this being a Thursday, I think I might get the time to do this. All hon. Members have assured us that their constituency is the best one in the world, but in my case it is true. As a lifelong local, I am honoured and humbled to be serving its people in this place.

My immediate predecessor was Angie Bray. Although we did not always see eye to eye politically, we did get on, and it was a mark of her generosity of spirit that when my two sisters—both constituents—and I lost our father last September, she handwrote a note of condolence to me. I wish her well.

Before its boundaries were redrawn, my seat included areas now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and my hon. Friend the irrepressible Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). I therefore succeed and join Bray, Slaughter and Pound, which sounds like a vaguely pugnacious firm of solicitors. I am happy now to be Huq in the mix.

Previous Conservative MPs for my seat include Kenneth Baker, immortalised for a generation of school users back when teacher training days were known as Baker days. Then came Sir George Young, “the Bicycling Baronet”, from whom I received an 18th birthday card reminding me of my newly enfranchised status and politely suggesting that I might want to vote Conservative. Members will not be surprised to learn that I did not take his advice.

I never imagined in those days that I would be one of three Ealing Labour MPs supported by a council of the same complexion. A leading Tory at Ealing town hall remarked the other day that we were living in a one-party socialist super state. If only! On the subject of mixing, which I referred to, I can now claim to be the only one of the trio of Ealing Labour MPs to have been a DJ, and, interestingly, I am the only one of the three of us who has never been a bus conductor. In part, that is a function of my age—but hey, never say never.

Transport is a key issue for my constituents. In fact, large parts of my constituency would not have existed without the electrification of the railways. Ealing, Acton and Chiswick feature strongly among the stops on the London tube map. I want to use my position to speak up for the suburbs, which are neglected parts of our nation. If our great cities drive our nation, the suburban districts fuel it.

To sketch a pen portrait of Ealing Central and Acton in 10 minutes is no mean feat. As well as the two towns in its title, it comprises bits of NW10, bordering Harlesden in Brent, near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and bits of W4 in Chiswick. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have probably seen my seat before without even knowing it. In the opening titles of “Only Fools and Horses”, the tower blocks of Del Boy’s Peckham were actually the South Acton estate. For sci-fi fans, it featured in several episodes of “Doctor Who”, including the classic 1970 episode, “Spearhead from Space”, which depicts zombies taking over tranquil Ealing green. I think they were called Autons, or something like that.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

They were called Tories.

[Dr Huq]

Yes, Tories. That’s it.

The whole episode, with people marauding over Ealing green, eerily prefigured the events that unfolded in August 2011, when rioting sadly hit parts of London and further afield. It hit almost the same spot as depicted in the episode.

The seat’s cultural footprint goes wider than on screen; it also covers musical matters. If Members exit Ealing Broadway station, they will see a blue plaque marking the club where the Rolling Stones played their first concert, and The Who formed at Acton County Grammar School, now known as Acton High. At the University of West London in my constituency, there is a Freddie’s Bar, named after Freddie Mercury, who studied at its former incarnation, Ealing Art College. I was reminded of that by Brian May, from the same band, the week before last in this place when he came to lobby against animal cruelty.

The cumulative effect of 43 years in Ealing meant that the 18 months I spent as a candidate knocking on doors in some ways felt like watching my whole life flashing past me. I never knew who I would get behind those doors—would it be my mum’s friends from the swinging Ealing of the ’60s, or my own teachers from the ’70s and ’80s who I never even dreamed had first names, or people I see every day nowadays as a mum on the school run?

The constituency has seen pioneering social experiments. In Bedford Park suburb W4, we had the world’s first garden suburb, while in W5 we have the Brentham estate, which was the birthplace of co-operative housing, where Fred Perry learned to play tennis in the communal facilities. I know that MPs have been fond of the so-called John Lewis list, but they might like to know that its offshoot Waitrose opened its first branch in 1904 in Acton High Street.

Although we witnessed riots in 2011, the spontaneous broom army that came together in the aftermath of the disturbances demonstrated the resilience of what is a mixed community. It is a seat with lush suburbia of Victorian, Edwardian and 1930s-style varieties at one end and the more post-war urban densities and high-rise properties at the other.

My 18 months as a candidate opened my eyes to things I had never seen before in 43 years there. Some of my visits were to places such as the Ealing food bank, the Ealing soup kitchen, the Ealing churches’ night shelter and the Ealing Samaritans—all of whom report an unprecedented take-up of their services. In this day and age in Ealing, which was once known as “Queen of the Suburbs”, that cannot be right. While our victory in Ealing was a great result against the tide, it was tempered with sadness that my dad never lived to see it and disappointment at the broader national results.

I note that my predecessor’s maiden speech pledged to campaign for keeping local A&Es open. She will have been disappointed that we lost Central Middlesex and Hammersmith in September. Maternity at Ealing hospital—we are talking about the London borough with the third highest birth rate out of 33—is about to go at the end of this month, with the last projected birth on 24 June. That can be only a precursor to the A&E going, and Charing Cross A&E is also under threat. With west London’s population going up, not down, that is just plain wrong.

The two immediately preceding maiden speeches for my constituency both praised its multi-faith, multi-ethnic nature. Of course, I shall do the same, as I am a product of it, as can be seen from looking at me. Old and new Europe live side by side and have done for a long time in this seat. I went to school with kids—and teachers—from the immediate post-war Polish ex-servicemen generation, who long predated the 2004 EU expansion. The seat, then, spans tradition and modernity; continuity and change; urban and suburban: it is a microcosm of London at large. Enormous opportunity is coming our way with the regeneration of the Old Oak district, with some 24,000 dwellings, which is being touted as the Canary Wharf of the west; the Crossrail link, which will have two stops in Ealing and Acton; and HS2 is planned to come through, too. It is important that these opportunities serve local people. We do not want to see unaffordable flats being bought off plan by absentee overseas investors. That is buy to leave, not buy to let. As the area’s MP, I will press for the UK to maximise EU funding for these major infrastructure projects, as it is needed to support them. That seems an appropriate point for a debate on EU finance—I did get it in somehow—and the subject of today’s Bill.

15:29

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the contributions of many Members making their maiden speeches over the last couple of weeks. It is terrific to be able to follow the tutorial from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) who, as ever, delivered an incredibly impressive speech. I have often watched his speeches from afar on the television, but it is quite something to witness them in person.

It is an enormous honour and privilege to be the Member of Parliament representing Corby and east Northamptonshire, and to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate on EU finance.

Mine is not only a geographically large constituency, but one whose make-up varies considerably. The town of Corby was at the heart of steel production here in the United Kingdom, and during the second world war it provided the steel for Operation PLUTO, when an underwater pipeline pumped fuel to our allied forces who were invading Normandy. Today’s operation focuses on tube production, and many examples of Corby’s production prowess can be seen at the Olympic Park, the Wembley Arch and the London Eye.

One of the most striking features of Corby is the strength of the local community. As one who grew up in north Northamptonshire, I never cease to be amazed by the fact that people are so willing to dig deep, to look out for others, and to support good causes. There is no better example of that than the way in which the local community came together to support the family of Lance Corporal James Ashworth, VC, a young man who was tragically killed in Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Ashworth made the greatest of sacrifices, and was killed while trying to protect his comrades. We owe our brave armed forces the greatest debt of gratitude, and it is fitting that a square has been named in his memory in the heart of our town.

East Northamptonshire is very different from Corby, in that it consists of four market towns and many beautiful villages dotted around in the mix. Irthlingborough, Raunds, Thrapston and Oundle are thriving market towns that were underpinned by the boot and shoe trade. As a youngster, I grew up in those towns, swimming in Corby, but losing many a game of cricket in villages in East Northamptonshire. In Oundle, I am currently supporting a local campaign to save the playing fields at Oundle Primary School—although I did momentarily hesitate before agreeing to support it, having witnessed a quick-fire double hundred being scored there two or three years ago, most of the runs coming off my bowling!

In east Northamptonshire, Conservatives have led the campaign for the Rushden Lakes development at Skew Bridge. The development will transform our area, bringing it new jobs, shops and leisure facilities, as a result of a multi-million-pound investment in the area which will build on the 60% fall in unemployment that we saw in the last Parliament. This very morning, I attended a meeting at which we talked about the development, and I heard plenty of good news about the progress that is being made in getting started on site.

The constituency was created in 1983, which was a good time for my party but also, I believe, for our country. During my campaign, I was occasionally told that I was a little young to be standing for Parliament, but it is worth remembering that Margaret Thatcher was just 24 when she first stood for Parliament, in Dartford in 1950. As a Thatcherite, I feel both proud and humbled to be following in her footsteps in becoming a Member of this place. I am under no illusions, however: I am pretty confident that that is where the comparisons will end.

In the past five years, Corby has had four Members of Parliament, probably more than any other constituency in the House. 1 hope to bring some much-needed continuity to the role over the next five years. My predecessor, Andy Sawford, was a hard-working and diligent local Member of Parliament, and 1 am proud that we kept to our deal. On day one, we said that we would always stick to the issues and battle hard on them, but would never make it personal. We stuck to that, and I think Andy too can be very proud of that. He will undoubtedly be a tough act to follow, and I am very grateful to him—as are local people—for the huge contribution that he made to our area during the last two and a half years.

Before that, Louise Mensch served as the Member of Parliament. She was a fierce member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and was a more glamorous MP than I could ever hope to be. William Powell and Phil Hope—the latter would become a Minister serving in numerous Departments—also proved themselves to be hard-working local Members, and both are still warmly talked about locally. I thank them, too, for all their efforts in our constituency.

My “Listening to Corby and East Northamptonshire” campaign is all about finding out what issues matter most to local people, and campaigning on them. Indeed, that is exactly what I did during my two years as the Conservative parliamentary candidate. As the local MP, I intend to continue doing exactly that. I want to be Corby and east Northamptonshire’s voice in Westminster, not Westminster’s voice in Corby and east Northamptonshire. That is exactly what my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) do so successfully, and I am so grateful to them for all their help, encouragement and support over the years.

My Corby and east Northamptonshire journey started when I helped our excellent candidate at that time, Christine Emmett, in the 2012 by-election. Early in the campaign, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) visited, and I was tasked with driving for the day. Imagine the look of horror on her face as my car clanged into a huge metal gate, causing hundreds of pounds-worth of damage to the car but also great embarrassment to me. The pundits described the Corby by-election as a car crash for the Conservatives. I literally had a car crash. I think it is fair to say that I had at least made an impact.

I know that some in this place will be surprised to hear me say this, but the issue of the European Union and the UK’s membership of it came up time and again on the doorsteps of Corby and east Northamptonshire. One of the key reasons for that is the issue of EU finance—the concern local people have about British taxpayers’ money being sent over to Brussels and how that money is spent. Like them, I am concerned that, despite my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister securing a historic EU budget cut, the cost of the EU to UK taxpayers continues to spiral out of control. We cannot continue to write bigger and bigger cheques to remain a member of an unreformed and uncompetitive EU at a time when domestic budgets are being squeezed. What local people tell me very clearly is that they voted for a common market, not the political superstate that we see today. It is for exactly this reason that I support the Prime Minister in his endeavour to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and then put that to the British people in an in/out referendum for them to decide, because this really is a simple matter of trust.

Another referendum was also of great intrigue in my constituency: that on Scottish independence. We have a proud tradition of generations of Scots coming to Corby to live and work, and the highland gathering and Burns night suppers are very significant events in the social calendar. The desire locally to keep the United Kingdom intact is very strong: 72% of Scots at the highland gathering last year voted to remain part of the UK. Local people were delighted when Scotland opted to stay and chose to be “better together,” but as the Corby MP I am in no doubt about the role local people expect me to play in fighting off the modern-day yellow peril.

In concluding, may I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the staff of the House and MPs on all sides for their warm welcome to this House? It is an enormous honour and a privilege to be the Conservative Member of Parliament for Corby and east Northamptonshire.

15:37

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my first contribution to this House, and may I take this opportunity to commend all the excellent maiden speeches we have heard today on both sides of the House?

It may surprise my hon. Friends to learn that part of me is a little sad to be here, because the fact that I am standing here means that this Chamber has said goodbye to one of its finest parliamentarians, my predecessor the right hon. William Hague.

William enjoyed a distinguished career over 26 years. He oversaw a landmark Bill to improve rights for the disabled, led our party and served as Foreign Secretary. But his true mark can be found at home in Richmond. He was an outstanding local MP, as well as an outstanding Yorkshireman.

I once arranged a visit to a tiny, remote village and imagined that, for once, I might outdo my predecessor. On arrival, I was told that not only had he held a surgery in the village recently, but that the Foreign Secretary had arrived in a Harrier jet having flown in from a meeting with the President of the United States.

Some have wondered about William Hague’s future. Perhaps he will heed the advice of his Prime Minister who suggested he ought to become the new James Bond. In the Prime Minister’s own words:

“he’s fit, he’s healthy, he does Yoga, he can probably crack a man’s skull between his knee caps.”

That is hard to beat, but I did find a scintilla of encouragement on the campaign trail. Wandering through an auction market, I was introduced to a farmer as “the new William Hague”. He looked at me, quizzically, then said, “Ah yes, Haguey! Good bloke. I like him. Bit pale, though. This one’s got a better tan.” [Laughter.]

In today’s debate on Europe, we should remember that, as leader, William Hague campaigned to prevent Britain from joining the single European currency and instead to keep the pound. His judgment looks even more excellent today than it did then.

We will miss his oratory, wit and intelligence, and I know that the whole House will join me in wishing him well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Sadly, William Hague’s predecessor, the late Lord Brittan, is no longer with us. Fortunately, however, Lord Brittan’s predecessor, Sir Timothy Kitson, still lives locally and his years of dedicated service are remembered fondly.

The constituency of Richmond is known for its remarkable natural beauty. In the east lie the North Yorkshire moors and in the west sit the Yorkshire dales, with their distinctive dry stone walls, stone barns and softly rolling valleys. In fact, admiration for my constituency has even spread to the other side of the English channel, which is why, last year, the remote splendour of Wensleydale and Swaledale became part of the Tour de France.

Interlaced with this natural beauty is a constant reminder of our nation’s heritage. Richmond castle sits magnificently at the heart of the constituency. Built by William the Conqueror, it has witnessed centuries of our nation’s history unfolding. Further afield in Great Ayton, Captain James Cook grew up and left Yorkshire to explore the world.

I am also deeply honoured to represent our soldiers, airmen and their families living at RAF Leeming and at Catterick garrison, our largest Army base. We are home to the historic Green Howards, who served in the Napoleonic Wars, the Normandy landings and Afghanistan. I will never forget that so many of my constituents have risked their lives to protect our nation so that we may debate here in peace today.

In spite of all this, the most remarkable aspect of my constituency is the strength, warmth and independent spirit of our communities. I am fiercely proud to represent them. And although I am not from Yorkshire, they were immensely relieved to learn I was not from Lancashire either! [Laughter.]

I intend to be a champion for the causes of the countryside. I want my hard-working rural constituents to have the strong public services they deserve and every opportunity to prosper.

Our excellent hospital, the Friarage, serves a sparse area of 1,000 square miles, with some patients travelling over an hour and a half to reach it. I shall be a loud voice for ensuring that our local hospital remains strong.

Our rural schools require fair education funding so that they can remain the beating hearts of our villages. I shall be relentless in pushing for better broadband and better mobile phone coverage. The farmers who feed us, proud stewards of our landscape, are too often taken for granted and left alone to battle regulation. Many of our small businesses are making significant exports, and I am determined to help them to give Yorkshire an even bigger place on the map of the world than it already has—if that is possible!

My grandparents arrived in this country with little. My parents, now a GP and a pharmacist, grew up wanting a better future for their children. Today, I have the enormous privilege of standing here as a Member of Parliament. I owe a great debt to our country for what it has done for my family: showing tolerance, providing opportunities and rewarding their hard work.

A great man once remarked that “some of you might not be here in 30 or 40 years” before reminding his audience that decisions made today shape the future for the next generation.

I believe in a compassionate Britain that provides opportunity and values freedom. I hope I can play a small part in ensuring that our great nation continues to hold to those enduring values.

15:43

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

It is a personal privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), as my grandparents come from Yorkshire, albeit from a different constituency—Beverley and Holderness. It is also a privilege to follow all the other esteemed colleagues who have been lucky enough to win their constituencies.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate and to make my first speech in the House of Commons. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of fellow Bath residents who voted for me at this election. To say that the past few weeks have been anything less than a whirlwind and one of the most humbling experiences of my life would be an understatement. I am for ever grateful to the people of Bath for entrusting me to represent them to the best of my abilities in the House of Commons. I am still in a state of shock, and I do not think it will ever quite settle in.

Several hon. Members have already asked me why I have chosen this debate for my maiden speech. Many of my colleagues who have already made their maiden speech know that it has nothing to do with the time limit set in more popular debates—graciously set by the Chair—but more to do with my commitment to champion Bath to the rest of Europe and the world at large and with the fact that we have the EU Environment Commissioner coming to Bath in the next week. I hope very much to encourage additional European funding to be spent in Bath.

I am well aware that maiden speeches are not expected to be controversial. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to hear that after reading Chris Patten’s maiden speech, I will not be spending any time on UK or EU trade union reform—in all honesty, I do not think I could quite control myself. I will therefore start with an uncontroversial statement: both my predecessors as MPs in Bath have been political titans in this place and in the city. I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Don Foster, who has been a superb champion for Bath for 23 years. Many in the House have shared fond memories of his time here and of his work in the Department for Communities and Local Government, as well as of his time as Lib Dem Chief Whip—although I understand that that is a much less difficult job these days. We share a passion for Bath rugby and support for the most disadvantaged.

I have already dedicated myself to reducing the number of children living in poverty in Bath, which, in areas of deprivation in the city, has been estimated to be approximately one in five. I intend to spend much time espousing the Conservative case for social justice in the coming years, which is a particular passion of mine given my mother’s own disability and my work alongside the national health service for seven years.

Don’s dedication to the people of Bath over time has been second to none. I wish him and his family the very best for the future—if Don is watching this, I am looking for that statue spot for him even now.

I could not make my maiden speech without making a special reference to Lord Patten, a man of immense intelligence and charisma. Many Members will remember that evening in 1992 and the shock felt in the Conservative party at his loss of the seat. I know that many were pleased to hear that after 23 years Bath is blue again.

Bath’s reputation as an internationally renowned city is clear. In the interests of the Bill, it is important to explain Bath’s European significance. Some of my predecessors have not wished to take people on a tour of Bath, but I shall positively relish the opportunity to do so, given the debate. I am incredibly lucky to represent the only city in the UK with UNESCO world heritage site status, with a history of European influence spreading into our culture, architecture and language for centuries.

Many will know the beautiful Roman baths in the city, but many will not know about the Roman curse tablets—recently added to the UNESCO Memory of the World register of outstanding documentary heritage— which are tablets that visitors to the bath would throw into the water inscribed with a curse. One reads:

“Docimedis has lost two gloves and asks that the thief responsible should lose their minds and eyes in the goddess’s temple.”

As someone who values my mind and sight, I vow to the people of Bath that I will be one of the hardest working constituency MPs.

On our Roman spa, I recently learned from my good friend and previous Conservative candidate for Bath, Fabian Richter, that Bath’s spa waters were not only a perfect cure for consumption and gout—how he knows this, I do not know—but renowned the world over as a cure for infertility. After all, that is why we have thousands of people tasting the waters every day in the Pump Room. If hon. Members do not believe me, James II’s wife Mary visited Bath when struggling to conceive. A convenient nine months later, the future Old Pretender was born—at this point I shall forget the bit about the Tory Jacobites losing in Bath and being removed by the Whigs until a more convenient time.

Since the time of Roman Bath, links with Europe have grown ever closer. Today Bath boasts a twin relationship with Aix-en-Provence, Alkmaar, Braunschweig and Kaposvar. I pledge myself to champion our superb tourism economy in the coming years. In fact, Bath Tourism Plus will be happy for me to suggest to hon. Members that they should do two things: first, book a stay at one of our wonderful bed and breakfasts or hotels—for longer than two nights, by the way—and, secondly, bring a swimming costume and visit our wonderful Thermae spa. That is a subtle hint for Members to have a relaxing experience after a long, successful election campaign—please bring wallets.

Bath is not only a tourist city, however. We are industrially famous for our range of engineering firms. Chris Patten rightly explained in his maiden speech that Bath is not just “a museum piece”. We have some of Europe’s leading electrical parts companies, and design and research and development firms. Our universities are world-leading centres of design and engineering, leading the way on sustainable energy production and renewables, as well as the lowering of vehicle emissions.

My second point to make in the debate on this Bill is that I shall be using this opportunity to call for additional funding from the European Union for the west of England and the south-west. Whereas other areas of the UK have received substantial amounts of infrastructure spend, the west of England is all too often overlooked. Of course we all know of the Chancellor’s success with the northern powerhouse in recent months, so I am very happy to lend my support to the west of England powerhouse, just as so many of my colleagues have espoused such support so eloquently in their maiden speeches. I want to lend my backing for additional funding to be spent in the west of England.

Every Bath resident is aware that Bath’s No. 1 issue is, of course, transport. During the election campaign, we set out our transport manifesto, and I will reiterate to residents in Bath the fact that I will be fighting for funding to deliver a solution to our stalling transport system. I am very pleased that the European Environment Commissioner will be visiting Bath next week to help make Bath a special case study for air pollution levels. That will enable our city to get on and build that long-overdue A36-A46 link road to the east of Bath, which I mentioned earlier to the Secretary of State for Transport. I will also be working alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) to help open that long-awaited Corsham railway station. Other matters I am campaigning on include the lack of affordable homes in Bath, the UK’s third least affordable city. More than 5,000 people are on the social housing waiting list, so we need more affordable and social homes built in the city.

Bath has a long history of MPs who have fought the British corner, with none more famous than the only Bath MP to become the Prime Minister—the Earl of Chatham, William Pitt the Elder. I will forgive him for his liberal leanings, as he led Britain through the seven years war with France, with victory cementing Britain’s place in the world. He was renowned for his antagonism towards the chief enemies, France and Spain, and had a lifelong concern to protect the balance of power on the European continent. I can, of course, recommend a good book called “Pitt the Elder” to the Prime Minister when he undertakes his renegotiation strategy with European nations.

As the new Member of Parliament for Bath, I will never shy away from championing our city’s achievements, just like my immediate predecessor Don Foster. In his maiden speech, he quoted Chris Patten’s maiden speech, stating that before 1979 the unemployment figures had, sadly, risen and that 13 years later Bath was still not “quite as busy” as he would have liked following rises in unemployment in 1992. In stark contrast to my predecessor, I am pleased to report that as a result of this Government’s long-term economic plan, in April the claimant count in Bath fell to one of its lowest levels, at 1.8%, which is an overall drop of more than 40% since 2010. With more than 215 new businesses set up in Bath between 2010 and 2014, and almost 1,800 new apprenticeships, this is a superb story to be told and it shows how important it is not to put this all at risk.

Bath has always been at the forefront of innovation, and I intend to champion the causes of businesses such as Polamco, Rotork, BMT and Cross Manufacturing as they grow. I am a strong advocate for the reform of the European Union through the renegotiations, but I would like to place on the record my belief that our country is better off inside the European Union than outside it. As I have explained in the past few minutes, Bath’s culture and heritage are based on strong links with Europe. I do not want to put jobs and investment at risk in the west of England.

In conclusion, it has been traditional for Bath MPs to stand up for progressive values and reform, and I stand for a continuation of that tradition. I finish by saying that Bath has sometimes been called the graveyard of ambition. I stand before this House as the grandson of someone who used to drive Margaret Thatcher, and the son of parents who never went to university and worked hard all their lives. This fundamental belief in aspiration has enabled me to become the MP for Bath, and I hope that others around the country will look to this comprehensive schoolboy’s result and think that one day they could sit beside me. I am proud to represent my home of Bath, one of the best cities in Europe and the world.

15:53

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to speak for the first time under your chairship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that I will enjoy doing so and it is great to see you in your place.

This afternoon, we have heard no fewer than eight maiden speeches. All have been brilliant and eloquent, and each Member has given a great exposition of their constituency. It is no surprise that they should have been so brilliant, and let me say why. I say this to the hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan), for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), for Corby (Tom Pursglove), for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) and for Bath (Ben Howlett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq): it is no surprise that each one of them has made a fantastic first speech in this House because they chose to make their first contribution in a debate on European affairs, as I did five years ago, so welcome to the club, folks! They all did absolutely brilliantly, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton. It is good to see that we are welcoming another fellow DJ to this place. I know that she will add great things to our debates.

Several Members mentioned their diverse backgrounds, and how proud they were to represent their home towns. The hon. Member for Bath made that point particularly well. He said that Members in this House come from all parts of the world and have diverse family backgrounds. Our country is at its best when it appreciates its wide history and shows its tolerance, which is one of the finest of British values, and I support everything that he said on that point.

On the Bill at hand, this debate has highlighted many important issues, which will undoubtedly be discussed over the next few months as we continue to debate Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has already stated, we will not oppose this Bill.

The Bill, although short, will give effect to the new financing system of the European Union, which equates to a net contribution from the UK of £9.8 billion for the year 2015-16. We will seek to improve the Bill in a number of ways. First, we need to review the EU budget. At the moment, 6% of the EU budget is spent on administration costs, and we need to ascertain whether that money is being spent efficiently and effectively. If it is not, we need to consider what we can do to change it. We have a collective interest in ensuring that European resources are used efficiently. Indeed, there are so many areas in which we have a collective interest with our European friends and neighbours. We will seek agreement from the Council of Ministers to undertake a review of budget priorities, waste and inefficiency within the EU budget.

There also needs to be an improved process for agreeing the EU budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South has already highlighted the convoluted process that we go through and some of the difficulties. To increase transparency and accountability, it is vital that this House expresses its opinion on the budget, and we should seek to meet budget representatives in advance of EU budget negotiations. I urge the Government to consider what more they can do on that front.

We also need to revisit how the budget is set and how we spend the money. To set a different ceiling on spending commitments and payments seems odd, and we ask for the process to be reviewed to ensure that the gap is manageable.

I am sure that Members would not feel too insulted if I suggested that the EU budget can be difficult to understand. It involves complicated decision-making processes. Set out over a seven-year cycle, it covers everything from spending on research and innovation to public health and even pensions for staff, but it is precisely because of its wide scope that it needs such careful attention.

We have heard Government Members wax lyrical about their achievements on reducing the UK’s contribution to Europe. Labour welcomes the fact that the UK has achieved that real-term cut in spending limits, and I remind the House that we played an important role in pushing for that cut.

We called for a real-term cut in spending in 2010, and pushed for a better deal for Britons in the following years, but a reduction in spending is just one part of the reforms that we need. The budget also needs to be more focused. We need to concentrate on areas that will enhance economic growth across the EU. I was struck by the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South about the level of unemployment in parts of Europe. We need to improve productivity, support the creation of new jobs, and, ultimately, enhance living standards within our Union.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being characteristically generous in paying tribute to the Prime Minister for securing that reduction in the budget. Given that the Labour party is now indulging in various changes of opinion, not least on Europe, does she recognise that the way so much was given away in the mid-2000s by the previous Labour Government was a great mistake, and will she pledge that no future Labour Government would ever do such a thing in that way?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for his kind words. Given the comment I just made about when I chose to make my first speech at this place, I can assure him that I have never changed my mind about Europe. I shall say more about that.

Spending on research, innovation, infrastructure, education and training, and enterprise development is very important and can help us better to promote the European Union as a facilitator of growth within the UK. Of course we recognise that we must also finance all aspects of the EU, but I would question whether continuing to spend so much of our money on areas like the common agricultural policy demonstrates the right priorities. It accounted for 40% of EU expenditure in 2013 yet contributed just over 1% to total EU economic output.

[George Kerevan]

Labour Members have twice now criticised how much is spent on agriculture in the EU. Surely the hon. Lady is aware that over the years there has been a significant shift in and reform of what the agricultural fund is for. It is no longer primarily an agricultural subsidy for production and excess production but is focused on protecting the environment. Surely that is something that we should encourage.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about protecting our environment, but my point is that in these times we need to ensure that each part of this spending is focused in the right place. At a time when the European Union has serious deprivation and so on within its borders, it is right to question each part of its spending.

I know that any discussion of Europe strikes fear into the heart of those on the Government Front Bench, especially because it stirs such joy on their Back Benches. The issue of Europe holds no such fear for me, however, and in the coming referendum I shall campaign to stay in the European Union, because we should not underestimate the benefits we receive from being part of it.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

In the light of the hon. Lady’s comments about fear on respective sides of the House, will she tell the House why her party was so fearful of the views of the British people for so long when it came to a referendum on Europe?

[Alison McGovern]

I have no fear of the views of the British people and I only endeavour to listen to them.

Seven out of ten of the UK’s largest export markets are in EU countries, amounting to 42% of the UK’s total exports or £122 billion every year. Some of those exports are made in my constituency, and I see the vital importance of the European market to the whole of the UK and to my constituents no less than to anyone else’s. Of all the investment spending in the UK over the past 20 years, 21% has come from foreign direct investment, and we should not underestimate the importance of that. We have access to 500 million customers in the single market, and in my role as shadow City Minister. I must raise the point that in my opinion the financial services sector benefits enormously from remaining within the EU.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way, because I am feeling generous.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is being very generous. A lot of the debate on this in the past has been a bit overdone, as though there would be no trade between the EU and the UK if we were to leave. What assessment has the hon. Lady made of what the impact would be? I am sure that there would be costs, but perhaps we need to avoid exaggerating or suggesting that somehow all trade would cease or that there would be massive walls put up when there will not. What is her assessment of the likely impact on trade if we did depart?

[Alison McGovern]

I am not always this generous, so the hon. Gentleman should perhaps make the most of it. I have looked my constituents in the eye, especially those who work at General Motors in Ellesmere Port, and I have seen in them a dedication to make things in this country to be sold abroad for the good of our economy. Their dedication in working so hard for our country deserves our commitment to ensuring that our borders are open to our biggest customers. When they sell their cars to Europe, that is good for our country and I think that my job is to stand by their side.

We must work hard to make the EU better for everybody, and the Bill presents us with an opportunity to do that. The multiannual financial framework has already been agreed by the European Council. We should use this process to strengthen budgetary procedures for the future and enhance political and public understanding of how the EU budget works, and we should re-prioritise how EU money is spent so that it works for the benefit of each and every person in Europe, not just for a wealthy few. I look forward to strengthening the Bill as it moves through the House.

16:05

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to respond on behalf of the Government to the debate on the European Union (Finance) Bill. I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) to her position as shadow Economic Secretary.

We have had a good-humoured debate today on this important topic. I have noticed that a large number of former university professors chose to speak in the debate. I welcome the eight new Members who made their maiden speeches during the debate. As my opposite number pointed out, they have been shrewd—they know that Thursday afternoon business on a Bill that takes up all of one page and has general cross-party support is an excellent opportunity to enjoy less stricture from Madam Deputy Speaker in respect of a time limit.

We were privileged to hear a range of maiden speeches, first from the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), who shocked us by revealing that he already has his bus pass. He tempted us all with the information that his vegetable garden is ambitious and painted a delightful picture of East Lothian. My grandmother, Flora Maclean Macleod Morison, was born in Dunbar in his constituency, so he will forgive me if I take an entirely different view from him of our United Kingdom, but I enjoyed his maiden speech very much none the less.

We then had the pleasure of hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who emphasised the fact that his interest in European finance was related to the fact that his wife is French. He took us on a very interesting tour of his constituency that involved Wimbledon strawberries. He also spoke of his valuable and important tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the nation is deeply grateful.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) who, I think it is fair to say, is the first person of Iranian-Irish heritage to serve in this place. She took us back to the wars of the roses. The atmosphere seemed to get quite heated on the Conservative Benches at times during the afternoon, but my hon. Friend made a very funny speech and took us on a metaphorical open-top bus tour in a Leyland bus around South Ribble. The House was alarmed to hear that she reversed into her first constituent. We would all like to hear in her subsequent contributions what happened to that constituent. I was left worrying about what happened next.

We had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who complemented the strawberries from Tonbridge and Malling with some Pimm’s from Glenrothes to add to our summer delights. We also heard from the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who has been not only a university professor but, I understand, a DJ. She took us around the musical highlights of Ealing Central and Acton. She clearly knows her area extremely well from having lived there for so long, and she paid a well deserved tribute to her excellent predecessors, Angie Bray and Sir George Young. I only regret that Sir George Young’s letter to her when she was 18 failed to persuade her of the virtues of voting Conservative, but a place is reserved for her, should she ever wish to cross the Floor.

We heard a remarkable speech from my hon. Friend the new Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who enchanted us with his description of some of his perhaps less successful outings on the cricket pitch. I think it fair to say that he is already one of the most famous new Members, as his name has been mentioned on numerous occasions by his constituency champion, our hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). We are delighted to meet him in the flesh. He was elected as the youngest councillor in the country in 2007, which we in Malvern Hills were slightly annoyed about, as we had only the second youngest. None the less, I congratulate him on being here so early in his life and look forward to his being here for many years to come.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who has a very tough act to follow. Not only has his predecessor left a lasting legacy in this nation’s politics by ensuring that we kept the pound and remained strong in our approach to a wide range of foreign policy issues, but he turned up at his advice surgeries in a Harrier jet—a tough act to follow indeed, but the new Member for Richmond (Yorks) clearly shares the oratory, wit and intelligence of his predecessor. I am sure that his speech today gave us the first inkling of the great contribution he will make.

Today, the House has also had a picture painted for us of a spa. What could be nicer on a Thursday afternoon in the House of Commons than to hear about the city of Bath and its place in European tourism? It was an enchanting picture of an historic and famous place. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) shared his pride in the fact—we all agree with him on the great news—that, after 23 years, Bath is once again a blue city. He told us about the innovative and prosperous place that he represents. He, too, will be a great champion for his area in the years to come.

A stable, prosperous society is possible only if the Government spend citizens’ money wisely. We have before us a Bill that is an eloquent rebuttal to all those who claim that we cannot get a better European settlement. Back in 2013, people said we could never do something as ambitious as cutting the EU budget—it was unheard of. But we worked with our partners, we negotiated hard and we did not give in, and that work paid off handsomely. The seven-year deal we secured represents the first ever real-terms cut to the EU budget, at the same time as protecting our hard-won rebate. That is what happens when we stand our ground, fight hard against unwelcome proposals and defend the interests of the British taxpayer. That is exactly the sort of leadership that is needed in Europe.

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to ask the hon. Lady a question that is important for the next stage of the Bill. Does she think that “standing our ground” will be extended to what the Labour party has suggested and Labour Members have talked about today, which is cutting the CAP and funding for agriculture even further and spending more on growth and jobs? Does she think that that switch of priorities is possible?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady mentioned that earlier and I was going to get to that point in a moment, but yes, we do accept that expenditure on the CAP is still too high both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the overall budget. As she will know, this settlement reduces the amount we spend on the CAP by 13%, but as the Prime Minister said at the time of the deal, reform of EU spending is a long-term project. I will say more later in my speech.

Before I reply to points made in the debate, let me remind the House what the Bill covers and what it does not cover. It relates to the mechanism by which member states finance the EU budget. The mechanism was agreed unanimously by member states in 2014, in a Council decision that fully and accurately reflects the historic deal that the Prime Minister secured. The Bill therefore gives UK approval to that Council decision, finalising the Prime Minister’s historic deal in 2013, which the Government worked hard to achieve and which received widespread praise from both Houses as delivering a good deal for taxpayers.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South made a number of points, including on the common agricultural policy and the overall enthusiasm her party now feels for reform of the European Union. We welcome that new-found enthusiasm, but I encourage her to induct into that feeling her colleagues in the European Parliament, who play a vital role every year by scrutinising the European budget. I look forward to her being able to engage with them and ensure that there is a good deal of scrutiny, and not only on the points she raised about the common agricultural policy, but on the payment gap, because clearly the Commission has committed to publishing more frequently its analysis on payment forecasts. We welcome the greatly enhanced level of information on the budget but recognise that there is still a great deal more to do.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is worth saying for the record that in the latest round of CAP reforms, covering the six-year period from 2014 to 2020, Labour MEPs voted against the final outcome, because we believe that the reforms were not far-reaching enough. The Minister mentioned talking to those MEPs, but they have already voted against it.

[Harriett Baldwin]

As I said, I welcome the hon. Lady’s European colleagues’ new-found enthusiasm for rigour and reform in the European Union, and I look forward to working closely with them to ensure that happens.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made an excellent speech that revealed his deep knowledge of the subject. As a former MEP who sat on the Committee that scrutinised the European budget, he has been assiduous in his scrutiny of this legislation—no doubt the Whips will have noted his enthusiasm to take part when the Bill goes to Committee. He asked a range of questions about the ESA reporting and the accuracy of the EU budget. The UK agrees that more can be done to improve compliance, including simplifying the rules that member states have to comply with to release their funds. We believe that the Prime Minister’s deal on the multi-annual financial framework shows that EU spending can be improved, but that will require a strong UK voice to be heard.

[George Kerevan]

Again, does the Minister understand that the OBR analysis shows that in 2020 the net contributions in cash terms from the UK will be similar to what they are now? When the Prime Minister negotiated a reduction in the EU budget, it was a reduction in the global budget, not in the British contribution in cash terms.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I accept that the OBR has published figures that clearly show that there is a real-terms reduction in the overall envelope for the settlement period.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry also asked about the additional costs compared with the existing decision and any offsetting benefits. He raised a number of technical points about the VAT-based contributions, which are calculated by applying a call rate to a hypothetical harmonised VAT base—are not we glad we have him in this House, knowing all the information and all the right questions to ask on the details of the financial settlement? He also asked about the impact of the switch from ESA 95 to ESA 2010. It was taken into account in the own resources decision, but it does affect all countries’ GNI, so the effect on the contribution depends on how all countries’ GNI is revised. For the UK the key determinant of contributions is, in fact, the VAT base, thanks to our rebate, which the Labour party did not succeed in giving away fully in the early 2000s. Changes in the UK’s GNI are corrected in the rebate calculation.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned a number of negotiating red lines that he has, although he is in a slightly different position. He asked what are the Prime Minister’s red lines. The Prime Minister has clearly set out areas where he wants change, including reforming welfare to reduce the incentives that have encouraged such mass migration from Europe; increasing economic competitiveness to create jobs and growth for hard-working families; and protecting Britain’s interests outside the euro. They also include halting the constant flow of powers to Brussels, including by ensuring a stronger role for national Parliaments, and dealing with the concept of ever-closer union. That may be what some others want, but it is not for us.

In 2010, this Government took the tough decisions that were needed to pull this country back from the brink. We can have a stable, prosperous society only if a Government spend their citizens’ money carefully, and it is right that we took that approach to the European level of government as well.

[Alison McGovern]

Can the Minister confirm how the deficit is going?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I would be delighted to confirm that. When we took office in 2010, the deficit was the largest in our peacetime history, at well over 10%. It has more than halved over the past five years and will be eliminated during this Parliament.

[Alison McGovern]

The Minister says that the deficit has halved. Will she confirm the Government’s pledge in 2010?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The deficit halved—more than halved—over the course of the previous Parliament. Is the hon. Lady now arguing that she would like to have cut spending more? I have not heard that from Labour Members in this Chamber over the past five years. I have heard constant bids for more borrowing, more spending and more taxation, and nothing at all about reducing the deficit.

[Alison McGovern]

The Minister challenges me on what I would pledge. I did not write the Chancellor’s emergency Budget that set the Government on the wrong course. So let me ask her this: how did the pledge go to get debt falling, not rising, for most of the previous Parliament?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I must be living in a parallel universe. I have walked through the opposite Lobby from the hon. Lady on numerous occasions when we have taken the tough decisions on spending that we needed to take in order to clear up the mess that her mentor, Mr Gordon Brown, left behind.

In the negotiations on the European budget in 2013 we achieved real, historic change. We got a great deal for the United Kingdom, we proved that we can achieve reform in Europe, and we protected taxpayers’ interests. That historic agreement will be formalised with the passing of this Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

European Union (Finance) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the European Union (Finance) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day’s sitting.

(3) Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(5) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(6) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Margot James.)

European Union (Finance) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Union (Finance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on, and payment out of, the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums which, by virtue of the amendment of the European Communities Act 1972 made by that Act, fall to be charged on or paid out of either of those Funds.—(Margot James.)

Mental Health (Higher Education Institutions)

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Margot James.)

16:23

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election to your post.

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate on an extremely important issue that is of growing concern—how to support our most precious young people on the thresholds of their lives. I want to set out the background to the issue, the evidence that shows that it is an area of growing concern, what is good practice, and what can be done for the future.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House may have seen the recent examples of students who are putting mental health and counselling services at the top of their agenda for change. In March, students from Goldsmiths University occupied Deptford town hall and demanded the recruitment of more counsellors. Also in March, students from the London School of Economics called for the removal of the standard six-session cap on counselling sessions. In April, students from King’s College, London included in their provisional occupation demands a call for mandatory training for their personal tutors in giving advice on mental health, and they wanted an additional cognitive behavioural therapist to be employed, to cut down on waiting times.

Members will have seen recently that two students from the same Oxford college committed suicide—one in December 2013 and the other in March 2014. Across the House Members are agreed and have accepted that the Government are going to pursue parity of esteem between mental health and physical health, which is welcome.

Why is this becoming an issue of concern? There are a number of reasons. We expect the many students who have left home for the first time to get into college, set up a household, learn how to budget, form new relationships and get involved in their academic courses, but at the same time they are separated from their usual support networks. Some may come from another country, while others, because of widening access to higher education, including vocational qualifications, may also face particular challenges. I am concerned that the Royal College of General Practitioners says that tens of thousands of 15 to 34-year-olds are suffering from depression, stress and anxiety.

Another issue is study pressure and the continuous annual examinations that young people face from the age of 13—sometimes even younger—to 18. Now their CVs have to be bulging with placements and work experience. They say that they have climbed Mount Kilimanjaro, that they play three instruments at grade 8 and that they have a string of A*s—and that is before they even get to university.

Another possible reason is financial pressure. We talk of paying down the debt, and yet we are saddling our young people with, on average, a debt of £44,000 at the start of their working lives, which they then have to carry through. That is the estimate of the House of Commons Library, based on Student Loans Company statistics for 2013-14. It is notable that Germany has abolished tuition fees: Lower Saxony was the last federal state to abolish them, and that was in October 2014. Perhaps we can learn some lessons from that.

After graduation, some find it difficult to find well-paid work, or they have to work a long-hours culture. The latest figures from the Student Loans Company showed that 30% of new graduates were working but not earning enough to be liable to pay their loans. That was the figure for 2012, so it will be interesting to see the new figures, which will be released on 18 June.

What of the evidence? A 2013 survey by the National Union of Students found that 49% of students had felt depressed during their studies; that 55% had felt anxious during their studies; and that 20% considered themselves to have a mental health problem. In 2011, 6,000 students had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with almost 9,000 in 2013—that is a 58% increase in three years, even though the student intake actually fell by 16% during the same period.

A freedom of information request in 2014 revealed that the number of undergraduate and postgraduate students accessing counselling services at Oxford University went up by 136% and 172% respectively between 2003-04 and 2013-14. For undergraduates, there was a rise from 4% to 9%.

Happily, we are moving on to a different track, because we are now able to track the student academic experience. The Institute for Higher Education Policy Institute and the Higher Education Academy have produced two consecutive reports. The 2014 report states that students generally feel lower levels of wellbeing than the general population, which is of some concern. They may require further support from institutions, not only through dedicated support services, but through peer networks and mentoring programmes.

The 2015 report concludes that students are less happy and have less of a sense that the things they do are worth while than the general population, even compared with people in the same age group. That shows the need to improve student support services, including counselling, even in challenging financial times.

What can be done? There is good practice from the Open University, a non-campus university that supports lifelong learning. The OU contacts students about their adjustments to ensure that they are supported, giving advice about staying on track, prioritising work and having flexibility with deadlines, and about other adjustments.

Students are encouraged to apply for disabled students allowances so that they can access the support of a mental health mentor. They all have access to the guide “Studying and staying mentally healthy”, which the Open University states has lots of practical guidance. As a result, the Open University found that evidence showed that disabled students who received DSAs have higher completion rates and are more likely to progress in their studies. However, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, a professional body for counsellors and psychotherapists, is concerned that counselling is no longer viewed as an essential element of student support. It says that more generalised wellbeing support and advice offered by non-clinically trained staff is increasingly seen as the way forward.

Dr Ruth Caleb, head of counselling at Brunel University and chair of Mental Well-being in Higher Education, has written a timely article entitled “Student Mental Wellbeing: whose responsibility?” She makes many points, but the two most important ones are that ignoring student wellbeing support costs the university or higher education institution a great deal of money when student retention is very important; and that it is the responsibility of the Government and senior management to ensure that students are supported to stay until the end of their course, to help them to achieve the best they are capable of. The more compelling reason is the need to behave morally and ethically for our students.

Dr Caleb has published a guide—“Student mental wellbeing in higher education: good practice guide”—and makes important recommendations, including on guidance structures, and training and awareness raising activities to help institutions to work towards a much more collaborative model. I suggest to the Minister that that might be a good blueprint for a policy or guidance note that can be rolled out to higher education institutions.

Ben Lewis, from the Cardiff University student services organisation, has said that students are forced to rely on support from their institutions, which is finite and resource-limited, so the NHS has a collaborative role. However, BACP has said that there might be a temptation for universities to hand over responsibility to the NHS. If it is more difficult to see a counsellor, people are referred to the NHS, which has longer waiting times. That also means more pressure on the NHS.

BACP has cited data showing that, of 5,500 students from 65 universities, 81% considered that counselling helped them to stay at university; that 79% said that counselling helped them academically do better in their work; and that 78% said that counselling helped them to develop employability skills. That is all pointing in the right direction if we continue to embed those services.

I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. First, will he ensure that there is a Government-led review of higher education counselling services to formulate a policy before the situation gets worse?

Secondly, as the Institute for Higher Education Policy recommended, will the Government ensure that counselling services are funded even at challenging financial times, that students get the appropriate service of higher or lower-intensity counselling, and that those are embedded in higher education institutions’ policies?

Thirdly, will the Government stop the proposed changes to DSAs? As the Open University has found, many students benefit from support tutors to stay on the course. I was at a round-table discussion at the Royal Society of Chemistry last year. The Royal Agricultural University stressed the importance of DSA for their students, two thirds of whom are on DSAs. That helps the university to give them the support they need to stay on. If they did not have those students—they are graduating with science degrees—the university might have to close. That is why it is important to ensure that DSAs are retained.

Fourthly, will the Minister work with the Department for Health to ensure that clinical commissioning groups and university counselling services work together in areas with a high student population, and that services are complementary, not duplicated, so that students do not fall between the two and miss out on the services they need?

Fifthly, will he publish guidance so that students who interrupt their studies for mental health reasons, as two students did, are properly supported by higher education institutions during that period? A period of intermission should not simply be a means for the institution to avoid addressing a problem a student may be facing. Students should be supported back into their studies.

I hope the Minister will agree with what I believe are reasonable asks. Above all, I hope they will be embedded in any Government policy he sets out to protect our students. Students are our most precious assets and our hope for the future. We must support them so they can discover and unleash their talents, and fulfil their potential for the good of us all.

16:35

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to have the chance to debate this important topic.

Ensuring the wellbeing of students is very important for our higher education institutions. I know that they take their responsibilities in this area exceptionally seriously. As the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) made clear, students have also highlighted how important this issue is for them. However, tackling mental health is a priority not just for higher education. The Government will continue to take mental health as seriously as physical health. It is estimated that funding for mental health will increase by £302 million in 2014-15. Total mental health spending is rising from just over £11.3 billion in 2013-14, to just over £11.6 billion in 2014-15. That is an increase of 0.6% in real terms. We have made it clear that spending on mental health should increase in real terms. NHS England has published planning guidance for 2015-16. This makes the expectation clear that each clinical commissioning group should see spending on mental health services increase in real terms in 2015-16.

It is right that higher education institutions, as autonomous bodies independent from the Government, have the responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of their students. This includes their mental health. They have clear legal responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 to support their students, including those with mental health conditions. Institutions are best placed to determine what welfare and counselling services they need to provide to their students. That will vary according to the needs of each particular student body. Students who, as the hon. Member for Walsall South mentioned, are paying up to £9,000 in fees should be able to access the high quality support they need to sustain and complete their studies. Our universities are in sound financial health. We have, and will continue to have, a world class higher education system. This has been achieved and maintained during a period when higher education has been opened up both to greater numbers and an increased diversity of students.

[Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and brother for giving way. On diversity of students, is it not absolutely vital to maintain this country’s high profile in those vital markets, particularly India, where we have seen a sad falling away in the number of students coming to Britain?

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. We do, of course, encourage diversity of students. We encourage diversity in all groups that are under-represented: people from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from the most disadvantaged sections of society. We also welcome the diversity that comes from international students and hope that the numbers from the country he mentioned stop declining in the years ahead and begin to rise.

Universities are adult environments, where the expectations on students are different from those at school. As such, it is only right that students take responsibility, working with the institution, for their own welfare. However, I know that universities are very mindful of the fact that many of their students, particularly those who have moved away from home for the first time to study, will be undergoing a significant transition and may need extra help. Universities provide a wide range of support. In recent years, there has been an increasing awareness in higher education of the need to offer support services to students, and I welcome the efforts the sector has made to develop guidance and support materials, including from a range of sector and medical bodies.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Open University. We must indeed spread good practice, which is why I welcome the recent publication by Universities UK of a good practice guide on student mental wellbeing in higher education, published in February. This is a practical resource for senior higher education leaders and managers and aims to support institutions in building and improving their provision for students with mental health problems.

There are many examples of the support that universities have in place. They have induction systems to help students understand university life, and support is available to reassure students that there are people to turn to if they are experiencing difficulties.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I wish to make a point relevant to the debate. Does the Minister think that some work ought to be done in secondary schools to prepare people for higher education in terms of wellbeing and mental health?

[Joseph Johnson]

It is important throughout the education system that proper attention be given to mental health issues, and that includes the secondary education system as much as higher education.

I was mentioning some of the examples of good practice across our higher education system, and I want to cite work by the University of Wolverhampton, close to the hon. Lady’s constituency, which has recently appointed a mental health adviser. It also offers a counselling service that runs “dealing with students in distress” workshops as part of the university’s annual staff development programme. This is available to all staff, including front-line staff.

The University of Salford works with a number of services in the community, including mental health teams and charities, such as Mind in Salford, Self Help in Greater Manchester and early intervention teams. The University of Sheffield has developed postcards on which is written, “Worried about another student?”. These are aimed at supporting mental health and wellbeing and are distributed through their residences, timed for when students return in January and at the start of first semester exams.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Those are excellent examples of university initiatives, but Bristol University saw a 64% increase in mental health diagnoses in the five years between 2009 and 2014. It recruited a new psychotherapist, and the local psychiatrist now visits twice a week, whereas he used to have to visit only once a fortnight. It needs specific funding to help them cope with the increased demand. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Department of Health to secure some of that funding?

[Joseph Johnson]

As I said, universities are in sound financial health. Students paying up to £9,000 in fees should be able to access the high-quality support they need to sustain and complete their studies.

The Government are providing extra support for disabled students on an individual basis through the disabled students allowance. This can provide support to students with mental health issues. In the academic year 2012-13, just over £127 million was paid in DSA to about 56,000 full-time students. All students applying for DSA undergo a needs assessment interview to ascertain their specific requirements with regard to their chosen course of study. Students with mental health difficulties can apply for the full range of support available through DSA, including specialist mentors, equipment and assistive technology, to help them overcome the barriers they face.

The proposed changes to DSA, which the hon. Member for Walsall South mentioned, will be subject to a public consultation. It is vital to remember that the changes are not about removing support, but about rebalancing the source of that support and ensuring that universities and other higher education institutions play a full role in delivering their legal duties under equality legislation. The aim will be to set clear guidelines on what the Government expect from institutions to ensure that students receive a consistent level of support and that the sector is clear where DSA is the most effective source of support. This is intended to improve the levels of support overall, including for students in receipt of DSA and disabled students who do not claim it. Under the proposed changes, students with mental health conditions will continue to have access to DSA-funded specialist support such as mentors.

The higher education sector has much to be proud of in its work to ensure the wellbeing and mental health of its students and to fulfil its duties under the Equality Act 2010. I expect the sector to continue to meet its obligations in this area and to build and develop the support it provides.

Question put and agreed to.

16:45

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 11th June 2015 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 11 June 2015

Energy and Climate Change

Thursday 11th June 2015 Ministerial Corrections

Climate Change

The following is an extract from the speech made by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the Opposition day debate on 10 June 2015.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her new job, and very well deserved it is too. While I support everything that we can do with regard to renewable energy, does she not agree that we have a particular problem in the south-west, namely the vast solar farms that are springing up across the land? Hundreds of acres of good agricultural land in my constituency are being wasted, and replaced by the vanity mirrors that are solar farms. Is there any way of limiting them to industrial sites, schools and so on?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right. We have introduced limitations for large solar farms, and we will consider what else we can do in this regard. I also agree with him that solar energy is best dealt with by community energy projects. It should not be on people’s houses; it should be on public buildings and factories. That is an excellent way of generating solar energy, and it has become much more affordable and possible since the price has fallen so much under this Government and the previous one.

[Official Report, 10 June 2015, Vol. 596, c. 1277.]

Letter of correction from Amber Rudd:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) during the Opposition day debate on climate change.

The correct response should have been:

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right. We have introduced limitations for large solar farms, and we will consider what else we can do in this regard. I also agree with him that solar energy is best dealt with by community energy projects. It should be on people’s houses; it should be on public buildings and factories. That is an excellent way of generating solar energy, and it has become much more affordable and possible since the price has fallen so much under this Government and the previous one.

Petition

Thursday 11th June 2015 Petitions

Thursday 11 June 2015

Changes to budgets for GPs

Thursday 11th June 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the Wakefield constituency,

Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the proposed £3.8 million cuts from budgets for GPs; further that these cuts could result in small practices closing, 38 full time doctors or 95 full time nurses being lost and patients waiting longer to be seen by a GP; and further that a local petition on this matter has been signed by 850 individuals.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider the proposal to make cuts to budgets for GPs in the Wakefield area.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mary Creagh, Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1544.]

[P001489]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Health:

These are matters for the local NHS. GPs, clinicians, patients and local authorities are best placed to determine the nature of their NHS services.

NHS England is reviewing the funding of PMS practices in a move toward equitable funding arrangements for both General Medical Service (GMS) and Primary Medical Service (PMS) practices. Wakefield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) is leading the PMS Review process in the Wakefield area. The CCG, the Local Medical Committee and other key stakeholders are working together to ensure that any proposed contractual changes and funding is aligned to Wakefield CCG’s strategic plan and local priorities including the health inequalities agenda. PMS practices will not see any changes to funding or contracts until October 2015.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

Thursday 11 June 2015

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

Voter Engagement

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2014-15, Voter engagement in the UK, HC 232, the Government response, HC 1037, and the Sixth Report from that Committee, Session 2014-15, Voter engagement in the UK: follow up, HC 938.]

13:30

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered voter engagement and the franchise.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I have the great privilege of representing an area that, throughout history, has served as a hotbed for new and often radical ideas about democracy, justice and representative government. Mary Wollstonecraft lived in Islington for many years and established a school for girls at Newington Green. Thomas Paine began writing his “Rights of Man”—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”]—at the Angel in 1790. And Lenin—let us also have a cheer for Lenin, please—worked in Clerkenwell Green during the early 20th century, publishing several issues of his communist newspaper from the site now occupied by the Marx Memorial library.

My constituency has often been described as a citadel for constitutional reform, and it is not hard to see why. One of my predecessors as MP for Finsbury, Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, presented the second, and by far the largest, Chartist petition to Parliament in 1842. The petition is said to have been signed by 3,315,752 people and was so large that it could not fit through the doors of Parliament without being unrolled. The Chartists sought radically to reform the way that hon. Members were elected to this House and called for an extension to the franchise, a secret ballot and the abolition of property qualifications so that wealth was no longer a precondition to vote. Of course, the Chartists called only for the enfranchisement of men, but we have since moved on.

Unfortunately, Islington’s recent history has, at times, had a more troubling side, and its elected officials have not always taken such an expansive view of the franchise. During the many years in which the local authority was under Liberal Democrat control, the council tended to draw most of its support from more affluent voters. Registration remained stagnant in the most deprived parts of the borough, where many ethnic minority people, in particular, live. In 2006, the Labour group tabled a motion asking the council to do better, and particularly to work hard to ensure that black and minority ethnic voters register to vote and are included on the electoral register. The Liberal Democrat majority voted down the motion and, after the vote, one of the leading Liberal councillors shouted across the council chamber, “That’s how we win elections!” Fortunately, there has been a significant improvement in voter registration over recent years, which is largely attributable to the proactive measures taken by the Labour majority that took the council in 2010. Islington has gone from being the area with the second-worst voter registration rate in the entire country to being a model for other local authorities that seek to maximise registration.

Voter registration is not a partisan issue, or it should not be. Anyone who wholeheartedly supports a healthy democracy should start from the principle that both registration and turnout should be as close as possible to 100%. Our current system is wholly inadequate for making that aspiration a reality. We have had a lot of counterproductive talk over the years from politicians of all parties who suggest that the vote is some sort of privilege that should be proactively seized by voters on an individual basis. That tendency was markedly on display when the coalition Government introduced the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, now the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, in the last Parliament. They announced their intention to implement individual electoral registration, dropping the existing plan for a phased introduction purely as a cost-saving measure. Ministers in the last Government spoke of giving people the opportunity to register to vote and of people being removed from the roll only if they failed to do so. On Second Reading in the other place, the Bill’s sponsor, the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire, claimed that its goal was

“to give people greater ownership of their own registration”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2012; Vol. 739, c. 616.]

It is as if what was needed at the time was for people individually to seize their right to vote, but the Bill did not address the fact that more than 6 million people who were entirely eligible to vote were missing from the electoral register.

Who are those 6 million people? Members may be familiar with a report produced by the Electoral Commission in July 2014. The report lists the groups who are most likely not to be on the electoral register. This list will not surprise hon. Members: young people under the age of 35, especially students; private tenants; black and other minority ethnic groups; Commonwealth and EU nationals; and those classified as social grades D and E or, to use plain English, low-skilled and unskilled workers and the unemployed. If the Government have a genuine interest in maximising participation in the political process, I would have thought they would see that as a serious problem and seek to address it, but that is not happening—the exact opposite is happening. It is abundantly clear that the excessively hasty introduction of individual electoral registration has had an even more detrimental effect on voter registration and engagement, particularly among those groups, and we should all be alarmed.

It is appropriate at this point to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), under whose chairmanship the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform produced a report on this vital issue, “Voter engagement in the UK”. The report stated that the 5.5 million voters who were not transferred to the new register following the initial implementation of individual electoral registration included “disproportionate” numbers from particular groups: private tenants, students and attainers—16 and 17-year-olds who will attain the age of 18 before the date of the next general election. The Committee recommended that

“every effort is made by Electoral Registration Officers to reach all registered voters who have not been automatically transferred to the new register”.

I do not understand why people are not automatically registered. If we are all true democrats, we should wish for everyone who has the right to vote simply to be on the electoral register. Putting unnecessary hurdles in the way of people exercising their democratic right to vote is entirely counter-democratic, and I do not understand it.

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

My hon. Friend, like me, is a London Member of Parliament, and she will know that in recent months there has been a significant increase in the number of people evicted from their property because of the impact of benefit capping, which has resulted in people moving from one London borough to another. People are moving to my outer-London borough of Redbridge from Westminster, Kensington and other inner-London boroughs, and our own people in Redbridge are now being placed in bed-and-breakfast hotels in Hounslow, Staines, Heathrow or other parts of England. What can be done to ensure that those people do not lose their democratic rights?

[Emily Thornberry]

It is particularly important that such people exercise their democratic rights, because many of the difficulties that they face are the direct result of decisions made by politicians. Such people should make it clear what they think about those decisions, so they must be able to exercise their democratic right to vote. They must be able to make their views clear about such decisions, and the chaos among certain groups in London, with people having to move around because of caps on benefits and the shortage of social housing, is yet another reason why we should be proactive.

When the Chartists handed in the petition, my predecessor was asking for every man living in Finsbury to have a vote. This is not my party’s policy, but he would be turning in his grave if he knew that more than 8,000 people in my constituency are on the electoral register for European and local elections but are not allowed to vote in general elections. They are here, they pay taxes and they play a full role. A man came into my surgery last Friday who was very exercised by the fact that his Japanese wife, who has lived and paid taxes here for seven years but cannot get dual nationality for cultural reasons due to her Japanese background—I do not understand it, but they are firmly of the view that that is the reason—cannot vote and will not be able to vote. At what stage do we reach a tipping point? In an increasingly international world, and particularly in a world city such as London, what proportion of the population can be excluded from the ballot before we lose our identity as a democracy?

At the moment, there are perhaps 12,000 or 15,000 adults in my constituency who cannot vote. They turn up at my surgery and want a proper service from their Member of Parliament, but they do not count because they are not allowed to vote. The title I originally wanted for this debate—I understand that it is not the sort of title that one is allowed to have, but it seems to me entirely the right title—was: “Who counts?” In a democracy, who counts? Who is and is not a citizen? Whose voice should be listened to, and who should be flatly and determinedly ignored?

We are so proud of this city of London, and one of the things that we are proud of is that we have a mixture of people from all over. I would like to represent the whole of my constituency and everyone in it, and I do my best, but it seems profoundly wrong that those people are not allowed to vote. They might all vote Tory. We might end up with a Tory MP in Islington—I would take that on the nose—but they should be allowed to vote. They are here, they are people and they participate. They walk our streets, use our services and pay their taxes. Why are they not allowed to be involved in decisions about how politicians act on their behalf?

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recommended that electoral registration officers make every effort to reach all registered voters who have not been automatically transferred to the register. In the absence of anything resembling leadership on this issue from the coalition, local authorities have been left to their own devices. Of course, results have been decidedly mixed. To its credit, Islington council has made strenuous efforts to get as many people on the electoral register as possible. This year, EROs in Islington went knocking on doors of unregistered households right up until election day. They did four rounds of door-knocking, more than any other borough. Thanks to those efforts, turnout in my constituency increased from 54% in 2005, when I was first elected with a majority of just 484 votes, to 65% this year, when my majority grew to 12,708 votes, more than the total number of people who voted for me in 2005.

I applaud the hard work and dedication of those EROs, and it is welcome to the extent that registration and turnout reached much higher levels this year than they would have if the council had been as complacent as Ministers in Whitehall have been, but there is something perverse about it. My local authority is suffering enormous cuts. It will lose nearly half its budget in the next few years, yet we have spent £326,000 and who knows how many hours of public servants’ time knocking on doors again and again. Would that money not be better spent on public services? Would it not be a better use of public servants’ time if, instead of knocking on doors trying to get people to register to vote, they visited the elderly, the marginalised and the vulnerable, who are often not seen enough?

It seems to me to be the wrong way to do things. We should have automatic registration, including for students. Why are student halls of residence not included? There are many thousands of British students living in my constituency. Why must they all register individually to vote there? It is perfectly obvious where they live. The university knows and the council knows. There is no possibility of fraud, so why are they not on the voters’ register? Why must we knock on their doors individually and get them to register to vote? If we are true democrats, what is the problem?

We know what the problem is: the fear of voter fraud. However, we must consider the difference between perception and reality. The Minister formerly responsible for this issue, when asked about it, referred to reports saying that some 30% of the population believe that election fraud is a real issue. Perception is one thing, but reality is something else: the total number of people who have been prosecuted successfully for voter fraud is, I believe, three. However, in order to counter the perception that there is voter fraud, we are creating obstacles to people’s exercise of their democratic right. More voter fraud may be occurring, and more work should be done on that, but it does not seem to me that we are starting from the right place by beginning with, “We are worried about election fraud, so we’re going to make sure we make it very difficult for a lot of people to come to the ballot and vote.” That seems wrong. It is about time that we addressed that point.

The constituencies affected most by the changes to individual election registration are those such as mine: inner-city seats where, although there might be a lot of differences between people, on the whole they vote Labour. I am sure that there is no conspiracy, but the fact is that, if we get a shrinking Labour vote at the same time as the Government keep redrawing the boundaries to reflect so-called fair constituencies, Labour constituencies will shrink, there will be fewer Labour MPs, there will always be a Conservative majority and we will always have a Conservative Government. That would not be democratic, because we would be excluding large numbers of people.

We would also end up in a situation where our Members of Parliament did not know their constituencies. For the past 10 years, I have been putting down roots in my constituency in order to be the MP for the south of Islington. Everybody knows me. I go everywhere; I am at everything. Open an envelope and I will be there. Everybody knows who I am, and I am absolutely honoured. However, if I believed that every five years my constituency would move from here to there to somewhere else, my engagement with my area as a Member of Parliament would change.

Are the Government going to proceed with the so-called fair constituencies or not? If so, are we talking about 650 constituencies or 600? That is important to know—the newspapers have given completely contradictory reports—so I would be grateful for the Minister’s answer. We need to know where we are going on this issue. We need to stop the nonsense about people seizing the opportunity to vote, ensure that they can vote and make it easier for them. It is not right to put barriers in the way of people’s exercise of their democratic right.

Hon. Members will forgive me if this is too radical, but maybe we could do this with boundaries: we could take the decisions out of the hands of politicians and give them to another group that could not be criticised for exercising self-interest, for instance a non-partisan group of experts. We could call it something like “The Boundary Commission”, and we could ask it to look at communities and take an objective view about what the most sensible divisions might be throughout the country to ensure that communities are properly reflected.

We could have had such a body since 1944, and of course we have. It is indeed called the Boundary Commission, and that is what its job is. The Conservatives want to take a partisan view of the issue and introduce a strict cap of 600—or not; who knows? They want to make a rule that the population cannot deviate more than 5% in either direction. Will that be the new plan? Will fair constituencies be less than 5% one way or the other? When the Conservatives tried to introduce that in the last Session, as they will remember, it resulted in complete chaos.

Removing the Boundary Commission’s historical ability to take local authority borders and other natural dividers into account resulted in bizarre constituencies, such as the infamous Devonwall constituency with Cornish voters, over which a few hon. Members were up in arms. I was to represent the City of London, which I was happy to do—I thought that “Islington upon Thames” had a certain ring to it, and that it was about time that the bankers were represented by somebody radical; they had not been represented by anybody radical since John Wilkes—but unfortunately the City of London had a different view, which I thought disappointing and not very open-minded.

The issue has serious ramifications as well, as changes have added up to a system that simply stacked the decks against Members representing densely populated urban areas with highly mobile populations and large numbers of people from overseas, who tend to be represented by Labour. The truth is that allowing the Boundary Commission some latitude in determining the shape and size of constituencies is necessary, precisely because it allows the commission to take into account the huge variations that exist up and down our country.

Let me take one example at random; let us compare my constituency with Weston-super-Mare. Weston-super-Mare has a population of 105,300, compared with 105,820 in Islington South and Finsbury. So far, the two constituencies have much in common. However, in my constituency the electorate is only 68,127, whereas in Weston-super-Mare it is 80,309. Guess whose constituency falls within the magic 5% of the electoral quota and whose does not?

Of course, there may be a number of reasons that might account for the difference between the two constituencies. We know that the level of electoral registration is significantly higher among older people, and there are more older people in Weston-super-Mare than in my constituency, forming 19% of the population there compared with 9% in my constituency. However, I also represent a much more diverse constituency than the Minister does, with 48% of Islington residents identifying themselves as white British, compared with 97% of people in north Somerset. More than a third of my constituents were born overseas and many of them are not on the electoral register because our current law does not allow them to be. They would love to be on the electoral register; they are terribly political and I can tell you that they are not invisible to me.

Therein lies the most insidious implication of the boundary rules, as they stand. The rules quite literally tell every single person who is not on the voters’ register that they do not count, and that for the purposes of determining who represents them in this place they do not matter. I hope we all agree that we should show our constituents, regardless of their backgrounds, more respect than that.

It seems to me that the current Government have kicked this can down the road in this Parliament, but we want answers to some of the questions that I have put today. I hope that I have helped the Minister by preparing a series of questions that I would like him to answer if possible. I have copies of the questions for other Members and I have left helpful gaps at the bottom, so that we can fill them in with the answers that the Minister will hopefully come up with this afternoon.

The questions are as follows. First, at the next general election, how many constituencies will be contested—600, 650 or some other number? Secondly, what does the Minister mean when he says that the Government remain committed to equalising the size of constituencies? Thirdly, will the size of a constituency’s electorate be allowed to deviate by more than 5% from its quota? What would happen if it deviates by 8%, or 10%? Fourthly, how about the Government just doing us all a favour and putting the question back in the hands of the independent Boundary Commission, where it has always belonged? Fifthly, does the Minister recognise the “manifest unfairness”, to borrow a phrase from his own party’s manifesto, of basing the size of constituencies so closely on the number of electors as opposed to the number of people?

There are countries around the world that divide up constituencies on the basis of the size of the population and not just those who are on the voters’ register, and given the number of difficulties and issues that I have raised today—simply in relation to my constituency—surely it is fairer for us to start thinking about constituency sizes based on the size of their population. Does the Minister appreciate that not doing so would put MPs representing diverse, inner-city populations, the majority of whom just happen to be members of the Opposition party, at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to their ability to do their job? Finally, can the Minister explain how on earth reducing the number of MPs to 600

“would result in savings to the public purse of £13.6 million a year”,

as he has claimed, without there being a serious decline in the standards of service that our constituents can expect to receive?

As I am sure Members here can tell, I have a lot to say on this subject and I could say a great deal more, but I will drop the rest of my speech and sit down so that other Members can contribute.

13:53

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Turner, for calling me to speak; it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing such an important debate so early in this Parliament. She has covered, very ably and in great detail, the wide range of issues involved in voter registration and the prospective boundary review, and she struck an important note by saying that we should be able to discuss these issues on a non-partisan basis. That is certainly what I hope to do as I focus on student registration. I raise the issue as I represent more students than any other Member of this House—some 36,000, according to the last census —and because I chaired the all-party group on students in the last Parliament. I point out to anybody who is interested that we are relaunching the group on 13 July, so they can put that date in their diary.

Many students live in two homes, but the place where they study is effectively their primary residence. They spend more time there, and many of us who represent areas with large numbers of students make enormous efforts to integrate them into the local community and make them feel that the area is their primary home. That is as important in electoral registration as in anything else.

Members and the Minister, whom I welcome to his post, will know that prior to the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 many universities, though not all, block-registered students living in university accommodation, effectively acting in their role as head of household. I remain disappointed that the Government rejected amendments to that Act that would have allowed that block registration of students to continue, because it was an established and secure method of ensuring that students got on to the register, and that their identity was validated.

I wonder whether, in retrospect, the Government regret their decision to reject those amendments, given that in the run-up to the last election they spent an awful lot of money through the Cabinet Office pushing student registration, which I welcome. However, they were playing catch-up because they were behind the game. I welcome the fact that £380,000 was allocated to the National Union of Students, which shared it out among student unions across the country, to promote voter registration. That was a good spend; the money was used effectively, and it had a real impact on the number of students registered. We will need to look at that sort of spend in the run-up to key elections in the coming year. There will be many of them. Indeed, that applies to referendums, too; clearly, one referendum is not far away. Will the Minister say whether there are plans to continue that funding in the run-up to the elections and referendums in the immediate period ahead? I ask because that money was used effectively; it could be used again effectively, and it is certainly needed.

The Cabinet Office has worked very effectively on this issue, but I ask the Minister to consider the development of better approaches. When the 2013 Act was passed, it struck me, as someone who represents many students, that there would be an opportunity under individual electoral registration to reach beyond the number of students who registered under the old system of block registration if we could successfully integrate student enrolment and electoral registration.

Many universities have been quite willing—even enthusiastic—to promote the idea of registration, but I thought that we could take a step further than that. I talked to both the universities in my constituency—Sheffield University and Sheffield Hallam University—about the ways in which that might be achieved. We agreed between us that, for the 2014 entry of students, Sheffield University would pilot an integrated system, and that we would have as a benchmark alongside it Sheffield Hallam University, which would simply point students to the Government’s portal. We did all that with a view to introducing the Sheffield University system, if it proved worth while. The project was very successful indeed, thanks to the commitment of the staff at the universities and our local electoral registration officer, John Tomlinson, to whom I pay tribute. We developed a system that went live, as planned, last September. I also thank the Cabinet Office for its support and limited funding for that process.

The system requires students, when registering and enrolling with the university, actively to decide whether they want to register to vote. It was hugely successful, with 64% of eligible students indicating their wish to register to vote in Sheffield. The system then took people to another step, requiring them to give their national insurance number. At that point, two thirds of those enthusiastic, willing voters dropped out of the system because they did not have immediate access to their NI number and did not want to delay their university registration. The situation was looking a little bit bleak, with only 24% of students registered, despite more than double that number wanting to do so.

Again, I pay tribute to the Cabinet Office, which stepped in with new guidance issued in December, which allowed electoral registration officers to use their discretion to verify an application using any data source that satisfactorily established the identity of the applicant, including student enrolment data. That is sensible, because those data are a good verifier of identity. That meant that all those students who did not have their NI number and were not on the register—some 7,000—were added during December and January. It would be far simpler if, rather than having to seek national insurance numbers at all, we had a simple system, such as that put in place by the Cabinet Office, enabling EROs to register students on the basis of their indication that they wished to register, with their identities verified by their student status. Could not we dispense with the requirement for universities to collect NI numbers? That would make it simpler for everybody, and we would still have the verifiable data.

Whatever the Minister’s answer is, it is important that we press ahead with trying to get integrated systems. I have been working, as the Cabinet Office has, with Universities UK and the National Union of Students to encourage universities to make that decision. The Minister will know that many universities are grouped together by the fact that the same system provider writes their student enrolment programmes. The largest provider covers 82 universities, Sheffield Hallam being one of them. This happens across the country. There is an opportunity to get those system providers—I think there are three in all—to rewrite their software with a simple fix, before the September 2015 entry, so that there is an integrated system of electoral registration in the student enrolment procedures. I think active consideration has been given to this, but will the Minister positively consider the Cabinet Office funding these changes, including the rewrite of the software for many universities? Apart from anything else, if that happened the Government would save a lot of money, because we would not need the kind of retrospective funding that was needed when we were playing catch-up in the run-up to the 2015 general election.

Another positive initiative from the Cabinet Office was the establishment of projects trying to co-ordinate voter registration work for the Student Forum, which brought together the NUS, Universities UK, GuildHE, the Association of Colleges, the Academic Registrars Council and electoral registration officers, nationally and regionally. That organisation did some productive work. I hope that the Minister will commit to continuing those projects and forums.

I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a wider lesson to be learned from the experience of student registration, which shows that, with commitment, creativity and resources, IER can be introduced successfully. We can transfer the lessons of Sheffield’s system, which is aimed at students, beyond higher education to schools, colleges, housing providers, residential homes and other organisations that collect the data that the Government need to verify identity. We need to make it as simple as possible to get people straight on to the electoral roll. Much more needs to be done before we have a register that is fit for purpose, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Without that, we cannot proceed to a credible boundary review or the elections that are to take place, or to the crucial decision we will be making about our membership of the European Union.

14:05

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. We shared the experience of sitting on the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, which lasted for one Parliament only. The Committee had many enlightening evidence sessions on this matter.

It might be as well to record that in our last meeting with the Electoral Commission, it gave special praise to electoral registration officers in two constituencies—mine and the Vale of Clwyd—for their energetic activity after Christmas until the election date. The result in my constituency was interesting, with a swing of 0.0%, so what it lacks in volatility it makes up for in consistency. The sad effect in the Vale of Clwyd was the removal from Parliament of the person who knew more about electoral registration than anyone else—Chris Ruane, who is greatly missed in this Chamber.

Democracy was started in Greece 2,500 years ago and it has come to us on the instalment plan, in stages and imperfectly. It is still possible to buy a place in the House of Lords and still possible to buy influence and privilege from Governments by putting money into the pockets of lobbyists. We have done virtually nothing to reform that system. It is still possible for retiring Ministers, generals and civil servants to prostitute their insider knowledge to the highest bidder when they leave this place, to get a lucrative retirement job and buy their hacienda in Spain. That is going on and we are doing very little to limit it. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is a bit of a joke. It is not the Rottweiler it should be; it is a pussy cat without teeth or claws. We have an imperfect democracy.

The Government’s only argument for redrawing constituencies is arithmetical tyranny: doing it entirely on the basis of population. Let me give one example of how things do not work that way. A main area of our work in my constituency office is immigration. In the local authority area I serve, there are at this moment 439 asylum seekers—that is just one group; there are others as well—all of whom require a great deal of work. There are also language difficulties. It is a huge burden on an MP’s office. Where is the fairness in this, when in the constituencies of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, there are a grand total of three asylum seekers?

We could talk about many other examples of the unfair burden of work in different constituencies. The Government are planning, again, to undermine the number of constituencies and disturb the system. There certainly are arguments for bringing the system up to date, but there is no argument for doing so at a time when the Government are awarding places in the House of Lords to people who are unelected. Sometimes places are given because of cash.

There is certainly a link between contributions to parties—all parties—and places in the House of Lords. There are also links between those, such as Ministers, whom the Government wish to reward for failure, as a consolation. That is normal now. We have a system of political awards set up by the present Prime Minister. The system has existed only since 2011; it is entirely new. Why should anyone want an award? People lust after the same honour that Sir Jimmy Savile and Sir Cyril Smith had. Why anyone would want to be tainted with such a thing is beyond me.

There was something of a triumph in the last election for the Electoral Commission, which gave us evidence on many occasions, as you will recall, Mr Turner. The result of the election showed some remarkable changes. We spent many hours in the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee looking at how we could encourage people to register, particularly those groups that were largely under-registered. Organisations such as Bite the Ballot did a great job on that. Sadly, in spite of my repeated requests, we never had Russell Brand along to give us evidence. We wanted to get hold of him and say, “You realise how badly young people are treated by all politicians. They look after rich pensioners such as me very well indeed, because we are the group who vote.”

Young people have had a terrible deal from the coalition Government and previous Governments because they are not viewed as being of any consequence. Russell Brand made that foolish statement to his 9 million followers on Twitter—rather more than you or I have, Mr Turner—telling them not to vote and not to take part in the election, but instead to march around the streets making demands. He tried to get 1 million people on the street outside here a few months ago; he managed about 200, I think. He took those people out of the electoral process. Although he eventually recanted under the wise advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), it was too late for them to register and get on the electoral roll again. I wish we could have had him before the Committee, where we could have persuaded him that his view was counter-productive and not achieving his aim.

The Electoral Commission reported a record-breaking 469,000 people in one day registering online to vote in the 2015 general election. That is an incredible number. There were 2,296,000 online applications to register to vote from when the campaign began last year on 16 March to polling day. Those are enormous figures. Voting habits have changed. The public are ahead of us in many ways in their willingness to use electronic media to register and to vote, and we have to take into account the fact that people have got into the habit of voting for television personalities and so on in that way. We should look at the success of the Electoral Commission and such organisations as Bite the Ballot, which have done a great deal to maintain the number of people voting.

In my campaign, I spoke to many thousands of voters. I found the contempt for politics distressing; it has not improved since the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. One party managed to sell itself as being close to the voters. The man in the pub with a fag and a pint was who they related to, not politicians. That party made inroads in my constituency, but it did not affect my vote in any way, because the sensible Lib Dems deserted their party and voted for me. However, some 6,000 people in my constituency, which has been wise enough to elect me since 1987, voted UKIP.

There is all the other stuff about Europe and so on, but part of the reason why people voted for UKIP—they repeated this again and again—was contempt for the political system and this House. We are trying to do something about it, but we put on a pantomime every Wednesday—a national embarrassment of exchanged insults and unanswered questions. In one of the last Prime Minister’s questions before the election, the Prime Minister was asked a question on immigration, and in his answer he mentioned nine other subjects, not one of them immigration.

Last week, the Prime Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition four questions, which is almost more than she asked him. I have usefully suggested that it would be helpful to change the name from Prime Minister’s questions to Prime Minister’s answers, just to give him an idea of what is expected of him and to let him know how the system should work.

The system used to work. We did not like the answers that Margaret Thatcher gave, but she always referred to the question asked. If I asked the Welsh Minister a question about tidal barrages and he told me the price of cabbage in Cardiff on that day, the Speaker would rightly call him out of order, but that does not work with the Prime Minister. Prime Minister’s questions are an object of derision for politics and the system. People show contempt for us, and that contempt is to the advantage of such parties as UKIP. Prime Minister’s Question Time reduces our chance of restoring the trust and confidence that the public used to have in the political system.

A great amount of reform is needed, and it is a lot more urgent than changing the constituency boundaries. The Government wish to do that, and it is to their electoral advantage, but I have always been in favour of proportional representation. We stand in contempt of the country because all parties reach their conclusions on PR based on their party interest. The Conservatives and the Labour party benefit from the current system. The Lib Dems have always taken a principled line on PR, and now we find it coming from UKIP and other parties, such as the Greens, that suffer greatly under the current system. It is a travesty to suggest that the system we have represents the public view, because it does not.

We did a splendid report in the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee last year. One of its suggestions was to have a democracy day, which is a magnificent idea. In my constituency of Newport West, the Chartists lost at least 20 members when they were killed raiding a hotel to release a prisoner, Henry Vincent. They were protesting on principle about the cruel treatment they were receiving and asking for the vote. Every year on 4 November, there are celebrations and commemorations to mark that day, and it is a great way of getting the meaning of democracy across to schoolchildren. Lord Tredegar held the one vote in the town. He decided everything and the working people had no votes at all. We should have a democracy day to celebrate the joys of democracy.

In this place, we have at least 1,000 depictions of royalty. They are everywhere, and include paintings, statues and a tower. What has royalty done for democracy? It has obstructed almost every advance in democracy. It could be argued that they donated one head, but that was grudgingly.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing voter engagement and the franchise, which as far as I know have nothing to do with royal pictures. Will he stick to the topic?

[Paul Flynn]

The difference between us and royalty is that we have been elected. [Interruption.] That is slightly off the subject, I agree, but where are the tributes to the heroes of democracy, who are the reason why we are here and the reason why we exist? Thanks to Mr Speaker, there is a tiny exhibition about Chartists on the top corridor, and that is welcome. There are a few tributes to suffragettes around, but mostly they are outside this building.

The Putney debates were a great celebration of democracy. They were hugely important, but they are hardly known. We hear about Magna Carta, but not about the Putney debates, which took place in 1647 between late October and early November and laid down the whole basis for the Bill of Rights. The Women’s Social and Political Union—the suffragettes—had a notable occasion in 1903.

If we are to win back public trust and belief in democracy, we must energise people in the same way as the young people of Scotland were energised when they voted so strongly in its referendum, which was a magnificent piece of democratic action and an awakening of responsibility among young people. It showed them the strength of the vote and the democratic process.

We have a long way to go, but as beneficiaries of the democratic system we should be working towards a system that is by far the best in the world. It is not at the moment. The mother of Parliaments is now a disgraced hag heading for future scandals; we must do something to improve it. We have done nothing to improve our status since the expenses scandal. People do not believe us and they do not trust us. Virtually every story about MPs that appears in the papers is negative. We are being blamed for a pay rise that none of us asked for or wanted.

There has to be a serious campaign by all parties to improve the House’s status. That can be done only by changing radically how we behave and appear to the public. Prime Minister’s Question Time is the House at its worst. We put on a national embarrassment show every week—it is time we reinvented it as an event that, although still robust and full of questions, is nevertheless conducted in an atmosphere of calm, dignity and mutual respect.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. We have time for two further speakers.

14:21

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I want to discuss young people’s voter engagement and registration, but first I will quickly say something about boundary changes, particularly the 5% deviation. My constituency, Workington, is in Cumbria, where the 5% deviation is a challenge, bearing in mind the geography and the population. Cumbria has a very large area and a very small population —I know that geography and population in constituencies are taken into account in Scotland. The other issue with Cumbria, in addition to its size, is its height, which, if taken into account, would also make a difference. The last time the Boundary Commission looked at Cumbria, it did not seem to realise that a short six-mile walk included going over the top of Scafell pike and down the other side, which makes things a little more tricky. I would be grateful if that could be taken into consideration.

I am here because improving voter engagement is crucial to democracy in this country—I think we would all agree. We have talked about the decline in turnout in recent years. Turnout in Workington at the general election was 65.6%, whereas as recently as 1992 it was more than 80%. In fact, going back further, it was over 80% more often than not, so something has happened since the late 1990s. I see it as an important part of my role as an MP to engage properly with local people so that they want to take part in the political process. We also need to demonstrate that taking part and voting actually makes a difference. People say all the time that it makes no difference, so we must demonstrate that it does.

One of the most worrying and disappointing responses I heard on the doorstep—this was not unusual—was when a young person told me that they were not registered. Often, they were not registered because they did not know that they had to register, because they had no idea how to go about it, or because they did not think that it was something they should be getting involved in. They felt that it was nothing to do with them—they knew nothing about politics and did not feel qualified to take part and vote. The changes to voter registration introduced by the previous Government have only added to that feeling. It is not good enough for a Government to make such fundamental changes while neglecting young people coming into the system, who do not really understand practically what the changes mean for them.

Important civic duties such as registering to vote and voting should be brought into the school curriculum. That way, children and young people will be given the confidence and understanding required to register and take part, as well as to understand why that is important and the effect on their daily lives. That should be true at all democratic—not just parliamentary—levels. Children and young people should understand the importance of voting in local elections; for police and crime commissioners, and so on, because it all affects them and their families directly.

One of the things I enjoyed the most during the election campaign was taking part in school hustings. I did a number of them and was really impressed by the knowledge and passion that young people had for the subjects they were particularly interested in and cared about. We saw how passionately involved young people were in the Scottish referendum and the difference in turnout there; as the Minister knows, the voting age was reduced to 16 in that referendum, and it was very successful. That has convinced me that the voting age should be reduced to 16, along with the active introduction of children to politics at school, through the national curriculum.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if a young person can be encouraged to vote, so long as they have voted once, they will continue to do so? The challenge for us all is to ensure that they vote the first time. That is perhaps another argument for allowing kids to vote at 16 and 17.

[Sue Hayman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, and there is evidence to show that once someone gets into the habit of voting, they are more likely to continue. One problem is that the children I saw at the hustings were so engaged and excited, but then so disappointed that they could not participate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, if they go to university, there is the further challenge of getting registered. Young people all too easily slip out of the system and out of the habit of voting, so that is an incredibly important point.

I urge the Minister to introduce children to politics through the national curriculum and to reconsider the position on reducing the voting age to 16, because children and young people are interested and want to get involved. Such steps should be part of the solution to increasing both voter registration and participation. I urge the Government to look at this issue ahead of the EU referendum.

14:27

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Turner, and for your immense patience in understanding that the 90% of Scottish National party Members who are new are finding our feet with regard to parliamentary procedure.

This is an extremely important conversation, and I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for bringing it to the attention of the House. In Scotland, we have just come out of a referendum process where we had massive engagement. There are huge lessons to be learned about how that process was conducted. Perhaps the House should consider the level of engagement in Scotland.

Our electoral system leads to issues with parliamentary democracy and legitimacy. I am delighted to be here, but, as a democrat, I find it somewhat problematic that the SNP has 95% of Members with only 50% of the vote in Scotland. To me, that is a legitimacy problem. The Tories are in government with the votes of 35% of the overall UK electorate. The system is set up in a very binary way, so that we have a big, strong Government, but that leaves a majority of people voiceless as regards representation. If we are honest with ourselves, as democrats in this House we need to look at why people feel voiceless and why that stops them from getting engaged in the democratic process. I am not a fan of the UK Independence party, but many people voted for it and they have only one Member of Parliament.

In Scotland, we need to have a conversation about the link between poverty and exclusion from society, which is manifested in lower turnouts in areas of multiple social deprivation. My constituency, Glasgow East, is one of the most deprived in the whole UK. The turnout in Glasgow for the Scottish referendum was 75%, compared with 91% in East Dunbartonshire, one of the richest constituencies in Scotland. Work must be done to encourage people in such areas to vote.

There is definitely a link between indebtedness and being on the electoral register. People are terrified about putting themselves on the register if they are worried about debt catching up with them, so if we want to increase participation in democracy, we must make it safe for people. That requires education, but that also leaves a burden on us as parliamentarians to go out and speak to people in our communities and engage with them. If the Scottish referendum showed anything, it was that going into communities and having legitimate, open conversations is a way of encouraging people.

We should have events that allow people to come along and question politicians, because the problem with politics, which was exemplified in the expenses scandal, was the sense of them and us. It should not be them and us; we are all together and there should be no division between the people and their representatives. We have to come from the people and be among the people in order to represent them. That is the type of legitimacy that we get from considering and really engaging with people at community level. In that way, we will grow democracy.

In my constituency, the turnout in 2010 was 52%, but in 2015, following the referendum, it was eight percentage points higher. That is not a huge amount of people coming out, but there is a distinct upward trend that is not replicated in the rest of the UK. We therefore need to use that as a lesson.

The referendum was a binary choice: people understood what they were voting for. Whether they voted yes or no, they knew what the consequences were. We do not necessarily have that in party politics, so people do not feel as engaged in that or the manifestation of that in one person. That needs to be addressed going forward.

We need to look again at the electoral system and be really honest with ourselves. Are we keeping first past the post because it suits the Government of the day, or the Opposition, or is it because people truly believe that to be the best democracy that we can have? I do not think that it is and I strongly recommend that we look again at the type of country that we want to live in and the type of representation we have for people in the House.

14:32

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak to you as Chair of the debate, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for bringing the debate to the House. Two topics that have the utmost relevance are the franchise and voter engagement.

When we consider those issues, it is important to recognise the journey we have been on for a number of years, not least given the pivotal role that the suffragette movement played in ensuring that women not only have the vote, but are adequately represented in the great Chambers of this House. We still have a great deal of work to do to ensure that we continue to promote the most talented and capable women into these Chambers as well as boardrooms and throughout every walk of life.

Thankfully, there is more to the debate than the suffragettes and giving the franchise to women. We have moved on. However, one issue is close to my heart, and I am grateful to the hon. Members for Islington South and Finsbury and for Workington (Sue Hayman)—Cumbria’s first female Member—for bringing it up: votes at 16. In Scotland last year, that brought to light the real opportunity we have to engage our young people. We witnessed a political movement unlike any other across these islands and the securing of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds was key to opening up a real conversation on the role of politics and the part that young people can play in shaping their futures and voicing their aspirations and hopes as well as their fears. We must allow them to continue to engage.

Votes at 16 for all elections is the starting point and I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury for addressing that. If we start to give our young people a voice and opportunity, we can expect them to continue to vote and remain part of the process. They will take their vote seriously and—correctly—they will hold us to account. That is exactly what every Member should hope for and aspire to not just for our young people, but for every citizen in our constituencies.

Sadly, that right was not granted to young people for the general election and it has not been during the ongoing debate on the EU referendum. It is vital that our young people are given an opportunity to have their say on that important decision that will not only shape their futures, but have significant consequences for their lives. Their future decisions about their studies and work and their rights and responsibilities as citizens will be affected.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury spoke at great length about the disparity in engagement between affluent and more deprived areas. That is also crucial. We can begin to engage our young people, but life dictates that circumstances change. Debt can take hold of people’s lives and that can disengage them from a process that they may once have been a part of.

Most crucially, engaging all our young people may be the key to ensuring greater and continued participation in our democratic process. Young people bring dynamism and energy and they have proven that they have the ability to understand and communicate politics in a language that many politicians can only aspire to.

I welcome hon. Members’ comments on student participation. We should remember that students are mostly young people—though they are not all young—who take part in this process when in a transient position in their lives that does not fix them to an abode where they can become regular voters. We must find a way to engage with students and young people and, crucially, those who live in areas that are in the main neglected owing to deprivation and poverty and who, understandably, do not feel the need to engage with a process because perhaps at times it may be the least of their concerns.

Edinburgh University highlighted the fact that giving a vote to 16 and 17-year-olds has been a proven democratic success. It is worth noting that 4.29 million Scots were registered to vote, which accounts for 97% of the Scottish population, and 80% of them voted in last year’s referendum. If that is not an indication that by giving the widest franchise we can engage our young people and citizens in the process, I do not know what is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Ms Black), our youngest MP and the youngest Member of this Parliament, is a prime example of a young person who was engaged with the political process. She is now a product of that process who can rightly sit in her place in this Chamber. We must ensure that the views of many more people are reflected in our Chambers.

14:37

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well with his new responsibilities in the Cabinet Office. I also join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on bringing this extremely important matter to Westminster Hall so early in the new Parliament. We have had an excellent debate, with contributions from across the House. I will seek to address some of them before I focus on questions about the main two issues raised by my hon. Friend: individual voter registration and boundaries.

The theme running through every speech this afternoon has been how we can increase participation in our democracy. Frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has done sterling work on student representation and I will return to that in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) spoke brilliantly today, reminding us about the loss of Chris Ruane, who did so much work in this House to promote voter registration, as well as about the work of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform in the previous Parliament on which he served under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen).

Votes at 16 was raised by most speakers in the debate, and that issue will not go away. We have already heard about the hugely positive experience in Scotland; I think I am right in saying that surveys suggested that 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds participated in the Scottish referendum. The Minister should address this issue. I and the Labour party want 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the European Union referendum and in all future elections.

In the run-up to the general election, I paid a number of visits to schools, colleges and youth organisations and discussed votes at 16. Frankly, there was a range of views—some 16 and 17-year-olds did not agree with the idea—but a common response was that it would have to be accompanied by better education on the matter in schools. I therefore warmly welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman). I am a long-standing campaigner for citizenship education in schools. Some schools do it well, but they are a minority. We need to emphasise the great importance of effective citizenship education.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) made an incredibly powerful speech. I personally agree with her on electoral reform, although I am speaking from the Front Bench so should say that that is not Labour party policy; there is a range of views in the party and mine is, frankly, in the minority. I hope that politicians in all parties will consider the statistics she cited on the representation of different parties.

The hon. Lady rightly reminded us that turnout varies and that a major factor in determining turnout is relative poverty or affluence. As she said, there is a real risk of a “them and us” culture becoming entrenched in our politics. Her colleague, the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), spoke about the importance of women’s representation in this place. We have seen further improvement on that, but we are still a long way from achieving the 50% that we all aspire to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury raised two main issues: voter registration and the linked issue of constituency boundaries. The scandal of under-registration is nothing new. As she reminded us, the Electoral Commission has provided a number of estimates on how many people are missing from the register; its most recent estimate, from last year, is 7.5 million eligible adults. That figure predates individual voter registration.

I echo what my hon. Friend said about the incredibly hard work put in by electoral registration officers and local authorities throughout the country to try to maximise registration over the past year, but, as has been said, there are a number of really important elections next year—for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, local government across the country and, in London, for the Mayor and the London Assembly—so it is vital that that work should be sustained and built on over the coming year.

I will discuss the three key groups—attainers, students and those who rent in the private sector. I echo those who paid tribute to the amazing work of organisations such as Bite the Ballot, Operation Black Vote, Operation Disabled Vote and the National Union of Students. Online registration is a welcome reform by the Government —one that we supported—that has undoubtedly enabled a lot of people to register who might not otherwise have done so.

I would like the Minister to consider the experience in Northern Ireland, where the schools initiative resulted in a higher number of attainers on the register after individual registration was brought in. Under that initiative, a duty was placed on schools and colleges to work with electoral registration officers to deliver high levels of registration. That is a good system and should be adopted across the rest of the country.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central spoke about what has been done in Sheffield. He made an important case. Will the Minister consider whether we can work closely, on a cross-party basis, with Universities UK, the NUS and others to see whether the system adopted in Sheffield could be adopted by universities across the country? Numbers of students on the register might then be higher even than under the old system.

Thirdly, we know that private renters, given the nature of their life, move around more. Will the Government work with large letting agencies and others to include reminders to register for new tenants, for example? I want the Minister to address those three specific points in his response.

My final point about individual voter registration is that we are awaiting a report from the Electoral Commission in which it will recommend whether the Government should bring forward full individual voter registration to this year or should stick with the legislative timetable and introduce it next year. If the commission advises the Government not to bring the transition forward, will they accept that advice? That is an important point, partly because we should ensure that we have the best possible register, with the maximum involvement for all the elections happening next year, and then for the EU referendum, and partly for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury. As she said, the next boundary review will be conducted on the basis of the register put together this year; if that review is based on an incomplete register, our political boundaries will not be properly representative of the population as a whole.

My hon. Friend put a number of questions to the Minister about the boundaries that I will not repeat—we all have copies of them now—but I will say that the Opposition never supported the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600. We did not think that a case had been made for it, and from the point of view of respect for natural communities and historic traditions, sticking with the number of MPs we have at the moment seems to us to make sense. If the Government are changing their position on that, they will have our full support.

On constituency size, we felt that the 5% variation requirement was simply too tight. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington made a good argument based on the example of Cumbria; others can be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury spoke about some of the odd constituencies that would have been created under the proposals the last Government put forward. In Merseyside, the Boundary Commission’s initial proposal contained a constituency, Mersey Banks, on two opposite sides of the River Mersey.

Professor Ron Johnston of Bristol University has done some brilliant work on this issue and recommended that the Government simply amend their own legislation so that the 5% variation became 8% or 10%, to avoid many of the difficulties that were created by the process that was aborted in the previous Parliament. I ask the Minister to consider that. Professor Johnston also suggests —although this is a matter more for the Boundary Commission than for the Government or Parliament—that the Boundary Commission for England should split wards, as happens in Scotland. It has been reluctant to do that previously; were it prepared to consider doing so, we might not have some of the manifest problems that arose during the boundary review in the previous Parliament. Will the Minister address that point?

[Emily Thornberry]

I understand my hon. Friend’s reasoning on numbers, but surely that would, again, simply lead to chaos. Within one ward, there would be two Members of Parliament, so people might not know who their MP was. Is that what he is suggesting?

[Stephen Twigg]

My preference—and the view that the Labour party has taken consistently—is to move away from a variation of 5% to one of either 8% or 10%. Were we to do so, we would avoid ward splitting on any serious scale. Professor Johnston’s argument is that we could perhaps do both and that an element of ward splitting might be required in certain communities. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to those ideas.

These are important issues for hon. Members to address, and it is excellent that we have had an early opportunity to do so. We must all be driven—all Members who have contributed so far have said this—by a desire to increase the involvement in our political processes and the accountability of this place. If we get registration and boundaries right, we might be able to do that.

14:48

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

It is a pleasure to have you in charge of our proceedings this afternoon, Mr Turner. As others have, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing this debate on a very important topic. It is a cross-party issue; every democrat surely must believe that it is vital that we maintain the integrity, balance and transparent fairness of our electoral system, to make sure that this place and other elected assemblies have the credibility that is essential for the continuing health of our democracy.

The hon. Lady’s local area has a proud tradition for her to follow. She mentioned the Chartists, who were crucial democrats, and Thomas Paine, a particularly important and well known radical. I was not quite with her on Lenin, but I appreciate that he has played an important part in the past. She also mentioned important initiatives being undertaken by her local electoral registration officer and others around the country.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke about some of the things that are happening in Sheffield in relation to university students. It is worth while pausing to note the different and, on occasion, radically divergent ways of encouraging registration around the country. There are excellent examples of tailored practices that are designed to address particular local issues. Some of those practices may have a much wider national application, despite having started out as local solutions to local problems, and could profitably and promisingly be shared more widely to drive up registration around the rest of the country. There is a great opportunity to share best practice and copy the examples of Sheffield and Islington.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for his welcome and I look forward to debating with him, unless he is spirited away from us by the House’s decisions on Select Committee Chairmen. As he said, the Electoral Commission is shortly due to publish a report, which will be tremendously important for all of us in this room, because it will provide us with an authoritative analysis of what has been going on in registration over the course of the past year or so. It will show which parts of the country are ahead and which are behind. It will provide a fresh update on the hard-to-reach groups that we have heard about during this debate, some of which are particularly low registrants and some of which are particularly high. Importantly, it will shed light on whether the situation is changing and will tell us which groups are getting better and which are falling back, either because they are in different parts of the country or due to demographic trends. It will therefore equip us with vital facts on which we can base our decisions on how to go forward.

Most of us—although perhaps not the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury—agree that individual electoral registration has been a success and has made it easier for people to register to vote online. It has become much simpler as a result of IER to register to vote. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) quoted some impressive figures—I have my own suite of figures, but it broadly overlaps with his—on the truly impressive rate of online registration that was achieved through IER in the run-up to the general election. The system held, and it worked. Although some may have been re-registrations or duplications, that showed that it is possible to reduce the barriers to registration and to make it simpler, particularly for younger folk, who are used to living their entire lives online, but also for the rest of the population. Registration is made a great deal more accessible by allowing us to do it online, and we are all becoming used to doing things online in other walks of life. It would be bizarre and perverse if we did not allow or encourage that to continue. The facts are emerging—we hope they will be confirmed in the Electoral Commission’s report—but it looks as though this has made a major improvement to registration and has got rid of some of the barriers in people’s way.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister may have misunderstood me. I have no problem with making it easier for people to register to vote, and I acknowledge that online voter registration has made it easier for a lot of people. I started from a different standpoint. It is not that we should encourage people to reach out and grasp their right to vote, but that we should ensure that they simply have the right to vote in as accurate a way as possible. It is then for them to decide whether they want to vote or not. They should not need to take two steps, although they may need to sometimes. As a general rule, we should try to have automatic registration, so that we are all going for the goal of 100% registration.

[John Penrose]

I was about to come to examples of where that has been achieved already with some success. In the case of IER, about 87% of those who were already enrolled were seamlessly moved across, without their having to do anything. They were automatically verified, and their registration was moved across straightforwardly and simply.

There is a great deal that can be done, which brings me on seamlessly to the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central about other opportunities to prompt people. He used the example of students, but there are many other examples. The shadow Minister mentioned private letting agents, which provide an obvious gateway or portal. There is a prompting moment when people move house. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about universities, and the example of Northern Ireland was mentioned, where work has also been done in schools and colleges.

[Paul Blomfield]

My point was that it is not simply about the opportunity to prompt—that is what we had at Sheffield Hallam, where it produced a 15% student uptake—but the opportunity to integrate systems in which data are already being collected to verify voters. There should be a seamless process of automatic registration. That is what we did in the other university, where we got 64% registration. That applies more widely than to institutions of higher education.

[John Penrose]

I agree with most, but not all, of what the hon. Gentleman says. There are huge opportunities to make it easier to verify people’s identity, to prompt them and to confirm them as legitimate voters. There are many opportunities, at points at which people intersect with other parts of Government data, when we can do that very effectively indeed.

The hon. Gentleman said that if students were asked to provide their national insurance number and did not happen to have it to hand, they would be discouraged, but there are alternatives, which were exploited in Sheffield. There are other trusted data sources, such as university enrolment data, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Providing the university has the right information—he said that there was an opportunity for software improvement—it could be used to provide the automatic confirmation of people’s eligibility to vote.

Where I gently but fundamentally part company with the hon. Gentleman—although I stay in contact with the shadow Minister—is on the notion of IER being part of a conscious choice for people to enrol. Moving away from the old system of household enrolment is a major step forward. I am sure that I am preaching to the choir when I say that the old system of household enrolment was a little patriarchal, if I can put it that way. Expecting people who want to vote to register is not a great thing to ask.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

I am spoiled for choice. I will give way to the hon. Lady, as it is her debate. I am conscious of time, so I need to be quick.

[Emily Thornberry]

It would be patriarchal for a man to register his whole family and to vote on their behalf, but it is not patriarchal for someone to ensure that their whole family has the choice to vote.

[John Penrose]

I find that I am unexpectedly more sensitive to patriarchy than the hon. Lady. That is a phrase I never thought I would utter.

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not think we are really at odds. What we are saying is that the system we developed at Sheffield requires people to make a decision, but it does not direct them to what that decision is; that is the critical thing. It is about more active engagement.

[John Penrose]

We are as one on the idea that there is a great deal more that can be done. With any luck, the Electoral Commission’s report will equip us with more facts that show us which avenues it will be most profitable for us to pursue first. It will allow us to prioritise them and make progress.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury was extremely organised and asked a series of questions. I do not have time to get through them all, but I will endeavour to. Before I move on, I want to mention the comments of the hon. Members for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). I am probably misquoting the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but she said—this was a vital comment—that there should be no division between representatives of the people and the people themselves. I am sure that everybody here would echo and agree with that statement.

On the issue of whether the bands around boundaries should be 5%, 8% or 10%, the point is that constituency size must be based on registration to ensure we have genuinely equal representation in this place. The wider the bands, the less fairness there is, in terms of the power of an individual’s vote. If there was a 10% band, there could be a 20% difference between the number of people it takes to elect me and the number of people it takes to elect the shadow Minister. That would be getting too wide for comfort.

[Sue Hayman]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

I am down to my last 27 seconds, so I really cannot.

That is not an acceptable approach. It would not provide the kind of connection with our voters and the transparent fairness that we are all aiming to achieve in this vital area of our democratic life.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered voter engagement and the franchise.

Food Waste

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

15:00

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered tackling food waste.

Back in 2012, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on food waste. It was a collaborative effort, supported by Feedback—known then as Feeding the 5000—FareShare and FoodCycle, as well as Friends of the Earth and the World Wide Fund for Nature UK. The Bill received strong cross-party backing. I was then, and still am, a proud patron of FoodCycle and wanted to advance proposals that would increase the amount of food available for redistribution.

Although the Bill inevitably fell at the end of the parliamentary Session, I have continued to campaign for its provisions, and it feels timely to revisit the issue now for a number of reasons. France, for example, has just passed a food waste law. Belgium, back in May 2014, was the first European country to pass such a law, but the French law has gained more attention. It started with Arash Derambarsh, a local councillor representing a suburb in Paris, who set up a petition against food waste that got more than 200,000 signatures. The petition was triggered by the fact that supermarkets were pouring bleach on to edible food before binning it in order to prevent people from foraging in the bins to feed themselves. As some may remember, people were prosecuted in the UK for foraging in the bins behind an Iceland shop, which happened to be next to a police station. Although they were caught, Iceland, to its credit, asked the police to drop charges. That situation was similar to the one in France, although it did not involve bleach.

In France, the incident and petition led to the National Assembly passing new legislation that requires French supermarkets to partner with charities to donate food that is approaching its “best before” date. Although many supermarkets in France already do that, the proposals enshrine the practice in law. News reports now say that the councillor in question is hoping to take the issue to the UN conference on the sustainable development goals later this year and to the G20 summit in Turkey in November.

The French move has inspired a number of petitions in the UK calling for similar laws here. For example, one, through 38 Degrees, has garnered just under 180,000 signatures in a very short space of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has tabled an early-day motion calling on the UK to introduce similar legislation. So far, that has attracted 36 signatures.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Does she agree that as well as dealing with food waste downstream, once it has arrived at the supermarket, we need to intervene higher up the chain? Statistics show that between 20% and 40% of fruit and vegetables are rejected by supermarkets before they even get to the shelves, so it is part of a much longer process as well.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am very pleased to see the hon. Lady in her place, not least because at the recent general election, the Greens campaigned in Bristol on the slogan: vote Green to “keep Labour honest”—so if she was not here today, who knows what nonsense I might come out with? However, she makes a valid point. I will speak later about how there has been so much focus on household food waste, but actually, this issue goes way back through the supply chain, as far as the dealings between farms and supermarkets.

Bermuda has recently passed legislation along the lines of the 1996 US legislation, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which protects food donors and recipient organisations from civil and criminal liability when food has been donated in good faith. That was seen as important back then, because many potential donors and potential recipients were deterred by the fact that they might be held accountable if anything went wrong.

The excellent report of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the UK, “Feeding Britain”, said that redistributing surplus food better would be the “next big breakthrough” in eliminating hunger in the UK. In particular, it recommended that food retailers and manufacturers should be set a target of doubling the proportion of surplus food that they redistribute to food assistance providers.

Last week saw the launch of the FareShare FoodCloud app, which will enable Tesco store managers to alert charities to the surplus food that they have at the end of each day. If a charity is interested in that food, it can get in touch and collect it free of charge. A surplus food summit organised by FareShare is taking place next week. It will promote the new tool and is aimed at inspiring suppliers to step up their own efforts to redistribute their food.

All that is very welcome, and it is the reason why I wanted to secure today’s debate. However, I want to go back to why reducing food waste is so important. We know that somewhere between 30% and 50% of all food globally is wasted. That surplus has an environmental footprint. It puts pressure on scarce land and resources, contributes to deforestation and needlessly adds to global greenhouse gas emissions. If food waste were a country, it would be the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the US and China. It is also unsustainable if we are to meet the global challenge of feeding a growing population from an increasingly scarce agricultural resource base. It is, of course, indefensible that good food is thrown away when so many are turning to food banks, because they cannot afford to feed themselves or their families.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for securing the debate; she and I have spoken at seminars on this matter. My take on the issue is slightly different from hers. She is right to focus on ensuring that good food becomes available to those who need it, but should a lot of the focus not be on preventing food from being surplus in the first instance? Will she acknowledge the role of the packaging industry in that sector in making sure that food is kept fresh for longer? Innovations can be brought in, such as the re-closable cheese pack, which means that once opened, cheese continues to be useable for longer than would otherwise be the case.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I remember the conference at which we both spoke. One of my critiques of the Courtauld targets, which I will come on to in a moment, was that food waste and packaging waste were lumped together, in terms of the need to reduce both at the same time. I remember the point being made that although we want to reduce food packaging, and a lot of food items are over-packaged—individually wrapped bananas, for example—packaging can actually play an important role in reducing food waste. To me, that further underlines the need to treat the two issues separately.

On food banks, I wanted to make the point quickly that although I entirely support the work of food banks and think they play a very important role, we do not want to go out of our way to facilitate the creation of more food banks. We cannot allow them to become a feature of our welfare system. When the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, visited the UK a couple of years ago, he warned:

“It is only when government fails that food banks have to step in.”

He said that important as food banks are,

“they are not a substitute for social policies that protect people.”

Therefore, although I am arguing for much greater support from supermarkets, manufacturers and other people who are in a position to donate the surplus food to charities, it does not mean that I accept the fact that we need so many food banks and other food distribution organisations in the UK. I would much rather that the need did not exist and that we could find other uses for the surplus food.

Although headlines last month claimed that the UK tops the chart of EU food waste—in other words, we are the worst at dealing with food waste—a fairer per capita comparison ranks the UK as fairly average, coming about 10th out of 28 countries based on the data that were available in 2012. Since I introduced my Bill back in 2012, we have started to see very welcome steps being taken voluntarily by the industry, with Asda, for example, saying that it would donate all its surplus to FareShare. Tesco has led the way by publishing its own independently audited food waste figures and the other big supermarkets are now following suit. There had been calls for mandatory food waste audits, but I am pleased to see that the supermarkets are taking a lead on that. It is an important first step towards the industry, as a whole, publicly reporting on its food waste and then using those data to take much more ambitious action to reduce food waste.

Much more of our surplus could be redistributed. FareShare, for example, currently provides food for 150,000 people a week, saving just under 2,000 charities £20 million a year. However, that is with only 2% of the food that could be donated to it; the vast majority of food waste is still turned into compost, using anaerobic digestion, or is discarded in landfill. FareShare says that if it were able to get its hands on 100,000 tonnes of surplus food—a quarter of the 400,000 tonnes fit for human consumption that are currently allowed to go to waste—it could save the voluntary sector up to £250 million a year. That would make surplus food the second-largest supporter of charities after the Big Lottery, so there is huge potential.

We have touched slightly on the fact that the Government have focused most of their attention on household food waste. Households continue to throw away the equivalent of six meals a week, although there have been steady reductions, with waste down 21% since 2007. Some of that has been driven by much greater consumer awareness and by the success of the excellent Love Food Hate Waste campaign, which is a treasure trove of ideas and advice on how to reduce household waste.

However, focusing on household food waste, which has also been the food industry’s lobbying position, largely ignores supermarkets’ contribution. Some statistics show that just 3% of food waste in the UK is generated by retailers in back of store, with manufacturers contributing 27%. However, as the food waste campaigner Tristram Stuart has pointed out, there is a big disparity in how food waste is measured by household and by industry. Household food waste includes waste that cannot be used, such as bones and peel, while retailers’ food waste often excludes waste that could be used. In addition, supermarket purchasing policies, such as demanding food free from visual imperfections, as well as forecasting errors and over-ordering, are responsible for lots of the food wasted on farms and by suppliers, although we still do not have an accurate picture of what food is wasted at that point in the supply chain.

[Mark Pawsey]

The hon. Lady was talking about household waste. A proportion of the household food that is thrown away is perfectly okay to eat, although it may have passed its sell-by or use-by date. Given that there is a lot of confusion in the minds of consumers about how long to keep food for consumption, would some clarification of those terms help?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree. I was about to say that retailers make a contribution to food waste in the home. There is confusion over food that is labelled “best before” or “use by”. Many people do not understand those labels, and they think they will go down with food poisoning if they go anywhere near the time limits. Buy one, get one free offers on perishables, and packaging fruit and vegetables in multiple portions, rather than portions for one person, can also add to food waste.

The current lever for encouraging food businesses to reduce their waste—the Courtauld agreement, which is facilitated by WRAP—is voluntary and industry led. The industry set itself a very low voluntary target under phase 3 of Courtauld, which runs from 2013 to 2015. The target was to reduce household food waste by 5% by 2015 and to reduce manufacturing and retail waste by just 3%. The first year’s results show little change against that minuscule target, although signatories have reported a doubling in the food provided for redistribution. Those targets simply are not ambitious enough to drive the reduction that is needed. It should also be possible under Courtauld to see how well individual supermarkets and manufacturers are performing against the targets. At the moment, a composite result is announced, so we do not know who the good guys and the bad guys are. If companies were named and shamed, that would encourage the worst performers to follow the example set by the best performers.

There is also the problem that Government policies and subsidies, such as the landfill tax, incentivise less environmentally damaging forms of disposal over prevention and redistribution. We are therefore seeing the growth of anaerobic digestion, composting and refuse-derived fuel at the expense of prevention and donation.

I was deeply disappointed that Bristol City Council turned down the opportunity to become one of WRAP’s 10 food waste cities—a project that leads on preventing food waste. I am still struggling to find out why it turned that opportunity down, although it did tell me that it wanted to focus on composting. That suggests a worrying direction of travel, particularly given that Bristol is Europe’s green capital this year.

Much more needs to be done to enforce the waste hierarchy further up the pyramid, either through measures such as those in my Bill or through a system of financial incentives or penalties, as recommended by the House of Lords European Union Committee. In France, for example, fiscal instruments make it much more expensive for companies to send food to anaerobic digestion than to donate it to food banks. If the industry cannot drive the change that is needed, there is a need for Government action. The landfill tax, for example, was one of the most successful waste policies ever in terms of driving behaviour change and creating markets in more environmental forms of disposal, such as anaerobic digestion. However, there are no similar mechanisms to enforce the waste hierarchy further up the pyramid.

Should the UK introduce a Bill along the lines of the legislation in France? It has been said that the UK retail sector differs from the French sector in having less back-of-store waste, with such waste accounting for less than 2% of total food waste in the UK, compared with 11% in France. On the other hand, France manages to redistribute 20 times more food than the UK.

Concerns have been expressed that the French proposals could place an operational and logistical strain on charities, and questions have been asked about whether they would have the resources to handle any surplus. That is partly because the proposals in France were originally reported and misrepresented as placing an obligation on supermarkets to give away all their surplus. That gave the impression that they would be turning up at charities’ doors and forcing the staff to take food they did not want, which is not the case. The obligation is for supermarkets to put their best efforts into donating where there is a desire to take donations. The new FareShare FoodCloud app, which was launched last week, aims to have one common platform for charities, so that they do not have to deal with lots of different, and potentially competing, collection models.

Although legislation along the French lines might target only a small proportion of UK food waste, missing the much larger amount of waste in supermarket supply chains, and although such waste might not be the easiest to collect, it is symbolically important to embed redistribution in legislation. That would respond to the strong moral idea that food should not be thrown away when people are willing and able to take it.

My Food Waste Bill had a number of provisions, including a requirement on large food retailers and large food manufacturers to take steps to reduce food waste and to donate surplus food to charities for redistribution. If waste was not suitable for human consumption, it would, where legally permissible—EU rules prevent this in some cases—be made available for livestock feed rather than disposed of. There was also a good Samaritan provision in my Bill to protect food donors and recipient agencies from civil and criminal liability where food was donated in good faith.

At the time, the then Minster seemed interested in my proposals, but I was subsequently told that his Department had received advice that they would be incompatible with European food safety laws. I have since had a legal firm look into the issue, and it rejected that assessment, saying that any UK proposals would be okay as long as they closely resembled laws introduced in Italy more than 10 years ago. There is now less of a clamour for a good Samaritan provision in the UK, and legal concerns do not seem to be cited as often as a reason for not donating. It may be that the example set in other places —Australia and New York have good Samaritan laws—has set people’s minds more at rest. However, such a provision could still play a useful role in, for example, helping charities to access dairy products that, although perhaps one day out of date, would still be very much fit for purpose, or in redistribution from catering surpluses. I have heard from the Sustainable Restaurant Association and others involved in large-scale catering of huge amounts of food going to waste when a big buffet is put on at, say, a wedding, because food safety laws and concerns about health and safety mean that that food cannot be donated.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator has certainly helped to address some of the supermarkets’ unfair business practices, which were creating waste further up the supply chain. Those include the notorious take-back arrangements, which forced suppliers to take back produce supermarkets had failed to sell and meant they received no money. However, even though the Groceries Code Adjudicator is in place, suppliers continue to report the last-minute cancellation of orders by supermarkets, which often use cosmetic standards as an excuse, because order cancellations are no longer allowed. That is often done through a middleman, making it difficult for the adjudicator to take action. Indirect suppliers can bring complaints, but those are insufficient to launch an investigation. I therefore ask the Government to review this evident weakness in the adjudicator’s power so that supermarkets cannot get round the law in this way.

The details of Courtauld phase 4 are currently being worked out to cover the period 2016 to 2025 and I have some suggestions to put to the Minister. Will Courtauld phase 4 include food waste on farms? Will it require big supermarkets to report food waste transparently—a path that, as I have mentioned, some are already starting down—or will it continue with the current system where data are reported to the British Retail Consortium, which reports a composite figure? What will the targets be? Will we be looking at another 3 percentile, or will they be equal to meeting the challenge of one of the proposed sustainable development goals of halving per capita global food waste by 2030?

We must continue to consider regulation if the industry cannot deliver a more ambitious voluntary target. I understand that at the Stockholm food forum earlier this month the food companies that were present said they would welcome legislation to achieve that goal and ensure a fair playing field in doing so. I will be getting together soon with the various people who were involved in discussions about my Food Waste Bill of 2012, and revisiting it for 2015 to think about its possible revival and potential revisions or additions. I hope that if we decide to present another ten-minute rule Bill the Minister will give it serious consideration.

15:20

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope; I am glad to be back in this place and contributing again. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing the debate, on her long and distinguished campaigning on the issue and on her achievements so far. I am delighted that she is back to continue with it for the next five years.

I do not want to detain colleagues for too long—famous last words, but I will try not to. We often debate food poverty in this place, but too often do not consider how food waste interacts with that. There are numerous aspects to consider. I welcome much of what the Government are doing; the WRAP programme really makes a difference. It is worth reminding the Minister of what Lord de Mauley said in the other place about the importance of funding WRAP: that market failure in the private sector in the matter of reducing food waste justified continued Government funding for WRAP. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind as we approach the spending review.

Much of the debate on food waste focuses on what happens when food reaches the consumer, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) pointed out, there also is much that the packaging industry can do to reduce food waste. The hon. Member for Bristol East spoke about meals left uneaten in the fridge; I have a difficult bag of cheese in my fridge at the moment, which is at risk of going off. I need to clear it out by next Monday when I get back to London. However, there are more innovative ways than that to address food waste, and I want to highlight one that has potential.

Once upon a time, I was at the cutting edge in talking about the community shop idea. Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has stolen my thunder by visiting the most recent opening in South Norwood earlier this month. With his Mayor of London hat on, he has given £300,000 to try to spread the development of community shops across London. It was the second one to open, after a trial example in Goldthorpe in South Yorkshire. The concept is an offshoot of Company Shop.

High quality, wholesome food from leading supermarkets is sold at a substantial discount in the community shop. In addition, customers are offered what one might call a personal development course: literacy, numeracy and ensuring that people are job-ready. There are strict qualifying criteria for membership. The people in question need to live in an area of recognised deprivation according to the Government’s deprivation figures. They need to be on particular qualifying benefits. In return they are given a six-month membership card and access to the courses. I think that the idea is superb. In the Goldthorpe trial, 20% of those who had access to the community shop during its period of operation found paid work at the end of the personal development course. That is a good outcome as a first step.

It should be noted that the food in the shop is edible, within date and wholesome. It is such food as we would see on supermarket shelves anywhere in the country. It might have packaging that is the wrong colour, or even the wrong shade. The product might be seasonal, or there might have been a forecasting problem on the part of the supermarket. There are many reasons why food can end up in the community shop at a substantially reduced price. The shops tackle one of the problems that the food bank movement faces—certainly in my constituency—of trying to source fresh fruit and vegetables from suppliers. That is an obstacle: the movement wants to provide a wholesome package of emergency food aid, but often can rely only on what is not perishable. I struggled on behalf of the food bank to secure good fruit and veg supplies. The community shop may be a way around that.

It is worth mulling over the arguments about what we do with misshapen fruit and vegetables. In the past I got myself into hot political water by advocating that funny-shaped fruit should be sold or be made available through food banks. It was a “Marie Antoinette: let them eat U-shaped cucumbers” moment. I am pleased that Jamie Oliver is now trumpeting the cause, because if he can do it then I can lower my head behind the parapet, and not attract such opprobrium as I did.

It is also worth noting the extent to which community shops and supermarkets are reliant on the charities mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol East, such as FareShare and Foodshare. I, too, have seen figures about France. I seriously examined her Bill and was interested to note the figure of 1.7% of food being wasted at the retail stage here, compared with 11% in France. I noted also that in France the amount donated to charities is 20 times what we donate in the UK. I was trying to square those figures, and cannot quite get my head around them. My only hypothesis at this stage is that we have achieved, by voluntary co-operation and a degree of encouragement from the hon. Lady for the possibility of legislative change, something that the French have not been able to do without passing what is, I think, known as the “loi Macron”, which I think is proving popular.

[Kerry McCarthy]

To an extent, I share the hon. Gentleman’s confusion. There could be an issue, I think, to do with how we record the back-of-store food waste, but I think the figures suggest that the UK is more efficient further down the supply chain, in terms of ordering, so that it does not create as much waste, and that France is not as efficient at that, but is more efficient at passing food on for donation. However, I also suspect that it is a question of data not being recorded very accurately.

[Paul Maynard]

That is a helpful intervention. The matter remains worth further investigation. The reference to the French model is important. The Epicerie Solidaire network is massive in France; there is a network of some 500 of those social supermarkets. However, perhaps the best place to go to learn about the issue is Austria. In Vienna, Sozialmärkt are numerous. There are far more, per capita, even than in France. That seems to stem from strong work by local Catholic charities in Vienna.

Food poverty really speaks to the Catholic social action movement in ways that I heartily approve of, and there is a lot that we can learn from the work of groups such as the Vinzenz Foundation in Vienna, which works to allow access to social supermarkets not just by those on benefits, but also by those who are below Austria’s minimum income guarantee or the citizens’ income level. The opportunity is much broader.

All that might be of help in tackling one of the Goldthorpe findings, which was that it was necessary to have a screen across the front of the community shop, because of the stigma that was attached—just as there is with food banks, unfortunately, although there should not be. Like the hon. Lady, I do not want food banks to have to exist, but sadly I recognise that they do. I do not want any stigma to be attached to the idea of people seeking help in their community. Yet in Vienna, and perhaps in France, the wider remit of the social supermarket removed the element of stigma that might have deterred some people from seeking what can be life-transforming help.

The hon. Lady spoke quite a lot about the obligations that should be imposed on supermarkets with respect to the disposal of surplus food that is not sold. They talk a lot about corporate social responsibility and I am sure that she has heard that more than I have, but I have one example from an area of my constituency called Grange Park. It is a large council estate on the periphery of Blackpool. One might call that area a food desert: it is very remote from the basic supermarkets. It does have one branch of One Stop, which is referred to locally as Harrods because of the price of its food, which is far beyond what one would expect to spend if one went 2 or 3 miles down the road to one of the larger supermarkets.

One Stop is owned by the same chain as Tesco—it has the same parent company—and it has always struck me as a strange application of corporate social responsibility that in its smaller outlets, in the more deprived parts of Britain, it artificially increases its prices. Okay, there may be higher overheads because the shops are smaller. None the less, the prices are higher and people are paying that poverty premium that they should not have to pay. That also speaks to the food waste issue. Because the cost of the food is higher, it is more likely to go unsold, and it is those smaller outlets that might find it most challenging to ensure that their unsold food goes back into the system and is in some way reused. I therefore say to the supermarkets, if they are paying attention to this debate, that if they are truly committed to corporate social responsibility, why not ensure that they charge in their smaller outlets what they charge in their larger outlets, particularly in areas of deprivation?

I have gone on long enough, so I shall conclude by suggesting that the community shop idea need not be the sole preserve of one body, one organisation, but should be seen as part of an escalator between reliance on food banks for emergency food aid when the unexpected strikes and the full independence, autonomy and resilience of the average consumer in society. What I am talking about is an important step out of poverty for many people. I would like far more of those shops to spread out across the country, because they are a very good idea.

15:31

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

It is a pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing this important debate. She has huge expertise, and I greatly admire the important work that she has been doing in Parliament on food policy and food waste for many years. I have no doubts whatever about her honesty, so I shall report back to Bristol East in those terms.

I also admire the huge number of inspirational projects going on in Brighton on food waste and food poverty. I shall highlight just a few of those before talking about some of the priorities for Government action on food waste and food poverty in the UK.

Last Friday, I had what was probably the best lunch I have had since becoming an MP. I was meeting a constituent. She was the person who started the 38 Degrees petition, mentioned by the hon. Lady, that calls for legislation to make supermarkets donate their leftover products that are still safe to eat to charities, food banks and so on. My constituent and I met at Brighton’s Real Junk Food Project café, a groundbreaking community project that intercepts food destined for landfill and turns it into healthy meals. The queue for that café was quickly out of the door and down the road. Everyone is welcome, from local workers and students to low-income families and homeless people.

We were joined by Adam Buckingham, who founded the Real Junk Food Project in Brighton, and he explained what to me at least was the revolutionary concept of “Pay as you feel”. That encourages people to think about what the plate of food means to them. If they cannot afford to pay money, that is fine. If they want, they can wash up, weigh some of the intercepted food or spread the word about the concept and the project. Everyone is made to feel welcome, irrespective of ability to pay. The project works with a range of partners, including supermarkets, food banks, independent retailers, restaurants, manufacturers and wholesalers. The previous Friday, the café had fed an incredible 330 people in three hours, all with intercepted food.

The dedication and talent of the volunteers who run the Real Junk Food Project and turn what would otherwise be waste into amazing food is immense. They have transformed 250 kg of frozen turkey, in blocks requiring a forklift truck to move them, into healthy meals—with some assistance from Brighton residents willing to offer emergency freezer space. They have dealt with 630 kg of chocolate, on three industrial pallets, turning up outside someone’s window. That might sound like a dream come true, but it is nevertheless a serious logistical challenge. This is a hugely impressive operation already, and the people involved have big ambitions for the future, including a shipping container café; putting to good use underused community centres; building a model of a main hub plus offshoots run by the local community; and, further ahead, expanding into deliveries to older people and others in need.

Another local project that I want to mention—sadly, there is not enough time to mention them all—is FareShare Brighton and Hove, set up 15 years ago to provide food to the 11 services in the city serving hot food to homeless people and last year expanding to FareShare Sussex. Now, it is an essential community food service with twice daily deliveries to more than 60 projects across Sussex, totalling more than 7 tonnes each week.

The first crucial point illustrated by those initiatives is that the current level of waste in our food system is scandalous. I am talking not just about waste from supermarkets but, as I mentioned in my first intervention, waste all the way up the supply chain. That a supermarket can apparently reject 30 tonnes of cauliflowers because they are the wrong shade of white tells us something about the fundamental changes that we need. An estimated 18 million tonnes of food is wasted in Britain annually, from farm to fork.

The second point is that food is a basic right and should be available to everyone, regardless of financial status. Unfortunately, that is not the society that we live in today. We heard earlier this month that there has been an alarming increase in food poverty and food bank use in the UK, with proposed benefit cuts threatening to plunge 40,000 more children below the poverty line. That shows that food bank visits, which topped 1 million this year, are just the tip of an iceberg of food poverty in the UK.

The public demand for the Government to act on food waste and food poverty is also clear, not least from the superbly successful supermarket food waste petition started by my constituent, Lizzie Swarf. As I said, that petition calls for legislation to require supermarkets to donate leftover food that is still safe to eat to charities and food banks, based on the new law on supermarket food redistribution passed by the French Parliament last month.

In just a couple of weeks, that petition has gained more than 175,000 signatures. I recognise that a number of logistical and other challenges would need to be worked out before such a law could be implemented, but that is not an excuse for inaction. I hope that the Minister will at least agree to go away and examine the options and work with expert organisations, such as the Trussell Trust and FareShare, on the best way forward. I hope that he will agree that a review should urgently examine ways to support food redistribution further up the supply chain and to tackle the root causes of food bank use, including benefit changes and delays and low incomes.

As FareShare has explained, the UK Government can and should play a significant role in ensuring that food redistribution is seen as an important piece of the puzzle to reduce food waste overall, ensuring that it is easier for charities to intercept food elsewhere in the supply chain. As the hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned, France, partly with Government funding, already redistributes 20 times more surplus food than the UK. Perhaps the Minister will today commit to doing what it takes to match that achievement as a first step. I hope that he will be able to tell us what his ministerial colleagues in other Departments—Health, Business and the Cabinet Office—are doing and whether they are open to playing their part in relation to food poverty, food waste and the charities that are making such a positive difference to so many of our constituents. A little Government funding for such projects would go an incredibly long way, and I hope that the Minister will have some specific advice to offer on that matter.

I shall end by highlighting a final piece of inspiration from Brighton’s Real Junk Food Project. It aims to use the catastrophic problem of food waste not just as a solution to hunger, but as a way of raising awareness—to teach people how to be waste conscious, how to live sustainably, how to compost, how to grow their own food and how to eat healthily. There is a huge role for education and culture change when it comes to our broken food system, and many organisations are already doing incredible things that bring to life positive, sustainable and healthy alternatives.

I hope that, as politicians, we can learn lessons in the course of this Parliament from the excellent work going on all over the country and ensure that we do our bit to fix the food system, too. I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Bristol East and others on this issue.

My final words to the Minister are these. There are not many win-wins in politics, so when we are staring one in the face, as I believe we are on this issue, it is incumbent on the Government—and, indeed, all of us—to do everything we can to grasp that win-win. I genuinely believe that it is there for the grasping and I hope very much that the Minister will respond positively.

15:38

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today and I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for tabling this important debate on what I consider to be a principal concern in relation to one of the most important global issues facing us. The amount of food wasted each year worldwide is staggering: about one third of all food—approximately 1.3 billion tonnes—is discarded each year. Last year, the House of Lords carried out an inquiry into the cost of food waste across the EU and found that an estimated 89 million tonnes of food are wasted every year. Furthermore, it reported that that figure is set to rise sharply if action is not taken.

In the UK alone, it is estimated that households throw away 6.7 million tonnes of food per annum. Worldwide, food wastage is a major problem, as the hon. Member for Bristol East has said, with significant costs for the environment, the economy and society. Something is hugely wrong with our food distribution system if a third of food is wasted globally, but nearly 1 billion people across the planet go hungry.

The UK is by far the worst food wastage offender in the EU, as the hon. Member for Bristol East has pointed out. We should be deeply ashamed of that, and we should seek to remedy it. With food poverty becoming a huge problem, the redistribution of waste food should be a priority. I was pleased to learn last week about Tesco’s trial partnership with FareShare, through which it could hand tens of thousands of tonnes of surplus food from its stores to local charities. The scheme has already proven to be quite successful for Tesco in the Republic of Ireland, and I hope that we can look forward eventually to a UK-wide roll-out across all Tesco stores.

Although such corporate responsibility is to be commended, we as legislators have an obligation to fix our broken supply chain. The French National Assembly voted last month in favour of a Bill that will start to redress the food distribution system using waste food from supermarkets. The rare cross-party consensus surrounding the legislation demonstrates the importance and urgency of tackling food waste. Hunger and climate change should not be partisan issues. As elected Members of this House we have a moral duty to work together to address them, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

Last week, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) tabled an early-day motion that called on the Government to introduce legislation to ban supermarkets from throwing away food that is approaching its best before date, and instead to make it available to charities and food banks. I was pleased not only to support the motion but to table an amendment, which called on the UK Government to engage with the Scottish Government on food waste.

Scotland produces enough food waste each year to fill 42,000 double-decker buses, and each household wastes, on average, £470 per annum on food that they throw away. The Scottish Government have set ambitious environmental targets for reducing CO₂ emissions and reducing the amount of general waste that goes to landfill. The 2010 zero-waste plan is designed to promote sustainability, and the aim is for a maximum of 5% of waste to go to landfill by 2025. The strategy is implemented by Zero Waste Scotland, which is funded by the Government. One of its six key aims is to transform attitudes to food waste.

In my constituency, the local authority trialled a domestic food waste collection in the Drumsagard area in 2011. Such was the success of the trial that the programme was widened to incorporate many more homes in the wider Rutherglen and Cambuslang area, which, in common with every local authority, has a statutory obligation to provide a separate food waste collection service. Starting this month, some 133,000 households will be issued with a free small food waste caddy for use in their kitchens. That is an important measure, because the high cost to consumers of food recycling is widely seen to be prohibitive. The Scottish Government support the changes, and our climate change Minister last week announced that an additional £5 million will be made available over the next two years to help councils to roll out food waste collection schemes to homes across Scotland. Perhaps the Minister could take that on board for the whole UK.

Just across the boundary of my constituency, in Blantyre, a local company is helping to divert food from landfill back into the ecosystem. GP Plantscape now processes some 50,000 tonnes of food and garden waste at its in-vessel composting facility every year. That results in a nutritious compost, cuts down on landfill waste and helps to save the peatlands by offering a viable alternative product.

Hon. Members have not yet mentioned restaurants. The Scottish Government realise that small changes made by individuals can have a huge impact. Not only is Zero Waste Scotland keen to educate people about shopping smarter, making meal plans and using leftovers efficiently, but it has trialled innovative programmes such as the “good to go” scheme, in which restaurant customers took home their uneaten food.

The so-called doggy bag pilot last year was so successful that it is now being extended. The restaurants involved saw dramatic reductions in food waste, and it has been estimated that if restaurants across Scotland routinely offered customers doggy bags, the equivalent of 800,000 full meals could be saved from the bin every year. A lot more can still be done to divert food from landfill, and encouraging better consumption habits and widening access to food waste recycling are only part of a wider strategy. We have a responsibility, as legislators and as human beings, to do more.

We have to dare to be bold and innovative about how we approach food growing, harvesting, storage, distribution and disposal. As the world population continues to grow and demand for resources increases, food security will pose an ever greater problem. The hon. Member for Bristol East spoke about how we can deal with that. Changing deeply ingrained public attitudes is not an easy or quick process, but the action we take now will determine the legacy that we leave to the next generation.

These islands are wealthy, and the widespread explosion in food bank use should shame us all. In the last year alone, the Trussell Trust supplied more than 1 million people with emergency food support. In contrast, it supplied only 40,000 people over the same period five years ago. Food banks address a symptom of the problem, but it is incumbent on us all to address the causes. Much remains to be done to tackle the challenges that we face.

Food redistribution has traditionally faced a number of barriers. If we are really serious about tackling the problem that we face, we must work proactively with all the relevant outside organisations to effect change. As has been mentioned, one factor that has deterred businesses from donating food is the risk that they will be held legally liable in case of illness. We must find ways to protect and support those who donate food in good faith. In particular, we must support small businesses, which might otherwise find the implementation of a food waste strategy to be prohibitive. I would like us to legislate to divert food waste from landfill to those who are in need, and to ensure that sending waste to landfill is neither easier nor more economical for retailers.

We must look at how food loss and waste can be reduced at every stage of the food chain, and we must work together to address the food poverty crisis on these islands. There is much on which we can co-operate, and no doubt there is much that we can learn from one another. I enjoyed hearing from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the initiatives in that city—especially the story about the chocolate, which sounded really good. The shipping container café is also a great idea. In addition, we have not spoken a great deal about how food waste could help elderly people. No doubt, there is much we can learn from one another to help us tackle the problem at a household, local and UK level. I support calls for legislation on food redistribution, and I implore other Members of the House to do likewise.

15:48

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on her re-election and on increasing her share of the vote. She has been, and I have no doubt that she will continue to be, an excellent representative for the people of Bristol and a champion for that great city. I congratulate her on securing this debate on the important subject of food waste. Her commitment to the environment is well known, and she has regularly championed in Parliament the need to tackle food waste. During the previous Parliament, she introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that highlighted this important issue.

I also welcome the Minister to his new role, and I congratulate him on his appointment. There have been a few changes at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Dan Rogerson lost his seat, and, as I understand it, the noble Lord de Mauley stepped down. I wish them both all the best in the future roles that they choose to pursue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East spoke with her usual passion on a subject about which she clearly feels deeply. Food waste is relevant to us all, as has been clearly illustrated by the contributions to this debate. We are probably all guilty, at one point or another, of not using food as efficiently as we should or, to put it another way, of not valuing food as much as we should. I was brought up by a mother who always said to me when I wasted food, “You would not have been so wasteful during the war.” That lesson remains with me to this day. I compost and do all the things that one should do to try to minimise food waste.

None of us should be surprised that the scale of the problem is very large, but it is only part of the much wider problem of a rising population and the need to increase the supply of affordable food in a world affected by climate change and water stress—which, of course, makes it difficult to secure the food supply, to say the least. Many of us believe that we will need to grow our food more efficiently in future, with less waste and less damage to the environment, and that there will be serious consequences if we do not. As always, it will be the poorest who suffer the most if we do not address these issues.

In the UK alone, according to House of Commons Library figures, some 15 million tonnes of food is either sent for landfill or incinerated annually. It is estimated that the economic cost to households and businesses of throwing away food is some £12 billion a year, or around £480 per household. However, although the economic costs are great, the real cost of that waste is environmental or, as the noble Lord Cameron once described it, a disaster for climate change.

In the USA, for instance, it is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil a year are used to produce food that is thrown away. In the UK, it is estimated that food waste is responsible for 20 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year, or about 3% of the country’s total emissions. That figure is equivalent to the emissions produced by 20% of the country’s car usage or, to put it another way, the amount of carbon produced by some 7 million cars. Additionally, it is estimated that 70% of all water consumption is used in food production, which means that in the UK alone some 5 million cubic metres of water a year is used in producing foodstuffs, a proportion of which is wasted unnecessarily. It is therefore clear and well understood that producing food for human consumption that is then not consumed is not only costly to business and households but environmentally damaging.

The importance of food waste was recognised by the last Labour Government, who established the Waste and Resources Action Programme. One of the programme’s outcomes was the Courtauld commitment, a voluntary agreement with industry that, in phases, aimed to improve efficiency and reduce waste in the groceries sector. That approach led to successes and to reductions in waste. For example, 1.2 million tonnes of food and packaging waste was saved in phase 1 of the commitment by using new solutions and technologies. That alone is estimated to have saved £1.8 billion and cut 3.3 million tonnes of carbon emissions between 2005 and 2009. During phase 2 there was a further reduction of 1.7 million tonnes of waste, with a monetary saving of £3.1 billion, by using such initiatives as the resealable fridge pack, which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) mentioned, or by increasing the shelf life of products by improving delivery and storage.

It was recognised, however, that we needed to place this important issue on a more strategic footing and to address the wider issues of food sustainability and security, so we came up with our Food 2030 strategy. The vision established by that strategy was that, by 2030, the UK would have a low carbon food system that is efficient with resources, with any waste being reused, recycled or used for energy generation. The strategy clearly set out the actions needed to reduce food waste in the supply chain and at home, and it focused on what could be done by the Government and local authorities, households and consumers, the food industry and, finally, the Government and the food industry working together.

The strategy set clear goals for 2030: reducing food waste as far as possible; addressing waste in developing countries; and valuing surplus food. On that final goal, the strategy coupled the recycling of waste food with the need to share or redistribute food to vulnerable people. That goal is now more urgent following the rapid rise in the use of food banks in the UK over the past five years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East mentioned in her comments about FareShare.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) talked at length about Company Shop, which is headquartered in my constituency. It is a local business, and last week it received the Queen’s award for enterprise. The community shop aspect of Company Shop’s work is a relatively new innovation. Company Shop’s main business is providing surplus food from a number of supermarkets to employees working in food manufacturing and the emergency services—it is a restricted clientele. Broadly, it recycles food that would otherwise have gone to waste. Community shops are a welcome new initiative that couple access to cheap, good quality food, on the same principle as Company Shop, with positive help to get people back into work and back on their feet. I welcome that initiative, and I have visited Company Shop, which I wish all the best.

It saddens me to say that, in 2010, the incoming coalition Government decided, for whatever reason, to abandon Food 2030, effectively leaving the UK without an overall strategy to address supply, security and waste in the food industry. Not only that, but recent successes were threatened when WRAP’s funding was cut by £10 million. No wonder that, in a letter to members of the waste and resources industry, the previous Minister, Dan Rogerson, let it slip that the Government had “stepped back” from that policy area. Stepping back is not good enough, especially in the context of the huge strategic challenges that we face and the worrying increase in the number of UK citizens resorting to food banks in recent years to feed themselves and their families.

We recently heard that the Government have yet again made a partial U-turn. This time they acknowledged the need for a food strategy by announcing a 25-year plan for food and farming, which we welcome. If the Conservative manifesto is anything to go by, however, the plan might be narrowly focused and will not address the bigger issues in the same way that our Food 2030 plan clearly did. The Conservative manifesto made no mention of waste, so we now need a proper, thorough review of waste policy.

I conclude with the following questions for the Minister. What will the Government’s plan for food and farming encompass, and what progress has been made on setting it up? When might we see more details of that plan? Is he confident that the recent improvements in cutting food waste will not be lost due to the cuts his Government have made to WRAP? Moreover, are there any further plans to cut the WRAP budget?

Of course, as supply chains become longer, cutting waste successfully becomes a transnational issue that will require co-operation with trading parties, especially our European partners in the EU. At a time of great uncertainty over this country’s status in the European Union, can the Minister confirm that he will not allow any trans-European commitments to be negotiated away, and that he will continue the work started by the last Labour Government to reduce waste in food supply chains across Europe?

Seven senior waste industry, recycling and infrastructure bodies have written to the Minister, calling for a meeting to discuss future policy direction on waste. Their view is that clarity on the issue is needed from the Government. Is the Minister willing to provide that clarity? This debate is a great opportunity to do so. Will his Government make a rigorous and transparent commitment to tackling waste issues strategically and effectively?

Food waste is serious. It demonstrates market failure in the gravest of ways, it costs everyone in the country a great deal of money and it is doing immense damage to the environment. Unfortunately, this Government do not see it as a priority, and that needs to change. Food waste is a scandal. When people find it hard to access cheap, nutritious food, it is immoral for so much of this essential of life to be thrown away. That needs to change. I look forward to the Minister's answers.

16:01

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

I pay great tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for the leadership that she has shown on this subject for a long time, and for raising the issue again so powerfully. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope; this is only my second time standing here.

There is basically broad agreement in this room and around the country on the importance of the subject. Increasingly, Britain has been a global leader in tackling food waste. We need to do more, but there is a great deal of achievement for us to be proud of, particularly achievement by non-governmental organisations, the charitable sector and politicians such as the hon. Member for Bristol East over the past few years, and particularly since 2007.

As all hon. Members have pointed out, food waste is an issue requiring urgent action worldwide. Many Members have remarked that about one third of the food in the world is wasted. It is a tremendous waste not only of food but of water, energy, land and money. Agricultural land, for example, consumes about 70% of the world’s fresh water. In an era of rising population and global warming, we have a strong moral obligation to conserve those resources. I know that many people—not necessarily in this room, but in debates on this issue—focus on the economic arguments, but at the heart of the argument about waste, particularly food waste, is the depletion and degradation of precious resources. As hon. Members have pointed out, half of all food waste is produced by households: it amounts to nearly 7 million tonnes of food, worth about £12.5 billion a year, or £60 a month for an average family. Huge tribute must be paid to those who have taken action to address the issue, such as Love Food Hate Waste.

The hon. Member for Bristol East set the parameters for this debate. She provided a fantastic overview of the problems and progress since 2007, including Government legislation and the actions of NGOs. I will not recap those arguments, but she seemed to focus on four issues that were most urgent, in terms of my response as the Minister. One of them was about the contribution to the UK charitable sector that could be made if we were better at finding ways to get food to charities. She produced the astonishing figure, which I would be happy to explore further, of hundreds of millions of pounds in potential donations to charities. She discussed the notion of a good samaritan Act. One has been passed in the United States, but it has not yet been tested in law there, and she pointed out some of the issues involved. In terms of my answer to other hon. Members, the hon. Lady has laid out some of the complexities involved in the issue.

The hon. Lady also mentioned food waste on farms, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We discussed that in great detail. The Government have been considering food waste on farms—waste that occurs before food reaches the supermarket—along with NGOs. We are considering whole crop purchasing, which could address the issue of people rejecting strangely coloured tomatoes. Take the example of class A, class B and class C tomatoes; one could imagine an individual retailer distributing them according to whether they were to be sold loose in a shop, to be processed, or to go into soups and sauces. Clearly, we need to do much more of that. The gleaning movement has brought attention to how much is left in the fields unnecessarily.

The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned supermarkets not reporting in detail which individual supermarket has which amount of waste. In other words, the data are grouped together by retailers into a single unit, from which it is difficult for us to disinter those data. Her argument, which was about transparency and specificity—how on earth are we supposed to hold people to account if we cannot work out how much individual people are doing?—seems to me to be a good one.

The hon. Lady also talked about the importance of targets and how they might be used to drive action. One striking thing about the United Kingdom, looking back to 2007, is that we seem to have exceeded comfortably most of the targets that we have set ourselves so far. One debate that goes back and forth in the European Union is whether such targets are achievable, and what their marginal costs are, but we in the United Kingdom can take a certain amount of confidence from our ability to exceed those targets in the past.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I accept that we have exceeded the targets, but there is then the question of whether the targets were ambitious enough. It is easy to exceed targets if they are set very low. Perhaps we ought to try to raise our game by setting ambitious targets for the next phase of Courtauld.

[Rory Stewart]

Yes. As the hon. Lady will realise, the challenge of setting the right target is that it is difficult, thinking forward to 2030, to work out what is desirable, feasible and affordable, and what the different cost-benefit calculations will be. There will always be a tendency on the part of any Government, whether the previous Labour Government or ours, to set targets that are achievable. Equally, we need to be pushed to work harder; we need ambitious targets to make us get out of bed in the morning and shove towards them. I am happy to sit down and examine those targets in detail and talk through the constraints.

The more good ideas people have and the more technological solutions are developed, the easier it will be for us to meet those targets. To take an example from the debate on Tuesday with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about targets for nitrogen dioxide emissions, a leap forward to electric vehicles would totally transform our ability to meet those targets if we do not make enough progress in 10 years. It is not quite the same with food waste, but there are many ideas. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) pointed out the numerous innovations in food that could help us reach those targets. I am happy to discuss that in more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) discussed fantastic models for community shops. I want to talk about that more generally at the end of this debate. Much of what the Department is taking away from this debate is that the best examples are at local level. It is not a question of civil servants from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or Ministers having all the bright ideas; we should be listening much more attentively to what is being generated by the NGO sector, community shops and individual constituencies, and learning from them.

My hon. Friend made a good point about the French model. He and the hon. Member for Bristol East discussed the astonishing statistics and why France appears to be able to conserve such a staggeringly high proportion of food. One thing that I genuinely do not know and would be very interested to talk about is the extent to which French fiscal instruments, particularly the French ability to count food donations and donations in kind against their tax bills, does or does not provide a perverse incentive; we need to focus on that. If the result of those instruments is to increase the amount of excess food that the French produce, because they are confident that they can then receive donation-in-kind tax benefits from disposing of it, that is not something we would want to encourage. We need to be very careful with these tax incentives to ensure that trying to do something that we want to do—making sure that that food gets to people who really need it—does not end up encouraging people, in a perverse way, to produce more food than they need to.

[Kerry McCarthy]

In response to the Lords Committee’s inquiry, the Government said they would not reassess their opposition to fiscal measures to increase food redistribution before considering the European Commission’s communication on sustainability of the food system. I understand that that communication has now been shelved—we had waited quite a long while for it to be published—and that a more ambitious circular economic strategy will be published later this year. Will the Minister take part in discussions on whether we can include incentives for food waste distribution in that strategy? I appreciate that it is very early days for him in his job, but I urge him to do so.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I will take on that message. However, having got into trouble on Tuesday for speculating about Treasury fiscal measures, I will not say anything about that issue at all. Nevertheless, the point is taken; we need to concentrate hard on this matter. Basically, the way that we will make progress on this issue is by sitting down with people who know a lot about the subject, such as the hon. Lady, and getting them to hold us to account and push us to do better. I am very happy for that to happen.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion talked about farm-gate food waste; we discussed how whole-crop purchasing should help, and it will be interesting to see whether we make as much progress on that as we hope to. We talked a little about the French model. It would be interesting to know whether there are things that the UK can contribute to other countries, as well as things that other countries can contribute to us. For instance, I would be interested to know whether our supermarket ombudsman model is something that we might want to share with other European countries as an example of best practice. There are things we can learn from other countries, but there are things that the supermarket ombudsman here is doing well to cut down on food waste, even by signalling to retailers in advance the dangers of a supermarket ombudsman intervention. Perhaps other EU member states could learn from that.

The hon. Lady asked what my Government colleagues were doing on food poverty, food waste and charities. The answer is that the Cabinet Office is joint chair, with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of a redistribution food round table; the Department for Education has a school food plan, having introduced, as she will know, universal free infant school meals last September; and the Department of Health provides “eatwell plate” guidance. There is also an NHS Choices website, which helps with menu guides.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West gave a really good series of examples from Zero Waste Scotland. I would like to talk a little more about this issue in detail at the end of the debate, but Zero Waste Scotland is a very good example of the range of initiatives across the UK, some of which are funded by Government, some by the Heritage Lottery Fund, and some by philanthropic donations, which are changing the way we look at food waste.

I was particularly struck by the hon. Lady’s intervention on the subject of composting. It is absolutely true that traditionally, when we look at the hierarchy of waste in relation to food, we prefer to eat food; our next preference is to have animals eat it; and then we eventually consider how we might extract energy from it, for example through anaerobic digestion. However, her point that food put into composting can save endangered peatlands is a very important environmental argument, and a real reminder that we need to keep looking at issues really broadly. One of the dangers in a lot of discussions in this area is that we can miss potential environmental benefits by getting so tightly attached to a particular model or hierarchy that we fail to consider, for example, the relationship between composting and peatlands. I do not want to move to a world in which we encourage people to over-invest in composting at the expense of eating, but it is worth bearing in mind that composting has not only an anaerobic digestion energy benefit, but a benefit to endangered habitats. I also liked the reference to doggy-bags; the hon. Lady made a very good argument for them.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said that there were many challenges, and many things with which she was uncomfortable or unhappy. Of course, I am delighted that she welcomes the 25-year strategy, although I note that she has concerns about its content. So long as I am fortunate enough to be a Minister, we shall not step back from the subject of waste. A great deal of progress has been made. I would be delighted to meet the industry representatives she mentioned.

The hon. Lady asked specific questions about Europe. I am going to the Environment Council in Luxembourg on Monday. Clearly, European negotiations are extremely complex and we must ensure that we get different Government Departments to agree, so I am not in a position to make promises about exactly what we can deliver. However, our Department will certainly try to be thought-leaders and challenge other people in this field, and we will try to get what I hope will be ambitious responses from that European process.

The specific question about the Waste and Resources Action Programme and its charitable funding brings me to the core of this whole discussion. WRAP is a really impressive charitable organisation. It receives Government funding; this year, it received about £13 million. It employs about 200 people. The Government are not in a position to make promises about continuing funding a specific charity. However, WRAP seems to do a very good job, and on the basis of its performance to date, I reckon that it would be in a very strong position to continue to bid for support. WRAP has also been very good at diversifying and finding in-kind donations, which has had an added benefit: in some ways, it has pursued programmes in quite an edgy and creative way, which it might not have done before it applied to broader sources of funding. WRAP is certainly very impressive.

The Back-Bench Members who have spoken in this debate and are still sitting in front of me—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, and the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion, for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, and for Bristol East—represent four different parties in Parliament. I am surprised that the fifth party is not present; I am not quite sure where the Liberal Democrats are in this debate. Nevertheless, I am very proud that there is a Conservative representative, a Green representative, a Scottish National party representative and a Labour representative here in Westminster Hall. Their presence is a reminder of how much importance we should attach to parliamentary work on this issue. The hon. Member for Bristol East pointed out how landfill tax, for example, has totally transformed recycling and waste. That is a very good example of the fact that Parliament has some levers and can bring about change.

The hon. Lady gave a good example from Belgium that shows that civil society and Government working together, rather than alone, is the key to resolving these issues. She talked about how petitions drove the Belgian process. To put that in context, the 200,000 people who signed that petition in Belgium, which is a country with a population of—

[Kerry McCarthy]

That was in France.

[Rory Stewart]

Ah. So there was no Belgian petition?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Belgians were the first to pass the law on food waste in May 2014, but the example I gave about the bleach being poured into the skips and the related petition was from France, and the French law on food waste has just gone through.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady; I stand corrected. I was getting my Belgian and French petitions confused. But the conceptual point I wanted to make is that this process, whether in France or in Belgium, is about driving civil society actions, through petitions, alongside Government action.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Minister for his response, and for the detail that he is going into. Will he clarify what he thinks the obstacles would be to a piece of legislation that looked something like the Bill that the hon. Member for Bristol East brought before the House, or like the French model? Are they technical obstacles, which we can clarify, or are they ideological obstacles to do with regulation? It would be really helpful to know.

[Rory Stewart]

I am a little bit reluctant to get drawn into the detail of all this at the moment, but a series of questions would have to be answered before we could go ahead with that legislation. Take the good samaritan legislation in the United States. Given that it has not been challenged so far; given that most retailers in the UK do not seem to be indicating that the major obstacle to taking action or improving performance is a concern about being sued over food safety issues; and given that the Food Standards Agency would have to continue to exercise its legislative powers anyway, and that if someone unfortunately got food poisoning from food that had been disposed of, it would remain a responsibility of the Government—and, unfortunately, indirectly, of the retailer, probably—it is not clear to me at the moment that a good samaritan Act is necessarily the way to go.

I am being shifty about the next set of issues, because they relate to the Treasury and to fiscal instruments, which are for the Treasury to consider, and I do not wish to get whacked for speculating on them.

That brings me back to civil society and central Government. The key to all this— we have made more progress than anyone else in Europe in this respect—is the impressive role played by NGOs, such as the Real Junk Food Project, mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; WRAP, which the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned; FareShare; and Feedback. The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned Tristram Stuart, who is an extraordinary phenomenon. He has succeeded in combining his own personal lifestyle as a freegan with leading the collection of waste food and writing a best-selling book, and with his understanding of the intricacies of both national and European Union legislation and his attachment to technology. That is a really good example of where Britain is doing well.

The consequences of the work done by NGOs can be seen. We should also pay tribute to the previous Government for their funding to get WRAP off the ground. That is another good example of how things can be driven forward, and of the way that legislation, UK performance and global indicators can be shaped by such civil society debates. The app piloted by Tesco is the latest great example of people coming up with creative technological solutions that can go straight into a retailer. In addition—this is the point at which I sound like a crusty old Tory—this stuff is also good for the UK economy, because a lot of people are now exporting these ideas as consultants, taking British thought-leadership to other countries and showing how our approach to food waste can be replicated in other places. Of the extraordinary and impressive 21% reduction in household food waste that we have achieved, probably 40% has been achieved through the kind of awareness campaigns and civil society campaigns that have been mentioned. We do not want to minimise that in any way.

A decade of work to tackle food waste has given us much more knowledge of why and where food waste happens. We have tried and tested approaches that have delivered significant reductions. We now need to go further. Waste must be tackled across the whole value chain, and not just in the UK. We may need to start thinking about the value chain stretching into other countries. For example, if we are eating Kenyan food we have a moral obligation, in a sense, to the Kenyan farmers producing it, and to food waste in places where our supermarket ombudsman cannot stretch at the moment.

Food waste has a close relationship with sustainability and food security. The subject is central. Food, metaphorically and literally, is the energy of our lives. It is intimately connected to our soil, water and air, and to our habitats and our landscape. Again, speaking as a crusty Tory, it is also important to our economy. Millions of people work in this sector.

[Angela Smith]

I am listening with great interest to the Minister. He is coming remarkably close to endorsing Food 2030. May I ask once again, what is the Government’s strategic plan on food and farming, and when will we hear more detail about it?

[Rory Stewart]

The answer is that I am going to evade that question. We do not yet have that plan, and I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Lady a deadline on it, but I promise her that we are thinking hard about the subject. I am happy to sit down with her and talk about where we have got to with that thought and take on any suggestions that she has.

Food to the value of £108 billion and the one in eight jobs connected to food and farming in the UK are connected to what every hon. Member in this Chamber deeply believes in, whether it be poverty alleviation, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys; the legislative programmes advocated by the hon. Member for Bristol East; the important arguments on the environment and resource depletion advanced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; or the civil society examples from Zero Waste Scotland produced by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West.[Official Report, 15 June 2015, Vol. 597, c. 1-MC.]

I want to end with a huge invitation. I do not see why this need be a party political issue. There is obviously an enormous amount of knowledge in this room and I should be delighted to sit down with anybody who has good ideas about what we could do to tackle something that matters deeply to British citizens, the food industry and the packaging industry, and which matters deeply in respect of the resources on which our biosphere depends.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered tackling food waste.

16:26

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

Thursday 11 June 2015

Royal Mail

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)]

The Government have sold half of the 30% stake they retained in Royal Mail plc, at a price of 500p per share.

The sale has raised £750 million, which will be used to reduce public debt.

Following independent financial advice, the Government decided that yesterday was a good opportunity to realise value for money from a sale of part of their remaining shareholding in Royal Mail. The shares were sold through an accelerated bookbuild process which enabled the Government to take advantage of the current favourable market conditions. The sale was launched yesterday after the financial markets closed.

Royal Mail has demonstrated that it can thrive in the private sector. It now has the ability to access the funds it needs to ensure that it has a sustainable future and can adapt to the changes in the postal market.

The universal postal service will continue to be protected by the regulatory regime set out in the Postal Services Act 2011. Ofcom has been given a primary duty to ensure that the universal postal service is maintained and the regulatory tools to intervene if it is under threat.

In addition, building on the success of the initial scheme, and in recognition of their work in turning around the Royal Mail, the Government intends to gift up to 1% of the shares of the company to Royal Mail’s UK employees. These shares will come from Government’s remaining holding and they will be subject to sales restrictions.

This builds on the 10% of the total shares in the company that were awarded to Royal Mail employees as part of the 2013 flotation.

The Government see no policy reason to keep their remaining stake in Royal Mail.

Post Office Ltd, which operates the network of branches throughout the UK, remains wholly owned by Government and was separated from Royal Mail in April 2012. The relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail is a commercial one and a 10-year contract for the delivery of Royal Mail services through post offices was put in place in 2012.

[HCWS23]

Telecommunications Council

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The Telecommunications Council will take place in Luxembourg on 12 June 2015. I am representing the UK at this Council, and below are the agenda items, and the positions I intend to adopt on each of them.

The first item is an exchange of views on the Commission’s digital single market strategy, which was published on 6 May. The debate will be informed by two questions from the presidency. My intervention will include: This strategy is strongly welcomed by the UK; Europe should prioritise making it easier for small businesses to start up, scale up and add value to the whole EU economy; and that we should also prioritise the area of e-commerce. My intervention will also lay out early high level HMG views on various parts of the digital single market package including telecoms framework, the data economy and cross border parcel policy.

The second item is for Council to reach agreement for a general approach on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a programme on interoperability solutions for European public administrations, businesses and citizens (First reading—EM11580/14). I am proposing to abstain from voting on this general approach. My intervention will make it clear that while we support the aims of ISA2 in principle and hope to be able to support a final text following negotiations with the European Parliament, we cannot support the current text.

This will be followed by information from the presidency on the ‘state of play’ on negotiations regarding ‘a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a connected continent’ (EM 13562/13 and 13555/13 + ADDs 1-2). My intervention will: stress UK’s ambition that the regulation contain a clear timetable of actions that will result in the eventual cessation of mobile roaming charges in the EU; and seek to ensure that the regulation enables member states to bring forward, or maintain, existing parental controls measures, thus permitting the UK to maintain our current regime of online protection for children. Discussion on this item will be preceded and informed by an informal ministerial breakfast whose aim is to reach political agreement on the regulation; my interventions during this discussion will mirror those in Council.

This item will be followed by information from the presidency on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to ensure a high level of network and information security across the Union (NIS directive), (First reading—EM6342/13). I do not intend to intervene on this item. However, if a round table is initiated by others on this item I will remind Council that while the UK supports the aim of raising the level of cyber security across the Union it would be prudent to take our time and make sure we get the detail right so the directive is not unduly burdensome on business.

The Council will then be given a progress report from the presidency on proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accessibility to public sector bodies’ websites (First reading—EM16006/11). We do not expect a debate on this item and I do not propose to intervene.

There will then follow the adoption of draft council conclusions on the transfer of the stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the multi-stakeholder community. I will support these conclusions and do not expect a debate on this item.

Finally, under any other business, the Luxembourg delegation will inform the Council of their priorities for their forthcoming presidency before Council adjourns until the next meeting in quarter four 2015.

[HCWS30]

Fiscal Sustainability Report

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)]

Today the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) published its fifth fiscal sustainability report (FSR). This document meets its requirement to annually prepare an analysis of the sustainability of the public finances, and provides an important insight into the state of the public finances and the impact that demographic change will have.

The OBR also published the second welfare trends report (WTR). This report provides a transparent and independent analysis of welfare spending, in line with a request from the Chancellor in December 2013 to publish information on trends and drivers of welfare spending, and sources of error compared to the previous forecast.

The FSR was laid before Parliament earlier today and copies of both reports are available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.

Changes since last year’s fiscal sustainability report do not change significantly the path of the long-term projections, with the FSR’s key conclusion reiterating that:

“longer-term spending pressures, if unaddressed, would put the public finances on an unsustainable path.”

As the OBR notes in its analysis, this is due to the spending pressure generated by an ageing population, which is projected to increase age-related spending by 3.9% of GDP from 2019-20 to 2064-65. Without additional policy change, the overall budget surpluses that are assumed to continue after this Parliament bring debt down to a low of 54% in the early 2030s, before being outweighed by age-related pressures that put debt back onto an upward trajectory. Debt reaches 87% of GDP in 2064-65 and is expected to continue rising thereafter. The report projects that tax revenues will remain at a relatively constant share of GDP from 2019-20 onwards, although in its detailed analysis of oil and gas revenues, it highlights the sharp scale of the decline in tax receipts from the North sea.

The Government take the sustainability challenge seriously. As life expectancy continues to increase, there is a need for a regular and structured way in which to consider changes to the state pension age in future. That is why the Government will carry out a regular review of state pension age every six years, starting in this Parliament. Details of the core principle to guide that review were set out alongside autumn statement 2013, including that people should expect to spend on average up to a third of their adult life in receipt of the state pension. The OBR projects that this would have a substantial positive impact on long-term fiscal sustainability, with state pension spending projected to be 0.8% of GDP lower by 2064-65 than if the state pension age had risen with currently legislated changes.

Reforms to the state pension come alongside the Government’s reforms to public service pensions, which will rebalance taxpayer and member contributions in the short term while ensuring costs are sustainable and fair in the long term. The previous Government implemented reforms to rebalance contribution costs between the taxpayer and the member, to change the uprating measure to CPI, and to reform the schemes’ designs in line with Lord Hutton’s recommendations. HM Treasury has estimated that these reforms will save more than £430 billion by 2061-62.

Spending on health rises from 6.2% of GDP in 2019-20 to 8.0% in 2064-65, as the population ages, with spending on social care rising from 1.2% to 2.2% over the same period. Given the particular spending pressures that arise in health and social care, including non-demographic factors, the Government are committed to ensuring that care services are as efficient and effective as possible. This includes funding the NHS’s own plan to deliver a modern, efficient and sustainable NHS and continuing to integrate health and social care services through policies such as the pooling of around £6 billion of health and care funding in Greater Manchester and the £5.3 billion Better Care Fund.

On the revenues side, the OBR have revised their oil and gas forecast down to £2.1 billion between 2020-21 and 2040-41 with companies’ net revenues expected to be low over the period. The OBR’s analysis clearly demonstrates the impact of falling production and cost escalation on the profitability of the sector—the onus is now on industry to make real improvements in these areas to improve their competitiveness. At Budget, the Chancellor introduced a radical package of reforms to support the sector, worth £1.3 billion, including reducing the headline tax rates and introducing a new investment allowance to reward companies investing in the UK continental shelf. This package is expected to lead to £4 billion of additional investment and an increase in production by 15% by 2019-20.

Recognising the scale of the long-term challenge, the Government are committed to ensuring that our public finances are put on, and remain on, a sustainable path for the long term. The OBR analysis makes it very clear that the Government’s medium-term fiscal consolidation plan is a vital step towards achieving long-term fiscal sustainability. This includes Government reforms to change the welfare system to ensure it promotes work and personal responsibility, while putting expenditure on a more sustainable footing.

Over the last Parliament, the Government halved the deficit from its post-war peak, but the deficit remains one of the highest in the developed world. This Parliament, the Government will complete the task of getting the public finances into surplus, so that we bear down on our excessive national debt, and begin to address the long-term challenges that we face.

The fiscal sustainability report and the welfare trends report published today are key examples of the great strides the OBR have taken in delivering greater transparency and credibility to our fiscal forecasts since its creation, five years ago. This Government remain committed to supporting the OBR in its role to provide independent and authoritative analysis of the UK’s public finances. The Chancellor has therefore asked Sir David Ramsden, Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury, to complete a Treasury review on the existing regime and framework of the OBR including a focus on its role in enhancing UK fiscal credibility. The outcomes of the review will be published in the summer.

[HCWS31]

Financial Services

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

The Chancellor announced yesterday, following advice from the Governor of the Bank of England and N M Rothschild, the Government’s independent advisor, that the Government plans to initiate share sales of RBS in the coming months. Copies of the advice have been made available on HM Treasury’s website.

As Rothschild noted, the UK is currently in a position where alongside the United States, the taxpayer can comfortably expect to secure proceeds which exceed what they put in to overall banking sector interventions.

The Chancellor was advised that it is in the interests of the taxpayer to begin sales soon, with decisions on specific details of a sale to be made in due course.

[HCWS32]

Environment Council

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and I will attend the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 15 June.

Following the adoption of the agenda the list of “A” items will be approved.

During the legislative deliberations, there will be a policy debate on the proposal for a directive on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants.

The one non-legislative item on the agenda is the road to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), conference of the parties in Paris, for which there will be an exchange of views. Over the lunch Ministers will be invited to discuss further aspects of the international climate change negotiations, namely the Lima-Paris action agenda and possible long-term goals for 2050 and 2100.

The following any other business items will be discussed.

Proposal concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme.

An update from recent international meetings.

The European fund for strategic investments—an opportunity for environmental projects.

The Lisbon charter—a guide for public policy and regulation of drinking water supply, sanitation and waste water management services.

The work programme of the incoming Luxembourg presidency.

[HCWS25]

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will meet on 18-19 June in Luxembourg. The Health and Consumer Affairs part of the Council will take place in the morning of 19 June.

The main agenda item is the following:

Regulations on medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices: the presidency plans a general approach on medical devices. The regulations seek to address weaknesses in the current regulatory system, ensure a more consistent level of implementation across the EU, and ensure that the EU will continue to be viewed by business as an innovation-friendly regulatory environment.

The UK has broadly supported the Commission’s proposals in order to ensure high standards of patient safety. At the outset of negotiations the UK identified three areas as priorities:

avoiding an ineffective and bureaucratic process proposed by the Commission involving additional pre-market scrutiny of higher risk devices by a central committee of member state experts;

ensuring sufficient flexibility is in place to allow health institutions to manufacture and use diagnostic tests developed ‘in-house’; and

resisting proposals to introduce additional regulatory burdens.

Under ‘any other business’ there will also be presentations on three other issues by the following delegations:

Slovenia—follow-up to the informal meeting of EU Health Ministers on a new framework for the EU alcohol policy;

Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta—importance of the health dimension in the European agenda on migration;

Luxembourg—priorities for their forthcoming presidency, which will run from July until December 2015.

It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS24]

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Thursday 11th June 2015 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.

NOMS Accounts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

I wish to apologise to the House on behalf of the Ministry of Justice following the provision of misleading information to Members. In its annual accounts to be published today, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is releasing amended data for prison crowding. It has become apparent that crowding figures previously published in the NOMS annual report, and doubling figures published in the Prison Performance Digest, have understated the level of crowding in each year back to 2008-09.

These incorrect figures have in turn informed public statements from the Ministry of Justice, including statements to Parliament.

There are two measures of prison estate capacity: (i) certified normal accommodation (CNA), also known as the uncrowded capacity, which refers to the number of prisoners that cells, cubicles or rooms were originally designed to hold, and (ii) operational capacity, which is the number of prisoners a prison has been assessed as capable of holding, taking into account regime facilities and the requirement to maintain order and control. Crowding means, for example, that two prisoners may be sharing a cell originally designed for one. All prisons’ regimes, facilities and staffing are structured to provide for the total number of prisoners within it and NOMS will only crowd where it has been assessed as safe and decent to do so.

Errors in the published figures, used to provide parliamentary answers, were due to misinterpretation on the part of some prisons, which reported the number of prisoners held in excess of the number that cells were designed to hold (CNA), rather than the number of prisoners affected by crowding. In instances where two prisoners were held in a cell designed for one, both prisoners should be counted as being in crowded conditions. Some prisons, however, were only counting the additional prisoner.

The public should rightly expect this information to be accurate. Publication of clear, reliable figures on how many prisoners we hold in crowded conditions is an important part of making sure we can be held to account. It is therefore unacceptable that these incorrect figures have been published over the last six years and that these errors were not identified sooner. Since discovering these errors, we have taken urgent steps to ensure that figures will in future be subjected to rigorous quality control.

A table—available as an attachment online—shows updated national figures for crowding, which is measured as the percentage of prisoners who are held in a cell, cubicle or room where the number of occupants exceeds the uncrowded capacity of the cell, cubicle or room from 2008-09 to 2014-15. The table also contains amended data on the level of doubling, defined as the percentage of the prison population held two to a cell designated as a single cell.

The amended figures have been calculated following an exercise to validate data and make appropriate corrections. The new data will also be published in the 2014-15 NOMS annual report.

Going forward, we have put robust new checks in place to quality assure figures as they are submitted, and to prevent incorrect figures from being published again. I will be writing to Members who have been provided with incorrect information and I once again apologise to the whole House for these mistakes.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions- answers-statements/written-statement/ Commons/ 2015-06-11/HCWS29/.

[HCWS29]

Ebola Medal

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the Command Paper setting out the details of the Ebola medal for service in West Africa. The Ebola medal pays tribute to the bravery and selflessness of civilian and military personnel who have taken on great personal risk to support the UK Government’s response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa. I would like to put on record my admiration for the commitment shown by people helping those suffering with Ebola.

It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS28]

Investigatory Powers Review

Thursday 11th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

In 2014 the Government asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, to conduct a review into the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers, with specific reference to the interception of communications and communications data. David Anderson has completed that review and I am pleased to be publishing his report today. I can confirm that no redactions have been made to the report.

I am very grateful to David Anderson for a thorough and comprehensive report. The Government’s intention is to bring forward legislation relating to the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ use of investigatory powers and to have that legislation enacted before the sunset provision in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 takes effect on 31 December 2016.

The Government will take full account of David Anderson’s report, which I believe offers a firm basis for consulting on our new legislation. The Government will need to give further consideration to the detail of both David Anderson’s recommendations and those in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Privacy and Security report published in March, before we develop our proposals. But this report is a very important and valuable contribution to the continuing debate about the role of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, their use of investigatory powers and their oversight. The Anderson review was taken forward with cross-party support and I believe that it should help us continue to take this issue forward on the basis of cross-party consensus. The Government’s proposals will be brought forward for pre- legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament in the autumn.

As David Anderson’s report highlights, there are a range of threats against the UK and its interests, from terrorism, both at home and overseas, to cyber attacks from criminals. Many groups, not just the Government, have a role to play in ensuring the right capabilities are in place to tackle those threats. It is particularly important to engage communications service providers in developing solutions, given the technology supporting modern communications. That is why I appointed Sir Nigel Sheinwald as my data envoy to engage with industry and others to explore the possibilities for a sustainable long-term basis for providing data when it is needed to protect our security. In parallel to new legislation, the Government will be taking forward Sir Nigel’s advice, including pursuing a strengthened UK-US mutual legal assistance treaty process and a new international framework. As David Anderson recognises in his report, updated powers, and robust oversight, will need to form the legal basis of any new international arrangements. We will continue to work closely with the companies to take all these issues forward.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions- answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/ 2015-06-11/HCWS27/.

[HCWS27]

House of Lords

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 11 June 2015.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Oaths and Affirmations

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

11:04

Lord Stevenson of Coddenham made the solemn affirmation, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Retirement of a Member: Lord Eden of Winton

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Announcement

11:06

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service.

Burundi

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are responding to recent developments in Burundi.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Africa has called on all parties to end the violence and respect the principles of the Arusha agreement, urging the Burundian Government to delay the elections to ensure that they are credible and inclusive. A political solution must be found. We are working closely with the African Union, the region and the United Nations to achieve this.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, the decision of the President of Burundi to seek a third term—against the constitution of the country—and the violence that subsequently took place have pushed more than 90,000 refugees into Tanzania and other neighbouring countries. We know that violence in Burundi can spill over into Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania and elsewhere, with grave consequences for the whole region. Will the Government support a strong and unanimous perspective from the international organisations—the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union—which have a role here, and will they push those organisations to be as strong as possible on the constitution and the disarmament of those armed groups linked to the political parties?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I agree entirely with the view put forward by the noble Lord. We are galvanising support across all the nations that should have an interest in the stability of east Africa, but more broadly, as the noble Lord said, multilaterally with the United Nations and all like-minded countries.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, there is a much wider problem, as we all know, across Africa, of heads of state or government refusing to go when their term is up. I thought this morning of my son who, 15 years ago, was in Uganda when Museveni was yet again standing for re-election. Is there any way we can promote the sort of thing that Mo Ibrahim used to do, along with the African Union and the United Nations: offer prizes for relinquishing office to persuade some of these people in Congo, Rwanda, Gambia and elsewhere to leave when their time is up?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very serious point in a memorable way. I cannot think that we will have a competition to decide what should be offered, but it is a very serious point. Third terms are not conducive to a stable method of handing on power to another group.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I have been waiting to say that for quite a long time. We saw recently the refreshing effect that elections can have.

In the case of Burundi, it is clear that the first term of President Nkurunziza was by appointment, not by election. It is therefore time for him to step aside, and to have open and fair elections.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that many sub-Saharan African leaders find it so profitable to be in power that the sums that will have to be paid to get them to go will have to be very substantial?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, that is certainly an interesting point of view.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that increased government militia violence could push Burundi over the edge. Does the Minister agree that, since we are seeing the deepest conflict and violence for a decade in Burundi, there is a chance of old ethnic battles between Hutus and Tutsis reopening?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The noble Baroness paints the picture about which we are all concerned—that this should not be an event that leads to Burundi returning to violence. The Arusha agreement of 2000 took them out of that, and they have a Government who reflect both Tutsis and Hutus. It is that kind of inclusive government that we will seek to continue. It is not a happy picture of the future if that were to break down.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, there is speculation in the media this morning about the future of the UN special envoy for the Great Lakes. Could the Minister update the House on the current situation? It is vital that his role continue, and that he continue in it.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Indeed, the noble Lord raises an important point. We have always expressed our clear support for the United Nations special envoy, Said Djinnit, as a mediator in the political dialogue. I know that there have been some rumours at the African Union summit, which is currently under way, that he may be considering resigning from that position. Our most recent information from conversations with him within the last 24 hours is that he has the will and determination to continue, but clearly it is a matter for other countries to determine whether they are prepared properly to undertake work with him. I hope that he is able to continue; I understand that he and others will be watching the discussions at the African Union summit to see where we can go from there. Our support is fully behind Djinnit, and we feel that he has the opportunity to find a resolution eventually.

Zero-hours Contracts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:11

Asked by

[Baroness Quin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to undertake a review into zero-hours contracts of employment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s previous review showed that zero-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market, offering flexibility to both individuals and employers and helping business to meet varying demand. However, people on these contracts deserve a fair deal, which is why the Government have banned exclusivity clauses in such contracts—and I am glad to say that the ban came into force on 26 May.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for listening to some of my concerns when we spoke recently about this, but can I urge the Government to look at two things in particular? First, the use of these contracts in the care sector is undermining continuity of care, which is so important to carer and client. Secondly, there are huge problems facing those who seek permanent employment but are simply offered zero-hours contracts, which means that they face permanent financial insecurity, are unable to access the housing market and are forced on, off, and on benefits, which causes great stress and hardship. If the Government are serious about helping working people to get on, as they say in the Queen’s Speech, surely these abuses of zero-hours contracts need to be tackled urgently.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, most employers using zero-hours contracts value the opportunity and flexibility that they offer, and individuals on them are able to earn as much or as little as they choose. In the minority of cases when they are not used responsibly, banning exclusivity clauses will free up individuals to secure additional income elsewhere. The Department of Health is working with local authorities to ensure that the providers from which they commission services have a high-quality workforce with fair terms and conditions, and we are getting on with creating a route of redress against employers who ignore the ban.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, the focus is often on the negative aspects of zero-hours contracts. Could my noble friend explain a bit more about the advantages to individuals of some of these contracts? Surely a lot of people in work these days do not want to, or cannot, work nine to five.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Indeed, my noble friend is right. For some, this type of flexible working is a way to enter the labour market. It can open a door to employment for parents or students. The CIPD research shows that 60% of those on zero-hours contracts are satisfied with their job compared to 59% of those in permanent employment, and 65% are happier with their work/life balance compared to 58% in permanent employment. They have an important role, but of course it is important to make sure that the detail is right, and that is why we have banned exclusivity.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a huge difference between someone working in the same place on a zero-hours contract and someone who has to move from place to place in their work? A carer is a very good example. A carer may be given only 15 minutes—which seems extraordinary—to deal with the personal needs of some very vulnerable person, and then there is the travel time. Will the Minister say something more about whether the Government are going to address this fundamental issue about the difference between somebody who is located in one place and somebody who is moving perhaps six or seven times during the day?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, as I have already said, the relevant authorities are looking at this to ensure that we have a high-quality service and that the terms are fair. I should make it clear that time spent travelling directly between assignments or on standby at work during quiet periods generally counts as time worked for national minimum wage purposes. This often works better than we think, but it is of course an important area to look at.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I declare my interest as chair of Housing & Care 21. Surely any Government seeking to improve the efficiency and quality of public services should be monitoring the impact and growth of zero-hours contracts. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have an estimate of the number of zero-hours contracts paid for out of public funds?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, this is an issue I would need to look into. We have 697,000 people on a zero-hours contract as their main job, but I do not have a breakdown between the public and private sectors.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, most people on zero-hours contracts are also in minimum-wage jobs. They are very low paid. In the past 48 hours, we have learned that the Government are expecting something like £5 billion out of the £12 billion welfare cuts to be saved from working tax credits. Those people on zero-hours contracts survive because of those tax credits. How will they survive in future?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, zero-hours contracts allow people to come into the workforce who could not otherwise come in for the reasons I have explained, participate and get a job. The social security welfare framework continues to apply. This seems to me to be a good thing, not a bad thing, as the noble Baroness suggests.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is making a very eloquent case for flexible working, but that is not the same thing as zero-hours contracts where people have to turn up to find out whether they have a job and are not reimbursed under their employment contract. Given the Government’s record in bringing flexibility into the labour market, is this not a matter which needs urgent attention?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am glad my noble friend mentioned the value of flexibility. We have asked officials to look at issues facing those on zero-hours contracts to see whether any further voluntary or statutory action is necessary because of the sort of points he has made.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister answer my noble friend Lord Stoneham’s point that the Government need to collect the data to be able to get a picture of what is going on with these contracts? Will she at least write to him and place a copy in the Library so that we know what information the Government have?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am happy to write with what data we have through the ONS and, indeed, to explain some of the methodological problems in this.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, what happens if an individual is offered a zero-hours contract but turns it down? Does that mean that that individual does not then qualify for benefits that he would otherwise qualify for because he has turned down what in the Government’s view is a reasonable possibility? Is he not allowed to claim benefits if he turns down a zero-hours contract?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

This is not an area that I am an expert in, but my impression is that the local Jobcentre Plus and so on are actually very helpful on these points. However, I will look into this issue further and write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

What will be done to make people aware of the exclusivity issue no longer applying? Only last week I spoke to a carer who had an opportunity to earn other money but was not allowed to do so because their zero-hours contract had exclusivity very clearly written in.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am disturbed to hear that. The provision has certainly come in and will be publicised in the normal way. As part of the work we are now doing, we consulted in February on redress. We will be bringing in a route of redress against employers who ignore the ban, and this will give a further opportunity for people to know about this exclusivity. An issue that I have often discussed on these Benches is how you get information about new legislation out. I take the point in general, but I assure the noble Baroness that the new provisions have come in and we are taking steps to publicise those.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that we are not opposed to zero-hours contracts. However, when someone is on a zero-hours contract for six months or more, surely they deserve an offer of a permanent contract. The Minister talked about flexibility and a fair deal. Is it a fair deal to continue in the same employment without any pension contribution or guarantee of holiday payment? That does not seem like our idea of a fair deal, and it does not seem in accord with the Government’s recent re-espousal of “one nation”.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I think there is a fundamental disagreement between us. We believe in the value of zero-hours contracts. We also believe that we need to look at how they work in practice. There are parts of business where, just because you have worked in some area for 12 weeks, that does not actually mean that what is required by the employer will be the same 12 weeks later. There is a fundamental problem with the proposal put forward by the Labour Party. However, I assure the noble Lord that we continue to look at this with the objective of trying to ensure that it really works well in our flexible economy.

Small Businesses: Late Payment

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:22

Asked by

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to deal with the late payment of debt to small businesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, this is a serious problem in some areas and the Government are taking action. We have already legislated to require payment within 30 days through our public sector supply chains. We will be requiring the UK’s larger companies to report on their payment practices. This will be centrally collated so that performance can be compared. We are going further, too: through the enterprise Bill we will create a small business conciliation service to help small businesses resolve disputes.

[Lord Harrison (Lab)]

But does the Minister understand that the Prompt Payment Code is itself being abused by bigger firms, as the Federation of Small Businesses revealed? Some one in four of its members find that their payment periods are changed adversely and peremptorily, and one in three FSB members now experience cash-flow problems as a result of being paid late. Will the Government undertake not only to monitor but to enforce existing legislation to help hard-working families who run small businesses in this country? Will the Minister respond to the National Audit Office’s own report that government departments are still paying late?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, there are a lot of questions there. I have already outlined three important measures, but we have also strengthened the voluntary Prompt Payment Code to promote 30-day payment terms as the norm, and will enforce a maximum 60-day payment term for all its 16,000 signatories. We will also consult this summer on how to give representative bodies—such as the Federation of Small Businesses—wider powers to challenge grossly unfair payment practices. The recent changes to the code, led by my right honourable friend in the other place Matt Hancock, set new expectations on signatories to treat suppliers fairly and make payments in a reasonable amount of time. Alongside the other measures that we are taking, we are on the way to taking the first steps in changing the culture in this key area.

[Baroness Sharples (Con)]

Can my noble friend confirm that all government departments pay their small suppliers on time?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, in the public sector there are clear rules. Payment has to be made within 30 days, so in the BIS department, which I can speak for, 99.5% of invoices are paid within 30 days, and 80% within five days. We have been trying to move to a five-day practice across government. In addition, interest is payable on late payments and administrative costs. It would probably be difficult to confirm that every small business is always paid on time, but we do what we can, the direction of travel is clear and we are leading from the front in the public sector.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, while I welcome the actions of the noble Baroness and the Government, the mistreatment of small firms goes much wider than late payment. As an example, there is a new practice in some large firms requiring small firms to pay an upfront, flat fee to be considered for further contracts, which puts great stress on small firms. Can the Government include that in their deliberations?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we can. The small business conciliation service is designed to help small businesses resolve business-to-business disputes while avoiding expensive legal costs. We will consult shortly on what exactly should be done to make sure that the new service has a real impact on the ground.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)]

I ask the House to take account of my interest in this subject; I am president of the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group, which represents medium-sized, second-tier firms in the construction industry. It is all very well to say that government departments are behaving better. However, a number of public agencies such as health boards, education authorities and the like are still woefully inadequate in accepting their responsibilities as good payers to businesses, some 95% of which in the case of construction employ fewer than 10 people. So these are very vulnerable businesses; they need treatment, and very often they are frightened to complain, because if they do they are told quietly that they will never get any work from the main contractor again.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to refer to both construction and local authorities. As he will know, we have special regulations on construction. As regards local authorities, we have brought in a law that will require them to publish data on their performance from next year—the power of transparency. Again, that will help a lot to change the climate. Moreover, the construction example shows that where we have to take steps, we do. We have done that in the grocery and construction sectors; where there is clear evidence of abuse we are ready to act, because we want things to change.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, so far the discussion has been on the exchange of money between businesses. However, in my experience as the director of a minuscule company, charities can be just as bad. Can my noble friend say what pressure should be put on charities?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My noble friend raises an excellent and new point for me, which I will take away and discuss with him.

Saudi Arabia: Raif Badawi

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:29

Asked by

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Saudi Arabia about the confirmation of a sentence of 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison against Raif Badawi.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, we are extremely concerned about Raif Badawi’s case and have discussed it at the most senior levels in the Government of Saudi Arabia, most recently on 9 June. The Foreign Secretary discussed this case in February and March with the Saudi Minister of the Interior, His Royal Highness Mohammad bin Naif, now Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The case is under active consideration and we will continue to watch it closely.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, when the first 50 lashes were administered to Mr Badawi, he needed medical attention. If the Saudi Supreme Court’s decision that he should undergo a further 19 sessions of 50 lashes each is carried into effect, it will amount to torture followed by death. Does my noble friend consider it appropriate for a state such as Saudi Arabia, which has barbarous and inhumane punishments on its statute book for trivial offences, to continue to be a member of the Human Rights Council, and will the UK take steps to have the country removed from that position?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I shall be attending the Human Rights Council early next week. I know that a wide range of issues will be raised but I have not yet seen any matter referring to the membership of any individual country. However, it is the view of the United Kingdom that the treatment of people in detention must be in line with the protocol on torture, to which, of course, Saudi Arabia is a signatory.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the role of the United Nations Human Rights Council is fundamental? As recently as last week, the conference held by the OIC took place in Jeddah of all places—in a country which ranks sixth on the World Watch List for countries that violate freedom of religion and belief. Will she say whether the United Kingdom raised Raif Badawi’s case during that conference?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I repeat that I have raised this case on several occasions over a period. We remain deeply concerned and will continue to do our duty in that regard. On Tuesday in another place, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that we are urgently seeking to make contact with interlocutors and continue to do so. He said:

“It will be my intention certainly to ensure that nothing happens on Friday”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/15; col. 1042.],

and he hopes that nothing of that nature happens at all.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

It is really difficult at this stage, when not all sides have yet had a turn. We are a bit out of practice because we have had a general election, so I remind noble Lords that we should perhaps give way to each other more than we have been doing recently. Maybe we should go to my noble friend Lord Tugendhat and then to the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

[Lord Tugendhat]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is important that the Government maintain the position that she has just outlined? The way in which we react to what happens in Saudi Arabia is often taken by places such as Russia and China as an example of whether we are willing to be firm with countries with which we are on very good terms as a means of putting pressure on countries with which we are on less good terms.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I agree that we have a consistent stance with regard to human rights. With regard to the death penalty and torture, we say that they are wrong in principle and in practice. We make those views strongly heard both in international fora and in Saudi Arabia itself. The Saudi Arabians are under no illusions about our views on what is proper treatment and what is a proper penal code.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, quite apart from the barbaric nature of this sentence, does the noble Baroness not agree that there is a strategic dimension to this situation? Can we not get our Saudi Arabian friends to understand that we are involved in a vital battle for hearts and minds in the world, and that action such as this, which is symbolic of many other attitudes and actions in Saudi Arabia, is not helping to win that battle?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the area is unstable, which is an understatement. We all appreciate the seriousness of events in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We should appreciate that Saudi Arabia itself feels the threats around it and yet also assists very strongly with regard to our efforts against ISIL. Saudi Arabia is under no illusions about the importance of its actions on security in the region.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House will not be unaware of the discrepancy between the attitude to human rights displayed in Saudi Arabia’s public condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo atrocities and this case, where somebody is being punished on the basis of religion. Does the Minister agree that there is a considerable dissonance between the public image that Saudi Arabia is seeking to present and the country’s internal affairs?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think we have to recognise that the actions of the Saudi Government in these respects have the support of the vast majority of the Saudi population. Against that background, we maintain our view that freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression are core rights that lead to long-term stability and good governance.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, it is very difficult on these occasions for me to be able to decide, because clearly we are all trying to get in. However, the time is up today. Maybe we should learn from this exercise and we will get better next week.

Bat Habitats Regulation Bill [HL]

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:36

A Bill to make provision to enhance the protection available for bat habitats in the non-built environment and to limit the protection for bat habitats in the built environment where the presence of bats has a significant adverse impact upon the users of buildings.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Cormack, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:37

A Bill to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Ramsbotham, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Student Fees (Qualifying Persons) (England) Bill [HL]

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:37

A Bill to entitle students granted discretionary leave to remain to be charged tuition fees and maintenance support on the same basis as home students; and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Taverne, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:38

A Bill to amend the Equality Act 2010 to improve step-free access to public buildings for wheelchair users.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Blencathra, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Equality Act 2010 Committee

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Sexual Violence in Conflict Committee

Social Mobility Committee

Built Environment Committee

Communications Committee

European Union Committee

Refreshment Committee

Membership Motions

11:38

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

Equality Act 2010

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the impact on people with disabilities of the Equality Act 2010, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Brinton, B Browning, B Campbell of Surbiton, B Deech (Chairman), L Faulkner of Worcester, L Harrison, B Jenkin of Kennington, L McColl of Dulwich, L Northbrook, B Pitkeathley, B Thomas of Winchester, B Wilkins;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes;

That the Committee do report by 23 March 2016;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the UK’s policy and practice of preventing sexual violence in conflict, and to make recommendations, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

L Black of Brentwood, Bp Derby, B Goudie, L Hannay of Chiswick, B Hilton of Eggardon, B Hodgson of Abinger, B Hussein-Ece, B Kinnock of Holyhead, B Nicholson of Winterbourne (Chairman), L Sterling of Plaistow, B Warsi, L Williams of Elvel, B Young of Hornsey;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes;

That the Committee do report by 23 March 2016;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Social Mobility

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider social mobility in the transition from school to work, and to make recommendations, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Berridge, B Blood, B Corston (Chairman), L Farmer, L Holmes of Richmond, B Howells of St Davids, E Kinnoull, B Morris of Yardley, L Patel, B Sharp of Guildford, B Stedman-Scott, B Tyler of Enfield;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes;

That the Committee do report by 23 March 2016;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Built Environment

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the development and implementation of national policy for the built environment, and to make recommendations, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

B Andrews, B Finlay of Llandaff, L Freeman, L Haskel, E Lytton, L Macdonald of Tradeston, B O’Cathain (Chairman), B Parminter, B Whitaker;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes;

That the Committee do report by 23 March 2016;

That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Communications

That the Earl of Arran be appointed a member of the Select Committee.

European Union

That Lord Davies of Stamford be appointed members of the Select Committee.

Refreshment

That Lord Gardiner of Kimble be appointed a member of the Select Committee.

Motions agreed.

Civil Society

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:38

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

That this House takes note of the role played by civil society, in the light of the pastoral letter from the Church of England’s House of Bishops, Who is my neighbour?

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, there is much in our nation for which we can be profoundly grateful. Next week, as we mark 800 years since the sealing of Magna Carta, we give thanks for the long, yet sometimes tortuous, path that has led us to becoming a modern democracy. That moment was if not the birth then perhaps at least the conception of civil society at the beginning of a long gestation.

Last month, we celebrated 70 years of peace since the end of the Second World War, by which time civil society as we know it today was coming of age. As a nation, we have experienced extraordinary levels of economic growth over recent decades. Life expectancy has increased significantly and, importantly for this debate, in many communities in our nations, civil society is still strong and thriving. I for one am immensely grateful to be living in modern Britain and do not want to give any time to sentimental talk about a bygone era that probably never existed.

Nevertheless, some trends in society and in our political life are worrying and we cannot ignore them. Everyone here in Westminster is only too aware of the decline in the levels of voting and of increased apathy about politics. Those are not party-political issues: they are things that affect us right across the political spectrum. There are also the well-documented declines in volunteering, a decrease in the proportion of income that we give to charity and some evidence that charts a decline in our levels of well-being and happiness.

Those were just some of the issues that the House of Bishops raised in our letter, Who Is My Neighbour? As the letter stresses, we deliberately, and I believe successfully, avoided a document that was party political, although I know that some noble Lords do not agree and feel that we trespassed on to territory that they wish we had stayed away from. However, this morning I want to be absolutely clear that I tabled this debate not to attack the Government or indeed any political party. I sought this debate in an entirely non-partisan spirit, not wishing to single out any side as being particularly culpable, but rather to highlight the need for a fresh approach to politics that transcends tired polarisation. I hope that this debate will give us space and time to think about what can be done to strengthen our political life and reinvigorate civil society.

I am convinced that there is urgent work to be done to establish a new politics that seeks the common good. Indeed, I am keen that we will be able to explore the forms that such an approach to politics might take and the role that churches, charities and voluntary organisations, and indeed all intermediate institutions, can play in moving us in that direction.

I have already mentioned that we are marking the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta next Monday. As noble Lords may be aware, the first meeting about Magna Carta took place in 1213 in St Albans Abbey, which today is my cathedral, although it was another two years before King John had his arm twisted to seal it. That sealing marked a major shift in devolving power and so strengthened the role of civil society. The church was deeply involved in those events leading up to the sealing of the charter led by Archbishop Stephen Langton’s opposition to King John. Part of the charter relates to the protection of the rights and responsibility of groups other than the barons, including the church. So we perhaps might frame today’s debate in terms of how the legacy of Magna Carta can be both developed and strengthened further in our time.

I return to today. We are all aware of the widespread and well-documented disillusionment with the current state of political discourse. Politics of the common good was not much on display during the general election campaign. Rather, I suggest, identity politics prevailed, with headline policies repeatedly demonstrating the belief that voters are fundamentally driven by self-interest. That is not to say that politicians deliberately go around driving wedges between different social groups. Nevertheless, we have all seen how this retail politics generates even more entrenched polarisation, closing the door on potentially constructive collaboration. Such tribalism also ignores the diversity of participants that we urgently need in order to bring long-lasting social, economic and political change.

As the House of Bishops’ letter pointed out, disillusionment with politics has been expressed in falling turnouts at general elections since the Second World War to below two-thirds of the population. The declining number of people exercising their democratic right to vote reflects a worrying level of non-participation. Many are choosing instead to boycott the established democratic channels, as evidenced in interventions made by Russell Brand and more recently by Charlotte Church, for example, and the concomitant rise of single-issue politics through online and social media campaigns.

Alongside voter disillusionment and apathy, there is also widespread concern among politicians, social commentators and community leaders over the gradual weakening of civil society in the western world, as attested to in research such as that provided by the British Social Attitudes survey. This decline can be discerned in the decreasing number of people who are willing to be actively involved in their communities, such as by volunteering, being on a PTA, being a school governor, leading scouts and guides, or being part of a neighbourhood watch scheme. While everyone seems to agree that these are eminently sensible and good things, fewer people are prepared to personally undertake them.

As part of this declining sense of mutual responsibility and community life, we have also experienced growing levels of loneliness and isolation, especially among the elderly through the more general loss of what the House of Bishops’ letter terms “neighbourliness”. The loneliness, solitariness and isolation that we have diagnosed as a significant feature in our society are also related to aspects of our welfare system. We are all aware of and agree that we are facing profound challenges, and it is not likely to help us find a way forward if we all lapse into familiar defensive positions. We need a new rationale for state welfare that is about incentivising human connectivity. Like all rationales for welfare, it rests of course on a tension or a paradox: how do you support those who cannot fully support themselves without creating disincentives for others to be self-supporting? How do you introduce incentives for neighbourliness without generating dependency in others?

All welfare policies have to negotiate these paradoxes. We require a justification for welfare policies that encourages more community involvement, promotes local neighbourliness where possible, and turns to state provision only where there is no community to mediate care and support. In other words, where there is nothing between the individual and the state, it can be dehumanising. If we are to increase levels of neighbourliness, our welfare strategies need to be geared towards that end just as much as to other areas of policy. All of us, including the churches, need to think beyond a case-by-case opposition to welfare cuts; rather, we need to commit to rethinking what welfare ought to be for our times, and how this can promote and not erode neighbourliness.

The decline in neighbourliness is linked at least in part with our politics. As many people have experienced an increasing sense of disfranchisement and powerlessness, there has also been an increase in the centralised nature of much of the power in this country. This is utterly counter to the spirit of Magna Carta, and there is much agreement across the political spectrum that accumulations of power, whether those of the state, corporations or individuals, are fundamentally unhealthy.

We must therefore seek to reverse these accumulations of power, if we are going to enable civil society to play its proper part, by involving people at a deeper level in the decisions that affect them most. This entails the recognition of the unique contribution of each citizen, not only out of a desire to honour the dignity of each human person but as an acknowledgment that viable solutions to the social problems that we all contend with require broad participation.

In this, I advocate a return to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity that undergirded and predated the big-society agenda of the 2010 election campaign. We must not dismiss those ideas on the basis that they did not achieve at their last airing all that we might have hoped. The big-society sense of community and common life has been described by the academic Robert Putnam as “social capital”. The call for power to be devolved must not be mistaken for simply enabling citizens to secure their own narrow interests more directly. If more and more power is given to local communities, we cannot automatically presume that they will use that power for the greater good of everyone in that community—they might use it to increase nimbyism. For example, as we are faced with a shortage of housing in this country, on what basis can we presume that devolving greater powers to local areas will break the logjam? Indeed, some people argue that devolving the planning of housing could just as easily stop building.

As we devolve power more locally, we need it to be accompanied with a higher level of what Putnam terms “bridging social capital”, which he differentiates from “bonding social capital”. Bridging social capital is about the common good. I will elucidate that distinction a little, if I may, because it is quite helpful. Bonding social capital is where a group of people have such a strong sense of identity that they look after one another. For example, in clubs and associations, members may lend each other their mowers, do each other’s shopping or babysit for one another. That is all very good, but bonding social capital can be exclusive and does not necessarily look out for people who, for example, are new to the area. Communities based on bonding social capital can quickly become cliques of like-minded people who are extremely friendly, but—this is the important point—they are friendly just to each other.

In contrast, bridging social capital is demonstrated where a club or a group of people is so confident in itself that it can reach out to people who do not belong to it. This form of social capital is inclusive, giving people the confidence to meet strangers and encountering those who are different. Bridging social capital is evident in the existence of many of the institutions that comprise our national lives, such as our schools, hospitals, hospices and so on.

The church continues to be the locus for myriad contributions to civic society. In my diocese, we run centres for the homeless in Bedford, Luton, Watford and St Albans. We are involved with key partners in a homelessness project in Stevenage. We have four debt advice centres. We are involved in a number of credit unions; indeed, just a few weeks ago a leading credit union opened a new branch in one of our churches in Bedford. Noble Lords will also be aware of the large number of food banks that have been set up all over the country.

I mention those not to blow our own trumpets, because I am profoundly aware of how little we are able to scratch the surface. Nor do I want to get into a discussion in this debate about why, for example, we have food banks. That is not what I think this debate is primarily about. The question I am asking today is: what can we do to encourage the development of more intermediate institutions, which are the places where we are most likely to build bridging social capital? The acceptance of the imperative to devolve power leaves us with questions of how we ensure the presence of strong communities that can accept this power and use it for the common good. Thus, intermediate institutions play a foundational role, as neighbourhoods are built on institutions that are strong enough to enable people to move away from the language of “I” and “me” to the language of “us” and “we”.

I very much hope that this debate will be a constructive forum in which we can explore how to go forward in facilitating the mutual flourishing of communities and how we might strengthen our political life as a nation. I beg to move.

11:53

[Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for introducing the debate. It is a pleasure to take part in it. He was absolutely right in saying that the report is a genuine attempt to set out a moral vision of our country based on the Christian faith. It is a vision to which people of other faiths and no faith will, I hope, be able to subscribe. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is very clear that this is not in any way a political statement by the church and it does not support any political party. It explicitly says that it seeks to transcend the left and the right and makes it clear that it is concerned with human flourishing and the common good. It recognises the limits of economics. Whether one is in favour of greater state intervention or of strengthening the market economy, an economic view has limitations. The report argues that we need, as has been said, a vibrant civil society made up of strong families of different communities and networks underpinned by certain values.

I would like to make two comments on what has been said. First, I very much welcome the endorsement of civil society. Freedom and the rule of law are fundamental to our way of life and a market economy is, I believe, key to our prosperity, but human flourishing is about more than consumer choice, free markets or globalisation. The family, the neighbourhood, the school, the church, the synagogue, the temple and the mosque are all important to the well-being of society. Adam Smith recognised this when he argued that moral sentiments such as sympathy, beneficence and generosity were crucial to a society—qualities not guaranteed in a commercial society. Edmund Burke also recognised this when he talked about the “little platoons”. As has been said, this was at the heart of the big society—something which the bishops’ report recognises and strongly applauds. The big society is not about replacing government with laissez-faire or about a political programme. It is about the moral responsibility of individuals, and of the communities of which they are part, and of their potential to act for the common good when they are provided with the opportunity to do so. There is a distinctive Christian perspective here—that of the church taking a lead in reawakening the spiritual energy of people and our society.

The question I asked as I read the report was: does the church have anything to add to what a government welfare department or organisation might do? I think that it does. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has already shown how beneficial credit unions are when accompanied by encouraging the neighbourliness of which we have heard. The success of church schools lies in more than simply providing a technical education. Another question I found myself asking was: are there areas in our society today where the church could do more in the areas of health, care for the elderly and training, especially for excluded young people?

Secondly, we cannot address the issue of civil society, which is really about the redistribution of income, without addressing the issue of the creation of income. As has been pointed out by many, Who Is My Neighbour? was inspired by the parable of the Good Samaritan, who brought bandages, oil and wine for the victim and a donkey on which to put him. He took care of the victim and paid out two silver coins. People in our society, let alone government, cannot meet the needs they see around them without the resources to do so. The first resource is the income which comes from a job.

In looking back over the last five years, I was disappointed that the report said it was good news that,

“unemployment has not risen as high as was predicted”,

given that 2 million jobs have been created in the last few years in a very turbulent and difficult world economy. Unemployment is much lower in Britain today—it is at the level of Germany and the US—than it is in France, Italy and Spain. Jobs have been created because the Government had to take very tough decisions. Labour Governments took the same decisions in the late 1960s, 1970s and in the late 1990s. I believe that without a strong economy we cannot have a strong civil society.

In conclusion, I am convinced that the church, and more generally faith-based organisations, can play an important part in civil society. If, however, as the report claims, the Christian faith is a world view, it must be comprehensive. It must address wealth creation as well as wealth redistribution. Alongside the language of caring, community and neighbourliness —the big society—we also need to hear from the church of enterprise, aspiration and reward to make greater generosity and neighbourliness the foundation of the kind of civil society we all want to see in this country.

12:01

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, what a lovely offering for Members of your Lordships’ House to have one Griffiths followed by another. It may never happen again and I hope noble Lords will make a note in their minds of the fact that they were here when it happened. In Fforestfach and in Burry Port the two Griffiths would be distinguished from each other, not by their political persuasions but because one is “Griff church” and the other is “Griff chapel”, so it is from a more angular view that I shall comment on the issues that have been raised.

I live near the Old Street roundabout, “Silicon Roundabout”, where buildings are going up at a rate of knots and high-tech industries are being created by the hundred day by day. Just up the road is the forthcoming development that will be so good when it happens—we have been disrupted for so many years—of the Crossrail station linking Liverpool Street with all the other places. At the Old Street roundabout—now no longer ours but until recently it was—stands the Leysian Mission. It was a mission outpost for the pupils and alumni of The Leys school in Cambridge—a Methodist school. Between the two wars the mission was a terrific place for addressing poverty. People would come in voluntarily to attend to the needs of suffering people during times of depression, offering clothing, food, recreation and a fight for justice. There was a poor man’s lawyer, a crèche and all those things. Thousands of people were helped.

The Second World War damaged the buildings and they were not quite as useful afterwards, but more importantly the welfare state made many of the services being offered no longer necessary or apposite. As I look back from this vantage point to the fact that such institutions—Toynbee Hall is another—lost their focus for proper reasons, I sometimes ask myself whether there was an unintended consequence of the creation of the welfare state. Let there be no mistake about it—I am a prime beneficiary of all the provisions of the welfare state, having enjoyed national assistance, national health, education and all the rest of it through all the instrumentalities that flowed from the creation of the welfare state. However, the unintended consequence is that it sort of diminished the perceived need for voluntary activity in community action and work. We have to work hard in the economic climate that we are now living through to rediscover and reinvigorate that sense of voluntarism. The voluntary sector is picking up, whether or not it wants to, on much of the work done by public institutions which are finding their budgets severely threatened. It is important to recreate this voluntary sector, as there will be a lot more work for it to do.

I want to focus on another side of the Silicon Roundabout. Right opposite diametrically is the Central Foundation Boys’ School. I am the chair of trustees for that and the girls’ school in Tower Hamlets. I want to point to the plight of a group of volunteers who serve as governors of that school. At the beginning of the previous Parliament, two education Bills were pushed through that made the academisation of our education system more rapid. The Queen’s Speech has promised another such Bill, which will make it almost impossible to stop the tide of this one-size-fits-all approach to solving our educational problems. I do not want to go into that for the moment. That school is not yet an academy—it may have to become one—but headmasters, headmistresses and governors are being given much more responsibility for running multimillion pound businesses without necessarily any of the skills or the salaries that go with that. They are accountable only to central government—nothing local at all. I simply warn your Lordships that there are impending problems in this area, as those who have not been trained to run businesses find themselves up against obstacles that they cannot solve. One of the glories of the voluntary sector in this country is the governance of schools—how many people give hours and hours of their time for this purpose—and the present economic and political situation will threaten this wonderful tradition in British society if we are not careful.

The last time I addressed the subject of the report Who Is My Neighbour? was, of all things, at Gray’s Inn, in the chapel there, when I preached the Mulligan sermon about a month ago. It is to remember a judgment made by Lord Atkin—another fine Welshman; I just wish his name had been Griffiths as well—as long ago as 1932. The rule he made to deal with a proliferation of precedents in the application of the common law was to prove foundational for all subsequent judgments. The Donoghue v Stevenson case had to do with someone who manufactured ginger beer, someone who sold it, someone who drank it and, to her consternation, discovered coming out of the bottle that she was pouring on to her ice cream a decomposing snail. Your Lordships can see that the opportunity to preach some pretty vivid sermons arises from these circumstances.

The point is that the dear Lord Atkin of Aberdovey concluded that there was a duty of care and a question of negligence in law not only between the manufacturer and his client, who sold it in the restaurant, and not only between the owner of the restaurant and the person who bought it, but also to the person who had received for nothing the gift from her friend, the bottle in which the snail was to be found. The dear Lord concluded that the duty of care—the laws of negligence—could not be applied in the courts other than restrictively and he longed for theologians and those into moral theology to look at the question of the unrestricted applicability of the duty of care and the question of negligence. It is the job of the church to do that. We want to point to the fact that this duty of care ought to apply generally, not just in the restricted way that the courts feel obliged to apply it.

It is the duty of politics, of course, to take those understandings and—since politics is the law of the possible—with its own restrictions address them. Who is my neighbour, the duty of care and the question of negligence are questions for British society as a whole and nobody should attack the church for raising them in a general way, even though we in politics must then see what we can do by way of response.

12:09

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things which I do frequently in the course of my work is to talk to students, often from abroad, about the composition and work of your Lordships’ House. Every time that I do, I come to a point where I talk about the presence of the Bishops in the House. A look of puzzlement then comes across the faces of the students and, depending on where in the world they come from, there are some pretty strange and strong reactions and we have a debate about it. I always get to the point where I say, “Well, look at the United States. It was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state, but no politician would ever dare to go against the prevailing religious orthodoxy, and the consequences are that ethical matters are decided not by the body politic but in the courts”. I contrast that with our politics here, where the church plays and has played an active part in our discussions and politicians make those decisions. It is an interesting point, which we always go through, and I thank the right reverend Prelate for reminding us of the value in that and the history of how we got to that point.

The document Who Is My Neighbour? came through my letterbox when I was in the process of delivering thousands and thousands of leaflets through other people’s letterboxes. It was an uplifting document and it made me think profoundly about why I was out doing what I was doing. I note that there is a request in the report that we do not take the document as a bolstering of our own particular party point of view. However, I think that it is fair to say to the right reverend Prelate that all political parties are struggling with the fact that the drivers and determinants of economic development are becoming increasingly global, while the effects of economic change are disproportionately local. As people who operate at a national level but also as politicians within communities at a local level, the assistance of the church over the next few years in seeking to understand and mitigate the effects of that will be of immense importance. Populations and economics change but the church endures.

In many ways, the document echoes one called Call to Action for the Common Good, which was issued by the Carnegie UK Trust—a trust which is the product of Mammon at its most visceral but is working for the common good, albeit in a secular fashion. In the 2014 document, civil society leaders identified some principles which they thought should govern public policy. First, we should be investing in tomorrow. We should not be tempted to act for short-term profits but should take decisions which will reduce harm to future generations. The second principle was that everybody must do their bit: the state, business and civil society, including religious organisations, all have a responsibility to empower people to contribute by building their own solutions in their own communities. Principle number three was that we should get connected and move away from narrow functional or commercial transactions between individuals, with every person being an island, and become partners for good.

Those principles are a way of reenergising and reimagining democracy. It is what David Goodhart from Demos described as a,

“new kind of liberalism that is concerned not just with individual autonomy but also the nature of our institutions and the quality of our relationships with one another”.

I do not know whether there was any collusion between the Bishops and the leaders of civil society when they issued their documents, but I see a fair degree of common understanding. That bodes well because I joined a political party which stood at that time on a phrase which some Members will remember: community politics. Reflecting on that, I see that the great problem for us throughout was that we never had any worked-out community economics to go with the community politics. I rather think that in future those of us who stand for liberalism and wish to protect it, in particular against the narrow nationalism that some would wish to return to, will have to develop a new narrative of community politics to go with our community economics.

I will end with two points. The document was a helpful guide to those of us who are trusted not just with participating in democracy but enhancing it for future generations. It was particularly eloquent in the passages on being a society: not a society of strangers but a community of communities. But—and this is a point for the Bishops—I am your neighbour. I am also a very proud member of the lesbian, gay and transgender community and the studied omission of us from this document—I think it was a studied omission because I have listened to all the other things that the church has said—is, to some of us, regrettable. To lesbian, gay and transgender Christians, it is hurtful.

I am an optimist and I look forward to the point in the not-too-distant future when the church—not just the Church of England, but other churches—will recognise that we are your neighbours, your friends and your family, and that we have a contribution to make to the common good. I am confident that we are getting closer to a time when we will share that understanding, and I look forward to working with noble Lords, particularly the Bishops, to further that understanding.

12:16

[Baroness Neuberger (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing us this debate. I do not believe that the matters raised in the letter should be restricted to the people and parishes of the Church of England, so I speak as a rabbi serving a large congregation in central London. Our theology may be rather different from that of the Church of England, although our relationships are very close.

I particularly commend what was said in the letter about power, identity and minorities, for we read:

“The politics of migration has, too often, been framed in crude terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’ with scant regard for the Christian traditions of neighbourliness and hospitality”.

These traditions are by no means only Christian—biblical texts from the Old Testament about loving your neighbour and welcoming the stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt apply to Jews, Christians, Muslims and plenty of others. The phrase:

“You shall love your neighbour as yourself”,

comes from Leviticus. We had it first.

The letter goes on to say:

“The way we talk about migration, with ethnically identifiable communities being treated as ‘the problem’ has, deliberately or inadvertently, created an ugly undercurrent of racism in every debate about immigration”.

I cannot say often enough how true that is. However, all this goes beyond the concerns just for the Church of England. Shortly before the election, the Bishop of Manchester wrote a piece in the Guardian just as we were beginning to see the waves of desperate migrants drowning as a result of leaky boats, immoral people traffickers and a forlorn hope for a better life. As he put it,

“migration got a face, a human face. It’s not usually handled like that across much of the UK media, but the tragic plight of desperate families drowning in the attempt to cross the Mediterranean into Europe forced us out of our comfortable discourse about an amorphous ‘them’”.

We all saw those pictures then; it was only seven weeks ago. The truth is that we are already tired of seeing those pictures—they no longer make the front pages. Our politicians of all parties talk too much of traffickers and too little of the people who are desperate for a better life, fleeing war-torn regions, sometimes as the result of the UK’s intervention, as in Libya, or those genuinely fleeing in fear of their lives as ISIS threatens to behead Christians, or does so, with YouTube evidence there for all to see. For those few days, in late April and early May, migrants looked to us like real human beings, not the “cockroaches” that one particular columnist had described them as a few days earlier. We could see their desperation and the horrors they were fleeing.

Seventy-seven or so years ago, many members of my family were also desperate, fleeing the Nazi regime in Germany. Many failed to get out but some, with the greatest of good fortune, were able to come to this country because of a group of brave and far-sighted British diplomats—Robert Smallbones, Arthur Dowden and Frank Foley come to mind. They were all good Christians who helped terrified and desperate people—mostly Jews, but not all—escape the horrors. Because of the hospitality of many people in civil society—Christians, Jews, non-believers, ordinary working British people, and the voluntary and civil society groups working together—some 70,000 people or more were saved and welcomed. That was, I believe, a good thing. I certainly would not be here today if that had not been the case.

I do not believe that, in the end, we will be able to refuse to take any of these thousands of desperate people making the journey from Africa in dangerous and terrible circumstances, despite government rhetoric. Indeed, I shall be ashamed of my country if we do not take any. I do not believe that the British people are always so unwelcoming. We run a drop-in centre for asylum seekers at my synagogue, which is hugely popular with volunteers in civil society—Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. They want to make the case that we should be offering a welcome and hospitality to desperate people. They recognise their neighbours.

The Bishop of Manchester rightly said that the,

“political rhetoric that characterises them as wilful criminals … is as unworthy as it is untrue”.

The House of Bishops letter to the people and parishes of the Church of England rightly took the politicians to task for giving in to the hostility to migrants shown by some sections of society and set our nation a challenge. As the Minister responds to this debate, I hope he will comment on what the Government, newly elected, will do to make new migrants welcome and to tackle the vile language that defines immigrants as a problem and allows “asylum seeker” to be a term of abuse in the playgrounds of Britain. I hope that he will also refer to what can be done to make those who come able to find friends and occupation instead of hostility and abuse.

However, it is not only about government, as the letter rightly says, although government is there to set a lead. It is also about ordinary people. I have seen people from mosques, gurdwaras, temples, churches and synagogues coming together to help desperate asylum seekers. I have seen them helping with food banks, establishing cafes for the hungry and establishing winter night shelters for the homeless. Interestingly, there is no shortage of volunteers for these programmes—in fact we have to turn them away. People are only too keen to help.

This may be the big society about which we have heard so much. But it is the big society envisaged by people motivated by their faith or their moral concerns, not as prescribed by government. We need to rethink the big society. It is, as the right reverend Prelate put it, a good thing as a concept but it needs to be reimagined. These people who help and who volunteer do not like the language they hear about immigrants or the fact that people are homeless and freezing in our wealthy democracy. As the bishops wrote to the churches, I believe we need a new vision of the kind of society we want to live in, and that government and voluntary sector leaders need to talk to the nation together. The language of hate should be termed unacceptable. This is not about a Christian message alone; it is about a human one. I very much hope that the Government might heed some of the messages in the letter, so that we might hear a different and more human voice from government and the voluntary sector together about immigrants and asylum seekers in the wake of this debate.

12:23

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a crucial debate about our future well-being, because our country can only thrive and be at ease with itself if citizens of all ages, ethnicities and backgrounds are empowered to participate. I am therefore grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for tabling the Motion but also for spurring me on to reread the excellent pastoral letter.

The letter rightly speaks of the new direction our politics ought to take. The present system, which has served us well, is broken. Huge swathes of the population do not participate either as members of political parties or, more importantly, through exercising their democratic right to vote. Putting that cross in a box is a powerful act that can change the way in which we are governed at local, national and European levels, but too many think it is irrelevant to their lives. How many times do we hear on the doorstep, “What’s the point?”, “It won’t make any difference”, “You’re all the same, you’re only in it for yourselves” or, “I don't know enough about politics to vote”? I find it deeply depressing that only 43% of young people voted in the general election, whereas 78% of the over-65s voted. We are failing these young people. It is not that they are apathetic—far from it, they might be frustrated but they are also enthusiastic and creative; they know how to navigate the digital world in which we live—but their energies are channelled elsewhere. It is great that the older generation participated but younger people are our hope; they are our future and democracy needs their participation.

This in turn means that Governments focus more on policies for older people—with the dreadful exception of social care—so that young people find voting even more irrelevant. Our political system becomes even more remote because policies respond not to their needs, only to what decision-makers perceive as their needs. It is also clear that many people who lead the most challenging lives do not vote. For example, only one-third of people with learning disabilities vote. I pay tribute to a fantastic initiative, My Vote Counts from Gloucestershire Voices, an organisation run by and for people with learning disabilities.

We have to change the system. We should embrace community politics, working with and for communities, listening and engaging not lecturing, and focusing on the common good—on which the right reverend Prelate spoke. Enough of the adversarial politics, the shouting and hectoring, and enough of the adversarial approach to ideas in which opponents must always be wrong. It will be no surprise that I disagree with some of the Government’s policies. I simply do not understand why they will not allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote on their future in the EU referendum, especially as we have evidence from Scotland about engagement and participation. However, I strongly support government initiatives such as the National Citizen Service and encourage my party to do likewise.

That brings me to active citizenship and volunteering, which are good for the individuals concerned and for the people and communities they seek to help: a win-win situation. I am proud to be a member of Step Up To Serve’s advisory council and I work closely with the NCS and other fantastic organisations such as City Year, London Citizens and Girlguiding UK. They do a tremendous job supporting young people to become volunteers, as well as nurturing their life and leadership skills, giving them confidence and enhancing their CVs. They help our youngsters create change, shape the world around them and build communities. Personally, I would like to explore the idea of extending the City Year model of a year of service to more organisations, as they do in the US—but that is for another day. Sadly, many of these organisations lack leaders—people prepared to give their own time. For example, I understand that more than 40,000 young boys would like to become Scouts but there are simply not enough leaders in their communities to help them. Much more needs to be done to ensure that the quality of volunteering makes the experience worth while for all concerned.

However, this is not just a matter for the voluntary organisations themselves. The state has a role. Funding is needed to train and support volunteers. Volunteering must always provide added value and never be a means of displacing paid jobs. The Government must invest in volunteering to ensure that citizens have the time and resources to engage in community life, and that they are empowered. The pastoral letter is absolutely right when it says that,

“a modern nation, where ties of kindred and neighbourliness are often very weak, requires state-sponsored action to underpin the welfare of each citizen”.

As a new report by Citizens Advice suggests, we need a new form of responsive volunteering which can address current social challenges such as an ageing population, loneliness and isolation, increased pressure on public services and labour-market insecurity. There are some fantastic examples around—for example, the superb volunteering scheme at King’s College Hospital and the charity Care Home Volunteers—but the potential is huge for volunteers and society.

This also raises the question of the devolution of power, of which the right reverend Prelate spoke. This is welcome but power should not only be devolved to local authorities, it must also flow to civil society and communities so that they can play their proper part in the decisions that affect them most. We also have to ensure that they are strong enough, have the requisite capacity to use those powers, and adhere to the principle, of which I have learnt today, of bridging social capital. Power must be shared between generations. Segregation and mistrust between the old and the young harms the communities that we need to rebuild and build.

In passing, I would like to say a word to local planners and developers. Vast new housing estates in which there are no shops, cafes, doctors’ surgeries or community facilities are simply not acceptable. This point is well understood by housing associations, which provide a socially useful good that is often much wider than the homes that they build and maintain. I met with the excellent Two Rivers Housing Association in the Forest of Dean on Monday to discuss the specific challenges that it would face in rural areas if it had to sell more homes. Even if it received an influx of capital receipts, which is unlikely, it could not spend the money in the villages of the Forest of Dean, where I live, because land is too expensive. I also learnt of the good things that it is doing to diversify, including setting up an ethical estate agency—no, that is not an oxymoron—and a facilities management service, which provides apprenticeships, training and jobs for local people, often tenants, paying the living wage. This is another means of investing in and sustaining the local community, as well as the charity itself, which would be under threat from the right to buy. Like credit unions and other intermediate institutions, housing associations have a strong unifying potential, serving poor people and others, but also wanting to benefit the wider community.

There is so much more to say about civil society and new politics and communities—not looking back with rose-tinted spectacles to the bygone era of the past, but responding to the needs of our citizens in the 21st century. I very much hope that we will have further opportunities to debate this issue.

12:31

[The Lord Bishop of Rochester]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for initiating this debate, and the opportunity to reflect on the House of Bishops’ pastoral letter, which, although issued in the context of an election, was written in the hope that it would provide an ongoing stimulus to thinking and reflecting on the shape of our society and the kind of society that we wish to be. Not least, it will provide something of a challenge to the churches, to which it is primarily addressed, but to others also, to discover afresh something that is a treasure and very much part of our story. Reference has been made to Magna Carta, and as Bishop of Rochester I would be remiss not to remind noble Lords of the existence of the Textus Roffensis, which predates the Magna Carta, although it is not quite so long, and which also merits celebration.

There is a noble and worthy story that goes right back into the deep roots of our society and which we do well to remember. Part of that story is characterised by the word that has already been used extensively in your Lordships’ debate today: neighbourliness. It is about the kind of society that we wish to be and the practical and often very local ways in which we might seek to give expression to that. It is about seeking something that may look and feel like fullness of life for all. Crucially, as we have already heard, it is about the instruments in our society, particularly those that we have described as intermediary, that have the capacity to foster local initiative and local response and give support to those who respond, often very rapidly, to things that they see on their own doorsteps.

The pastoral letter had some initial responses, and the responses may have become more measured since it was first issued, as people have actually taken the time to read and think. However, it has to be confessed that it was not a document written with ease of soundbite in mind. There is some quite nuanced argumentation in there, and I am delighted that noble Lords have clearly read it carefully and are engaging with some of the subtlety of argument within it. It seeks to move beyond the rather sterile language of right and left, private provision and public provision, and so forth, and leads us towards something that is perhaps richer and more inclusive. It asserts that,

“approaches to the well being of the nation could not succeed unless social relationships were marked by neighbourliness, strong voluntary commitment and personal responsibility”,

and bringing those together is crucial.

The reason why I think we can have some hope about our capacity as a nation to foster this kind of life and society and foster the flourishing of the intermediate institutions of civil society is that actually we have a very good basis on which to do it. Up and down the land, day by day, week by week, things are going on that are expressive of the kind of thing that we are aspiring to strengthen and see. Reference has already been made to a number of initiatives and projects. In schools, for example, there is not just what goes on during the school day but what goes on around the school day, before and after school clubs, parenting courses and things like that. There is the care of the elderly and the bereaved. There are still 330,000 Church of England-officiated funerals every week in our nation, and pastoral care goes on around that. If we add the other churches and faith traditions to that picture, it is substantial.

I heard only yesterday of a rather inspiring initiative to have a toddler group meeting in a care home for people with dementia. I thought that was wonderful. That is the kind of thing one would love to see replicated, because it has so much potential for both the people suffering from dementia and the youngsters and their families. There are other kinds of activities. Reference has been made to the ones we are all very familiar with: food banks, shelters for the homeless and so on.

In relation to churches, I shall mention some of the initiatives for the creative use of church buildings, not least in rural communities where post offices have now been located in churches, as well as community hubs, internet cafes and the like for the enhancement of those communities. Those things are becoming established now.

There are just a couple of things I would like to draw to your Lordships’ attention as particular initiatives that may merit celebration, affirmation and extension. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is well known for his campaigning in relation to payday loans and other such things, campaigns that have some considerable fruitfulness. What is less well known is some of the other work that is flowing out of that initiative. The task group which he established to look at matters of credit has initiated some really imaginative work with schools. I am delighted that in my own diocese in the Borough of Bromley we now have the Lewisham + Credit Union working with primary schools and some of our church schools to provide education to young children in financial management, budgeting and those sorts of things. It has established a savings club so that they can learn to save at that young age. Who knows what the effects would be for a generation and beyond if we could have the civil society structures, as it were, to make it possible to replicate that in other places?

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to housing associations. A little research report, Our Common Heritage, was published today, which examines the relationship, historic and present, between the churches, housing associations and the voluntary housing sector. While there is a noble heritage there, there is also a challenge, not least to the churches, about how, for example, we can use our continuing resources of land and buildings for the benefit of our society through the provision of affordable and social housing. There is a challenge there, and a piece of work has already begun that has yet to be completed.

In my capacity as bishop to prisons, I am astounded as I visit prisons and criminal justice projects of one sort or another by the contribution of volunteering and voluntary-sector organisations in that world in mentoring, programmes to combat offending behaviour, resettlement schemes and much else besides.

This is addressed to churches and other organisations and faith communities, because we are actually rather well placed to offer those spaces and platforms for people to come together in common concern and action for the well-being of society and the flourishing of the communities in which we are set.

In closing, if there is one plea to government it is to try to make sure that there are not too many barriers that get in our way. Yes, we need things such as safeguarding provision, but there are other things that could be quietly got out of the way in order to free us to respond to these opportunities.

12:40

[Lord Patten (Con)]

The speakers list as published by the authorities of the House this morning makes engaging reading, with myself and my friend and noble friend Lord Cormack down co-jointly to be the eighth speaker. I do not want to alarm the House by suggesting that we may be entering into some sort of lordly duet; we have done a deal through the usual channels that I will stand now and he will stand later. Still, it is a thought, as procedure develops in your Lordships’ House, that we might have a bit of this.

Equally engaging has been the report from the House of Bishops, on which I congratulate them. It is an interesting read and I agree with quite a lot in it. I do not want to alarm them by saying that, but I do. I was fascinated by the fact that it is termed a “pastoral letter”. It seems to be a bit of an innovation for the Anglican Church to refer to such things as pastoral letters. Whatever next? Will we shortly be having encyclicals issued ex cathedra by the most reverend Primates from their cathedrals in Canterbury or York? I await that with great interest.

By comparison, Catholics have long been used to pastoral letters, generally shortish and pithy, to be read out by parish priests at the direction of their bishops as a substitute for Sunday sermons, on everything from the need to go to confession more regularly to the need to help the poor, the lonely or those who are imprisoned. This all goes back to the opening of these issues by that great Victorian Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Manning, who fearlessly waded into secular matters, which I welcome any bishop, or indeed any faith leader, doing at any time. He was on the commission by the then Prince of Wales—Princes of Wales do this kind of thing—on housing for the working classes, in the latter part of Victorian times, and spent four hours talking to dockers, trying to bring about peace in the dock strike in the 1880s. So this is a strong tradition, and many of these things led to the doctrine of subsidiarity. Many of them then got spun into those short, pithy pastoral letters that I was told to sit up and listen to in earlier days.

The House of Bishops, by comparison, has produced something much longer: a dense, detailed document that is almost a manifesto—I do not use that term in a political sense—about how to change, in its words,

“the trajectory of our political life”.

During the course of its 52 pages, which I have read, the bat is not swung at any political party or creed, which I think is a triumph. However, some people come in for it; people who are called “self-interested consumers” come in for a bit of battering by the Bench of Bishops, although I am not quite sure who they are. However, when you get to the end, where I was expecting the ultimate pithy description of what this new trajectory of our political life should be and how to get there, the answers are still a bit unclear. I think we need to sharpen the focus.

I would like to do that today by trying to look in particular at the charitable sector. In the House of Bishops’ pastoral letter there are certainly some passages on the charitable sector in the set of pages between page 35 and 38 on strengthening institutions, but they are rather brief. I want to look at the problems of charities in civil society under the magnifying glass—in a way that I do not think the House of Bishops quite did, but you cannot get everything into every pastoral letter, however short or indeed however long. I want to examine three big problems facing what I think of as “big charity”. There is a world of difference between the 150,000 or so smaller charities, which are very close to their communities and to grass roots, and the big players—the top 50 or 100 charities with big incomes—and how they behave.

In an age when we are all rightly concerned with ethical behaviour and with transparency, those who run big charity, compared with those who run the myriad little charities, have a few questions to answer at the moment about their behaviour. First, there are questions about how they approach ways of raising money from individuals—often the widows whose mite they seek to get their hands on—using direct-mail bombardment, direct texting campaigns and insidious forms of cold-calling in the case of some nameless charities, and using not volunteers but organisations with paid-for staff. That is wrong, so I welcome the Fundraising Standards Board taking issue with them and seeking to introduce new guidelines with regard to those poor, ethically challenging practices on behalf of the big charity world. I also welcome the fact that the Charities Minister in another place, Mr Rob Wilson, has spoken to some of them about putting their house in order.

Secondly, many find being approached in the streets by third-party marketers purporting to be fundraisers—a practice known colloquially as “chugging”—pretty disturbing. I know some people who would never dream of giving to a charity which chugs, because they think it is out of kilter with what should be the DNA of a charity, whether big or small. Therefore, in their use of direct mailing, cold-calling and chugging, some in the charity world—the top 50 or 100—are in a competitive race to the bottom of charitable behaviour, and I deplore that.

Thirdly, big charity—not all of it—undoubtedly pays some of its chief executives far too much in relation to the ideals and charitable DNA of those charities; not just people getting £100,000 a year but people being paid £200,000-plus a year. The right reverend Prelates are not paid anything remotely like that, and they give an example to us all of just making do—reusing old cassocks, that sort of thing. The Anglican Church shows a lead on those matters which big charity could usefully follow.

All this increase in pay seems to be cheered on by the charities chief executives body, which is as much concerned about pay and rations as it is about pay and ethics. It is wrong. I far prefer the spirit of the anti-hunger charity Mary’s Meals, whose CEO, Magnus MacFarlane Barrow, recognising of course that staff have to be paid, and paid reasonably so that they can bring up their families, said:

“We have a conviction that those who are paid to work for Mary’s Meals should never be paid high salaries. This is because we work with some of the poorest people on earth, as well as tens of thousands of volunteers all over the world, and we would find it hard to do that while paying ourselves high salaries”.

I say, amen.

12:47

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I am rather disappointed that we have not had the duet. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, has put three very pertinent questions, and I am glad he has done so. As one who has led one of the largest charities, I think every one of those questions needs serious consideration.

I thank the bishops for their letter, which I have been rereading in preparation for this debate. I find it penetrating and challenging, and its analysis of what confronts us is very profound.

In introducing the debate, the right reverend Prelate spoke of connectivity. I could not agree more with the importance of understanding this need in society. I have the privilege to be the honorary president of Hospice at Home West Cumbria. We all know that all the research that has been done indicates that the overwhelming majority of people want to die at home—in the security of home, with friends around, in a familiar setting, and the rest. That is not cheap. I do not like to use these words, as they sound rather impersonal, but it is fairly labour intensive.

In my experience of Hospice at Home West Cumbria, I have been thrilled—and I do not use the word lightly—by the joint spirit between staff, volunteers, patients, families and the wider community, and that is typical of many other hospices working in the field. I do not want to overegg this but I keep being encouraged by the fact that in west Cumbria there is a very widespread feeling that this is our charity, and that is lovely. When there are fundraising events, the wider community is there participating in a lot of fun, because dying should not be a miserable business. It is therefore a real stimulus and a real joy for me to be involved in this work.

In picking up various messages in the letter, the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, emphasised immigration and asylum. I am glad that she did because I think that the report relates not only to those issues but to changing our psychology so that we celebrate diversity and see it as the essential richness of creation. We should therefore try not to manage it and react to it defensively but to embrace it as a new dynamic in our society.

However, there are one or two issues surrounding the role of the charity sector, in particular, which we need to consider. One is that, as the sector takes more and more responsibility for services which perhaps for too long we have seen as the exclusive preserve of the state, there is a danger of a subcontracting culture creeping in and of a management priority being to think about where the grants are going to be available and about what sort of work would enable the charity to continue its activity and so on, rather than saying, “On the basis of our experience and our analysis, what are the challenges we see? How can we persuade society to enable us to do that work?”. It is pioneering catalytic work which is the responsibility. The key to successful charitable work is, in my view, to be a catalyst for informing and generating a concern in society.

That brings me to the substance of yesterday’s business. I am very content to see the measures that are being taken on the regulation of charities, but let us be careful that we do not inadvertently become involved in a dumbing-down operation and that we do not throw away the baby with the bathwater. In introducing the charities Bill yesterday, the Minister said that the most trusted people in society are charity workers and that in fact it is politicians who are least trusted. There is a funny sort of contradiction there—that we are taking upon ourselves the responsibility of promoting regulation when the public trust the charities more than they trust us. We need to be very conscious of, and sensitive about, that.

My last point is that through my work in the voluntary charitable sector I have become completely convinced that one of the most important ways in which to serve the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed is through advocacy, but it must be advocacy based on engagement. The moment it starts to be just theoretical advocacy, it may still have great validity but it loses the key dimension of the advocacy that is available to charities—that they speak with the authority of engagement. We have to look very keenly at how we support and encourage charities and voluntary organisations to develop their advocacy and to be very full participators in the debate about public policy and the rest, because then that debate can be really informed from the grass roots upwards.

Of course, what none of us must ever forget is that if we are to have any kind of future worth living in, solidarity must be rediscovered. The right reverend Prelate was absolutely right: we have to stop just talking to the poor and the disadvantaged, and least of all to lecture them on their responsibilities; we need to stop talking about them and start talking with them, listening to them and speaking for them.

12:54

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for this debate and indeed for asking me to speak—I probably would not have noticed it if I had not been asked.

I cannot resist saying something about the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson. There was a rehearing and, as far as I can remember, there was actually no snail.

The debate gives me an opportunity to say something about the commission on religion and belief in modern-day Britain, which I have the honour to chair. Part of our terms of reference are to examine how ideas of Britishness and national identity may be inclusive of a range of religions and beliefs and may in turn influence people’s self-understanding, and to explore how shared understandings of the common good may contribute to greater levels of mutual trust, collective action and a more harmonious society. To gain something from the public, we have been inviting institutions and individuals from all the religions, humanists and pagans to respond to a questionnaire that we sent out some months ago. We have held meetings in various parts of the United Kingdom and received help from a large number of organisations and individuals.

The question, “Who is my neighbour?”, has a large number of answers, from the global community to the village square. I would like to say something about local communities, the response to diversity within such communities and the recognition of a broader understanding of “Who is my neighbour?”. However, this response and recognition is, unfortunately, patchy. In Leeds, we were challenged by the suggestion that when we walked out of each of our churches we should look over the wall to see the other communities that are outside that wall. This raises the very real danger that, within our own comfort zone, we prefer to ignore those who are different from us. Much of it derives from ignorance of other groups, together with fear of the unknown and a reluctance to break down perceived barriers.

For many years, we have in this country subscribed to the theory and practice of multiculturalism. This seems to have been interpreted in many places and by agencies as meaning that, so long as English laws are not broken, each religious, and usually ethnic, group can live in its own community with its own language, rather than English, side by side with other communities but not communicating with them. This failure in many areas to make the effort to understand and support the culture of other groups or to work together as a wider community has led to forms of ghettoism in certain places and even, from time to time, the practices of forced marriage and honour killings—here, in the United Kingdom, and by those who are born in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, to try to create wider communities is in no way a failure to respect the personal identity and culture of other people. Anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim demonstrations are of course entirely unacceptable, but they are the open manifestation of those who are not prepared to be tolerant of others, to try to understand or to try to create dialogue. Many other people hold the same views without taking that sort of unacceptable action.

There is much that we as citizens can do to take part in local initiatives. Across the country, our commission was told of the importance of local groups in small areas listening to and working with the local community. This is very much what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester was saying a few minutes ago. Many cities are actually a collection of neighbourhoods or urban villages. The impression I got was that work done by local people in the local small area was in many cases as good, and often better, than larger organisations going in and being seen to take over. For instance, taking part in the local football or cricket matches, tea parties, coffee mornings—although perhaps not during Ramadan, which is just about to take place—and so on are barrier breakers. The suggestion was made that other faiths and beliefs should be involved in important public occasions at local level, such as Remembrance Sunday.

We all need to be educated in religious literacy, and not only our children. We need to learn the culture of other communities and to celebrate diversity, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. We should cease to be defensive and should reach out to other groups. We should join a local group and become involved. Underlying all this is the need for tolerance of others and respect for the views and cultures of others, drawing the distinction between reasoned criticism and closed-mind opposition to the cultures of other people. It is crucial to make genuine efforts to communicate and to have dialogues, with a desire to listen, to learn and not to teach.

I am reminded of the character in Charles Kingsley’s The Water Babies, Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby. This is really what I am talking about and the minimum response that we should make towards those who are not like us and whom we do not understand. We all want to be treated fairly, politely and respectfully by others and we should treat others the same way. We should identify who our neighbours are in our local communities and reach out to them.

13:01

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, yes, on Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby, of course there is no commandment greater than the second one, to,

“love thy neighbour as thyself”.

This is an interesting debate and we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing it in the manner in which he did. I think every one of us is grateful for the letter. Pithy it is not. Although it is suffused with the spirit of charity, it does not exactly rival 1 Corinthians 13, but we can forgive that because it points to some extremely important things.

I am glad that the right reverend Prelate began with a reference to Magna Carta. On Monday some of us, God willing, will be at Runnymede to mark the 800th anniversary. I have been absent from your Lordships’ House on two days this week because this has been Magna Carta week in Lincoln. On Monday, the Princess Royal came to open our purpose-built Magna Carta vault, most of it donated by Lincolnshire philanthropist, David Ross, and housing the cathedral’s copy of Magna Carta in a wonderful setting.

As chairman of the Historic Lincoln Trust, my trustees and I had the task of raising the money for that. I was determined that we should share Magna Carta throughout Lincolnshire. Yesterday, we had another Magna Carta day. In the evening, we had a marvellous lecture from the noble Lord, Lord Judge. In the afternoon, he, the dean and I gave to over 100 schools in Lincolnshire a framed facsimile of Magna Carta—together with a translation, I hasten to add—and also a disc recording of Robert Hardy, the great actor, reading Magna Carta. The trust has made available one of these sets for every single school in Lincolnshire, and I hope that Magna Carta will have an honoured place on the walls and that the pupils will have the opportunity to listen to the recording and reflect. Had they been in the cathedral last night, they would have heard the noble Lord, Lord Judge, talk about the continuing relevance of Magna Carta—what the great Lord Denning called the greatest document in our constitutional history.

In a short debate, there is not a great opportunity for expanding at length, but I want to make two particular suggestions. I have made them before, but I will continue to make them until something is done about them. In a debate instituted by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury some months ago, and in an earlier debate too, I suggested that we should make Magna Carta year one in which the established church exercised some real leadership by seeking to bring together representatives not just of other Christian denominations but of all faiths within our country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, made plain in her splendid speech, all the faiths have a stake in this. If you look at all the great faiths—Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh—there are certain defining characteristics. A thread runs through them all, each one of which could be encapsulated in that great commandment that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks.

I would like to see a charter drawn up by those of all faiths to underline what we have in common. At a time when there is such threat from extreme militancy, we need this. One of the things that we need to do in this context is to make young Muslims in our midst conscious of the threats to their great heritage being destroyed and bulldozed, perhaps even as we speak, in certain parts of the Middle East. It is as much their possession as anyone else’s, and they should be made aware. I would like that leadership.

Leading on from that, I have several times in your Lordships’ House talked about the importance of citizenship. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, referred to this in her perceptive remarks—it is good to have her taking part actively from the Back Benches now. Citizenship cannot just be imposed: it is an honour to be a citizen of a great country. Citizenship brings with it rights and responsibilities, many of which are indeed encapsulated in what I call the spirit of Magna Carta. I have often argued for this—the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, has been a great supporter and a group of us have met together on a number of occasions. I would like to see every young person, when he or she leaves full-time education, go through a citizenship ceremony having before that done some compulsory community service—I do not mind whether it is looking after National Trust properties or helping old people or young people—and then receive a scroll of citizenship.

That is done now with those who become British subjects. A ceremony that was derided when it was first suggested and the idea was first mooted is now very popular. It is something that we should encourage and lead all our young people towards, so that they truly feel part of the community in which they live and will contribute to it. Many of them do that already, but let us make it a little more structured. They should be proud above all of this great country of ours, which has, through the centuries, nurtured and developed the spirit of Magna Carta.

13:08

[Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to take part in this debate. I look at the bishops and say, “You have done a good service to this House and to the bishoprics in general”. I read every word of the letter—I do not often do that—because there were so many little gems. The words were put together so well that they resonated with me. As I reflected on them, I made the decision that I would like to make a contribution to the debate.

The phrase in the letter that I want to address is this:

“Today, a fundamental question is about the extent of social solidarity in Britain. Are we a ‘society of strangers’, or are we a ‘community of communities’?”

The bishops and their colleagues have put together a cogent argument for dealing with these problems, some of which have their roots in the political field. I only wish that I could have read the letter before the last general election and passed it on to my friends. I would have said, “There is something good in here and we ought to be able to work out one or two new lines of communication”.

My main contribution is to refer to the fact I am a member of many families. This House itself is a family when your situation is what mine is. Sadly, in the past six years my wife and two sons have died. Before that, I would say to colleagues who lost a loved one, “I know how you feel”, but no one knows how you feel until it happens to you. Then, when you look around, or perhaps do not look around, your good friends come out of the woodwork and they demonstrate that they are members of a family of which you are a member as well.

When I was a boy, my dad had been on the dole for 10 years. I passed the 11-plus, but could not go because of circumstances. I knew that I had a degree in me, and when eventually the Open University came along, I graduated first with a BA and then an honorary MA. The Open University is a family to me because it does things that benefit so many people. When I first went to classes with the Open University, I sat next to an 85 year-old lady who was up to the job. She demonstrated completely what the university was: it was the university of the second chance. My second chance came along and I took it, and from that so many other fields have come along.

One of the families which has been talked about is that of your neighbours. I live in a cul-de-sac of four houses, and I am at No. 2. No. 3 has a lovely family with two little children. Twice a week, without asking for it, there is a knock on the window and I go to the door and there is the lady from next door saying, “Tonight we are having chicken salad”, or, “Tonight we are having macaroni”—“Would you like some?”. I have never said no because that is the way I was brought up, and I have never been badly served by that either. I know that her offer comes from the heart, and in return I have built up a situation whereby I buy books for the children. Also, one of my sons was keen on collecting coins, and so I keep up the arrangement that he had. Those children from next door are very well served and I look upon them as substitute grandchildren. That is a wonderful thing.

We have been talking about charities. Yesterday I saw my accountant for this year, and I saw that there are around 12 charities that I give to. I want to do that because of the awful lives that some people lead and try to overcome. That is something we should never forget. When I look at the situation of the world, it is a terrible place, which is becoming even more terrible. We want to build up the kind of concepts that are to be found in this letter; that is, that we need to be looked after.

On Tyneside, where Newcastle United has just escaped being relegated, football is looked upon as a religion, and for many people it is. It is the main thing that keeps them alive and drives them forward. They live and they die with the fortunes of the team. I was one of those. Football is a fantastic means whereby ordinary people can find something to work for and sometimes to die for.

All I want to say is this. The bishops have done the House a wonderful service in what they have put together. What the solutions are, I am not at all certain. If it is through charity, my main charities are of course the Labour Party and the Co-operative movement, both of which get some of my largesse. For someone who started from where I was, I know the value of money, but I respond and do what I can for the charities I support. I wish the letter a wider circulation and I wish it well.

13:16

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for holding such a timely debate at the start of a new Parliament. I recognise that the Church of England’s pastoral letter, Who Is My Neighbour?, is aimed at increasing the political enlightenment and engagement of the wider electorate for the election in May. However, its contents pose ongoing questions for us all as we consider our immediate and long-term society at the heart of an uncertain world. More and more of us are asking questions about how what we do in public office is of benefit and how what we do affects the lives of others outside this bubble. Individually, we need to ask what impact each of us may have on our neighbours in the world when the global problems are so vast and devastating. What happens elsewhere cannot escape us and has a massive impact in our neighbourhoods.

We know too that many who represent the public in high office are often disconnected. We have heard loud and clear the opinions of people who feel disempowered and disengaged from their leaders and representatives—people who emanate primarily from backgrounds that are far removed from many sections of our communities. People are disadvantaged and vulnerable, and they remain disfranchised. Many have spoken of their discontent, apathy and cynicism about the machinations of political parties, widening the divide and separation between people and communities that was rightly highlighted by the right reverend Prelate.

The pastoral letter is apposite in asking for a political narrative that will enable the people of Britain to articulate a vision of equality and social justice, although it is rightly not prescriptive of how we can work together to live virtuously as well as prosperously. I am speaking so that I too can praise the House of Bishops for making this important human intervention. Although I am not someone of the Christian faith, I was able to relate without reservation to the unity of purpose and strength that the pastoral letter refers to, and the desire to reach out and define us all as neighbours.

Of course, the concept of neighbours has undergone a profound transformation over the decades, driven primarily by central government policies on housing, education and economic regeneration which pay no heed to the social impact on communities and certainly pay no attention to neighbourliness. Many eminent noble Lords have spoken about this, and in my small way I too have spoken many times in this House about the apartheid and divisiveness affecting the East End of London which manifests itself in a variety of ever-deepening divisions. An example is the mismatch of young East End graduates. Their aspirations to financial success too often fail when they reach the doors of the emerging tiger economy companies of the City on the doorstep. Many of the successful City workers commute in for work while many of the neighbouring graduates take their comfort in jobs in local supermarkets, with their graduate certificates in their pockets. There are countless other examples of social, educational and housing divides that illustrate the division that the pastoral letter clearly encompasses. In this context, it is appropriate to quote the pastoral letter, which pointedly asks, “Who counts as ‘we’?”. I believe that many of us have been working over the decades to erase the sense of isolation from that “we” to begin to develop a place to live in which we can say “us” with greater ease.

Religious faith and diversity has not necessarily been synonymous with harmony, but the pastoral letter is an acknowledgement that religious allegiances and faithfulness are extraordinarily widespread and have a long history of collaboration in many parts of our countries, including in the East End. Personally, I have been privileged to have worked as a youth worker with YWCA and have worked with Toynbee Hall and Christ Church, Spitalfields when it used to run youth work with women programmes in the good old days.

At the same time, the pastoral letter recognises that people of faith have much to offer in a good society and a peaceful world, and should contribute towards such a vision. The pastoral letter relates to all people of faith to engage with the political process. I agree with this wholeheartedly. The emphasis on individualism walking hand in hand with consumer economics make this the “I” society, where “I” put myself first in a merciless, aggressive type of social Darwinism. As humans we have an inherent need to feel we belong to our society, developing social networks, shared customs, shared interests, shared places and shared religions. I agree totally with the Lord Bishops when they remark:

“'Our society celebrates the autonomy of individuals”,

but does little to acknowledge that, as social creatures, we are interdependent on each other. The role of government and society necessitates restoring this balance between the individual and the community around them, given that we value individualism. Neighbourliness and hospitality can be a lifesaver where a sense of loneliness is on the increase, particularly among those who are carers. In the gracious Speech given by Her Majesty the Queen we have been promised a one-nation Government, delivering social justice with all working people having security. In May 2015 Ministers and advisers may have read and absorbed some of the content of Who is My Neighbour?

In the 2010 election and subsequent coalition, we were told of the big society—everyone pulling together for the common aim of helping the country stave off insolvency due to the banking and financial crisis. Public sector pay awards were frozen; benefits were amalgamated, trimmed or removed completely. We were all prepared to tighten our belts for the good of each other. In no uncertain terms, we were left with no alternative but to absorb the pain for the good of each other. In a more positive way, we exhibited our unity, generosity and friendship during the celebrations of the Diamond Jubilee and the 2012 Olympics. However, the squeeze has become disproportionate to the most vulnerable in our society. The personal independence payment was promised as the panacea to simplify the multitude of benefits available to the disabled and the most disadvantaged. The rollout of PIP has been devastating for many, resulting lately in a High Court ruling that PIP disability benefit delay is unlawful. This shows clear failings in the system designed for the most vulnerable as they struggle to pay for food and fuel, causing their health to decline, and live a hand-to-mouth existence where restricted travel results in bouts of severe depression and other health problems. Citizens Advice, Scope and Sense say that this is unacceptably common, while the Trussell Trust said that,

“benefit sanctions, changes and delays”,

were the biggest reasons why people were referred to its food banks in 2015. This is not social justice. The Lord Bishops notably remarked that,

“the quality of a society is to be judged not by its overall wealth or power, but by how it treats the most disadvantaged, the poor and despised”.

There is, however, some hope on the horizon. One significant example is the fact that, as we approach the month of Ramadan, British Muslims will contribute more than £100 million to our neighbours, both in the UK and elsewhere in the world. It is not about the money alone; it speaks volumes about loving our neighbours as we would wish to be loved ourselves.

13:24

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. He and his fellow bishops have made a valiant effort to set out broad principles that might guide, in their words,

“the people and parishes of the Church of England”.

It is clear from the speech of my noble friend Lady Uddin and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that it has a much wider relevance. I am not wholly convinced, however, that the man or woman in the pew confused about voting would necessarily have emerged after reading this report with anything other than a higher level of confusion. Why? Because all the mainstream parties in this country claim to follow those Judaeo-Christian principles. Perhaps the only errant part of the election campaign was the leader of UKIP, who claimed that immigrants should have limited access to the NHS. That put him somewhat outside the pale and was immediately repudiated by his one MP.

Essentially, the aim of the letter is not to provide answers but to encourage Christians and others to think in a Christian way, as Dr John Stott did so well for all of us. The bishops give a set of principles in paragraph 120, emphasising identity and community. I come from the same city as my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, where we define our city, Swansea, as a series of villages held together by gossip. Perhaps I romanticise a little, but it is important.

Yes, the intermediate bodies and the suspicion of power that comes from,

“Put not your trust in princes”,

puts up barriers, checks and balances, but let us remember that it is not just from voluntary effort. It is the church that has been behind much of the effort of institutionalising that welfare provision. It was Adolph Kolping in Cologne, the great Catholic priest, and, of course, Lloyd George, who relied very much on his Scotch Baptist principles, who led the proposals for a welfare state in their countries. I confess that at times the principles enunciated by the prelates come rather close to Tony Blair’s third way, although they probably repudiate that. No doubt their brave efforts will be attacked from several angles. “Politics is a dirty game”, they will say, “Be separate. Bishops, keep out of politics and minister to the spiritual needs of your flock. Cobblers, stick to your last”. John Milton gave perhaps the best answer to this:

“I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue … that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat”.

Obviously, the powers that be would like a quiet life and prefer not to be challenged by the church—or they enlist the church, as Putin has done in Russia. However, as we saw in apartheid South Africa, Christians will embarrass politicians on human rights issues. I think of the work of Archbishop Tutu and Catholic Bishop Hurley, who were leaders in this field. Perhaps the civics, the small platoons that proliferated under the apartheid regime, are one of the reasons why there are barriers to the tyranny of the majority in South Africa. They must be praised. Michael Cassidy, the Christian leader from Pietermaritzburg, says that after a long discussion with Botha, the then state president, the state president loftily read to him this:

“the powers that be are ordained of God”—

scant comfort for persecuted Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere. But even those of us who are in the comfort and security of the United Kingdom must avoid the politician’s temptation to agree with everyone, to take the easy way out and to avoid values by relying on focus groups.

Who, then, is my neighbour? Christ’s answer was clear. He told a story about a Samaritan—a stranger from a despised group—who helped someone in need. The problem with the bishops’ letter is, of course, that it sets out basic principles, and in so doing avoids some hot potatoes such as the population problem and its effect on God’s creation in the environment, although I concede that it cannot be wholly comprehensive. However, it is not for bishops but for politicians to implement those principles in a world of limited resources, half-loaf compromises and competing pressures.

A current example raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and my noble friend Lord Judd concerns the migration pressures in the Mediterranean, where there is obviously a clash of values. The moral response is easy in the short term. If we have the capacity to save drowning individuals, it would be wholly immoral to fold our arms, pass by and fail to save them, so we applaud the humanitarian work of HMS “Bulwark”. But having rescued these people in the Mediterranean, is it moral then to wash our hands of them and say that they must be the responsibility of Italy or the overcrowded island of Malta?

Yet we cannot accommodate in Europe all those who would like to come here—those who wish to escape from the awful countries of Eritrea and South Sudan, let alone Iraq and Syria, however nasty their Governments are. Politicians have obligations to their own people and way of life, and it is obviously not moral to have an open-door policy. But there lies the key moral dilemma of where to draw the line. In the medium and longer term, politicians will choose a mix of policies such as destroying ships, targeting traffickers and safe-haven deals, perhaps also opening agricultural markets.

The church and politicians must work together. When Ahab was challenged by Elijah, he called him a troublemaker. May our right reverend prelates continue to be noble troublemakers. Niebuhr had it right when he referred to the,

“relevance of an impossible ideal”.

Bishops and politicians should strive together, imperfectly, to achieve the best attainable outcomes.

13:32

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate and for introducing it in such a constructive manner. To tell the truth, I would not have read the pastoral letter Who Is My Neighbour? if I had not seen this debate listed, but when I read it I was so inspired that I wanted to speak today. Therefore, I thank the right reverend Prelate for giving us the opportunity to start the very conversation that he wants us to have resulting from the letter.

I found the letter uplifting, refreshing and very thoughtful. For me, it articulates clearly a vision of the kind of society we should all be striving for. I was particularly struck by the reference in the letter to William Beveridge, because he understood that if the state is given too much power to shape society it will stifle the very voluntarism that prevents the state being hopelessly overburdened by human need. The right reverend Prelate talked about how we negotiate that and create a balance.

When I was the director of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in the 1980s, I always used to quote something William Beveridge said, which I still think is very important. He said that,

“an abundance of voluntary action outside the citizen’s home both individually and collectively, for bettering his own and his fellows’ lives, are the distinguishing marks of a truly free society”.

This letter argues for informal and independent structures that are small enough not to need every activity to be codified, through which we can learn to work together in trust, and it gives examples of intermediary bodies such as housing associations, credit unions and, of course, the churches.

I unashamedly draw the House’s attention to another intermediary movement with which I am associated as its president: the community foundations. Community foundations were started in the 1980s. Since then they have flourished. There are now 48. They are a best-kept secret and in my view need to be better known. I am passionate about community foundations, because they are about local engagement and inclusiveness—the very thinking that underpins the sentiments expressed in the letter Who Is My Neighbour?. They are about social bonding, which the right reverend Prelate talked about.

The figures showing what this movement has achieved over the last few years are impressive. Community foundations have invested £65 million in grants to community-led organisations, have made 21,000 grants, and have half a billion pounds in endowment funds. They also engage a number of volunteers. As I say, the figures are impressive, but what I like about community foundations is the thinking that underpins them. It is about local engagement, local giving and bringing together donors and doers to support local communities to meet local needs. It is about building local social capital, inclusiveness, investing in local communities, empowering local communities and valuing community-led solutions to local issues.

At the end of last year, when talking about community foundations, Mark Carney said:

“Community foundations are helping to deliver a more inclusive capitalism, one in which individual virtue and collective prosperity can flourish”.

I am very pleased to draw the House’s attention to a very positive example of the partnership work between government and community foundations. In 2011, community foundations launched the Community First endowment match challenge. This initiative, supported by government, allowed community foundations to offer donors a 50% uplift on endowment donations through government match funding and thus provided a catalyst for the work which community foundations undertake. This programme finished in 2015 and was assessed to be a great success. The flexibility gained through the introduction of a national pot or central reserve of funds to lever local giving was invaluable.

In the light of the success of the Community First endowment match challenge, will the Minister please tell the House whether the Government are minded to do something similar in association with community foundations? If not, will the Government please consider looking at such schemes that lever local funds and engage local communities and that may contribute to our vision of one nation?

13:37

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for putting this Motion down for debate today.

It is regrettable that we did not get the opportunity to debate this issue at the end of the last Parliament, before the general election, but the issues raised in the report are still very relevant and are there for us all to see. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for five years and in that time I have always been impressed by the work of the 26 Lords spiritual, the contribution they make to this House and the work they do outside in the community. This report is another excellent example of the work that the House of Bishops in the General Synod have undertaken. I am pleased that the church has moved into this territory. It is a challenge to us all, particularly those of us engaged in party politics.

In November this year, I will have been actively engaged in both the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party—in good times and in bad—for 38 years. It is always a pleasure to speak in a debate in which my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton is participating. Like him, I enjoy watching football. However, as a supporter of Millwall Football Club, there has not been much to cheer about in recent years.

The obituaries for all parties have been written many times and always prematurely, although we have very serious problems in our political parties in Britain today. We are in a period of great change in our country and in the world for a whole variety of reasons, as the scale and speed of change gets faster and faster and seems more out of reach of people. That raises some fundamental challenges for political parties and the wider civil society in 2015.

Calling for a new politics is in itself nothing new. There have been many calls over many years, but the pastoral letter from the House of Bishops is something different and we should all welcome it. I do not for a minute believe that change is going to happen overnight, and unfortunately during the recent general election there were numerous examples of business as usual in the political process, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.

However, as we start a new Parliament, I am going to be optimistic about what can be achieved. We, of course, should be grateful that we live in a mature, stable democracy where the result of an election is accepted and respected and that, win or lose, you have the ability to make your point and have your say. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that I like living in Britain today and have never hankered for a bygone age that never really existed.

I agreed very much with the report when it disagreed that religion and politics cannot mix. The problems we face as a nation are often the subject of heated debate and I like it when the church feels strongly on an issue and enters that debate. It can offer a different perspective and leadership and can provide pressure, setting out what needs to be done. I can think of examples where I have agreed with the position that the church has taken and also where I have disagreed with its position. I very much associate my remarks with those of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who was disappointed that the lesbian, gay and transgender community was not mentioned in the report.

In the section of the letter on,

“Apathy, cynicism and politics today”,

I very much agree that the vast majority of politicians and candidates enter politics with a passion to improve the lives of their fellow men and women. We might disagree on what needs to be done or on how to do it, but that in itself is not a problem. People also engage in wider civil society for similar reasons. It can be to improve the local community, something on a very small and local scale or something on a much larger scale with a national charity or organisation. I am a trustee of the United St Saviour’s Trust, which works in north Southwark and Bermondsey and has been there for 500 years—it does a lot of good work. I am also involved in the council of Diabetes UK on a national level.

It surprised me to read that, according to the polls, the vast majority of people believe that it will make no difference who is in power. I suspect quite a lot of us here would disagree with that, but it tells me that we are collectively, as politicians and parties, failing to communicate in an effective manner, so can we be surprised about the cynicism and apathy about politics? I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon on her comments about the engagement of voters. I also read with amazement, and some disappointment, that apparently 900 votes made the difference between the Tory Party having a majority in the House of Commons and being only the largest party in the general election.

As the letter points out, parties increasingly target smaller groups of voters in a select number of constituencies, and in other constituencies voters get less attention from the parties. The adversarial nature of politics here has produced an adversarial approach to ideas that may not always produce the right or best outcomes, to which my noble friend Lady Royall also referred. It does, though, present civil society in general with an opportunity and challenge to present ideas and solutions to the problems we have, here and abroad, in a way that can be embraced across the political spectrum or at least parts of it that are not confined to one particular political party.

I very much want to be a part of a “community of communities” but can see how much we have become a “society of strangers”. The speed and sophistication of the communications world has people glued to iPads and other devices and not talking to people face to face. On the other hand, we have the Royal Voluntary Service and other charities doing great work to try and combat loneliness in the elderly community and stem all the problems to mental and physical health that loneliness brings. I think that the church is right when it calls for a sensible approach to social policy and that we are a “community of communities”.

We have seen significant devolution of power in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but in England that has generally not been the case, although there are proposals before your Lordships’ House in the form of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. Where we are able to devolve power to the most appropriate level, this can have the effect of re-engaging people, re-engaging civil society in the decision-making process, and better decisions can be made. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, bridging social capital is an important part of this process.

As the report highlights, there is a deep contradiction in the attitudes of a society which celebrates equality in principle yet treats some people, especially the poor and vulnerable, as unwanted, unvalued and unnoticed. Some of the terms used to describe those who rely on social security payments can imply that they are undeserving and not worthy recipients of welfare. This is not only on the front pages of some national newspapers but also on blogs and social media sites, such as Twitter. These sorts of attitudes and activities can be counterproductive and deter others from offering the informal, neighbourly support which could ease some of the burden of welfare on the state and be for the common good.

Moving on to talk about a “community of nations”, I think that we in the United Kingdom can be very proud of the role we have played in bringing nations together and taking a leading role in drafting conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope we are never in the position where we would remove our name as a signatory country to that convention. Other European institutions may have their problems but trust and co-operation among the European nations, as the letter highlights, has been a good thing and should be celebrated and welcomed. We are interdependent on our closest neighbours in Europe and the threats to our security come from other more volatile parts of the world.

The commitment from civil society to push to get the 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid into law is something we can again be very proud of. For me, equality and the pursuit of a fairer and more equal society and the role civil society plays in achieving that is of paramount importance. By becoming more unequal we all lose. The widening gaps between the poorest and richest in our society should be of concern to us all.

I am a director of London Mutual Credit Union and every week we hear heart-breaking stories of people in all sorts of difficulties when they come through our doors and we try to see whether we have a package of financial products that can help them. The Credit Union Expansion Project, put forward by the Government, is a very welcome initiative but we have to do more to enable credit unions to offer a selection of financial products that are right for their members. I have called on the Government before, and do so again, to do more to divert some of the fines that are levied on financial institutions that do wrong and put that into programmes to ensure a de minimis level of provision no matter where someone lives.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester mentioned the excellent work being done by the Lewisham Plus Credit Union, which is really doing a very good job. London Mutual Credit Union has also been working with Southwark Council. Every young person attending secondary school has a saver’s account opened for them at the credit union and the council deposits £10 into the account.

The rise of food banks in one of the richest countries in the world is obviously very worrying. A whole group of people are described as the working poor; they are working but are unable to earn the wages to support themselves and their families and have to rely on welfare payments. That is truly dreadful. The living wage for employees has been something that we can champion, but champion not only by saying that it is a good thing but by actually taking positive action. I very much like the idea that no company or voluntary sector organisation, when bidding for public sector contracts, should be disadvantaged by paying the living wage to their employees.

In conclusion, this has been an excellent debate on the excellent document that gives the Government and the rest of us much to think about and reflect upon, such as healthy political parties, strong civil society and healthy debate. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, said, so much goes on that we are very proud of, each and every day, by volunteers in a whole variety of initiatives and organisations. Again, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for putting down the Motion for the debate today.

13:48

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that my first debate is on the civil society. I would like to echo all those who thanked the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for tabling the Motion, and to thank him and so many others in the House for their extremely thoughtful speeches.

Churches across the right reverend Prelate’s diocese are involved in projects to make our society stronger, so I know how passionately he feels about this subject. I also pay tribute to others who have spoken in this debate, all of whom have contributed so much to communities across the country, be it to hospices, educational charities, health organisations or credit unions—the list is very long and varied. I hope that I can do justice to the many interesting points that have been made.

I would like to start with a quote about neighbourliness, which runs as follows:

“In our own life the intimacy of the neighborhood has been broken up by the growth of an intricate mesh of wider contacts which leaves us strangers to people who live in the same house … diminishing our economic and spiritual community with our neighbors”.

These words were written not in today’s Daily Mail nor in the Telegraph, but 100 years ago by the sociologist Charles Horton Cooley—a name I have to say I am not that familiar with—an American who was writing at a time of profound social change in America.

I quote this to echo a simple point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester: throughout history, what some people have hailed as progress, others have seen as unwanted, corrosive and unsettling change, and for each generation the pace of change seems to accelerate and, with it, the sense of dislocation. Today the pace is indeed dizzying, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just said: the digital revolution, globalisation and the changing nature of our society are just three of the forces shaping our world. It is little surprise that once again many of us feel a sense of bewilderment and disorientation, especially at a local level, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out.

That is the backdrop to our debate today, and while I heed strongly what many have said about the problems facing our society, I cannot help but wonder sometimes whether we are succumbing to that very British disease of seeing the glass half-empty. I do not for a moment want to belittle the concerns that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans expressed in his perceptive speech, which others have echoed in different ways—especially the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in her very eloquent speech. We in this House are not here to sweep problems under the carpet but to debate how they might be solved, yet I would like to slightly redress the balance and bring a little bit of sunshine into the debate.

First, on political tribalism, obviously there are divergent views about how we might run our economy, for example. But there are good cases where parties come together, such as the scrutiny given to the charities Bill, which I presented to your Lordships yesterday, or the National Citizen Service, which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned. Yes, we need to get more people engaged in politics and involved in their communities. But let us not overlook the progress that has been made: 3 million more adults volunteered last year compared to 2009-10. I could cite many examples of this but will consider just a few.

The National Citizen Service has seen 130,000 participants. There is the hugely successful Community Organisers programme, training over 6,000 organisers to work in hundreds of communities up and down the country: or Code Club, a network of volunteers who teach coding in primary schools. On top of all that, obviously, is the kaleidoscope of charities that continue to enjoy the unstinting support of the British public, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester spoke eloquently about. Just last night, for example, as I returned home to Battersea, I came across hordes of runners who had taken part in the Race for Life—a sight which made me feel exhausted—in just another example of the big-hearted, generous spirit one finds in communities across the country.

Giving is up since 2009-10, with 75% of individuals giving to causes important to them. This is worth about £11 billion a year, making Britain one of the most generous nations on earth. So we should pay great tribute to the civil society sector, which over the past few years has remained resilient through difficult times. Supported by nearly £200 million of investment from government, huge numbers of organisations have had to transform themselves to be able to continue to deliver effectively in very different and fast-changing economic and social environments.

We should also acknowledge the transformation that the Government have made to improve regulation and simplify, where possible, the environment for charities. Here I pay tribute to the excellent work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, through his drive to unshackle good neighbours and deliver a valuable review of charities legislation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester made a point about the simplification of regulations. While we can and must consider how we address the challenges we face, we should not forget the good things that are already being done and we should always think about how we can do better still. The question is how.

Here I turn to the term “civil society”. Much ink has been spilled defining this term and theorising about it. The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Cormack both referred to Magna Carta. Here I dredge my brain and my history lessons, but I think that I am right in saying that the Magna Carta of 1225 as opposed to that of 1215 was granted by the King because he needed to raise extra cash and tax. This highlights in one’s mind the critical link between civil society and liberties on the one hand and economies on the other. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach eloquently pointed out, strong civil societies are built on strong, enterprising economies in which low taxes encourage investment and reward hard work, in which the state does not crowd out nor overregulate private enterprise, and in which the fruits of labour are shared fairly and wealth creation is not despised but championed. These are economies in which jobs are created, giving people that all-important independence, a sense of worth and, above all, the freedom to follow their ambitions and realise their dreams. More than that, they are economies in which the state can truly afford to invest in schools and hospitals and help those in greatest need—economies in which people can afford to help others, not just look after themselves. I am not saying that without money individuals are devoid of a sense of charity, altruism and a wish to help others, but simply pointing out that in a prosperous economy, people have greater ability to help others and to strengthen the bonds on which a civilised society is built. Conversely, in an economy that goes bankrupt, it is the poorest who suffer most.

A strong economy is the bedrock of a civil society, but what are the bricks? I turn to the House of Bishops’ letter. I thought that it was a very good letter, and rather than dwell on the differences of policy—for there are some—I would rather focus on where we agree. There are many points on which I agree with the House of Bishops—indeed, my copy of the letter is well thumbed—but I will cite just three. The first is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, focused on: Beveridge. The letter says:

“Beveridge understood that if the state is given too much power to shape society it will stifle the very voluntarism that prevents the state from being hopelessly overburdened by human need”.

How very true this is, and it is unfortunate that we did not heed those words more when they were written.

My second quote is:

“When law and regulation intrude too far into everyday life, they create a ‘chill factor’ where anxiety about the rules prevents people acting freely, sensibly or with wisdom, even in areas which are not, in fact, governed by official regulations”.

I say, “Hear, hear” to that as well, and it raises the very interesting points about the duty of negligence that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, made.

My third quote is:

“The Church of England strongly supported the Big Society”,

and its ideals,

“could still be the foundation for the new approach to politics, economics and community which we seek”.

I am delighted to read those words and will set out a few characteristics of such a society.

I will start with a slight caveat. I adhere to the principle that:

“Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made”.

As John Stuart Mill warned us, large, grandiose plans to shape society may dwarf, maim, cramp and wither human faculties. Instead, we need to give people and the communities in which they live more freedom, more choice and more independence. Indeed, we need to buttress the tolerance and open-mindedness that the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, eloquently referred to, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, while avoiding the pitfalls of multiculturalism that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke of.

What does this mean in practice? There are a number of aspects, but I will cite just a few. First, such a society is one where people, wherever they come from, have opportunities to get up and get on in life. What does that mean? A million more pupils are now being taught in good or outstanding schools. But this Government will go further, tackling those schools that are coasting or failing so that all our children get the best possible start. This includes being taught about our democratic system and citizenship at key stages 3 and 4, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Cormack knows, although I will peruse with interest his points about citizenship.

Secondly, such a society is one where more people have the chance to fulfil their talents. Some 2.3 million jobs and more than 2 million apprenticeships were created during the last Parliament. More women, lone parents and older workers are in work than ever before. Our aim now is to achieve full employment and create 3 million more apprenticeships.

Thirdly, a civil society is one where the less well-off are supported, while those who fall on hard times are helped back on their feet. In the last Parliament the number of households where no one works fell by more than 600,000, its lowest level in a decade. Now, with a tax-free minimum wage and a welfare system that rewards effort, we will create more opportunity for those who can work, while continuing to protect those who cannot. I was delighted to hear the views of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester on this as well.

Fourthly, it is a society in which the Government are close to the people they serve. A number of your Lordships raised devolution. I say that free schools, local enterprise partnerships, elected police commissioners and local communities being given new powers over key community assets are all policies to strengthen ties and relationships between neighbours—bridging social capital, as the right reverend Prelate said and as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned.

Next, while controlling immigration, we need to welcome and support those who come here to settle and who do their best to contribute to society. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, made a number of eloquent points on this and I would be delighted to talk to her further. If I may stress one point to her, it is that the DCLG has an £8 million community fund to teach the English language, from which 33,500 adults have benefited.

Finally in my list, a civil society is one in which volunteering is encouraged and charities supported. Let me turn to a couple of specific points on that. My noble friend Lord Patten made a forceful intervention referring to big charities, and especially to their fundraising techniques. As he said, my honourable friend the Minister for Civil Society met with the self-regulatory bodies and made it clear that action must be taken, and quickly, to protect the long-term reputation of charities and address concerns expressed in recent days. As regards pay, that is a matter for charities’ trustees. They need to publish details in their accounts if senior executives are paid more than £60,000; that transparency will give the public the ability to decide whether to support those charities. Charitable trustees need always to bear in mind that it is upon the trust and generosity of the public that their future depends.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was absolutely right to point to the need not to overwhelm the charitable sector with new regulations. We need to get the balance right and I am confident that the new powers contained in the charities Bill are focused, targeted and proportionate. The third specific point, relating to community funds, was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I can make no commitments as regards funding from this Dispatch Box but I intend to write to her about the very interesting points that she raised.

While rebuilding our battered economy, much has been done over the last five years to help strengthen our civil society. Let me give just a few examples. The Centre for Social Action is investing £40 million in high-impact social action projects driven by communities, seeking to work better with public services, including for people who need full-time care, the elderly and those who need support to live the final stages of their life in dignity. The Government have also created the world’s first ever social investment bank, Big Society Capital, unlocking more than £100 million of funding for communities at local level through Community First. As I mentioned, the National Citizen Service has seen more than 130,000 young people experience a programme of activity that has at its heart a message of individual responsibility, with more than 2 million hours of social action and 7,000 community projects stemming from this programme alone. As I also mentioned, one of the key aims of the charities Bill, which was debated yesterday, is to encourage charities to make more social investments that will deliver both a financial and a charitable return. Charities currently have more than £60 billion of assets, yet just £100 million of that is invested in such projects. This is a great opportunity for our little platoons to do more in their chosen fields.

So over the next five years, this Government would like to see more social action and volunteering, with community participation embedded in our lives from young people’s schooldays onwards. We would like: increased levels of giving and philanthropy; more businesses with greater sustainability at their heart; more social investment, enabling investors who want to use their money to have a profound social impact and deliver positive social change; and stronger, more resilient, more capable and more empowered communities, with a rebalancing of power away from government, enabling those communities to make more of their own decisions, shape their future and respond to the challenges that they face. But, where people need them, we would like better, more responsive public services, utilising the expertise of voluntary, community and social enterprise sector volunteers.

I end by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for tabling this Motion. It has been a debate rich in insight and full of ideas as to how we can strengthen the bonds which underpin our communities. While we may disagree on some of the means, I think that we can all agree on the ends: a bigger, stronger, tolerant society, where communities seek fulfilment and well-being by each doing their bit; a society where communities are more resilient, capable and empowered; a society where people are encouraged to help others; and a society which has an active and diverse voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. This is civil society, built on the solid foundations of a strong economy, and I look forward to debating and discussing with your Lordships what more can be done to help foster this society in the weeks and months ahead.

14:05

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, as a bishop of the Church of England and as a Member of this House, I am used to having some pretty strange titles, so I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for creating a new one for me—“noble troublemaker”. I cannot respond to all the points made but I am grateful to noble Lords for their wide range of contributions—significantly, from all Benches in this House. People really have sought to rise above simply reiterating party-political points and have tried to think about some of the more long-term and deeper questions underlying our political and civic life.

I would be the first to acknowledge that Who Is My Neighbour? does not deal with many issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised issues which we were not able to address. However, I need to mention in passing that there was a section on environmental sustainability in the report. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, on his concerns about one or two of the statements on unemployment, that I would be delighted to send him the background statistics if he wants them. I simply reiterate that I am of course delighted by the decline in levels of unemployment and the creation of new jobs. I have said that on a number of occasions, including in this House, especially where those jobs are permanent posts. We need to acknowledge that and be grateful for it.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was just a little disappointed when he turned to the conclusion. The pastoral letter was one to members of the Church of England, and we invited others to eavesdrop on our conversation, but we were clear that we wanted it to be part of a larger debate. That is what we have been doing today. We hope that this will not be the end of it and that others will engage. I hope that it signals the intention from the Bishops on this Bench that, during the coming years, we want to play a full part in those debates as we think about how we can strengthen our political institutions, and reboot and restrengthen our civic life to the benefit of all those who live in this nation. I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions.

Motion agreed.

RBS

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

14:08

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend the Economic Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement regarding the Chancellor’s speech at the Mansion House last night.

First, on the Royal Bank of Scotland, the £45 billion that the previous Government put into RBS represents the single largest bank bailout in the world. This bank employs over 60,000 people in Britain and provides over a quarter of all the small business lending in Britain. Its problems and slow recovery have been one of the biggest drags on our economy, as many smaller firms know all too painfully. The restructuring of RBS and the work that Ross McEwan and his team have done since have brought us to a decision point.

This Government were not responsible for the bailout of RBS, or the price paid then for shares bought by the taxpayer, but we are responsible for getting the best deal now for the taxpayer and doing whatever we can to support the British economy. As the Chancellor set out, there is no doubt that starting to sell the Government’s stake in RBS is the right thing to do on both counts.

That is not just our judgment—it is the judgment of the Governor of the Bank of England, whose views the Chancellor sought and whose letter on the issue we published last night. In the governor’s words:

‘It is in the public interest for the government to begin now to return RBS to private ownership’.

He goes on to say that this,

‘would promote financial stability, a more competitive banking sector, and the interests of the wider economy’.

Indeed, he adds,

‘there could be considerable net costs to taxpayers of further delaying the start of a sale’.

It is also the conclusion of the independent review which we commissioned from Rothschild and also published last night. It says that beginning sales now and increasing the free float will improve the marketability of our remaining stake, and it means we can expect to see larger sales on better terms in the future. But only if we start now.

This independent report confirms that if we take into account all the sales we have authorised of our bank assets, and the fees we have received, at the current valuation taxpayers can expect to make £14 billion more than they paid out. So in the coming months we will begin to sell our stake in RBS. It is the right thing to do for British businesses, British taxpayers and the British economy. When we take all the bank interventions in total—Lloyds, Northern Rock and scheme fees—we are making sure that taxpayers get back billions more than they were forced to put in.

Of course, given the size of our stake in RBS, the sales will take some years and will likely involve all types of investors. With such a complex investment case, we have to start with institutions but, as the Chancellor said, there is no reason why ordinary investors—in other words, members of the public—should not take part in due course.

Turning to Royal Mail, as the Chancellor set out last night, the first sale of our remaining stake has begun. The Government have today sold half of the 30% stake they retained in Royal Mail plc, at a price of 500p per share. This sale has raised £750 million, and that money can be used to reduce public debt.

We have said that we will dispose of all our shares in Royal Mail in this Parliament. We will continue to review the options in light of our stated sale objectives, but there is no rigid timetable. Value for the taxpayer remains the priority.

The Chancellor also announced last night that the Government intend to gift up to 1% of the shares of the company to Royal Mail’s UK employees. This is in recognition of their work in turning Royal Mail around.

Finally, the Fair and Effective Markets Review yesterday published its final report. It sets out 21 recommendations to help restore trust in the wholesale fixed-income, currency and commodity markets.

The review was established by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England in June 2014 to help to restore trust in those markets in the wake of a number of recent high-profile abuses. It is centred on four principles. First, individuals must be held to account for their own conduct. Secondly, firms must take greater collective responsibility for market practices. Thirdly, regulators should close gaps in regulatory coverage and broaden the regime holding senior management to account. Fourthly, given the global nature of these markets, co-ordinated international action should be taken wherever possible to improve fairness and effectiveness.

As the Chancellor set out in his Mansion House speech last night, there is no trade-off between high standards of conduct and competitiveness. Implementing the reforms set out in this review will ensure trust in our markets and strengthen London’s global leadership position.

This Government have a long-term plan to make the UK economy the most prosperous of all the world’s major economies in the coming generation, and for that prosperity to be shared widely across our one nation. The steps we are announcing are a key part of achieving a new settlement for our public finances and for our financial services industry, and will help us secure that bright future for all. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

14:14

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. He could have spared us the reference to the long-term economic plan, which seems to vary and inflate almost from day to day in terms of the length of time that it occupies and the objectives that are set for it.

I am pleased that the Statement recognises that the taxpayers who bailed out RBS during the global financial crisis want value for their money and are somewhat suspicious of any rush to sell. That is why they will be suspicious of the Government’s actions at this time. RBS is still restructuring its business and it is very difficult to see the outcome. It is still awaiting a US settlement for the mis-selling of subprime mortgages. In case noble Lords have forgotten, the global crisis started with subprime mortgages in the United States. Banks started to collapse long before a Labour Government were ever considered to have overspent as the basis for the global crisis. I hope that we will have no references to that in this short debate on the Statement.

The Chancellor said two years ago that he would countenance the sale of RBS only when,

“the bank is fully able to support our economy and when we get good value”.

Does the Minister really think that these tests have been met? While we have always supported the eventual return of RBS to the private sector, it is surely essential that the Treasury gets back as much money as possible to help pay down the national debt, and therefore to limit the impact on the wider population of the costs involved. RBS of course had to be bailed out with great urgency but it does not have to be sold off at the same speed. It is not the case that the Governor of the Bank of England is telling Ministers that the price is right now. He makes it very clear in his letter that questions of valuation are entirely for the Government; it is their judgment which is, rightly, at stake.

On the specifics, can the Minister clarify exactly what the Government accept as a break-even share price for the bank? A potential £7.2 billion loss might be understating things because the Rothschild calculation, which is the basis for that figure, has netted off the fees that the Government have received from the bank since 2008.

When it comes to Lloyds, the Treasury has already pledged that shares sold through the Government’s trading plan will not be sold for less than 73.6p—the price the Government paid for them. That is the red line for Lloyds. What is the equivalent red line for this premature sell-off? Why cannot the Minister give us more detail about precisely when the sale will commence? What impact does he predict that that will have overall on the debt reduction?

It is important that we do not allow the Government to state that RBS losses can be put against the gains that will potentially be made in other areas such as Lloyds. RBS was purchased by the public in dire circumstances and taxpayers have every right to insist that the Government get their money back. But we are not too confident that the Government can do this; we saw their recent effort regarding the first part of the sale of Royal Mail, and look what a mess they made of that, with a loss for the public purse.

Finally, it may be noted that the Chancellor made his statement to the banking community last night, and the Minister repeated constantly in his contribution what the Chancellor said to the bankers. They are an important section of the community, but I do not think it does this Government any credit when Parliament is treated in such a mean fashion: when a junior Minister—a junior Minister—speaks in the other place and a Whip speaks in this place. Much as I have regard for the talents of the noble Lord who is addressing us, he will recognise that this Statement deserved a Treasury Minister speaking here, and that the Chancellor ought to have spoken in the other place earlier today.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have been away from the markets too long over the last two years, at the Department for Transport, to know whether this is the right time to be selling off either RBS or Royal Mail. However, first, although I only skimmed it, I did not find that Rothschild’s report to be terribly enlightening. Secondly, if this is a fire sale to fill holes in the budget because the Government are foundering on trying to find that impossible £12 billion in welfare cuts, and have handcuffed themselves in terms of raising taxes through their commitment to a law to prevent them from doing so, that is absolutely the wrong answer. This should not be used to fill other holes in the bucket unless we are getting the best possible value for these two assets.

I want to make a final try to persuade the Government to take a much more constructive approach to returning RBS to private hands. The Government should be breaking this bank up, into either regional or community banks, to begin to remedy a critical missing layer in our banking system. The Government carried out a half-hearted review—I know how much they resisted even doing that review—of alternatives to simply passing this back as is, as it were, to the public. They used an investment bank to do the review, which was exactly the wrong choice—an institution which cannot understand the dynamic. This should go out to the public: there should be a discussion with small businesses and a general consultation to try to decide how we can best return RBS to the private sector.

Small and medium-sized companies find it difficult still to access credit, and that credit is vital to economic growth and absolutely vital for productivity, which the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, has often talked about. On Monday, we had the debate on trade and investment, and noble Lords brought out the difficulties for small and medium-sized companies in raising export finance. Leading economies that successfully grow their small businesses, such as Germany, the United States and Switzerland, have some form of regional and community banking. We are missing this layer, and here would be a great opportunity. Of course we have new players—challenger banks and peer-to-peer lending—but RBS, broken up, would really shift the landscape. Surely keeping RBS as it is continues the too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-manage problems that we all bemoan. Although it is guilty of plenty of scandals, RBS largely failed the old-fashioned way by making appalling loans.

The taxpayer is not going to make money on this sale, so why not use it to achieve something much more important than immediately money—a shift in the banking landscape that would underpin growing prosperity? Once this opportunity is lost, it will never return.

I will make one last comment, on the fair and effective markets review. I need time to go through that in detail, but the RBS losses are a reminder of the depth and the consequences of the banking crisis. We all always knew that when the crisis itself passed, the banks would begin their special pleading, sweetened with a little blackmail, to reverse both the penalties and levies that they faced and the regulation that has now been introduced. I ask the Government not to go wobbly on us. We need the Government to stand tall and carry through on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and others to give us a secure banking system.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their remarks. First, the noble Lord opposite commented on the mention in the Statement of the economic plan. The long-term economic plan is the reason we are able to make this sell-off at the moment and why we think that it is for the benefit of the nation to do this now. We make no apologies for mentioning the long-term economic plan, which has been so successful.

The noble Lord referred to a rush to sell. There is no rush to sell and there is no question of a fire sale. The Government—the nation and the taxpayer—own 79% of RBS, and there is no question of selling the whole lot as a fire sale. At the moment, we are going to sell bits of it in tranches, first to institutions: that is the way that is most suitable and the way recommended both by the Governor of the Bank of England and by independent advice. We have met the tests that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned. We will obviously get as much as we can for the sale and certainly intend to get value for the taxpayer. If all goes well, based on prices at 5 June, there will be £14 billion more than we paid to rescue the banks. It is not unreasonable to put those together, because this is part of the overall government strategy of returning these banks to private hands so that they can operate in a more effective way.

I completely agree with the noble Lord opposite that it is the Government’s judgment in the end to decide on the price. It is the Chancellor’s responsibility to get the best price for the Government, and he is perfectly prepared to take on that responsibility. In fact, he mentioned in his speech that it would be much easier for him to wait until the share price went up and not do the initial tranche at a loss. However, he is not going to do that, but is going to make the right decision for the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked why we do not have a red line, as with Lloyds. We are going to allow the sale to happen in tranches, as I said, and the price will depend on what happens as those individual tranches go through. It is a bit rich for a party that sold gold at an all-time record low in government to complain about Royal Mail and getting the price wrong.

It is true that the Chancellor made his annual Mansion House speech to bankers. That is a perfectly normal place to talk about economic policy. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s last point, when he asked why the Chancellor did not make the Statement himself and why the Treasury Minister here did not repeat it. I have to be honest and say that I asked that question too, but of course the reason is that my noble friend the Minister is doing important government work elsewhere for the benefit of the nation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was honest enough to admit that she has been away from the markets too long to quote the correct price, unlike the noble Lord opposite. She referred to a fire sale. We are not, as I said, selling this all at once. The pricing of these things is very difficult, and it is important to know that the loss that people are talking about is only if we sold all of our 79% share at the existing price that pertained on 5 June. The loss or profit may go up and may go down. That of course applies to the overall £14 billion profit that I quoted, which is dependent on the price that pertained on 5 June.

The noble Baroness referred to a lost opportunity to reorganise RBS before we sell it off. That is a slightly different theoretical question. It is an important one, but it is beyond today’s remit and the question of price. However, it is important to know that our strategy in selling banks and putting them back into the private sector is because we want them to do their job properly of supporting SMEs and British business. They will do that better in private hands. That is what our independent advice told us. The governor was very clear about that.

14:29

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, the restructuring of RBS is certainly to be welcomed but the gap between the price paid for the RBS shares and the price now is very significant. If the policy of the Official Opposition is that we should wait “till we get our money back”, we may wait a very long time indeed. Surely it is better, as the Chancellor proposes, to make a start in the process of disposing of these shares on what is the best basis at a particular moment of time. However, would my noble friend also agree that the practice of imposing fines on banks for misbehaviour has an adverse effect on their share price, penalises the shareholders and, in this particular case, penalises the taxpayer as well? There is no significant evidence that it has any deterrent effect on bad behaviour. Surely it is much better to go for the proposal now made by the Governor of the Bank of England, which I hope will be backed up by legislation, to impose heavy penalties—criminal penalties as well—on those who are actually responsible for causing the damage to the banking system which we have experienced in recent years.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My noble friend is exactly right. He talked about fines on banks. It is very important, as he mentioned, that the Governor of the Bank of England spoke in his Mansion House speech of increasing penalties from seven to 10 years so that individuals know that they cannot play with the balance sheets of their banks and get away with it, and the penalties as such rest on the shareholders. I completely agree with him. Personally—no, “personally” is irrelevant. The Government think that, despite the fact that we increased regulation, made it more efficient and increased criminal penalties, the most important thing is the culture and ethics of the bank. That is from the top of the bank downwards. If bankers and their boards and chief executives know that and are absolutely determined that ethics should prevail, we will be in a much better position than we were. That is the single most important thing.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that somebody from the other side might get up, but evidently not. I welcome the Statement, as it goes, particularly in terms of selling the RBS shares. However, I hope my noble friend and the Government will not take too much criticism for selling them at a price below that which the Government paid. As an old stockbroker—admittedly, it is 30 years since I was one—one knows that a share is worth what it is worth at the moment, not what you paid for it. If you go on looking at what you paid for a share, your future will end in tears. The reason you hold the share is that you hope its value will go up and not down, and you wonder if you have anything better to do with the money instead. That is why you should possibly sell. I welcome that. As my noble friend Lord Higgins said, this is only the start of the sale process. It is not necessarily all to be sold at this price. If you were to wait until some time in the future when the share price might get up to what it was bought for, you could wait for ever and ever. Also, although my noble friend already said this, he does not want to take too much advice from the party opposite about this sort of thing, as we all remember the gold sales with billions and billions lost.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My noble friend is correct. Of course the Government are prepared to take criticism if criticism is due, but in this case it is not. We must also remember that it was not this Government who paid the purchase price but a previous Government who had to deal with a crisis situation brought on by, among other things, the chaotic system of bank regulation. If this Government are prepared to deal with that in a way that can provide an overall profit to taxpayers, they should be—as I am sure they will be—duly given the praise they deserve from all parts of the House.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has said several times that it will take some years before the whole sell-off is complete. Will he confirm that, while the Government remain responsible for the administration of RBS, it is their intention to press ahead with the disengagement between the investment side and the retail side? I ask that because RBS has recently, in Scotland, announced the closure of some of its small branches. That runs against the whole history of the Royal Bank of Scotland. As my noble friend Lady Kramer said, the local branches under the authority of a branch manager used to be a positive help to small, local businesses. Unfortunately, that has long since gone, and I hope we can get it back.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, the Government have legislated to implement the Vickers ring-fencing recommendations through the banking reform Act, and it is now up to regulators to finalise those detailed rules. The Government remain committed to the implementation of the ring-fencing regime by 2019. The ring-fencing of retail banking services will help to make sure that taxpayers are not on the hook again if the bank fails in future.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can enlighten me. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that lending to sub-prime borrowers happened before the last Labour Government. Does my noble friend know why the last Labour Government did not then act? Was it not because the banking regime under that Government was extremely weak? Has it not been tightened very effectively in recent years?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Of course, the banking regime has been tightened, as we all know. I mentioned a few minutes ago criminal penalties for rogue traders and also the officers of banks. It is true that when we look at the previous regime, there is no doubt that we are making progress in that respect. As I said before, it is important that the culture is there in the banks. I believe that that is better than it was.

[Lord Hollick (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell the House why it is considered that now is the right time to make this sale. Incurring a £15 billion loss for the taxpayer is clearly a rather painful experience. The reasons for selling shares in those circumstances are usually either that you have run out of money, which is palpably not the case here, or you fear that the shares will trade lower. The reasons given by the Bank of England are interesting but, in investment terms, not convincing. Could the Minister explain why it is necessary to do this now?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

First, if the Government thought that the price was to reduce in future, they would sell the whole lot now—and they are not. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Governor of the Bank of England said that the return would promote financial stability and a more competitive banking sector. He also said—this has not been mentioned—that avoiding the sale would have the potential to incur considerable net costs to the taxpayer, further delaying the start of a sale.

Rothschild’s advice also said that by starting the sale now,

“the government will increase the free float which should in turn improve the marketability of the remainder of its shareholding”.

It will also send,

“a strong signal that RBS is on the road to recovery and that its reprivatisation has begun may also bring further benefits to the bank and therefore to the taxpayer as a shareholder”.

Currently, the:

“Market conditions for financial assets and bank shares are … good”.

The overall accumulation of that advice is that, in the absence of unforeseen circumstances, taxpayers can comfortably expect to secure proceeds from their interventions in the banks that exceed the money they put in.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords, there was a stage when Governments owned travel agencies and steelworks, not very profitably. It is not right for Governments to own those businesses and it is not appropriate for Governments to own banks. I am delighted to hear that the Government are making a start—probably only a small one—in exiting RBS. No doubt, the bank will thrive more in the private sector. Would my noble friend agree with me that at some stage it would be desirable for the customers of the Royal Bank of Scotland to be offered shares in the bank?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

They have been offered an ability to participate in the purchase. The Chancellor said that although the first tranche will be done on an institutional basis because of the complex investment case, there is no reason why customers and taxpayers, importantly, should not be able to participate in the sales at a later date, and I very much hope that that will happen.

Developing World: Women

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

14:40

Moved by

[Lord Loomba]

That this House takes note of the case for empowering women, including widows, in the developing world in order to aid conflict resolution and the long-term sustainability of more stable societies.

[Lord Loomba (LD)]

My Lords, empowering women is critical to both sustainable economic development and resolving many of the world’s most challenging conflicts. I declare my interest. Many in this House will be aware of my own foundation’s work to empower widows in the developing world, so will know that I speak from some experience of the tangible benefits that arise when women are empowered, both economically and socially.

I am particularly grateful that we have the opportunity to debate this important issue today, in the run-up to the fifth UN International Widows Day on 23 June. The timing is also important, given the ongoing discussions at the United Nations about the renewal of the millennium development goals and the post-2015 development agenda, discussions in which the United Kingdom Government will be playing an important role.

Women are still too often the victims of unacceptable discrimination in all societies, whether this be economic, social or political. Across the developing world, women are prevented from taking leadership roles, reaching their economic potential and contributing to securing a sustainable future for their families and the communities in which they live. This is particularly problematic in post-conflict situations. In this House, we recognise that women have a right not only to live healthy lives but to play a full and equal political, economic, and social role. This is also the collective view of all countries represented at the United Nations. Indeed, there is a wealth of UN legislation to support it. But, despite welcome progress in some areas, such commitments are still too often poorly implemented and monitored. More needs to be done if the potential power of women, including widows, is to be unlocked.

Empowered women are an asset for any society. They can lead to stronger economies, greater social cohesion and a more valid and legitimate political system. This issue is not, therefore, just about women; husbands, fathers, children and communities will all benefit in a multitude of ways if women are empowered. Part of the solution to empowering women must be at the political level. Women remain marginalised from the political sphere in most countries of the world. This is the result of a combination of discriminatory laws, practices and attitudes and gender stereotypes, as well as lower levels of education, lack of access to healthcare and the disproportionate effect of poverty.

In 2013, just 20% of national parliamentarians were female, a slow but welcome increase from 11% 10 years ago. There is now significant research to demonstrate that empowering women politically at any level has tangible benefits for development. For example, research on panchayats, local councils in India, showed that the number of drinking water projects in areas with female-led councils was 62% higher than in those with male-led councils. This is not just the case in developing countries. In Norway, a direct causal relationship between the presence of women in municipal councils and childcare coverage has been identified. Imagine what could happen in the UK if this House, or indeed the other place, was to have a greater representation of women.

Political empowerment of women is therefore priority number one for ensuring development issues that affect women are on the agenda wherever they need to be. Secondly, there needs to be greater focus on the economic empowerment of women to create strong and stable societies. Investing in women’s economic empowerment directly facilitates increased gender equality, poverty eradication and inclusive economic growth. Evidence from a range of countries shows that increasing the share of household income controlled by women changes spending in ways that benefit children and families. But women still too often face discrimination, meaning that they lack the education to be able to access economic opportunities. When they access work, it is often in the low-paid and insecure sectors. I was struck by the following statistic. If women had the same access as men to productive assets, agricultural output in 34 developing countries would rise by 4%, translating to up to 150 million fewer hungry people. Economic empowerment must therefore be a priority.

Thirdly, in terms of conflict resolution, UN Resolution 1325, passed in 2000, calls for equal participation by women in the maintenance and promotion of peace and security, and for the mainstreaming of gender perspectives into conflict prevention, peace negotiations, peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance and post-conflict reconstruction. In 2009, the UN Security Council called for the development of global indicators to track the implementation of this resolution. Despite this, there has been a large-scale failure to make progress and there continues to be underrepresentation of women in peacebuilding processes. But women need to be involved in peacebuilding, partly as a matter of right but also because they are in practical terms crucial to creating lasting peace. As I have already outlined, women are essential to economic development, and this is even more vital where men have died or been dislocated by conflict. This requires the education of girls and the expansion of access to economic opportunities for women, for example through credit schemes and training. The exclusion of women in the peacebuilding process can lead to their economic capacities being underutilised.

Women also play a critical role in re-establishing social cohesion and political legitimacy after conflict. Women face specific threats in the aftermath of conflict. This is particularly the case with sexual violence. Where women are not involved in peacebuilding, it is more likely that their rights will be violated. Involving women in peacebuilding offers the opportunity to redress existing inequalities and to rebuild a better society in which all members feel a sense of ownership, something that surely increases the chances of lasting peace.

However, women’s involvement is being held back, partly because women are not a homogenous group, and their needs can vary dramatically in post-conflict situations. Consider the different needs of ex-combatants, victims of war crime and widows, for example. We cannot treat them all the same. This will require more time and resources to ensure that all needs are addressed and that women from different parts of society can be included in the process. As a country, we must support the implementation of the UN’s seven-point action plan on women’s participation in peacebuilding, ensuring the participation of women and girls in conflict resolution, planning processes, financial decisions, civilian capacity and political representation and ensuring legal rights and economic empowerment.

We should also support wider campaigns around violence against women, such as the UNiTE to End Violence Against Women campaign, and we must ensure that, in addressing the needs of women, men are also involved. Gender injustices will be addressed only if men also believe in them, buy into them and support them.

I want to turn to the plight of widows. No women are more vulnerable and more discriminated against than widows, particularly in circumstances of economic underdevelopment or in post-conflict situations. Widows are the victims of double discrimination: first, because they are female, and secondly because they are widowed. Becoming a widow in the developing world can have far-reaching consequences for individuals and those dependent on them. They can include: impoverishment and the intensification of existing poverty; increased health risks, including malnutrition; infectious diseases, including sexually transmitted diseases; and social marginalisation, for reasons of stigma or because the affected widow has resorted to begging or prostitution. Many widows face quite appalling physical, sexual, economic and mental abuse. According to a comprehensive report on the plight of widows worldwide, to be published by the Loomba Foundation on 23 June, the number of widows worldwide has risen by 9% since 2010, with traditional causes compounded by additional factors including Ebola, conflict and famine. Including the dependent children and families of widows, it is now estimated that nearly 1 billion people worldwide are adversely affected by widow’s poverty, and nearly 15% of them are living in extreme poverty.

This is a very significant development issue. The deprivation faced by widows and their children is a human rights issue of such magnitude that it demands recognition and action by international bodies and special consideration in development programmes. I will therefore close my contribution today with this challenge to the Government as they contribute to the UN discussions on the post-2015 development framework: the new framework should include a stand-alone goal on achieving gender equality and women’s rights and, unlike the previous millennium development goals, all future goals should specifically refer to areas such as widow’s deprivation. Only this inclusion will ensure that all women benefit in each country, including widows, who are too often invisible in such situations and in progress reporting. For the future success of sustainable development goals, making widows a particular focus will enable help to reach some of the most vulnerable women on earth, giving voice to a group of women silenced by their circumstances and without the means to make a change to their lives for the better.

Sustainable, workable and realistic future goals rely on ensuring that the people who need the help of the goals are at the forefront of their implementation. More often than not it is women who find themselves in need of the assistance the MDGs endeavour to provide. Therefore it makes sense to ensure that women are empowered to implement these goals and are in a solid position to take on the difficult task of sustaining them to make future growth and stability possible. Focusing on women, and especially widows, not only gives a voice to many who do not have one and are not able to participate in any meaningful democratic process but ensures that their voice is heard within the context of their problems and their struggles, helping to ensure success for future sustainable goals. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate and the time for Back-Bench speeches is 11 minutes. I would be grateful if noble Lords could keep to that time.

14:57

[Baroness Prosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reminder. I am the first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for putting down today’s debate because we are all aware that the plight of so many women and girls in so many parts of the world is absolutely a blot on humanity. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for taking part in the debate, because we need more men in this House and elsewhere to play a part in understanding this issue and to be determined to join in the fight for women’s empowerment.

This week I have been exchanging emails with the tireless campaigner on behalf of widows worldwide, the indefatigable Margaret Owen. She is currently touring the Middle East lecturing, listening and persuading the powers that be to address the poverty and disrespect currently suffered by so many widows in so many countries. Margaret has over the past two weeks been in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, countries where many of us fear to tread. For those who have never met Margaret Owen, my understanding is that she is in her early 80s, so for a woman of that age, never mind any other person, that is a major achievement.

Margaret emailed me details of comments made by a lecturer in Beirut regarding some of the current practices of ISIS. She reported being told of ISIS price lists for women and girls, including pre-puberty girls deemed ready for intercourse. She went on to report the practice of holding kidnapped girls, 100 at a time, described as child virgins, ready to lure jihadi recruits. From the safety of this Chamber all we can do is to make sure as many people as possible are aware of these gross violations and bring this knowledge to the attention of those in a position to change matters. We want to ensure that those in positions of influence understand that the issues discussed here, relating to women as they do, do not run alongside issues of a more general nature—or even a more male one—but are integral to our work, approaches, decisions on funding and rebuilding of countries in conflict. In other words, the Government need to address the whole question of gender mainstreaming within and across their departments.

Some good things are of course happening. I applaud the preventing sexual violence initiative taken two years ago by the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague. The PSVI and the consequent conference held last summer sent a powerful message to the world that the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war should be declared a war crime. What actions are in play to follow up on this initiative? I recognise that the initiative was from the FCO, but I hope that there is a measure of cross-departmental approach to the work.

Also, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women was invited to the UK last year to see for herself the work being done and the determination of government to eliminate this horrific crime. While she was able to meet with many senior government officials and of course Ministers, can the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, tell the House why she was not allowed to visit the women detainees in Yarl’s Wood detention centre? This did not send out a positive message to the rest of the world.

I turn to what gives us the real solution to this terrible problem. In February last year I initiated a debate in your Lordships’ House on the National Action Plan on Women, Peace & Security. I said then and say again that the top and bottom of the issue is about power. While women remain powerless they will not be able to extricate themselves from positions of danger or deprivation. Power must mean voice—it must mean access to decision-making, education, paid employment and influence. Government initiatives must start at a local level, must include women in rebuilding societies, and must expect that women will want to and are capable of moving on and up so that they become just as much a part of the fabric of their society as are the men. Without power, all else is lost.

Some 15 years ago our Government, along with others, signed up to the United Nations Resolution 1325. There was unanimous agreement. We must put more effort into ensuring that that resolution is translated into action in a very vigorous and positive way.

Finally, I will say a couple of words about an entirely different but linked matter. The women of Afghanistan have a tradition of writing poetry, sending two-line verses to each other by a variety of sometimes quite ingenious means. These are women who live in outlying villages. I had the pleasure last week of meeting with a woman from an organisation called Poet in the City. It engages in all sorts of ways to bring the City of London and its history alive through poetry and verse. It is promoting the Afghani women’s work and bringing it to a wider audience. That is a minuscule step in the journey which will bring confidence to women in just one part of the world where so many of them have no voice or independent rights—very soft power as part of our armoury, but still very important and much needed.

15:03

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Loomba on securing this debate. I have never witnessed the work of the Loomba Foundation up close, but I have been a fan and I have watched his work from afar over these last 10 years or so, and it is deeply impressive. His ongoing commitment to the cause of widows in particular is something of which I am tremendously proud, as I hope his family are.

I am delighted to take part in today’s debate to tell noble Lords about last month when I visited a shop. I had the great good fortune to be asked by VSO to be a volunteer, and as part of my volunteering placement I visited a project in Lesotho, which is run jointly by an ex-mineworkers association and VSO and is called Phoning Out Poverty and AIDS. All across southern Africa there are women whose men went off to work in the mines of southern Africa and who have succumbed to pneumoconiosis, TB or HIV, and those women live in abject poverty. With the aid of a phone company they were given a container, in which they have established a community phone shop. It is the sort of shop that, if it were in Manchester, would be the subject of an ongoing soap documentary, because it is at the centre of the village and has all the bits and bobs.

There are three great things about it. Number one: a woman who was so ill with HIV and AIDS, having been impregnated by a teacher when she was a schoolgirl, and who had nothing and was bed-bound, has now earned enough money not only to get some furniture but to be able to afford the fares to the local clinic to get some treatment. She is back on her feet. Number two: the project has not only allowed people to make phone calls but is giving them HIV and AIDS information, and increasing the health of that village. Number three: a veritable battalion of grannies work in that shop. Grannies are unmistakable the world over. These particular grannies go to that shop and between them secure income for over 50 of their grandchildren, who were previously starving. That is the economic empowerment of young women and girls, and as the granddaughter of a former migrant mineworker it has impressed me greatly.

Part of my overall placement with VSO was to talk to and train parliamentarians across southern Africa to campaign for sex and relationship education, but in particular to end the scourge of child marriage. Child marriage and early pregnancy are two of the biggest determinants of poverty and ill health of girls across the world. Billions of young women are forced into relationships way before they are physically ready for them, and as a result are enduring lives of poverty.

Will the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, say what the current Government are doing to continue the work that was started by my noble friend Lady Northover and Lynne Featherstone in the previous Government to ensure that DfID continues to work with parliamentarians across the world to ensure a decrease in the rate of child marriage? There are areas of the world where rates of child marriage are going down. There are successful programmes, which we should be supporting and extending.

My noble friend Lord Loomba talked about the critical importance of the next few months. We all know that we are in the final run-up to the meetings at which the new strategic development goals will be determined and, crucially, the budgets—the resources—that go with them. There will be a meeting in Addis Ababa in a few weeks at which our Government will be present to talk about financing for those development goals.

It is significant that many of the international development charities, building on the work of Amartya Sen, have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to achieve overall empowerment and enrichment of societies if you do not work through the empowerment of women and girls. So will the Government, through their coming work over the next few months, ensure that there is a strong stand-alone goal on gender equality and women’s rights, that there are specific targets for increasing women’s full and effective participation, and that programmes to go behind that development goal are funded to make sure that, from small corner shops in Lesotho to national Governments and internationally, there is a coherent programme of economic development?

Finally, I commend to noble Lords a report that was published in January this year by Age International, which talks about the truth of ageing and development. It is a series of essays, one of which was written by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. In it, she sets out a number of points that are often overlooked about the role of gender and older women’s inequality in development. In so far as we have data, we know that women are likely to live longer but are much more likely to have longer periods of ill health due to the fact that they have had little in the way of economic or educational choices throughout their lives. That, together with poor nutrition and inattention to their sexual and reproductive health, all takes a toll in later life. Even within countries there will be some communities where the effect is disproportionate. In Serbia, for example, the overall position of older women is relatively good, but within the Roma community in Serbia there is a very difficult problem in relation to older women and poverty.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, draws attention to a fact about international development that I had not previously thought about, and that is the impact of dementia. Not only are women increasingly engaged in what is called family care, although it is really female care, for growing numbers of people with dementia, but occasionally, because of a lack of knowledge and awareness in communities, they become vulnerable. People accuse them of witchcraft and so on, and there have been a growing number of incidents where older women have been killed as a result. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, opened up in her essay a new area for research, and I ask the Minister whether she will consider looking not just at gender-specific data but at age and gender-specific data to back up some of this work.

The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, was absolutely right to return our attention to this subject, and I hope that if noble Lords ever get the chance to go to Lesotho, they will drop by a very special corner shop.

15:11

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for both securing and introducing this timely debate, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, on her appointment to DfID.

The case for empowering women is glaringly obvious but in that process we must not forget girls because, if girls are empowered from an early age, it becomes the norm. Adolescent girls in particular should be seen as valuable members of society in their own right and not just as “future women”.

Ample evidence shows that there is a link between gender inequality and violent conflict: countries with high levels of violent conflict also have high levels of gender inequality; countries with higher levels of civil and political empowerment of women have lower levels of violent conflict; and countries with higher levels of economic empowerment of women have lower levels of international violence. So the case for empowering women in developing countries is very compelling.

Our Government are to be congratulated on the priority they have given to the empowerment of women and girls and their commitment to this work. DfID’s commitment to gender equality and empowering women and girls through the strategic vision for women and girls and the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, focusing on the impact of official development assistance on gender relations and gender equality, are truly welcome. Equally welcome is the FCO’s United Kingdom National Action Plan on Women, Peace & Security, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser.

Despite the priority given by our Government and despite a number of international agreements to include women in peacebuilding processes, women are often absent from those processes. Opportunities during post-conflict periods—that is, during constitutional reform processes, political settlements and the establishment of democratic systems and laws—are often missed. In my view, these opportunities are sometimes missed because of culturally determined gender roles and social norms, as well as the legal environment.

Therefore, any strategy to empower women and girls must focus both on building the confidence, skills and capacity of women and girls and on working towards an enabling environment which supports the empowerment of women and girls. I say that because I have taken a close interest in the work of the British Council, of which I am the deputy chair. In countries such as Nigeria and those in the Middle East and north Africa, it has a number of projects relating to stability, reconciliation and peacebuilding. In north Africa and the Middle East, it is supporting advocacy and the empowerment of women. It does this in conjunction with DfID. In Africa, particularly Kenya, it is working with the Premier League—that is, through sport—to make sure that some of the prejudices that exist between boys and girls are dealt with. In the Middle East, there is another project called Springboard, which helps people with empowerment and has been used by 10,000 women. Some of them were here last week, when I had the opportunity to talk to them. It was really heart-warming to hear how they have benefited from these projects.

I want to dwell a little on the lessons that have been learnt and why these projects are successful. That has something to do with the approach taken by the British Council. It understands the context in which it works and it has a deep knowledge of the countries so as to be able to support these initiatives. It also works with local partners. However, the most important part is that it takes a very holistic and systemic approach, and this experience reinforces what I have already said: that it is important to work at all the different levels of society if that work is to be effective and sustainable. It also tells us that the inclusion of men and boys in the change process is essential, and it is important to focus on the cultural, social and legal environment as well as on the social norms. We have to see this from end to end, starting with girls and going right through to old age. We cannot focus on particular sections of women; the focus has to be on girls, women and the elderly. The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made about the report to which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, contributed were very pertinent.

In my view, gender equality and women’s rights are key to addressing the unfinished business of the millennium development goals and accelerating global development beyond 2015. The post-2015 framework should retain a strong, stand-alone goal on gender equality and women’s empowerment, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and as recommended by the United Nations High-level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. It should also include gender-specific targets and indicators in the other goals. I believe that this framework should take a holistic view of gender inequalities, including education, economic empowerment, health, an end to violence, leadership and influence, participation in peace and security, and the contribution to environmental sustainability. The framework should also build on the lessons that have been learnt from the work that has already been done, because I do not think that enough emphasis is put on cross-learning. It is important that we learn from the projects which are already under way and look at how the lessons from them can be incorporated.

This is a golden opportunity to finish the unfinished agenda, to accelerate inclusiveness and equality, and to make development truly sustainable. It is a unique opportunity to build on the achievements of the millennium development goals and to address the dimensions which are lagging behind by learning from the experiences of those working on the ground. I consider that to be very important. I cannot emphasise enough—and not because I have a close knowledge of it—the work and projects carried out by the British Council with the support of DfID. There is some real learning to be had there.

I finish by saying that it would be very helpful to hear from the Minister what the Government’s approach is likely to be in the coming months. Will they be urging a more holistic and systemic approach to empowerment and encouraging people to build on the learning that we have had to date?

15:19

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I, too, want to thank Lord Loomba for securing this debate and giving us this chance to discuss with the Minister and the Government our priorities and contribution to these issues across the world.

We all know that there is a strong link between the well-being of women and girls and peace, security and development. It is in our UK national plan and is a very big part of my own experience. I am privileged to be a trustee of Christian Aid, and we deliberately prioritise investment in women and girls to secure the transformation and development of needy societies. Within my own Anglican tradition, the Mothers’ Union Worldwide does amazing work in places such as Rwanda, empowering women to transform communities. In my diocese, we have an annual harvest appeal and, for the last several years, have invested in helping women in Delhi set up recycling businesses and, this year, helped educate girls and women in Angola. It is right on the forefront of making a difference. My work on the Modern Slavery Bill opened my eyes to the appalling international abuse and oppression of women through sexual violence and exploitation.

I am very pleased that we include widows in this debate. Some noble Lords may have noticed that, in May, we had Christian Aid Week, and there was a particular focus on widows in Ethiopia. We know from work that we are already doing there that investing in cows and providing a means of a livelihood for women, and then for their families if they are widowed and become the head of the household, creates not just economic empowerment but gives people status in the community as a proper agent and therefore a much stronger position, especially for their daughters, to stand up against things such as forced early marriage or female genital mutilation. If we empower widows in that way as they head households, it has an amazing effect on the children, especially girls, in those households.

The UN estimates that one in three women suffer from beating, sexual coercion or abuse. It is an issue of confronting social norms and institutions, because it is those social values and institutions that enable this oppression and abuse just to roll on. It is very important that we do not depict women simply as victims needing help, but as contributors with a very important part to play. One critique of the millennium development goals, as you know, was that focus in this area was perhaps on symptoms rather than causes—trying to reach out to empower women in an initial way but not giving them the capacity to make a difference to cultural norms and their institutional frameworks. The danger is that women are seen as providers and consumers for the benefit of the family. That can be a cheap way into development—women provide and are consumers to develop the family.

It makes me think of the struggles in the 19th century in our own country, when Ruskin and others developed the doctrine of the two spheres. This was designed to help women by saying that women had a sphere in which they should really grow and develop—that of the home—and men dealt with the world and all the stuff outside. That was an attempt to be positive by creating space for women to grow in. However, it is such a powerful doctrine in the DNA of countries across the world that it in fact entraps women, as we know. My own Church of England has only just succeeded in the struggle, after years, to appoint a woman as a diocesan bishop. There is still an amazingly patronising, two-sphere kind of culture, not just in our church but in our country. If it is a struggle in our own culture, how on earth are we going to help contribute in developing cultures to moving away from that kind of mentality, which is so oppressive?

It is an issue of power relations, education opportunities and cultural values, and that is the most difficult thing to get transformation on. All the evidence shows that an unregulated market of goods and cultural values actually makes the situation worse for women because it gives the impression that development is happening and that there can be economic benefit. However, if we do not tackle the gender imbalance that is built into cultural values, an unregulated market makes this problem worse in development, rather than better, by giving some signs of development but, underneath, women are trapped in these very limited and oppressive spaces.

There has to be a multipronged approach involving government, business and faith groups. In Christian Aid, we work with partners on the ground that know about the pace of change and how to deliver it. I just heard a report at a Christian Aid board meeting of a seven-year project to work with communities to help the male elders begin to involve females in the leadership of their tribes. It took seven years to make any change. That local expertise and sensitivity is needed to make a social transformation that will last, rather than some great perfect plan that everybody says yes to but does not really buy.

It is the same with economic development. Christian Aid works in Malawi with women with HIV and malaria. The project is not just a medical, caring one, which is the way that development for women is often done; it involves giving people loans, facilities to develop businesses and mentoring so that the development is wholesome and the culture is challenged to change, with women taking leadership roles, across not just politics but economic activity.

I would like to finish by asking the Minister to consider four questions. The first is to add my voice to that of a number of others in this debate on the sustainable development goals. How might the Government ensure that there are targets on gender equality and women’s rights and opportunities, and widows, in those sustainable development goals? What are the Government’s plans for these last few months of negotiation?

Secondly, picking up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, we could do a lot more to collect data in many countries about rights, social groupings, incomes and the pattern of development. We have the wherewithal to bring data together and see new things that might identify where women are being held up and not enabled to contribute and to make a difference. How do the Government see their role in helping to enable data collection and analysis, and what contribution can this country make?

Thirdly, I told you the story about a seven-year project to get women even beginning to be involved in the political leadership of their tribes. How can the Government offer funding, through DfID, for instance, that is for the longer term and for a sustainable timeframe? What are the Government’s funding policies and priorities that will enable projects to work over seven years in a given place and not just in the short term, which is often what many deals are about?

Finally, what part might the Government play in challenging the unregulated market forces that unintentionally, I think, make the problem worse? What can the Government do to have a proper counterbias to change the gendered culture and give space for women to contribute? The market does not give space for that and the two-sphere idea is still pretty powerful in developing countries. How could the Government articulate, through DfID and its investment and support, a real gender bias to counter the inertia of that two-sphere culture that the market otherwise can just uncritically develop?

15:27

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for bringing this most important subject before your Lordships’ House. The empowerment of women, particularly in the developing world, has long been an interest of mine. I would also like to welcome the ministerial appointment of my noble friend Lady Verma. I have known her a long time and admire her long-standing work and commitment to empowering women.

Conflict has a significant and disproportionate effect on women and, as we have already heard, they are usually excluded from peace processes. Therefore, even after the men have stopped fighting, there is still no peace for women and they are left voiceless, to suffer in silence. This was starkly brought home to me when I visited Liberia a couple of years ago. The sexual violence of the conflict had embedded into the society and it was all too commonplace that girls as young as 12 were routinely subjected to rape. Today, warfare has moved from battlefields and into communities. Women now face the danger of conflict up close, sometimes in their own homes, and all too often without protection. It is thought that 90% of deaths in conflict today are civilian, with 70% of them being women and children, and those who survive are often subject to sexual violence, shattering lives for the long term.

The terror inflicted by ISIS today in Iraq and Syria is a shocking illustration of this. It has abducted and raped thousands of women, selling many into prostitution. Last month I visited Iraq and heard of a Yazidi girl who had been sold 21 times in Syria. At an IDP camp, I met some of the women who had fled from Mosul and Sinjar; their stories were indeed harrowing, and they were homeless with no means of support and were worried as to how they were going to feed their children.

While women are often the poorest in a society, widows are the poorest of the poor. Widowhood is one of the most neglected of all the human rights and gender issues. All the chaos and turmoil of the warfare of the last decade has created millions of widows and wives of the disappeared, who become the most vulnerable in their societies. It was recently estimated that the number of widows in Iraq alone had reached approximately 2 million. Afghanistan is a country with one of the highest proportions of widows in the world, as four decades of conflict have left millions of women without a husband.

In many of these countries, societal norms mean that women cannot function in society without a man. It may not be acceptable to walk down the street unaccompanied by a male or to work outside the home, thus family stability is destroyed and too often women and their families become destitute. In Kabul, you see widows begging beside the road and you see young boys selling food products because it is unacceptable for a woman to do so. In some countries in Africa, widows may be regarded as a chattel of the community and subjected to abuse and exploitation. They may not be allowed to inherit or own property. Thus a widow may be turned out of her home, or forcibly made to marry a member of her husband’s family. Too often, widows are held in shame, ostracised and abandoned by their communities, adding to their sadness, poverty and the stigma of widowhood itself.

Disturbingly, there are no official statistics on the number of widows in the war-torn countries. This lack of reliable data means that the plight of widows is severely neglected, impacting not only on their livelihood, but on that of their children too. Widowhood is not just the root cause of poverty and inequality, but is the reason that millions of children of widows—daughters as well as sons, vital to a society’s prosperity and future—are denied education and well-being, and this has a knock-on effect on the country’s development.

I declare an interest: during the past few years I have got to know, and at times worked with, Margaret Owen of Widows for Peace through Democracy. Following the death of her husband, she became aware of the plight of widows in conflict and developing countries and founded one of the first organisations to focus on this issue. I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, about Margaret Owen. She is indeed in her 80s and, as we speak, is travelling in the Middle East. She is an incredibly remarkable woman and her ground-breaking work and tireless campaigning time and again raises the issues of widowhood. WPD, her organisation, is an umbrella and support for many widows’ organisations in countries across the world.

This year, the 59th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women focused on the Beijing Platform for Action as it is its 20th anniversary. In its declaration, the commission expressed concern that progress had been slow and that gaps and obstacles remained in the platform’s implementation. It also recognised that new challenges have emerged and committed to using all opportunities and engaging all stakeholders to achieve their aims. However, Beijing made no explicit mention of widows and, in reviewing its implementation, surely widowhood issues should be addressed.

The purpose of today’s debate is to make the case for widows, and women as a whole, to be included in conflict resolution and thus to help create long-term sustainability in countries that have been torn apart by war. This year is also the 15th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which focuses on the situation of women in conflict with its four pillars of prevention, protection, participation, and relief and recovery. However, although many countries have adopted national action plans on the implementation of UN Resolution 1325, few have allocated proper funding or resources.

Last year, the OECD reported that only 3% of peace and security funding is used with gender equality and women’s empowerment as a principal objective. A UN survey of peace agreements also illustrated that, between 1992 and 2011, women were fewer than 4% of peace signatories and less than 10% of negotiators. Excluding women from peace processes means that not only are their needs overlooked but their knowledge and experience are not utilised. Building stability in a post-conflict country needs the input of the whole of society—you cannot have true peace in a country where half the population is excluded from decision-making. So instead of seeing women just as victims, it should be recognised that women have the ability to be powerful agents for change in their communities. Surely some internationally agreed funding of women’s rights groups would go a long way towards addressing this implementation deficit. To realise the goals of Resolution 1325, dedicated budgets, with clear lines of responsibility and accountability, that actively involve and include civil society are needed.

In the context of UN Resolution 1325, I applaud the ground-breaking work done by our military. Today, often the first person a survivor of conflict will meet is a soldier. In Kurdistan last month, I met some of our military who are training the Peshmerga, not only in fighting techniques but in protection of civilians and helping survivors of sexual violence. In the DRC, our military engaged with women in communities. This not only helped with their protection, but helped with intelligence of what was going on on the ground. I hope that we can embed this work into the MoD and that other countries will follow the UK’s lead.

Women’s voices are rarely heard in the developing world, and those of widows even less. Surely this is the time to stop widowhood being a neglected issue. Widows’ needs must be addressed within the context of poverty, human rights, access to justice and the elimination of violence. When considering the millions of widows across the world today, I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a key component to the wider success of the women’s empowerment agenda. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for bringing forward this debate, for it is by discussing these issues and shining a light on the needs of the poorest in society that we will help to bring about the fundamental changes that will contribute to stability in the countries which need it so desperately.

15:37

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, at the outset, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. I look forward to working with her on our shared interest in international development. I also want to pay tribute to the contribution made over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, to our understanding of the strength and determination shown by women who have been widowed. They need and deserve our deep respect and support. We have heard that in a number of contributions this afternoon.

Too often, women are described as victims, but I would say that they are fighters, survivors and protectors. Recently, women’s groups in Nigeria were able to reach a compromise with oil companies that benefited the whole community. In Afghanistan, I have met women who have shown enormous courage and leadership in very difficult and dangerous circumstances. Women have a finger on the pulse of what their communities need and deserve, and it is women who can and will bring peace and stability to their communities. In every respect, women have a vested interest in the critical objectives of peace, security and reconciliation.

As we have just heard, UN Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security specifies that women must be part of seeking and managing all peace processes, but it remains the case that too often they struggle to secure their right to this role. Can the Minister reassure the House that, as the NGO Saferworld has said, more attention will be given to the conflict prevention aspects of the women, peace and security agenda, including by understanding how gender relates to the underlying drivers of conflict and violence? Regrettably, the fine words that we hear have not often been translated into real and tangible change. Women are too often portrayed as victims instead of being offered the opportunity to be fully integrated into both formal and informal peace processes to actually prevent violent conflict and sustain fragile states.

The fact is that there are examples of fine words that have been translated into real change. In Northern Ireland, South Africa and Rwanda, we can see the difference that engagement with women makes to governance and peace. Women’s engagement is not, as some might claim, with stereotypical soft issues. On the contrary, women can add skills, understanding and experience to the issues, but tragically they often struggle to hold on to their place on the political agenda.

Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that UN Resolution 1325 mandates that all states must ensure women’s full participation in all peace processes? What is the Minister’s assessment of the effectiveness of that mandate so far? Is it not the case that even after the passing of many national and international frameworks, endemic discrimination and gender-based violence remain significant barriers to achieving the 1325 goals? Increasingly, we recognise that such violence against women and girls is a defining characteristic of modern warfare and that women are being targeted as a way for male combatants to humiliate and undermine other male combatants. In many conflicts, rape is used as a weapon of war to humiliate and dominate, and to disrupt social ties. The proof of this is that we have seen 39 active conflicts over the past 10 years, but very few women have been a part of any peace negotiations.

When I see a picture of a large table of people deliberating on how to deal with conflict, I know without looking very hard that it is unlikely that women, who actually are the peacemakers and the activists, will be in that picture. They are generally ignored and will not be sitting at the table. The reality is that this neglects a rich source of skills, insight and energy, and we neglect it at our peril. A shocking statistic is that out of 585 peace treaties drafted in the past two decades, only 16% included any specific reference to women.

Over the years, I have been fortunate enough to see the work of women activists, and I can vouch for their ability to negotiate fairly and effectively. However, women need to be involved not only in post-settlement decision-making but in the nitty-gritty of negotiations aimed at resolving the root causes of conflict. Can the Minister confirm that this is a clear priority for the Government? Simply reiterating the arguments for dealing with violence will not do. It is time that we saw concerted efforts to deal with the underlying causes, which include power imbalances, systemic inequality and the effects of discriminatory social norms, to which other noble Lords have referred.

Finally, a vital element of the discussions currently taking place in New York on a post-2015 development agenda agreement must—unequivocally—include a commitment to eliminate all forms of violence, including sexual violence, by the date the delegates have set themselves of 2030.

15:43

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Loomba for calling it and for his consistent efforts in championing widows and calling Governments to action—and, of course, for securing the UN’s support for designating 23 June as International Widows Day. I, too, salute Margaret Owen, who I know, respect and admire. Her work is outstanding.

The empowerment of all women has been close to my heart since early in my life, as we lived through the war of independence in 1971. I remember all too vividly women, like my mother, endangering themselves and playing a crucial role in protecting families and fighters, when more than 300,000 women suffered rape as a weapon of war by the Pakistani army. For those women, no apologies or reparations have been made to date by the Pakistani Government.

I am all too familiar with what happens to women and their families in war and conflict, especially those who are left widowed, as members of my family were. Here at home I have had the privilege of leading and developing services for women in the East End of London since the 1980s. Many of these women’s organisations continue to serve women’s needs and their families today. I never tire of speaking about the need for us to continue to speak about women’s resilience, because progress and change are all too slow in coming.

In our parliamentary work, we often benchmark other countries’ progress by the numbers of women in Parliament and public life, so it is pleasing that for once we have a new benchmark of 191 women MPs—a jump from 22% to 29% of women in Parliament. Here I must add my welcome and congratulations in particular to new Asian women MPs, including Dr Rupa Huq, Tulip Siddiq, Nusrat Ghani, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and Naz Shah. Despite this progress, women leaders remain miserably absent from the world stage. Given that we are discussing conflict resolution, the question arises about the differences that would arise if more women were on the global stage.

It is a fact that today’s world is populated by wars and conflict, with the Middle East and many parts of Africa in flames. Thus, women remain vulnerable, in many conflicts, to rape being used as a weapon of war, while the peace process historically kept women outside and on the periphery of decision-making and peacebuilding, as has been said by many noble Lords. Women and girls continue to be devalued in the wider society, while sexual violence against women and girls remains pervasive in all societies, including our own. So it should not surprise us that women and children are the major victims in conflict and wars. As we speak, women are silenced by perpetrators in Burma, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere.

Against this backdrop, UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which calls for increased participation of women in peacebuilding and peace negotiations, has been the single most important trigger for national plans worldwide, including our own honourable contribution in the summit held here in London two years ago, ably led by our former Foreign Secretary. Since then, there has been a significant and steady shift in the number of women leading peace processes, including the fact that we currently have 39 women leading UK overseas missions—seven more than in 2010. No doubt the UK Government, through their national action plan, will continue to up the numbers of women in leadership positions to aid conflict resolution in order to make the same difference overseas.

Equally, the United Nations contribution to bringing women into the political forum in developing countries is significant. There are numerous positive examples of resilience and change. Through UN Women, Muslim women groups have taken part in the Mindanao peace process in the Philippines and have met representatives of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front to discuss the provision of draft peace agreements, with the aim of resolving one of the Philippines’ protracted conflicts. The front took the unprecedented step of appointing two women to its peace panel, which is engaged in talks with the Government of the Philippines. An additional two women joined the government negotiating team, including one heading its legal unit.

In Kyrgyzstan, the UN Women and the UN Peacebuilding Fund support women’s peace committees and networks of activists to engage women in peacebuilding and reconstruction in the country. Through the use of diplomacy, dialogue and mediation women are developing skills, representing their views and seeking to find solutions for the common good. The committees regularly monitor violations of women’s rights and risks of conflict outbreaks.

Here we see a few positive steps towards gender equality and the erosion of the notion that women have no place in conflict resolution. Fortunately, that is not limited to Asia, as Senegal, Mali, Liberia and Rwanda illustrate the widespread effort to engage women in conflict resolution in Africa. Senegal created the Women’s Situation Room for the 2012 presidential elections. The team was set up with the aim of safeguarding women from election violence, and of supporting women’s protection in campaigning and voting. In Mali, women leaders are trained by UN Women to engage in dialogue and political stabilisation, ensuring that women’s rights and the issue of gender-based violence are addressed.

Courageous women in Liberia, which has been mentioned, challenged social conventions and took the opportunity to become active leaders in political, economic and civil institutions. Women there are facilitating reconciliation efforts and have secured formal roles that allow them to influence the future of their nation. They are the first in that nation to do so, as those roles were previously dominated by men. We should rightly rejoice that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is the 24th president of Liberia—and a woman, for those who did not notice. That is a miracle yet to happen in the most developed part of the world. President Sirleaf has since continued the efforts of her office to challenge the levels of women’s participation in national government and other institutions.

Rwanda has put girls and women at the centre of its Government’s priorities following the tragic genocide and the staggering number of cases of sexual violence. Girls and women now have their core rights and women are now seen as key to the country’s economic and political development.

“Birongonas” is a casual term used for Bangladeshi women who were raped or left widowed by Pakistani soldiers during the war of independence in Bangladesh in 1971. Among them are thousands of abandoned widows. Now they have formal recognition, are classed as war heroines and freedom fighters and share the same rights as soldiers who fought in the Bangladesh liberation war in 1971. That is a very good example of what many Governments should do. This is a true form of women’s social empowerment, as it changed the status of women from that of rape victims with no status in society to that of freedom fighters—one of the highest statuses for people in Bangladesh. This example shows categorically what is required in conflict resolution: not just legal protection but supporting and providing resources, along with accepting responsibilities, as a way to aid survivors to live beyond their traumas and devastation. Our current approach is properly emboldened by our national plans being in place, for nothing changes for those who live on beyond rape without hope and yearning for justice and whose lives are shattered for ever. Economic empowerment not only improves women’s domestic rights and the prospects of their children, it also has a positive impact on the entire nation.

Of course, education has an essential role in the empowerment of women, and there are many shining examples of girls’ education improving the lives of women and girls, including in Bangladesh, Jordan and Morocco, which I recently visited, where the presence of female leadership is clearly evident in all aspects of the community and social infrastructures. It is right that we continue our support to these countries through our 0.7% commitment to international aid. We should rightly take pride in that commitment to international aid, but we cannot bulldoze human misery by means of donations from our pockets and temporary handouts to those who have seen the massacre of their lives. I have spoken about my own experience of war as a child, and I can tell your Lordships that the temporary presence of donors does little to alleviate the scars of war.

In conclusion, we should commemorate the international commitments to supporting women’s empowerment, including the national action plan. UN Women has made leaps in progress against the discrimination of women through conventions on gender equality and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. These international efforts give us cause for hope that collectively we can work to overcome gender inequality and its pernicious impact on the economic situation of women personally and at the level of nation states.

I join others in celebrating the efforts of women and men around the world to achieve greater equality. The Minister is a great friend and I welcome her to her new brief. Will she assure the House that her department, alongside our civil society, will ensure that we commit to easing the hardship of those who have been raped in conflicts and wars, as the Bangladeshi Government have done?

15:55

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for moving this debate. Further, I congratulate him on the work of the Loomba Foundation in profiling the plight of widows in parts of the world who are disowned by their families and society. This is a double discrimination.

In some societies—as we learnt from the film “Water”, directed by Deepa Mehta and made in 2005 but still so relevant today, about the plight of a group of widows and how they were forced to live—if women are spoken for and their partner-to-be dies, they are still classed as a widow. We know that this still happens. To find girls of eight and nine years pushed into homes and to live like this is a disgrace. We have to try to change that, and the work of the foundation is making that happen.

The documentary by the BBC, “The War Widows of Afghanistan” by Zarghuna Kargar in 2014 showed what it is like to be a war widow here and a war widow in Afghanistan. It was terrible. In Afghanistan you are left with nothing. You have to remain with your husband’s parents, eking out just an existence by doing laundry for a member of your husband’s family. There are more than 2 million war widows in Afghanistan. These women are truly on a life sentence. In their countries, culturally help comes through faith groups. Much as we would like to, we cannot just go in and bulldoze to change the culture of those countries, but we could see a better society. Women and girls would be empowered and it would be a safer place for girls and boys and men and women working together. That is a dream that we would all like to see.

The more we debate these issues of the empowerment of women and girls in areas of conflict, the more we see how important it is. The work of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security and the new centre at the London School of Economics starting in September this year will make such a difference to the training of peacekeepers, which I shall come to shortly. It is really important that we do not let this off the agenda. These issues have to be at the top of the agenda because they are about the future of the world.

We know that today up to 25,000 people, including children, have been displaced and are away from their homes. Some of the families cannot go with them because they are not well enough to travel, or cannot face where they are going. You are displaced from your home, you are displaced from education and proper medical assistance and you are living in a tent where you can be raped—whether you are a boy or a girl—and there is no hope that you might ever go back to where you came from. I hope that at some stage we might have a debate on no longer placing people in tents. Perhaps we can look at a more mobile form of home on the basis that people can start being educated properly or perhaps start a small business in the camps, instead of just living in tents. I know that the tents seem great, but they are not great. Having seen some of them where people have been living for far too long, why not try to make another society there?

I would like to express my thanks for the previous Government’s commitment to the UN Security Council agenda on this issue, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, whom I congratulate on her appointment back to DfID, will ensure that Britain continues to take the lead in the world on this issue. Noble Lords will know that the UN Security Council resolution is just 15 years old and there have been many resolutions defining the importance of women’s roles in conflict and peacebuilding. However, to date not too much has happened. Only 40 of the member countries in the world have signed up to having a world action plan on women, peace and security. We have to encourage and assist other countries to have one in place. It is particularly worrying that a number of countries in Africa and Asia have not put an action plan together. We know that these countries have poor records of preventing violence against women.

This is not just the responsibility of DfID and the FCO; it is also the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. It is the Ministry of Defence that is training the military in this country and in other parts of the world to do peacekeeping. It is really important that we have joined-up working between the three departments. I know that they are all committed, but we want to make sure that the money is well spent and continues to come from the Treasury.

I congratulate William Hague on his continued commitment to the elimination of rape as a tool of war. He said:

“We want to bring the world to a point of no return, creating irreversible momentum towards ending warzone rape and sexual violence worldwide”.

I think we are all committed to that across the political divide, but we have to ensure that we do it together. Can the Minister give an undertaking that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right honourable Philip Hammond, will make this a priority, with support from the Treasury, and that all our embassies and consulates around the world will continue to keep the pressure on the countries they are working in, meeting senior politicians, having events, working with NGOs and ensuring that visiting politicians from here—whether from local authorities, the Lords or the Commons—are made use of to continue encouraging people to make this a priority?

Women’s participation is so important. We make up 51% of the world, particularly in the developing world. A woman at every table should not be just a nominal one—it should be more than one. Women are not an endangered species. Furthermore, only a very small percentage of ambassadors and senior diplomats are women, as my noble friend Lady Kinnock mentioned. We must do more to encourage women to participate at senior levels, from the fast stream and from university. We should be actively encouraging teachers to start telling girls that working at the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and DfID are very acceptable careers, and that this is where they can do a great deal in public service, not only for Great Britain but for the world. We should be looking to the private sector and encouraging women at certain levels to come back to the Civil Service, if they have left, and apply for senior positions at the Foreign Office, DfID and the Ministry of Defence. We desperately need the best talent that we can get.

In the work of the Ministry of Defence in training peacekeepers, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, we must ensure that we have as many women as possible on the front line of this training because it is women who are on the front line—both those in conflict and some of our women who are fighting in conflicts. It is really important that we try to encourage this.

When it comes to achieving sustainable peace, we know from the peace processes in which women have been engaged—from Northern Ireland to Rwanda to Liberia—that when women are involved in conflict resolution and peace negotiations, they place a high premium on transitional justice. Women were not at the table in Angola, where, in an all-male peace process that was to end the Angolan civil war, the men from both sides gave each other amnesty for the crimes they had perpetrated against women. However, Angola regressed into civil war after this agreement that excluded women and overlooked their experiences. I hope that this one example of what is happening around the world will encourage those who do not agree that women should be at the peace table that they should be.

16:03

[Baroness Flather (CB)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for securing this debate. I remind your Lordships that he has a trust foundation for looking after widows and the children of widows—which is even more important because often widows do not have the capacity to make sure that their children are well educated. For that, we should thank him and remember that what he is trying to do is very important.

I am going to be a little self-indulgent to begin with. My great-grandfather was a philanthropist in the main city of Punjab, Lahore. Although he was a Hindu, he is still called the father of Lahore by the Pakistanis because he was a civil engineer and he built a canal system that made Punjab the granary of India. He also gave away a lot of money. He started to make money and he used to say, “The more I give, the more comes”. He had widows’ homes and orphanages. He also had two homes for unmarried mothers because, at the beginning of the 20th century in India, unmarried mothers were either killed or had to go on the streets. It was an appalling situation and he was very conscious of the needs of women, which is why I have mentioned him. He was actively campaigning in those days, with the British Government, to get the treatment of Hindu widows improved. By and large, Hindu widows are still treated extremely badly in India. A lot of them are left to beg in places of pilgrimage to survive; they are not looked after by the families. He was very angry about that and kept trying to get the Government to do something about it. He could not change the whole culture by having widows’ homes. He did not succeed, but he tried very hard.

The other thing which we have in India is the child widow. I know that this has been touched on, but if a girl gets married at the age of seven or eight—which is still quite common in Rajasthan—and the boy dies then she is a widow. She is treated as a widow but she has never been with her so-called husband, because they are both children. They have to wait until she is a fully grown woman for her to go to her husband’s home. It is just unbelievable that a girl child is then a widow and treated extremely badly. There is a village in Rajasthan where they kill the girls, and which did not have a girl and boy marriage for 26 years because they had killed all the girls. The treatment of women and girls in India and Africa does not bear thinking about.

I know that we are talking about conflict resolution and I accept that women have an important role to play, but they have an important role to play in life itself and are not given that role. They are not treated as if they are people—human beings—who have something to contribute. They are used and abused, for the most part. They are not people with rights or positions so unless we look at the whole situation of women, in the light of what is happening in the world today, we cannot ask them to help with conflict resolution. They have to feel empowered to some extent to be able to do it. If you say to a woman, “I want you to do this”, her first reaction is, “I don’t think I can do it”. But if you then say, “No, you can”, they, too, find that they can. What we are facing is religion and so-called culture. I do not call it culture but bad social practices. We are facing those two real problems in developing countries and we have to fight against them both. It is not right that women should be treated in the way that they are in India or Africa because Hinduism says so or because a culture has always been like that. That is not how it has to be.

Many words are said but no implementation of them ever takes place. Modi has said that he is going to improve things for women in India, but what has he actually done? He was quite rude to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh when he said, “She has done so well, for a woman”. Can your Lordships think of anything worse than that? I cannot. It is so appalling for a Prime Minister of India to have said that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that I was in India during the Bangladesh war. The Indians were very much involved in getting rid of the Pakistanis from Bangladesh then. Two thousand women were found incarcerated, without any clothes, for the use of the soldiers. They did not give them clothes because they knew that, if they had anything, they would hang themselves. Can you believe that people could behave like that in the 20th century? When the women did get clothes, they did hang themselves, because where would they go? Who would have them? How would they be treated? I am glad to hear that later they were treated as heroines but they would not have been at that time. Women face some terrible dilemmas.

USAID will not allow any organisation with which it has any connection or to which it gives any money to perform abortions. Imagine a woman being raped countless times who then becomes pregnant but cannot get rid of the child. What do you think that child is to her? It is a reminder of her misery, a reminder of all those rapes. It is unbelievable that USAID still does not allow abortion, even in those circumstances. I cannot believe that it can go on thinking like that; it does not see women as human beings who cannot bear this nastiness.

We have to do whatever we can for women in general and then try to encourage them to take part in all sorts of areas of interest. They can add something very special to every organisation, meeting and committee, but they are not allowed to—they are not there. Perhaps in two, three or four years something will start to happen, but as I am getting rather old I am feeling very disappointed that it might not happen in my lifetime.

It has been mentioned that in Africa women are not allowed to own property. That is true, but it is worse than that. My friend Ladi is from Nigeria, and her father died when she was five years old. His relatives came to the house and took everything that was saleable, every possession. What is more, they took two younger wives who could work, but they did not take Ladi’s mother because she was older and they felt she would not be able to do as much work as the others. Ladi’s mother was left with 13 children and no means of supporting them. Can you believe that? I asked Ladi what her mother did and she said, “She gave away a child to whoever would take one”. She managed to place children with families in the village—anyone who would take a child. Imagine the life of that child who would be at the bottom of the food chain, with no education and no future. Ladi went to an uncle; she was a goat-herd at the age of six. Until she was nine she had no shoes and today her feet are in such bad condition that she has to have operations on them.

The suffering of women in India and in Africa is unbelievable and intolerable. We know about the suffering of women in Afghanistan and in many other places, but the largest number of those affected are in India and Africa—at least 1 billion. They have very little power and very few resources, and the situation does not look as if it will change overnight.

It has surprised me that, apart from the right reverend Prelate, no man has spoken in this debate. It is amazing. Men hold the power, but they have not spoken today. It is not only for women to talk about women; it is for men to talk about women and to do something about it. Unless men start doing something about this, nothing will happen.

16:14

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, hopefully, your Lordships will consider that I am a man just about to speak. Although I have already had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister from the Dispatch Box on her appointment, for the avoidance of any doubt, I would like to do it again—congratulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for initiating this debate today and for his strong and powerful commitment to the empowerment of women, in particular his highlighting of the plight of widows. It is only because of his commitment that International Widows Day is celebrated by the United Nations. Like him, my mother’s widowhood has shaped my view of the world.

The first and most important policy to have in place is one to enable women to be in charge of their own lives and to be decision-makers, not always on the end of a handout or someone’s largesse. The right reverend Prelate gave positive examples of meaningful involvement at local, regional and national level in the allocation of resources and services. If women have control over these things, they will have the confidence to resist and report sexual violence. As my noble friend Lady Kinnock highlighted, there is an increased awareness of sexual violence in wartime due to the significant impact of armed conflicts on civilian populations.

Violence against women as a tool of war remains one of the least prosecuted crimes—we have to do better to ensure action against the perpetrators. However, we must be tough on not only the crime but its causes. We must tackle the underlying problem of lack of empowerment, education and inclusion. As we have heard in this debate, the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security was a landmark decision through which the situation of women in armed conflict was specifically addressed. It called for their participation at all levels of decision-making on conflict resolution and peace-building.

However, we have to recognise that to make real progress, we must ensure the words of the seven Security Council resolutions, recommendation 30 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Beijing commitments on women, peace and security, and other initiatives such as the UNGA declaration on ending sexual violence, are translated into practice. They cannot be just words. Turning promises into action is vital as, despite many gains, progress across the millennium development goals has been uneven for girls and women. The MDGs did not effectively address the factors which underpin gender inequality.

The United Kingdom—I am proud to say United Kingdom in the sense that it is not just one Government—has pushed for a post-2015 framework with a strong and explicit commitment to gender equality. Indeed, in response to a Question from my noble friend Lady Kinnock earlier this year, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, committed the Government to,

“a stand-alone goal geared to achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment”.—[Official Report, 9/3/15; col. 438.]

The noble Baroness also confirmed that there should be “rigorous mainstreaming” of gender equality concerns across other priority areas and goals of the post-2015 agenda. I would be extremely grateful if the Minister repeated that commitment in those strong terms.

Too often women are systemically excluded. Women’s role in peacebuilding should be supported at a local as well as international level. Women’s socioeconomic and political participation is key to resolving and preventing conflict, but also to changing, as we have heard in this debate, the damaging social norms that persist.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I believe it is essential that we also focus on the other practical steps required for progress, including funding dedicated to WPS; funding to local women’s rights organisations as well as systemic consultation with women to give them a platform to highlight the barriers they face and the solutions; an approach that focuses across the pillars of UN Security Council Resolution 1325; and, as we heard in this debate—more importantly for my noble friend—co-ordination across defence, diplomatic and foreign policy. We need to challenge the root causes and social norms that cause violence against women and girls, and women’s lack of participation.

The 20th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action gave world leaders the opportunity to take stock of progress at the national and global level. The conclusions of the Commission on the Status of Women held in March welcomed the progress made towards the full implementation of the Beijing declaration through concerted policy action at the national, regional and global levels. It recognised that this is essential for achieving the unfinished business of the MDGs and for tackling the critical remaining challenges through the post-2015 development agenda.

The UK’s self-assessment concluded that, despite the progress made, discrimination is still prevalent in this country. Globally, many of the seminal achievements of the original 1995 Beijing conference are at risk, as we have heard in the debate, and in not just places of conflict but other areas where cultural shifts affect the rights of women. This is particularly crucial in the area of sexual and reproductive health and rights. We must not allow the clock to be turned back. Women and girls must be free from the fear of violence, coercion or intimidation and have the freedom to choose how many children they want.

The United Kingdom is seen as an important global player in promoting women’s rights. It takes the lead on women, peace and security issues at the UN Security Council and galvanised global action through the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict initiative. Like many in this debate, I pay tribute to the last Government for their focus on women and girls in their development work, and their consistent advocacy of women’s rights at the Human Rights Council. I also acknowledge their work in helping change global opinion on the issue of gender-based violence. It is important that we build on this record by using their influence to ensure that the gains of recent years are not lost. It is vital that the UK’s work on Beijing+20 is conducted in co-ordination with preparations for the adoption of a new global development framework. What steps is the Minister’s department taking to ensure that the UK not only defends the gains of the last 20 years but sets out its vision and priorities for the next 20 years of advancement of women’s rights at home and abroad?

My noble friend Lady Prosser referred to the debate on the implementation of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure cross-departmental priority for that action plan? What steps is she taking to ensure that priorities identified go beyond simply a one-term Government and reinforce global initiatives, notably the UN Secretary-General’s seven-point plan on women’s participation in peace-building?

The denial of the rights of women and girls remains the most widespread driver of inequalities in today’s world. Gender-based violence, taking many forms, is a major element of this massive and continuing failure of human rights. Women’s empowerment and the protection of women’s rights are our greatest weapons to prevent discrimination and violence against women and girls.

[Baroness Flather]

I apologise to the noble Lord for suggesting that he might not be a man—I had no intention of doing that—but I think that he is speaking on behalf of the Benches opposite and not actually participating in the debate. However, I always enjoy his contribution, and I thought that it was very good the last time we spoke.

16:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for initiating today’s debate and pay tribute to his commitment and work through his foundation for widows and their children—and to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and measured contributions. Many points have already been raised, which I shall probably repeat in my own reflections, but I thank all noble Lords for their very warm welcome in having me represent the Department for International Development again. I am incredibly passionate around the agenda on women and girls. Again, that is because of my own upbringing and the culture that I come from, which has impacted on my responses to what I see and am determined to try to eliminate.

In response to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I say that the Government will not detract in any way from trying to ensure that we continue not only to lead and influence others but to build much further on what we have achieved. The MDGs may not have delivered everything, but for all of us to be able to focus on some global goals was good. We will see which are the successful and not-so-successful goals when we have had an opportunity to really reflect and break them down. We want to make sure that we build on the experiences of things that have worked and not worked, and really influence those countries that can make a difference to moving this debate forward.

Investing in girls and women is not only the right thing to do—it is actually the smart thing. No country will ever reach its full potential when half the population is locked out of education, employment and meaningful participation in public and private life. Girls and women living in poverty face differing forms of discrimination and violence throughout their lives. From the very start, girls lose out. More than 100 million girls are estimated as missing because son preference is so embedded that it leads to female infanticide and pre-natal sex selection in favour of boys. Less than one in five girls in sub-Saharan Africa goes on to secondary school, and one in three girls is married before she is 18.

The odds are heavily stacked against a young girl in sub-Saharan Africa or south-east Asia making a healthy transition to adulthood. Child marriage, female genital mutilation and the societal norms that determine that girls should aspire only to marry and have children perpetuate poverty from one generation to the next. It is for these reasons that DfID has committed to having explicit focus on girls in its strategic vision on girls and women. Since the launch of the vision in 2011, we have supported over 5 million girls to go to primary and lower secondary school and committed to bring an end to FGM and child, early and forced marriage within a generation. Focusing on girlhood is vital to breaking the cycle of poverty and discrimination that can blight a girl’s journey through life. Societies that work for gender equality tend to be freer and fairer, while societies where there is greater female participation in politics, civic life and the labour force are associated with lower levels of corruption. For example, in Pakistan, women entering the national Parliament on a gender quota were able to work successfully across party lines on legislation relating to honour killing and acid crime control. In India, in states where there are more women in work there has been faster economic growth and the largest reductions in poverty. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, that there is still so much that needs to be done, and we must not back away from challenging and making sure that those who have no voice are heard.

Many noble Lords talked about women’s role in conflict, and the need for them to be at the heart of resolving conflict and promoting stable societies as well as poverty reduction and human development. I cannot agree more. We cannot tackle poverty and development without addressing conflict. People in fragile states are more than twice as likely to be undernourished as in other developing countries, more than three times as likely to be unable to send their children to school and twice as likely to see their children die before the age of five.

Girls and women are often the targets of sexual violence in conflict, as many noble Lords said today. Recently, we have seen how abduction, enslavement, sexual abuse and forced marriage were central to the tactics of Boko Haram and ISIL. Initiatives such as the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative are making a vital contribution to ensuring that there will be no impunity for sexual violence in conflict. In conflict countries such as Iraq and Syria, the UK is providing essential support for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.

We also recognise the need to include girls and women in peace negotiations and broader processes to end and prevent conflict. Conflict-affected contexts offer unique windows of opportunity to tackle the structural barriers to women and girls’ inequality and unequal participation in political, social and economic life. As roles are redefined and new needs arise, girls and women have new opportunities to play a bigger determining role both politically and economically. This can be of benefit to not only them but their communities. For example, women’s participation in peace processes and decision-making ensures resolutions are reached more quickly and are more lasting and meaningful. That was eloquently illustrated by my noble friend Lady Hodgson, the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and others.

This year, 2015, is a significant year for women’s rights and gender equality in relation both to peace and security and to sustainable development. The UN has commissioned a high-level review on the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325—which was raised by a number of noble Lords today, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Prosser and Lady Kinnock, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson—to mark its 15th anniversary. Along with subsequent UN resolutions, Resolution 1325 provides a global framework for reducing the impact of conflict on girls and women and for promoting their inclusion in conflict resolution and recovery. The UK will be engaging fully in this high-level review at the United Nations Security Council in October. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I will have some engaged discussions before it takes place to ensure that we have a full cross-party voice there.

For our part, the UK Government are implementing Resolution 1325 and related resolutions through our national action plan on women, peace and security. The national action plan puts girls and women at the centre of all the Government’s efforts to prevent and resolve conflict, promote peace and stability and prevent and respond to violence against women and girls. It provides a vision for the UK and brings together, in one overarching framework, a cross-government effort. As part of the national action plan, DfID will be exploring opportunities better to involve girls and women in developing responses to violence and terrorism and to unpick the deeply flawed narratives that legitimise extremism.

In Pakistan, the UK is supporting the provincial Government of KP to develop women-friendly policing and to encourage recruitment of female police officers so that women are better served by the police. The UK Government and international partners have also strongly supported women’s rights within the Afghan national security forces, with programmes in place to support the recruitment, integration, retention, training and treatment of women in the Afghan national army, the Afghan national police and the Afghan Air Force.

This year also marks, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action, which is still considered the blueprint for women’s empowerment. The UK played a lead role in agreeing the political declaration adopted at the 59th Commission on the Status of Women. Critically, the declaration reaffirms the Beijing Platform for Action and commits the international community to tackling remaining gaps in implementation. The UK will continue to play an active role in CSW negotiations.

A third crucial process under way this year is the agreement of a new post-2015 development framework. The UK was one of the first to advocate for a stand-alone gender goal in the new framework and a holistic set of targets that address the root causes of inequality and discrimination that affect girls and women, including widows. The UK Government will continue to push for greater investment in gender equality in negotiations around financing for development and for a strong outcome at the UN global summit in September.

Despite progress over the last 20 years since Beijing, girls and women continue to face harmful discrimination. They are held back from seizing opportunities to build their futures. Society sees them as having less value because they are female. My noble friend Lady Goudie alluded to the film Water. If noble Lords have not seen that, it is a real eye-opener, which in a couple of hours shows how much young child widows are discriminated against. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned, it is still an issue that they are an invisible issue, and we need to make sure that they do not drop out of the wider issue of the plight of widows. We need to ensure that civil society organisations see the plight of those vulnerable groups in the wider debate when we talk about girls and women.

I began this speech by talking about the injustices that women face in their early years, yet these injustices do not abate as life draws on. A number of noble Lords mentioned that, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Widowhood multiplies the injustices of gender inequality, adding another layer of discrimination and stigma. A widow and her children can suddenly find themselves homeless, seen as an economic burden to their community, and stigmatised due to their association with death. Widows are often more vulnerable to being forcibly married, raped, traded or exiled. They suffer double discrimination, both for being female and for being widowed. It seems impossibly unfair that women are ostracised at the moment they need more support than ever.

DfID supports a range of programmes that benefit widows. For example, in Bangladesh, through the Chars Livelihoods Programme and the Economic Empowerment of the Poorest Programme, we have helped 96,303 extremely poor households that are headed by widows. These projects provide productive assets, cash grants for business enterprise, skills training, nutritional supplies and nutritional awareness. Some 85% of all of the households supported have graduated out of extreme poverty. We also support the Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction Programme in Bangladesh, where over 34,000 widows in urban slums have received grants for starting small businesses.

Women who face poverty and social exclusion—often linked to the death of a spouse—disability or old age require particular support, including through social safety nets. DfID supports such women through programmes which target elderly women through social pensions; for example, the senior citizen grant in Uganda. Other vulnerable women are reached through safety nets targeted at the poorest households. For example, the Palestinian National Cash Transfer Programme in Gaza provides unconditional cash transfers to extremely poor households. These include female-headed households, including widows, who report that cash transfers allow them to meet the basic needs of their families and give them greater economic freedom, security and enhanced psychological well-being.

I want to address some of the issues raised by noble Lords, but if I fail to answer all the questions, I undertake to write to noble Lords. I start with the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. She said that we should not forget that looking at women and girls should be an end-to-end journey, from birth right through to old age, when they are often at their most vulnerable and lonely. There are also problems relating to dementia, which we in this country are beginning to realise will become an even greater issue as populations age. It is very important that we have our discussions in the round, so that when we talk about developing frameworks, those frameworks take that end-to-end view.

However, our priority is female economic empowerment. I am extremely pleased that the Secretary of State and the Government have made economic empowerment for girls and women, as well as our humanitarian response, a core thread in the department. All those things coming together provide a response to many of the questions raised by noble Lords today. We want to advocate ambitious targets on women’s economic empowerment in the post-2015 sustainable development goals framework. We are having a real impact with our strategic vision for women and girls. Twenty-seven million women have access to financial services as a result of DfID’s support.

The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby all asked about the post-2015 development framework. There is a lot that I could say but time is against me. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to write to them, because it is important that the speakers participating in this debate see the great thinking that is going on behind those goals. That would be much more informative than a simplistic answer provided by me now.

I end by flagging up another very important milestone. This year, 23 June marks 10 years since the Loomba Foundation launched International Widows Day. As we engage in all the other landmark opportunities for girls’ and women’s rights this year—the post-2015 goals and the anniversaries of UNSCR 1325 and the Beijing Platform for Action—let us all do everything possible to ensure that widows are not forgotten. It is only through a combined effort that we can achieve real gender equality and empowerment for all girls and women, including widows. That is why, together, the work of my noble friend Lord Loomba and the Loomba Foundation, the work of the civil society groups and the work that we are doing at DfID is so important. We are each a critical part of what will deliver gender equality for the world’s most marginalised girls and women.

I assure noble Lords that across government we are championing the girls and women agenda. The Prime Minister, in particular, is very keen that this focus is maintained. He has put his full support behind the work that is being done across government and the girls agenda will always be at the core of our programmes.

Time is drawing on and I know that there are many questions that I have left unanswered. It has been an absolute pleasure to respond to a debate on a subject that I am incredibly passionate about. I look forward to engaging with all noble Lords to see what we can do to encourage others, particularly the global partners that need greater encouragement not just in relation to girls and women but on a range of other issues that we will be talking about in connection with the post-2015 development goals.

16:44

[Lord Loomba]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate, and the Minister for her response. I am particularly pleased that the Minister has assured us that DfID will fight for the rights of women, widows and girls at the UN summit in September. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, on supporting widows in many countries, including Bangladesh. It is very much appreciated.

The millennium development goals were set up in 2000 but did not contain a single mention of widows. I believe that, since the Loomba Foundation has raised awareness of the plight of widows, the UN will take positive action to include widows’ issues in SDGs. I request that the Minister take a note of that and do her very best work.

Many noble Lords spoke about many problems facing women, girls and widows, and each problem is unique. Three noble Lords spoke about Margaret Owen. I know Margaret Owen personally; she worked with me a few years ago at a conference and is a wonderful person, very dedicated to the war widows. We all know that it is the war widows who really suffer the most. At the same time, poverty affects widows in a bigger way. Therefore, it is also important that they are economically empowered.

The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, talked about child brides. What she said is very true. Only last week the Times of India reported that, at that moment in India, there were 269 more child brides. This is unacceptable in the 21st century.

I will not take up any more time because we have talked about all these issues before. International Widows Day is taking place in 12 days’ time and I very much hope that noble Lords will mark it, together with the Loomba Foundation.

Motion agreed.

Anderson Report

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:48

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement given in another place this morning by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on the publication of the Anderson Report and the parliamentary consideration of investigatory powers.

As the House will know, it is the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation relating to the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ use of investigatory powers and to have that legislation enacted before the sunset provision in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 takes effect on 31 December 2016.

In 2014, the Government asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, to conduct a review of the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers, with specific reference to the interception of communications and the separate issue of communications data.

David Anderson has completed that review and this morning my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a Written Ministerial Statement to lay that report before the House. The report makes 124 recommendations, covering sensitive intelligence capabilities, and it extends to over 300 pages. Following careful consideration by the Government and the security and intelligence agencies, I can confirm that no redactions have been made to the report prior to publication. I would like to put on record my and the Government’s thanks to David Anderson for his thoroughness and dedication in undertaking this important work.

As the report highlights, there is a range of threats against the UK and its interests, from terrorism, both at home and overseas, to cyberattacks from criminals. Many groups, not just the Government, have a role to play in ensuring the right capabilities are in place to tackle those threats. We will continue to work closely with all partners, including the intelligence agencies, law enforcement and industry, to take all these issues forward and to continue to keep us safe from those who would do us harm.

David Anderson’s report is complemented by two further independent reviews in this area. In March, the Intelligence and Security Committee published its privacy and security report. This set out a comprehensive review of the intelligence agencies’ capabilities and the legal and privacy frameworks that govern their use. Later this summer, a panel co-ordinated by the Royal United Services Institute, and established by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right honourable Member for Sheffield Hallam, will report on the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of the UK’s surveillance programmes, and assess how law enforcement and intelligence capability can be maintained in the face of technological change.

These independent reviews are each important and valuable contributions to the continuing debate about the role of our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, their use of investigatory powers and their oversight. The Government will need to give proper consideration to their recommendations, but collectively I believe they provide a firm basis for consultation on legislation.

I now turn to the parliamentary handling of this legislation. The operation and regulation of the investigatory powers used by the police and the intelligence and security agencies is a matter of great importance to the security of this country and I know an issue of great interest to many Members of this House. As David Anderson makes clear, it is imperative that the use of sensitive powers are all overseen and fully declared under arrangements set by Parliament. It is therefore entirely right that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate these matters in full.

The Anderson review was undertaken with cross-party support and I believe it provides a sound basis to take this issue forward in the same manner. In order to ensure that this is the case, the Government will publish a draft Bill in the autumn for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament, with the intention of introducing a Bill early in the new year. Given the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, the new legislation will need to be in place by the end of December 2016.

I have said many times before that it is not possible to debate the balance between privacy and security—including the rights and wrongs of intrusive powers and the oversight arrangements that govern them—without also considering the threats that we face as a country. Those threats remain considerable, and they are evolving. They include not just terrorism—from overseas and home-grown in the UK—but also industrial, military and state espionage. They include not just organised criminality, but the proliferation of once-physical crimes online, such as child sexual exploitation, and the technological challenges that brings. In the face of such threats, we have a duty to ensure that the agencies whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers they need to do the job.

I finish by paying tribute to the vital work of the men and women of the intelligence and law enforcement community, whose work is not always known, whose successes often go unrecognised, and whose efforts day in and day out are fundamental to keeping everyone in this country safe”.

That concludes the Statement.

16:54

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place. I certainly endorse the comments that he made at the end about the work of those in the intelligence and law enforcement community, who are there to protect us and whose successes, as he said, often go unrecognised.

We welcome the report by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, into the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers. It is a report which the shadow Home Secretary called for when emergency legislation was being debated last summer, since we believe that the current legislative framework is no longer fit for purpose. While technology has moved on, the same cannot be said for either the law or the oversight arrangements. Reforms are needed, and we need to get them right in order to protect both our liberty and our security when addressing the threats we face.

In media broadcasts the independent reviewer has given today, he said that there are two problems with the law in this area as it stands. The first is that no one can understand it since it is spread over 64 Acts of Parliament, which have also proved variable in their application. The second is that there is a need for stronger safeguards and protections. For example, instead of it being the Home Secretary who decides whether you can tap the telephone of a suspected drug dealer or terrorist, it should be for a judge to do so, in order that it can be seen to be done in a proper and independent fashion. It seems that last year the Home Secretary authorised some 2,345 warrants. According to the report of one interview David Anderson has given, the Home Secretary has, in his view, effectively been doing this in her spare time when not running the department. Whether the Home Secretary shares the concerns of the independent reviewer about the workload imposed on her by having to decide whether to authorise all these warrants is no doubt something on which the Minister will be able to enlighten us, but I have a feeling that Mr Anderson thinks that warrants should be authorised by a judge—full stop—rather than having concerns over the workload it involves for either this Home Secretary or indeed any other Home Secretary.

Proportionate surveillance and interception saves lives and averts and disrupts terror attacks and other major crimes. There is no doubt that these powers are needed and we cannot allow the sunset clause on the existing powers to lapse at the end of next year without having new legislation in place. However, strong powers need strong checks and balances, including effective oversight of the way the system works. Public acceptance of the need for such powers will be diminished if there is a belief that they are being abused for purposes that impinge on our privacy, and for which they were neither intended, nor for which authorisation for their use has been given.

We have to ensure that we put arrangements in place to address the concerns that personal privacy can be invaded without justification and proper prior authorisation. We welcome the proposals in the independent reviewer’s report to strengthen oversight that involve a new and stronger independent surveillance and intelligence commission, merging the existing system of commissioner, and of course introducing judicial authorisation of warrants. Do the Government also welcome these proposals?

The independent reviewer has also concluded that there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third-party data before a compelling operational case for it has been made out, which he says it has not been to date. Is that recommendation in line with the thinking of the Home Secretary? We welcome the Government’s decision that a draft investigatory powers Bill—presumably based on David Anderson’s report, although perhaps the Minister can confirm that that will be the case—will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I hope that the Government will also provide time for a full debate on the Anderson report in this House so that all Members have the opportunity to contribute. I hope also that the Government will seek to promote this among the public at large as well, to help ensure that there is the widest possible consent and thus legitimacy for the new framework. Will the Government provide for such a debate?

The digital age is a source of freedom and opportunity but, as we have seen, it brings new challenges from new crimes and new threats to our security that are extensive and go well beyond the horrors of terrorism. We have to ensure that those whose responsibility it is to protect us and keep us safe have the necessary powers to do the job in the changing technological environment in which we live today, while ensuring that those powers are used only for the purposes authorised and intended, and not at the expense of the liberty and privacy of the public at large. We welcome the report by David Anderson, which will help us to do this and ensure that in the key areas of security, privacy and countering the many different threats we face, our very different digital age from that we have known in the past actually serves the interests of the public and our democracy rather than proves to be our master.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As he just said, this is one of a suite of reports commissioned by the previous coalition Government into investigatory powers; it is a very important one by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

On first reading, it appears to be a fair and balanced report. While some may have preferred there to be no state intrusion into people’s privacy, we on these Benches understand that there needs to be a balance between the powers given to the police and to the security services, and the right to privacy and the upholding of individuals’ civil liberties. It is for the police and the security services to argue for more powers, for civil libertarians to argue for fewer, and for us as politicians objectively to decide where the balance properly lies.

The Home Secretary, in her Statement, lists a whole range of potential threats, concluding that,

“we have a duty to ensure that the agencies whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers they need to do the job”.

As a consequence of what the right honourable Member said in the other place, I am concerned that the Government are already biased in favour of the state and against the individual. Thankfully, David Anderson is having none of it and neither should we. Along with consideration of the threats that we face as a country, will the Government consider a digital Bill of Rights to give citizens a clear and unambiguous understanding of where their rights lie and what protections they have against state intrusion? Will the Minister also agree with David Anderson that,

“there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case … has been made”,

for it, and agree with him that this case has not been made to date?

The fact is, the draft communications data Bill, to give it its correct title, is hopelessly out of date and can no longer deliver what the police and the security services need while massively intruding into people’s privacy—all pain and no gain. The right honourable member for Sheffield Hallam when he was Deputy Prime Minister took a lot of flak for blocking legislation that required the retention of third-party data. Would the Minister not agree that David Anderson, in his report, agrees with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrat position on what some have called the “snoopers’ charter”, even if he cannot bring himself to say that he agrees with Nick?

David Anderson recognises that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is no longer fit for purpose, and we welcome the Government’s approach that there should be a pre-legislative committee of both Houses to look at its successor. Will the Minister confirm that such a committee will be given access to all relevant information to enable it to make a proper judgment on the Government’s proposals?

Finally, we strongly support David Anderson’s recommendation that intercept warrants should be judicially authorised by specialist judicial commissioners, rather than by government Ministers. Surely it is for the police and the security services to decide whether applying for such a warrant is necessary in the interest of national security and it should be for judges to decide whether such action is lawful. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, pending a change in the legislation, the Government will operate within the spirit of the independent reviewer’s recommendations by ensuring that the Secretary of State consults the existing surveillance commissioners prior to authorising such warrants?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their welcome of the report and of the Statement. When we deal with matters of this importance it is vital that we work, as far as possible, in a cross-party way. That was certainly reflected in the commissioning of this review and the Government will seek to continue that as we consider its implications.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly asked whether the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is still fit for purpose. That is a key element. Fifteen years ago, we could not have envisaged the plethora of social media that have exploded upon us. Some 204 million emails can now be flying around every minute, placing challenges on those who have the duty of keeping us safe. Therefore, we accept the noble Lord’s important point.

The noble Lord also sought a commitment with regard to clarity on this issue. When we are dealing with matters of great sensitivity that concern people’s individual security and rights, it is vital that the language used is clear and understood, as is the relevant legislation. That is one of the key elements that the pre-legislative scrutiny will bring to the Bill. I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord that the Bill needs to be drawn up before a committee is established. However, when the Bill is presented in the autumn, a Joint Committee will be established which will have a wide remit. It will be for the House to determine the committee’s composition and remit but it should certainly have the very wide remit necessary to carry out its important job of scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about rights and a Bill of Rights. The Government have now secured a mandate from the electorate to look at ways of modernising our human rights laws and are reflecting on that. We recognise the arguments about privacy but argue that, for people to enjoy that privacy, they first need security. That is where the balance needs to be struck.

The noble Lord also referred to the importance of people having trust in the system, and it is no accident that David Anderson’s report is entitled A Question of Trust. Indeed, he says on page 245 that,

“the road to a better system must be paved with trust”.

That is a central principle, along with the other principles he outlined. In the report he drew on some public opinion data and pointed out that, far from being sceptical about the security services’ use of data, there was wide support for it among the British public, and that:

“66% think that British security and intelligence agencies should be allowed to access and store the internet communications of criminals or terrorists; 64% back them in carrying out this activity by monitoring the communications of the public at large”.

That is not to say that this is the line we are going down. The Government are still considering all the options but the important thing is to work thoroughly, carefully and methodically. This report, along with that of the Intelligence and Security Committee and the RUSI report which is still to come, commissioned by the former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, will all provide the firm evidence base that we need to progress in this very sensitive area.

NHS: Innovation

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

17:09

Asked by

[Lord Wills]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage innovation by NHS England.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister to his new role and to what I understand will be his maiden speech. We overlapped for one Parliament in the other place, where he had a reputation as a thoughtful and conscientious Member of Parliament. Since then he has made a distinguished contribution to the work of the NHS. I am sure that he will make an equally distinguished contribution to the work of your Lordships’ House, and I am very much looking forward to his maiden speech.

It is generally accepted that the NHS is under unprecedented pressure from a combination of progress, a population living longer and longer, and extraordinary advances in medical science and technology, coupled with the need for rigorous discipline in public finances and with ever-increasing public expectations of what healthcare should deliver. All this taken together means that the NHS faces complex and difficult decisions in every area of its work. This Government in their previous incarnation between 2010 and 2015 frequently said that their approach to tackling these challenges was based on the principle of doing more for less.

It is clear that innovation has a critical role to play. In 2011 an important report from the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology said that,

“success in delivering the government’s aspirations for healthcare … will depend on a fundamental cultural change within the NHS, supporting innovation in ways that increase health benefits while driving out costs across the system”.

I have asked for this debate today to highlight how in one particular case the Government and NHS England are signally failing to do this. That failure is causing unnecessary suffering and wasting taxpayers’ money, and it highlights what seem to be systemic problems with NHS England. I hope in his maiden speech that the Minister will be able to commit to some positive ways forward in addressing this failure.

Giant cell arteritis is a form of vasculitis, an inflammatory disease of blood vessels most commonly of the arteries in the head. It is, in effect, a stroke in the eye. If it is diagnosed in time it can be easily and cheaply treated with a course of steroids. Untreated, it leads to blindness in 25% of cases. It has been estimated that around 3,000 patients every year go blind as a result of giant cell arteritis—3,000 people losing their sight needlessly because doctors failed to diagnose their condition in time and provide sufficiently rapid treatment.

Why are thousands of these avoidable tragedies happening every year? It is partly because the symptoms are everyday. There are headaches associated with scalp pain, pain in the jaw or tongue, and it is also common to see low-grade fever, loss of appetite, depression and tiredness. Once symptoms present, an early temporal artery biopsy or ultrasound can confirm a diagnosis and enable urgent treatment to start to prevent blindness. However, far too often GPs miss the symptoms, because this is often an affliction of older people and the symptoms are too commonly categorised as merely the inevitable aches and pains of ageing.

For four years I have sought an estimate from the Department of Health of the cost of such unnecessary loss of sight, and as far as I am aware it still has not produced one. Maybe the Minister will surprise me today. My rough calculations—very rough—suggest that it could be around £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is based on the fact that the average annual costs to the Exchequer of blindness for an individual exceed £25,000 a year, so the costs of those 3,000 people going blind every year unnecessarily run to £75 million a year. Of course, this cost accumulates year on year, so over five years the total costs of such unnecessary blindness could come to between £1 billion and £1.1 billion. When that is offset against the costs of the steroids, that still leaves a net cost to the taxpayer of around £1 billion.

However, that is just a calculation of the financial costs. It takes no account of the human costs: the incalculable misery of those losing their sight, mostly pensioners, already at the most vulnerable stage of their adult lives. It does not mean the loss of vision alone, although that is tragic enough. It increases mortality and the risk of cardiovascular complications, such as heart attacks and strokes, and of aneurysms. It also means all too often the loss of independence, with elderly people who had been able to live in their own homes now being forced to go into residential care.

This is not inevitable. There are significant differentiating characteristics about the symptoms, so giant cell arteritis ought to be easy to diagnose as long as GPs are sufficiently sensitised. Headaches are common, but sudden onset headaches and headaches over the temples, for example, are less common. Those categories of headache are key indicators of giant cell arteritis. For example, jaw and tongue pain is a red flag warning.

Dedicated clinicians and support groups have been working tirelessly to reduce the suffering from this avoidable loss of sight by raising awareness among clinicians. The British Society for Rheumatology, British Health Professionals in Rheumatology and the Royal College of Physicians produced guidelines for the management of this complaint five years ago, but the persistence of problems with diagnosis and appropriate treatment suggests that these guidelines are not having the desired effect.

Recently, a remarkable clinician, Professor Dasgupta, has pioneered in Southend a cheap and cost-effective fast-track pathway for diagnosis and treatment. The results of this pilot have been validated by the Department of Health and they show a dramatic reduction in the numbers suffering sight loss from this condition. Rolled out nationally, it would save thousands of people from losing their sight needlessly, it would spare them and their families misery and suffering, and it would save the taxpayer around £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament.

In January last year, Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of NHS England, wrote to me saying that this fast-track pathway,

“represents a new way of doing things which is better and costs no more. We must learn from such innovative examples”,

and he suggested a meeting, saying that it should,

“seek to determine how to disseminate this good practice effectively. It is by finding ways of smoothly industrialising these new ways of doing things that we will improve quality in a way that is cost effective”.

At this point it seemed that NHS England was providing a model for innovation in healthcare. Sadly, it has not turned out to be quite like that. That meeting was held in April last year, and 20 minutes into it one of the patients’ representatives, an experienced and distinguished journalist, passed me a note that read simply, “We’ve got a problem”—and indeed we had. The NHS officials at the meeting clearly saw the smooth industrialisation and effective dissemination of the fast-track pathway as a very low priority. In the end, as a compromise it was agreed not that there should be a national rollout industrialising the fast-track pathway but that milestones towards it should be agreed by last summer. That never happened. When I tried to find out why, I was told it had never been agreed, even though I and the three other people present at the meeting who were not NHS officials are all clear that it was.

Instead of finding a way to industrialise this new way of doing things, as Sir Bruce Keogh said he wanted to do, NHS England and the Government seem to be relying on three alternative approaches, none of which represents anything like an adequate response. First, there are the guidelines, which are clearly not having a significant impact on the problem. Secondly, NHS England has been developing proposals to establish local rheumatology networks. On 18 March this year, Sir Bruce Keogh wrote to me, saying that,

“discussions on the development of these networks have started in a number of areas”.

In the 17 months since Sir Bruce told me that he wanted,

“to disseminate this good practice effectively”,

all that has happened is that discussions have started on localised rollouts. In that time a national industrialisation of this fast-track pathway could have prevented more than 2,000 people losing their sight. Finally, NHS England has invited Professor Dasgupta to contribute to the NHS innovation exchange portal. I wonder how much greater an impact NHS England thinks that portal will have over and above the existing guidelines—not very much, I would guess.

Why is more not being done? Ministers have said that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 means that this is now entirely a matter for NHS England. NHS England has produced two excuses. The first is that the Health and Social Care Act prevents it taking any action to ensure a national take-up of the fast-track pathway. It is not clear to me why this is. Admittedly the Act is extremely complex and impenetrable. Part 1 on its own runs to 110 pages. I have asked Sir Bruce Keogh to tell me which part of the Act he is relying on to make this assertion, but I have not yet had a reply.

However, the NHS England website pages on commissioning seem to suggest that it could do more. It says that,

“for rare disorders, services need to be considered and secured nationally”.

It does not say what is meant by “rare”, but NHS England always cites research showing that the incidence of giant cell arteritis is 20 per 100,000 people, which sounds rare to me. It seems that, on its website at least, NHS England concedes that it could be doing a lot more than it is telling me it can. In any event, if it turns out that the Health and Social Care Act does prevent NHS England taking the kind of action Sir Bruce Keogh said he wanted to see, there is clearly something wrong with that Act, and the Government should seek the first available legislative opportunity to amend it accordingly. In these circumstances, I hope the Minister might be able to commit to doing that if it proves necessary.

For the second excuse, and I am winding up now, I will quote Sir Bruce Keogh again. He said:

“Changing clinical pathways and processes require dedicated resource. Given the scale and complexity of the challenges facing the NHS, clinical and management resource has to be prioritised. Not everything can be done everywhere at once”.

As a generic statement, that sounds reasonable enough. Who could disagree with it? But it fails to explain why the fast-track pathway is such a low priority when it could rapidly save resources that could then be directed elsewhere. Sir Bruce’s remarks about industrialisation last year suggested that it would be given a higher priority, precisely for that reason. Can the Minister explain what has changed? Crucially, that generic statement fails to explain why the avoidable loss of sight appears to be given such a low priority by NHS England. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could shed any light on why that is so.

This case history suggests that NHS England is afflicted by a bureaucratic sclerosis that prevents it innovating in the way that the NHS so desperately needs. Moreover, it is clearly being hamstrung by the Health and Social Care Act either because there are real constraints on it, which hinder the effective dissemination of innovation, or because the legislation is so flawed that it is impossible to understand and is being used as an excuse for that bureaucratic sclerosis.

I hope that the Minister will use the occasion of his maiden speech to agree to take some action to sort out this profoundly unsatisfactory situation and to ensure the delivery of what Sir Bruce Keogh pledged in January 2014: to disseminate the good practice of this fast-track pathway effectively, and to find ways smoothly to industrialise it. Perhaps a good first step would be for the Minister, together with Sir Bruce Keogh, to agree to meet me and clinicians’ and patients’ representatives to discuss how best we can make progress. I hope that he will agree to do so, and I look forward to his response.

17:21

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to his first debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for using this debate to raise such an important issue. I, too, want to ask about fast-tracks although most of my remarks will be of a somewhat more general nature than those of the noble Lord.

The overriding purpose of innovation must be the better care and treatment of patients. Financial considerations are of course important but when patients’ lives are at risk, speed is of the essence, so we must do everything in our power to get proven new treatments and practices to patients without delay. A primary focus of innovative practice in the past two years has been the interface between health and social care. The devolution of new responsibilities to local authorities has the potential to let many flowers bloom and stimulate a lot of new thinking. However, local authorities, suffering deep cuts in their budgets and without ring-fencing of their adult social care and public health budgets, have found it very challenging to respond to their new powers. “No change” has not been an option. Indeed, in many areas, councillors and officials have felt that wholesale change is the only answer to providing integrated services to their ageing communities in a sustainable way.

A very good example of how this has been done is the Greater Manchester Integrated Care Programme. The 10 local authorities involved suffer some of the worst health outcomes and inequalities in the UK. The number of over-85s is forecast to rise by more than 28% in the next 20 years, while suboptimal management of these patients is currently placing significant strain on acute hospital services. As a result, older people in the area have high rates of emergency admission to hospital, of non-elective bed days and of readmission. What a challenge this is. By setting up three common integrated programmes with locally agreed variations that focus on user experience, health and well-being outcomes, productivity and multidisciplinary working, and with a strong programme of liaison and oversight, the 10 authorities have made real improvements in outcomes and reduced costs. Digital technology has been a key element in overcoming the barriers to integration. That was a quick skim through one very complex response to the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is only one example of the innovation which councils all over the country are leading.

Turning to new drugs and equipment, as I understand it, the main control over whether these are approved for use in the NHS, and can therefore be commissioned by CCGs, is the NHS Business Services Authority. Some manufacturers are concerned that the approval process can take up to two years. When all the evidence for efficacy and cost effectiveness is available, this can surely be speeded up. Can the Minister say whether the Government are in favour of a fast-track procedure for drugs and equipment where all the evidence is available that would allow new ideas to be brought to the patient sooner? I can understand things taking longer if further evidence is needed, but some companies are in a position to bring all the evidence to the table. Such applications should be able to go through or be rejected very quickly if the figures do not stack up. Have the academic health science networks succeeded in their objective of ensuring rapid evaluation and early adoption of innovations?

Even when a piece of equipment has been NICE-approved, it can take far too long to reach all the patients who could benefit from it. For example, the latest innovation in diabetes treatment to be approved is the insulin pump. This has been available for four years and is suitable, according to NICE, for 12% of adult diabetics and 33% of children. However, distribution has reached only 4% of the patients who would benefit from it, far behind other European countries. This is not encouraging for other companies which are currently working on even more innovations to make the lives of thousands of diabetics better and safer.

Of course, it is not only drugs and equipment that must be considered. New practices and procedures at trust level and in primary care can also bring benefits to patients, raise standards and save the NHS money—standards being the key to a good health service. Very often even the low-hanging fruit is not plucked. I refer in particular to hospital infection control. There have been many examples of cases where better implementation of simple hygiene procedures can make an enormous difference in hospital-acquired infection levels. Yes, there are clever new things such as using bactericidal services and UV light cleaning equipment, a US invention being trialled in two hospitals over here. These have their place, but often much simpler solutions are overlooked. For example, I have recently been treated in two hospitals, one in England and one in Wales. The English one swabs patients for MRSA during their pre-operative assessment; the Welsh one does not. It is obvious which one has the higher rate of MRSA. This practice was recommended by the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships’ House in 2003 when I was a member, in its report called Fighting Infection on the control of infectious diseases. It might have been a new idea then but it is not new any more and it is still not being used universally. It is a simple, cost-effective procedure and I am amazed that it is not being carried out in every hospital. So good care is not just about innovation, important though it is.

I believe that more use can be made of the simple things that we all use, such as the phone. Everybody has a phone—indeed, 4 billion people in the world use a mobile phone, whereas only 3 billion use a toothbrush. In Durham and Darlington, dieticians won an award from Health Service Journal for using telephony to improve the monitoring of patients with nutritional problems. Formerly, they could only see about six patients a day, but with this system, an automated phone call regularly goes to a patient who is self-administering prescribed nutritional supplements. They are asked to answer certain questions by pressing buttons on the phone. Clinicians receive an email alert if the information input is outside of predetermined parameters, or if they have failed to respond to the call. They can then check on the patient directly. This is a scheme well deserving of its award. This is a very simple mechanism but it improves productivity; patients love it and feel more confident in their treatment.

How many other uses could telephony be put to? We are lagging behind countries that we consider to be less developed than ours. Some years ago I went to India to look at some aspects of their health service. They were way ahead of us in what I would call distance health. In other words, because of the extreme rural nature of much of the country, and the fact that most medical expertise is located in the cities, they had set up village health centres with videolinks to hospitals. Doctors could be face to face with a patient many miles away, question him, get answers and even see the problem. The village health workers also helped with the consultation and could administer simple treatments under the instruction of the doctor.

We may not be as rural or poor as India, but we do have many patients who cannot get to their GP easily or get a timely appointment. It occurred to me at the time, years ago, that we could increase the productivity of our GPs if we had a system like that. The now discontinued NHS Direct was not popular with patients because the people at the end of the phone were not sufficiently well qualified, and too many people were just directed to their nearest A&E. Its replacement, NHS 111, has yet to prove itself. If it is co-ordinated properly with GPs’ practices and other services, as it is intended, it could be a great success, so I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how its success is being monitored and what role it will play in the Government’s ambition to make the NHS a 24/7 service. Finally, I look forward to the Minister’s maiden speech and to hearing some of the answers to my questions.

17:31

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Wills for introducing this debate in his usual eloquent and powerful way and for emphasising the importance of giant cell arteritis, which is such a devastating condition, but potentially treatable if it is diagnosed early enough. It is a particular pleasure to know that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, is at the Dispatch Box for the first time and giving his maiden speech. I know that he is extremely knowledgeable about the NHS, so I am sure he will have no trouble at all in answering all our questions.

The topic of innovation is very close to my heart. How could it not be, as someone who spent his life—rather a long time ago—as an academic physician and constantly tried to innovate in my practice, and who is now scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities, which produced that very far-sighted document a couple of years ago, Our Vision for Research in the NHS? In that vision, we wanted to see, first, every patient being offered the opportunity to be involved in research, for example in clinical trials. It is clear that most patients want to be involved. Perhaps they know that there is good evidence that patients who are in trials do better than those who are not. Secondly, we wanted research to be embedded in the NHS and every healthcare worker—doctors, nurses and others—to know that they can contribute to research. They should be motivated to engage in understanding the benefits of research for their patients. Thirdly, we wanted the NHS itself—the CCGs and trusts—to ensure that there is a research culture in its organisations.

How far have we come since then? Of course, some things have got better, but I fear that others have become worse. On the positive side, we have a very strong basic science sector. We are very good in the UK at innovation. We punch way above our weight in our research outputs internationally—citation indices, Nobel prizes and the like. We are being overtaken by China and Singapore, and India is coming up fast on the outside, but we are still pretty good.

Also on the positive side is the investment that the Department of Health is putting in through NIHR, under Sally Davies’s direction. The academic health science networks and centres are doing very important work in encouraging clinical research around the country—long may that continue. My first question for the Minister is about what plans the Government have for the longer-term funding of AHSNs. The last Government were rather cagey about that. Then, again on the positive side, we have the Health Research Authority, under Jonathan Montgomery’s chairmanship, which is doing good things in easing the regulatory burden on clinical researchers. There is more rapid approval through ethics committees and through local trust research committees.

However, of particular importance and value has been the rapid licensing of new drugs by the European Medicines Agency and the MHRA. That will prove invaluable in getting drugs through regulation and into practice. Yet too many hurdles still interfere with the uptake of innovations in clinical practice, and there are too many delays before patients begin to gain the benefits of innovation. Some of these were brought out in the Lords Select Committee report on regenerative medicine. I had the privilege of sitting on that committee a year or so ago. The report suggested that, first, funding for research was problematic. We found that although many original discoveries were made in the UK, lack of research funding and in particular venture capital investment prevented us from keeping ahead of the game. Researchers in other countries capitalised on our inventions—a very familiar story. We now hear that funding for universities might be cut back in the Chancellor’s proposed new austerity measures. What assessment have the Government made of the cuts to universities on research outputs, particularly medical research outputs?

Then there is the problem of how we can encourage doctors to engage in research at a time when clinical pressures on them increase all the time. That is certainly true of hospital doctors but even truer of GPs. Here, there is much greater resistance to engage in or contribute to research activities—clinical trials and the like. When I speak to GPs it is very clear why: they are simply rushed off their feet and overwhelmed by their clinical and administrative load. They just do not have the time. Are the Government doing anything to ease that burden? How can they even contemplate seven-day working and at the same time think about research?

The workload of GPs has another effect too. It impinges on their willingness to take up novel treatments as they come along. I am afraid that a natural antipathy to accepting something new is made worse when they do not have the time to even look at the evidence. If we are to achieve our ambitions for research in the NHS we need GPs to be much more involved. Do the Government have any ideas about getting round this serious difficulty?

Then there is the problem of access by researchers to data about patients. Clinical and other data are vital to the research endeavour and, indeed, for good clinical care. However, the care.data fiasco last year put that back far too far. What is being done now to untangle that mess? When will the planned pilot studies take place? What care is being taken to reassure the public and patients that their confidentiality will be protected, while at the same time explaining how vitally important it is that their data are made accessible to legitimate researchers?

Finally, we have the knotty problem of approval for funding of new treatments, particularly those for patients with cancers and rare diseases. These are often very expensive and must go through specialised NICE or NHS England assessment processes. There is the rub, because these are extremely slow and tortuous. Even though drugs may get a licence quickly through the new systems offered by the EMA and MHRA, they must then jump through the hoop of NICE for funding in the NHS. However, NICE can deal with only three of these requests a year and usually takes well over a year to approve any one of them. It is even worse for those drugs that it cannot take on. It can deal with only three; any more it must pass on to be examined by NHS England. Here, they must be considered by no less than seven serial committees—that is, seven committees in series. If you wanted to invent a system to avoid making a decision, then this is it. What can be done in NICE and in particular in NHS England to reduce this bureaucratic nightmare, set up to approve funding of these new treatments? Is there anything that can be done to rationalise the number of committees employed in NHS England that are needed to do this work?

It has been repeatedly stated by Ministers, including the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, that the Government give high priority to research and, in particular, to medical research. Indeed, the Health and Social Care Act made it mandatory for CCGs and trusts to include clinical research in their strategies, but it is equally clear that these ideals are being frustrated. There are other reasons, but funding for the service is going to be important—funding for GPs; funding for expensive drugs; and funding simply for the service—which makes it even harder for it to engage in the research agenda. But it is not just a question of funding, as I have said, and I look forward with interest to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and wish him well in facing the difficult times ahead.

17:40

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on securing this debate and on his compelling opening speech. Like him and all other speakers, I very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, in a few moments. I declare an interest as chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities.

In the context of the NHS, “innovation” has a wide range of applications. It covers, of course, innovations in care and treatment, but also medical research, which is where I shall focus most of my remarks this afternoon. A great many things have changed in the NHS in the last 15 years, as other noble Lords have said. Very significant advances have been made, and many of them are the fruits of the UK’s acknowledged excellence in medical research. We recognised this explicitly in our debates on the then Health and Social Care Bill in 2012, which imposed for a first time an explicit duty on the Secretary of State, NHS England and CCGs to,

“promote research on matters relevant to the health service, and the use in the health service of evidence obtained from research”.

It is generally accepted that the UK’s leading role in medical research is of enormous value to patients and the country. That leading role depends to a very large extent on the active participation and leadership of the NHS itself. The Government recognise that, and so does the NHS. In October last year, the NHS published its Five Year Forward View; this document devoted four pages to innovation, usefully not only setting out aspirations but detailing some of the steps needed to achieve those aspirations. The document explicitly confirmed continued support for the NIHR. That is a very good thing.

The NIHR is, with the AMRC and the medical research charities, one of the key funders of medical research, which in the NHS has undergone a kind of renaissance since the advent of the NIHR. It is all the more impressive when you realise that the NIHR’s budget is less than 1% of the overall NHS budget. That is a much smaller percentage commitment to R&D than is the norm for other knowledge-based organisations. There is a real business case, as I said before, for increasing the NIHR’s budget, apart from compensating for inflation. For every £1 of government and charity spend on health research there is a return of between 37p and 40p every year, in perpetuity. This is obviously a vital area. Could the Minister use his very best efforts to persuade his colleagues that a significant part of the promised extra £8 billion should find its way into the NIHR budget? While I am talking about money, when are we likely to see the guidance on excess treatment costs that was promised for before Christmas?

Despite some progress and good intentions, the research landscape in the NHS is not yet entirely encouraging. Around three weeks ago, Cancer Research UK published a report that it had commissioned entitled Every Patient a Research Patient?. The organisation stole or borrowed the title from the Prime Minister’s own stated aspiration that every patient will be a research patient. However, this report says that it has,

“found mounting and pressing concern”,

about research in the NHS. It identified a number of constraints, including,

“the ability of people to commit time to research, in the face of mounting service pressures … the availability of key skills and experience within the workforce”,

and of course generalised financial pressures.

The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, commented on the report. She said:

“There is considerably more to do to improve the commitment, culture, capacity and capability of the NHS to promote, support and conduct research”.

Are there mechanisms in place to measure progress on the lines set out by the Chief Medical Officer? How will we know when we are making progress?

The final area I shall touch on briefly is data. Patient data, actual and potential, are an almost unimaginably important resource. Proper collection, dissemination and analysis of data will allow the next great leap forward in medical science. The NHS explicitly recognises this and has set up the National Information Board to lead the effort. We need real drive and leadership in this area. As my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, the debacle over care.data has made progress very much more difficult. The Wellcome Trust noted at a recent hearing of the Health Select Committee on patient data that some researchers funded by medical research charities are experiencing significant difficulties and delays when trying to access data from the Health and Social Care Information Centre. Often these delays are more than 12 months. In some cases, researchers have not been allowed to access data at all, even when patient consent has been given and the data anonymised. I am sure the Minister is well aware that the situation is as difficult as it is urgent. Better use of patient data can lead to significantly better outcomes for those patients. I know the department is aware of this and all the other issues I have mentioned and is aware of the need for an overarching NHS research strategy and is working on that. Finally for the Minister’s list of questions, when does he expect to be able to publish a draft of this research strategy tying all these issues together?

17:46

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Wills for opening this debate in an excellent way. I am going to talk a little bit about NHS procurement so I should declare an interest as president of both GS1 and the HCSA.

It is my great privilege to anticipate the Minister’s maiden speech, congratulate him on it and welcome him to your Lordships’ House. He is a distinguished businessman, politician and, latterly, was chairman of the fantastic Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and the Care Quality Commission. I think it is fair to say that he inherited the CQC in a somewhat fragile state. It is to his great credit that he and chief executive David Behan have stabilised the position. I do not take the Roy Lilley approach to the CQC. Of course there will always be issues about its methodology and the way it practises regulation, but I have no doubt that under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, the CQC was definitely going in the right direction, and we owe him a great debt for that. I should also say that I particularly appreciated the fact that he and his chief executive made themselves available frequently to politicians, and that approachability is also very much respected and appreciated. I am sure that that will also characterise his frequent appearances in your Lordships’ House in our many health debates.

This is a very important question. We have the great paradox that this country has, as my noble friend Lord Turnberg suggested, a hugely impressive life science base and much-valued R&D. Even today, with all the pressures on UK pharma, there are still many drugs in the top 100 globally which have been developed in this country, yet we have a real problem in adoption by the National Health Service. My fear is always that unless we can dramatically change the approach of the NHS, we will put at risk future global investment in this country.

I shall start by referring to the points raised by my noble friend in opening the debate, on giant-cell arteritis. I have come across similar problems in another disease area—we have had debates on them in your Lordships’ House: one on PAWS GIST, and another on neurofibromatosis NF-1—and my experience is exactly the same as my noble friend’s. The problem is where there are small numbers of patient groups and effectively no national strategy. CCGs simply do not have the capacity, capability or desire to do anything about it at a local level, and GPs are inundated with guidance on one thing or another, making it very unfair to attack GPs on this matter. It is clear that we lack a strategy within NHS England for dealing with these patient groups—these disease areas—where they involve a small number of people. Like my noble friend, I have had a number of meetings with officials at NHS England who are clearly completely overwhelmed by the task in hand. There is no decision-making structure that I can see where you can ask, “Who in NHS England is responsible for giant-cell arteritis?”. It is quite clear that no one has responsibility. They may well have a clinical director who has some vague oversight, but that is as good as it gets.

What has happened to the clinical directors is disgraceful. Under the Labour Government they were employed in the department, with direct access to Ministers. Now they are part-timers in NHS England, with no support and no access to the top of the office, and are left in an impossible position. I hope the noble Lord will sort that out. I also hope he will encourage NHS England to take a much more progressive view on innovation. I welcome a number of the Government’s initiatives, such as AHSNs and the current accelerated access review. Those are strongly welcomed. I know that Mr George Freeman, in his department, shares the concern that we have about the need for adoption in the NHS. However, someone has to sort NHS England out.

We have already heard about the problem of drugs that do not go through the NICE cycle. Basically, NHS England has set up a rationing tool to delay their introduction; that is why there are so many committees—it is simply a rationing tool. The gross example of this relates to the new PPRS agreement on drugs. In that area I congratulate the Government on negotiating an agreement whereby over a five-year period, if drug costs go up a certain level, a rebate is paid out to government. Every quarter a rebate is paid back. I think we have now gone through 18 months, so another rebate is due shortly. The money coming back could have been used to finance new and innovative medicines, but no—it is simply being taken and put into general allocations. There was an opportunity there for the pharmaceutical industry to finance the introduction of innovative new drugs, because we know what the drug costs will be over a five-year period. However, my understanding is that because NHS England was not part of those negotiations, and despite what it says in the NHS Five Year Forward View and Simon Stevens’ commitment to innovation, the practice of NHS England is in fact to stamp on innovation, because the only thing it is interested in is containing costs, and it sees that at a very crude level.

As the noble Lord will know, the 2012 Act has effectively been disowned by the Secretary of State. Every announcement that has been made in the last few weeks suggests that we are going back to good old command and control, and thank goodness for that. The Minister needs to take a grip on this, otherwise we will have another debate on innovation every year. Frankly, it is clear that the NHS is not going to adopt proven innovative new developments, techniques and medicines.

My final point concerns the report of my noble friend Lord Carter, which was published today. I am very grateful to my noble friend for the work that he has done, and I absolutely agree with him when he says that a better approach to purchasing will bring good returns. Again, it has been abundantly clear that we need a central, directional approach to procurement if we are to get those savings. The question that I want to put to the Minister relates to a new approach to purchasing, where essentially the Department of Health or NHS England, on behalf of the NHS, will commit itself to volume purchasing in order to get the kinds of savings that we want. Can he ensure that in the discussions that he takes forward it will be clear to the people doing the negotiations that part of the outcome will be a willingness to invest in innovation? I think that there is the potential for very good, longer-term agreements with industry in which the NHS, because it can commit to volumes, can achieve considerable savings. However, the deal has to be that the NHS adopts new, innovative products and medicines, rather than a penny-pinching approach, which in the end will be cost effective.

I know that some of those matters come within the responsibilities of the noble Lord, Lord Prior. He is warmly welcomed to this House and to his position, and we very much look forward to hearing his maiden speech.

17:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on introducing this debate today. As I would have expected, we have heard five powerful speeches and I stand here in some awe. This is my maiden speech and I want to say what a huge privilege and honour it is for me to join your Lordships’ House. I still have to pinch myself every time I come here to check that it is really true.

It goes without saying that I wish that my father were here today and not taking a leave of absence. I would have liked the chance at least once in my life to have addressed him as “my noble kinsman”—more respectful, if more other-worldly, than other epithets that I may have used to describe him in the past. He was elected to the other place in 1959 and introduced to this House in 1987. The spirit of “one nation” that inspired his politics is, I am glad to say, alive and well in today’s Conservative Party. What inspired him back in 1959 still inspires me today.

I follow in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Howe, who is in the Chamber. He held the office that I now have with huge distinction in both government and opposition for some 18 years. Over that time, he deservedly won a reputation, on all sides of the House, for charm, humour, intelligence, integrity, good sense and fair play.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

He embodies all that is best about this House and he will be a very hard act for me to follow, although I shall do my best.

I also pay tribute to the former Minister for Care Services in the last Government, Norman Lamb. If not for him, I might well have still been in another place representing the constituency of North Norfolk. I congratulate him especially on his work on raising awareness of mental health issues and improving the standing of mental health services in this country. Both our families have been touched in different ways by the tragedy and tragic consequences of mental illness, and I imagine that many others in this House will have been similarly touched.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for raising the important issue of innovation in the National Health Service. If he will give me a little latitude, I will come back to him later on the points that he raised. We have already spoken outside the House about his particular concern, but I will address it towards the end of my speech.

Before I respond to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would like to say how much I look forward to working with him. We have worked together over the last two years. He has a deep knowledge of and commitment to the National Health Service, and I know that there is much more that unites us than divides us. It is a shame that, sometimes, the adversarial nature of politics intrudes so deeply into health and social care. I endorse his words about his noble friend, Lord Carter, who has produced an extremely valuable report that will help the National Health Service to drive costs out of the way that we deliver care in acute hospitals, which can then be used more for innovation, new drugs and the like.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was a Minister back in 2000, when the then Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, described the NHS as a,

“1940s system operating in a twenty first century world”.

I think the noble Lord will agree that the project of transforming the system so that it is fit for today’s world is still far from complete.

The NHS Five Year Forward View is, I believe, a vision for the transformation of the NHS that all of us in this House can support. It is a vision for the NHS created not by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Health—who is sitting to my left—or by any politician. It is a vision of the NHS by the NHS, for patients and taxpayers alike. It describes a future built on innovative new models of care and integrated models of care, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned in her speech, to meet the needs of today’s population.

My time as chairman of the Care Quality Commission taught me a great deal, but especially that great organisations require great leadership and very high levels of staff engagement. Staff engagement is probably the best predictor of care quality and overall performance of hospitals and, indeed, of primary care and social care. Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals are not primarily motivated by targets, financial incentives or contracts; they are driven overwhelmingly by their vocation. I much appreciated the words of a former president of the Royal College of Physicians, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, who understands that probably more than I or many others in the House do. We must never forget that it is their vocation that drives healthcare professionals.

I want particularly to mention how delighted I am that NHS England has appointed Yvonne Coghill to champion the cause of race equality. It is sad and wrong that so many people from BME backgrounds do not have the same opportunities as others in the NHS. This is not just morally wrong but has a direct impact on patient care.

It is important to remember that innovation, the subject of today’s debate, needs the full engagement and alignment of clinicians, staff and managers alike if it is to deliver the change that we want and need. Innovation in medicine has prompted enormous advances in healthcare. From the discovery of penicillin, through the pioneering of major organ transplantation and keyhole surgery, to increasingly targeted modern cancer treatments and, as I found out last week, the development of 3D-printed hip replacements, there is much to be proud of and indeed thankful for.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned infection control. The noble Baroness is right: it is not just about the high tech; sometimes it is about just washing your hands. The extraordinary improvements that we have seen in the reduction of MRSA and C. difficile in our hospitals—although there is further to go—is testament to that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, rightly identified in last week’s Queen’s Speech debate, we now stand at the brink of a new technological revolution in healthcare, with the emergence of advanced digital technologies, greater connectivity and the widespread use of smartphones opening up unprecedented opportunities for treatment and prevention. In addition to the wide array of wearable technologies, there are no fewer than 100,000 health apps, allowing people to take more control over their health and well-being. I think that self-care will be a major addition to the armoury of health prevention as we go forward.

We are determined to seize these opportunities and have established the National Information Board to drive the digital transformation of the health and care system. I share the concerns expressed by noble Lords in this House that restoring public confidence and trust in care.data is an imperative and is very important.

Noble Lords will know that in its Five Year Forward View, NHS England and all the ALBs have committed to driving improvements in health through developing, testing and spreading innovation across the health system. This aspiration is evident in the creation of the Vanguard programme. Noble Lords will be aware that in January the NHS invited organisations to apply to become vanguard sites for the new care models programme—a highly innovative programme. More than 260 organisations expressed an interest in developing such a model, with the aim of transforming how care is delivered locally. In deciding which models of care to support, NHS England and ourselves will be guided by the view of a previous Prime Minister, recently repeated by Liz Kendall MP, that “we will back what works”.

Let me provide a few further examples of where we are making progress. First, the test beds initiative, launched in March this year, will produce real-world sites for evaluating innovations that integrate new technologies and other novel approaches that offer the prospect of better care at lower cost. Secondly, noble Lords will be aware that England was the first country in the world to establish a system of academic health science networks, supporting local economies to improve local health outcomes, and maximising the NHS’s contribution to economic growth by enabling and catalysing change through collaboration. This builds on the success of our six world-leading academic health science centres, designated following review by international experts. Having met with the Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, this afternoon, anyone in this House who believes that research will not have a high priority for this Government will have to tangle with Dame Sally. It is remarkable for a country the size of England to have six world-class institutions in this field.

Thirdly, I am proud that we are leading the world in whole-genome sequencing. NHS England is a key partner in the landmark 100,000 Genomes project, working to sequence 100,000 genomes of NHS patients with cancer or rare diseases. The 11 genomics medicine centres across the country are playing a vital role in identifying patients with rare diseases and cancers with a view to providing more personalised and targeted treatment. It will not be long before we are the first mainstream health service in the world to offer genomic medicine as part of routine care for patients.

Last but not least, to pick up the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, the accelerated access review was launched by the Minister for Life Sciences in March and is independently chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor. It will make recommendations later in the year on how we can speed up patients’ access to innovative medicines and medical technologies, taking time and cost out of the development pathways for new products. This will have wide benefits for innovators, for pharma companies, the NHS and, of course, for patients.

We must not, of course, become complacent. Health has always been a hotbed of innovation, and innovation has allowed the NHS to provide ever more advanced care to patients. But the wider world offers many examples of innovation in the way care is delivered from which we can take huge inspiration—whether it is Kaiser Permanente in California, Aravind in India, or the extraordinary work that is being done with data in Singapore and Australia. We must never fall into the trap of “not invented here”.

Finally, turning to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, concerning giant cell arteritis, I should add that this is not as specific as I thought and raises more general issues about NHS England than were raised by the noble Lord opposite. The Government recognise that early diagnosis and treatment of giant cell arteritis is extremely important to prevent sight loss. I was touched by the human concerns and the human impact of giant cell arteritis expressed by the noble Lord as well as the financial issues that he raised.

I have raised the issue with Sir Bruce Keogh, the national medical director of NHS England, who is happy to meet the noble Lord, along with the Minister for Life Sciences, George Freeman. But in view of the more generic issues that have been raised, and the fact that it is not just this specific matter, I would like to join the meeting—to discuss not only Professor Dasgupta’s work but the wider issues around commissioning treatments for these rare and specialised conditions. I hope that the meeting is productive.

I am conscious that I have not addressed all the questions today, but on this occasion I hope that your Lordships will forgive me as it was my maiden speech. I want to say how much I am looking forward to working with noble Lords on all sides of the House in the years to come.

House adjourned at 6.10 pm.