Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am familiar with that proposal. It was not put forward as a priority by the local enterprise partnership but, as I have said, I am keen to have a further look at what other schemes will make a big impact locally. My hon. Friend has made a powerful piece of advocacy for it today, and perhaps when I am in the area I will look at it.

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

Would D2N2 be more powerful and effective if it was directly elected? In the Minister’s view, should LEPs be directly elected?

[Greg Clark]

LEPs are elected in the sense that every one of them contains the democratically elected leaders of their local councils, but they also contain the business leaders of the area, which is important. For example, in the deal we did with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, the technology director of Rolls-Royce, which the hon. Gentleman will concede is a very important employer in Derbyshire, said that the focus in the LEP strategy on growth and investing in infrastructure is exactly what is needed, and that it aligns with the company’s objectives. Bringing business and the democratically elected council leaders together is the right way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

I think my hon. Friend is referring to an emerging difficulty that we face: not only do we wish jurors to abide by their oath—the oath is very clear, and they should be fully cognisant of what it requires of them—but we need to address the fact that in the age of social media, people can get themselves into trouble without realising it. That is why, beyond even jurors, we have tried to set out clearly in the social media arena what contempt of court might involve so that people can avoid it. We have sent out on social media clear messages, I hope, as to what should be avoided, and we will continue to look for ways to do that.

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

The Attorney-General has admitted that there have been only five such prosecutions, but will he look more thoroughly at the wonderful people who come and do jury service and are treated abominably, both in my constituency and throughout the country—kept waiting, never knowing what is going on, sent home and brought back? Why do we not improve their situation?

[The Attorney-General]

I agree entirely that we should pay tribute to all those who engage in jury service. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is a tiny minority of those jurors who cause any difficulty at all, and it is also right, as he says, that we should treat those jurors as well as we can. Having practised in the criminal courts, I know that there has long been an issue with jurors being kept hanging around and not given clear information as to what is going to happen next. Some of that, as he will appreciate, is a simple function of the uncertainties that criminal trials bring about, but I will certainly speak to my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary about how we can do better for jurors. The hon. Gentleman is right—they deserve the best treatment we can give them.

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

That, I hope, is the product of the alliance that the United States, through President Obama and the efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry, have been putting together. An illustration of that commitment is the fact that five countries in the region have joined in to support the air strikes carried out so far,

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

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

No, I am afraid that I must move on.

The circumstances faced by Iraq are such that its very survival is at stake. It is important that we exercise a degree of responsibility in the matter. Although it is not the sole cause of the current circumstances in Iraq, there is no doubt that the military action in which we joined with the United States against Saddam Hussein has been a major contributor to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Let me deal with the question of Syria. I am content that were there to be a motion to the effect that we should take similar action in Syria, there exists a proper and sound legal basis for such action. Indeed, the very factors that justify intervention in Iraq would be of equal weight in relation to Syria. Those are, to put it briefly, the barbarism that is being displayed, and the fact that regional stability is being heavily undermined. Let us remind ourselves that such undermining of stability has an impact on countries such as Jordan, a close ally that would be a necessary component were there ever to be a global settlement for peace in the middle east.

We must also recognise that the Arab countries that have joined in have exercised a degree of responsibility in doing so. In many cases, they are taking on elements in their own countries that are opposed. How would any other country, faced with that decision, feel in the event that the motion that we are debating were not passed? It has been suggested that we need a United Nations resolution before we can embark on any action of the kind that is proposed, or indeed on similar action in relation to Syria. We must accept the reality that the prospect of a United Nations Security Council resolution is totally remote. Indeed, even to put such a resolution on the table would be a wholly pointless exercise because of the attitude that would undoubtedly be taken by Russia and possibly also by China.

The language that has been used so far has been about destruction, but I am not sure that it is possible to destroy an ideology. I am not sure that it is possible to destroy a cult of the kind that now exercises such malign influence. One thing that we most certainly can do is to adopt a policy of containment and deterrence. To do that, we have to degrade its military capability and create circumstances in which any return to barbarism will be met by swift and effective action. I think we would do best to agree that we are not likely to embark on a successful process of destruction, but that we can have an effective doctrine of deterrence and containment.

There is no parallel between today’s debate and the debate on Iraq in 2003, but there is a parallel with Kosovo. When Kosovo was an issue, with considerations similar to those that we are discussing—not least ethnic cleansing—the international community was able to deal with the situation without a resolution. A lot has been said about the long term, but we do not have that luxury.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). His speech reminded me that, in my view, the Foreign Office is a worse place for his not being there.

I want to pick up a few strands that have been developing in the debate. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) described the way in which the bad and the good were trying to get rid of the ugly, but left unanswered the question of what we should do if they asked for outside help to get rid of the ugly. Whether or not we like the fact that this action is seen as being United States-led, a democratically elected state is asking for our help, and I think that we are duty bound to give that help.

[Mr Sheerman]

I always listen with rapt attention to my hon. Friend’s views on international affairs. As one who has sat here listening to all her speeches, may I ask for her guidance on how we are to get out of this once we are in? What is the long-term gain?

[Ms Stuart]

That is a fair point, which I shall try to address. It brings me back to what was said by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in their opening speeches.

First, I am very glad that on this occasion we have the clearly outlined strategy that we did not have a year ago, and that is why I feel comfortable about voting for the motion. Secondly, I am reminded of Ban Ki-moon’s observation that, while missiles kill terrorists, it is good governance that kills terrorism. The long-term answer will be the good governance of functioning nation states, and we must therefore ensure that the nation states that are currently functioning in the region—Jordan, Turkey, and Iran—do not fall apart or become compromised. We must also ensure that the fragmentation that is a risk for states such as Iraq—and, to some extent, Jordan, if we are not careful—is not allowed to happen, because it would not be in our interests. Frederick the Great said that one cannot ride on horseback against ideas. It is not a newly discovered wisdom that ideas cannot be fought with arms, but we seem to forget it at regular intervals, and every generation seems to need to be reminded of it.

Why is military action required now? I think that it is required as a starting point. A myth is developing that ISIS is undefeatable, that it will spread, and that it cannot be contained. The first step must be to show that it can be contained, and that those who want to fight it will be given support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The one thing that is certain is that no one in this House or anywhere else can be certain that the policies we are being asked to endorse will succeed. If we look at the track record of the interventions of the French, British and Americans in the middle east since the collapse of the Ottoman empire, we see that the odds look as though we will not succeed, because everything else has gone wrong. And yet I find that I am probably going to vote for the motion tonight. This is my argument for doing so.

The situation that we face is different from previous ones. Clearly, what has happened is a threat to international peace and security, and therefore entitles the world powers and the Government of Iraq to invite support to try to protect them against their invaders. It may not be an invading army, but it is certainly an invasion that Iraq has suffered, and Iraq is entitled to call upon the rest of us. And it is faced with a genocidal outfit. Genocide consists of killing people because of who they are, and that is exactly what ISIS is doing.

In any war, some prisoners will be murdered; in many wars, some women will be raped. It is usually the product of indiscipline. In the case of ISIS, it is part of its military strategy to terrorise people, and it is organised: organised murder, organised abduction of women and organised rape of Muslim women. That is not western propaganda, which is its usual excuse; it is parading proudly what it is doing. It is showing on social media the murder of prisoners, the carting off and abduction of women.

[Mr Sheerman]

I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said, but does he agree that when we use drone missiles and attack from the air, that is not—it cannot be—precision, and when we get into this, if we start killing children, and schools and hospitals are drawn in, public support will go away very quickly?

[Frank Dobson]

That may be true, but it must be said that without the American intervention from the air, the chances are that ISIS would now be in control of Baghdad. They had to be stopped militarily and one function of the air attacks is to deprive them of their use of heavy weaponry, to give those who are opposed to them a better chance of defeating them. It is necessary, therefore, it seems to me, to provide an opportunity for the ground forces to get their act together and take them on, and if what we are doing can weaken their opponents during that time, that is all the better.

The effort that everyone agrees is necessary—to encourage political activity, to effect political reconciliation, to bring people together, to unite the people of Iraq against their common enemy—can be successful only if we help the Iraqis to keep the common enemy at bay until they have got themselves sorted out. That is why, on balance, I shall support the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and he makes the point well. In addition to the lists of institutions he has just given, Standard Life in the insurance sector has made it clear that it could not remain in Scotland were it to be an independent country. That relates to the need for large financial institutions to have a regulator, and in some cases a lender of last resort. A country the size of an independent Scotland would not be able to support those institutions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his approach.

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

4. What steps his Department is taking to increase the number of highly skilled workers.

[The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)]

The hon. Gentleman is far-sighted and consistent in his support for the need for advanced skills in our economy, and he knows better than anyone that there are two ways to acquire those skills—through a university degree or through an apprenticeship, ideally a higher apprenticeship. That is why the Government are expanding and improving both routes.

[Mr Sheerman]

I hear what the Minister says, but I would hate for him to go into the next election with the mantra, “Complacency, complacency, complacency” on skills. There is an OECD report on the lack of skills of our graduates in this country, and Sir Michael Bichard has said that 16 to 19-year-olds are not equipped in a country where we are desperate for skills and do not have enough technicians, and where there is a real problem. What will the Minister do about that?

[Nick Boles]

There is no complacency because we are aware of quite how terrible the situation was that we inherited from the previous Government. Technical qualifications had been created that had literally no value, and we have swept them away. As I said earlier, there were apprenticeships that did not involve any work or any employer, and we have swept them away. There is a huge amount more work to be done to ensure that young people who have not secured good GCSEs in English and Maths go on studying and get those qualifications later in their careers. There are a huge number of further priorities for us and for any future Government, but progress has been made and it is good.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about the specific circumstances in his constituency. I would say to him that our broadband roll-out programme has now covered more than 1 million homes, and we are covering about 40,000 homes a week. We are going flat-out on this, and we are achieving great success.

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

May I say that I lament the moving of the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts)? One of the weaknesses of the parliamentary system is this stupid churn of Ministers, especially the good ones who should have been in the Cabinet and doing their job right through to the election.

May I push the Secretary of State on the subject of entrepreneurs? We need more of them in our country, along with more business start-ups. There are some very good tax incentives at the moment, so will he speak to the Chancellor about spreading the tax relief incentives out beyond the private sector? Let us give equal status to social investment and social enterprises. He will know that, at the moment, the cap is much lower.

[Vince Cable]

That has been an active subject of discussion with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Indeed, we have had a social enterprise day supporting worker-owned enterprises, and a consultation is taking place at the moment on how such activity can be facilitated through the tax system. I note the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the churn of Ministers. I should point out that I have been in my present job longer than anyone since someone called Peter Thorneycroft in the early 1950s.

NATO Summit

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There are good lessons from Mali because there was proper concentration on the importance of the political process that would bring a new Government in Mali, as well as some important military action. My right hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the United Nations as a way of building support and legitimacy for what needs to be done.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that the reason most of us support NATO is not that we are warmongers, but that we want to prevent war? The more strong, organised, strategic and well-resourced NATO can be, the better. The news from Newport was very good, as long as it is carried through and we check that the members of NATO deliver. However, did he think it strange that nearly every report said that President Obama and everyone else had stipulated that there should be no boots on the ground? Is that not strange coming from NATO?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me agree with the hon. Gentleman that NATO is a defensive alliance. That is at the heart of its success. Of course, it now has to think more about the threats from outside Europe, such as terrorism and cyber-attacks, which might require more activism. On his remarks about boots on the ground, in order to squeeze ISIL out of existence, as I have put it, there will have to be boots on the ground, but those boots should be Iraqi boots. It is their country and they should be leading the process. The question for us is what we can do to help those boots on the ground, rather than put our own there.

Social Economy

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Hazel Blears]

Very good.

At one point I would not have thought that we would be having a debate on the social economy, because it is a fairly new idea that has emerged from some quite longstanding ideas. The idea of the social economy is beginning to develop as a way of bringing together sections of the existing economy—it is an exciting development—and about working out what a new economy might look like. One of the main drivers for me has been the financial crisis—the crash—and the resulting lack of trust in a range of organisations, including, unfortunately, some in our financial sector and some big businesses, which has led to the emergence of ideas about what a more responsible capitalism would look like. Although a lot of speeches have been made, there has been too little detail mentioned, and too little thought and analysis, about real, practical measures we could take to make capitalism more responsible and to have more of a social mission, and for us to feel that—as well as making money and creating jobs, which are really important in our economy—businesses can embrace a social dimension that allows them not just to do good in the community, but to be more successful.

One of the exciting things about a responsible capitalism is that it is not simply about altruism or philanthropy, but about saying that a business that recognises, at its heart and in its mission, the impact it can make in communities is likely to be a much more longstanding, successful and competitive business in the marketplace. Bringing those two things together is an exciting concept.

I came to this issue originally 20 or 30 years ago, supporting social enterprise, so it is not new in those terms. When I was a Minister I did the first cross-Government social enterprise strategy, to see how the whole of Government could help make social enterprise flourish, become more mainstream and move out of its niche position and into providing mainstream services. We have seen a step change, partly because of the financial crash and the move to responsible capitalism, and partly because of a recognition in the social sector that it needs to have confidence and big ideas—to move, perhaps, from the margins to the centre of our economy. I am seeing in many social enterprises now a new-found dynamism and confidence, which is moving them to the centre.

All the players on the board were at one time playing separately and individually, in their own small area, but I now see the private, public and voluntary sectors, including co-ops, mutuals and social enterprises, in a massive burgeoning of many different organisations playing a part in the mainstream economy in Europe and indeed globally. If that is not an exciting idea, I do not know what is, so I am pleased that we have secured this debate.

I want to talk about social enterprise, social value and social investment, which I see as the three building blocks of a social economy. I will start with social enterprise, because it has been around for a long time. As I said, many of us have supported the growth of social enterprise for 20, 30 or 40 years. I am delighted that there are now some 75,000 social enterprises in this country that employ more than 1 million people. They make a huge contribution to our GDP and include some of the most innovative, creative and far-sighted individuals and organisations that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. That is partly because they sit slightly outside the mainstream, so they have the space and flexibility to come up with solutions to some of the most pressing social problems that we face.

Social enterprise increasingly offers a range of solutions to some of our most pressing social problems. Certainly, the Government have begun to explore some of these areas, such as the rehabilitation of offenders, getting long-term unemployed people back to work and health and social care issues. There are programmes to tackle the most troubled families in our communities, including a programme that started seven or eight years ago, when I was in the Home Office, that this Government have taken forward. Increasingly, social enterprises rather than conventional organisations are able to provide innovative solutions to some of our most pressing problems because they have the freedom to think differently and the ability to do so.

It is interesting that the recruitment organisation of choice for many teachers now is Teach First, which has a fabulous reputation and is not a conventional organisation. It takes the brightest and the best to work in some of our most difficult and challenged schools, to give our youngsters the chance of a decent education.

Place2Be is a social enterprise that works in Salford in my constituency and nationally. It works with children whose families are some of the most troubled—with drug and alcohol or mental health problems—and operates six primary schools in Salford. Against all the odds, with the support of Place2Be and through counselling and support in their schools, children of the most troubled parents are progressing at the same rate as children who are progressing at the average rate in the rest of the school. That, for me, is almost a miracle. That social enterprise, which is now being funded by social investment as well, is making a massive difference on the ground. I know that all colleagues will have examples of similar organisations operating in their own areas.

Bounce Back is a social enterprise that trains people who are ex-offenders. It costs some £95,000 to keep someone in prison, but about £3,000 to go through the Bounce Back programme, get ready for work and take up an opportunity in the future. Bounce Back and Blue Sky, which are similar organisations, say, “The only qualification you need to come and work with us is that you must have been to jail.” It would be quite interesting to see that in a job advert; I do not see many such adverts.

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

Is this in the financial services sector?

[Hazel Blears]

Not yet. They tend to do grounds maintenance or logistics, but who knows?

That work is refreshing. In conventional job recruitment, it is difficult if someone has been to prison and has a criminal record. It can be so hard for them to get a job, but all the evidence is that the one thing that can keep someone out of jail is if they have a job, a home and some relationships with their family.

Emerging organisations, such as Bounce Back and Blue Sky, are doing an absolutely fabulous job. We also have SMaRT garages, which operate in four or five different places across the country, including in my constituency. They provide help to people with serious mental health problems, but they do not do it through social workers and psychiatrists; they do it by getting people hands on, servicing cars, doing MOTs and doing practical work. The only way someone is judged in that organisation is on whether they turn up, whether they do a good job and whether they are polite. They are learning social skills, as well as practical skills, which will stand them in good stead. I went to the SMaRT garage in Salford, and they let me—I am not sure I did the whole thing—help service a Volvo. I did worry about the man or woman who would drive it afterwards, but they kept a close eye on me.

[Mr Sheerman]

May I say what a relief it is to some of us who have a long-term interest in transport safety, and road safety in particular, to hear my right hon. Friend talk about a safe vehicle, rather than the motorbikes she is usually associated with?

[Hazel Blears]

Everyone has to have a bit of fun now and again. I am sure they kept a close eye on me when I helped to service the Volvo. I did not realise until afterwards that the young man who helped me had very serious mental health problems. He had been detained at Broadmoor for a significant period of time, yet that organisation, because it was prepared to take risks and believe in people, was able to do something that virtually no other organisation could. Ronnie Wilson, who runs that organisation, does a fabulous job.

Having said all that—those organisations are brilliant—there is much more that the Government can do to bring social enterprises to the mainstream. On each of my three issues, I will go through a couple of specific points, for the Minister and for my Front Bench team, with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss some of this. At the next election, the manifestos of all political parties need to have some specific and concrete offers to social enterprise, social value and social investment, if we are to build the social economy we want to see.

On social enterprises, I want to see the social sector established with a clear corporate identity. I want it to have respect and to be seen as the place to go to for creative, innovative solutions. That is the first point. The Government say, “There are lots of problems that we cannot solve. We need you to come into this space and begin to help us do that.” That is starting to happen, and it needs to happen more clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nick Hurd (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

As I speak, phones will be ringing in garages across Salford with anxious Volvo drivers seeking reassurance that their cars were not serviced by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). I do not know how good a mechanic she is, but she is a brilliant politician. I congratulate her on securing a debate on a subject about which we are both passionate, on her track record of supporting social enterprise for many years, on keeping my feet to the fire when I was a Minister and on sending a strong signal to the builders of the social economy that there was strong cross-party support and interest in sustaining the work.

For me, the debate is about two important things. First, how do we find better solutions to the social challenges that undermine this country and carry unacceptable costs—both financial and, more importantly, human? Secondly, as the right hon. Lady herself asked, how do we help British business to sharpen its competitive edge in the modern world, to build trust—a crucial but fragile ingredient of value creation—and to generate social value? Those two opportunities come together within the social economy.

I want to make three brief points to complement what the right hon. Lady said. First, there is a substantial global movement here. We must seize the moment. We spend a lot of time in this place observing the waves on the surface of the ocean, which means that we sometimes miss or are slow to pick up on some of the substantial shifts in the current beneath the surface. What we are discussing today is such a shift in terms of how we think about the economy and its future. I see stars realigning across the three pillars of our society in a way that I have not seen in my lifetime, which suggests that people are now prepared to think and work in different ways—above all, critically, in government.

Government has to change. Across the world, Governments in developed nations face the same challenges of economic recovery—not only getting economies going, but ensuring the fairness of the recovery and its sustainability. There are also the issues of how we shape the competitive future of our countries and, as the right hon. Lady mentioned, how on earth we meet the public’s demand for better public services when we have substantially less public money. We are only halfway through the cuts, whoever wins the next election—let us be clear about that.

As John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge said in their excellent latest book “The Fourth Revolution”, countries in the developed world face the same challenges in the global race to redesign government. The greatest political challenge over the next decade is fixing government. In this country, government has to work in different ways; gradually, that penny is beginning to drop, at the central Government level and at the local authority level, but it is hard, because we operate in a risk-averse environment. Doors and minds are open to doing things in different ways, however, and that has simply not been the case for the previous 25 years.

Furthermore, as the right hon. Lady said so powerfully, social attitudes to business are changing at the same time. In a transparently connected world, values matter much more to business. How businesses behave matters much more, and that will arguably be a source of competitive advantage in future. More and more of us are choosy as consumers about who we do business with; more and more of us, as savers and investors, are choosy about whom we invest in.

To correct the right hon. Lady, I should say that there are social ISAs at the moment, in response to that trend, and the socially responsible investment market is worth trillions of dollars now that savers are becoming more discerning. Employees in a tight labour market are clearly much more discerning, too, and want to feel prouder of where they work. We hope that commissioners, people spending public money, will also be sending strong signals to the market about the competitive advantage potential of being able to demonstrate social value.

No more powerful sign of social change is evident than in the surveys of young people and the generation coming through at the moment. Survey after survey tells us the same thing: coming through now is one of the most socially responsible, entrepreneurial generations that this country has ever seen, with different attitudes to the workplace, to businesses and to what their place in society is. The young generation will underpin the social economy.

The right hon. Lady talked about one in three start-ups in Europe being social; in this country, 15% of SMEs are social enterprises—15% and growing. There is not only change in government and in social attitudes to businesses, to which business is responding, but the social sector is having to change its attitudes as it is buffeted by change on all sides, which carries both risk and opportunity. Now, minds are much more open to working in partnership with different types of organisation and to seeking different funding models, such as social investment.

I see the stars realigning in a way that gives a fantastic engine to the move towards a more social economy and more collaborative models, which must be part of the future.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I am absolutely rapt. As he was speaking, it came back to me that we are sometimes a little precious—not him personally, but those in the social economy. A lot of entrepreneurs have come to life through social enterprise. They may stay with social enterprise, but they get their training and become successful private entrepreneurs. There is a big move between the two.

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates exactly my next point. What is so exciting is the signal that we can send about supporting social entrepreneurship across the sectors. He mentioned the private sector, but one of the things that excited me most in office was the evidence of the entrepreneurship within the public sector, unlocked by the opportunity to spin out and run mutuals inside the public sector. There are fantastic examples in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles. It is amazing what happens when we give people the freedom to pursue their dreams as what I define as social entrepreneurs—people who run their own businesses spun out of the public sector. Those values and instincts and that creativity exist across all the sectors of society and need to be nourished.

This is a big idea whose time has come, with the opportunity for collaboration to unlock the spirit of innovation and social entrepreneurship in the country. This country is built on our success in innovating in the process of wealth creation and in the building of our cultural heritage. That is less evident in the area of social innovation, but this is the time to unlock that potential.

Secondly, to reinforce the point made by the right hon. Lady, we lead the world in this area. One of the things that struck me most in office was how many visits I got from representatives from a bizarre range of countries, from Canada to the country that I still call Burma, who said, “We notice what you are doing. We are interested in social enterprise and social investment, and for us the place to come and learn is Britain.” We must not surrender that lead, because if we are right about the movement, it will be a source of competitive advantage for this country as we think about how we shape the future.

My third and final point is to reinforce the right hon. Lady’s message to our Front Benchers—both individuals have earned a great deal of respect and admiration. Let us seize the moment and not lose momentum. I am conscious that for the two gentlemen who aspire to be the next Prime Minister of this country the agenda is full and cluttered, which is daunting, but let those of us who believe in this continue to make noise, saying, “This matters. We have something very valuable and important growing in this country. We must nourish it.”

The right hon. Lady is quite right. We had to compromise to take the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 through Parliament. Respectable voices inside Government were saying, “Be careful here, because we are trying to make the procurement process leaner and more efficient, so what are we doing cluttering it up?”, so we compromised. No voices in the procurement business now say that the Act gets in the way.

Now is the time to look seriously at whether we extend the scope. Such a review needs to happen, but in parallel with a fundamental approach to raise the quality of commissioning throughout the public sector and a modest investment in the kind of learning networks that bring people together and make them ask, “How can we make best use of this?” That is how the system can be helpful. Things such as the Commissioning Academy, which is low cost and high value, are very important.

I also support the right hon. Lady’s comments about the pursuit of other dormant assets. So much time was spent in setting up Big Society Capital and making the system work with the reclaim fund, that we did not have the time to start conversations about pursuing other assets, in particular in the insurance industry. However, they are there, so let us go for them. Let us start those conversations now, because that is money sitting on the table.

I make a plea for cross-party support for the important public sector mutual movement. We must continue to send signals and say, “It is okay, we will support you in this process.”

On social impact bonds, let us be clear that we are at the bottom of the S-curve of the development of that instrument, which is so important because it creates space for social innovation in a system that is risk-averse. They are clunky, take too long and are too expensive to set up, and we have to change all that, but let us be clear that we have only just started and are at the bottom of the S-curve. We now need to find a different gear of ambition to make many more of those things in the marketplace, so that we can test whether the instrument is as valuable an influence as we think it is.

My appeal is fundamental: let us keep the level of ambition, because through that agenda we have the potential to improve so many more lives and to find better solutions to problems that impose unacceptable cost—both financial and human—on this country.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard.

The debate has reminded me that I became a social entrepreneur a long time ago in Wales, where I set up the first co-operative development agency when I was a young academic at Swansea university. That was a long time ago. If I confess all, Mrs Thatcher made me a social entrepreneur. I spent 18 years in opposition, with 11 years as a shadow Minister, always disagreeing with what the Government were doing. There had to be more to life, so I developed something that I was passionately interested in. I started setting up co-operatives —working ones, rather than retail ones—and I have been at it ever since. I am told that I am on about my 48th social enterprise, which is quite a number. Most of them have survived. Some fulfilled their goal and then we wound them up nicely or merged them with somebody else’s enterprise.

As I said in an intervention, social enterprise is enterprise—it is entrepreneurial. People have to be good at it. Social enterprises need to have people in their trusts and on their boards who know about numbers and finances because they have to pay wages, watch their cash flow and do all the things that any other enterprise does. They also need people with vision, who can say, “This is the trend. This is what is happening.”

I agree with everything my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said. I do not want to stroke her feathers too much today because we learnt yesterday that she is the Prime Minister’s favourite parliamentarian. I cannot add to that, but the fact is that she is a great champion of the social economy. We come from slightly different sides, only in the sense that I have got much more in to a particular way of raising money than her. I learn from her all the time and I think she learns a little from me, as we have different kinds of specialism.

I agree with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) that we are at an interesting point, with real lift-off. I was looking at some figures this morning. This year, 250,000 new businesses have been set up using crowdfunding. I am an unashamed champion of crowdfunding. I found that it became really difficult to use the conventional ways of raising money for social enterprise after the financial collapse of 2008. I am told that I am a very good fundraiser, and I raised a lot of money for different things, including around £2.5 million to £3 million for the John Clare Trust, when things were rather better, but most of the sources for social enterprises suddenly dried up. Let us be honest: a lot of good social enterprises have gone to the wall. Certainly a large number in the environmental sector did so simply because there were no longer sources of funding. That is a cause for concern and it would be worth conducting an analysis of what happened in the environmental sector.

The fact is, however, that a new opportunity came around. I started reading e-mails and tweets about crowdfunding. I said to the wonderful Library here, “Could you brief me on crowdfunding?” and, for the first time, the response came back, “We do not know what that is about, Mr Sheerman, so we cannot brief you.” I confess that I tweeted to ask who could teach me about crowdfunding, and suddenly my room in Portcullis House was full of really exciting, interesting people saying, “We are doing crowdfunding. We think it is important and it is the future. We want a forum for it.” A group of us therefore formed the Westminster forum on crowdfunding, which now has more than 150 regular participants.

It is impressive that there are so many bright young people in this area. They are not all in social enterprises: as we know, crowdfunding runs across a number of areas, one of which is simply starting a business. We had a long conversation with the former Business, Innovation and Skills Minister, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who has just changed job, in which he said, “I go up and down the country and people tell me that the big banks do not lend to start-up businesses. When I come back to London and interview the big banks, they say they do, but I believe the people who tell me that the banks are not lending.”

There is a real problem with start-up finance in all sectors, but the social enterprise sector rewards crowdfunding—there are rewards for investment. People do not get the investment back but they see a good project take off and succeed. Some of the organisations mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles started in that way. There is also straight crowdfunding: justgiving.com has raised nearly £3 billion and has just started a new organisation. I am jealous, because it has been called Yimby—yes in my back yard. There is also CrowdPatch, as well as other grass-roots social enterprises that are starting little businesses, opening a local shop or clearing up the local pond. Those enterprises then get bigger, more exciting and more adventurous. Some are very big players indeed.

In a few months—certainly in the past 18 months—Britain has become the crowdfunding centre of the world, and London is now the crowdfunding hub of the world. That has tremendously exciting potential for the social economy. In the past, when people wanted to start something they struggled to find the seed finance, but I have to give some credit to the Government, including the former Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the current Minister—I get along well with him and am sure he will do a very good job. The Prime Minister was nice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles yesterday and I am going to be nice about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had a good conversation with the Treasury and with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and they have been positive about crowdfunding and the social sector.

I would never have believed that in my lifetime I would see the seed enterprise investment scheme and the social investment tax relief scheme. That is amazing. I hear that there are rumbles of discontent—[Interruption.] The Minister is right to claim some kudos for this. We now have a system that I understand has caused real discontent in silicon valley and places around the world where people set up enterprises because we have an almost unfair advantage, as our tax system is so good for start-up businesses. No doubt that is true.

In the previous Budget, that advantage was expanded to the social sector, which is very good news. Quite honestly, if someone is going to invest in something, and somebody comes along and says, “You are going to get a 30% tax break and will probably get your money back if you invest wisely”—wow! To extend that to the social investment sector—wow, wow, wow! We will not be content, of course—we are Members of Parliament—and will be talking to the Treasury about expanding the scheme a little more. As the Minister knows, the tax relief for social investment is not quite as big as that for the private sector, so we will want to get it slightly closer. I am not going to ask today for a full step towards parity, but getting a little nearer would be very good indeed.

There are three aspects to this cultural change. Strangely, it is also an historical change—we are going back. Two hundred years ago, in my constituency of Huddersfield, people created a social economy. They created their own little co-ops, burial societies and holiday clubs; and they invented housing associations to buy decent homes. They created a whole world supporting ordinary working people in doing what they had to do. They did all of that, creating a culture and a real alternative social structure.

Funnily enough, social media will enable us to rebuild that, through the crowd element and being able to talk to a crowd of people with a similar view. That may be local and quite parochial, or regional, but it could be worldwide. I am involved in a crowdfunding enterprise that is planning something that will involve every supporter of rugby league in the world. Perhaps that will not appeal to you, Mr Havard, as a rugby union man, but just imagine 7 million crazy—I say that in the nicest sense, meaning, “crazily passionate”—rugby league fans all contributing to something wonderful for the game of rugby league.

Crowdfunding can be global or local. I am more interested in what it can do in this country, both for social enterprise and to change the culture of our economy. Although not everything about it is good, there are some wonderful companies. We have the social impact investment taskforce, across the G8, chaired by Sir Ronnie Cohen. That is the way for the future. The intersection between social impact investment, social enterprise and crowdfunding is the future. It is exciting and we can change the whole landscape of what happens in our communities and our society. We have the tools: let’s go for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Days such as Social Saturday will create great momentum. It is something we should consider having yearly. I still maintain that we have work to do. As suggested, one piece of work is to put these issues strongly and firmly in our manifestos, so that these organisations can feel confident that they will continue to have the support and investment they need, whoever forms the next Government.

[Mr Sheerman]

We must of course ensure all the major parties get this in their manifestos. However, there is one small danger with accessibility: we create our own language in the social economy. It can sometimes be a bit cosy. People outside do not understand things and have to fight to get in. The reason I like the word “crowd” is that it is a new way of expressing an old idea: that the crowd is empowered. I ask the hon. Gentleman to use “crowd” with “social” when he talks about accessibility.

[Chris White]

The hon. Gentleman always talks great sense.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, the former Minister, for his support with respect to the direction of travel that social value has taken. I look forward to the comments of the new Minister, who has picked up his responsibility with alacrity. I look forward to a commitment from him to growth in the area we are considering; an increase in its momentum and an extension of its scope; and attention to reviews, which would be helpful and appreciated.

EU Council, Security and Middle East

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has taken a lead on that issue. Along with others and with the support of Members from all parts of the House, he has encouraged faith leaders of all faiths to condemn the outrages that we have seen. I think that the difference can be seen. The response of the community to the appalling murder of Drummer Lee Rigby spoke volumes about how the overwhelming majority of British Asians and British Muslims abhor such appalling behaviour.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that it would be inconceivable for us not to have an early debate on this subject, given the interest that has been shown in the House today? Perhaps next Monday would be an appropriate day. Is he also aware that much of the discontent among young Asians in my constituency is due to our perceived weakness over Gaza and our reluctance to distance ourselves from Israel?

Will the Prime Minister think again about how we combat this dreadful bully from Russia? Our country’s history reminds us that if bullies are not faced up to, they continue to bully. If President Putin looks at our remarks and the remarks of the Prime Minister today, he will not exactly be terrified, will he?

National Citizen Service

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, just as it was to hear part of the last exchange between hon. Members and the new Minister of State for Skills, Enterprise and Equalities, whom I know well. He knows that I know him well, and I hope that we will be working more closely together in future, given my interest in skills and through my chairmanship of the Skills Commission. Of course, I must also welcome the Minister for Civil Society, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who will be replying to this short debate of ours. I know him well, as do most of us in the House, and we are delighted to see him in his new position.

Anything that I say today about the National Citizen Service is not a criticism of what we have; it is an appeal to do more and to make it more thoroughgoing and rigorous. In a recent question to the Prime Minister, followed up by an article published last Saturday in the Yorkshire Post, I argued for people to realise that 100 years ago this August, a war started that led to the deaths of 16 million mainly young men, all over the world.

I was recently in France, overlooking a hill where 300,000 young men died during the first world war. Seventy hectares are still in a red zone and no one can go there. Any of us who think this year about that war and the casualties do not want that ever to happen again. We had a second world war, with—not many people know this—even more casualties worldwide, because of the sophistication of the weaponry used. We perhaps take it a bit for granted that there has not been a conflagration of that size since, although there have been, and still are, conflagrations, wars, and dreadful civil unrest and unhappiness across the world; I am thinking this morning about Gaza, Israel, Syria and so on. There is an extensive list.

I suppose I sound a bit like Colonel Blimp when I say that probably the best trainers ever in this country were the armed services. I have done a lot of work looking at the history of training in this country. The armed services, when we had national conscription and national service, took every young man who could see and walk into national service and made something of them. All the research shows that the experience was dramatic, certainly for young men in our inner cities and in our big towns, who would rarely move off their local estate or out of their local neighbourhood. National service took those young men and not only gave them a skill, a trade, a routine and much else, but sent them all over the world and all over the United Kingdom. They met people whom they would not otherwise have met, and many of them married them, so we had a real opportunity for mobility and change.

It is interesting that the young people who are able to travel, to see the world and to meet other people from other places are the sort of children who most of us in this room have—who I have. I have four children who have done their gap years in exotic places, some of which I have never been to. These young people have travelled and gone to university, well away from home, so there is mobility for them, but that mobility is not shared, particularly in the most deprived communities in our land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris White]

As chair of the all-party group on the National Citizen Service and volunteering, I would welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support. Does he not think that this issue would also benefit from cross-party consensus?

[Mr Sheerman]

As the hon. Gentleman said, he works well with me and I hope he can work with me on the much more ambitious programme that I am going to talk about today. Nothing I am going to say today is negative about the existing National Citizen Service programme, but I want to finish my analysis. I believe that we have become a very different country. More and more people are living in cities and towns, with fewer people living in the countryside. There are real problems with the mobility of young people—getting off their estates, travelling, and getting away from their sometimes troubled environments.

I would like to see an open discussion about the possibility of having a much more powerful National Citizen Service, because we are in a time when democracy is under threat. When I asked that particular question of the Prime Minister, the other thing I said was that, 10 days before, only 36% of people voted in the European elections and even fewer voted in the local elections. Interestingly, if we look at Europe, even countries that are so keen on getting democracy had levels of involvement of 19%.

It is worrying for Europe and for our country that there is a disengagement from politics. All of us, when we are out canvassing, or in different parts of the country—in my case, trying to persuade the people of Scotland to stay in the Union—hear too often that the perception is that democracy does not make any difference because we are all the same. I think we need citizenship, because it will get to the root of that kind of attitude.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has my absolute support for his passion on the subject, and I have seen the complete transformation of young people who engage in the NCS programme. They all go on to become constructive and proud members of our local communities.

[Mr Sheerman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I shall point us to the direction I want to go in. There is complacency about our democracy. From studying history, we know that when we become complacent about our history and learning its lessons, problems emerge—extremist politics of various kinds. If there is a vacuum, there is a danger, historically, that something will fill it.

Perhaps we do not have anything like the extremes of left or right that we had in the Europe in the 1930s, which Michael Oakeshott wrote so vividly about at that time, but we have a serious problem of engagement, and we also have much higher migration than we used to. It is true—it would be nonsense for Opposition Members to deny and not address this fact—that many people come to this country. They want to learn about the country, be good citizens and be absorbed into the culture of this country, and they get very few opportunities to learn.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition. As one of the architects of the National Citizen Service, which I thought he was talking about, I wonder whether he acknowledges that the NCS, which this year will, hopefully, take 90,000 kids through its programme, has a much higher proportion of children from free school meals and deprived backgrounds, and from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and is providing just that degree of social mix? There can be a kid from Eton on one end of a rope and a kid from the youth justice system, from east London, on the other end, and, as I have seen with my own eyes, they are entirely reliant on each other. In other circumstances, they would never have come together, and that is what is being achieved.

[Mr Sheerman]

This is becoming embarrassing, Mr Caton. There are all these Members from across the House whom I have become accustomed to working with closely on various issues. I agree with that point, too.

I come to the nub of what I am saying. I am not criticising the existing service, but we are a bit complacent, in that we think it is enough. I do not think that it is enough. I go to many university campuses and talk to students. Everyone thinks that if people enter higher education, if they go to college, they learn something about this country, but all the evidence is that very often they do not. They might go to study physics, architecture, design or foreign languages, but my experience is that, even in the higher education sector, very little time is spent talking about the culture and nature of this country, the nature of democracy and the nature of a parliamentary democracy in particular.

What also worries me is that when, as Chair of the former Select Committee on Education and Skills, I looked at the way in which citizenship was taught in schools, I found that it was not very good at all. We visited many schools, and too often that was the situation with citizenship, despite all the brave efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and all the other efforts that were made. What we found on the ground was the old story of the PE teacher who does not have a heavy timetable being asked to teach citizenship. There was no training, no back-up and no real curriculum. We found that it was very lacking.

The one exception—the one bright star—was the Blue school in Bath and Wells. It had innovated and created the Learning to Lead campaign. We were so keen on the Learning to Lead campaign that I persuaded the Edge Foundation to give it £100,000, and I believe that it is now in nearly 150 schools. It really works, because it changes and suffuses the nature of the school and teaches people about how democracy works.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

The view expressed at the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was so traditional that I thought he might be crossing the Floor to join all his positive colleagues on the Government side of the House. If he would like reassurance about how widely drawn and diverse the youngsters are who take part in the National Citizen Service, he should please come and see Lincolnshire and Rutland’s, which is most professionally run by Elaine Lilley and her colleagues.

[Mr Sheerman]

I appreciate that intervention as well, but I am not going to be doing what the hon. Gentleman thought; let me just finish now. I believe that there is a complacency outside the House about citizenship. I believe that citizenship teaching should be much more rigorous. I believe that it would fit into another radical scheme that I propose, because I do not believe that anyone under the age of 25 in this country should be unemployed. We looked at that in the former Select Committee.

The fact is that it is a terrible waste of talent, money and everything else if a young person becomes unemployed before the age of 25. In my view—I have said this very clearly in the House many times—every young person should be in employment with training, in education, in training or getting high-quality job experience. The leader of the Labour party was misquoted recently on this. No young person should be allowed to be living on the margins of society on a little bit of benefit, a little bit of housing benefit and so on. Too many lives are destroyed by that dependency that develops up to the age of 25—

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Sheerman]

No. My citizenship programme would build on the excellent citizenship programme that has been so innovative and has grown. I have looked at the current programme and I think that it is good, but it is still small. I believe that there is a cost of £50; it certainly was that the last time I looked. As I said, the programme is small. It will have engaged 100,000 people this year, but I want to build on that experience. It has been a good learning process, but I want my hon. Friends on my side of the House and my friends of a different type on the other side of the House to come together on this. I do not think that there should be a political—

[Jason McCartney]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way to one of his friends?

[Mr Sheerman]

Very quickly.

[Jason McCartney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my near constituency neighbour, for giving way and I welcome the Minister to his post. May I clarify what the hon. Gentleman is saying? I get where he is coming from. Attending National Citizen Service events at the John Smith’s stadium in Huddersfield and at Huddersfield town hall, we saw the wonder of the teamwork. People were away from home and working together in self-reliance. Is there not a fear that burdening the scheme with the citizenship training provided by local colleges, such as Huddersfield New college and Kirklees college, could take away the sense of adventure, self-reliance and teamwork that our young people are getting from this fantastic scheme?

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but that is not what I am saying. I do not want to touch that scheme. It can carry on—it can improve and we can learn from it. However, I think that there is a deeper lesson: we need a more thoroughgoing programme of inducting people into our society.

Personally, I do not believe that such a programme should be voluntary. I think that every young person in this country should do it. It should be equivalent to a year’s commitment; they should be able to do it full-time or part-time over a longer period. It should be applicable to the college and university student, as well as the young person coming out of school who does not yet have a job. It is a radical programme that I want and it builds on what already exists.

I have found that certain Conservative Ministers are rather jealous of me, because I studied at the London School of Economics with the well known Conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott, who believed in the pursuit of intimations—not picking up wonderful policies of the left or right, which was the cure-all for everything, but learning from experience and edging forward. I have become much fonder of that kind of attitude as I have got older.

What we can learn from what we have done in the citizenship programme is that there is a real need. Disturbingly, we have found in Birmingham schools and in some in Bradford that there are things going on that we need to find a positive alternative to, rather than just getting into a frenzy when we pick up on something like that. There is also the very worrying experience that I had when I was Chair of the Select Committee of increasingly seeing people withdrawing children from school and saying that they were being home educated. We then lost track of them.

There are some real problems in our society. It would be silly of any political party to sweep them under the carpet. I think that a thoroughgoing one-year commitment to a national citizenship service, learning from the excellent work being done in the voluntary programme, is the way forward. I will continue pressing for that with the new Minister and with my colleagues on the Opposition and Government sides.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I have referred cases from my own area to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s office when I have thought that the sentence was unduly lenient. Is that a common practice? Does he receive that kind of information from large numbers of Members of Parliament?

[The Attorney-General]

I get some references from Members of Parliament. I do not have the exact figures, but in a given year we receive somewhere between 350 and 400 references. They come from everywhere, including MPs, and I would like to emphasise that if a Member of Parliament feels a sentence is unduly lenient, they should feel free to make such a reference. Each reference will be treated with equal weight, and whether I receive 600 references or one on one particular case, they will be given due consideration.

Local Growth Deals

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am always delighted to meet my right hon. Friend and his council leaders, whom I have met previously. The great advantage of my announcement today that we are immediately reopening negotiations for the next set of projects to build on the momentum is that that meeting will be very timely indeed.

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

May I press the Minister? As co-chair of the Yorkshire group of MPs, I recently saw Lord Heseltine, and he did not look that excited to me about the Government’s policy. Is it not the truth that we have had four pretty barren years? I do not deny that there is some good stuff in the programme, but the fact of the matter is that we still have central direction: some £80 billion will be spent on High Speed 2, with no give or take on the local referendums that some of us would like to see on that expenditure. Could there not be more money for university partnerships with local enterprise partnerships and local business?

[Greg Clark]

I am not surprised that my friend Lord Heseltine was a bit downcast if he was meeting Labour Members, but he has cheered up since he has been in our company. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) should be cheered up that the chair of his local enterprise partnership said today that this is “a game-changing moment” for Leeds. We have worked tirelessly with businesses to play a leading role in the UK economy. His hon. Friend the Member for Corby referred to the Leeds city deal, and when he reads the documents that I sent to every Member he will see that a £1 billion transport fund is now available for the Leeds city region to invest in its own priorities for transport projects across the region. I was talking to Keith Wakefield, the leader of Leeds city council, last Thursday, and the deal exceeded even his expectations for what could be achieved. He is happy, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be happy, too.

European Council

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks. It is important to look at the issue of freedom of movement. I particularly mentioned the issue of the benefit changes that are necessary. I also think we need to look at transitional controls, when new member states join the EU. We need a radically different approach from the one that has been held until now. As for my hon. Friend’s remarks about lead in my pencil, I will let the relevant people know.

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

Some of us who agree with the Prime Minister on the need for reform in Europe, but who are basically pro-Europe, are rather disappointed and depressed by what happened in the European Council, for the following reasons. Many of us think that Europe expanded a bit too far too fast, but we want the reforms and we want them urgently. What has happened in Europe in the last few days has made the task of reform much more difficult. The fact of the matter is that when we look back on this day, when only his barmy army seem so well pleased, we will see that the trouble is brewing for all of us.

[The Prime Minister]

I would argue that the hon. Gentleman should not be depressed. As I said, reforming the European Union is going to be a long and hard campaign and undoubtedly there will be difficulties and setbacks along the way. But it is absolutely vital as we go into that reform that people know that when the British Prime Minister and the British Government say there is a principle that is important, they will stick to it.

I do not accept that there is not support for this across the European Union. I have not got to the Luxembourg press yet, but Le Figaro in France says that the approach has been a big mistake, possibly irreversible, and the German press says that there are real worries about the way this development has been handled. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the argument that the wrong approach has been taken is simply a British one.