Arms Exports and Arms Control

Debate between John Stanley and Michael Fallon

Thursday 21st November 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I, too, thank all those who have contributed this afternoon. I also thank the Committees for their hard work in scrutinising our actions in the area of export control.

I first reassure the Chamber that the Government are committed to managing all transfers of strategic goods responsibly. That involves, as the Committees recognised, a delicate and continual balancing act. On the one hand, there are valid concerns, articulated on many occasions by right hon. and hon. Members, that strategic goods should not fall into the wrong hands. That is why all export licence applications are carefully assessed, case by case, against the consolidated European Union and national arms export licensing criteria, taking into account all relevant factors—including the prevailing circumstances in the recipient country, the nature of the goods, the identity of the end user and the stated end use.

A licence will not be issued if to do so would be inconsistent with any provision of the criteria, including if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression. On the other hand, the Government support responsible defence exports and we remain committed to a strong defence industry. Our defence exports rose by 62% in 2012, and totalled £8.8 billion in that year. Defence exports are only a proportion of what we license; defence and security exports, taken together, rose to £11.5 billion in 2012. The importance of those exports to our economy is self-evident from those figures, so we need to operate a fast and efficient export licensing system that facilitates responsible exports while imposing the minimum regulatory burden on legitimate business.

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

The approach of case-by-case assessment that I have set out remains, I believe, the most effective way of balancing those concerns. There are often difficult decisions to make, but we follow a well established procedure for each application and make the best possible assessment based on the available evidence at the time. We have a robust, efficient and transparent system that produces rational decisions, but I recognise of course that the world is not static and, when circumstances change in any country, we can and do act.

However, such action—there was one reference to this in the debate—including revoking or suspending licences, is not an admission of failure. On the contrary, the fact that our export licensing system allows us to respond effectively to changing circumstances is, I suggest to the House, a further sign that our system works.

Let me turn to some of the countries mentioned in the debate and then some of the more specific cross-country issues. May I begin with Egypt? Egypt provides an example of our responsiveness and our determination to ensure that our exports do not contribute to internal repression or human rights violations. Following the worsening events in Egypt this year, we conducted a review of extant export licences. As a result, on 19 July, five licences were revoked, as they were assessed to be no longer consistent with the consolidated criteria.

On 21 August—I think this answers the query from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) about the month—in response to increasing levels of violence in Egypt, the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union agreed to suspend all export licensing to Egypt for equipment that might be used for internal repression. That is a lower threshold than the consolidated criteria that we applied, whereby the test is whether there is a clear risk that goods might be used for internal repression. The UK fully supported the Foreign Affairs Council decision and, as a precautionary measure, we applied that suspension to all licences to the Egyptian army, air force and internal security forces. That resulted in 47 extant licences being suspended and a hold placed on new applications for those entities.

As the situation in Egypt has become clearer, we have been able to revert to a case-by-case assessment. As a result, following a further review, on 25 October we decided permanently to revoke seven of the suspended licences, because we then judged that there was a clear risk that the goods might be used for internal repression. A further 24 licences were removed from suspension, because we no longer judged that the goods might be used for internal repression. The remaining 16 licences will remain suspended until we are in a position to determine whether they should be revoked or restored.

I am pleased that we took firm action to revoke licences in July and that our precautionary action in the light of the Foreign Affairs Council decision, at a time when we were considering further unilateral action, allowed time for a proper assessment of conditions on the ground, which in turn means that we can now consider each case properly on its own merits.

I suggest to the House that that is a good example of how a responsive and rational export licensing system operates in a very difficult situation, but I assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to monitor conditions in Egypt and we will keep the terms of the licensing suspension under review. We will continue to assess the situation against the European Union consolidated criteria, taking particular care to consider the nature of the goods and the identity and track record of the end user.

Let me turn now to Syria. The Committees have rightly been very concerned about licences for the export of chemicals to that country. I would like to take this opportunity to state categorically that the Government have done nothing to assist Syria’s chemical weapons programme. Doing so would, of course, be illegal under the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, and there is no evidence that exports from the UK have contributed to Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

As the Committees know, two licences were issued by BIS in January 2012 authorising the export of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride for commercial metallurgical processes—the treatment of aluminium fittings. Those licences were revoked in July 2012 under strengthened European Union sanctions that the United Kingdom was instrumental in bringing about. The exporter has confirmed that shipments were not made prior to those sanctions coming into force, so no goods were actually exported under those licences.

[Sir John Stanley]

The Minister has come back with the “There is no evidence” response. Will he at least acknowledge that the British Government cannot possibly have any idea at all of what subsequently happened in Syria to the potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride that have been exported there since 2004? That being the case, the Government surely cannot just take refuge behind “There is no evidence”, because they have no ability to track what happens to those chemicals once they have left this country and gone to Syria.

[Michael Fallon]

I was referring to the two licences issued in January 2012 and, as my right hon. Friend will know, no shipments were actually made under those licences.

Let me now turn to the licences that my right hon. Friend is concerned about—the five licences granted under the previous Government, between 2004 and 2010, before the current conflict in Syria began, for the export of sodium fluoride for the manufacture of toothpaste. Those licences were no longer extant at the time of the revised sanctions, but I do have to say to my right hon. Friend that we have no evidence of any diversion to any different end use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

That is a perfectly reasonable question, and we are, indeed, exploring with the companies concerned whether they would be prepared to give evidence on a confidential basis. I will let the hon. Gentleman have an answer on that when we have one.

I was asked one other question about Syria, by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. She asked about the position of Croatia, but I am not able to answer her straight away. If I may, I will write to her on that—and, indeed, on any other points that I have not been able to answer.

Let me now turn to Bahrain, another country that has been mentioned in the debate. Since the events of the Arab spring, the Government continue to monitor the situation in Bahrain closely. We assess all export licence applications case by case against the consolidated and the national criteria. The assessment considers all those factors, including the risk of the proposed exports being used for internal repression and in any developing internal tensions.

Since February 2011, we have approved a number of licences for the Bahrain air force, navy and defence force where we have been satisfied that there is no clear risk of items being used in human rights abuses or internal repression. We have refused licences for the Bahrain internal security forces where we have not been satisfied about the risk in respect of internal repression.

We reacted quickly to the events of the Arab spring in 2011, reviewing all licences to Bahrain and revoking those no longer in line with the criteria. In total, 23 single licences and seven open licences were revoked.

Let me turn now to Sri Lanka. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made the rather unfortunate suggestion, in what was otherwise a really good speech, that the Prime Minister was somehow prioritising the selling of arms in his recent visit to Sri Lanka. Let me be very clear: during the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, he was the first foreign leader since independence in 1948 to give the local population the chance to be heard by an international audience. He shone a light on some of the human rights concerns in the aftermath of the recent prolonged civil conflict and demonstrated our commitment to reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.

Again, we assess all export licence applications to Sri Lanka case by case, in accordance with the consolidated and the national criteria. Decisions on Sri Lanka, of course, take into account alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the military conflict that ended in 2009, as well as the nature of the equipment—in other words, would it be used in a manner inconsistent with the criteria?

Arms exports to Sri Lanka have increased recently, as we have issued a number of licences for weapons and other equipment that will be used by maritime security companies undertaking commercial anti-piracy work. Those ongoing efforts to fight piracy are important for international trade and security. Our assessment of those applications has taken into account the fact that the weapons will be held in secure storage while in Sri Lanka and that the companies are fully signed up to the international code of conduct for private security service providers. The licences that have been mentioned were all for anti-piracy, and they were not supplies to the Sri Lankan Government.

[Sir John Stanley]

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the issue of Sri Lanka, is he really telling us that 600 assault rifles will be deployed by private security companies operating out of Sri Lanka to deal with piracy? There are also a number of machine guns, but what use are they for anti-piracy measures?

[Michael Fallon]

I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend on that, but it is my understanding that the licences are being used for anti-piracy measures, in which we all have an interest. However, if I am wrong about that, and if I can give him further particulars about the use of machine guns in anti-piracy work, I will of course do so.

Finally, on the countries that have been mentioned, let me turn to Israel. A number of Members have asked about the single licence that accounted for nearly £8 billion of cryptographic equipment. The licence was for “equipment employing cryptography” and

“software for equipment employing cryptography”

with a value of £7.7 billion.

The licence was granted in the first quarter of 2013, and it permits the export of equipment and software for building public mobile phone networks in residential areas and for small businesses. Those items are subject to export control because of their encryption—information security—capability. That capability, it must be said, is a standard feature of the mobile phone network. The goods are for purely commercial end use.

Again, we assessed the application against the consolidated and the national criteria. A licence would not have been issued where there was a clear risk that the proposed exports might be used for internal repression or to provoke or prolong internal conflict, or where they could be used aggressively against another state.

I appreciate that the value of the licence appears extremely high and may not represent a realistic goal on the part of the exporter. The exporter has confirmed to us that the value of the licence was based on an expectation of a large number of orders over the two-year validity period of the licence. Given the nature of the goods and the end use, that was not considered to be a particular concern.

Let me turn now to the arms trade treaty, which is a notable achievement; I am grateful to those Members who referred to it as such. It is not an achievement simply of the past year; it has required long and challenging effort, involving work by two successive Governments over seven years. It was a significant achievement for not simply the United Nations, but the United Kingdom—it was an effort that the United Kingdom led.

The treaty will introduce robust, effective and legally binding controls, which will begin to constrict flows of unregulated or illegal weapons. It will require Governments to block transfers of weapons that pose unacceptable risks and to take strong steps to prevent weapons from being diverted into the illegal market. Authorisations of exports will be reported and arms brokering will be regulated. At the same time, the legitimate trade in arms, vital for national defence and security, will be upheld.

For the United Kingdom, the treaty will be relatively straightforward to ratify because we already have a highly developed export control system. The Government hope to complete the ratification in the next few months. We also hope that the treaty will soon achieve the 50 ratifications that it needs to be brought into force. We and our partners are actively lobbying other Governments to encourage them to sign and ratify it as soon as possible. We are providing funding to support states that need to introduce new legislation or regulations to bring their export controls up to the higher standard required by the treaty.

The performance of the Export Control Organisation in the past year is also— albeit on a more local scale—an important achievement to note. Until recently, the ECO worked to two main targets for processing export licence applications: a primary target to turn around 70% of standard licence applications within 20 working days, and a secondary target of completing 95% of those applications within 60 working days.

Year-to-date performance to the end of October on the primary target is 80.2%, which is a further improvement on the 71% achieved in 2012. However, we listened to industry concerns that, although the old secondary target of completing 95% of licence applications within 60 days was being met, that still left a sizeable number—about 850 a year—taking longer than three months to get a decision. In March I therefore announced a new, more ambitious, secondary target of completing 99% of cases within 60 working days, with the aim of further improving the efficiency of the system. Those additional cases, of course, tend to be more difficult and often require additional scrutiny because of their destination, but the performance since July, when the new target came into effect, stands at a very encouraging 98.4%.

Several Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow North, mentioned transparency. We remain committed to greater openness and transparency in licensing as that provides the means for Committees, the House and the public to hold us to account. At the same time, in generating more information for disclosure, we should not create unnecessary red tape for businesses.

In the most recent initiative, we have sought to increase transparency by requiring exporters to provide us with information about their export and trade activity under certain open licences. While the final preparations were being made for that, it became clear that we had not struck the right balance between the twin objectives of increasing transparency and avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.

In particular, the Government became concerned that the proposed reporting of each export would put our exporters at a disadvantage in relation to exporters from other countries, notably the United States. Clear evidence emerged that the proposed rules might lead to some of our companies relocating some operations overseas, with negative consequences for British jobs.

[Michael Fallon]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with more evidence to back up what I have said about the fear that some operations might be relocated overseas. She has challenged me on that, and I am happy to write to her in detail.

The Government announced in Parliament on 18 July that we had decided to dispense with some proposals relating to quarterly reporting. As a result, users of open-general and open-individual licences will be required to make reports on their use of those licences annually, rather than quarterly as originally envisaged. They will still have to provide information on the destination country, the type of end user and the number of times the licence has been used for that country and end user type.

Those revised reporting requirements will apply from 1 January 2014, with the first year’s data being published in 2015. All that information is additional to the existing quarterly and annual reports. We are not reducing the overall level of reporting—quite the opposite. We will be publishing considerably more information about the use of open licences than is currently the case.

I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) who raised the matter of the register of arms brokers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has decided that now is an appropriate time to look again at the issue of a pre-licensing register of arms brokers. We will therefore be launching a public consultation to help in gathering the necessary evidence to allow the Government to decide whether to introduce such a register. There will, of course, be an emphasis on the relative costs and benefits, alongside the likely effectiveness of such a register. The public consultation is now planned for early next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and, I think, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), asked about brass-plate companies. The existing legislation would, in certain circumstances, allow enforcement action to be taken against those and their officers, but sufficient evidence is necessary to justify such action. We continue to pursue with other relevant agencies the possibility of using other legislation to discontinue the UK registration of such companies on public interest grounds. I hope that that is helpful. It is a complex issue, which raises difficult questions about the nature of any evidence that may be disclosed in any proceedings. We shall, of course, update the Committees when firm conclusions have been reached.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South about risk profiling. I reassure him that licence applications are reviewed by officials in a number of Departments and agencies. We take account of all the available relevant information. As I have said, we look at the goods, the end user and the risk of diversion. We will of course not grant a licence if that would breach the consolidated criteria. Risk is integral to everything that we do on export licensing.

I was asked about the paragraph 46 ambiguity, and I am anxious not to add to it. I am assured that if there is any confusion, criterion 2 is the policy, but I am happy to write more formally to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling on that issue.

[Sir John Stanley]

Before the Minister sits down, will he give way?

Arms Exports

Debate between John Stanley and Michael Fallon

Thursday 13th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

I repeat hon. Members’ welcome to the Chair of the Committees, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), and thank all those who contributed to our short debate. I thank my right hon. Friend in particular for all the work he does in chairing the Committees and for his kind words at the beginning of the debate.

Since becoming the Minister with responsibility for export controls, I have become acutely aware of the challenges posed and the passions aroused by the export of strategic goods. On the one hand, we want to give export licence applications the fullest scrutiny to ensure we do not license anything that would be used for internal repression or would fuel conflict or breach an embargo. We also want to be as transparent as possible about our activity in this area, in recognition of the strong parliamentary and public interest. On the other hand—the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) recognised this—successive Governments, including this one, have been committed to a strong defence and security industry, which helps to meet not only our own defence needs, but the needs of other states.

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

We are also committed to growth in exports, including of defence and security equipment, as a key element of our prosperity agenda. This requires us to operate a fast, efficient export licensing system that facilitates responsible exports while imposing the minimum regulatory burden on business. As Members who have spoken today fully understand, every case is assessed on its own merits against the consolidated criteria, taking account of all the relevant facts available to us at the time. These are often, as I have learned over the past few months, difficult decisions. Circumstances change and new information comes to light, and where it does, it is right that we should review our original decisions.

I will deal with as many of the issues raised today as I can, and if I am unable to respond to certain questions I will ensure that responses are forwarded to Members shortly afterwards. I shall deal with the issues raised about the Arab spring, some changes we are making to the Export Control Organisation, enforcement and transparency, and the arms trade treaty. If time allows, I will then deal with some of the more specific questions addressed to me. I cannot promise to answer them all.

The unforeseen events of the Arab spring—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) that we should perhaps no longer call it that—posed a stern challenge to our strategic export controls, in particular ensuring that British equipment was not used for internal repression. Our export licensing system allowed us to respond quickly to changing facts on the ground. The Government reacted swiftly to events. We reviewed extant licences to the affected countries and moved quickly to revoke licences where the changed circumstances meant they were no longer in line with the consolidated European Union and national arms licensing criteria.

In 2011, 162 export licences were revoked: 72 for Libya, 35 for Bahrain, 43 for Egypt and a few for other countries. Those revocations show how seriously we take the guiding principle of responsible export controls. Given the significant changes in the region, it is right and reasonable that risk assessments should be updated and, in some cases, lead to a change in decision where the licence is no longer consistent with the consolidated criteria. The evidence suggests that the system is working, not failing, and does not, of course, mean that the original decisions were flawed in the context of the prevailing conditions at the time they were made.

On the performance of the Export Control Organisation, its primary target—the hon. Member for Hartlepool picked up on this—is to process 70% of standard export licences in 20 working days. I am pleased that the organisation has consistently been hitting this target in 2012 and is on target to achieve some 71% this year, despite a substantial increase in case load. It is true that ECO fell slightly below the 70% target in 2010 and 2011, following a 25% and an 11% increase, respectively, in its case load in successive years. However, the 70% target being met prompts the question of the other 30%. The ECO has a supplementary target to process 95% in 60 working days, and it has also been hitting that target, the year-to-date figure being 96%. However, given that 60 working days equates roughly to three months, this implies that 5% of licence applications—roughly 800 a year—will take longer. Of course, any delay in processing a licence application is regrettable. Cases that take longer are, overwhelmingly, those that raise sensitive political questions on which Ministers need to be consulted. Such cases can also involve possible diversion concerns or the risk of the goods being used against our troops.

I am concerned that the implication that some 800 licences per year are going to take longer is becoming harder to justify. The pace of international trade is increasing and exporters need to be able to respond faster when they win an order. Furthermore, we need to bear it in mind that, as a Government, we are urging companies to raise their exporting game as part of the growth agenda. That places additional pressure on us to deliver timely decisions. The ECO is looking further to improve its performance targets.

On using open individual export licences to replace and reduce the number of standard individual export licences, as part of the Government’s improvement project within the export control services, the ECO intends to improve the process of applying for OIELs. That does not mean that the Government will relax their risk assessment of OIELs, but we wish to address the current situation because exporters are being deterred from applying for OIELs by shortcomings in the process.

In the industry evidence session on 3 December, we heard a call for a UK continental shelf OIEL, and I am pleased to announce that such an OIEL has now been designed to meet industry’s requirements and save the need for multiple SIEL applications from a number of companies. The new OIEL authorises the export of controlled items for use in offshore installations and associated vessels within the UK sector of the continental shelf, and is valid for five years.

The ECO has also introduced improvements to its advisory services. The control list classification service replaced the ratings enquiry service in 2011. We advise exporters, if they are unsure whether their goods need an export licence, that they may either self-rate or make use of the advisory CLC service. To assist in self-rating, the ECO provides three tools that are designed to help exporters to identify the rating entry number of their particular goods on a UK strategic export control list.

First, the CLC search tool is available via ECO’s SPIRE—shared primary information resource environment—export licensing database. It is designed to help exporters search previous rating assessments made by the technical assessment unit. By using the tool, exporters can get an indication of whether their items are listed on a control list and what the rating entry for their particular goods might be. The search tool is designed to work in conjunction with the goods checker database, a separate website that enables exporters to perform key-word searches on the specific wording of the UK strategic export control lists.

Secondly, if exporters are unable to self-rate, they can make a CLC service request online, via the SPIRE database. It is a non-statutory advice service that does not amount to the issuing of an actual licence but advises exporters of the rating entry of their goods on the strategic control lists. Finally, a recent enhancement to SPIRE provides that the ratings of the goods appearing on an SIEL will be provided with the SIEL when it is issued, enabling the exporters to build up a picture of their licensable and non-licensable goods.

[Sir John Stanley]

May I go back to what the Minister said earlier when listing, country by country, the number of arms export licence revocations following the Arab spring—or whatever we choose to call it? Does he not agree that the number of arms export licence revocations for Saudi Arabia stands at precisely zero, albeit at the time of the Arab spring Saudi armed forces crossed the causeway into Bahrain and took over guarding essential infrastructure facilities, thereby releasing Bahraini forces who carried out serious human rights abuses that were rightly condemned around the world? Does he not agree that it is not surprising that within the Committees and much more widely, we wonder whether, if Saudi Arabia were not such an important area for arms exports from the UK, a different revocation policy towards the country might have been followed?

Rail Services (West Kent)

Debate between John Stanley and Michael Fallon

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Stanley]

I am glad to have my right hon. Friend’s assurance, which brings me to my second point. The statement that she just made presents me with even more of a puzzle and sense of grievance than I had previously.

The second point of grievance for west Kent rail travellers is the fact that their rail fare increase is substantially greater than those being faced by commuters on other lines. For example, on the Brighton line, which is operated by First Capital Connect, the fare increase is 3.1%, but the increase for Tonbridge line commuters is 11.8%. I cannot see any reason or justification for why the fare increase for my constituents commuting from Tonbridge should be nearly three times as much as the one for those who commute from Brighton.

I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is imperative, within the limits of the present contractual arrangements entered into by the previous Government, that we re-establish a fairer and more reasonable fare regulation regime. After all, the companies are in effect monopolies, and monopolies tend to exploit. Therefore, one has to couple monopolies with effective and firm regulation, but all the evidence so far, as far as Southeastern and the people of west Kent are concerned, is that a firm and fair regulation system simply does not exist.

I said in a speech almost exactly two years ago, on 20 January 2009:

“I must put it to the Minister that the Government’s policy, as far as the thousands of commuters in the south-east are concerned, is resulting in one very clear trend: our commuters—our constituents—are paying ever more for ever less.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 727.]

What happened over the cold weather period is that our constituents and commuters actually were paying ever more for no services at all on several days.

My first question to the Minister is about whether she will tackle Southeastern and Southern to bring in a system of reimbursement for rail travellers for the days on which they have paid their fares but are not able to travel. It seems wholly wrong that someone can pay a fare through a season ticket, whether annually or monthly, but not be able to get reimbursement.

A fundamental point I must put to the Minister is that it was shown during the bad weather in December that the investment by Southeastern, Southern and, most particularly, Network Rail has been totally inadequate to deal with severe weather conditions. The franchise arrangements need to be changed to ensure that we have all-weather services.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

My constituents in Sevenoaks would certainly endorse all the points that my right hon. Friend has made, but does he agree that rather than a blame game between Southeastern and Network Rail over what happened in the winter, we now need a much more effective system of compensation for services that were cancelled or could have been run than we have at present and that the current penalty arrangements need to be thoroughly re-examined in the light of what happened in December?

[Sir John Stanley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who rightly anticipates my final point.

Secondary Schooling (Sevenoaks)

Debate between John Stanley and Michael Fallon

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of secondary schooling in Sevenoaks. Parents in the northern part of my constituency have a choice of existing secondary schools in Swanley and Hextable. They can choose the Leigh technology academy and the new Longfield academy, and they also have access to the Wilmington and Dartford grammar schools further north. I am sure that all those schools are looking forward to the package of reforms that is coming from the Department for Education, giving head teachers and their governors more freedom to decide for themselves about the education they deliver.

So I shall focus on Sevenoaks itself. It is particularly appropriate to do so in the week that the new Knole academy opens its doors. There is always something exciting about the launch of a new educational venture and the promise that it holds for a whole new generation of pupils, and I know that the Minister will want to join me in wishing the new academy well under the leadership of its principal, Mary Boyle. It is also right to pay tribute to the enormous personal contribution of the lead sponsor, Gordon Phillips, and to the commitment and hard work of Mike Bolton and his team from Sevenoaks school, the co-sponsors, as well as to the support from Kent county council.

The Knole academy replaces two single-sex schools, the Bradbourne school for girls and the Wildernesse school for boys, and their replacement has involved much discussion and consultation over the past couple of years, not least with parents who, initially of course, supported single-sex schooling. One of the major reasons why those parents were in the end won over to the concept of a new academy, however, was the promise of a new building.

The Bradbourne site was already inadequate, even for the girls’ school that was sited there; it became too small. The Wildernesse site consists of a series of buildings, some of which are more than 60 years old. In fact, the school opened its doors 60 years ago this very month, and its buildings are certainly well past their fit date and need renewing.

Operating the new academy, which is supposed and aims to coalesce two previous schools, is much more difficult on two separate sites that are well over a mile apart. Operating on two sites adds considerably to the costs and management issues and involves the duplication of a whole range of functions that simply would be unnecessary if the school were on a single site. While the site is still split into two halves, it is also difficult for the new management team, educationally I suspect, to build quickly the new ethos and purpose that they seek for a single, all-ability, co-educational school.

The new building was originally promised for 2012, and I must press my hon. Friend the Minister on how much longer it will be delayed. We must bear in mind that the academy has already been delayed, with its launch being about a year later than originally envisaged. That is nothing to do with my hon. Friend; it is down to the long delay in getting Ministers in the previous Government to sign the revenue funding agreement. What will give parents real confidence is a commitment by this Government to the principle of a new building and some indication of the likely timetable. I have pressed the matter several times with the Secretary of State, and as my hon. Friend the Minister knows I have written on the subject to his colleague Lord Hill. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that parents are now entitled to a firmer indication of when a new building will be started, and when they are likely to be able to move to a single site.

I want to raise one adjacent issue. Despite the arrival of the new, all-ability academy, a significant number of children in Sevenoaks will continue to choose the grammar school route that the selective system in Kent offers. It is right that they continue to have that choice, which has, in recent years, become more restricted owing to the pressure on grammar school places across west Kent. We face an increasing birth rate and the development of some significant new housing. It cannot be right for children in Sevenoaks who succeed in passing the 11-plus then to be allocated grammar school places as far away as Folkestone or Ashford—or indeed, allocated places at non-selective schools, or told to continue to fight for a grammar school place through the tortuous process of waiting lists and appeals. That is especially unfair when so many places—more than 300—are given by Kent schools to out-of-county applicants.

These are currently matters for the adjudicator, who is considering a number of appeals to the existing admissions schemes, and I would not expect the Minister to comment in any detail on that. I am sure, though, that he would sympathise with my view that grammar schools that recruit some numbers from outside the county, as they are entitled to do, need to remember that they are Kent schools paid for and supported by Kent council tax payers and supported by parents who have chosen to live under a selective system.

My main purpose tonight is to mark the launch of the new Knole academy, to wish it well as the first new secondary school in Sevenoaks for a generation, and to ask the Government, in the shape of the Minister of State, to make the commitment to the new building that is desperately needed if the academy is to be a success.

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has made a very powerful case for funding for the new Knole academy. He will be aware that the secondary schools in Sevenoaks, including Knole academy, are a major source of secondary education for my constituents in Edenbridge, which sadly lost its secondary school some years ago. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I support most warmly and strongly the case that my hon. Friend has made for the funding of Knole academy, which will be of great benefit not only to his constituents in Sevenoaks but to my constituents in the Edenbridge area.

[Michael Fallon]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. He reminds me that the new academy expects to draw pupils from a wider area than my constituency—indeed, from right across west Kent, as Bradbourne school for girls did before it was merged into the academy.

The point I am making—I will not labour it further—is that for the academy to be a success in the short, medium and longer term, it needs to be established in modern, fit-for-purpose buildings on a single site rather than spread across the two sites of the two previous schools. With that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me some comfort.