Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We know that the Secretary of State is not a big fan of due process, because otherwise he would not have briefed The Times this morning on how the criminal justice and courts Bill will keep developers and other Tory donors happy by curbing judicial review—a subject on which he has not yet responded to consultation. However, Ministers should play by the rules when answering questions in the Chamber, so will the Minister correct the record for Justice questions on 17 December, when the Secretary of State said three times that there would be no change in the number of mediations, even though his Department’s figures show a year-on-year fall of 35%?

[Simon Hughes]

First, on matters in the legislation to be announced I caution the hon. Gentleman to be careful of being overly critical.

Foreign-owned UK Property

Debate between Simon Hughes and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

That certainly appears to be the case. Let me give a constituency example. At the Elephant and Castle, just over the bridge, as people know, there is a controversial development of a former council estate, the Heygate estate, that is being done by Lend Lease, an Australian company. The first phase was either first put on the market in Malaysia or put on the market in Malaysia at the same time as it was advertised here. My constituents, who are desperate for the housing that was meant to replace the council estate, were more than angry to think that not only were they not getting the affordable housing they were promised at the promised levels but the property that was made available for private sale first was being block-bought off plan in Malaysia. This morning I went to look at an estate development in my constituency that has, I understand, been marketed principally in Thailand.

To show the other side of the coin, let me cite a second e-mail that I received unprompted in the past couple of days, entitled “Housing developers targeting foreign buyers”. It states:

“I am British and live in Singapore. Even though I have a work permit, the Government put an extra high stamp duty on property, and also restrict me from renting out a property I buy for the first three years of ownership.

I gather that the first phase of the Battersea development was out-sold in Singapore with over 800 units going to Singaporeans. The main reason is the devaluation of Sterling combined with the rising costs of housing in Singapore. Why buy a two bed in Singapore for £1 million sterling when you can buy two in London for £800,000?”

So in this country properties are increasingly being sold abroad and in other countries Governments are realising that they need to have some restrictions on the inward investment into their housing in order to look after their own people and ensure that they, or residents in these countries, who may not have been born there but have settled there, have opportunity in the market.

The Mayor of London this week produced a document “The greatest city on Earth: ambitions for London”. I share that view of London, as I think it is the greatest city on earth, and also the ambitions for it. I am hugely proud to be a London Member of Parliament and to represent my constituency. In the same month as that was produced, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published an article headed “The housing crisis: Westminster hit by soaring costs as it struggles with homeless crisis”. Today’s Evening Standard headline is “Rough sleepers double in 5 years: Mayor under fire after pledge to eliminate problem”. It gives the explanation as follows:

“Experts said the increasing numbers were a consequence of housing benefit cuts, soaring rents and the closure of a dozen hostels and day centres”.

Soaring rents are absolutely one of the reasons why people cannot find homes that they need.

As hon. Members would imagine, a lot of work has been done in this area. I am grateful to Savills Residential, with which I have met. It produces regular reports and is about to do another one on who invests in this country, where and how. A very good report was produced by the Smith Institute in July 2012 entitled “London for sale? An assessment of the private housing market in London and the impact of growing overseas investment”. Deloitte produces an annual prediction and has just done so. Knight Frank has accurate, up-to-date figures, which I have looked at and drawn on.

I have also looked at other articles, with titles such as “More restrictions on foreign property buyers in Switzerland” and “Property purchases: who can purchase property in Denmark?”. The Danes have clearly thought that they need to address this problem. I have looked at other general assessments—for example, an article in April entitled “Buyers not wanted: restrictions on international property investors”. It stated:

“While the world’s investors are busy snapping up property in London, other countries are putting up barriers to foreign ownership”.

That is the backdrop to this. I want to say a word about the politics and then where we ought to go. I am very clear that the UK has prided itself always on its international connections. London is a great global city, and my wonderful constituency has been a destination and place of passage for people from all over the world for centuries. Nobody I know in public life, in my party or in my constituency, does not appreciate the contribution that foreign investment has made into our country in the past and will continue to make in the future. We have also historically prided ourselves on being a country based on the free market, from which UK citizens and residents can acquire interests abroad, and where non-UK citizens and residents, and companies registered outside the UK can acquire interest in property in this country. Most people know that many, if not most, of our leading companies now have foreign owners. I often raise the issue of Thames Water and its failure to pay adequate taxes, but it is, in effect, an Australian company and many of our other utilities are also run by foreign owners.

The reality is that my country, my city and my constituency are desperately short of homes. In particular, we are desperately short of homes to rent, for shared ownership and to buy at prices that are affordable to the average income earner or average family.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on making pertinent and timely points that my constituents will recognise. Are not these properties being marketed abroad because of the type of property being built? High-value, high-rise properties are the ones being built and the fault lies with the planning authorities, the Mayor and some borough councils, such as my local one, which are giving permission for tens of thousands of the type of unit that appeals to Malaysian investors but is completely unaffordable to his constituents and mine?

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We do not always agree, but he makes a good point. Many of the properties that are being built are specifically built with the probability that they will be sold easily in the foreign market. These are not family houses; these properties are mainly flats, often studio, one-bedroom or two-bedroom flats—small flats—which will either be buy to rent, will be used occasionally by somebody from abroad who might come here a couple of times a year on business or will be just kept as an investment. There is evidence that a lot of these places have nobody in them at all; they are simply bought as an investment in this country and will be sold later at a higher price. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I checked the Office for National Statistics figures today. The average house price in the UK this year is £238,000, in London £414,000 and in my borough £389,000. Median employee earnings monthly in the UK are £505, in London £613 and in my borough £630. It will not surprise anybody in the Chamber to know that the gap between earnings and cost is growing and growing, and London is the place where the difference is greatest.

In London, just to keep pace with demand, best estimates suggest that we need at least 50,000 more homes each year, twice as many as are currently being built, and 20,000 a year more than the Mayor of London’s target. Central London, which for housing purposes often includes part of my borough and my constituency, is now an area where, according to the best figures, more than one third of all buyers are from overseas, and two thirds of all new-build property is sold to non-UK purchasers—a third of the total and two thirds of the new-build property. Over a third of properties are sold to companies from China and the Asia-Pacific region, more than one in 10 to buyers in the middle east and north Africa, and about 8% each to purchasers from western Europe, and to eastern Europe and the former Soviet states.

I understand why London is a popular place for investment—the value of the pound, the fact that it is outside the eurozone, very low interest rates, and the fact that it is a world-class city with English as its main language. According to Knight Frank, average prices in prime property—property priced at more than £1 million —in London have risen by 50% from 2009 and more than 7.5% in the past 12 months alone. Compared to New York or Singapore, it is clearly a much more successful investment. Some purchasers buy these homes to live in, some to let, some as a home additional to their principal home or as a third home, and some buy simply as an investment.

These purchasers are on to a good thing for them, and the developers who sell to them are on to a very good thing for themselves as well. Developers find foreign purchasers—this relates to the question from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)—often more willing than UK purchasers to buy straight from plan. They pay their money up front, which helps fund the development as a whole. London property commands good prices in the global market, so this maximises the returns and therefore the profits of the developers. It is a very successful response to international housing demand. It does not help the people I see in my surgery every week who want a first home or a home they can afford.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Simon Hughes and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that prompt. Local authorities have woken up to the possibility of SUDS, albeit perhaps somewhat late in the day. Many are now insisting in planning applications that there should be no more paving over, while many are rightly taking enforcement action where those conditions are disobeyed. However, it is quite wrong to think that SUDS on their own will be a solution to the problem; rather, they offer additional assistance. The idea that we can suddenly convert road surfaces and pavements into permeable surfaces across London is highly impractical—look at the problems we had with simply replacing the water mains—and it would also cost four or five times more than the highest estimated cost for the tunnel. However, we must use SUDS, and indeed other measures

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for his intervention, because he brings me back to the point that I was making. I was pleased to receive an invitation from the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark to attend a meeting on 6 March in this place. This perhaps draws attention to the point that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) raised, because although probably 140 to 150 MPs would have been invited if the right hon. Gentleman had asked all those with an interest in Thames Water, I think only three turned up—me, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord), who is in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who was here a moment ago. That perhaps shows a certain lack of interest among some of our colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster would have been there, had he not had a more pressing engagement—I am sure that it was not the Campaign for Real Ale reception that was on at the same time, but there we go.

The invitation asked us to come and listen to Chris Binnie, the engineer who served as the independent chair of the Thames tideway strategic study steering group, which recommended the full tunnel solution. He was going to be present to explain

“why he now believes the costs have exceeded the benefits, and why there are quicker and cheaper solutions that should be considered urgently.”

I am familiar, as many Members are, with Mr Binnie’s proposal, which is what he has called the “Binnie Bubbler”, It is designed to aerate the Thames in a way that prevents the death of the fish and other livestock—if that is right phrase—in the Thames. I have read the arguments for and against the “Binnie Bubbler”, and I have always been rather sceptical about it, because I am not sure that it is suitable for the tidal Thames—it has apparently worked in Cardiff bay in a lagoon area—and also because I do not think it acceptable to allow raw sewage into the Thames at current levels and then simply to try to aerate it and possibly skim off the worst of it.

I therefore went along to the meeting—although I am sorry that I could not stay for the entire time—to see whether Mr Binnie had something more to say on that issue. It would be fair to say that he had something quite surprising to say. I appreciate that I am about to read from a note about the meeting that was written up by a supporter of the tunnel—I had left by this stage—but it says:

“Chris Binnie announced that he had changed his mind again and now supported Thames Water’s view that we should implement the single Thames Tunnel option. Wow! You could hear the gasps around the room and Simon Hughes’ chin nearly hit the floor.”

That might be slightly unfair: the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is unfazed even by things greater than engineers changing their minds, for the second time. However, this issue draws attention to an important point in the argument about the Bill, and brings us back to the financing. I think everybody—certainly everybody present in the Chamber today and most other Members of the House, albeit with certain exceptions, my neighbouring Member of Parliament being one of them—supports the idea that something must be done to relieve sewer flooding of the Thames in a substantive way that will last us, we hope, as long as the Bazalgette solution did.

[Simon Hughes]

I do not want to prolong this unnecessarily, but would like to say clearly that my presumption has always been that something needed to be done. I started from the view that the Thames tunnel was the right solution. However, I want to be sure—not just for myself, but for my constituents, for the reasons that have been set out—that we are not about to embark on an expensive project if it is not entirely needed and has not been objectively assessed to be the right solution. Hence, I come to this issue with a “Let’s check and be certain before we press the button” approach. That was my view before I went to the Binnie meeting and when I came out of it, and it remains my view today.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful for that clarification. I have never signed up to the concept of the tunnel uncritically or without reservations—or, indeed, at all—because I have always held open the option that there might be a better solution, and if that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, then we are on all fours with each other. That is why I have looked in some detail at proposals such as the “Binnie Bubbler”, SUDS and the idea of separate rainwater and sewerage networks, which would also create the problem of huge disruption and much additional cost. Some of those projects, including water conservation, can be done and should be effective, both environmentally and from a cost perspective; the difficult thing is to find an alternative that does what the Thames tunnel would do.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Simon Hughes and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I absolutely accept that. I was not disputing the cross-party nature of the campaign. I was trying to support my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House by saying that those of us who do not come from the south-west have supported them too.

A pledge made by the Liberal Democrats bas been honoured, and a pledge made by the coalition Government has also been honoured—generally, then, this is a good proposal.

The second part of the Bill is the one that preoccupies those of us with London constituencies and constituencies served by Thames Water. It is the largest water company in the country and covers a significant number of colleagues with constituencies in the Thames valley as well as in the capital. That relates to clause 2. I support the general proposal that the Government should be able to assist major infrastructure projects, and I am aware that last year and the year before, the Chancellor rightly identified a set of infrastructure projects around the country to get people back into work. Good, long-term, viable infrastructure projects are a good thing, and we should support them.

There is always a danger, however, that infrastructure projects start with one price tag but end up with another. When the Thames tunnel scheme to deal with sewage in the Thames—the system built in the Victorian era by Bazalgette is no longer fit for purpose—was first proposed, the general cost was said to be between £1 billion and £2 billion, but everybody now accepts that, at 2011 prices, the Thames tunnel would cost £4.1 billion or more. That excludes financing costs, as the notes to the Bill explain, but includes £900 million for risk and optimism bias. So this is a big project that will cost a lot of money.

In 2006, the water regulator warned potential buyers of Thames Water that it would not allow them to saddle the company with high debt levels and pass financial risk on to the customers. I want to concentrate my remarks on the financing, and the financing structure, but I also want to place on the record my position on the project. I have supported the general position that we need to deal with the infractions on air quality and water quality in London that have brought us before the European authorities. That is what we are facing in relation to water and air quality; therefore, we need to act.

I have started from the proposition that the Thames tunnel, as proposed by Thames Water, is the right answer. When it was endorsed by the last Government it had my support, but I am increasingly troubled that it looks as if it may not be the answer that everybody once thought it was. Therefore, when I recently made a full submission as part of the consultation process, I asked—I am also about to write to the Secretary of State to ask this question, after this debate and after a meeting on Monday—whether, at least between now and the point in the normal timetable when Thames Water might be in a position to make an application, there could be a final independent review of the viability of the current project.

Those driving the project have an interest—Thames Water has an interest, and there are others with an interest. It is important not just to have a battle between those with an interest in favour and local authorities such as mine—[Interruption]—and that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who is about to intervene on me—which, because of the effect on their constituents, have become opposed. At the moment we have a dialogue of two different interested groups, and I think we need to get some people involved who do not have a vested interest. There are people in the European Commission who do not have a vested interest, there are people in international environment agencies who do not have a vested interest, and there are also people who do not have a price interest. Before they commit their support to a project that is rapidly increasing in cost—I will say why that is a danger for the Government, as well as for everybody else—I think the Government would be wise to commit themselves to one last review. I hope I can persuade colleagues over the next few weeks that this can be done in a way that is compatible with the timetable in general terms.

[Mr Slaughter]

The right hon. Gentleman took part in a Westminster Hall debate last September—less than six months ago—at which I think I was also present, when he said:

“The Thames tunnel is the best direction.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 316WH.]

Is he saying that he has changed his mind since then? If he is saying that he has reservations about cost or individual sites, I would say that I probably share them—if I get a chance to speak, I will probably address them. Is he, however, saying that he has now changed his mind about the project as a whole?

[Simon Hughes]

The answer is that there is a proposal on the table for what is called “the full tunnel”. I am not as certain now that what is called the full tunnel is the right solution. There is already the tunnel being built in the east—that is well under way—and there is an argument for a smaller tunnel and other measures. I just think we need to satisfy ourselves before we go for the full tunnel that that is the right solution. There are also site issues, of course, but I regard those as secondary, although in my constituency, as in the hon. Gentleman’s, they are hugely important to our constituents, not least with a major site being planned in the middle of my constituency affecting thousands of people, thousands of homes and two or three major schools.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

I will give way one last time.

[Mr Slaughter]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous. When he says “not the full tunnel”, I should point out that the context of his remarks last September was his objection to the wholly inadequate Selborne report, which proposes a partial tunnel—a disastrous tunnel—in west London. I hope he is not saying that he supports that.

[Simon Hughes]

Rather than have a long dialogue, I will let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of my submission to Thames Water later, so he can read my full views. However, let me summarise, as I did in my submission:

“I am now clear that, since the end of the first round of consultations in 2011, the arguments for a review of the full tunnel proposal and possible alternatives have substantially increased. There has been a growing amount of opposition against the full tunnel from my constituents and other constituents in greater London.”

I go on to say that we should therefore give that argument greater weight.

Let me turn to the substance of the financial issues, which are dealt with in this part of the Bill. Back in 2007, a memorandum was submitted to the Treasury Committee by a Mr Martin Blaiklock—consultant, infrastructure and energy project finance—on the subject of Thames Water specifically, but also on equity-type investment generally. He said:

“Over the last 12 months I have be keeping a particularly close watch on the activities of Thames Water, not least because I am a Thames Water customer, but also because it is one example,—and a good example,—of Private Equity involvement with public services. The case of Thames is significant as it is the UK’s largest privatised water utility, serving the Capital and 13 million customers, and also a monopoly service provider...Thames Water Utilities Limited…is the utility licensed by OFWAT. However, Thames Water Utilities Limited is 5 or 6 times removed from the controlling investor group…of whom a number are based offshore in Luxemburg…Is this the ‘transparent’ corporate structure expected of a UK monopoly public service provider?”

I cannot put this on the record, but there is a helpful graph in that memorandum to the Treasury Committee showing Thames Water Utilities Ltd at the bottom. Above it are lots of holding companies, including Thames Water plc, Thames Water Holdings plc, Kemble Water Ltd and Kemble Water Holdings Ltd, and intermediate holding companies. The list goes right up to non-Macquarie investors and then to Macquarie, and shows the purchase of part of the company by the Chinese state finance organisation and others. That shows an organisation that does not do transparent finance. We therefore need certain safeguards to be put in place to protect any taxpayer investment and Government support.

The company also has considerable activity in the Cayman Islands. I am not sure whether that is the most appropriate way for a major utility company to spend its money. The tax arrangements of Thames Water, having been bought by Kemble, have involved setting up a subsidiary financing branch in the Cayman Islands, based at Ugland House, which has 18,856 other businesses registered at it. There is a real question of transparency for Thames Water, and the Government need to have a public debate on it. We need to look at this matter in Committee and on Report to determine exactly how the financing arrangements are arrived at. There is at the moment no proposal from Thames Water as to how it will raise the £4.1 billion to finance the project, and I am concerned that the cost might ultimately be borne by the Thames Water ratepayer, which might not provide the best value for money for our constituents who pay their bills.

Mr Blaiklock concluded:

“There is no doubt that the introduction of Private Equity-type investment into the privatised UK public services has sharpened up the financial management of such enterprises. However, such Private Equity investment has also

(a) introduced a lack of transparency in the control, governance and, therefore, the accounts of such utilities. Some utilities, such as Thames Water, are effectively owned and controlled offshore, possibly by companies with limited liability and domiciled in tax havens. Corporate information is, not surprisingly, hard to come by for such Private Equity investments! Hence, in the event of operational failure by such utilities…it is quite possible that the controlling company and its directors cannot be called to account, notwithstanding OFWAT’s Conditions P and F licensing requirements…

(b) increased the leverage and, thereby, decreased the financial strength of such utilities, at the expense of customers and the security of service; and

(c) introduced corporate uncertainty. The investment horizon for Private Equity is traditionally three to five years, which is short for public service utilities, which require long-term capital and financial stability. The only balancing feature has been the increased intervention, as direct investors, by pension funds and life insurance companies—as principals, not clients—albeit some are offshore owned and controlled. Such investors have longer time horizons and are ideal investors for such public service utilities.”

The other activity that is certainly questionable is the way in which Thames Water has managed its affairs in recent years. Extremely high dividend payments have been made over the past years, representing a direct transfer of income and capital out of Thames Water to private investors. At the financial year end in 2011, Thames Water made £225.2 million in profits, but it distributed £271.4 million in dividends. This high dividend policy is a recent development, but it is not limited to last year. In 2010, the unadjusted common dividend payout ratio, in percentage terms, was 141.5%—that is, nearly half as much again, on top of profits, was paid out. The figure for 2009 was 126.7%—a quarter as much paid out again as was made in profits, and in 2008, 61.3% was paid out. That contrasts with Anglian Water’s dividend ratio of 81.%, Southern Water’s 58.7% and South East Water’s 48.4%. The policy of paying higher returns to investors started immediately after the company was purchased by the consortium behind Kemble Holdings in 2007. The company paid out £535 million in dividends in 2007, and £233 million in 2008.

All this has happened while the company has vastly increased its debt position. In the financial report of 2008, the change in the amount of debt held by Thames Water was more than £1.5 billion. Ofwat warned the bidding companies to keep a good debt ratio, advising that 45% would be appropriate. The ratio is now at 80%. We—Parliament—and the Government need to ask why Thames Water has increased its debt holding by so much when it is known that it has an extremely large capital project coming up, which will need a substantial amount of borrowing.

My question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is whether the Government have investigated whether Thames Water would have been able to make a greater contribution to any scheme from its own funds if it had not spent the last few years borrowing money in order to pay itself. Both the financial policy and the tax arrangements of Thames Water seem to me to be appropriate for us to debate.

My conclusion is that we might need to insert conditions into the Bill regarding any financial arrangements whereby the Government underwrite the borrowing by Thames Water, making it clear that they should be transparent, ethical and accountable so that Thames Water users, those of us who represent people in the Thames Water area and everybody else in the country can understand that there has been some pretty strange organisational finance going on in the last five years. We must make sure that the objectives do not feather the nests of the equity investors rather than benefit Thames Water users, so we must ensure that we have the right financial vehicles if we are to go ahead with infrastructure projects like this one. We will have plenty of opportunity to debate the project itself on other occasions, but I hope that the Secretary of State will be sensitive, as I know the Treasury is sensitive, to these real concerns about how Thames Water runs its financial affairs.

Waste Water (Thames and Greater London)

Debate between Simon Hughes and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

We are moving to slightly calmer waters as we change from a debate on European Union fiscal union to one on waste water in the Thames and Greater London. I am grateful to the Minister for his and his Department’s regular interest in these matters.

On Monday this week, David Walliams—he is probably more famous than many of those elected to Parliament—ended his swim from Gloucestershire to Westminster bridge. On the same day, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, wrote an article in The Daily Telegraph entitled “David Walliams’s Thames swim: it will take a super-sewer to get London out of this mess”. He was referring to the fact that London has a looming waste water crisis.

We have a fantastic piece of engineering in this great city of ours. Our sewer system was designed by Sir Joseph Bazalgette in the wake of what was known as the great stink of 1858. The purpose was to stop the sewage backing up into homes and streets whenever the system overflowed. It was connected to the Thames, so that excesses of waste water and sewage emptied into the river. That system was designed for a city of 4 million people. The city’s population is now approaching 8 million, and before too long it will be a conglomeration of nearer 9 million people. It is obvious to everyone that, with the best will in the world, the present system will not be sustainable. Thames Water is responsible for the system, the company is overseen by Ofwat, and the regulator is accountable to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

For some years a proposal has been on the table to build a Thames tunnel. It was the subject of consideration by the previous Government, and the scheme has been handed on to the present Government. In principle, Labour Ministers gave their blessing to a tunnel scheme; the alternative was a softer environmental mix of things, including a hope that rain water could be collected, and that there would be a more personalised collection with less sewage and so on.

The amount of sewage currently discharged into the Thames is one of many dramatic figures. That is not sewage taken to the waste disposal plants but the excess of sewage that ends up in the river. It is 39 million cubic metres a year. That may not mean much to most people, engineers apart, but it is equivalent to filling the Royal Albert hall 450 times. That is a lot of sewage. It is clearly something that nobody would wish to be in our capital city’s river.

Last weekend, I had the privilege of chairing the hugely successful Thames festival for the 10th time. The Mayor of London’s Thames festival is a reincarnation of the GLC festival, which started 15 years ago. It is held to celebrate the river, and getting on for 1 million people were there this weekend. We want the river to continue to be celebrated. We want it to be clean. We want it to be accessible, and we want people to be able to use its beaches. We want it to be used for commerce and tourism and related activities. We want to see more natural life in the river, including fish such as porpoises and dolphins. We also want to see David Walliams or the Mayor of London swimming in it—or even the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), whose constituency is opposite mine on the north bank of the river, and me. I was once thrown in; it was not a pleasant experience, but that was soon after I was first elected 28 years ago.

I bring the matter to the House today because, in part, it is already on the Minister’s desk. Indeed, the Minister will be aware that in November last year, perfectly properly, the Government published the national policy statement for waste water. On 30 March 2011, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published its report. It makes 19 recommendations. In essence, the Committee would like to see the draft national policy statement amended. As the Minister knows, some of the Committee’s recommendations relate specifically to Thames matters. I shall put recommendations 9 and 14 on the record, but I shall leave colleagues and others to read the other conclusions later.

Recommendation 9 states:

“Approval of the costs which can be passed on to water and sewerage company customers is rightfully a core Ofwat function under its current regulatory remit and it is hard to see the benefits to be gained from duplicating this activity within the spatial planning process. In view of the alarming increases in estimated costs, Ofwat must fully utilise its regulatory powers to scrutinise the economic case for the Thames Tunnel project and be rigorous in determining which costs should be passed on to Thames Water’s customers.”

Amen to that. Water bills are high enough and the project will not be cheap, so people will want to ensure the best cost benefit.

Recommendation 14 states:

“We recommend that the draft NPS be revised to produce a purely generic document by removing Chapters 3 and 4 on the replacement of the Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel. Defra may wish to provide material in an annex exemplifying points made in the NPS by reference to specific schemes, but it should be made clear that it does not constitute information to which decision makers must have regard when considering project applications.”

Those are the only two Thames-specific recommendations. The others are about the process.

I shall briefly put things into context and then pose my questions. I apologise that I gave the Minister notice of my questions only recently, but they are all matters for his Department. However, I shall understand if he needs to come back on some matters. The European Union agreed in 1991 that there should be one system across Europe. Again, following the previous debate, one of the good things that has come out of the EU is that it is setting standards on such things as air and water quality. Bluntly, London has failed on both water and air. On water, the UK is on the way to being taken to court by the Commission. We are also at risk of being liable for poor air quality in London. The EU is the right place to chase such things and to ensure better quality. The Thames tunnel project was intended to ensure that we comply with statutory EU requirements. However, we have been held to be in breach of the directive, which is why the matter is going to the European Court of Justice. Judgment is expected next year.

Secondly, the Government have been consulting on secondary legislation to be made under the Planning Act 2008 that would classify proposed major sewer projects such as the Thames tunnel as nationally significant infrastructure projects. The consultation closes on 5 October. The project would go to the independent Infrastructure Planning Commission. My colleagues and I and Conservative Members did not want that body to be independent, but when the Localism Bill becomes law it will become accountable to the Government, and the Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament, which I welcome.

The last bit of the jigsaw is that Ministers are considering the draft national policy statement in light of the consultation responses generally, and the Select Committee’s responses in particular. We will have a final statement before too long. A waste water policy statement is coming down the track, and there will be changes to the planning law. There is also Thames Water’s plan; the company has received responses to its consultation and it will almost certainly published a revised plan in November.

Like every riverside MP, but more than most, my constituency is very much on Thames Water’s map. When the company announced its plans at the turn of the year, it featured two sites in Bermondsey. It considered Druid street, which would connect the local combined sewer overflow, known as Shad Thames pumping station, to the main tunnel. It also considered the foreshore near Butler’s wharf and the car park at the flats in Tower Bridge road. It decided that Druid street was the preferred site. However, there was concern about that as it was the site of a children’s playground on a council estate and not the greatest of sites. I hope that Thames Water will respond positively to those views and go ahead using the Shad Thames pumping station and not the Druid street site.

By far the most controversial plan is to use the King’s Stairs gardens as the main drilling site for south London. Some 5,274 people have signed a petition against it, and a considerable number of other people, including me, have said that it is not a good plan because it is a greenfield site and on the Thames Path.

Thames Water has responded positively to such views. It has always engaged well with the community. I pay tribute to the Save the King’s Stairs Gardens action group and to its chair Donna Spedding. The group made a substantive case about the use of greenfield sites as opposed to brownfield sites and put forward good technical arguments.

As a result, Thames Water has now co-purchased Chambers wharf, a brownfield site slightly further upstream. As of this moment, there are two sites in the frame. Obviously, the Rotherhithe community hopes that the King’s Stairs gardens site will come off the list as it is inappropriate. We do not know where the other sites will now be—whether it is in Southwark, Deptford or further downstream.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman correctly identified two problems with the scheme. One is the choice of site and the other, as with all infrastructure projects, is the cost. As constituency Members, we will all have issues and will have to negotiate with Thames Water. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have found Thames Water to be a reasonable organisation with which to negotiate. Can we try to disaggregate this matter from the project as a whole? My local authority, which is implacably opposed to the scheme, is using those legitimate objections to object to the whole scheme. I hope that we can have a three-party endorsement today of the fact that we have to clear up the Thames. David Walliams has focused our attention on that. Every single week, my constituents see huge amounts of raw sewage going into the Thames, near to where they live. Let us try to identify and solve the problems so that we can support a scheme that really has to be carried through.

[Simon Hughes]

The current estimate for the Thames tunnel scheme is pretty enormous. It is £3.6 billion and is likely to go up rather than down. Thames Water says that the alternative would cost £13 billion and take 30 years. When I responded to the consultation, I said that the evidence seemed to be in favour of the Thames Water plan, subject to getting the sites right, but I wanted final reassurance. I made my response formally at the turn of the year.

I also put in a short response to the private commission that was set up by some interested local authorities and chaired by Lord Selborne. The commission has argued that we must have a totally different direction. I am not persuaded by that. The Thames tunnel is the best direction. The previous Government came to that view and the present Government have held to it. Unless something comes up in the latest process, we need to go ahead with the Thames tunnel scheme, but the site must be right. My experience is that engineers are reasonable people who will look at a better option if it is put to them. They are also quite flexible. The private commission is having its hearings and it is about to produce its report. I hope, therefore, that we can arrive at a common position.

My questions to the Minister are partly procedural as well as substantive. Will the Government respond specifically to all the recommendations in the Select Committee report? If they cannot do it now, when will they do it? If the concerns that have been expressed by colleagues across the House and in the Select Committee are taken into account, will the Minister accept that that will lead to a change in the draft policy statement?

Will the Department delay bringing the debate on the policy to the House until the Localism Bill has been enacted and implemented and the Infrastructure Planning Commission has been set up? I want to ensure that if the Thames tunnel is subject to an overarching planning approval, the decision is a democratically accountable one. Will the Minister give us the earliest date when Parliament might be able to have the national policy statement back? When the policy comes back, can he assure us that there will be a debate on the Floor of each House so that colleagues in London and the whole of the Thames estuary can make a contribution to the debate? This is a big debate and we want to ensure that it is given adequate time and that it is not something that is pushed through on the nod or in half an hour.

It is clearly logical to have one overarching planning approval for the scheme, but if there are any sites on which there is a significant building there should be extra planning processes to ensure that everything is done in the right way. For example, if the King’s Stairs gardens site or the wharf site in Bermondsey are chosen, people will want to know that the new building will not be too tall, too big, too wide or too ugly and they will also want to have their say. The subsidiary buildings should not be rubber-stamped through either. Will the Minister pass on that concern to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government? We want an extra consultation process about the detail or extra planning requirement.

Whatever our views about the Selborne commission, will the Minister tell us that the Department will consider the report and respond to it before the final draft of the national policy statement is published? Will he give us the Government’s final assessment of the cost of the project and will he give us an assurance that council tax payers, local councils and the Government will not have to pick up the tab? Obviously, people understand that this is a Thames Water project and that it will not be cheap. People will want to know not just what the cost is overall but that their bills will not go up in other places as well. It would be helpful if the Minister could show us the departmental cost-benefit analysis.

Will the Minister tell us whether there is any compensation available to people whose land, properties or amenities are affected? If they suddenly have a great treatment works or a shaft put in front of their window for seven years, what compensation will they receive? If Thames Water identifies new sites, people in my constituency and elsewhere would be grateful if the sites that are no longer in the firing line or are no longer being considered are dropped off the list so that they know they are no longer under threat.

I end by paying tribute not just to the Save the King’s Stairs Gardens group but the Save Your Riverside group. All these people are highly intelligent and reasonable in what they are asking for and I hope that I have reflected that here. This is a huge issue for many of our constituencies in London and we would be grateful for as much information about the scheme as the Minister can share with us.

Conflict Prevention

Debate between Simon Hughes and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hughes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about that point. I have a brother who is still working for the MOD and who has been in the Army in various parts of the world. However, it did not take him to remind me that it is more useful for the Army to stabilise a situation and to teach the skills of conflict avoidance and so on, than it is for it to engage in conflict. Sometimes conflict prevention is not perceived as being the dramatic work by the armed forces for which we pay our taxes, but it is both the most productive role of the armed forces and—frankly—the way that we can save not only the lives of people in faraway countries, such as Afghanistan, but in countries such as our own, including the lives of our service people who would otherwise pay a very high cost.

I also share my hon. Friend’s view that we not only need to have an ambition about the share of our national cake that we give to overseas development but that we need to have our armed forces fully committed to conflict prevention, as they want to be and as they increasingly have the skills to be.

I want to give one or two examples of how successful conflict prevention can be, if it is got right. They are examples of the work of the United Nations Development Programme which, since 2002, has assisted fragile countries to build resilience by strengthening what the UNDP calls “infrastructures for peace”. I commend the work of the UNDP’s Chetan Kumar, who has shown how extraordinarily efficient and effective very small financial contributions can be in transforming difficult situations. Let me give some examples of the UNDP’s success.

In Ghana in December 2008, there were rising tensions between different regions. Chieftaincy-related conflicts in parts of the country and the discovery of oil led to new tensions as the country approached national elections. When the elections were held, there was the narrowest margin of votes recorded in an African election—only 50,000 votes separated the winner and the loser. With tensions rising still further, the National Peace Council of Ghana, an autonomous and statutory national body that was established with assistance from the UNDP, helped to mediate a peaceful political transition. As part of Ghana’s peace infrastructure or peace architecture, regional and district peace councils are also being established.

Then there is the example of Togo in 2005, which shows that all this is not past history; it is very recent history. There were about 250 deaths in the 2005 national elections. However, in 2010 the establishment of a platform for political dialogue prior to the national elections and the ability of civic actors to conduct a sustained peace campaign led to a reduction in tensions and to peaceful elections, as well as to a stable post-electoral period. A code of conduct for political parties and a public peace campaign were developed and implemented with UNDP assistance. Further development included consolidation of a national peace architecture as a priority in 2011.

In Timor, between 2007 and 2009 the peace process that had followed the establishment of East Timor as an independent state nearly collapsed, after a massive return of refugees and internally displaced persons. With UN assistance, a network of community mediators was established; the mediators were trained and deployed; and other conflict resolution efforts enabled the return and resettlement of 13,000 families by 2010. The Government there are now working with the UNDP to establish a new department for peace building so that the country has its own standing internal mediation system.

In Kyrgyzstan, the UNDP facilitated dialogue between civil society, the electoral commission and security agencies.

In Kenya just last year, there was a constitutional referendum without a single violent incident, in contrast to elections just three years previously when 1,500 people were killed and 300,000 displaced. I am very conscious that the Foreign Office Minister here today, who has responsibility for Africa, takes an active interest in these matters. One reason for what happened last year was that, in advance of the referendum, the UNDP provided support for national efforts to reach a political agreement on the new draft constitution and helped to implement an early warning and response system that prevented violent incidents from cropping up, and local peace committees were strengthened in all districts of the country.

I could go on with examples, but we do not have the time so I shall give just two illustrations of the cost-benefit, which is also a consideration in times of straitened finances. Kenya’s leading business association assessed economic losses from post-election violence in 2008 as being $3.6 billion. In contrast, the 2010 constitutional referendum, which was plagued by similar tensions, did not see any violence, and the supported prevention effort cost only about $5 million. In Kyrgyzstan, the recovery costs from the inter-ethnic violence in mid-2010 were estimated to be $71 million, but the regional UN efforts to restore political and inter-ethnic confidence cost approximately only $6 million. I could go on, but I think that people understand my point.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the examples he has given of UN funding and support the key is the local buy-in—local people arbitrating peace in their own countries? I am afraid that I cannot stay for the Minister’s response today, but perhaps the Government will consider doing as they do in the field of aid, and support local projects that are designed to resolve conflict as well as, of course, using military intervention where necessary in an immediate crisis.

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All the best evidence is that grass-roots initiatives that are long term, engage the village—and the tribes in a tribal community—and are led by local people rather than external agencies, with the support of the international community, are far more likely to be successful.

I want to put the matter in another context. There are various authoritative indicators of conflict around the world, including the International Crisis Group and the “Global Peace Index”, and they tell us something which, if we paused for a second, we would realise for ourselves: after a very welcome decline in the number of conflicts in the past few years there has been a recent increase in violence in the world. The point that I made at the beginning of my speech when I quoted from the article on the World Bank is that inter-state conflict is now not nearly as frequent as it was. The bigger problem is internal conflict, which is likely to increase because many places are afflicted by not just political and economic crises but environmental ones such as water shortages, and other effects of climate change.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have taken an interest in many countries where there has been internal conflict and civil war, and as long as there is increased pressure on food, water and housing supplies—the normal needs of a community for economic prosperity—it is more likely that tribal and racial tensions will grow. We therefore urgently need to see those environmental problems as a priority if we are to prevent conflict in many of the poorest parts of the world, because they are often the most likely to be afflicted.

[Simon Hughes]

It is, and two other things strike me. For example, west Africa is very rich in natural resources, but the benefit of those resources has historically not gone to the local communities for community development because the resources, particularly the oil, have been taken out by international corporations and there has been abuse, with flaring and so on. In other parts of the world, there is enforced privatisation of natural resources—water, for example—as part of a World Bank or International Monetary Fund programme that has actually reduced the capacity of the community to develop in its own way.

I want to make just two other general points and then end with some questions. I do not want to set out the Government’s stall because the Minister is quite capable of doing that, and there is a good story to tell, but I want to push them to go further. The UK has been working very hard to bring its operations together across Departments, and we have the capacity to be one of the world leaders in conflict prevention. I encourage the Government, through the Minister, to go that extra mile and pick up some of my ideas. It has been put to me that we have 21st-century conflicts but 20th-century institutions. The best example of a case that I have been closely involved with in recent years is that of the Sri Lankan civil war, as it came to its end. In theory, the United Nations had the power to intervene, under the responsibility to protect, but it was completely paralysed and did absolutely nothing. The conflict went all the way, with all the implications that we now know. I sense that internationally, through the UN, and nationally we sometimes intervene too late, because we do not have the international levers that we can pull early.

Since the beginning of the current situation in Libya the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has been raising the point that it is comparatively easy to intervene militarily. It is not so difficult to scramble together a military intervention, and it should be as easy to scramble together a conflict prevention mechanism, but it is not. We need to think about how we get the balance of decision making and priorities right, in our Government and in others. The people on the ground, especially in countries where there is repeated, periodic or cyclical conflict, know that it is jobs, justice and domestic security that are likely to give them the most secure future. An illustration that helps us easily to picture these things is that it is often better to respond to an illness by dealing with the early signs of infection than to wait for the epidemic. In the past, we have often responded to the epidemic rather than taking preventive action.

[Mr Slaughter]

The right hon. Gentleman has hit on another key point in relation to the Arab world. Not just in Libya but in all the countries of the Arab spring, the degree of violence and the difficulty, even if things go well, of creating civil society, is due to the legacy of having supported tyrants rather than democratic organisations in those countries over many years. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a lesson that we, and all western Governments, need to learn?

[Simon Hughes]

I absolutely agree. There is so much, both academic and practical, that we should have already learnt. The age of the empires of the world mercifully is coming to an end, but there is still a view that that sort of intervention by force is, in the end, what we need to display as our effective international activity, even though all the evidence is that different sorts of interventions are now much more needed.

I am grateful to all those who have briefed us for this debate. It should really be a seminar rather than a debate. I commend Saferworld, which has supplied some very good material and I shall summarise its five points about the areas on which Governments should concentrate. First, it picks up the point made by Labour Members, namely that we need to understand the context and put it first, and that each context is different. Secondly, we have to put people at the heart of conflict prevention. Thirdly, we have to work cross-departmentally in Government. Fourthly, we have to work with our international partners. Fifthly, a crucial issue is the arms trade and the need to curb it—many of the poorest countries spend large parts of their funds on arms rather than on other things.

I also commend the work of PATRIR—the Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania—and Kai Brand-Jacobsen, the director of its department of peace operations. Ministers and others will have seen its work. It has identified 22 lessons for country-level prevention, as well as lessons for international support and prevention efforts, improving effectiveness and preparedness, and identifying key gaps and challenges, and the way in which we can apply those from here.

I have, with the help of the officers of the all-party group, prepared some questions. I have given the Department notice of them, so I hope that they do not come as a frightening surprise to the Minister. I will then end with some key requests. It would be good for the Government to set out what they mean by conflict prevention and which programmes they are funding in which countries to prevent which conflicts—we would then have more transparency about the details of the Government commitment—and how they evaluate the effectiveness of those programmes. It would be helpful if the Government could regularly gather information from the existing data sets on work around the world and learn the lessons from it. It would be good if the Government would consider establishing an organisation similar to that in Washington DC, to study, educate and train in the field of peace building, covering all elements of policy, from grass-roots policy to international diplomacy in the voluntary, public and private sectors and the like.

What in-house training are members of the civil service and diplomatic service receiving on conflict prevention? Are we able to get the Commonwealth to do more? It is for ever looking for an effective role. As a big supporter of the Commonwealth, I think there is an opportunity for it to play a much more direct role in conflict resolution and prevention. In the case of Sri Lanka, it was a lamentable failure for a Commonwealth country to be engaged in such a situation. The Commonwealth Secretariat could work with the Government on the issues.

Would it be possible—I hope that the Minister will respond positively to this, although it is not just his decision—for the Government to agree to an annual opportunity to stocktake conflict prevention? I would like us to have an annual debate on the issue. We have annual debates on the armed services—the Royal Navy, the Army and the Air Force—and it is just as important that we have an annual opportunity to review conflict prevention in the world. It would be a strong signal marker of our collective wish as a Parliament and a Government.

Will the Minister tell us how much the Government spent last year on conflict prevention and on overseas military intervention, so that we can compare the two? Is there a cost-benefit analysis of those two forms of spending? Is there a way of projecting how the cost benefit would be helpful as we think, in these straitened economic times, about how we are going to spend our resources abroad? That would produce obvious answers in relation to where we ought to prioritise.

There has been growing cause for concern in Sudan in recent days, and now the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed concern about the situation. Are we, in our overseas development work, supporting the civil organisations on the ground in such countries to help prevent conflict, rather than just going in and using more traditional responses?

Do the Government monitor the infrastructures for peace developments so that we can promote good practice in other places around the world? Following on from a point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), are we learning the lessons from the past year of the Arab spring about engaging with local communities in the Arab world, as opposed to just dealing with the governance in some pretty unsavoury places, so that we are with the people preparing for the change? Are we making sure that it is local citizens who are leading such developments? This country’s education processes are also an issue. Will the Government consider adopting the same approach as that in the Department for International Development’s policy paper, “The engine of development”, to make sure that we always have stakeholder dialogue—I hate the word “stakeholder”—between key participants?

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has missions in potentially troublesome places in the Balkans and eastern Europe. Can we work with it to go to other places that look as though they are at risk of conflict in the future? Can we get better co-operation between the OSCE and the European Union in enhancing common foreign and security policy?

What about the places—this has been one of my perpetual frustrations since I have been in this place—where there have been stalled peace processes? Cyprus, for example, has been on the agenda every year that I have been here. There has just been another round of talks, which do not appear to have moved anything. We should seek to move things on. In the end, Northern Ireland resolved its problems as much through grass-roots movements from the community, particularly those involving women, as it did through political forces from the top. Cyprus desperately needs, and would benefit from, the same. Finally, is there any capacity within Government to expand the resources of the new stabilisation unit and the new strategies that the Government have put in place?

I hope that that is a helpful short tour of the horizon. I hope that the Government will say that they will seek to build a more formal and systematic approach, based on best practice, across Government Departments, and that they will accept that we need to beef up our capacity to lead on conflict prevention around the world. I hope that they will see the stabilisation unit as something that prioritises not just stabilisation but conflict prevention. I think that that has been the lesson of Afghanistan. I hope that they will be honest about the gaps and the challenges and give us an opportunity of annual stocktaking. Finally, I have one suggestion. I am always wary of tokenistic titles, but as there are three Departments that have to work together—the Ministry of Defence as much as the others—it may be that the Government need to think about who is the lead Minister across Departments for making sure that there is a driven policy for integrating the policies.

It would be a commendable and good thing if the way in which we organised Government was seen to give as much priority to prevention as it does to defence and military matters. A minister with responsibility for conflict prevention in the world would be a way forward. Other countries are setting up departments of peace, rather than departments of war, and are realising that we need to shift from ministries of defence to ministries of peace. We may not be culturally ready for that yet, although many would welcome it, but we need to move in that direction. I hope that this debate will show that a growing group of people in this Parliament and in all the Parliaments of the democratic world want this move. There is now a network around the world.

I shall end with a plug. For those who want any more information, there is a website entitled www. conflictissues.org.uk. I hope that this is the beginning of a debate that engages not just us but many others outside this place, and that the Government are ready to respond warmly.

UK Policy on the Middle East

Debate between Simon Hughes and Andy Slaughter

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and welcome you to the Chair. Before making my brief remarks, I mention, by way of declaration and pending the publication of the register, that my constituency party has received donations from individuals and organisations supporting the rights of Palestinians, and I made several visits to Palestine, Gaza and the west bank in the last Parliament.

I wish that there were more time to debate this issue today. There is a debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), which may give more opportunity to address the issue of Gaza. We have heard very powerful speeches about that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) which will help me to confine my remarks. I wish that I had more time to deal with some other issues. I would like to comment on Yemen, Syria and Iraq, but the time simply does not allow that, save for one point, which is topical and relevant to my constituents.

In opening the debate the Minister mentioned in an impassioned way the contribution that this country had made to security in Iraq. I do not in any way denigrate the efforts that have been made by our forces there, but Iraq remains very insecure. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has commented on the forcible removal of people from this country to central and southern Iraq in conditions that put their safety at risk, and I ask the Government to look at that matter. A longer, all-day debate on the issue in the Chamber would be helpful in order to test the Government’s emerging policies on the middle east. I am lucky enough to have in my new constituency the Iraqi Association UK, which I know is particularly concerned about deportations that continue from this and other European countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said that he wished there could be more of a meeting of minds between interests representing the Palestinian and Israeli sides. I echo that. It does occur, but perhaps not frequently enough. I am afraid that in the debate today we have seen people taking entrenched positions again, and I will try not to do that in my remarks. I have noticed an unprecedented co-operation between the groups representing the interests of Palestinians and in the three main parties, which now meet on a relatively regular basis. That is to be welcomed, but I think it is a response to the appalling situation that the attack on the Gaza flotilla has brought to light.

Following my several trips to Gaza, I would highlight three points that have come home to me and, I think, other hon. Members who have also made that journey in the last two to three years. First, there is a desire for justice. Yes, there is a desire for cement and security, but there is an overwhelming desire for justice among the Palestinian people. They believe that they are not getting that and that the balance of force is set very much against them, whether in the region or in the world. The hope given by the Goldstone report has so far been dashed, and now the prospect of an independent inquiry into the attack on the Gaza flotilla appears also to have receded.

Why is an independent inquiry important? The Prime Minister of Israel, in announcing the inquiry, said that it is to investigate

“whether Israel’s Gaza blockade and the flotilla’s interception conformed with international law”.

With respect to the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), he may need to brush up on his international law a little if he is going to practise again, because every opinion that I have read from respected international lawyers is very clear that there is no right to attack a ship bearing the flag of another country in the high seas to enforce a blockade, even were it a legal blockade. On that and many other grounds, this is an action of little more than piracy, and it will not much trouble the inquiry, if it is an impartial inquiry, to investigate that.

The other reason for the inquiry, according to Mr Netanyahu, is to

“investigate the actions taken by the convoy’s organisers and participants.”

In other words the victims—those who were killed and the many who were injured—are to be put on trial. Thanks to the way the Israeli media typically manipulate publicity—we have heard some examples repeated verbatim in the House tonight—there is very little chance of the inquiry being impartial and of the world being presented with what actually happened.

I took the opportunity to attend press conferences held by British citizens from the flotilla immediately on their return from Istanbul, where they were flown from Tel Aviv, and to hear their first-hand accounts. I may be able to say a little more about that in the debate tomorrow. Suffice it to say that it gives a totally different picture from most of what has been reported even in the British media and certainly in the international media about what happened during that unprecedented attack, in the middle of the night, in international waters, by armed troops, in a way that was deliberately provocative and ended with the entirely predictable result that many people were killed.

[Simon Hughes]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that although we understand the careful wording of what our Government said today, people such as his constituents and mine, who have come back with their stories, having been on the flotilla, particularly if they are of Palestinian origin, as the person whom I saw was, would be reassured only by an independent inquiry, rather than a partial one. We cannot expect people to trust an inquiry carried out by one of the parties to the event. It has to have international credibility.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful for that intervention. Those who heard the response of the Israeli Prime Minister’s official spokesman, both during the Gaza invasion and more recently, will realise the deep cynicism that underlies most of what Israel says and does to justify what has happened.

We have heard a lot said about Hamas today, and I have again heard the same points trotted out. I do not in any way defend what Hamas has done or said in the past, but let us look at the inequality in arms, and at the violence done and the deaths caused in the region over the past few years. There have been 1,400 people killed—mainly civilians, including many children—in the invasion, and nine people on the flotilla were killed. Just this year, six Palestinians have been killed, and 18 injured, on the west bank; 31 were killed and 116 injured in Gaza. Of course we must condemn rocket attacks, and the now relatively isolated attacks on Israeli civilians and on the Israeli military, but the question of proportionality must enter into the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned the lockdown on the west bank and the repression that, every day, in a thousand ways, crushes the spirit of the Palestinian people there.

I end by putting a further question to those on the Government Benches: does an end to the blockade mean an end to the blockade? In The Guardian last Thursday, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), was quoted as saying that that was not necessarily the case, and that we could not expect an end to the blockade immediately. I believe that we need an end to the blockade, and I would like to hear the Government say today that that is what they intend. I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley): there should be entry of supplies not only for UN purposes, but for general purposes so that the population of Gaza, who simply wish to live ordinary lives, can succeed and thrive—to trade, to eat, and to behave in a way that we in this country would think normal. The blockade is a form of collective punishment, not a way of controlling terrorism. It would be helpful to hear the Government say that in terms today.