House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
1. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues involving elected representatives at regional and local level in decision making by Government Departments.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government are committed to not just promising localism, but practising it. I and other Ministers have regular meetings with local authority colleagues, across a range of issues and at regular intervals, about the decisions that we are thinking of making. That is what greater transparency and devolution are all about.
Mr Marsden
The Deputy Prime Minister talks a good talk about devolution and localism, but that is about all he does. In fact, he and the Business Secretary acquiesced in the abolition of the regional development agencies. I have here a letter from him in which he acquiesced in the abolition of Government offices—one of the few areas in which local representatives can have an input.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now give an undertaking to the House that he will intervene on his colleagues in the Government to make sure that the new regional growth fund decisions have a proper input from elected councils and local authorities, rather than—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have got the gist of it. Questions and answers must be brief.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should think that the abolition of the regional development agencies and Government offices is somehow a blow against localism. Our view is that the Government offices had become a representation of Whitehall in the regions, rather than a voice for the regions in Whitehall. Equally, some RDAs do a good job, but he knows as well as I do that many local communities do not identify with regional development agencies. That is why we were right to say that it was up to local communities to come together with the private sector and others to create local enterprise partnerships, which are genuinely representative of what local communities want.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the abolition of outposts of central Government in the regions is good news so long as the decisions that they previously took devolve locally and do not drift to the centre? Does he also recognise the importance that business in the north-east attaches to the creation of a new enterprise partnership that is able to do some of the things that the regional development agency used to do?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, of course I recognise that it is very important that the manner in which the local enterprise partnerships are now established—not least in the north-east, which has a strong regional identity—should be shaped around the needs of the communities involved. We look forward to receiving proposals from the north-east for the local enterprise partnerships in the north-east.
May I just say that localism is not just about bureaucratic structures? It is about giving local authorities greater control over our health service and people a say over how policing is conducted in our local communities. It is about looking long term at how local authorities can have a greater say over money as well. That is real localism, not bureaucratic localism.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the effects on constituency cohesion of parliamentary constituency boundaries which do not follow existing administrative boundaries.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The Government believe that constituencies should be of more equal size, and that should be more important than administrative convenience for Members of Parliament. In any case, many constituencies cross local authority boundaries at the moment. For example, 19 of the 32 London borough boundaries are crossed by constituencies today.
Chi Onwurah
Will the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister explain to me their definition of the localism that means that local people in Newcastle will have no say locally in the boundaries imposed on them because there will be no opportunity for a local public inquiry?
Mr Harper
Clearly, the hon. Lady has not read the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which we published last week. We are actually extending the consultation period for local people from one month to three months, to give local people, local organisations and political parties more opportunity to comment on the boundary commission proposals, not less.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
In considering this matter, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that people have historic loyalties to the traditional counties of England, not to administrative regions? In particular, will the people of Somerset be allowed their historic county, not some monstrous, vague, administrative nonsense?
Mr Harper
If he has looked at the Bill, my hon. Friend will know that the boundary commissions are able to take into account local ties, but only to the extent that we can still have equal-sized constituencies. They are able to look at those things, but we think that the principle of equal-sized seats is most important and should take priority.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that under the Bill, local boundaries, including county boundaries, can be completely ignored and that the only boundaries required to be observed are the national boundaries? Will he also confirm that under the Bill the Boundary Commission will be required, by law, to begin the process of redrawing the boundaries for the whole of the United Kingdom in the Isle of Wight—to transfer 35,000 voters in that constituency across the Solent into Hampshire, and then to work up the United Kingdom in an equally arbitrary way, with no public inquiries?
I heard the Minister’s waffle about extra consultation, but that is no substitute whatever for independent public inquiries, which the Government are abolishing because they are scared of the results. How does what is in the Bill fit with any idea of the practice of localism and greater transparency that the Deputy Prime Minister has just promised?
Mr Harper
There were so many questions in there that it is not clear which one to answer. First, we are not proposing to move anybody who currently lives on the Isle of Wight; I think that they will continue to live where they are. The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. We do not lay down a prescriptive method for the boundary commissions to draw the boundaries; they are independent, and they will continue to draw the boundaries. Frankly, the hyperbole that he has come out with today and in his reasoned amendment to the Bill bears no relation to the proposals that we published last week.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that the second question needs to be shorter.
Mr Straw
The Minister has obviously not read his own Bill. If community cohesion is good enough for separate seats on the outer isles of Scotland and for the invention of an entirely artificial rule to protect the seat of a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, why is it not good enough for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are two exceptions, which are the two Scottish seats that have unique geography. There is not an exception for the seat of the former leader of the Liberal Democrats; it is simply a rule to prevent the Boundary Commission from drawing an extraordinarily large seat, and his boundaries are able to be redrawn in the same way as anybody’s else’s. All this bluster simply highlights the fact that Labour Members do not believe in seats of equal size and votes counting equally across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the system of voter registration in Great Britain.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Electoral Commission reports that the completeness of Great Britain’s electoral registers remains broadly similar to the levels achieved in comparative countries. The Government want to improve the accuracy of the register by speeding up the introduction of individual electoral registration in Great Britain. We are also considering giving electoral registration officers the capacity to compare the data on their electoral registers with other, readily available, public data to identify individuals who may not be registered.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that far too little progress was made by the previous Government in dealing with this issue. We will accelerate the process of individual electoral registration, and we will make announcements about that shortly. Our whole approach to this is governed by two principles: first, to bear down on fraud in the system, of which individual electoral registration is a key component; and secondly, further to improve the completeness of the register itself. If Members in all parts of the House have particular ideas about how the annual canvass can be improved, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is responsible for constitutional reform, will be keen to hear their views. That is why we are having the pilot scheme this autumn to allow electoral registration officers to compare the register with other databases, go to the homes of people who are not on the electoral register and ensure that they get on to the electoral register.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister would turn his mind to the reality of what is about to happen with the boundary changes that we have been discussing. Is it not a fact that this is a straight gerrymander, and that if he meant what he said, he would delay the boundary changes until there was a full 100% compulsory register based on the reality of where people actually live so that we do not end up with the distortion of taking away seats in inner-city areas?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about straight facts; here are some straight facts. Last December, Islington North’s electorate was 66,472. Just 10 miles away, East Ham’s electorate was 87,809. It cannot be right to have constituencies in which the worth of people’s votes is so very different from place to place. Fairness is a simple principle that should operate in our democracy. He should also be aware that 218 of the existing constituencies are already within 5% either side of the 76,000 threshold that will operate when the boundary review is conducted. In other words, more than a third of Members here are already in line with the new rules. What on earth is wrong with fairer votes across the whole of the country?
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Would it be possible to go to those who have great details, such as credit agencies and mobile phone operators, and within data protection law use their private information to help to ensure that the canvass is complete?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We certainly want to see what we can do in the pilot schemes that will start this autumn to compare the electoral register database with other readily available databases, public and private, obviously entirely in keeping with data protection rules. The sole objective will be to allow electoral registration officers to go to people’s homes and say, “We’ve seen by comparing these databases that you’re not on the electoral register. That’s why we would like you to come on to the electoral register.” Let us remember that Opposition Members, who are making a great deal of noise about this now, did nothing to improve the electoral register for 13 years.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on preparations for the proposed referendum on the alternative vote system.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
It was right and important that Parliament was the first to know about proposals for a referendum on the alternative vote. The Bill will be debated in Parliament, and we will listen also to views from all the devolved Administrations. I have written to the First Minister in Edinburgh to explain the reasons behind our proposed timetable for the referendum.
Jim McGovern
The Deputy Prime Minister must understand the level of anger in Scotland on this issue, and the fact that there was no consultation with the Scottish Parliament before the decision was made has increased that anger. Did he ever consult the Scottish Parliament before making it, and will he now discuss it with it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said, I thought it right that this Parliament was the first to know about such a major issue. I simply do not understand why it is considered in any way a detraction from the Holyrood elections next May in Scotland that, at the same time, people across the United Kingdom should be asked to reply to a simple yes/no question on whether they want the alternative vote. It is disrespectful to the voters and people of Scotland to suggest that somehow they are incapable of making two decisions at once.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Notwithstanding the fact that my new and best right hon. Friend would, I am sure, now deprecate the fact that if we had had the alternative vote in 1997 the Conservative party would have been reduced to a pathetic rump of 65 MPs, does he not think that precisely because AV is not proportional, it raises complicated questions? It is extraordinarily dangerous, therefore, to have the referendum on the same day as other elections, namely the Scottish elections. We need a proper debate on the issue.
The Deputy Prime Minister
About 84% of voters in England will be voting, or eligible to vote, next May. In Scotland and Wales everybody will be entitled to vote. About 39 million people will be invited to vote next May, and it seems to me that instead of asking people constantly to go back to polling booths to cast separate votes, it is perfectly right to invite them to have their say on a simple yes/no issue on the same day, at, by the way, a lower cost to the Exchequer—it will save about £17 million.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his Ministerial responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister in the full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government I take direct responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Charlie Elphicke
May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister about his responsibilities as regards the great repeal Bill, and whether it may be brought forward in the next Session?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend may know, our priority in the autumn is the freedom Bill, and that will be the principal legislative vehicle to repeal and pare back many of the incursions that have occurred into our privacy, civil liberties and great tradition of freedom, which were so roundly abused by the previous Government.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
On the assumption that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are not holidaying together in Montana, will the Deputy Prime Minister say if and when he will be in charge of the country when the Prime Minister is away on holiday?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As already announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister will take his vacation in the second half of August. He will remain Prime Minister and in overall charge of the Government, of course, but I will of course be available to hold the fort.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
T2. What measures is the Deputy Prime Minister taking to tackle postal voting fraud, which particularly affected me during the last general election?
Mr Speaker
Order. Witticisms aside, I want to hear the reply of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister
In 2006, new measures were introduced by the previous Government—measures that the Liberal Democrats supported—to improve the personal identifiers required in the administration of postal votes. We want to build on that work and are reflecting further on the matter. We welcome views from either side of the House on how we can further strengthen measures to deal with fraud. As I said earlier, one of the fundamental principles that guides all our work on such matters is ensuring that everybody who can, and is entitled, to vote is on the register, so that they do vote, and ensuring that fraud is tackled wherever it arises.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
T3. On 22 June, the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that the decision not to proceed with the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters was a consequence of the reluctance of the shareholders to dilute their shareholding. Today, a written statement from the Business Secretary clarifies that it was an issue of affordability. The Government have announced a £1 billion regional growth fund. Were the company to make a fresh application, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking to the House that it will be considered as a matter of priority, and will he support it as a Sheffield Member of Parliament?
The Deputy Prime Minister
In the written statement to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, the Business Secretary concludes:
“We have made clear that we stand ready to work closely with the company as it pursues its ambitions and we are willing to look carefully at all proposals, as we would for any project”
from any other company
“when the future availability of public funds becomes clearer after the completion of the spending review.”
The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue was the lack of affordability in this year’s current Budget, because we discovered when we came into government that the previous Government had promised £9 billion more than departmental budgets. That was wrong. That is why it was wrong for Government Ministers at the time to write out cheques that they knew would bounce.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
T6. I welcome the Government’s plans for fewer and more equal-sized constituencies. However, I notice that we are proposing to reduce the number of MPs only to 600. Was a greater reduction considered, and if so, why was it rejected?
The Deputy Prime Minister
In considering how to reduce the cost of politics and the size of the House, which is far larger than the vast majority of equivalent Chambers in mature democracies around the world, we had to balance two things. As I said, we had to balance reducing the cost—50 fewer MPs means a saving of about £12 million per year—against the ability of hon. Members on both sides of the House to serve their constituencies and constituents. That is why we arrived at the cut of around 7.6% in the total number, to 600 MPs.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In his statement on 5 July, the Deputy Prime Minister said he wanted to empower local people, but the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill specifically excludes the right of the Boundary Commission to hold local public inquiries. How is that empowering local people to have understandable, local boundaries that respect acknowledged local communities?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), said earlier, we are extending the period of consultation on proposals for the independent boundary commissions from one month to three—[Interruption.] I hear a lot of chuntering from Opposition Members, but I ask them again to consider this question: what is wrong with trying to create greater fairness and equality in the conduct of our democracy? They seem to think that the measure is somehow targeted at them, but I remind them that the problem of gaps in the electoral register occurs not just in inner-city areas, but in coastal constituencies, where there is a pattern of under-registration, and in constituencies—
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Lady screams from a sedentary position to ask what we are doing about it, but what did she do about it for 13 years?
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
T7. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans if the referendum on AV is successful and the voting system is changed for parliamentary elections to reform the voting system for local government elections?
The Deputy Prime Minister
There is of course a legitimate debate to be held about the voting systems for local government, but we have already embarked on a fairly rich menu of political and constitutional reforms, and we have no plans at present to make changes to the electoral arrangements for local government.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T5. What is the coalition Government’s policy on the legality of the UK invasion of Iraq?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am happy to confirm that what I said last week at Prime Minister’s questions about the legality of the war was a personal opinion—[Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but I welcome the fact that they are asking questions about that disastrous decision now. It would have been handy if they had asked those questions when it was first taken.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
T8. The coalition Government are committed to equal-sized constituencies for Westminster elections. In my constituency, we have discrepancies in local government wards of nearly 20%. Does the Deputy Prime Minister support the principle of equal-sized wards for local elections, and what action will he take to ensure that that happens?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said in an earlier reply, there are of course legitimate questions about how elections are conducted for local councils. It is not something that we have plans at present to embark on, simply because we have a heavy agenda of constitutional and political reforms that we are seeking to progress. Therefore at present we do not have plans to revisit the issue that my hon. Friend raises.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
T9. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced that the consultations for the new constituency boundaries will be minimal and not involve communities. How does he reconcile that minimal consultation with the Prime Minister’s pronouncements about the big society, community engagement and power passing from the centre to communities, giving them the right to make representations about how they are represented?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It seems to me that extending the period during which representations can be made from one month to three months is not minimising people’s ability to make their views known: it is doing exactly the reverse.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
A vital part of rebuilding trust in our political system is giving constituents the power to call a by-election if their MP has been found guilty of wrongdoing. I am delighted that the right of recall is in the coalition agreement, but can my right hon. Friend tell us when he will bring forward legislation to implement this?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. By the time the election was called, I think that all parties had a manifesto commitment to introduce a power of recall, whereby if it were proved that a Member of Parliament was guilty of serious wrongdoing, his or her constituents would not have to wait until the next general election to cast judgment on the fitness of that individual to continue to represent them, but would be able to trigger a process of recall by a petition from 10% of constituents. We intend to bring forward that proposal in legislation next year, and I hope that it will enjoy cross-party support.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
My constituent Karen Taylor received a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister on 21 June saying that we can cut public spending in a way that is fair and responsible and asking her to provide ideas about getting more for less, not to hold back, to be innovative, radical and challenge the ways things are done. I know that my constituent has replied to you, indicating that she wants you to invest more in public services, to pull the economy out of recession and stop the use of consultants. How do you intend to reply?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not intend to reply at all, but I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister does.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I certainly agree with the last suggestion—that there was a bonanza of consultants in the programmes conducted by the last Government. One consultant was even made a millionaire from the fees alone in the Building Schools for the Future programme. So of course we need fewer consultants. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have entered government having to deal with a very difficult situation. The last Government announced £50 billion of cuts, but had not bothered to tell people what they meant in practice, so we are having to do the work for them. The structural deficit is £12 billion higher than we were told by the previous Government. These are difficult decisions. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that what we have said in the Budget on increasing the allowance—the point at which people start paying income tax—on the extra, including up to £2 billion over the coming years in child tax credits, on the guarantee that pensions will be increased by 2.5% above inflation—
Mr Speaker
Order. This sounds like a suitable subject for an Adjournment debate.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
T10. [11091] Just this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister sent us all a very helpful letter about the forthcoming Bill on the alternative vote system and so on. In it, he wrote: “The Government also believes it is important to give people a choice over their electoral system.”Given that, why will the forthcoming referendum offer only a choice between first past the post and AV, which he himself described as a pathetic excuse for a voting system? Why will it not also offer the single transferable vote?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Let me remind my hon. Friend that, during the general election, there was a party, the Labour party, that wanted to press ahead with the alternative vote and another party, the Liberal Democrats, that believed in a more proportional voting system. As is the nature of a coalition agreement, we reached a compromise—[Interruption.] Opposition Members talk about pluralism and choice in politics, but only if it is on the basis of things that they want, not what anybody else wants.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
One hundred and fifty Labour MPs voted against the Iraq war. How many of the Deputy Prime Minister’s new bedfellows did?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am not a walking encyclopaedia of how people voted, but of course I pay tribute to the small number of Labour MPs who did stick to their consciences and asked difficult questions. However, what I find astonishing is that now Labour Members seem to be exercised about the matter despite having not raised the alarm when they should have done—when the decision was taken in the first place.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
1. What recent representations he has received on the effect of introducing anonymity for defendants in rape cases on rates of prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in such cases.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
2. What recent representations he has received on the effect of introducing anonymity for defendants in rape cases on rates of prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in such cases.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What recent representations he has received on the effect of introducing anonymity for defendants in rape cases on rates of prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service in such cases.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
The direct answer is none. The responsibility for the policy lies with the Secretary of State for Justice.
Barbara Keeley
There is a serious concern that if we introduce anonymity for defendants in rape cases, other witnesses will not then come forward and rates of prosecution will drop. Hon. Members understood that the Government were to compile all available research and statistics, and report to the House before the summer. However, reports in the media say that that will not now happen. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman urge the Ministry of Justice to commission research into the impact on victims of rape and their likelihood of reporting the crime if anonymity is granted to defendants?
The Solicitor-General
The research is ongoing and will be published in the autumn, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the Ministry of Justice has the matter well in hand.
Geraint Davies
I have received many representations, including from Swansea student union and women’s groups in Swansea. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now confirm once and for all, given the rumours, that he intends to drop plans to stop police giving out the names of those accused of rape whom the police believe are serial rapists?
The Solicitor-General
I am not sure of any such proposals, but if the hon. Gentleman has information that would help me to reach a proper conclusion, or if he wishes to refer the matter to the Ministry of Justice, which has the policy lead on this issue, or the Home Office, given that it has responsibility for the police, I am sure his representations would be gratefully received.
Luciana Berger
I am very disappointed to hear that the research is now not going to be out until the autumn. An answer from a Justice Minister, on 17 June, said that it would be published before the summer recess. Will the research alluded to be original research into the incidence of malicious false accusations of rape, or will it be a survey of existing evidence?
The Solicitor-General
The research will be research, and no doubt we will look into the matter as a whole. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady—this must be very annoying for her—but she really needs to address her questions to the Ministry of Justice, which is the lead Ministry dealing with the issue.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
3. What the outcomes were of the Crown Prosecution Service’s review of its violence against women strategy.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Crown Prosecution Service’s violence against women strategy, 2008 to 2011, was published in June 2008. No review has been carried out to date. Quarterly assurance is provided by the voluntary sector, and annual reports are published. The assessment of the benefits of the strategy on violence against women prosecutions will be made in 2011.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister accept that the concerted effort of the previous, Labour Government led to a 64% reduction in the incidence of domestic violence according to the British crime survey? Will he therefore ensure that potential cuts of 25% in CPS funding and his Department will not lead to a lesser focus on domestic violence issues, which are important not just to women, but to the whole community?
The Attorney-General
I have no reason to disagree in any way with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is right that, for example, successful prosecutions from charge to conviction have significantly increased, from 65% in 2006-07 to 72% in 2009-10, against an increasing volume of such prosecutions. The number of discontinued cases has fallen, from 26% in 2006-07 to 21% in 2009-10. Similar statistics apply to rape cases. Although there will clearly be financial constraints on all Departments, let me reassure him that it is certainly my intention and that of the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that the CPS can maintain its record of momentum and good progress in this area.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Is not one reason for the progress in successfully prosecuting domestic violence and rape cases that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has reported the existence of independent domestic violence advocates and independent sexual violence advocates? Will he give the House a commitment that he will continue to resource such a programme—a programme that is helping women bring their attackers to justice—or persuade his colleagues who are budget holders to do so?
The Attorney-General
Yes, there are currently 141 specialist domestic violence courts, and in these courts there is the assistance of independent domestic violence advisers, as the hon. Lady says. Indeed, as she and I both know, in Slough there is an excellent voluntary service helping those who have been the victims of domestic violence. I will do all that I can to reassure her that there is no intention of allowing that excellence to be diminished. Clearly, I accept that in times of financial constraints we will look across the board at everything. However, as matters stand at the moment, it is the intention of the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as my intention as the Attorney-General, to ensure that the progress that has been made in this area is maintained.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments about his continuing focus on the issue. However, now that he has given up his role of co-ordinating the policy response to domestic violence across the criminal justice system as a whole, and in view of the CPS submission to the Treasury—we have all read it on The Guardian website: it says that delivering only key priorities will be affordable in future—will he confirm today, in terms, that tackling domestic violence will indeed be one of those key priorities for the CPS and him?
The Attorney-General
Yes, I am happy to confirm that tackling domestic violence will remain a key priority. However, going back to the point that I made last time I answered questions about the role of the Attorney-General and the office, perhaps I could explain that the decision to cease taking a lead in this area is reflective of the size of the Law Officers’ office and their ability to drive such an agenda. There is a trilateral partnership, as the hon. Lady is aware. The role of the Law Officers is to be heavily involved in that tripartite relationship, providing policy advice and helping to drive agendas. However, it is right and proper that driving the agenda in question should lie with another Department, because those other Departments are specifically resourced to introduce the necessary legislation.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
5. What assessment he has made of the resource implications for the Serious Fraud Office of the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
An impact assessment was prepared for the Bribery Bill when it was introduced into Parliament in November 2009, and the Serious Fraud Office contributed to it. The impact assessment estimated that the new offence of failure by a commercial organisation to prevent bribery would result in one additional contested criminal prosecution per year of a commercial organisation by the Serious Fraud Office. The overall cost to the SFO was estimated at £2 million a year. As regards the implementation of the Bribery Act, funding for the SFO from April 2011—which is when the Act is expected to come into force—will, as with all other Government Departments, be settled in the current spending review. The SFO expects to be able to carry out all its normal functions, including Bribery Act investigations and prosecutions, within that funding settlement.
Hugh Bayley
Our international obligations under United Nations and OECD conventions require us not only to have an effective law to prohibit transnational bribery but to enforce that law. Given that the cost of enforcing the new Bribery Act is about £2 million a year, will the Serious Fraud Office have that amount of money set aside to fulfil its obligations under the Act from April next year?
The Attorney-General
As I indicated a moment ago, the view of the Serious Fraud Office is that, on the basis of its submissions, it will have the necessary resources—including that £2 million—to do what is necessary in this area. It is worth remembering that the policy, which was commenced by the previous Government, was designed to limit the number of contested cases. For example, section 7 of the Act, which covers the failure by commercial organisations to prevent bribery, is intended to encourage commercial organisations to self-refer and co-operate. This is one of the reasons why it is hoped and expected that, in many cases, expenditure on major trial processes will not be necessary. The £2 million that has been identified is the Serious Fraud Office’s best assessment of what will be needed to take this policy forward.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I suggest one other area in which the Serious Fraud Office should do a bit more work? It relates to the suborning of police officers. We have only to read a couple of tabloid newspapers every day to see that newspapers and journalists pay police officers for stories, which constitutes suborning a police officer.
The Attorney-General
By its nature, the Serious Fraud Office is concerned principally with offences of serious fraud. I certainly think that suborning a police officer is an extremely serious offence, but it seems to me to be a matter that is more likely to lie with the Crown Prosecution Service.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
6. What assistance the Crown Prosecution Service gives to people with disabilities who are giving evidence as victims in rape cases.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)
Giving evidence as a victim in a rape case must be a traumatic experience, no matter whether the person has a disability or not. The Crown Prosecution Service endeavours to ensure that individually tailored support is given to all victims. Victims with disabilities are eligible for a range of special measures to enable them to give their best evidence. In appropriate cases, prosecutors offer to meet victims personally to discuss the need for special measures.
Kerry McCarthy
I am afraid that the Minister’s answer reflects the fact that my question has appeared on the Order Paper in a substantially different form from how it went into the Table Office. What I am really concerned about is that people with disabilities, particularly learning disabilities, are disproportionately the victims of rape, yet the prosecution rate in such cases is very low. What more can be done to ensure that, despite any difficulties they might have in giving evidence, their cases are brought to court?
The Solicitor-General
I will endeavour to assist the hon. Lady, irrespective of the way in which her question ended up on the Order Paper. First, I want to congratulate her on her appointment as the shadow Minister for those affected by disability issues. I am sure that she will be an active participant in these debates, and I hope that policy will develop as a consequence—[Interruption.] I was endeavouring to be genuinely helpful, Mr Speaker.
The main point that I want to get across to the hon. Lady is that any prosecution depends on evidence, and achieving best evidence from people with disabilities is vital. If she is right in saying that a disproportionate number of people with disabilities are raped and that their cases do not get to trial, we must do all that we can—and I do mean we—to ensure that their evidence is presented to court in a way that juries can consider and, if appropriate, bring in a true verdict of guilty.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Will the Attorney-General keep in mind the recommendation of the Justice Committee that the courts are quite capable of treating people with learning disabilities, and those with mental health problems, as credible witnesses? The Crown Prosecution Service should not be frightened to bring such witnesses before the courts.
The Solicitor-General
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I hope I indicated in my first reply, the Crown Prosecution Service does its very best to ensure that all victims of rape are properly treated and that their evidence is put before the court so that the alleged defendants, or alleged criminals, can be brought to justice. I have absolutely no doubt that the CPS will do its very best. I should add that, having recently attended the Judicial Studies Board course on serious sex offences, I know that the judiciary are acutely aware of the need to deal with the sort of problems that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Given that one of the vulnerabilities that people with learning disabilities face is that some of those carrying out abuse and rapes in residential settings will move to another care home and might get lost in the system, and given that the Government have announced that they no longer intend to proceed with putting the application for anonymity on a legislative basis, and want to look at non-statutory options, may I urge the Solicitor-General and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to ensure that there is wide consultation on any non-statutory option to extend anonymity?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Certain European jurisdictions have the use of specialist rape courts, which enable best evidence and have increased conviction rates, so would the Attorney-General consider that?
The Solicitor-General
All judges who try serious sexual offences cases are specially trained, as are the prosecutors from the Crown Prosecution Service and the people who assist prior to trials, such as those who work in the sexual assault referral centres and the independent domestic and sexual violence advisers, who were mentioned in an earlier question. My hon. Friend makes a good point, which underlines our earlier discussions.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the effects of the appointment of domestic violence specialist Crown prosecutors on the effectiveness of prosecutions for domestic violence offences.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
All Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors have been trained in domestic violence cases. Dedicated prosecutors are linked to specialist domestic violence courts and each CPS area has a co-ordinator to deal with violence against women. As I mentioned earlier, successful prosecutions of domestic violence have significantly increased from 65% in 2006-07 to 72% in 2009-10. We believe that these roles have been key contributors to such improvement.
Bridget Phillipson
The introduction under the Labour Government of specialist prosecutors has no doubt been a crucial factor in driving up the success rate of prosecutions in cases of domestic violence. Will he commit the CPS to continue to focus its efforts on prosecuting perpetrators of domestic violence?
The Attorney-General
As I mentioned earlier, the CPS sees the prosecution of domestic violence as one of its key priorities—there are, of course, others, but it is one of them. For that reason, it has no intention of relaxing or giving up on trying to ensure that these cases are properly prosecuted and taken through the courts.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
1. What recent representations the Electoral Commission has received on the effect of individual voter registration on the accuracy of the electoral register.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission informs me that since January 2010 it has received representations from two Members of Parliament on the possible effect of individual electoral registrations on the accuracy of the electoral register.
Kevin Brennan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Individual voter registration is something that the Electoral Commission has always favoured and has passed through this House on the promise that steps would be taken to ensure that it did not impact on the number of people registered to vote. Has he had any discussions with the Commission about what it is going to do to ensure that individual voter registration, which has now been speeded up by the current Government, will not mean that thousands and thousands of extra people are not registered to vote?
Mr Speaker
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman and others that there are other questioners. Questions need to be a lot shorter and sharper.
Mr Streeter
The Electoral Commission is extremely concerned to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the register, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point. It now awaits the Government’s bringing forward of their proposals on speeding up individual electoral registration. It will then, of course, give its advice to Government in the usual way.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
2. What discussions the Electoral Commission has had with Government Departments on funding levels necessary for it to undertake its functions under the Government's programme of electoral reform.
Mr Streeter
The Electoral Commission informs me that its chair and chief executive have held discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister on the commission’s role in relation to a referendum on changes to the voting system for the United Kingdom Parliament, and on the funds that it will require to perform that role. The commission also informs me that it has not held discussions with the Government about the funding implications of other proposals for electoral reform.
Helen Goodman
If there is one thing more important than tackling the deficit, it is the integrity of our democratic system. The hon. Gentleman has set out part of the ambitious programme of reform with which the Electoral Commission is having to deal. Will he also press the Deputy Prime Minister to ring-fence the commission so that its budget will not be cut at this difficult time?
Mr Streeter
The Electoral Commission expects to have to spend about £9.3 million in connection with the referendum on the alternative voting system. I am sure that the House will approve that amount, and I do not expect any difficulty to be involved in providing the commission with sufficient resources to enable it to do its job properly.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
During his discussions with the Electoral Commission about the cost of the forthcoming referendum on electoral reform, did the Deputy Prime Minister tell the commission how much the referendum would cost if it were held on 5 May and how much it would cost if it were held on some other date?
Mr Streeter
I am afraid I do not know the precise answer to that question, but no doubt the Deputy Prime Minister will be in touch with my hon. Friend to make the position clear.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The extra jobs that the Electoral Commission will have to do in helping with individual registration and so forth will cost money if the system is going to work. Will the hon. Gentleman agree to be the champion of the additional resources that the commission will require, and will he argue for them with his colleagues in Government?
Mr Streeter
I am happy to be considered to be a champion on that issue. I have little doubt that the Electoral Commission, which has an important role to play in overseeing the political processes in this country, will receive sufficient resources to enable it to do its job.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
3. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to include on electoral registers eligible unregistered voters resident (a) in the UK and (b) overseas.
Mr Streeter
Individual electoral registration officers are responsible for the management of electoral registration. However, the commission undertakes public awareness activities to encourage voter registration. As a result of its campaign before the general election, more than half a million standard and 40,000 overseas voter registration forms were downloaded from its website.
Mr Hollobone
What is the commission’s estimate of the number of unregistered voters in the United Kingdom and overseas? Would it not be a good idea if every time an unregistered voter came into contact with a Government Department, the Department asked the voter, “Are you on the electoral roll?”
Mr Streeter
I think it is fairly well known that there are estimated to be about 3.5 million unregistered voters in England and Wales. As several million British people live overseas and only about 15,000 are on our voting register, there is clearly a huge job to be done in relation to overseas voters. I will pass my hon. Friend’s interesting suggestion to the powers that be.
Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
One of the main reasons why people, especially young men, stay off the electoral register is the fact that their partners can often receive the single person’s council tax discount. Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be a good idea to look at that relationship to establish whether the benefits and, indeed, the tax system could be used to encourage electoral registration?
Mr Streeter
I am not sure that that is a matter for the Electoral Commission, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard the Deputy Prime Minister say earlier today that the Government were considering using existing databases to inform electoral registration better, and I think that that is probably one of the answers.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
In recent years, thousands of Polish nationals in Hammersmith and Fulham have voted in Polish national elections at polling stations set up for the purpose in locations such as the Polish cultural centre in Hammersmith. Has the Electoral Commission had any discussions with the Government to establish whether we might be able to do the same for United Kingdom nationals based abroad, enabling them to vote in United Kingdom embassies and consulates?
Mr Streeter
My hon. Friend has made a good point. I believe that such discussions have taken place over the last two or three years. However, decisions of that kind are ultimately a matter for Government, and it will be for Government to make any changes to the existing law.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Has the Electoral Commission conducted any research into the impact of our process of applying for citizenship on a reluctance to register, and if it has not, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to encourage it to do so? I am thinking in particular of the level of fees that are charged; does that put people off becoming citizens and therefore going on to acquire the right to vote?
Mr Streeter
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I am not aware of any such research, but I will certainly pass that suggestion on to the Electoral Commission.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman invite the Electoral Commission to come up with radical proposals for improving the level of registration of people entitled to vote in the UK and to consult with the public urgently on ideas for achieving that, because there are many ideas out there that need to be collected and shared with Government so we can have a much better registration system?
Mr Streeter
I am very happy to pass those suggestions on to the Electoral Commission. It is worth making the point that Governments of all colours have attempted over the years—indeed, over the decades—to improve voter registration and the Electoral Commission runs well-resourced public awareness campaigns, but there is still a group of hard-to-reach people in this country. I will certainly pass his suggestions on to the Electoral Commission, however.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
6. What recent representations he has received on proposals for the consecration of women as bishops.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)
I have received numerous representations from people on all sides of the argument. I recently addressed the General Synod of the Church of England on this matter in York, and I have placed a copy of my statement in the Library.
Diana R. Johnson
Will the hon. Gentleman take a guess as to when he thinks we will have the historic first woman bishop in the Church of England? When does he think that will be?
Tony Baldry
The legislation completed its Report stage at York. It now has to go to all the 44 dioceses of the Church of England. If a majority of them agree, it will go back to General Synod, probably in 2012. If two thirds of each of the General Synod’s houses agree to it, I would then expect it to come here to the Ecclesiastical Committee and this House in 2013, and if this House agrees, we could see the appointment of the first woman bishop in 2014.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As someone who considered entering the ministry but realised I had too many vices and not enough virtues, may I commend the life and ministry of women in the Church, but also ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that the first appointment of a female bishop, which will undoubtedly happen soon, must be on merit rather than political correctness?
Tony Baldry
I am sure that all appointments in the Church of England, including that of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, are made on merit.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
7. What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the effects of holding referendums on the same day as other elections.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission set out its position on the proposal to hold a UK-wide referendum next year on changes to the voting system to the UK Parliament in a statement on Thursday 22 July, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The commission said in its statement that on balance it believes it should be possible to deliver the different polls proposed for 5 May 2011 if the key practical risks in doing so are properly managed. The commission will advise Government and Parliament if these risks have not been adequately addressed at the appropriate stage during consideration of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Jessica Morden
Given that the Deputy Prime Minister did not have the courtesy to consult the Welsh Assembly Government before making the decision to have the alternative vote referendum on the same day as the Welsh Assembly elections, will the Electoral Commission be listening to the concerns in Wales about the distraction caused by holding the two elections on one day, particularly in terms of competing media campaigns?
Mr Streeter
The Electoral Commission is extremely good at consulting all its stakeholders, and that will certainly involve all kinds of interest groups in Wales in the run-up to the referendum.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Electoral Commission has changed its view?
Mr Streeter
In November 2009 the Electoral Commission took a long look at all the international experience of holding different kinds of votes and referendums on the same day and came to the conclusion that, in principle, it is wrong to maintain that we cannot hold two votes on the same day along the lines that it had previously indicated. However, it is of course looking to make sure that the key safeguards are in place, notably those relating to public awareness and the design of ballot papers, and it will advise Government on that well before the referendum next May.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
8. When he expects the Church of England to consecrate its first woman bishop.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.
Chris Bryant
As one who did go into the Church ministry and then discovered that I had plenty of vices, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little more impatient about the issue of women bishops? To be honest, it felt as if he was saying, “Nearer and nearer draws the time”, but will it be the time that will surely come when we have women bishops, and why on earth does this legislation have to come back to this House? Surely the Church of England should be freed from the shackles of bringing its legislation here, so that we can move forward on this issue rather faster.
Tony Baldry
If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said to the General Synod, he will see that I made it clear that many of us want this legislation to come forward as speedily as possible, but we have to get it right. The reason it comes back here is that we have an established Church, and until such time as Parliament decides that we do not, we will continue to have an established Church.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I hope my hon. Friend will ask the Synod to recognise that the House welcomed the decision it took to trust women bishops to do the right things, rather than trying to force them into being second-class bishops.
Tony Baldry
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I made it clear in York at the General Synod that I did not think I could get through this House any legislation in which there was a scintilla of a suggestion of women bishops in any way being second-class bishops.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
9. What recent representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Government on public funding for the repair and restoration of cathedrals.
Tony Baldry
Church groups of all denominations are seeking to encourage and persuade the Government to continue the listed places of worship grant scheme, which enables a 100% refund of VAT on church buildings and repairs.
Hugh Bayley
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Yorkshire Forward, the Yorkshire regional development agency, was forced to withdraw a grant of £1 million toward the cost of restoring the great east window of York minster? Will the Church Commissioners make representations to the Government that funds withdrawn from RDAs should be made available to other regional or local bodies, and that funding applications to these bodies from cathedrals should still be supported?
Tony Baldry
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. It is estimated that some £9 million is required to put York cathedral into good repair. Although funding has been coming forward—I understand that there is a grant application to the Heritage Lottery Fund, and the Wolfson Foundation has set up a fund for cathedral repairs—we will need to find money from all sorts of sources if we as a nation are to meet the responsibility of repairing these fantastic cathedrals, which are part of our national heritage.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend explain why two of the cathedrals in Scotland—Glasgow and Dunblane—are fully funded by the public purse, yet not a single cathedral in England is so funded?
Tony Baldry
The situation in Scotland is simply different from that here. As I said, we need to raise considerable sums of money—for Salisbury, Winchester and Lincoln cathedrals, and for York minster—but that will require a number of different sources of funding: part from the state, part from trusts and charities and part from private individuals.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
10. What recent proposals the Electoral Commission has made to engage people in the democratic process; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission informs me that its work in this area focuses on encouraging voter registration and making sure that people have the information they need to take part in elections. It believes that it is for political parties and candidates to give people a reason to turn out to vote on polling day.
Mr Allen
The last general election was the most rule-bound, hidebound, bureaucratically hamstrung election for all of us as candidates. We had to fill in more papers, swear more oaths and write more notes to the electoral registration officer than ever before. When will the Electoral Commission get back to its core role of really trying to excite people to register, and to vote and thereby participate in our democracy?
Mr Streeter
I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman, who is greatly respected in this House, was describing the Electoral Commission or the previous Government. He will have seen a report that has just been filed by the Electoral Commission that recommends significant changes to our electoral system along the lines he suggests. We very much hope that the Government will be listening to this excellent report.
Gilad Shalit's Continued Captivity
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I wish to present a petition signed by 5,807 people. It states:
The Petition of the residents of Ilford North and others,
Declares that the petitioners deplore the continued captivity of Corporal Gilad Shalit and the violations of his basic human rights; notes that 25 June 2010 marked the 4th anniversary of Shalit's abduction by Hamas militants and that for over four years he has been denied visits from the Red Cross, adequate medical care and contact with the outside world; further declares that the petitioners believe these to be serious violations of his human rights under international law; and further notes that the petitioners believe that the inhumane prison conditions imposed on Shalit are criminal, immoral and unjust.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the British Government, and in particular the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to do all in their power and use all avenues possible to secure the basic human rights and freedom of Corporal Shalit, and call upon the United Nations and International Red Cross to redouble its efforts to secure the basic human rights and freedom of Corporal Shalit.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000852]
Traveller Sites on Green Belt Land (South Staffordshire)
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I wish to present a petition from residents wishing to stop Traveller sites from being built on green belt land, which has been signed by 2,181 people. It states:
The Petition of residents of the South Staffordshire constituency and others,
Declares that Traveller sites are being built on green belt land; and further declares that the petitioners believe that planning law should apply to these sites.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward proposals to change the law to prevent Traveller sites being imposed on green belt land.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000853]
Sunnyhurst Wood (Lancashire)
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Friends of Sunnyhurst Wood and others. It records the support of the users of Sunnyhurst wood to stop the
“storage of silt from the Paddling Pond and Moat Lake”
being allowed to form
“large unsightly mounds over long periods.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of the Friends of Sunnyhurst Wood and others,
Declares that the storage of silt from the Paddling Pond and Moat Lake in Sunnyhurst Wood results in the formation of large unsightly mounds over long periods.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call on Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council to take steps to prevent the storage of silt in Sunnyhurst Wood.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000854]
Human Trafficking
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of 730 students from Levenshulme high school, who arranged a special event at the school to raise awareness of the ongoing problem of human trafficking. The petition states:
The Petition of the constituents of Manchester Withington and others,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the continuing and increasing incidence of human trafficking into the UK and across the world is a disturbing situation that brings misery to many adults and children across the globe; notes that the petitioners believe human trafficking is a stain on the moral values of the UK; and notes that the petitioners support the "STOP THE TRAFFIK" campaign.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to put an end to human trafficking.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000855]
Annual Energy Statement
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on energy policy. This statement and the departmental memorandum that I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses fulfil our commitment to present an annual energy statement to Parliament. In making this statement within three months of coming into office we are signalling the importance of this policy. We are setting out a clear strategy for creating the 21st-century energy system that this country urgently needs if we are to have affordable, secure and low-carbon energy in future.
We face short-term challenges as a result of the legacy inherited from the previous Government. We have the third lowest share of renewable energy of all 27 states in the European Union, which is the same ranking as in 1997. In the longer term, we must meet the challenges of a volatile oil market and increased energy imports. We are taking three big steps forward: we are creating a market for energy savings through the green deal; we are ensuring a properly functioning electricity market; and we will strengthen the carbon price.
Our actions must be informed by the best information about the future. That is why I am publishing our work on 2050 energy pathways, which has been worked up in consultation with industry, scientists, engineers and economists. We are making the data and analysis available and we are inviting comments over the summer. We want to start a grown-up debate about what a low-carbon future will look like and the best way of achieving it. These are possible pathways; we are not claiming to be able to see the future with certainty, but we cannot continue on the current pathway, which is high carbon and highly dependent on imports, with highly volatile prices.
Like the other industrial revolutions, the low-carbon revolution will be driven by entrepreneurs, the private sector, local communities, individuals, businesses, scientists and engineers—not by government. However, industry needs stable policy and functioning markets. The role of government is to provide the policy framework and to act as a catalyst for private sector investment. As the 2050 pathways work demonstrates, we need to apply those principles to the challenge of changing fundamentally the way we produce and consume energy.
The cheapest way of closing the gap between energy demand and supply is to cut energy use. We need to address the state of our buildings—we have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe. Our green deal will transform finance for improving the energy efficiency of Britain’s homes. It will get its legal underpinning from measures in the first-Session energy Bill. We are also accelerating the roll-out of smart meters, which provide consumers and suppliers with the information to take control of their energy management. Alongside this statement, the Government and Ofgem are publishing a prospectus for smart meters, which sets out how we will do this.
Openness is important to us, as it is to business and the public. Alongside this statement, I am also publishing analysis of the impact of energy and climate change policies on both household and business energy bills up to 2020, and I will continue to do so on an annual basis. At the moment, the UK economy is reliant on fossil fuels. As UK oil and gas production decline, this leaves us more exposed to volatile prices and increasing global competition for the resource. The challenge is to spur the capital investment required for new energy infrastructure. The volatility of fossil fuel prices and continuing uncertainty about the carbon price makes such investment high risk, pushing up costs and slowing development, so the first step is to support the carbon price.
In addition, I can announce that we are carrying out a comprehensive review of the electricity market and I will issue a consultation document in the autumn. This will include a review of the role of the independent regulator Ofgem. The Government will also put forward detailed proposals on the creation of a green investment bank. The coalition agreement is clear that new nuclear can go ahead so long as there is no public subsidy. The Government are committed to removing any unnecessary obstacles to investment in new nuclear power. In the memorandum, I have outlined some clear actions to aid this. As a result, I believe that new nuclear will play a part in meeting our energy needs. In the heating sector, I can confirm our strong commitment to action on renewable heat. The Government are considering responses to the renewable heat incentive consultation and will set out detailed options following the spending review.
The UK is blessed with a wealth of renewable energy resources, both onshore and offshore. We are committed to overcoming the real challenges in harnessing those resources. We will implement the connect-and-manage regime, and I am today giving the go-ahead to a transitional regime for offshore wind farms. Both those measures will help to speed up the connection of new generation to the grid. We remain committed to developing generation from marine energy, biomass and anaerobic digestion. Biomass investors that were promised help under the renewables obligation will continue to benefit.
We also need incentives for small-scale and community action. We are consulting on a new microgeneration strategy, and I am today laying an order to allow local authorities to sell renewable electricity to the grid.
Fossil fuels can also have their place in a low-carbon future, provided that we can capture and store most of their carbon emissions. We will introduce an emissions performance standard and we intend to launch a formal call for future carbon capture and storage demonstration projects by the end of the year.
This is a bold vision. We will not be able to deliver it without a 21st-century network that can support 21st-century infrastructure. The statement sets out practical measures that we are taking to improve network access and begin the building of a truly smart grid. However, the vision needs to be grounded in reality. The low-carbon economy must happen, but it will not happen tomorrow. There are potentially 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent remaining in the UK continental shelf, but we must maximise economic production while applying effective environmental and safety regulations. We are doubling the inspections of offshore oil and gas rigs, and we will undertake a full review of the oil and gas environmental regime.
We must also be mindful of our inherited responsibilities. My Department is responsible for managing the country’s nuclear legacy. I am committed to ensuring that those essential duties are carried out with the utmost care and consideration for public safety.
The UK does not stand alone. The Government will work together with our international partners in efforts to promote action on climate change and energy security across the world. We are working hard to put Europe at the front of the race for low-carbon technology. This will help to refresh the appetite for action across the world after the disappointment of Copenhagen.
In conclusion, the statement is about planning ahead and providing clarity and confidence in the policy framework. That is why I am also publishing today my Department’s structural reform plan to show how we are carrying out our priorities. Once we have completed the spending review, we will publish a full business plan. At last we can have an energy policy with real direction and purpose, and a Government who are willing to take the bold steps necessary. I commend the statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and the associated documents. There are some things in the statement that I welcome: the continuation of our work on the 2050 pathways and scenarios; the role of local authorities; and what he said about smart metering, although I think that he has adopted our timetable for the roll-out of smart meters despite the great rhetoric before the election about a faster timetable.
The problem with the statement, however, is that the Secretary of State did not tell us that, on a whole range of issues, he is going backwards not forwards compared with the actions of the previous Government. The truth is that the Government have gone from the rhetoric without substance of opposition to rhetoric without substance in government. Let me take the issues in turn and ask him some questions.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State says, we had a clear plan on the long-term transition to the low-carbon economy that Britain needs—it was the low-carbon transition plan that was published in summer 2009. That plan was widely applauded by industry, employers and green organisations. The problem, however, is that he is unpicking parts of that plan. If he wants a higher renewables target, will he explain why he is abandoning the measures that we put in place to meet the existing renewables targets? He has given in to Conservative nimbyism by abolishing local and regional targets for renewables.
It is absolutely unclear from the documents that the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House how he will meet the higher targets. We do not even know what they will be. On onshore wind, his own Minister, Lord Marland, in another place, says:
“It is our determination there should be no dramatic increase in this”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. 5.]
How will the right hon. Gentleman meet his renewable targets without a dramatic increase in onshore wind? If he does not agree with Lord Marland, he had better get a grip on his own Department.
The right hon. Gentleman is going backwards on wind power and on the incentives to use renewable heat in our homes. We were set to be the first country in the world in April 2011 to have a renewable heat incentive in place. All that he has done in the statement today is to postpone any decision on this until after the spending review. Will he explain why has he done so and what the timetable will be for the renewable heat incentive?
On nuclear, the right hon. Gentleman has finally said something positive, but I do not think that anyone will really believe that his heart is in it. Let me test him out. We said in our national policy statement that we believed that new nuclear should be free to contribute as much as 25 GW towards new capacity. Does he agree with that?
On a green economic future for Britain, I am afraid that his statement goes backwards too, most shamefully with the decision on Sheffield Forgemasters. A written answer has been smuggled out by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills this morning trying to explain how it is possible that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others said in this House that Sheffield Forgemasters had refused to dilute the loan when that was not the case.
Will the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change explain once and for all, because it has not been explained before, why, given that it was a loan, given that the money was set aside, given that there was value for money as judged by the independent panel that looks at these issues, he cancelled that loan? Why has he taken the £1 billion away from the green investment bank? We set aside resources from the sale of High Speed 1 towards the green investment bank and he has taken that money away. So the right hon. Gentleman is going backwards, too, on the question of our industrial future.
Finally, on fairness, we all accept the huge challenge of fuel poverty amid the green transition. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the documents that he publishes today, he no longer says that he will necessarily be going ahead with the compulsory social tariffs that will give cut-price energy for the most vulnerable? Again, it is put off until after the spending review, and again it is subject to review. Does he agree that it is vital? The Liberal Democrats’ position before the election was to do more to help the most vulnerable, including through compulsory social tariffs.
The truth about this Government is that they promised that they would be the greenest Government ever. Any fair-minded person looking at this statement will conclude that they are a huge disappointment—to industry and to the country. In our first debate, the right hon. Gentleman said:
“One thing that the Government are going to do is to under-promise and over-deliver”.—[Official Report, 27 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 317.]
On today’s evidence, he got it the wrong way round.
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Let me make it clear that we have set out in this annual energy statement a clear route map with a framework that will deliver the low-carbon economy that I believe we both want. That is something that will be seen in the test of results rather than in the test of rhetoric.
If one looks at wind power, for example, I cannot accept that the Government should take lectures from the Opposition on renewable energy. The reality is that we have the third worst record of all 27 European Union member states. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, in the latter years of the last Government, improved the policy settings, to which I pay tribute, but the reality is that, taken as a whole, the record of 13 years of Labour rule on this agenda is truly shocking. For us to take office after 13 years of Labour Government, when they have made no progress whatsoever in improving our rankings on renewable energy compared with all 27 members of the EU, is extraordinary.
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, on the renewable heat incentive and, indeed, on Sheffield Forgemasters and the fuel poverty commitment, we are inevitably subject to the spending review for the very simple reason that his colleague, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), said extremely pithily when he left the Treasury, “There is no money left.” Although I have enormous respect for the green credentials of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), I do not think that he does the cause of progressive politics or green politics any good by pretending that there is a bottomless bucket of money that we can dip our hands into and throw at problems.
The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the constraints that, if elected, the Labour party as he very well knows would have laboured under exactly as we do. He certainly talks the talk, but we are delivering. We will introduce a carbon price floor; he did not. We will introduce an emissions performance standard; he did not. We will introduce a green deal to tackle energy saving in every household, including fuel-poor households; and he did not. That should be a matter of shame to Labour Members.
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in this statement, but there is another statement to follow and then a ten-minute rule Bill, followed by the Backbench Business Committee debate to which nearly 50 Members have applied to contribute, so what I require both in questions and in answers is brevity.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, the energy-intensive industries in my constituency, such as ceramics and aluminium, which have already achieved great efficiencies over the past 10 years, are very concerned about the impact of the new carbon trading rules that are due to be introduced in a couple of years. Will he assure us that the rules will not result in production and jobs simply moving overseas to jurisdictions that do not take carbon emissions as seriously as we do in this country?
Chris Huhne
Both the Department and the European Commission have looked closely at those competitiveness issues, and we feel confident that a range of measures, such as free allocation when it comes to the emissions trading scheme, can deal with those problems. We should remember that there are substantial transport costs, which provide some protection, and I believe that the industries concerned have a healthy future.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
I welcome the idea of an annual energy statement and, indeed, much of this statement’s content, particularly what I think is a step forward—the assertion that new nuclear will play a part in meeting our energy needs. Given the coalition’s differences as was—or perhaps as still—who has ministerial responsibility for driving forward the civil nuclear programme? Given my experience of working with three Secretaries of State, and given the complexities of the matter, I know that one needs a Secretary of State who is determined to drive the programme forward.
Chris Huhne
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area. We work very much as a team in the Department, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), the energy Minister, and I have been working very closely with nuclear suppliers and attempting to meet some of their concerns about the regulatory framework. It was precisely because we had two different views, from the Conservative side and the Liberal Democrat side, that we dealt with the issue right at the beginning, with a coalition agreement that makes very clear what is going to happen.
On the point that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North made about whether we should commit to a particular target, I simply say that I do not believe that it is the job of government to micro-manage how we put in place a framework for, and facilitate, low-carbon energy. However, there is no doubt that the coalition agreement sets out that there is a place for new nuclear, and I believe that there will be investment in new nuclear to meet our energy needs in the future.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
The Secretary of State will know, from his visit to north-east Scotland so soon after his appointment, just what skills have been developed in the sub-sea engineering field and the world-leading companies that are in my constituency. Does he recognise that those skills will be very much needed to drive forward further gas and oil production, the carbon sequestration projects in the North sea and existing marine renewable skills? Will he build on those skills to ensure that we have a British-based solution to the carbon problem?
Chris Huhne
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Nobody who has visited his part of the world can fail to be impressed by the professionalism and expertise in the area. Interestingly, such skills not only exist in oil and gas exploration, where it started, but are extending right the way across the piece. For example, companies that were involved in building rigs for oil and gas exploration are now involved in building bases for wind turbines. I can assure my hon. Friend that we in the Department are very conscious of the extremely valuable resource that we have in north-east Scotland among all those energy sectors.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s reference to the ambition of the green deal that he is going to bring forward shortly. However, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) recently ruled out the inclusion of microgeneration in green deal offers for homes. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, therefore, the green deal will effectively prove to be a small mouse rather than a mighty change? Does he accept also that, based on securitisation, bodies such as Eaga already use the feed-in tariff to offer home improvements, including solar photovoltaic cells, at no up-front cost? Why cannot he do that in the green deal?
Chris Huhne
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the green deal, which is primarily about insulation. We are very happy for any green deal provider to offer microgeneration alongside insulation, and he should remember that an extraordinary level of incentives for microgeneration is available through the feed-in tariff, so we are by no means excluding it. We want to see it encouraged, and if green deal providers supply green deal insulation for households they will be able to offer microgeneration packages, too.
The hon. Gentleman should make an important distinction. The green deal, along with home energy insulation, needs to be in place in our existing housing stock right the way through to 2050. Whereas, with the best will in the world, if we look at boilers and other forms of microgeneration, we see that there is going to be a replacement process, because we have yet to produce boilers that can last right the way through to 2050, which would be quite a stretch. Inevitably, there are two different markets.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s strong commitment today to renewable heat. In my constituency we hope to host the first commercial deep geothermal energy plant in the UK, and we have the only UK manufacturer of ground-heat pumps, so the speed with which the Government can act on bringing in the renewable heat incentive is vital to my constituents. Will the Minister be so kind as to outline the time frame?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend should be aware that all those decisions need to be taken in line with the spending review, but in the statement there is a very clear commitment to renewable heat, from which I hope that she can draw comfort. I have been in discussions with other MPs from Cornwall, and I am very aware of the potential for geothermal. My hon. Friend the energy Minister is planning a visit shortly to Cornwall, and I also hope to be able to see the progress that is being made in those important areas.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to look at the energy markets, but will he accept that the markets in both gas and electricity do not offer fair prices to the poorest people? In that context, will he commit to giving the power to Ofgem to ensure that it regulates the delivery of energy to the poorest people in our country?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that competition is an absolutely key part of ensuring that everybody gets fair prices, but so is social price support and the other steps that we can take to target energy-saving measures on, in particular, the poorest households. The green deal will very much include that element, because dealing with the cause of the problem will be infinitely preferable to having to deal merely with the symptoms.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for a clear sense of direction on energy security, which we have lacked for many years. What plans do he and his Department have to implement the marine energy park proposal that was in our manifesto before the election? My constituency, which includes the world’s largest offshore wind farm, would very much like to be part of that proposal to ensure that we can create a much more progressive renewables sector in Thanet.
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend can rest assured that we have not forgotten about the marine parks proposal; indeed, we are taking it forward with consultation. We hope to make an announcement in due course.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State commented a lot about the importance of the private sector in his policy, but he did not show a real understanding about how the private sector operates in this area. He will recall that a few weeks ago he visited the Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group stand at the All-Energy conference in Aberdeen. The point was made to him strongly that the private sector was gearing up for the renewable heat initiative, which as I understand it was intended to come about, with all-party support, in 2011. There has, however, been silence on the issue and, given his statement today, I am sure that there will be concern about more than that. There will be concern that the whole affair has been shelved until after the economic statement later in the year and that there will be chaos in the private sector. There is real concern about the Government’s failure to implement what was anticipated.
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that it is absolutely essential that any private sector investment, which we aim to unlock, should have certainty and clarity. On the renewable heat incentive, the statement is clear about our commitment to renewable heat, which is absolutely essential if we are to meet our target. The hon. Gentleman has to appreciate that the country is facing an exceptionally severe fiscal crisis and that it is inevitable that we deal with these matters in the context of the spending review. However, people in the sector can take considerable comfort from my words today about renewable heat.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
My right hon. Friend assures us that there will be no subsidy to the nuclear industry. Today, BP has announced that it expects to spend £20 billion on the clean-up following the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster. Will he raise the limit on the exposure of nuclear operators to catastrophes to an equally demanding level?
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. One of the things that we are looking at in the context of making sure that there is no public subsidy for nuclear is the contingent liability regime and ensuring that there are no holes in it. In due course, we will be able to make a statement on that.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s acknowledgement, albeit somewhat grudgingly, of the role of the new nuclear industry in providing for our future energy needs. I seek reassurance from him that his party’s previous objection to nuclear was not a factor in the withdrawal of the loan from Sheffield Forgemasters. If he can give that reassurance, will he at last give us a transparent and coherent explanation of why funding for extremely welcome projects at Nissan and Ford were allowable when funding for Sheffield Forgemasters was not?
Chris Huhne
I can absolutely and categorically give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that whatever he imagines to be the prejudices or otherwise of me or my party have absolutely nothing to do with the decision on Sheffield Forgemasters, which was a matter of affordability. I merely draw his attention to the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. That clearly sets out the reasons that underlay the decision.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on the low-carbon economy, particularly his commitment to offshore wind. In the beautiful Blackmore vale in my constituency we face yet another application to erect wind turbines. The only business case is the subsidy paid for those turbines; the wind blows barely 20% of the time. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will still rest with the local planning authority to judge such applications on planning considerations?
Chris Huhne
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that below 50 MW the decision is for the local planning authority. However, I urge him not to fall into the easy trap of assuming that the only reason for building onshore wind turbines is for subsidy. The recent study on costs that the Department has had from Mott MacDonald shows that there has been a dramatic reduction in the cost of onshore wind. The result is that it is competitive in a free market with other sources of energy.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Thirty per cent. of the UK’s energy supply will be going off stream between 2017 and 2025 as nuclear power stations are decommissioned. Is it good enough for the Secretary of State to say that the private sector may supply new nuclear facilities? Surely he has to come up with a plan now to replace that 30% of energy and tell the House where it is going to come from.
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman and I have already had this debate, which is a bit like dancing on the head of a pin. The reality is that the Government’s job is to set a clear framework that will deliver the energy investment that we need to deal with the problem that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises. I believe that the statement is a first step towards doing that. We will have a clear amount of new energy infrastructure investment. I merely point out that it is really no part of the business of government to micro-manage decisions that should properly be left to the marketplace and the private sector.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement. However, I am concerned that there will be no public subsidies for the nuclear power industry. My constituency has two nuclear power stations that pump out 10% of the national grid. One is to be decommissioned in the next 10 years. Nuclear technology is a low-carbon fuel source, and the statement represents that. We should be looking into part-funding privatised nuclear power stations. Surely that is the way ahead.
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. There is a clear economic reason for making a distinction between nuclear power and the other sources of energy on which we can rely in coming years. It is simply that there is a strong argument for encouraging an infant industry, at an early stage of development, from the public sector. We have seen that with onshore wind, whose cost has come down dramatically precisely because of the encouragement of the public sector. I am afraid that the same argument cannot be made for nuclear power, which has been around for a long time. It is not an infant industry, but an established and mature one and it can and should compete on that basis, along with all other comers.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State emphasised that the Government are working as a team. Which members of the team were involved in the decision on Sheffield Forgemasters?
Chris Huhne
As the hon. Lady will know, government is a collective business. Large numbers of people were involved in the decision on Sheffield Forgemasters. At the Department, we were certainly kept informed.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I welcome the statement, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that 4,000 different tariffs cause understandable confusion among consumers? Under pressure, the previous Government promised that annual statements would include information on the cheapest tariffs so that consumers could more easily see whether they were paying too much for their energy. Are this Government going to continue with that promise? If so, has the Secretary of State considered including cheapest-tariff information on monthly bills? An annual statement discriminates against active switchers.
Chris Huhne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right; one of the most powerful instruments in the toolbox is the unleashing of competition as effectively as possible. Competition is ineffective if there is not a clear commitment to information and understanding on the part of consumers. We will bring forward proposals in the energy Bill later this year to make sure that consumers are properly informed. We will take account of the time scale that my hon. Friend has proposed.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that at this moment in time coal produces up to 35%—at times, 50%—of the electricity generated in the UK, yet the announcement this morning did not make a single reference to coal? Will he give a commitment to the continuation of the British deep mining coal industry?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to the part of the statement that dealt with carbon capture and storage. The future of the coal industry—and, potentially, of gas—is about carbon capture and storage. It is an exciting technology on which this country has led. We have done a lot of the interesting, pioneering science on it. That, above all, will be the commitment to the coal sector.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Further to the question by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), who is no longer in his place, what reassurance—indeed, guarantee—can the Secretary of State provide to the House that vulnerable households will be supported and not further impoverished as a result of the measures that will be rolled out following this statement of policy?
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend will know that the forecasts that we are making for 2020 crucially depend, in terms of their impact on household bills, on what one thinks will happen to the price of oil and gas. If one thinks that it will basically be the same as today, there is a modest increase in the cost of policies compared with the alternative; if one takes the International Energy Agency’s view of a $100 price for a barrel of oil, for example, one sees that our policies are reducing the cost of electricity to households. However, it is absolutely crucial to ensure not only that the policy framework delivers overall lower costs but that poor households, in particular, will not bear the brunt. That is why we are looking at social price support and why, as I said to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), it is absolutely crucial to target our energy efficiency measures on fuel-poor households so that we can deal with the cause, not merely with the symptoms.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I was grateful to hear the Secretary of State’s reconfirmation of the doubling of inspections of offshore oil and gas rigs. However, given that we have just seen testimony from the United States about Transocean oil rig managers ordering that a general alarm on the Gulf of Mexico oil rig that exploded be disabled, is it not time for the Secretary of State or the energy Minister to summon the Health and Safety Executive and Transocean to give further assurances about the safety of the 10 Transocean oil rigs that operate in UK waters?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that we are very aware of and have been devoting a lot of attention to in the Department. We had our own problems in this country with Piper Alpha at the end of the 1980s. In response to that, substantial changes were made in the regulatory regime which meant that there were no conflicts of interest of the sort that have existed in the American regime, and the US Administration are taking on board some of those lessons. We have tightened up the regime, which we want to be as effective as possible, and we will learn the lessons as they come out from the various inquiries into what happened with Deepwater Horizon. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will also be in close discussions with our Norwegian counterparts; we are already doing so at an official level. Last week in the US, at the clean energy ministerial meeting, I had some interesting discussions with my Norwegian counterpart on learning the best lessons from what has gone on in the Gulf of Mexico to ensure that we have an absolutely state-of-the-art regulatory regime, as I assure the hon. Gentleman we will.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that there is no public money for the mature nuclear energy markets, but I presume that that means nuclear fission, not nuclear fusion. May I encourage him to consider the latter technology? It has always been said that it is 20 years away, but we are now talking about a 2050 energy pathway, which will take us beyond 20 years. May I encourage public spending on this area such as that we have seen in Oxfordshire?
Chris Huhne
As my hon. Friend says, the technology has been held out as having enormous promise for many years. It would be absolutely marvellous, as I think everybody can agree, if we were able to move to new nuclear fusion, which has all sorts of fantastic advantages. I will await with interest the briefing from my excellent chief scientist on the practicalities of incorporating it within a 2050 pathways review.
Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The nuclear industry is worth an estimated £30 billion of investment over the next 10 years in the north-west of England alone. At the time of the announcement on Sheffield Forgemasters, that was part of a much wider strategy mainly based in the north-west, which included public money being spent on research, not least in the area that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned—for example, at the Dalton nuclear institute and the advanced manufacturing research centre. That is public money for investment. Is that money secure, or does the Secretary of State see it as a subsidy to the nuclear industry?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman really does not get it yet, and I am afraid that he shares that with a lot of his colleagues on the Labour Benches. The reality is that the fiscal constraints under which this Government are now labouring—I use that word advisedly—are such that we are having to look with extraordinary forensic acuteness at spending right across the board. The days when he and his colleagues were able to sign blank cheques and leave them like confetti across the country are over. If he has not yet woken up to that fact, he had better do so pretty soon, because the electorate will not take him seriously until he does.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and invite him to come to Suffolk Coastal or, as I rechristened it in my maiden speech, the green coast, where he will see a range of energy schemes such as those that he is proposing. However, in considering the subsidy that is given to the production of offshore energy, will he also consider how we get that energy onshore? One of the great ironies would be the production of all this very environmentally friendly energy but the blight of pylons right across areas of outstanding natural beauty and beautiful countryside.
Chris Huhne
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We are indeed considering the transmission regime to ensure that we get the appropriate type. One of the big issues is that we essentially have a cost profile for the transmission regime that is based on an incentive to put mobile power stations as close as possible to their markets. That is absolutely fine when we are dealing with sources of energy that are mobile, but increasingly we are dealing with sources of energy that are not mobile. If we want to build wind turbines, we have to put them in areas where there is wind and where there is an economic basis for doing so. My hon. Friend’s point is a significant one for us in the Department, and we are addressing it.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said a few minutes ago that his Department was kept informed about the decision on Sheffield Forgemasters. Were he and his ministerial colleagues consulted before the decision was made, and if so, what views did they put forward in that consultation?
Chris Huhne
We were consulted on Sheffield Forgemasters, although the matter relates to the budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The reality is that advice between Ministers obviously remains confidential—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]—as indeed I believe it was confidential under the last Government. However, I would be happy to ask the shadow Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and explain all the occasions on which he disagreed with his colleagues.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State shows the same enthusiasm for new nuclear power as I do for the European Union, but I do not have to lead the charge for the European Union, whereas he does have to lead the charge for new nuclear. How does he square that circle?
Chris Huhne
I had absolutely no idea that the hon. Gentleman shared to such a degree my enthusiasm for the European Union.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State’s statement shows that he has quickly assimilated and merged with the Conservative view—the “market knows best” approach to environmentalism. However, will not the swingeing and unnecessarily quick cuts to some of this expenditure, particularly for local authorities, make a mockery of any carbon-reduction strategies or aspirations that he has?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman is not listening if he thinks that I am saying that the market always knows best. I am saying that the Government have a responsibility, in the national interest, to set a framework that will deliver a low-carbon economy and energy security in what is likely to be an increasingly volatile and difficult world. In that context, having put the incentives in place, it is up to the market to deliver. We need to ensure that those incentives are adequate, and I assure him that I believe in the need for that overall framework.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Electricity in the UK—this is a legacy from the past 15 years—costs about 30% more than in France, where it is supplied by cheap nuclear. Is it a policy objective for us to fix that, and if so, under what time frame does the Secretary of State think that that will happen?
Chris Huhne
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the French began their energy commitment to nuclear power in the wake of the first oil shock of 1973-74, so the subsequent period encompasses an awful lot of Governments of different persuasions. We are attempting to move as quickly as possible to a situation whereby we, too, can have highly affordable electricity that is relatively robust and resilient to the sort of shocks that we are likely to see across the world economy.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In his statement, the Secretary of State said that the Government were committed to removing any unnecessary obstacles to investment in new nuclear. I assume that that is a reference to Liberal Democrat policy. Does he still believe it is possible to deliver a low-carbon energy supply without nuclear? Is that his policy, or has he changed his mind, and will he be in a darkened room when we debate new nuclear in future?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Gentleman must know that I am a Minister in a coalition Government, who recognised right at the beginning of the negotiations that there were differences of views between the two parties. We were very clear, and the coalition agreement was very clear, about how we were reconciling them, and I am getting on with the job of delivering our agreement.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I was somewhat disappointed that although the Secretary of State made fleeting reference to marine energy, he had nothing to say about tidal power in particular and the potential to exploit it in the Severn estuary. Can he confirm his commitment to the Severn barrage feasibility study, and can anything be done to accelerate it so that we can have an answer sooner rather than later on whether it can go ahead?
Chris Huhne
The hon. Lady can rest assured that we are considering the Severn barrage feasibility study and will make an announcement in due course with our response.
European Investigation Order
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the draft directive for a European investigation order, and the Government’s decision to opt into that draft directive.
As people have become more mobile, so too has crime, and that has serious consequences for our ability to bring criminals to justice. To deal with cross-border crime, countries enter into mutual legal assistance—MLA—agreements. Those agreements provide a framework through which states can obtain evidence from overseas. MLA has therefore been an important tool in the fight against international crime and terrorism. It has been crucial in a number of high-profile cases. For example, Hussein Osman, one of the failed terrorists from the 21/7 attacks five years ago, might not have been convicted had it not been for evidence obtained through MLA.
However, MLA has not been without its faults. The process is fragmented and confusing for the police and prosecutors, and it is too often too slow. In some cases it takes many months to obtain vital evidence. Indeed, in one drug trafficking case the evidence arrived in the UK after the trial had been completed. The European investigation order is intended to address those problems by simplifying the system, through a standardised request form and by providing formal deadlines for the recognition and execution of requests.
The Government have decided to opt into the EIO because it offers practical help for the British police and prosecutors, and we are determined to do everything we can to help them cut crime and deliver justice. That is what the police say the EIO will do. We wrote to every Association of Chief Police Officers force about the EIO, and not one said that we should not opt in. ACPO itself replied that
“the EIO is a simpler instrument than those already in existence and, provided it is used sensibly and for appropriate offences, we welcome attempts to simplify and expedite mutual legal assistance.”
However, I know that some hon. Members have concerns about the EIO, and I should like to address them in turn. The first is on the question of sovereignty. In justice and home affairs, there are many ideas coming out of Brussels, such as a common asylum policy, that would involve an unacceptable loss of sovereignty. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I will not sign up to those proposals, and I have made that clear to my European counterparts. However, the EIO directive does not incur a shift in sovereignty. It is a practical measure that will make it easier to see justice—British justice—done in this country.
The second concern is about burdens on the police. At a time when we are reducing domestic regulatory burdens on the police, I agree that it would be unacceptable to have them re-imposed by foreign forces. That is why we will seek to ensure that there is a proportionality test, so that police forces are not obliged to do work in relation to trivial offences, and that forces will be able to extend deadlines when it is not possible to meet them. I want to be clear that the EIO will not allow foreign authorities to instruct UK police officers on what operations to conduct, and it will not allow foreign officers to operate in the UK with law enforcement powers.
The third concern is about legal safeguards. We will seek to maintain the draft directive’s requirement that evidence should be obtained by coercive means, for example through searching a premises, only where the dual criminality requirement is satisfied. Requests for evidence from foreign authorities will still require completion of the same processes as in similar domestic cases. In order to search a house, for example, police officers will still need to obtain a warrant.
The execution of the EIO must be compatible with the European convention on human rights. That means that there must be a clear link between the alleged criminality and the assistance requested, otherwise complying with the request would be in breach of article 8 of the ECHR, on private and family life.
By opting in to the EIO at this stage, we have the opportunity to influence its precise content. We know that the existing draft is not perfect, and we are confident that we will be able to change it in negotiations. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones has already had discussions with her German counterpart, and we are confident that we will shape the draft directive so that it helps us to fight crime and deliver justice while protecting civil liberties and avoiding unduly burdening the police. That is why the civil liberties group, Justice, says that
“on balance it is better for the UK to engage in this area than be ousted onto the periphery of evidence in cross border cases.”
I ask hon. Members to remember this: the EIO will apply to both prosecutors and defence lawyers, which means that it can be used to prove British subjects innocent abroad, as well as to prosecute the guilty at home.
The EIO will allow us to fight crime and deliver justice more effectively. It does not amount to a loss of sovereignty. It will not unduly burden the police. It will not incur a loss of civil liberties. It is in the national interest to sign up to it, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I do not want to worry the right hon. Lady unduly at our daily meeting, but I broadly welcome this statement. I suspect that I am just a short preliminary to the real opposition on the matter, which is the Brokeback tendency behind her. [Hon. Members: “Bareback!”] Or bareback tendency, even, which adds a whole new dimension.
We supported the Stockholm programme in December, which included the decision that a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued, not least because as the Home Secretary said, the current framework consists of a whole series of instruments that are fragmentary and repetitive. They hamper cross-border investigation at a time when the international dimension, particularly of serious organised crime, is of increasing importance.
There is a clear need for a comprehensive, legally binding single instrument to provide a definitive framework for cross-border investigations. That should not be conflated with the European prosecutor proposal, which we were firmly against. Perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that failure to opt into the current instrument would leave the UK with the existing unsatisfactory and fragmentary provision, thus putting us at a disadvantage in the fight against cross-border crime. In contrast, as she said, opting in will allow us to negotiate further safeguards. Does she agree that those should include greater consideration of the rights of the suspect, and should not that include judicial scrutiny at both the issuing and executing stage?
I agree with the Home Secretary that there should be a proportionality test, as with the European evidence warrant, which I believe the UK will no longer be obliged to implement if we sign up to the EIO. Can she confirm that that is the case?
The human rights organisation, Justice, has indeed urged the Government to opt into the instrument, but it has raised a number of concerns about the initial draft. What discussions have the Secretary of State or her Ministers had with that organisation, and does she agree with its analysis?
It is good to see that the Government have recognised that cross-border crime is a serious concern. The Home Secretary’s party opposed the European arrest warrant, principally, I believe, because it contained the word “European”. I am glad that she is not repeating that mistake, and in welcoming her statement, I hope that will rethink her approach on second generation biometric passports so that as with the EIO, British citizens are not left behind as security measures in the rest of the European Union become more effective.
Mrs May
I welcome the positive and constructive approach that the right hon. Gentleman has taken today. Sadly, we are about to go into recess, so he and I must find a means of meeting other than across the Dispatch Box in the coming weeks. He made a number of points and made a passing reference to the Stockholm programme. Of course, this Government did not support everything in that. We are treating each justice and home affairs issue on a case-by-case basis, so we will decide to opt in to some things, such as the EIO, and to opt out of others.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm the impact of a failure to opt in. Failure to opt in would indeed leave UK police and prosecutors in a very unfortunate position, because it would mean that they must rely on existing MLA agreements to obtain evidence from overseas. It is intended that forces from which evidence is requested will meet a timetable contained within the EIO. I suspect that because of that, the practical reality of opting out is that UK requests would go to the bottom of the pile. The figures are stark—70% to 75% of our MLA requests are with other EU member states—so failure to opt in would have a significant impact.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the European evidence warrant. The directive makes it clear that the EEW will be repealed and replaced by the EIO. He also mentioned the European arrest warrant. Of course, it is important that people should not get mixed up between the EIO and the EAW. We took a view different from that of the previous Government on the EAW when they signed up to it, but our review of extradition will include a review of the EAW.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about safeguards. As I said in my statement, it will be necessary in the case of certain requests—for example, for the search of premises —to have the safeguard of proper consideration, because a warrant will be required, as is the normal course of events if the UK police choose to search premises.
Mr Speaker
Order. Many Members wish to ask questions, and as I said before, there is great pressure on business, so brevity is required. Hopeful of a lead on that point, I call Mr William Cash.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am deeply concerned that the EIO has not been considered by the European Scrutiny Committee, which was formally set up last night, and nor have many other important matters. The legal basis is qualified majority voting, co-decision and the European Court of Justice under the Lisbon treaty. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the EIO applies to all investigative measures, and that it gives undue rights to police officers from other European countries to order our police to gather sensitive personal information —and, furthermore, DNA and banking records—in relation to non-criminal matters, and from those who are not even suspects? The grounds for refusing an EIO request are totally inadequate, and I am sure that the ESC will demand a debate and call evidence, but regrettably, it cannot do so until 8 September, because it has not been called to sit until then.
Mrs May
I must tell my hon. Friend that decisions on when the ESC meets are rather more a matter for him—as I understand it, he is the Chair of that Committee—than for me. However, I share some of his concern. As he and other Members of the House will know, I have written a pamphlet and proposed a 10-point plan on how Parliament can have more of an opportunity to have a say on, and to debate, decisions on European matters.
The instrument came before the Government on 29 April with a three-month deadline for decision. Of course, that period was partly taken up by the election, and the ESC was formed only last night, as my hon. Friend said. In the normal course of events in Parliament, the ESC could suggest the matter for debate. On that point, it is certainly my hope that when the Government propose to opt in on a major JHA issue, Parliament can consider it. However, I hesitate to give more of a guarantee than that, because what happens in Parliament is a matter for the business managers rather than for me. On the powers that my hon. Friend claims the EIO gives to foreign police forces and others, I must tell him that I think he is wrong.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the new-found affection between the Front Benchers, and take that one stage further by agreeing with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for the first time on a European issue? It is really important for Parliament to have the opportunity to scrutinise this decision. We have just had a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee. The Police Minister gave evidence about police resources, but we could not question him on the EIO, because the Home Secretary was due to make this statement. This is a serious matter that requires scrutiny by the ESC or the Home Affairs Committee.
The Home Secretary made a statement to the House that the EIO will not have an effect on police resources, and the Police Minister, in his excellent evidence to the Committee, talked about the need to preserve police resources, but a request from one of our European partners will result in more police time being spent. That must be the case, because they would not make such a request otherwise.
Mrs May
I agree that it would be of benefit for Parliament to scrutinise and debate many such European matters more than has happened in the past. However, given that we are up against a deadline and going into recess, it would have been very easy for me simply to have made a written ministerial statement. Instead, I chose to come to make an oral statement so that I could answer questions on the EIO.
On police resources, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we intend and hope to introduce a proportionality test in the negotiations, which is important. However, the EIO is not some new arrangement that will suddenly require extra police resources. Rather, it codifies and simplifies processes that already exist. To the extent that it reduces bureaucracy and simplifies those processes, I hope that it will be of extra benefit to our police.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Many of us were elected on a programme of no more powers whatever passing to the European Union. Given that the Home Secretary promised us that no sovereignty would be transferred by the EIO, will she reassure us of that by putting into the draft proposal a simple clause that says that Britain can withdraw from the arrangement at any time if it proves to be not as advertised? If we have that clause, we are sovereign; if we do not have it, we are not sovereign. [Interruption.]
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) for that sedentary intervention.
I did make that statement on sovereignty in relation to the EIO. We are opting in to the draft directive, over which there will be negotiations in the coming months. However, I said what I said because the order and the directive are not about sovereignty moving to Europe, but about making a practical step of co-operation to ensure that it will be easier for us not only to fight crime, but crucially, to ensure that justice is done.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I am disappointed but not surprised by the Government’s decision to opt in to the EIO. I was a Home Office Minister some years ago, and even then officials tried to push all kinds of things, by which more power was taken away from this country. Following the Secretary of State’s previous answer, is she saying—let us let the public know the truth—that once we opt in, no matter how much we find that it is not working in our interest or that it is costing huge amounts of money, there is absolutely nothing we can do?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which shows not only that matters European divide different parties, but that people within the same party take different attitudes. She assumes that opting in to the order will mean extra costs and extra burdens for UK police, but I repeat what I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood): we are talking about codifying arrangements that already exist. We are not suddenly being asked to sign up to something new that has just been plucked off the shelf. The suggestion is for practical co-operation that codifies and simplifies arrangements that already exist and that benefit police forces here in the UK.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome the statement. It is right that we should opt in to orders that slash bureaucracy, help us fight crime and do not infringe our sovereignty. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is important for her to work not just with her counterparts, but with Members of the European Parliament, to ensure that we strengthen the privacy and human rights safeguards in this order?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I hope that we can all work with MEPs to ensure that the directive that we end up with as a result of the negotiations in the coming months does what he suggests—slashes bureaucracy and makes it simpler for our prosecutors and police to ensure that justice is done. In doing that, we are all of conscious of the need to protect civil liberties.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that the proposals that she has made today—which are welcome, and represent a move away from Europhobia—include provisions, in articles 23, 24 and 25 of the Council decision, for intervention on banking transactions? Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) implied, that is important in order to stop international organised crime.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that the European investigation order will be a help to UK police forces and others across the European Union in tackling what we all agreed only yesterday is an important issue that should be given a greater focus—serious organised crime.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
May I urge my right hon. Friend, when she deals with the detail of these proposals, to ensure that these powers will apply only to common criminality between one country and another? For example, France has just banned the wearing of the burqa, which is a very un-British thing to do. Can she assure the House that if someone in this country used our freedom of speech to criticise that move, the French authorities would not be able to come here and arrest that person?
Mrs May
I think that my hon. Friend refers to the issue of dual criminality between member states, which is already provided for in relation to certain measures in the directive, especially coercive measures that might be taken as a result of the European investigation order. I can assure him that the issue of dual criminality is very much on our minds.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I warmly thank the Home Secretary for adopting this sensible, pragmatic and pro-European policy? I look forward to sending her a membership form for the European Movement. One of the problems that many UK police forces have had is tracking down child pornography and paedophile rings across Europe. Can she confirm that these proposals will go some way to helping police forces track down those people?
Mrs May
Now I am really worried!
Detection of various crimes, and the tracking down of the perpetrators, relies on cross-border co-operation. The point of the EIO is that it will assist such co-operation and, crucially, it will enable evidence to be gathered in a timely fashion. We already have examples— not in the sort of cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but in drug trafficking—in which the evidence has arrived only after the end of the trial.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House—it is much appreciated. Does she share the concerns of some Back Benchers that during proceedings on the Lisbon treaty—when we were in opposition—loss of sovereignty was often described as just a “practical measure”? That phrase crept into her statement, too, and I would be grateful for reassurance that that is not the case.
Mrs May
I am trying not to make too much of a habit of making statements in the House—although there have been a few Home Office statements recently. I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern about the use of that terminology. I have looked into this issue and it is indeed a very practical measure. It will simplify, codify and put some time limits on processes that already exist. The MLA agreements are already in existence and are followed up by police forces here requesting evidence from overseas and by police forces overseas requesting evidence from the UK. These proposals will make it much easier to undertake that process in a timely fashion so that the evidence is available for both prosecutors and defendants in their trials.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
May I congratulate the Home Secretary on the bravery that she has shown in taking such a different stance from that of so many members of her party? There are clearly criminals who exploit loopholes across borders, so would she be able to find a way to report to Parliament periodically on any advantages or gains that flow from this collaboration?
Mrs May
Having had my statement welcomed both by the shadow Home Secretary and by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and now being described as “brave” by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), I am not sure about this.
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with some examples of the existing arrangements working, as well as examples of the problems caused for prosecutors and police by the lack of a timetable such as the one that will be introduced by the EIO.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
The Home Secretary’s statement eloquently set out the reasons to welcome this process. However, the words “opt in” and “European directive” send shivers down many backbones in my constituency. Only today I heard from a constituent about the 256 European arrest warrants referred for mediation last year, presumably at a cost of untold millions to European taxpayers. Can the Home Secretary assure us that she and her team will scrutinise the detail of this directive to ensure that it is operationally more effective than the European arrest warrant system?
Mrs May
I can indeed assure my hon. Friend that we will look closely at the detail of this. The intention is to make it easier for prosecutors and police—and the defence—to obtain the evidence necessary for trials. She mentions the European arrest warrant, but as I said earlier, the EIO is entirely separate.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The problem with the argument that this is simply a simplification of existing arrangements is that that argument was put forward by Labour Ministers when they were pursuing the Lisbon treaty. That is why many of us are concerned about this and will continue to believe, as we said in opposition, that it demonstrates a relish for surveillance and a disdain for civil liberties. What impact will this order have on our DNA and fingerprint databases? Will forces from Europe be able to access those databases, and if so, what will happen if the person whose DNA they have accessed proves to be innocent? We would wipe that database after a period of time, but what would be our relationship with our partners in Europe?
Mrs May
I can, I hope, reassure my hon. Friend on his second point. Under the data protection arrangements in the European Union, DNA samples could be held by another member state only for the same time as they can be held here in the UK. That opens up another argument about why the Government intend to change the arrangements for the DNA database and do not want to hold the DNA of innocent people for significant periods, as the Labour Government did.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks about the proportionality test that will be applied, but who will write the rules of that test? Will it be by negotiation among EU countries or will it be the UK Government? And who will adjudicate that?
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
As the final text will be determined by qualified majority vote, how may we be certain that we will not cede powers to Europe? Does the Home Secretary recall the words of a great and noble lady who, when Europe was trying to snatch powers, once said from that very Dispatch box, “No, no, no”? Is not that a much preferable way in which to approach a further European grab?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
“No, no, no” is the answer.
Mrs May
I am tempted, but I will avoid falling into that trap.
In the coming months we will be negotiating the final text of the directive with other member states. The early indications, from discussions with other member states, are that our concerns about the parts of the directive where we think that the drafting is not perfect, and more can be done, are shared by other member states, which is why we are confident we can arrive at a text that meets all the requirements that we want to set out. But is my hon. Friend really saying that he wants us to hamper the efforts of our police to bring people to justice and fight crime? I sincerely hope not. This measure will help the police to ensure that justice is done and crime beaten.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for coming to the House, and I have been working hard to try to understand the Government’s position on this matter. However, I did not understand fully, from her statement, whether European authorities will not be able to order an investigation. Surely, the EIO does what it says on the tin, and allows European prosecutors and police to order an investigation here.
Mrs May
I will try to explain it to my hon. Friend. We already have agreements—the mutual legal assistance agreements—that enable the police force in the UK to ask other police forces in European member states to gain evidence that will be of use and benefit in taking cases to court and in providing evidence. There is also a reciprocal arrangement for other member states to ask our UK police forces to undertake similar evidence gathering. The EIO will simply put that on a timetable and simplify the processes. Currently a number of instruments can be used, but they are complex and confusing to those who use them. The EIO will simplify them into a single instrument and put a timetable on the process, which is why it will be of benefit to the police and prosecutors.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree with me, and with the police, that the directive will serve to speed up complex investigations, and should therefore help to keep criminals off the streets? Does she also agree that to do so would benefit British society as well as European society?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. In response, I would simply cite a case of drugs trafficking that was drawn to my attention in which the failure to execute an MLA request resulted in a misleading picture being presented to the jury of the strength of the prosecution case. As a result, evidence that might have exculpated the UK defendant was not available in time for the trial. That case alone explains why we want to sign up to the EIO.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on coming to the House to make this statement? It is no fault of her own, but nevertheless deeply unfortunate, that neither the European Scrutiny Committee nor the House of Commons has had the opportunity to consider this document. I urge her, when she comes to consider the detail of this proposal and future proposals of the same nature—which I believe may well appear—to be on her guard against the undoubted attempts of certain quarters in the European Union to build a common European judicial and legal system, and to use any means to hand as a building block towards that purpose. Will she be on her guard against that? In those circumstances, I believe that she would indeed be capable of saying, “No, no, no.”
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be on my guard, as will other members of the Government. We have made it clear that we are considering on a case-by-case basis all issues arising under the justice and home affairs remit of the EU. As I have said to the House, I believe that in this particular case it is in the national interest to opt in, but on other occasions we will opt out. So we take the issue that he raised very seriously.
Points of Order
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. Recently, I tabled a series of questions to the Home Secretary about the work of the UK Border Agency, and yesterday I got a reply from the Immigration Minister refusing to place in the Library of the House copies of the guidance and directions issued to UK Border Agency International Group staff about visit visas, on the basis that this information is “best viewed online”. May I request, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you speak to the Home Office and instruct it to be more co-operative with Members, so that information can be made available in the Library?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order, but it is now on the record.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I try as hard as I can to be as helpful as possible to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and others. He can, of course, go into the Library, go on to the net and view it online, if he wants to.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for that reply, although I do not think it was quite what the hon. Gentleman wanted. However, it is now on the record. He feels that he should have been given the information directly, and I am sure that that can be looked at again.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, at questions to the Leader of the House and to the House of Commons Commission, on the subject of early-day motions, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who is in his place—I advised him that I would be raising this point—gave a very helpful response on why early-day motions should be debated. However, he then observed that in 18 years he had not known an EDM to be debated. May I put it on the record that on 8 December 2009, as is recorded in column 154 of Hansard, early-day motion 1—an excellent motion in my name—was debated for nearly three and a half hours and voted on by 530 MPs? So EDMs do find their way on to the Floor of the House, although I agree with him that more should be debated.
Mr Deputy Speaker
As someone who used to put down many EDMs, I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I thank him for his clarification. I am sure that the House appreciates it.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You might recall that 20 years ago this week, the then hon. Member for Eastbourne, the late Ian Gow, was murdered by the Provisional IRA. He was a magnificent Member and somebody who, I believe, should be recognised permanently in the same way that Airey Neave is recognised. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you take that point back to Mr Speaker to see whether a permanent memorial can be granted in the memory of Ian Gow, the former Member for Eastbourne, who was murdered on 30 July 1990?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I will raise that point with Mr Speaker. It is on the record, so he will be able to read it as well.
Dog Control and Welfare
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; to require the introduction of compulsory microchipping of dogs; to make provision relating to the welfare of dogs and public safety around dogs; and for connected purposes.
I have chosen to bring this subject before the House for three reasons: first, and perhaps most notably, because I am a passionate animal-lover. I feel very strongly that the animal kingdom, with which we share this planet, deserves the highest level of care and respect that we as human beings can give. Secondly, I believe that those who choose to own a pet have a certain responsibility that comes with that privilege. In the case of dogs, this responsibility is twofold—the welfare of the animal and the duty to ensure the safety of others through proper control. Finally, over the past three years, I was proud to serve on Her Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench, in the Home Affairs team, as shadow Minister with responsibility for animal welfare. In that role, I had the opportunity to work closely with dog welfare organisations and people throughout the country who work, day in, day out, dealing with issues surrounding the control and welfare of dogs, and who have a real and genuine understanding of how we can help to solve some of the issues relating to dogs in society today.
Last year, dogs overtook cats to become the most popular choice of pet in the United Kingdom. Before you call me to order and ask me to declare my interest in the matter, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say that I am, of course, the owner of dog—a Staffordshire bull terrier called Buster. You will be relieved to know, Sir, that dangerous he is not, but microchipped he certainly is.
In recent years, the issue of dangerous dogs has taken on increasing significance. Inner-city areas in particular are being blighted by the intimidating sight of individuals and gangs brandishing dogs that have been deliberately trained to produce the most aggressive demeanour possible. Having dealt with the matter as the shadow Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, I fully appreciate the prevalence that the issue of dangerous dogs has with a disturbingly wide proportion of the general public. The number of complaints received by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals concerning “status” and dangerous dogs has increased twelvefold. On average, there are now 100 cases every week of people being admitted to hospital as a result of a dog attack. It would be no exaggeration to claim that what we are now seeing is a national calamity, in terms of both public safety and animal welfare. As a result, it is clear that the current legislation has failed on an epic scale. There is now a huge public desire for renewed laws that address the problem, with owners properly held to account.
The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced in 1991—yes, by a Conservative Government—but it has obviously failed adequately to achieve what it set out to do. A key feature of the Act, contained in section 1, is a ban on the breeding, sale and ownership of specific types of dogs. However, it is not good enough to select a handful of breeds, based on their potential demeanour, and assume that simply eradicating them from society will dismantle the culture that they are bred from. That is an approach that takes no account of the behaviour or intentions of the criminals on the other end of the lead. Indeed, the real issue to be tackled is the behaviour of the owners. Any dog can be dangerous and cause harm; it is how the animal is reared and trained that matters most of all. That is why the current, breed-specific Dangerous Dogs Act does not work and should be repealed.
My Bill would shift the legislation towards acknowledging the concept of “deed, not the breed”. By moving the focus to the specific actions of irresponsible owners, we will be able more effectively to identify and tackle the root causes of such criminal activity. In short, we should be scrapping the breed-specific approach and affording police or other authorised persons much greater discretionary powers in deciding whether a dog poses a threat to the public.
The other key failure of the current legislation relates to dogs that are dangerously out of control. As the legislation stands, such attacks are classified as criminal offences only if they occur either in a public place or where the dog is not permitted to be. However, the reality is that many attacks take place on private property. My Bill would extend the law to cover attacks on all property, allowing the police to investigate such offences and for prosecutions to be considered. I should also like to stress the failure of the current legislation in taking a preventive approach. We need to be able to deal with dogs suspected of being dangerous by imposing controls. My Bill would introduce a system of dog control orders where there is reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and poses a potential threat to the public.
I am a fervent supporter of identification as a means of providing all dog owners with a simple, cheap and effective way of significantly enhancing both the safety and security of their dogs, and the legal accountability that they hold for their behaviour. Methods of permanent identification—most notably microchipping—are already exploited across the country by veterinary centres, charities and shelters, and, of course, individual owners and families. It is estimated that currently around a third of all dogs in the United Kingdom have been microchipped, which has contributed to a tremendous increase in the proportion of stray and stolen dogs being successfully identified and returned to their rightful owners.
My Bill would introduce permanent identification as a compulsory measure for all dogs bred in the United Kingdom. That would be phased in over a period of time and would apply only to new litters. Microchipping is a far cry from the old system of the dog licence, abolished in the 1980s, which required bureaucracy and the administration of excessive paperwork on the part of local authorities. The benefits of introducing compulsory identification—as a means of reducing everyday dog attacks, returning lost, stray or stolen dogs to their owners, and easing the burden on local authorities and dog wardens—are clear. Essentially, we would be dramatically enhancing the ability to make dog owners legally accountable for the actions and the welfare of their dogs. That alone would solve so many of the problems that we face in dealing with the control and welfare of dogs. However, I say this to the Government: please do not allow concerns about databases and anti-ID card thinking to block what is a practical, common-sense solution. Linking a dog to its legal owner by using a microchip is not an infringement of civil liberties; it is simply the same as having a number plate on a car.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognise the dedicated work undertaken on the issue by those organisations with which I have worked in recent years. Were it not for the invaluable research and campaigning of the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Vets Get Scanning, Speaking Out For Animals, the Retired Greyhound Trust and many others, these matters would not be receiving anything like the level of attention that they are receiving today. I pay tribute to them all.
Promoting and encouraging dog control and welfare is not simply about state intervention; it is about encouraging those who seek or hold ownership of dogs to do so responsibly, in such a way that benefits the welfare of the animal and continues to ensure maximum public safety. However, the law must underpin that, allowing an individual to own a dog while also making them responsible for its control and well-being. Freedom with responsibility is something that I as a Conservative believe in very strongly. The freedom to choose to own a dog must go hand in hand with the responsibility that goes with it. That must surely be the right approach of a Conservative-led Government. I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Rosindell, Angie Bray, Mr Andrew Turner, Stephen Metcalfe, Martin Horwood, Glenda Jackson, Mr David Lammy, Angela Smith, Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Daniel Kawczynski, Zac Goldsmith and Dr Thérèse Coffey present the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second Time on Friday 17 June 2011, and to be printed (Bill 65).
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Backbench Business
Summer Adjournment
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I beg to move
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
This is the second time that we have had a debate on the Floor of the House that has been chosen by the Backbench Business Committee. We have chosen to keep the pre-recess Adjournment debate format, mainly because we have had so many insistent representations from colleagues to retain it. As Mr Speaker mentioned earlier, about 50 Members have put down their names to speak, and the Chamber is very full. This is a rare opportunity for Members to debate issues that they have not been able to raise elsewhere, either because they have not been called to speak in a debate or because they have been unsuccessful in securing an Adjournment debate.
The Backbench Business Committee believes that the pre-recess Adjournment debate could be improved, however, and we hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will commit to ensuring that those Members who want one will receive a substantive reply from the relevant Government Department. The Committee will also consider changes to the format of these debates, and we welcome any suggestions for improvement. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everyone else in the House a relaxing and enjoyable recess.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I remind hon. Members that there is a limit of eight minutes on speeches in the debate?
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I should like to raise a number of points before the House rises for the summer recess. I should also like to congratulate the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), on her wonderful decision.
I make my remarks against the background of an extraordinary general election result. There are not too many Members of Parliament left who were elected on the same day as Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and there are now 232 newly elected Members of Parliament. I want to say to colleagues in all parts of the House that I hold Tony Blair entirely responsible for the way in which this Parliament—the mother of all Parliaments—has been diminished, and for the way in which I believe he misled us over the war with Iraq. I hold the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath responsible for taking away the historic duty of the Bank of England to regulate the financial market. Against that difficult backdrop, I wish to raise a number of points.
The first is the plight of fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea, an historic fishing village in which 28 families are still involved in fishing. Sadly, because their boats are in the 10-metres-and-under category, they are experiencing a crisis because their quota has been exhausted. They fish for cod, but I am advised that if negotiations were to lead to the granting of a quota of 0.5 tonnes per boat for sole, skate and cod from September until the end of the year, fishing would continue to thrive and prosper in Leigh-on-Sea. I am supported in this by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris).
My next point is about myalgic encephalopathy, or ME. This debilitating illness is very hard to diagnose, and a number of my constituents have found it difficult to get benefits following a diagnosis. Following their work capability assessment, ME patients are often described as ineligible for the correct benefit. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will have a conversation with the relevant Department to ensure that ME sufferers are not disadvantaged when claiming disability living allowance.
Last year, I raised with the then Prime Minister the plight of my constituent, Julie Ditchburn. She was living with a gentleman who was not treating her and the children terribly well, and she left the family home and brought the children to this country. Under the terms of the Hague convention, however, the children were ordered to be taken away from her. These were very distressing circumstances, and the children are now back in Spain. It would be wonderful if the Deputy Leader of the House could have a word with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to see whether our consulate there could be a bit more helpful than it is being at the moment, as I was told it would be some months ago.
I shall move on to the plight of my constituent, Tinashe Sahanga, who came to the United Kingdom from Zimbabwe with his mother, brothers and sisters in 2000 when he was 16 years old. Quite extraordinarily, he has still not been granted leave to remain here. Sad though some colleagues might consider it, I watch the BBC Parliament channel, and on it I saw the lady who is in charge of these matters, Lin Homer, saying that she was determined to be proactive in helping Members of Parliament whose constituents were experiencing difficulties such as these. I appeal again to the Deputy Leader of the House to pass on my concern about the plight of my constituent, Tinashe Sahanga.
My next point is about Southend airport. Under the present Government, this problem would probably not have arisen. Permission has been granted for the expansion of the airport, and that is upsetting a number of my constituents. I have now launched a petition to the European Parliament, and I hope that it will look carefully at my constituents’ concerns about noise and pollution.
Many hon. Members receive complaints from their constituents about their cars being clamped. Certain organisations are clamping cars, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East has even been threatened by one of these enforcement companies. They impose fines of £400 or £500, which is just outrageous. These people seem to be outside the law. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to have a word with the appropriate Minister, to see whether anything can be done about this.
A week ago, I visited the wonderful Southend campus of Essex university, which was opened by Princess Anne in 2007. Student facilities will be opening there shortly, and 561 rooms for students will be available. I hope that, in these challenging times for seaside resorts, Southend will be seen as an attractive place in which people can advance their studies.
I also pay tribute to the YMCA, which is doing marvellous work locally, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will give it whatever encouragement he can.
I was delighted to learn from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that she is looking at the issue of policing. It seems somewhat perverse that, according to a report published last week, front-line police officers spend more time off work than on duty.
I am also delighted that Eastwood school in my constituency has facilities that would very well suit one of the smaller visiting teams in the Olympic games. I had the great privilege of chairing the Committee proceedings of the Olympic games legislation. The games are now just two years away. I understand from friends in China that there is a wonderful exhibition in Shanghai at the moment. Perhaps in two years’ time, a similar opportunity will arise for the new Olympic games centre.
I know that a number of colleagues want to make their maiden speech today. I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy and well-deserved break during the summer recess.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I could speak about all the problems with the coalition, but there are two pressing cases in my constituency that I need to air.
First, I want to explain that the Bolsover constituency used to have 12 pits and about 20 textile factories. In the 1980s and 1990s, all those pits went. They were closed by the previous Tory Government. The textile factories, by and large, followed suit, mainly because Marks & Spencer and one or two other big stores decided to have all their goods made abroad. The net result was that unemployment in the Bolsover area, and in north Derbyshire generally, rose to more than 15% in the pit villages. We had a lot of work to do, and when the Labour Government came in—contrary to what the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) said—the truth is that we managed to start regenerating the area.
Instead of leaving the pit tips there, we cadged the money from the previous Prime Minister—then the Chancellor of Exchequer—to flatten them and turn them into areas where work could be provided. The factories were not the same and the money was not the same as it was when people were working in the pits. The truth is that we needed a lot of factories to make up for the several thousand miners and the many textile workers who had been thrown out of work. This was a deprived area without any doubt, so we had to do a lot of cadging of money in that context.
When Building Schools for the Future came along, we were naturally very pleased. We thought, “Here we are: we can get about four or five schools, some of them very old, rebuilt and provide some work for all those people”. The private sector would have been involved as suppliers for Building Schools for the Future and other schools in Britain. When the public sector is culled, it creates misery for the private sector—that is roughly it. Two or three schools were included in the programme, and Bolsover had its completion date only a fortnight ago.
When the Secretary of State made his statement to cancel 700 Building Schools for the Future projects, Members can imagine my horror when I heard that Tibshelf community school was not included in the list of projects that will go ahead. Looking at the website is enough to make you cry. I shall quote what came out in July 2010 on the Tory-controlled Derbyshire county council website. It is almost unbelievable:
“This is an immensely exciting time in the history of Tibshelf School. The Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme for Derbyshire is arriving just as the school is preparing to celebrate its centenary… The plans for the new school are developing nicely”—
this is in July this year—
“and have been shared with the whole community. From September 2010 the Tibshelf family will grow to include not only the villages of Tibshelf, Newton, Blackwell, Westhouses and Hilcote, but also Holmewood, Heath, Morton and Pilsley”—
the latter in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel).
Why did it say all that? Because not only was Tibshelf going to have its brand-new school; it was to be even bigger than we originally thought because it was going to take over Deincourt school in North Wingfield in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The result would have been that even more pupils could attend and a new Deincourt primary school would be built. The ripples were rolling right across to the county council, which was excited by it. The truth is that the Secretary of State kyboshed all that in a second when he decided that Tibshelf was not going ahead. There we are, then, for a school that is celebrating its centenary next year.
Tibshelf did not get on the first list; it did not get on the second list; it did not get on the third, fourth or fifth lists. I am pleading with the Secretary of State to make sure that this school is included—not only because of the deprivation in the area and because the project provides work, but because the educational facilities needed for this wonderful sports college are so important. What has happened not only affects Bolsover, but creates problems for the kids in Deincourt and elsewhere. Deincourt school is due to be demolished in the next few weeks. It was to have a complete rebuild. Those children will have no school to go to unless we can change this decision.
Let me finish the first part of what I want to say today by calling on the Secretary of State in respect of this matter. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire mentioned that we should get answers. I want to know whether the Secretary of State will meet us when we come back in September; then we can bring down to this place the headmaster, officers of the Derbyshire education authority and others to get this decision reversed.
The second issue I want to raise is Bolsover’s prefabricated bungalows. Like many others up and down the country, they were built after the second world war. We did not have the materials or the money then—by God, we certainly did not have the money—so these prefabs were built. A lot of people thought they would not last very long, but they were wrong because the prefabs were built pretty well. Then we cladded around them in many constituencies up and down Britain and we managed to give them a new lease of life. That is why houses built in about 1948 or 1949 were able to last right through to 2000 and beyond.
Sadly, however, in the past few years, the foundations have begun to collapse. In my constituency, there are 108 of these buildings, and pensioners are living in every one of them. They are in Bolsover, a deprived area, and in villages such as Langwith Junction and New Houghton. Pensioners in these areas are now living in fear, as some of these dwellings have been shut down. There are 40 in one village and about 15 have already been closed. Can Members imagine what the conditions are like for people when houses next door to them and peppered around them are closed?
Again, then, I am asking for a meeting with a Minister. When we met the Labour Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), he did not give us a letter saying that the money was all gone. My right hon. Friend said to us: “Here is the money. Start the programme of rebuilding the prefabricated houses. Give the pensioners a chance to live in some decent accommodation.” So we took the money and we thought we were going to start after the election. Then, we got the response from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that he is not prepared to find that money any more. We are asking for a meeting with him in order to get those houses built to provide people with work and—
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
May I say how delighted I am, having sat in the shadow of so many excellent maiden speeches over the past two and a half months, to have at long last the opportunity to make my own debut, my maiden speech, as a new Member of Parliament in this august House of Commons? I add that I am conscious of the significance and importance of today’s Adjournment debate to all our colleagues in the Chamber, so I am grateful to have your indulgence, Mr Speaker, and that of the House and all colleagues this afternoon as I make my debut.
It brings me genuine joy to pay tribute to my four predecessors. Thanks to the creativity of the Boundary Commission, the new and unique Witham constituency comprises three very distinct areas of the county of Essex. It was represented in the previous Parliament by four most distinguished Members of Parliament. I forewarned them that I was making my debut and I suspect they felt that I might make them blush—hence their absence.
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark). He has served the town of Witham, from which my constituency takes its name, and many of the surrounding communities with tremendous distinction and care. I also pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the outstanding Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who has not only bequeathed me some of the most beautiful swathes of the Essex countryside, but served those parts of my constituency with enormous distinction and in a way that has won him many friends in the local area.
It is also an honour to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). Mr Speaker, I was at one stage considered to be somewhat to the right of the political centre—until, that is, I inherited some of my hon. Friend’s local Conservative party activists! My hon. Friend is nothing short of a colossus locally, and his advice and opinions are greatly sought. He has represented the local areas that now fall into my constituency with great gusto, forthright views and conviction, which I look forward to emulating.
Last but not least, I would like to pay a most sincere tribute to my coalition colleague, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). He has quite rightly developed a reputation as an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament and I am aware that the area I have inherited from him—the ward of Stanway—has come to expect a first-class service from their Member of Parliament, and I intend to keep it that way.
As I said earlier, my constituency is a new one. Standing at over 130 square miles, it covers areas from the districts of Braintree, Maldon and the borough of Colchester. In previous guises, the constituency has also been in part represented by a number of our most distinguished parliamentarians. The two most notable were Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Wakeham. Speaking personally, I cannot pay sufficient tribute to Lord Newton, who, wherever I go in my constituency, is spoken of with such genuine warmth, affection and sincerity owing to his years of public service and dedication to what was then the Braintree constituency. It is fair to say that I have a truly tremendous local legacy.
At the heart of my new constituency is the historic market town of Witham, which is surrounded by a significant number of villages and hamlets. Witham’s history and buildings date as far back as the Domesday book, and the town is well known for its wealth of 16th-century timber-frame buildings, for its distinctive town hall, and, now, for the more modern developments that define the town. My constituency is also home to well over 40 villages and hamlets, including Hatfield Peverel, Coggeshall, Wickham Bishops, Kelvedon, The Notleys, Woodham, Totham, Marks Tey, Tollesbury and the village of Tiptree. I should like to think that hon. Members have already familiarised themselves with Tiptree’s most famous produce while having their morning tea and toast, as the village is home to the orchards and the factory producing the world-famous Wilkin and Sons Tiptree jam.
Witham is also a constituency where small businesses, enterprise and traditional high streets matter. Local entrepreneurs and businesses support 83% of jobs in Witham, compared with the national average of 68%, and 25,000 people and their families depend on the prosperity of those businesses. In my view—and as they tell me—those businesses need a fair and flexible labour market and a competitive and low-tax framework to provide jobs and prosperity.
My own deep and personal interest in what I call the economics of enterprise and small business stems from my family background. My parents arrived in Britain from Uganda with literally nothing, and, like the thousands of British Asians—and also the many Patels—who arrived in Britain in similar circumstances at that time, they relentlessly pursued the path of pure hard work in order to get on in life. By working long hours and by saving their hard-earned money, my parents were able to buy their first business—what else but a newsagent’s? As a result, my youth was literally spent sleeping above the shop and playing directly under the till, while watching my family—thanks to the free-market policies of Margaret Thatcher—thrive and grow. Wherever my parents set up shop, they employed local people, contributed to the local community, and made a substantial contribution to the local economy.
I speak from personal experience when I say that the impact of the last Government’s policies on enterprise and small business was simply devastating. I saw at first hand the ever-growing burdens of the state encroach on our livelihood and sap our ability to function as a business, let alone support our local community by providing employment and much-valued local services. The excessive regulation from central Government stifled every ounce of the very entrepreneurial flair that once led Napoleon to describe our great country as a nation of shopkeepers.
I should like to think that the Witham constituency was a hotbed of Patels, but alas, not yet. None the less, I am proud to represent a constituency of entrepreneurs whose businesses create jobs and prosperity throughout our high streets, villages and towns. The Witham constituency is a place where the unique and unyielding ingenuity of the British people to create opportunities and prosperity is found in abundance. Nowhere is our reputation as a nation of shopkeepers and free-market entrepreneurs more apparent than in Witham, and while I am a Member of this House I will stand by the businesses on which my constituents depend and which, of course, make my constituency such a dynamic place to represent.
I believe that our country is at its strongest when it promotes the spirit of enterprise, the values of hope and aspiration, and the desire to get on in life. That is why I am certain that this Government’s priority of lower corporation tax, providing incentives for small business, abolishing Labour’s tax on jobs, and ending the over-zealous bureaucracy that has strangled our small businesses will enable this country to flourish again.
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House for enabling me to make my maiden speech, but my greatest thanks go to the good-natured and hard-working people of Witham for electing me. I pledge that I will never shy away from representing them and being a strong voice for them in the House.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I want to express my concern about the development of the Princess Anne maternity unit at Royal Bolton hospital. The creation of a new regional baby supercentre at the hospital was announced in August 2007. Construction work on the expansion began in September 2009, and is due to be completed by the end of 2011. Royal Bolton hospital won the bid in competition with other hospitals, and we were naturally delighted in Bolton.
The care that the NHS delivers throughout our lives and during the period that leads to our death is priceless, but nothing can be more important than the start that our children are given in life, and quality maternity services can make an important difference in that regard. The development was welcomed by the whole region because it was designed to raise maternity services to another level. The state-of-the-art supercentre was designed to provide extra delivery rooms, new high-dependency beds, new intensive-care and high-dependency cots, new beds for antenatal and post-natal wards, new on-site overnight facilities for parents, and the best equipment possible to provide care for our sickest babies. Twenty million pounds were invested to make all that happen and 400 jobs were to be created in the town, not just for the benefit of Bolton but in the interests of parents and children throughout Greater Manchester.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he may not have realised that the hon. Member who spoke before him was making a maiden speech. I am sure that he would like an opportunity to congratulate her on a very fine speech.
Mr Crausby
I am sorry, Mr Speaker. It is a real privilege to follow the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I am grateful to her for inciting that intervention, because it has given me another minute in which to speak, but I also congratulate her on what was indeed an excellent maiden speech.
The decision was made after the extensive making it better review of maternity services. Doctors, nurses, midwives and specialists were consulted throughout, and 12 primary care trusts, 12 hospitals and 12 local authorities were directly involved in the process. Thousands of information leaflets were distributed across the region. Workshops were held with members of the public, and a citizens’ council, a maternity council, NHS managers, doctors and nurses were all involved. The level of public consultation was unprecedented, with more than 242,000 people sharing their views by means of formal responses, petitions and public meetings. At all stages, the focus was on making the necessary changes to provide the best possible care for patients.
It was decided to replace the 12 centres in Greater Manchester with eight centres of excellence, with three supercentres providing neonatal care. The higher standard of care provided by the new structure and concentrated resources would mean that more premature and sick babies would survive, and fewer parents would be turned away owing to staffing problems. It was estimated that between 30 and 50 lives a year would be saved. The move from 12 to eight centres was never going to be easy—it was bound to arouse strong and emotional local protest—but in this case it was the right thing to do, because it was in the interest of better-quality maternity services throughout Greater Manchester.
The problems started when the general election campaign arrived. Along came the then shadow Secretary of State for Health—the current Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley)—campaigning in Bury, Rochdale and other Greater Manchester constituencies. He was clearly a man in pursuit of votes and popularity, and he was going to get what he wanted by promising to keep all the maternity units open. In doing so, however, he was completely undermining the making it better scheme in a naked attempt to win Conservative target seats in Greater Manchester. He must have known—if he did not, he certainly should have known—that this money was being provided to fund the supercentres and the improved facilities for the benefit of everyone only because the available resources were being sensibly concentrated. What he said in one town alongside a prospective Conservative candidate was being denied in other towns. Eventually, however, under pressure, the then shadow Secretary of State for Health was forced to claim publicly that the Conservatives would keep all the maternity units open and at the same time ensure that Bolton’s development and other supercentres would be unaffected.
Things have changed now, of course. The former shadow Secretary of State has lost the shadow part of his title and reality is setting in, but he still provides no explanation as to where the money will come from or what other services will have to be cut as a result of, effectively, his commitment to increase spending on Greater Manchester maternity services. He no doubt hopes that his general election promises will fade into the distance, and in order to try to wriggle out of them he has called for a review of Greater Manchester’s maternity facilities. He does so even though the making it better programme had already involved an enormous review and public consultation, so he is simply playing for time. The major question that the Secretary of State must answer is if the centres that were previously due to close are now set to continue, where will the extra funding come from for the centres of excellence and the supercentres?
As a result of my concerns, I raised this issue in a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time and the Prime Minister assured me that there were no plans to cancel the improvements to Bolton’s maternity unit, but just one week later health bosses were told by the Government that they would have to, again, prove that the improvements are necessary in order to secure the investment.
The Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister need to be clear with the people of Bolton and Greater Manchester. The consultation work has already been completed and the most efficient plan put in place with construction and recruitment in Bolton already under way. After more than six years of preparation and investment the entire process is almost complete. Will the Government support the improvement plans as they did during the general election campaign? If not, what alternative do they propose, and how will services be affected and funded?
I have fought hard throughout my political life, but I would never dream of sinking so low as to put at risk the health and well-being of mothers and children for electoral advantage. The Secretary of State for Health has no honourable alternative now but to come clean and stump up the money to deliver what he promised to the people of Bolton and Greater Manchester by fully funding Bolton’s maternity supercentre as he said he would.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
First, may I say what a pleasure it is to follow so shortly after my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel)? It is a delight to be speaking in the same debate in which she made her maiden speech. I am sure some of us can remember how terrifying that is, and my hon. Friend did amazingly well.
I want to use this opportunity to highlight the unusual case of an institution that fails people who look to it for protection and help when situations go wrong. I shall mention the names of a number of people and organisations, but there is no court case pending so that is not sub judice.
Many people work hard all their lives, and save hard. Some people may run corner shops or work as self-employed plumbers and save a deal of money, and a time comes in their life when they realise that they want to use that money for their pension or to help them through their later years, so they look to make investments with that money. Some people will use organisations such as investment banks and stockbroker firms, and I want to talk about a particular stockbroking firm with which, in 2007, a number of people decided to invest their life savings. This story is also about the Financial Services Authority. The company took these people’s life savings—a number of people’s livelihoods were also involved—and within weeks it had all gone.
A trader by the name of Stuart Waldron handled the accounts of these people. He asked all of them to set up a separate e-mail account that he could use for trades only. He then rang particular people and said that the e-mail account was not working and asked for their password. The investors thought that there was nothing unusual in that, because the account was just for trading, so they gave the trader their password. He then proceeded to send messages to and from himself giving instructions on buys and sells. When that became apparent, the FSA became involved and I sent a number of documents to the authority. That was a considerable time ago and I have not yet had a response from it. I e-mailed the relevant inspector at the FSA, Margaret Cole, three weeks ago because I knew I was going to speak about this matter today, but I have not had a reply.
The stockbroking firm is called WorldSpreads, and it operates outside the City of London—surprise, surprise. Therefore, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the City of London police. It appears that the people who run WorldSpreads used to run a stockbroking firm called Square Mile Securities, which was inspected and closed down, although because of its financial situation at the time, it paid a reduced penalty. Those people from SMS who were closed down and had to pay that fine then went on to set up WorldSpreads. The inspector who closed down SMS was Margaret Cole.
WorldSpreads held up its hands and said Stuart Waldron was a rogue trader. My investors decided not to believe that and chose instead to take the case further. They had a meeting with the directors of WorldSpreads, which was recorded. On the recording it is made very clear that Stuart Waldron was not a rogue trader but that the operation was planned—indeed, it was a procedure that the company appeared to carry out regularly.
One key point is that the FSA has so far failed to represent the individuals who have lost their life savings, but there is also a bigger point. I am aware of this group of individuals—I know what has happened to them in their particular case—but how many more stockbroking firms are operating in such a way? How many more individuals are the FSA failing to protect? How many people are walking into a stockbroking firm with their life savings—even as I am giving this speech today—trusting that firm and hoping that there is a procedure behind them and an organisation such as the FSA that will regulate and monitor events and protect them should something go wrong and their life savings are taken away?
I am not being naive in making this speech, and I am aware that financial journalists might want to pick up on this story. If they do so, we would love to know whether Stuart Waldron, who disappeared overnight, is still trading somewhere in the City of London. We have a barrister’s statement of case that analysed the whole situation. Unfortunately the case cannot be taken on any further because there is no money left to do so; the people involved cannot fight their corner. If any financial journalist would like a copy of the barrister’s statement of case they would be very welcome to it.
It is amazing that an organisation such as the FSA, which is supposed to protect the interests of ordinary hard-working people, should have let people down so spectacularly. It will not be the stockbrokers, the City bankers or the huge institutions that bring about the upturn in this country; it will be the hard-working individuals who set up their own businesses, go to work every day, save as hard as they can and hope that, with those savings, they can look after themselves and their families and see the rewards of their labour. It is an absolute disgrace when organisations such as WorldSpreads try to blame their own misdemeanours, corrupt dealings and failings on one individual, Stuart Waldron, who disappears overnight—paid, we believe.
I hope that while I am giving this speech there is not someone sat in the WorldSpreads offices handing over their life savings, because we will know what will happen to them. We know the pattern: over a number of weeks, those savings will dwindle and suddenly, a situation will occur—perhaps like that involving BP—and the explanation given will be, “We are so sorry your savings have disappeared, but the markets were badly affected by the current situation”. That provides the smokescreen for such activities. We know the corrupt e-mails that such organisations send. They depend on the naivety and inexperience of those who do not have the educational background in, or experience of, the financial markets.
I am sorry to have taken the House’s time up with this case. I hope that, as a result of highlighting it today, some steps might be taken towards providing justice and to returning some of those people’s money to them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Graham Jones. I remind the House that this is a maiden speech.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her maiden speech today.
It is an honour and a humbling privilege to represent Haslingden and Hyndburn in this House. It is a constituency that sits in the impoverished east Lancashire corridor, with its companion constituencies of Blackburn, Burnley and Pendle, some 18 miles north of Manchester. It is a valley littered with the history of a bygone industrial heritage: mill towns that earned Britain great wealth. The demise of “king cotton” has run in parallel with economic difficulty.
My grandfather and grandmother, whom I owe so much and who now reside in a far greater place, would be beaming with pride today. It was family—along with the lack of prosperity in the Thatcherite ’80s that capped people’s aspirations and life chances—who determined my political persuasions. It is the strength and courage of party colleagues that has brought me to this place, and I am eternally grateful for that.
The local government area of Hyndburn was formed in 1974 and makes up six sevenths of the constituency. It constitutes the borough of Accrington and the old urban districts of Church, Clayton-le-Moors, Rishton, Altham, Great Harwood and Oswaldtwistle. Haslingden sits in the Rossendale valley and is a proud market town famous for cotton and textile manufacturing, and for the 19th-century Irish republican leader and parliamentarian Michael Davitt.
My constituency stretches to the rural north, to the place I understand to be a one-party state, known as the Ribble Valley. Parliamentary boundaries do throw up odd surprises. While canvassing the borders of this iron curtain of political difference, I discovered the annexation of several farms whose cherished Ribble Valley postal address—BB7, Clitheroe—now falls within Hyndburn. My predecessor, Greg Pope, still maintains with great certainty that his defeat by a margin of 22,000 in the Ribble Valley constituency in 1987 was all down to rain on the day affecting the Labour turnout.
Having heard the laudable but extravagant claims that were made in the House about the industrial revolution, I feel duty bound to honour the history of my constituency by wresting away the title of the birthplace of the industrial revolution from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)—he made that claim in his maiden speech; he has a keen eye for history—and from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson).
As we all know, James Hargreaves—a “gobbiner” from Oswaldtwistle—invented in 1764 the spinning jenny, which revolutionised the manufacture and mass production of cotton. By the 1830s, approximately 85% of all cotton manufactured worldwide was processed in Lancashire.
Many maiden speeches—I have listened to a few—shamelessly act as a tourist bulletin for their constituency, and I intend in mine to follow that trend. My constituency is famous for Accrington “NORI” brick—the word “IRON” was painted upwards on the chimneys when it was supposed to be painted downwards; educational standards have obviously gone up since then—which was used in the construction of the empire state building and Blackpool tower. Europe’s largest collection of Tiffany glass is also in the constituency.
Of course, there is also Accrington Stanley. The club has risen from bankruptcy and I can inform the House that it is on an assured footing under the stewardship of my friend Ilyas Khan, whose commitment to the club, passion for the area and dedication to the Leonard Cheshire disability charity I must commend.
One cannot mention the constituency without honouring the 11th East Lancashire Regiment, known as Accrington pals. The pals’ first day of action was on the battle of the Somme on 1 July 1916, at Serre in the north of France. Within half an hour of their advance into fierce resistance, 235 men were killed and a further 350 wounded—more than half the battalion. Whole families were devastated, and it was said then that not a single street was unaffected.
At this point I would like to say a few words about my predecessor, Greg Pope, as is an honoured tradition in this place. Before I do so, however, I would like to place on the record a word of thanks to his predecessor. Greg Pope, in his maiden speech 18 years ago, said of Ken Hargreaves that it is
“no overstatement to say that he has devoted his life to representing the people of the area”—[Official Report, 20 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 322.]
of Hyndburn. I can only report to the House that that remains true 18 years later. It is fair to say that Greg was everyone’s friend. Articulate and thoughtful, he cared about his constituents, bequeathing a constituency office that in my opinion provides a service to constituents that is second to none.
Greg, like me, traversed a local path to Parliament, beginning his political life in his home town of Great Harwood as a councillor back in 1984, under the wings of George Slynn. Rainy days in the Ribble Valley did not deter his determination, and he was rewarded on a sunny day in 1992, when the Labour vote did come out in Hyndburn. He secured four terms of office as the Member of Parliament for Hyndburn. His vast experience as a Member of this House will be missed by those in all parts of it, as will his pleasant demeanour, honesty and sincerity, and particularly his expertise in foreign affairs.
It would be remiss of me—Greg would welcome my saying this—not to remind the House that
“he is thought to be the only Member of Parliament to have invaded the stage during a gig by The Clash in 1978”.
As such, his musical nobility was assured when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr Woolas) was drawn to commend him in a Westminster Hall debate, saying that this was in his mind a badge of honour.
Finally, let me speak briefly of the challenges facing my constituency in the coming years. Despite investment by the previous Government, which has led to significant improvements in some areas, much still needs to be done. Some 40% of privately owned residential properties in the constituency are not up to the decent homes standard, and more than 10% are unfit for human habitation. There are some 2,500 empty properties, including in the Rossendale town of Haslingden, and today some wards in Accrington rank amongst the most deprived in the country in terms of health care, life expectancy and other such indicators.
The Government’s housing market renewal programme is attempting to remedy those problems, but it goes without saying that the huge cuts in funding handed out so far—particularly to my area, which is one of the most affected—will blight the local economy for perhaps the second time following 18 years of Thatcherism. Hyndburn has one of the lowest rates of participation in adult sports and recreation in Lancashire, and is the third lowest in the country. In my constituency it is not possible to create opportunities for the private sector to deal with those fundamental issues without public sector support, and I intend to be a fierce and vocal supporter of my constituents’ interests in this House.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on his eloquent and passionate maiden speech; I wish him every success representing his constituents.
Localism, we are told, is very important and I agree with that concept. We need to have more powers for local councils in Shropshire—for Shropshire unitary authority and Shrewsbury town council—moving away from Westminster and from regional quangos, so that those who take the decisions can be accountable to local people in Shropshire.
Shrewsbury town council is the largest town council in the United Kingdom. Following the reorganisation of local councils in Shropshire, I very much hope that we can evaluate how more power can be devolved to Shrewsbury town council, but one area in which I think a greater lead, and certainly more advice, is needed from government is waste management. There are proposals for an incinerator to be built in Harlescott, which is a highly residential part of Shrewsbury. The Minister will know that Shrewsbury is an extremely beautiful mediaeval town. The No. 1 income generator for our community is tourism, so local residents are extremely concerned at the prospect of the incinerator being built. As the local MP, I have received many petitions on the matter and have attended many public meetings about it.
Hon. Members will be interested to hear that the issue involves the French operator Veolia, which its chief executive told me when I met him in the House of Commons was originally set up by Napoleon Bonaparte. That company is like an octopus with its tentacles all over the UK. How will the Minister regulate and control that ever-growing, powerful company in its quest to build more and more incinerators throughout the UK? What checks, balances and supervision are the national Government going to put in place? What co-ordination from Government will there be regarding where such incinerators are placed?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that we, too, have an application for an incinerator in my constituency and that many such incinerators are to be funded through the private finance initiative project? Does he agree that it is tremendously dangerous to fund technology projects with PFI on a potential 25-year payback given that the technology could be out of date within five or 10 years?
Daniel Kawczynski
Yes; I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I was just about to talk about concerns that the technology will be antiquated by the end of the contract. I want to press the Minister for greater national co-ordination. Councils up and down the country are looking separately, in silos, at incinerators with little regard to national co-ordination in their placement. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In our case, the contract would last for 29 years, but the polluting technology involved is already antiquated and should be avoided. Why cannot we have more efficient carbon dioxide-neutral methods of waste disposal? There are many examples in Sweden and other European Union countries that use the most modern and pioneering technology for their waste. Please will the Minister look at them and try to give a greater lead and incentive to councils such as Shropshire not to go with antiquated technology that pollutes our atmosphere? Will he explain the policy and advise that there should be greater co-ordination between councils and more assistance to help them evaluate the best solutions?
I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that Shropshire has exceeded the national recycling targets and is massively ahead of other suggested targets. I am greatly worried that we will be importing waste from other parts of the UK to be incinerated in Shropshire. In the last Parliament, we had many debates in this Chamber and Westminster Hall about incinerators. Labour and Conservative Ministers always come back with the same response on this issue. They say, “This is a local matter and you should take it up with your local council,” but I do not believe that the Minister can wash his hands of this issue, because there needs to be direct Government intervention. For the record, I am extremely upset that the council—a Conservative council, I hasten to add—is proceeding with the incinerator.
My next point to the Minister is that I would like the council to receive greater clarification about house building targets. The previous Labour Administration wanted to foist huge house building targets on Shropshire—almost concreting over it—leading to great concern among villagers, including those in Cressage and Pontesbury, who love their rural way of life. I should like the Minister to clarify the matter and to assure us that local councils will have greater responsibility to decide house building programmes rather than their being imposed by central Government.
Lastly, I shall address my pet subject, about which, as chairman of the all-party group for the continuation of first past the post, I feel passionately. The only three countries around the world that use the alternative vote system are Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. I do not believe that the United Kingdom should be using a voting system that is predominantly used in Papua New Guinea and Fiji.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that first past the post is so called for a reason, because it rightly suggests that the horse that wins the race deserves to get the prize? To carry on the analogy, does he agree that the alternative vote means that the backers of the horses that came third, fourth or even worse decide whether the horse that came first or the horse that came second ought to get the prize?
Daniel Kawczynski
I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend on that point. The referendum will cost the United Kingdom millions of pounds. In five years of being a Member of Parliament, I have received only one letter—and only then because I went on the “Today” programme and said that I had not received any on this issue, after which I received one—from one constituent saying, “Dear Mr Kawczynski, could you please support a change in the voting system?” My constituents come to see me about pensions, child tax credits and Child Support Agency payments—all the things that affect their day-to-day lives. All Members in the Chamber will know some of the terrible difficulties that our constituents are going through and will go through in coming years as a result of the fiscal mess that we have inherited. For us to be distracting ourselves on 6 September with deliberations about a referendum on a change to the voting system when we have one of the best voting systems in the world is a great travesty. I, for one, as chairman of the all-party group, encourage all Members to join the group and to keep up the pressure on our Government to ditch these ludicrous proposals.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech on the last day before the House rises for the summer recess. May I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches to date? I congratulate in particular the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who painted very attractive pictures of their constituencies, albeit with different political landscapes.
You might be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am unique in this House in that there are two of me—at least, I am one of two Members with the same name. I share my name with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), albeit with a different spelling. Some might say—my apologies to Oscar Wilde—that to have one Graeme Morrice in the House of Commons may be regarded as a misfortune, but to have two looks like carelessness. Like all new Members, I am absolutely delighted to have been elected to Parliament to serve my constituents and the community in which I have lived for most of my life. It is a great honour and privilege to have the trust of my constituents placed in me, and I pledge to serve them faithfully in the years to come.
It is customary during a maiden speech to pay tribute to one’s predecessor and I want to thank Jim Devine for his work during his four and a half years as an MP. Jim campaigned on many issues, most notably on the collapse of Farepak, and the issue of Greenbelt. Jim Devine became a Member of the House following the untimely death of the late Robin Cook in 2005, and he would often say that it was a place he did not want to be in those sad circumstances. I understand and share those sentiments. Much has been said and written about Robin Cook’s outstanding contribution to national politics and world events, and I am sure that will be the case for many years to come. However, I knew Robin as the local, hard-working and caring constituency MP who gave22 years of dedicated service to the people of his community. Robin was my friend, and I miss him deeply to this day, as I am sure many hon. Members do.
My constituency has one of the biggest populations among Scotland’s constituencies, with about 77,000 electors. It stretches 16 miles from the Edinburgh boundary in the east to the Lanarkshire boundary in the west, and 14 miles from the Pentland hills and Scottish borders in the south to the constituency of Linlithgow and East Falkirk in the north, beyond which is the firth of Forth and Fife. The constituency is strategically located within the central belt of Scotland, situated as it is within the local authority area of West Lothian.
Although the name of my constituency is Livingston, as it takes in the new town of Livingston, it also covers many of the more traditional towns and villages of West Lothian, some of which have such delightful sounding names as Breich, Dechmont, Ecclesmachan and Faucheldean. The constituency itself was created only in 1983. It was a new seat created to reflect the growth of Livingston new town, as well as taking in parts of the former West Lothian and Midlothian constituencies. It therefore boasts of such historic and eminent figures as Manny Shinwell, William Gladstone, the Liberal Prime Minister, and of course my friend Tam Dalyell, a former Father—and indeed favourite—of the House, who will always be remembered with immeasurable affection for his independence of thought, integrity and immense tenacity, much to the annoyance of many a premier.
My constituency is a very diverse area including, as I mentioned, the new town of Livingston, which is one of Scotland’s five new towns created in the 1960s. Livingston is the biggest town in the Lothians outside Edinburgh. Over the years it has become a major hub in Scotland’s silicon glen. BSkyB has its main call centre in Livingston, and is the largest private sector employer in West Lothian. The Livingston designer outlet centre, which is one of the biggest in Britain, attracts 6 million shoppers annually. The town is also home to West Lothian’s only senior football team, which came third in the Scottish premier league in 2002 and qualified for the UEFA cup—a remarkable achievement for such a new club. My constituency also takes in numerous other communities of a more post-industrial and rural nature, covering the Almond and Breich valleys and Strathbrock.
Historically, West Lothian was dominated by both oil-shale mining in the eastern part of the county and coal mining in the west, as is evident from the bings that still exist on the landscape. In the 1850s West Lothian was home to the first truly commercial oil works in the world, thanks to the eminent chemist James “Paraffin” Young. The Union canal and railways, with their stunning aqueducts and viaducts that were built during that era—they are still standing to this day—facilitated the economic success of the area.
Unfortunately, West Lothian’s proud heritage of mineral extraction ended in the mid-1980s with the enforced closure of the Polkemmet pit. That, along with the loss of British Leyland in Bathgate and numerous other factory closures, meant that unemployment in the county rose to an unprecedented 25%. That was the legacy left in my constituency by the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, and it took more than a decade of the interventionist policies and public service investment programme of the incoming Labour Government before the tide was eventually turned. I do not want a return to the days of laissez-faire economics, wholesale privatisation and the decimation of public services that I remember only too well, as do the people and communities that I represent.
My background is in local government. I have been a councillor in my constituency for the past 23 years, serving the community of Broxburn and Uphall, which was the birthplace of my mother, and where I lived from the age of 12. I had been council leader for 12 years when, in 2006, West Lothian became the first Scottish local authority to be honoured with the prestigious accolade of UK council of the year. Indeed, in this very House Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, commended myself and the council’s chief executive, Alex Linkston, on that remarkable achievement.
If I may, I wish to congratulate Alex Linkston on his 45 years’ service in local government, during which he has worked continually for West Lothian council and its predecessors. He is retiring in September, and he was awarded a CBE in 2007 for his services to local government. I am sure that the whole House would like to join me in thanking him for his long and distinguished public service and wishing him well for the future.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech. I wish you and the rest of the House a very enjoyable summer break.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speeches made by the hon. Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel); they sold their constituencies very well.
As a reasonably new Member of Parliament—I have been a Member for only a few weeks—I have quickly discovered that one of the joys of the role is the enormous range of issues that one reads about in each day’s postbag. Some of them are very easy to deal with and can lead to good resolutions, but others are more complex. I therefore welcome the opportunity to bring some of those issues to the Floor of the House.
Traveller sites represent a great problem facing much of South Staffordshire. Of all the west midlands constituencies, we have one of the largest numbers of Traveller sites. Under the previous Labour Government there were proposals to double the number of such sites in my constituency, but that would put great pressure on our communities. It is somewhat unfair that a constituency with a large number of Traveller sites should also have to deal with many new sites. It is particularly unfair that the proposed location of many of the sites is green belt land. The previous Government’s rules allowed sites to be placed on such land because of the exemptions that they enjoyed, so I hope that the coalition Government will change that.
Later today I will present to the House a petition with more than 2,100 signatories. It has been signed by South Staffordshire constituents as well as a few others who have visited South Staffordshire and enjoyed the pleasures of its beautiful countryside. I hope that the Government will change the law. Most importantly, however, there is something that they can do during the recess: get rid of circular ODPM 01/06. That would make a major difference to the planning system straight away, and change the way in which faceless bureaucrats in Bristol can force on my constituents, as well as those of many hon. Members, Traveller sites that are not wanted, and should not be built on green belt land. I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will pass that message on to Ministers.
Daniel Kawczynski
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem relates not just to Gypsy sites? The Bristol office can exert a lot of influence over all sorts of planning applications in our communities, but its right to do so should be abolished, with the power devolved back to local councils.
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If Members of Parliament had as much power as the inspectors in Bristol, we would truly appreciate it. We need the power to be devolved because the process has a great impact on local communities, and local voices are not being heard. Local councillors can say no to something, yet inspectors in Bristol will say yes. That cannot be allowed to continue.
A further problem affecting South Staffordshire is car boot sales. When hon. Members think of car boot sales, they probably imagine pleasant events involving 20 or 30 cars that might be raising money for a local hospital, church or school, but South Staffordshire is blighted by industrial car boot sales involving many hundreds of traders descending on our rural villages. There is no regulation or control by the district council, and the events bring misery to many areas. I invite Members to visit the villages of Featherstone or Himley on a Sunday to see the blight that the car boot sales bring—[Interruption.] Members are probably booking their train tickets right away. The villagers are not able to leave their homes because of the traffic chaos inflicted on them. I am asking not for a vast amount of legislation, but simply for South Staffordshire district council to be able to impose the same regulations as many London boroughs, so that we can control those industrial car boot sales and my constituents can go about their daily lives without this terrible affliction.
My final point touches many hon. Members’ constituents; it is about cancer drugs. I welcome the Government’s moves to take decision making on need away from primary care trusts and give it to clinicians. I hope that that will benefit one of my constituents, a brave young woman with a young family, who, with immense courage and incredible bravery that would humble anyone, is battling lung cancer, for which her clinician has advised that she needs a course of Taxol and Pemetrexed. This has been declined by South Staffordshire primary care trust, which is an utter disgrace. I hope that the changes to PCTs, and to the making of decisions on whether patients are allowed to have certain medicines, will benefit my constituent, but I fear that they will not come in time for her. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to do everything within his powers to put pressure on anyone, whether at Cabinet level or in the Department of Health, as I have tried to do, who could do anything to help my constituent to have a chance at life and to be able to enjoy her family. If my hon. Friend can do that, I am sure that my constituent would be incredibly grateful, as would many of our constituents.
This coalition Government have made some positive changes and a positive start, but so much more is needed, and requires to be done. I urge my hon. Friends to keep pushing those on the Treasury Bench to ensure that that change is delivered.
royal assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Appropriation (No. 3) Act 2010
Finance (No. 2) Act 2010
Academies Act 2010
Kent County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2010
Allhallows Staining Church Act 2010
Summer Adjournment
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to the maiden speakers this afternoon: the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice). I have a particular affection for Livingston because my father was head teacher of one of the very first primary schools there in the mid-1960s.
In my maiden speech I spoke about my constituency, its people, their ambitions for their families and their care for their community, and the dignity of work. Stretford and Urmston is not the most deprived of constituencies in the country. We do not have the highest levels of unemployment or the worst poverty rates, but many families are very worried about the future and their local community. My constituency sits in the northern part of the borough of Trafford, Conservative-controlled since 2004. In that time my constituents have come to feel that they are very much the poor relations, as they watch funds flow to the leafier, more prosperous south of the borough. One trivial but telling example is that in January, when we suffered the heavy snowfalls, it did not escape notice that the council’s snowplough was seen almost immediately in Hale, in the south of the borough, whereas in Stretford and Urmston we waited weeks. In fact we never saw the snowplough at all; we had to wait for the thaw.
My constituency also loses out in much more serious ways. Unemployment is twice the level in the wealthier next-door constituency of Altrincham and Sale West. Inequalities in health mean a difference in male life expectancy of 11 years between the poorest wards in my constituency and the richest in the south. Investment in our town centres, parks and youth facilities has all too often seen my constituency at the back of the queue.
Last week Trafford metropolitan borough council announced cuts of £70 million in public spending over the next few years. It made that announcement at a press conference: it took a leaf out of Ministers’ books, because councillors were not the first to hear. We do not have all the details of the cuts, but we already know that 81 more jobs will be lost this year and an elderly people’s home will close, and that social care, libraries, education, play facilities and parks are all likely to be hit.
That is the reality of spending cuts. It is no use seeking to suggest that they are the result of local decisions alone, because the £6 billion of Ministers’ so-called efficiency savings will have a direct effect on education and youth facilities in my constituency, on community cohesion programmes and on programmes to address health and the quality of life. It is Ministers who have frozen the playbuilder scheme in my constituency. Last week I asked the Leader of the House about that, and he said that it was a local decision, but I have since learned that it was an instruction from the Department for Education. Do not tell me that Labour had put in place spending plans that could not be afforded, because in Trafford a choice is being made about what to spend money on, and to cut front-line services first. Trafford council has still been able to find the money for consultancies and senior director posts, and to refurbish the town hall.
It is the public services on which my constituents rely—services that are popular, accessible and good quality—that face the first of the threats. Those are the services that bind society more closely together, and legitimise the right to social support. Now, under the guise of the big society, we see many of them picked apart. I am all in favour of people acting together to improve and strengthen their communities, and we have many examples of that in my constituency, from Positive Partington to Trafford peace week, the 60-plus action group, the companions and carers lunch club, and the Urmston partnership. Those and many other groups do tremendous work in the community. They enrich people’s lives. But let us be absolutely honest: they can in no way replace the public infrastructure. Their role is not, and should not be, the strategy or stewardship of public resources, or securing universal access. For that we need the state. That role has been fulfilled by Government offices for the regions, primary care trusts and local authorities—all now being airbrushed out, or seeing their roles minimised as part of the Government’s local delivery plans.
Volunteers do great work in our community, but they volunteer: they do what they want, when they can. That is why a local police inspector told me the other day that although special constables make a great contribution, they can in no way replace police community support officers. We cannot insist on where or when specials work, and we cannot secure a critical police presence from special constables at the visible policing level that the public want and expect.
Let us think about relying on volunteers to run our local library or swimming baths. Those roles require skilled, qualified and paid staff, guaranteed to maintain minimum standards of access, quality and safety. Let us also consider the Sure Start centres that support young families, or the carer who goes every evening to help an older person to get to bed. Those are core services that cannot be left to the chance of voluntary provision, yet I fear that the direction of the big society will be a cover for reducing investment, and that the result will be patchy unreliable provision.
I want Ministers to come to the House and tell us what the big society really means for public service quality, public sector employees, the voluntary and community sectors, communities, individuals and families. I want for every one of my constituents a guarantee that open, accessible and quality provision will be maintained in the services on which they rely. I want assurances for my local voluntary sector that it is not expected to become a cheap substitute for proper public provision. And I want to hear from Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, that the big society will be truly fair to us all.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in this end-of-season debate, in which we all have an opportunity to talk about subjects that perhaps the parliamentary time we have been afforded so far has not allowed us to discuss. In the short time I have, I shall bring to the House’s attention three or four areas of interest in my constituency and generally, the first of which is the decline in competitive sport.
I welcome the Government’s plans to revive competitive games in schools and reverse the decline in competitive sport, when there are no winners and no losers. Those of us who have been through not only a general election campaign recently but through polls when we might not have been successful know what it is to like to win and what it is to like to lose, and we are all the better for it. However, fewer than one third of our schools take part in regular competitive sport, and fewer than one fifth compete against other schools. In Crewe and Nantwich, I have seen for myself the huge importance of, and appetite for, competitive sport, and its huge impact on many young people’s lives.
Crewe and Nantwich athletics club has been phenomenally successful and is top of the men’s, women’s and under-11s’ leagues. I congratulate the young athletes who have been promoted to the premier north-west league, especially Liam Clowes, who has been selected to run for Great Britain at the world junior championships. None of that would have been possible unless Steve Walker, the head coach, had believed in the importance of competitive sport as a way to energise young people, and in their ability.
Crewe and Nantwich gymnastics club and the Cheshire academy of integrated sports and arts have sent many young adults with disabilities to the Special Olympics, which will take place again next year in Athens, where they have won countless gold medals. That is all down to the hard work and dedication of the coaches, who believe that competitive sport plays a vital part in encouraging young people to learn to deal with success and failure and to reach their potential. Many young people have a real passion for sport and can see through the façade of receiving a medal just for taking part; they want to believe that what they have done has meaning and will help them to strive for greater things.
I therefore welcome this Government’s attitude in trying to reintroduce competitive sport throughout our schools and within our communities, because I enjoy watching my daughter and son taking part in the egg and spoon race. I enjoy seeing not only the tears of joy when they win, but the tears of disappointment when they do not. That is not because I am a competitive dad, but because I like to see them engage in competitive sport that will help enliven and enrich their understanding of what sport can bring to their school and community.
The previous Government introduced a directive under which schools were asked to replace competitive races on sports days with so-called problem solving exercises. There is some debate about whether egg and spoon races can be described as problem solving exercises, but I know what I would prefer my son and daughter to be doing.
I shall not try to link all my subjects together, but simply move on. My next topic is the plight of looked-after children in our society—a serious issue in which I have been involved for a long time. I am keen that the new, reconstituted all-party groups on adoption and fostering and on looked-after children and care leavers should try to encourage Members of Parliament to go into their constituencies and meet some of the young people in care, or those who have experience of the care system. Members can thereby discover for themselves exactly what is going on and how looked-after children are faring.
We need to take up so many issues in the House on behalf of the many children in the care system who do not have a voice. I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to ensure that looked-after children will benefit from the pupil premium, and I would have been surprised if they had not taken that step. Another issue is the provision of mental health services for children and the need for the child and adolescent mental health service—CAMS—to be far more rigorous and available to all children when it is required. Furthermore, children need support when they leave care; we had a lengthy debate on that during discussion of the Children and Young Persons Bill in the previous Parliament.
A disproportionate number of children in custody have been in the care system or are in it. I will continue to press for one anomaly to be addressed: the fact that children in voluntary care who find themselves in custody lose their status as looked-after children—all the support mechanisms fall away. Why should that happen? I shall return to the subject throughout this Parliament.
My third issue is one that many older constituents have raised with me—the switchover to digital radio. Approximately 100 million analogue radios are still being used in the UK and 20 million car radios can receive only AM and FM radio. The previous Government were going to press ahead with the fairly arbitrary date of 2015 for the switchover, yet only 24% of radio listening is done through digital channels. We have to question the reliability of DAB radio; I still believe that the coverage is patchy. Furthermore, what are we going to do with all the old analogue radios? Who has given thought to that?
So many older people in my constituency believe that the FM service is more than adequate for their needs. If the switchover is rushed, the impact on the commercial radio sector could well be highly damaging. I am pleased that the Government view the issue as more of an aspiration—that a 50% threshold of DAB users is to be required and that the FM service will continue even if the DAB service is brought in as the preference for radio stations.
Those three subjects were completely unrelated, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you found them fascinating. They all concern my constituents, from the very young to the very old, and I hope that they will be taken seriously by hon. Members on both sides of the House as we progress through this Parliament.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is the first time I have spoken while you have been in the Chair. I congratulate you belatedly on your election.
I compliment the three Members who made their maiden speeches today. I was disappointed that in her excellent description of the free market of Witham, the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) did not get round to mentioning the 14th century peasants’ revolt, which originated in her constituency and offered a rather different take on how an economy can be developed.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) described the origins of the industrial revolution, and just about everybody north of Watford can claim that their area had a part in that. I grew up in Shropshire, and we are absolutely convinced that the industrial revolution began there. We will have to continue that debate.
I was so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) mentioned the late Robin Cook and his enormous contribution to this House and, indeed, his opposition to the Iraq war.
The summer Adjournment debate, as it used to be called, is a good institution, but a limited one, because until now there has been no facility for reply other than the hapless Deputy Leader of the House having to sit through several hours of speeches on a convoluted range of subjects—from local issues, to FM radio, to, probably, space travel some time later this afternoon—and being expected to respond to them all but, in reality, not being able to respond to any of them. If our procedures are to mean anything, there must be some facility, at the very least, for Ministers to reply to points made during these debates by letter or by statement. Alternatively, we could go back to what used to be known as the Consolidated Fund debates, when Members could raise any specific issue and a Minister was forced to reply to them—in effect, a series of all-night Adjournment debates that we used to enjoy in the mid-1980s. I recall talking about the London ambulance service from 4 am until 5.30 am, and in the end an ambulance came and took us all away out of sheer exhaustion.
I want to raise an absolutely crucial issue concerning the health service in my constituency. In the past few months, there has been enormous discussion and debate about the configuration of health services in north London. Something called the north central London health service configuration—a conglomeration of the primary care trusts for the whole of north London—concocted a substantial report, a vintage photocopied version of which I have here, which made several proposals, including the closure of the accident and emergency department at my local hospital, the Whittington, with an implied and very obvious threat to A and E departments elsewhere.
That provoked consternation locally, as it would anywhere else, as well as an interesting public discussion and debate about the nature of the national health service, issues of poverty and need, and the value of a local hospital in addressing those issues. All Members will be familiar with such discussions. Several public meetings were held. For the first one I called, I was reluctant to get a large room because I was not sure how many people would turn up. However, 350 people turned up to ask questions, and even more came to another meeting that was held a short time later. A feeling of democratic deficit within the NHS was very obvious throughout all those discussions. We then organised a local march along the Holloway road in defence of Whittington hospital, which 5,000 people attended.
As a result, the leaderships of the three main political parties started to vie with each other to support the demands to keep the local hospital. During the general election campaign, we had one of those strange moments that occurs at such times when the Defend the Whittington Hospital Coalition called a demonstration outside the hospital and were overwhelmed with speakers, including Labour candidates such as me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and a number of Liberal Democrat candidates. The future Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), turned up and was immediately given a place on the platform alongside this strange conglomeration of people. All of us, including the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, now the Secretary of State for Health, pledged to do everything we could to save Whittington A and E department, and thus the hospital with it. I was not aware of this, but apparently he toured the whole country making such pledges and promises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) said.
We are now concerned about what is going to be the future of health services in north London and the Islington area. Although Islington has an urban chic, cappuccino society image, with rather strange restaurants on Upper street where various arrangements were made between previous Labour leaders, in reality it is a borough of huge disparities in wealth and poverty. All the health indices—I have with me an excellent publication by the local primary care trust and the council, the health profile for Islington for 2010—indicate that there are high levels of health deficiency, obesity, cancer, heart conditions and a number of other problems. Interestingly, that publication also shows that the health condition of the borough has improved considerably over the past 10 years. Life expectancy has increased, infant mortality has declined, and all health indices have improved considerably, although they are still below the regional and national average.
I was very pleased that Islington council and the NHS produced an excellent document entitled “Closing the Gap—Tackling Health Inequalities in Islington”, a copy of which I have with me. It indicates that one of the major problems is the lack of affordable housing and emphasises the need for people not to grow up in overcrowded accommodation that damages their health.
The reason I mention all that is that, with some concern, I recently received a letter from the apparently soon to be redundant primary care trust, stating that there was to be a stocktake of stakeholders’ views on the future configuration of the health service in my borough. It provoked an immediate response from the Defend the Whittington Hospital Coalition, which stated:
“We note that in this letter you”—
the director of North Central London strategic health authority—
“give notice of a meeting to discuss with GPs from across North Central London commissioners the results of the stocktake on 15th July”.
It asked for an immediate reply. In the reply, the health authority wrote:
“This local stock take will help inform how we involve people in the review which will not start before September.”
The authority’s letter then immediately goes into a long paragraph about the need to be aware of the health White Paper, and concludes that the previous review has been halted, that the stocktake is reviewing the process undertaken, and that there will be a discussion with GPs in anticipation of their new role. It is time to stop messing with the NHS, return it to local democratic accountability and save the Whittington hospital.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and the hon. Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Hyndburn’s constituency adjoins mine, and in what I hope will be an afternoon of agreement I agree with him that the industrial revolution started in east Lancashire. In fact, I will refer to that later in my speech.
I believe that it is the duty of every Member of this House, whatever their political persuasion, to try to reduce poverty and inequality wherever they find it. That is why I am determined that vital community resources in deprived areas of my constituency should not fall victim to the enormous public debt and recession that we inherited from the previous Government.
Community centres in Darwen were recently threatened by Blackburn with Darwen council as it began tightening its belt to deal with our deficit problems. The people of Darwen have always been radical and innovative, and they did not take that lying down. They will not let Sudellside community centre close, and they are looking at community ownership. When the issue was raised, some people in the area were sceptical. I was not. It is patronising, and simply not true, to suggest that passion for community ownership cannot be found in deprived areas. The big society is an idea not for middle-class do-gooders but for all of us. Sudellside community centre is vital to the community in which it is situated, and I will do all I can to ensure a bright and vibrant future for it.
Rossendale and Darwen is a very special part of the world. Not only is it picturesque, but it was the cradle of the industrial revolution. Its innovation continues today through its manufacturing prowess on both the national and international stage. As its Member of Parliament, I am focused on the future prosperity of my area and believe that if that is to be achieved we must address urgently the issue of building new infrastructure to support business and create new jobs.
Manchester is the economic capital of the north-west—I was brought up in Liverpool, which makes that very difficult to say, but it is unfortunately none the less true—and Rossendale must look to Manchester for its future prosperity. If the valley is to prosper, we must improve our transport links. That is why we must urgently proceed with the rail link from Rossendale to Manchester. The proposed scheme would mean a commuter train running on east Lancashire heritage railway—an example of commercial and conservation rail running on the same track.
The link would be of enormous benefit to Greater Manchester and provide easy access to Rossendale’s highly skilled work force. Rossendale’s manufacturing base and our spectacular open spaces would also be made accessible to all. Housing is inexpensive in my constituency, and a rail link would provide high-quality, affordable homes to BBC workers who move to the new media city in Salford. I am sure that they would flee the urban humdrum of London and Manchester.
In addition to improving transport links, the railway would drive regeneration of our town centres. For too long, shoppers in Rawtenstall have had to suffer the sight of the Valley centre at the bottom of Bank street. That festering sore on an otherwise attractive shopping street must be redeveloped, and I applaud the local Conservative council’s action to proceed with a compulsory purchase order of the site. I hope over the next few months that I can assist in creating a vibrant and historically sensitive new plan for that area. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity completely to redevelop a large portion of Rawtenstall town centre, and it must not be squandered.
The case for the rail link is compelling, and linked to the wider redevelopment of the Rossendale valley. I therefore hope that the Government look favourably on future efforts to secure funding for those schemes.
The town of Darwen on the other side of my constituency is undergoing a renaissance with the redevelopment of the town hall, Holker House, and the continuing success of Darwen market. I hope that the town continues to thrive. We have a superb new leisure centre, and in September our new academy school will open. I pay tribute to the contribution that teachers and other education professionals make to our society and to every young person in the country. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing the pupils and staff of the Rod Aldridge academy good luck in their new school building in September.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice). They say that all good things are worth waiting for, which is certainly true on the occasion of their maiden speeches.
I have been amazed in the past two months by the efforts of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to mislead the public by saying that there is no alternative to the vandalism that they are inflicting on public services in Bolton West and throughout the country, and by the fact that they seem not to know that there is a global recession or that if Britain and the rest of the world had taken no action, we would now be in a global depression. Had they been in government, would they have taken no action? Would they have let the banks collapse, taking with them our savings, mortgages, pensions and businesses? Would they have allowed twice as many houses to be repossessed and twice as many people to be unemployed?
I was shocked that no Education Ministers would meet the pupils of Westhoughton high school to explain why they are not getting a new school when they visited the Palace a fortnight ago. I was also shocked that they cancelled the Building Schools for the Future projects in both Bolton and Wigan, even though those authorities had reached financial close, even though the money was in the budget to pay for them, and even though BSF would provide much-needed jobs and apprenticeships.
Government is about choices. This Government are making the choice to pay back the deficit by cutting vital services to the most vulnerable in society. They are also choosing to pay back the deficit quickly, and to privatise health and education, but those are not the only choices, and they are not the choices that Labour would have made.
With that in mind, will the Government tell me and my constituents whether the electrification of the Manchester to Preston railway line will go ahead? It was announced last year and would mean more trains, fewer emissions, cheaper running costs and better journey times. As part of the electrification, we would get new-to-us trains. Currently, passengers on our services play sardines every morning and evening. People are often left on the platform because nobody else can squeeze into the carriages. In fact, the engineers for Northern Rail should get medals. I do not know how they keep some of those trains running. Whether or not electrification happens, will we get new rolling stock? Good public transport is vital to economic growth, but the bottleneck in the rail network in Manchester is a hindrance to growth. Will we get the northern hub, so that there are more trains to and through Manchester?
As part of national pubs week, I visited the Red Lion pub in Westhoughton in my constituency to talk about the problems that the licence trade faces. This is a well run pub which is rooted in the community and used by a whole variety of groups, but I left fearful about its future. Of course the licensees mentioned the smoking ban, but their biggest concern was their inability to compete with the large chain pubs because of the brewery tie and other related costs. They told me about the extortionate costs of Sky and about the cost of business rates, compounded by having to pay council tax for their accommodation in the pub—paying twice for the same services, an issue that affects all business people who live over the shop. They told me about the cost of heat and light and their fears for increases in VAT. They told me about the cost of their performing rights licence—they have even had to remove the jukebox because they could not afford a full licence.
Six pubs close every day. The last Government were committed to introducing a “guest beer right” for tied tenants, which would allow them the freedom to make a fair profit. Will the current Government go ahead with those plans? The Government have pledged to introduce a community right-to-buy scheme so that communities can take over their local pub, but will they provide the £3.3 million funding that was committed by the last Government? Will they close the loophole in the planning law that allows pubs to be demolished or changed into shops or restaurants without the need to seek planning permission? Will they also look at other costs associated with running a pub to see if any other help can be given?
I have also had a meeting with one of my constituents, Komal Adris, a British citizen, who recently went on holiday to Israel and the west bank. At passport control in Tel Aviv, Komal was asked what her father’s name was. When she answered “Mohammed”, she was taken out of the queue and into a separate room for questioning. She was told that this was routine procedure, but she was the only person from the whole flight who was taken aside. She was also the only person with a brown face. She was kept from 8 pm to 7 am with a number of different Israeli officials interrogating her. No one would tell her how long she would be held or why she was being kept. She was asked why she was visiting Israel and Palestine and she explained where she was intending to go.
As the night went on, the questioning became more aggressive. In the early hours Komal was given a Government document to sign that would have allowed her to enter Israel, but prevented her from entering Palestinian territories. She was told that if she attempted to visit any Palestinian town or city she would be arrested and put in prison, even if it was just a visit to Bethlehem. She refused to sign, as she did on the two further occasions she was asked. This document appears to have no legal basis and the Israelis should not prevent movement to and through the Palestinian territories.
At 6 am, Komal was told that she had been refused entry and would be sent back to the UK. The reason she was given was “security”. She asked if the officers were saying that she was a security threat and they said, “No, of course we aren’t implying that you are a terror threat.” But if security was the real reason, why would they have let her into Israel? She was then taken away for searching. All her bags and personal belongings were thoroughly searched and she was strip searched. At about 7 am, she was taken away from the airport and put in a prison cell. She had no access to her belongings or her phone so she could not tell her family or friends what had happened to her. She was kept in a cell until 8.30 pm, having been held for more than 24 hours, unable to communicate with anyone and given just one cold packed meal. This was a frightening, disturbing and degrading episode for a young Muslim woman.
Komal could have signed the document and been allowed into Israel, so security cannot have been the real concern. Does this therefore mean that the Gaza blockade has now been extended to the west bank? Please can the Government tell me what action they have taken to uphold the freedom of travel for British citizens and to ensure that the Israeli authorities are not discriminating against British citizens on the grounds of their ethnicity or religious beliefs? Can they tell me how many British citizens have been denied entry to the west bank, and can they investigate why my constituent was treated in this discriminatory and degrading fashion?
Finally, as hon. Members may know, I have spent most of my life as a youth and community worker, and I am worried about what is happening to youth work now that the cuts are starting to bite. Youth and community work goes to the core of the big society, but groups are already concerned that they will not be able to survive. Do the Government not realise the importance of the area-based grant and regional bodies, such as the regional development agencies and the Government office for the north-west, to the voluntary and community sector? Without the support of funding streams to support and attract funding, groups will not survive. As in the ’80s and ’90s, we run the risk of both local authority and voluntary sector youth projects closing—young people with nowhere to go and nothing to do. How can the local authorities and youth services fulfil their obligation that 25% of young people have contact with youth workers, and 25% of those achieve accredited outcomes? I am scared for the future in Bolton West, and I hope that I will get reassurance that the future is not as bleak as I fear.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on their maiden speeches. In particular, I appreciated the opportunity to recollect the role in the House of a previous Member for Livingston—a friend, at the time, of the current Member—who gave such a wonderful example to new Members of the importance of being independently minded, through his principled opposition to the Iraq war.
I wrote to Mr Speaker to let him know of my interest in taking part in this debate, because I wanted to speak about the situation affecting the railways in my constituency. However, I hope that I will be forgiven for first following up on a matter I have raised several times in the House since I arrived relating to the exploitation of the energy in our rivers, particularly the River Avon at Avoncliff in my constituency. I wish to do so because it is becoming a formative part of my initial understanding of the role and privileges—or otherwise—of hon. Members. I was approached by constituents who have done a remarkable job of renovating a derelict mill on the side of the river, and who were keen to establish a renewable energy project—a hydro scheme—on the river, which is something that the country needs us to do more often.
In September last year, my constituents made an application for a river abstraction licence from the Environment Agency, and by the end of March this year, they had been provided with a draft agreement from the agency indicating the terms under which they might be successful in receiving such a licence. Strangely, they then heard nothing for quite a period, and so came to me at one of my surgeries. It seemed necessary to get the agency to give them some clarity on the future prospects for this application, because the delay was blighting the development, so I wrote to the agency on behalf of my constituents. I also started to make inquiries in this place, not specifically into that case, but into the nature of the policy relating to the role of the agency. After all, why should we need abstraction licences for renewable energy projects that only momentarily use the water as it passes through the devices that generate the energy from the river?
I had only just begun to make inquiries when my constituents made further approaches to the agency about their application. I learned at my surgery this weekend that the applicant had mentioned to the staff at the agency that, because of the problems that the delays were causing them, they had enlisted the support of their Member of Parliament. To my shock, it was alleged by the applicant when he met me this weekend that he had received a response from that public servant to the effect that he was being told: “Yes, and I can assure you that if there are any more speeches in Parliament about this situation, your application will go to the back of the queue.” That is quite a serious matter, as I am sure you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, and one that has caused me great concern.
Hon. Members might feel that going to the back of the queue is not the most serious of consequences, given that we all have to develop some patience when seeking permissions from regulatory authorities. However, what is alleged to have been said is relevant in this case, because I received a reply to my letter to the Environment Agency dated 29 June in which I was told that the agency had failed to reach a determination on the application. However, a letter dated the very next day was sent to the applicants advising them that their application had been unsuccessful—something that I find hard to believe those replying to my original letter would not have been aware was in the pipeline.
A delay to my constituents’ application is significant, because the reason given for the refusal was that another application, on the other side of the river, had already been granted permission ahead of theirs, yet that application had not been granted when my constituents first approached me. Indeed, that other application was not officially submitted with the agency before my constituents submitted their application; rather, conversations with the agency had, as they were told, merely begun. It is therefore with great concern that I hear of allegations that an assessment of my constituents’ application was delayed because of the interest that I have taken in their case and because of the questions—essentially policy questions—that I have raised in the House.
I would therefore be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House, who has answered one of those questions—in fact, the question that I asked of him was the most ably answered of those on the subject that I have asked in the House so far—would raise the matter with his ministerial colleagues, because I have grave reservations about what has been happening in this instance.
I originally wanted to speak in this debate on the subject of railways, and as time is short, I will focus on one particular aspect of rail services in my constituency. At the start of the current franchise, which is operated by First Great Western, the new franchise agreement withdrew the requirement to provide a number of services on the line between Chippenham and Trowbridge in my constituency which called at Melksham. Those were the only services calling at that station. As a result, a popular and well used service has been reduced to one that now does only two round trips a day—round trips that are 12 hours apart and therefore of much less value to my constituents. Great efforts have continued to be made throughout to restore that service. I am looking forward to a meeting with First Great Western next week, at the start of the recess, at which I might pursue that pressing issue. Melksham is the fifth largest settlement in Wiltshire, yet it currently has a minimal train service.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the campaign for improved services at Melksham station which has been run by the now chair of the local chamber of commerce, Mr Graham Ellis, and to all those in the “Save the train” campaign and those who continue to pursue the matter through the Wiltshire community rail partnership. There is some light at the end of the tunnel, in that there is another operator that would like to run services on the line. I would therefore be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House could raise with colleagues in the Department for Transport the need to be open and flexible about open access agreements, so that in these more straitened times we might make better use of the track that we actually have. I hope that, in the spirit of the big society, the Go! co-operative, which is looking to embark on an open access agreement, might be given every opportunity to improve the services available to my constituents.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on their maiden speeches. Good things are indeed worth waiting for.
I would like to raise an issue that is important to many of my constituents and that has been highlighted by two announcements this week—namely, employment in the Wigan borough. The first announcement was made by the hard-pressed Wigan council, which confirmed that more than 800 jobs were at risk due to the huge scale of the coalition’s proposed cuts of more than £55 million in Wigan.
The second blow to my constituents in Makerfield was the loss of 100 jobs and the possible closure of the Ingersoll Rand factory in Hindley Green. Time and again, I have heard Members on the coalition Front Bench state that public sector job losses will be mitigated by the growth of the private sector. Well, in my constituency, there appears to be a contraction of both sectors, and that is a blow that my constituents can ill afford.
Since last summer, the fall in unemployment in Wigan has been nearly 8%, due in part to the policies of the previous Labour Government and Wigan council of investing in businesses via the working neighbourhood fund, and investing in our young people, with more than 200 young people employed in the future jobs fund programme last year. They gained valuable skills and supported organisations such as Age Concern and the Wigan borough veterans council. Some of those young people, despite subsequently gaining paid work, have continued to volunteer with their placement organisations —the big society in action!
All this has been taken away by this Government, with no regard to the success of the scheme in my borough. The local authority intensive support start-up service, funded by the working neighbourhood fund and the Northwest Regional Development Agency, has been creating an average of one new business every day since the start of 2010. However, the axing of the RDA and the slashing of the working neighbourhood fund budget will leave the future growth of new businesses gravely in doubt in my constituency.
The coalfield communities regeneration programme has also supported new businesses in my area. Will the Minister commit to continuing to fund that vital programme, which supports the business and voluntary sectors in Makerfield? What support will he give to ensure that this and other funding streams continue to nurture new businesses in my constituency?
Another blow to the Wigan borough was the loss of our new schools under the Building Schools for the Future programme. That announcement was all the more devastating as Wigan council had received a letter from the Minister only the day before the cuts were announced, stating that where a local educational partnership had reached financial closure, as ours had, the schemes were to be allowed to proceed. Not only were the hopes of our young people, parents and teaching staff cruelly dashed, but many people—including many young people who believed that they could gain apprenticeships in the construction industry, building local schools—now have no hope of work.
I ask the Secretary of State for Education to look again at that decision, and to come to Wigan and speak to the parents, teachers and pupils there, particularly those in Hindley, the area already devastated by the job losses at Ingersoll Rand. In a visit to my local authority, he would see at first hand the impact of his decision on pupils and teachers seeking to achieve excellence in a building that is no longer fit for purpose, where teachers have to stick the tiles back on the walls before commencing lessons.
Another organisation employing many of my constituents who are living with daily uncertainty over their future is the Tote, which has its headquarters in the borough and employs some 600 people. I note early-day motion 578, tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and I ask the Minister to commit to retaining the Tote’s headquarters in Wigan. This would protect the employment of its staff and the acknowledged expertise and professionalism that they possess.
Some of my constituents travel out of the Wigan borough to work, and I must mention the overcrowding on the trains to Liverpool and Manchester. The Greater Manchester chamber of commerce has rightly pointed out the significance of the rail network to the future economic success of the Greater Manchester area. I would welcome an indication from the Minister that investment in the northern hub, in electrification and in the commissioning of rolling stock to ease overcrowding will be forthcoming.
This Government seem determined to silence all the voices that speak for our region. They have already axed the regional development agency and abolished the Government office for the north-west. However, as one of my new Labour party members said, we have seen both parties in this coalition Government go through the Lobby and vote for measures that will disadvantage the poor and vulnerable, including introducing selective education and increasing VAT. They are standing up to be counted, and it is time for us to do the same.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Over the last three years during which I was a parliamentary candidate, building up to the last general election, many people in Montgomeryshire asked me what specific issue I would get involved in if I became an MP. I nearly always told them that the issue of particular interest to me was the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales, of which I had been a member for eight years, and this Parliament in Westminster. That relationship is indeed the subject that I would like to speak about today. I know that not everyone in the Chamber will share my obsession with the detail of devolution and the transfer of powers to Wales, so let me provide a little context before I raise three specific aspects of the issue.
The National Assembly for Wales was established in 1999 on the basis of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which followed a referendum of the people of Wales in 1997. The 1998 Act did not grant to the National Assembly for Wales any primary law-making powers; it had to depend on secondary law-making powers. That was the position until a new Government of Wales Act 2006 was passed, under which primary law-making powers were indeed granted to the National Assembly for Wales, albeit by means of what at least some of us thought was a very complex and bureaucratic system. I do not think that it has been successful.
What has transpired is that in the first quarter of next year there will be a very significant referendum for the people of Wales, in which they will be asked to vote on whether they want to move to part 4 of the 2006 Act. That would enable the primary law-making powers in all the devolved policy areas to be transferred to the Assembly. The essential difference between the position now and the position after a yes in the referendum is that all the primary powers in devolved policy areas would be transferred all in one go rather than bit by bit through the complex process I mentioned, which is what obtains at the moment.
As I said, I wish to touch briefly on three particular aspects of the relationship between this House and the National Assembly for Wales. The first is the date on which the referendum should be held. I have always taken a very strong view on that. It is not that I worry particularly about when the date should be. The National Assembly Government believe that the date should be on or before the next Assembly election on 5 May. I do not mind about that. What is hugely important to us here is that this should be recognised as the general election for the National Assembly for Wales—the Welsh general election—and another important constitutional issue should not be decided on the same day. There is an issue in this House relating to that. As to whether the law-making referendum should be on the same date as the Welsh general election, I have taken the view for two or three years that it should not be. I have expressed the same view in saying that the alternative vote referendum should not be held on the same date as the general election.
The second important issue revolves around the powers. Currently, devolved powers are set out in a schedule. Before the referendum on 5 May takes place, the range of powers to be included in schedule 7 will be a matter of debate, and it is possible that several other powers beyond the currently devolved powers will be included. As yet, the debate has not really started, but it is time that it was, as this is a hugely important matter. We need to be aware of exactly what powers will be devolved well before the referendum takes place.
The third issue is also important, in my view. When a power is devolved from this place to the National Assembly for Wales, it is not the end of this place’s involvement. In my constituency, a number of devolved matters depend hugely on the wish on the English side of the border to ensure that they are dealt with properly. Let me give a couple of examples.
A few weeks ago, a little girl collapsed at her school, Llangedwyn primary school, near the English border. The situation was serious, and an ambulance was called. There was an ambulance station no more than 3 or 4 miles away, just over the border in England, but the ambulance was called not from that station but from a station perhaps 25 or 30 miles away. That young child’s life was put in danger by the bureaucratic difficulties involved in efficient management of the relationship between the two sides of the border, and, unless we are very careful, similar cases will occur simply as a result of the devolutionary process.
The second example relates to the connection between my constituency and the midlands. Road improvement—I am thinking specifically of the A458, but it is the principle that matters—is crucial to the economy of mid-Wales and to my constituency. An improvement programme costing about £30 million could have gone ahead, but at least 90% of the work would have been done in Wales. The Government of Wales were hugely committed to the programme, but about 5% of it involved England. As no economic benefit would flow to England from the development, it was not seen as a priority there, and it has not gone ahead. If a strategic view had been taken of the benefit to the United Kingdom it probably would have gone ahead, but because of the relationship that exists between the two sides of the border as the devolutionary process settles in, it dropped down the list of priorities.
The devolutionary process is continuing and will continue, whether or not there is a yes vote in the referendum. We in the Chamber must make certain that when an issue is devolved, we retain our interest and do our best to ensure that services to our constituents in Wales are not disadvantaged by the fact that there are two Governments on the two sides of the border, following different policies.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I congratulate the three maiden speakers, the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones). However, I should point out to the hon. Member for Witham that when Napoleon said that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers, he did not mean it strictly as a compliment.
I was very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned Robin Cook. I remember, when I was in this place before, hearing Robin Cook’s speech when he resigned from the Government. He held the House of Commons in the palm of his hand. I have rarely seen someone make such a powerful speech. Shortly after that, 139 Labour MPs went into the Opposition Lobby and voted against the Iraq war. The suggestion that we are now hearing from the Liberal Democrats that theirs was the only party that opposed the war as a matter of principle is absolutely untrue.
As a matter of fact, I remember occasions on which we went into that Lobby—maybe 30 or 40 of us from the Benches on the Government side of the House—and the Liberal Democrats stayed here, sitting on their hands, because at that point it was not entirely clear in which direction public opinion was going. Only when public opinion was clearly swinging against the war did the Liberal Democrats decide to vote with us in the Opposition Lobby.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Wrong way round.
John Cryer
No, it is not. That is the right way round.
It is five years since I took part in a pre-recess Adjournment debate. Such debates have become something of an institution. It is a sort of whingeing gits day, enabling us to get a few things off our chests. I am pleased to note that a number of speeches, particularly from Members on the Government Benches, have followed that tradition.
I want to begin by raising an issue which I hope concerns us all, namely unemployment. You might be right-wing, you might may be left-wing, you might be a Liberal—you would be a prat, but you might be a Liberal—but I hope that the issue of joblessness concerns Members on both sides of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman as I know he is getting into his stride now, but if he could pay attention to some of his language that would be helpful.
John Cryer
I apologise, and I withdraw that comment and will find another way of making my point at another time.
Returning to the subject of unemployment, we have been told by a number of Ministers, and especially the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, that people should be prepared to travel around the country. That goes back to the time of “uncle Norman” telling all of us—and I was one of them—to travel around the country in search of work.
I want to draw attention to a specific example. A constituent of mine lost his job some time ago. He was on jobseeker’s allowance for six months, and the local jobcentre in Leytonstone in my constituency was very helpful and provided the resources to allow him to travel to interviews around the country. He therefore found a job at the other end of country, in the north—following the advice of the Secretary of State and other Ministers—but he then found himself in difficulty, because he had to try to find resources for a deposit for accommodation and also living costs for the period between starting work and receiving his first pay packet. He was offered three alternatives. First, there was a crisis loan, but that can only be used for very narrow purposes so it was not available. Secondly, there was the advance to wages scheme, but that would only provide £50, which was not enough. Thirdly, there was the adviser discretion fund. That could have provided £300. The problem, however, is that that has now been cut to £100. Therefore, in circumstances of fairly widespread unemployment and possibly rising deprivation when we have been told that our constituents must travel around the country in search of work, the Government have cut the adviser discretion fund, thus making it more difficult for them to travel around the country—or any distance—in search of work.
The second subject I want to draw attention to is the vexed issue of the Building Schools for the Future programme. I have lost all seven BSF projects in my constituency. Seven schools were going to benefit from BSF projects, but all of them have now been cancelled. I think we all know why the Library keeps receiving inaccurate lists of cancelled projects. When the Tories and Liberals came into government they found that a number of contracts were about to be let so they thought, “We’d better cancel them quickly—put the boot in—to make sure that loads of these potential projects get cancelled.” They therefore rushed the list through in an inaccurate form because they did not do the background work—they did not allow the Department to do the research. As a result, we have inaccurate lists placed in the Library and then we get officials scurrying around again trying to revise them and put new lists in the Library.
Sadly, however, in my case it looks as if the list is accurate. I wish it was not. Some of the schools that would have benefited from a BSF project are literally crumbling. Teachers, pupils, governors, the heads and the support staff and others in these schools have been struggling for years under very difficult circumstances. Nobody would argue that we get brilliant teaching if we have great buildings, but the reality is that if teachers are teaching in a crumbling school that inevitably affects the quality of their pupils’ education. BSF provided the light at the end of the tunnel, and that light has now been extinguished.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and I both represent constituencies that fall within the boundaries of the Waltham Forest borough, and since the BSF announcement was made we have been requesting a meeting almost on a daily basis, but the Secretary of State for Education has not yet managed to get back to us to say we can have a meeting about an issue that goes to the very core of why we are Members of Parliament.
I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to consider having a quiet word with the Secretary of State and recommending that he pulls his finger out. I am sorry I made those slighting comments because I have just realised that the Deputy Leader of the House is a Liberal so I did not do myself any good, and I do not regret what I said. Perhaps he could have a quick word with the Secretary of State for Education, telling him to pull his finger out and meet my hon. Friend and I and the leader of the council as soon as possible.
My final subject, which I want to touch on very briefly, follows on from comments made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) about the referendum on the voting system. We are in a surreal situation. The only one of the three major parties that went into the election with a commitment to a referendum on the alternative vote versus the first-past-the-post system was the Labour party. Personally, I am a supporter of first past the post. I thought it was absolute nonsense sticking that in our manifesto—but then, I did not write it. The two parties that are now in government went into the election, when in opposition, without any commitment to a referendum on AV or first past the post; yet now they are in government, they propose to have one.
This will not sort out the issue for Liberal MPs, because what they want is proportional representation. Of course, the Deputy Prime Minister would love that, because if we had PR he could go into meetings in back-rooms, ditch all sorts of commitments he has just fought the election on—such as on the replacement of Trident—and go back to the voters and say, “I did stand on all those commitments but sadly I’ve had to dump them all because I’ve done a deal with the Tories.” He would love such a system, and if we ever have that kind of future in British politics, that really will be a menace.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
May I add my congratulations to the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), on their maiden speeches? I was advised early on that one should wait some considerable time before making one’s maiden speech. I foolishly chose to ignore that advice, and today was a perfect example of why it was such good advice.
I want to take this opportunity to articulate the frustrations of many commuters in my constituency of Enfield North, who, frankly, have been ignored for years. I have campaigned for at least five years to try to improve the level of commuter services. The rail operator that serves the bulk of the constituency—National Express East Anglia—and its predecessor brand both failed to recognise something that they should know: that the conditions on the trains are frankly unacceptable, and that their frequency and reliability are generally poor. I even had a National Express manager tell me that, although it had rolling stock, it had chosen not to put the required additional stock on some of the Enfield North local lines because we were bottom of their list of priorities. That is no comfort to my constituents, who pay zone 6 fares.
We also suffer from generally ill-kept stations which could do with a deep clean. Staffing at stations is limited and often non-existent; late at night, of course, that does not encourage a feeling of safety and security. Sunday services are non-existent. Many loyal Tottenham Hotspur fans travel regularly to see their team—is that not suffering enough? [Interruption.] I will not be forgiven for that comment, but to add to that the indignity of an unreliable service on a Sunday, when engineering works are scheduled to coincide with important travel days, just does not make sense and reflects the attitude of neglect towards my constituents.
I do not want the House to take my word for it. The statistics show that Network SouthEast had the lowest satisfaction ratings of all the services in the south-east and London. That is not good enough, but what do some of my constituents say? With perfect timing, I received a letter from some constituents only yesterday. They say that
“our local trains seem unable to move, therefore leaving us stranded on platforms, and”—
when they finally get on to the train—
“having to travel like cattle in sweltering carriages.”
All that they request are more carriages and an increase in the number of timetabled trains, which is not unreasonable. They even ask—this shows how bad things are—for a
“replacement bus service to Tottenham Hale when the line is closed for work”.
How many of us groan when we are offered a replacement bus service? My constituents want one because they see it as an improvement—how shocking is that? As I have said, they have to pay the most in our area, which is in zone 6.
National Express’s reply was most illuminating, because after several paragraphs of basically saying, “No change”, it said, “Please go to our improvement plan on the website.” Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that that link, which I tried only this morning, does not work either. The frustration is all too evident. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) says from a sedentary position, it is much like the website of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
I wish to be constructive, because I am confident that my constituents will welcome the steps that were announced by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers). It is encouraging that we will ensure that new rail franchising systems will impose demanding performance requirements based on passenger outcomes and satisfaction. It is also good to know that if operators do not meet those requirements they could ultimately face the serious sanction of losing their franchises. We believe and welcome the idea that longer franchises will lead to greater investment and perhaps to greater improvement in services. That is vital.
I understand the role of the carrot and the stick, but I urge the Government, in the spirit of localism that I am keen to embrace, to consider one or two other opportunities. In particular, as we approach the round of new franchises, we have the chance to consider two important possibilities. First, should we consider allowing greater local control over train services operating in the London area? Secondly, and more importantly, should there be greater local input into the new franchise negotiations?
What could we gain from that? A locally accountable transport authority would know how vital transport is to the local economy and would understand the micro-issues affecting local commuters far better than a rail operator. Such bodies answer to voters and can respond more effectively. There is an incentive for them to have issues fixed, to ensure rail performance, to ease overcrowding, to address safety in unsafe stations and to put those issues up the agenda. Significantly, they would also be ready to provide input into future negotiations. I am very keen that the experiences of my constituent commuters in the past five years should not be wasted. Instead, we could gain real intelligence about many of the shortcomings on the ground, which could then be considered when dealing with services. This issue is of great importance to people who spend two to three hours a day getting in and out of work.
Who could fulfil that task? Is there a role for Transport for London or the local authority? Should we give statutory weight to such a body? I put these ideas on the table because in areas such as health, education and housing, we are leading the way on greater devolvement locally and greater local involvement and decision making. However tempting it might be, I do not propose that local people should write the timetables or decide the level of rolling stock, but I do propose that the people of Enfield North and elsewhere should have the opportunity to have their local say on a matter of such great local importance.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on their excellent maiden speeches.
I want to talk about an issue of particular interest to me: public health policy and the action that the Government can take to promote health and well-being. First, though, I want to wish my constituent Hilda Barwell a happy birthday and to mention National Eisteddfod, Wales’s greatest language, arts and cultural event, which is coming to Blaenau Gwent this week. Hilda Barwell has been a terrific example for all good Labour members in Blaenau Gwent. When she was 16, one of her first actions as a trade unionist was to lead a strike to improve working conditions in the Berlei factory in Ebbw Vale. There was no heating in the factory and mice were running across the feet of her fellow workers—it was a bit like the Tea Room in this place. Hilda has been a terrific campaigner over the years and, even now, she runs the Blaenau Gwent centre for the disabled. She is always putting others first, so a belated happy birthday to Hilda.
As I said, the National Eisteddfod is coming to Blaenau Gwent next week. Many share my belief that arts and culture can play their part in helping community regeneration. I hope that the Eisteddfod will be an important opportunity to help to renew our valleys and towns and to build a better Blaenau Gwent. I particularly want to highlight the fact that Susan Robeson will be visiting the Eisteddfod to show a documentary about her grandfather Paul Robeson, the great singer and human rights activist. He famously visited the Eisteddfod in Ebbw Vale in 1958 as a guest of Nye Bevan, the then local MP. Nye’s invitation followed on from the successful campaign to let Paul Robeson finally travel abroad, which he had been banned from doing by the American authorities because of his radical views on civil rights. It is good, more than 50 years later, that we are able to celebrate the historic occasion of those great men working together
Despite its shortcomings and omissions, I am proud of Labour’s record on public health, especially with regard to tackling smoking in public places. However, I am dismayed by the coalition Government’s recent abdication of their responsibilities on public health. It is well documented that alcohol abuse can cause physical and mental health problems, and we have all witnessed the antisocial behaviour that alcohol can fuel. Of course, the reasons for alcohol abuse are complex, and social drinking is an established part of our national culture, but we can take action.
Only a few weeks ago, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence set out proposals to curb excessive drinking. However, its recommendations of a ban on alcohol advertising and a minimum price for a unit of alcohol have proved controversial. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Health has already ruled out minimum pricing, and instead we are told that the Government will
“report back in the autumn on the scope for targeting alcohol duty at the products most associated with binge drinking and under-age consumption.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 178.]
The Secretary of State says that he is worried that minimum pricing disproportionately affects the poor, but so do public spending cuts and increasing VAT, and that has not stopped the Government, so I doubt that that is his main reason. Indeed, we do not know whether that is true. Academics argue that the better-off spend far more on alcohol than the poor. Logic leads us to believe that young people have the least to spend on alcohol, so raising the price might mean that they consume less. Surely that would be a worthy public health outcome. The fact that Tesco has come out in favour of a minimum price is a helpful start. I would like a sensible discussion about minimum pricing, because I believe that it would gain the support of the majority of the public.
The Labour Government gained such public support over time for their ban on smoking in public places and then, with the universal support of the medical profession and health campaigners, they legislated to remove cigarettes from public display and to ban cigarette vending machines from pubs. However, the introduction of those public health initiatives has stalled. Again, the Government are reviewing the matter,
“given the challenges facing business competition and costs.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 891W.]
Labour prefers to tackle the challenges of smoking-related deaths and illness, and their devastating human cost and costs to the national health service. As Action on Smoking and Health has said:
“After all the election promises about public health, surely the coalition can make a better start than by caving in to the tobacco lobby”.
Of course, the coalition Government have given in not just to the tobacco industry, because the food industry’s advances have also been successful. The industry lobby has stopped the introduction of the consumer-friendly traffic light warnings for food, and instead we are to have guideline daily amounts. Linked to that, the Government are to weaken the Food Standards Agency. The agency will lose its role to promote healthy eating, which was described by a Government adviser on food policy, Professor Tim Lang of City university, as a “retrograde step”.
The Secretary of State for Health has also attacked initiatives to improve school meals. He says that he wants to avoid confrontation, which he claims was the hallmark of the Labour Government, but I do not believe that Labour’s promotion of healthy school meals was confrontational. Jamie Oliver’s promotion of good school dinners was hardly a public health blitzkrieg; rather, it raised awareness of an important public health issue.
However, we must confront stark health inequalities. In Blaenau Gwent, average male life expectancy is just over 78. Just 10 miles down the heads of the valleys road in Usk, it is 85. That cannot be right. Good employment is crucial for improved public health, but we must also address the key issues of diet, smoking and alcohol. Healthy living must be promoted by a real progressive Government. Where is the Lib Dems’ voice in this vital debate? Why have they not championed the consumer rather than the producer? In public health, why have they not intervened with their political partners to give our children and young people protection from less healthy food, from tobacco manufactures trying to recruit new smokers, and from low-price alcohol and the binge drinking that it sustains? When one man’s regulation can be another man’s vital public health protection, their coalition, laissez-faire agenda is already going too far. When the Lib Dems meet at their conference in the recess, perhaps they will look again at their public health policy, and strengthen, not weaken, these commitments. The public health agenda is too important to all our young people for the Lib Dems to be complete poodles and accept this laissez-faire lead from their majority party partners.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
If I may take a leaf out of the introduction to the speech by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), I would like to wish happy birthday to everyone in Portsmouth South who has a birthday today. That covers that one. I cannot name individuals. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) also has a birthday today. Happy birthday to the hon. Member. I am sure that the whole House is delighted about that, and we will all be round his house tonight for drinks. I would also like to congratulate all those who made their maiden speeches today. It is always a formidable task, but it feels so good once it is over. I am sure that they all feel a lot better for that experience being done and dusted.
When the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) was on the Government Benches in his first incarnation in the House of Commons, he called most of the then Government prats—[Interruption.] I think that he did, and I hate to think what other names he called them, on more than one occasion, when I was sitting where he is sitting now. I can only suggest that his change of tack, and his direction of attack, is because he seeks a job in a reformed shadow Cabinet, so we will look with interest at how he develops.
I want to raise five points. The first point concerns the huge problem faced by my local authority, among others—once again, I declare an interest as I am still a member of Portsmouth city council—whereby more than 3,300 properties are occupied by students, none of whom pay council tax because they are exempt, and those who own the properties, who are running them as very successful businesses, do not pay business rates on them. That means that our city is deprived of a council tax take of nearly £3.5 million a year. Nevertheless, we have to provide all the services: the fire services, the police—through the police precept—the rubbish collection and the street cleaning.
I therefore want the coalition to consider seriously the idea of charging business rates on those very successful businesses that make a huge amount of money out of student lettings. I do not want to see the cost passed on to students, because students are already paying extortionate rents for some of the rooms that they rent, where five students in a property pay upwards of £70 a week each for a room. A lot of money is being made by somebody. In some instances, very small houses are turning over £50,000-odd a year, and no tax is being paid to the local authorities—and that loss to local authorities is magnified throughout the country. There is something wrong somewhere, and I want the Government to tackle that issue.
I had the privilege of chairing a debate in Westminster Hall on changes in the benefit system, particularly changes in housing benefit. Those present for the debate might easily have been led to believe that it was only a London problem, but I assure London Members who took part in the debate that it is not. When large numbers of people claim housing benefit there is a consequence, and individuals on jobseeker’s allowance will not find it easy to cope with that.
Some people whom I represent are being told that if they do not get a job within 12 months they will lose 25% of their benefits, and I do not know how they will be expected to live with that, or even pay their rent. Landlords will not lower their rent. I would love to think that the policy was a method of forcing landlords to reduce their rent, but I cannot possibly see that happening, because in cities such as mine landlords will opt to house students, and people with children will again be queuing up at the local authority’s door claiming to be homeless. Where will the local authority put them? I do not know. In my city our housing waiting list is longer now than it was in the months after the end of the second world war, when one third of all housing had been bombed and 50% had been seriously damaged. We have a huge housing problem, so I want Ministers to take note very carefully, because it is not just a London problem. It affects all our constituencies, and I want us to take that seriously.
I, like other Members today, want to express my concerns about Building Schools for the Future and the disappointment factor. The programme involves 11 schools in my city and several in my constituency, one of which was only weeks away from having everything signed and sealed. If the statement had been made after the recess, the project would already have got the go-ahead. Work on the two schools most affected by the cut would probably have gone ahead and the Secretary of State would have had to include them, so I really want the upcoming review to send a positive message to the many disappointed parents, teachers, governors and, most of all, pupils throughout the country, stating that it will not only set the record straight on the fallacy of believing that all projects could be afforded, but give some hope to schools, such as those in my city, that have been swept aside in a rather cavalier way. I want some justice to prevail.
My next point is about the sad plight of something very dear to my heart—Portsmouth football club, and the shabby and awful way in which that club and, mainly, its supporters have been treated by the premiership. An organisation awash with money has allowed a great club, with a huge history of support from local residents over more than 100 years, to disintegrate. Next week in the courts, it will be trying to get Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs off its back so that it can at least hold on to its position in the championship, having been demoted from the premiership. I want some action to be taken. I know that Ministers will say, “It’s not our job,” but this is our national sport. It is Portsmouth today, but it could be many other clubs tomorrow. It seems that such action is okay when people are taking money out, but they do not want to put anything back in order to support the loyalty that fans have shown.
My final point is directed at my colleagues in the coalition. I was a big advocate of the coalition, becauseI did not think that anything else on offer was viable. I advocated it believing that we would introduce a fair way of dealing with the issues that we face—but I was not elected to see the poorest in our society suffer, and I want to put a big marker down to my colleagues in government by saying, “Please, please, please think seriously about the consequences of some of the things that the coalition is going to do over the coming months.” After the election and the forming of the coalition, many people out there believed that there was real hope on the horizon. I do not want that hope to end in despair. I want us to be fair to those who need our help most, and I hope that we will be.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Before the House adjourns, I wish to place on the record the problems and concerns of my constituents as a result of road congestion through the villages of Mottram and Hollingworth, and mention the ongoing saga of the proposed Mottram-to-Tintwistle bypass. [Interruption.] I can see that there is a lot of immediate interest in the subject.
If any hon. Members have ever driven between Sheffield and Manchester, they will probably have been delayed in my constituency. The journey from the end of the M67 in Hattersley to the junction with the M1 in south Yorkshire is a nightmare. The Woodhead pass is a convenient route across the country that avoids the M62, but its popularity has meant total misery for my constituents in Longdendale. I remind the House of my standing declared interest as an elected member of Tameside metropolitan borough council.
The latest figures given to me by the House of Commons Library tell me that, on average, 34,000 vehicles a day pass through the Mottram Moor A road in Hollingworth. That is an astonishing amount of traffic for small villages to cope with. It means that people cannot leave their houses, that the noise is unbearable and that the pollution levels are completely unacceptable, particularly in the playground of Hollingworth primary school, of which I am still a governor.
Many Secretaries of State for Transport have visited us and promised improvements; in fact, I believe that one made the journey, promised us that something would be done, but unfortunately was sacked on his journey back to London. That may explain the reluctance of more recent Secretaries of State for Transport to visit the area.
I am sure that hon. Members are wondering about the legislative history of the problem. The plans for a bypass in the area date back to the 1990s. They were extolled in the Conservative Government’s “Roads for Prosperity” White Paper in 1989, following a public consultation process. A preferred route was selected in October 1993, but work was suspended in 1996 following further Government reviews of the national road building programme.
In July 1998 the Labour Government published “A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England”, which also included the bypass. In November 2002 the Highways Agency submitted a report to the regional planning bodies, and the local communities affected by the congestion presented a petition with more than 9,000 signatures to Downing street a few months later. I was part of that local deputation. The preferred route for a bypass in the area was not without its opponents. The very tip of the new road would have entered the territory of the Peak District national park, whose representatives naturally raised concerns. However, many objections were also raised by people who had never visited the area and wrongly assumed that most of the new bypass would be in the park.
The public inquiry into the bypass opened on 26 June 2007. After several adjournments to consider the evidence submitted, the public inquiry was adjourned indefinitely in December 2008, following the submission of inaccurate data by the Highways Agency. I shall stand corrected if this is not the case, but I believe that it got the length of the Stocksbridge bypass wrong. That should be a concern, given that it is the Highways Agency. After further delays throughout 2008, the public inquiry was abandoned, as the cost of the scheme had gone up steadily in the intervening years and funding had been allocated elsewhere. I have to report that as a result, there is considerable bitterness in my constituency at the performance of the Highways Agency.
To move things forward, Tameside metropolitan borough council, my local authority, began working on a wider solution, which incorporated a smaller new road with other traffic restraining measures. The scheme currently has resources allocated to it from the regional funding allocation, but we await the comprehensive spending review to see whether they will still be there in October. Local campaigners have been very demoralised by the lack of progress. I pay tribute to Mike Flynn, Bob Haycock and David Moore for keeping the campaign going. They know that they will always have my support.
The problem is national, not local: the traffic congestion is not caused in my constituency or borough. The Government must recognise that the problem comes from outside our area, and allocate resources to find a solution. I am not prescriptive about what that should be, but I feel that some new road capacity in the area is essential if a solution is to be meaningful.
Some will say that any new road capacity increases pollution, as it makes a journey more favourable for other road users. For me, that misses the point; the important thing about pollution in any given area is the number of receptors of that pollution—who is breathing the pollution in. If there were an increase in traffic in the Longdendale valley as a whole, the receptors would be the vegetation along the side of the new bypass or similar road, and that would be far preferable to the current situation, in which the receptors are my constituents along Hyde road, Mottram Moor and Market street in Hollingworth, and the schoolchildren in Hollingworth primary school.
Other options have been suggested as a potential solution, including, most notably, a weight restriction on heavy goods vehicles using the Woodhead pass. I am open to any ideas that would provide a solution, but my concern with the weight restriction is that it would damage the local economy in Tameside, which seems unfair given that the problem comes from outside our area.
Whenever transport problems are raised, this question should always be asked: is a public transport solution available? In all honesty, when I look at the situation in Longdendale I cannot see how that can be the case. In addition, it cannot be denied that the coalition has given us a new ministerial team at the Department for Transport who, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as having little interest in the subject generally. If the rumours are true, in October my constituents could face not only the loss of the money allocated to deal with the specific congestion problem but the loss of the new rolling stock for the railway in Greater Manchester, the loss of bus services in the area through the slashing of the bus operators grant, and rail fare increases of RPI plus 10%. That would be a very dark day for transport in this country, and it would cause significant economic damage to constituencies such as mine.
My constituents face an unbearable situation that the Government need to recognise and help to address. To refuse to do so—I say this quite genuinely—will lead to civil disobedience in the area. The status quo is not an option. I therefore ask the Deputy Leader of the House to make efforts to arrange for me and other local representatives to meet people from the Department for Transport prior to a spending review announcement, to encourage the Department to announce which A roads it believes to be suffering from unacceptable levels of congestion and announce a strategy for dealing with them, and to ask a Minister from the Department for Transport to visit my constituency to see for themselves the intolerable situation that my constituents contend with on a daily basis.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
It has been a very interesting three months for a new Member of Parliament, watching with fascination the whole process of governance at this level. I have sat through and voted on very many Bills and pieces of legislation over the past few months. We have all been working hard across these Benches on our respective issues. I would like to outline what has been going on in my constituency in relation to the coalition policies that affect it, and how, in the past three months, things have been moving in a positive direction.
Sunderland Point in my constituency—to describe it as beautiful is an understatement—is a sliver of land that can be reached at low tide. Being in the area is like stepping back in time to the 1700s; it has never changed. Most of the buildings are grade II listed. The previous Government, in their wisdom, told the Environment Agency to take away the historical context of protecting the shoreline management, but I am happy to report that the area has had a partial reprieve because the Environment Agency has assisted with the inshore “Hold back the line” scheme to allow the tide to come in. That is well short of what I would like to see—world heritage status for Sunderland Point—but it is a step in the right direction. Once such areas are lost to the elements, we will never get them back. This does not only apply to my constituency—it could be said of areas all around the country.
Moving up the coast to Heysham, I have heard a few of the gibes in this House and seen the internet blogging that says, “David Morris glows in the dark because he is pro-nuclear.” The truth is, however, that the nuclear power station is the largest employer in Heysham, and I am unashamedly pro-nuclear. Some Members disagree with me, but I still find them absolutely delightful. That is what makes us great. This is our debating Chamber; it is why we are here. I would like to see a third project being built at the nuclear power station in Heysham, and I would like more nuclear power stations to be built all across the country. I am very concerned, like most Members, that the lights will go out in 10 years’ time. Although I posed a bit of an awkward question to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change this afternoon, I agreed with 95% of his statement. I disagree with him on the nuclear issue, but we are here to fight the corner of our constituents and of what we believe is right.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) talked about the building of a bypass, and I have a similar problem. Such problems arise up and down the country. In my case, plans for the road in question have been in formulation for the past 60 years. Its building was rubber-stamped by the previous Secretary of State, and we even appointed a developer, but of course there is no money in the kitty so it has to stop.
I have to press the issue, and not just I but my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) is working hard on it. In our area of Lancashire, Heysham port is a key strategic route out to Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe. A shipping company recently built two special ships that could sail in and out of the port, which were needed because of the depth and dredge of the harbour. They cost about £70 million. I am sure that all Members would agree that if a building were constructed in their constituency for £70 million, it would be headline news. However, we cannot get the traffic off the M6 to Heysham port quick enough, and there are problems with transport in Lancaster. We are all trying to get green transportation initiatives working, with the jobs that they will create. We all implore the Secretary of State to put roads in our areas at the top of the list, and I do so because the road in question would be a key strategic route to the rest of the country.
On a nicer note, Carnforth station, which was the scene of the movie “Brief Encounter”—I am sure a lot of Members have seen that David Lean classic—was rebuilt many years ago. The catalyst was a chap called Peter Yates, who was been working with me to try to see through his dream. The rebuilding was successfully completed, and I will give the visitors’ centre a plug. It is excellent, and the station has been transformed and restored into the scene of “Brief Encounter”. People from all over the world go there to propose at the table where the character got grit in her eye, and it is something to see. We have been working hard over the past three years to get Virgin Trains to stop and take on passengers in Carnforth. It has agreed to that in principle, which will open up tourism in the area and get cars off the road and promote green tourism.
On green issues, I am not against wind farms, despite what a lot of the blogs say. I just have a vision of them, like Martians across the landscape, in areas of outstanding natural beauty. I have the Lake district to my north and the trough of Bowland to my south, and in the middle is the Lune valley, or Lunesdale. It has not been categorised as an area of outstanding natural beauty, even though it is a beautiful area. Thankfully, I can report that Natural England is looking into stretching the AONB up to the borders of the Lake district, which would in effect negate the possibility of wind farm building there. I am absolutely certain that that would delight some of the area’s residents, but it would also delight me personally because it is a beautiful area and I believe it should be kept for future generations. I do promote wind farms, but I will always say that they should be out to sea.
On a final note on matters that I wish to push forward, a school in my constituency closed about 12 months ago and the building is in mothballs. After all the controversy in our education debates about schools being regenerated and rebuilt, we have a school in the Lune valley that could be reinvigorated under the free schools programme and used as a school once more.
On a personal note, I have thoroughly enjoyed my first three months in the House and have met some very interesting colleagues on both sides of it—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. On that point, I think we should move on.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
As a new Member, I am only just getting my head around some of the traditions of this place, and I am glad that Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speakers have not done to me what was done to a colleague of mine when we were rookie solicitors. She stood up to speak, and the sheriff said, “Miss C, I cannot hear you”—I will not give her name in case she reads Hansard, although I cannot imagine why anyone other than Members would do so. She raised her voice, as one would, and spoke louder, but the sheriff repeated that he could not hear her. Only after her voice had risen in volume considerably did it dawn on her that he meant he could not hear her because she was wearing a trouser suit. Things have moved on now, even in the Scottish courts.
One other delight of the maiden speeches and other speeches today is that they enhanced my geographical knowledge—I realise how little I knew about various parts of England. I was also interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said about prefabs. I had the dubious delight of dealing with a similar situation in my ward when I was on the city council. We had to tell people that their prefabs had reached the end of their reasonable lives, but people really loved them. That tells us a lot about what people like in housing. When I dealt with housing on the council, I constantly told architects and planners that people like their little houses with their back and front doors that they can call their own. We still have a lot to learn from that.
Many of my constituents have come to see me. Last week, I was visited by a group of civil servants from my constituency who are concerned about the proposals in the Superannuation Bill. We will debate that in September, but in my discussion with my constituents we agreed that one big problem is that there seems to be a concerted campaign in parts of the media and, in my view, the coalition Government, to portray civil servants as fat cats, to ensure that the public do not have sympathy for them. When someone mentions civil servants, many people think of a Sir Humphrey figure—someone who frequents his London clubs, who is waiting for his “K” and who will indeed have a good pension—but the civil servants I met work in fairly ordinary clerical and administrative jobs. One might say that they are pen pushers or, these days, screen watchers, but they are not on high salaries and do not have huge pensions.
Average civil service pay is £22,850, compared with average private sector pay of £24,970. Sixty-three per cent. of civil servants earn less than £25,000, and the average civil service pension, taking out a few very high earners, is £4,200 per annum. I told those civil servants that I would do everything I could—as I hope other hon. Members will—to counter the impression of civil servants that is given in some parts of our media, so that we can acknowledge the important job that they do for other constituents, such as people who are waiting for their benefit payments or who are trying to get jobs by spending time in Jobcentre Plus. That is the other side of the coin. Those civil servants may be administrators and paper shufflers, but we need them very much.
During my election campaign, I said that I would take up the issue of housing benefit, and I have been particularly interested in the debates since the emergency Budget. I fully agree that the spend on housing benefit is too high, but the current proposals penalise the claimant without getting to the root of the problem. We cannot look at housing benefit without looking at the rest of the affordable housing budget. In 2007-08, housing benefit represented 85% of the total support for affordable housing, with only 15% coming from capital investment. In 1990, the balance was 59% to 41%. Every time I raise this subject, coalition Members point out that the Labour Government had 13 years to sort it out, and indeed they did. I said before I was elected that I would take up this issue, whoever won the election. It is an important issue, and I will urge our new leader, whoever it is, to address it seriously.
The temporary accommodation aspect of housing benefit has not received much discussion so far and is not covered by the current proposal, but it is very important. Every year in my city far more people apply as homeless to the council than it has council or housing association vacancies. We have good homelessness legislation in Scotland, under which everybody has a right to temporary accommodation if they need it, and by 2012—which is not that far off—they will have a right not only to temporary accommodation but to stay in that accommodation until a permanent offer is made. Temporary accommodation is becoming overcrowded.
When I was on the council, I was involved in setting up a private sector leasing scheme, which was meant to be a short-term solution until we got more houses. I know that the council is now considering extending that private leasing scheme for another five years, but it is an extremely expensive way of providing housing. In March this year, there were 1,600 private sector leased homes in the city, with an average monthly rent of £880. That is more than £10,000 per year per property, with a total of £16.8 million. Most of those tenants will get housing benefit. If some 70% of that cost is met through housing benefit, that is nearly £12 million. The affordable housing investment programme for Edinburgh in the past five years has amounted to £34 million, and £41 million in the last year, and for that some 500 houses are built every year. If we had the £11.8 million that is being spent on those private sector leased houses, another 150 houses could be built.
I know that we could not make the switch in one year, but if the coalition Government want to be the sort of Government that some people thought we would get out of a hung Parliament—in other words, one who listen to all sides—they would seek to address this, rather than making savings on housing benefit to set against the deficit. The savings could go towards building the homes that people so desperately need. If we planned for that over a 10-year period, we could make a real difference. I hope to be part of that over the next four and a half years.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
May I say how delightful it has been this afternoon to listen to such a varied debate? I congratulate those hon. Members who made their maiden speeches—and many of the hon. Members who made not so maiden speeches.
I wish to raise a subject of great concern to many of my constituents: the proposed closure of the magistrates court in Sittingbourne. I understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be concerned by the potential loss of their local court and will lobby Ministers hard in an effort to save it. In those circumstances, it is perhaps difficult to argue that my own local court should be treated as a special case, but that is exactly what I propose to do.
This is not the first time that Sittingbourne magistrates court has been considered for closure. However, during the last review, a decision was taken to retain the service, not least because of the unique nature of its catchment area. Sittingbourne magistrates court serves a wide area of north Kent, including the borough of Swale which has a population of 132,000 and is the second most deprived area in the whole of Kent. There are pockets of severe social and economic deprivation, particularly on the Isle of Sheppey. Some 15 neighbourhoods in the borough are in the 20% most deprived areas nationally, with 11 of those areas being located on Sheppey. As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, people living in deprived areas often make up a higher proportion of court users than people from more affluent areas.
Those people are also more likely to rely on public transport—and that is the nub of the problem. Public transport and links between Sheppey and the mainland are very poor. People without their own transport and who live at the east end of the island will be particularly hard hit by the closure of Sittingbourne magistrates court. If somebody from Leysdown was involved in a court case held in Medway that happened to finish late in the afternoon, it would be almost impossible for them to get home by public transport, because by the time they would have walked from the magistrates court in Chatham to the railway station, caught a train to Sittingbourne and then another train to Sheerness, they would be faced with missing the last bus to Leysdown, which leaves from Sheerness at 1 minute past 6 in the evening.
I use Leysdown as an example, but many other rural communities in my constituency are facing a similar problem. However, islanders in particular would be particularly miffed about the closure of Sittingbourne magistrates court, because until relatively recently, Sheppey had its own court, as did Faversham, which is close by. When that court was closed, we were promised that the court in Sittingbourne would remain open. Closing our last remaining court in Swale would be a betrayal of some very vulnerable people.
I turn briefly to the consultation document that sets out some of the criteria being used to determine the need for a court. One of the criteria is that people should be able to reach a court within 60 minutes using public transport. Helpfully, the consultation document also includes a fact sheet that describes Sittingbourne magistrates court, its work load, its accommodation, the implications for staff and costs and its location, including journey times from Sittingbourne to Canterbury and Chatham, the alternative courts.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you probably will not be surprised to learn that conveniently for the Ministry of Justice the train journey times shown are well within the 60-minute guideline. Unfortunately, however, the figures are not all they seem. For instance, the times quoted are station to station and take no account of the time it would take somebody to get from their home to Sittingbourne station at one end, and from the station to court at the other end. There is also a glaring omission in the consultation document fact sheet. The map that was conveniently and thoughtfully provided to show the relative locations of the courts has airbrushed Sheppey from existence—which is particularly worrying for those of us who live on the island.
To remove the Isle of Sheppey from the equation when considering the future of our only remaining magistrates court is simply unacceptable. To suggest, as the document does, that somebody living at the eastern end of Sheppey could travel to either Chatham or Canterbury in less than 60 minutes is laughable. It is a journey that even with the right connections can take two hours. Closing Sittingbourne magistrates court, and forcing defendants and witnesses to travel either to Canterbury or Chatham, would turn justice into a public transport lottery. I have already made representations to the Ministry of Justice on behalf of my constituents in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, and I urge Ministers now to listen closely to my pleas and announce that our local court will remain open. I plead with them not just for myself, but for all those vulnerable constituents living in this deprived area.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents in Nottingham East are from the Pakistani and Kashmiri population, and have friends or family living in Kashmir and that part of the world. They are increasingly concerned about the ongoing dispute and the problems that remain unresolved between India and Pakistan over what is a disputed territory. I am not a world expert on the issue, but I have had a number of constituents continually raise it with me, and I felt it important to take this opportunity to raise it today, especially as I do not believe that the Kashmir question, from the list of all the international problems worldwide, is aired as frequently as it should be.
Obviously many Members will be aware of the post-war settlement of 1947-48, when the area was partitioned. There was a significant amount of conflict, and when the line of control was established, drawing up the boundaries around the various Indian and Pakistani-administered parts of Kashmir, that set off a chain of events. That chain of events involved the United Nations drawing up a resolution aspiring towards some level of eventual self-determination for the people of Kashmir, so that they could decide their future fate and hopefully achieve a peaceful and democratic outcome. Unfortunately, since then there have been at least three major conflicts between India and Pakistan in the area, some of which have come close to becoming very major conflicts indeed.
Although I understand the Indian concerns about the ongoing possibility of infiltration from across the border—many of those concerns are legitimate—and although I accept that there are human rights concerns in the Pakistani-administered parts of Kashmir, it is the human rights questions that arise so frequently in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir that have caused such great concern among many of my constituents. Although the news is difficult to verify—there are very few independent observers and very little reporting by a free press—there are reports of thousands and thousands of people losing their lives in the conflict, with up to 10,000 people having disappeared since 1990 according to one report.
The current situation continues to be very serious indeed. There has been a curfew in many parts of Indian-administered Kashmir since June, which means that a large part of the population are unable to leave their homes, with work curtailed, employment not always possible and shops not functioning. Even when people go out to protest, they often find that the police swiftly stamp out any dissent. That can lead to a repetitious cycle, which tends to involve people mourning the deaths of local residents and, in turn, the police suppressing that turnout, which can lead to a flare-up of conflict, with young men in particular pelting the police with stones. Such conflicts can flare up in many parts of the world, resulting in civilian deaths, which are extremely regrettable. I am told that there have been 34 such deaths so far this year.
I take this opportunity to urge the Government not to be frightened to raise the unresolved question of Kashmir with the Indian Premier and the Indian Government, particularly as the Prime Minister and other Ministers are visiting India this week—I think—on a trade delegation, and the issue is exceptionally important. Obviously many people in Kashmir would eventually like the opportunity for some level of self-determination or a better say in their destiny and governance. However, the key thing now is to find a way of demilitarising and calming the situation in Kashmir. Obviously I understand the approach taken on the borders, but what is important is the sense that internal repression is taking place within Kashmir, and we need to move on from that. I also hope that we can eventually include Kashmiri people and civil society leaders much more in dialogue and the peace process.
There are a couple of other points, affecting our constituents back in this country, that I take this opportunity to raise. The disability living allowance has for many years supported many disabled people, helping them with specialised equipment and the extra costs that they face, including transportation costs. The Conservative party promised to protect the disability living allowance in its manifesto. Unfortunately, however, it appears that there will be significant cuts in the DLA in the near future.
The introduction of a so-called objective medical assessment from 2013 appears to have allowed the Treasury to put a figure on the saving that it will be able to make on the DLA. The projected saving in 2013 is £360 million, and more than £1 billion in 2014-15. If it is to be a genuinely objective medical assessment, I am at a loss to see how the Treasury can quantify the savings involved, or indeed predict that there will be savings rather than extra expenditure. This is exceptionally worrying. Many people are expressing their concerns about this, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter further on another occasion.
I am also concerned by the Government’s recent decision to scrap the East Midlands Development Agency and the Government office for the east midlands. Both those bodies have tried hard to bring investment and regeneration to my part of the world. In particular, EMDA has had some of the lowest administration costs of any RDA, and objective studies have shown that £9 of wider benefit has come from every £1 that it has invested in the real economy and in regeneration. There has been a great deal of investment in the creative industries, for example, including the New Art Exchange in my constituency and Nottingham Contemporary, and it would be a great shame if that regeneration budget were to be cut. Those organisations have added great value to the economy, and I hope that we shall see that investment continue in the longer term.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. A number of hon. Members wish to speak, and I want to call as many as I possibly can. I am therefore reducing the time limit on speeches to six minutes. I know that this will prove difficult for many Members, but I am sure that everyone will want to try to get a speech in.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Many Members this afternoon have laid claim to the industrial revolution. Totnes cannot lay claim to that, but it undoubtedly has the finest beaches and countryside in the land, and I hope that many Members will visit us over the summer.
If any of our visitors get into deep water or find themselves drifting off to France, they will doubtless believe that they can rely on the coastguard to protect them. I want to draw to the House’s attention a serious incident in that regard. On 28 June, four teenagers went swimming shortly before 8 am, and they got into difficulties in a rip current. A call was made from Bigbury coastguard to Brixham coastguard requesting the attendance of the Hope Cove lifeboat. The reason for that request was that the Hope Cove rescue boat was just 3.1 miles away and could have covered the distance in 14 minutes, including muster time. The coastguard chose not to send it out, however, because the Hope Cove rescue boat has had unilaterally imposed upon it an arbitrary and very small distance in which to operate.
That decision was not taken on the grounds of cost. In fact, it costs far more to send the lifeboat from Salcombe, which is 11 miles away and takes 27 minutes to get there. Nor was the decision based on a sensible worry about the cost of operating the Hope Cove rescue boat, because a generous benefactor sent a cheque for the entire running costs to the coastguard, which was returned. The decision had no basis in common sense. Had it not been for a person passing in a kayak who pulled one of the teenagers unconscious from the water, that teenager would, sadly, have died rather than just spending a day in intensive care.
The local community has requested, through a solicitor, to see a transcript of the recording of the call from the Bigbury coastguard to the Brixham coastguard. After all, we are not talking about a passing member of the public making this recommendation; it was made by the Bigbury coastguard itself. That request has been refused, even though the information was requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I would like to know what is the point of that Act if it is not to call public bodies to account, to cut through and say, “Where is the decision-making process and what was it based on?”. I am calling—and I hope the House will support me in doing so—for Her Majesty’s coastguard to release that information.
I know that many other Members wish to speak so I will be brief, but the other point here is that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has kindly offered to visit and see the situation for himself. He has given an assurance that he will not close down the rescue boat without doing that. There is no substitute for seeing conditions in person on the ground. I hope that the Minister will give us a date for his visit. We are expecting at last the barbecue summer that was promised us last year. We are expecting many visitors to the South Hams and we would like them to be safe. In the interest of public safety, we call for the rescue boat at Hope Cove, which is so valued by the entire community, to be safeguarded and not to have the Maritime and Coastguard Agency wash its hands of its responsibility by seeking to devolve all responsibility for safety at sea to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I would like to thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), as what she said will help greatly.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is not in his place, as I would like to correct something he said earlier. He referred to a much-quoted sentence when he said that this Parliament was the “mother of all Parliaments”. In fact, this was originally said by the Liberal John Bright, but when he said it, he was not referring to this Parliament as being the mother of all Parliaments, but saying that England was the mother of Parliament. He, like many Liberals, was wrong as well, because the longest-standing Parliament was not this country’s, but the Icelandic Althingi, which first sat in 929. We should at times be a bit more careful about our history.
That brings me to the first issue I want to raise, which relates to the pernicious and now-published Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. It is pernicious because, for a start, it shackles together two issues that have no proper right to be in the same Bill. If they have to be in the same Bill, they should be in the other published Bill that provides for fixed-term Parliaments; it would then be a general constitutional reform Bill. Indeed, elements of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill presume that the other Bill is going to be carried, so there is an argument for putting all three issues together, but not just two.
The Bill is also pernicious because it will increase the power of patronage in this House. Cutting the number of seats from 650 to 600 without cutting the number of Ministers will increase the role that patronage plays in this House. I note in passing that the Liberals have decided to add yet more patronage by creating these rather strange Liberal Whips. The tentacles of patronage needed to keep this coalition together are, as I say, pernicious.
The most pernicious element of all relates to the process that the Bill presumes will happen. Accordingly, the Boundary Commissions will draw up reports for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. They will send them to the Secretary of State who will then— I am not joking, but the legislation might be—
“lay…before Parliament…the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect with or without modifications”
to the recommendations. In other words, the Secretary of State can draw up precisely what the constituency boundaries look like and this House will not be able to amend it because it will be an Order in Council. All we could do is vote for or against it. That is indeed pernicious.
The Deputy Prime Minister has referred on television and radio to the coalition introducing the best reforms since the Great Reform Act of 1832. This is not a great reform Bill: it is a great patronage Bill; it is a great gerrymandering Bill; it is a great partisan shenanigans Bill—and it is also, incidentally, the great rotten boroughs for Liberals in Scotland Bill. In case anyone is not certain, I am wholly opposed to it.
The second issue I want to discuss is S4C, although I understand that this may not be a matter of scintillating interest to everyone in the House. We heard over the weekend that the Government are going to cut the funding for S4C by 6% every year for the next four years. This has not, of course, been announced to the House, but I understand that S4C has been told about it. The funding of S4C is laid down in statute. In order to change its funding—I think it would be a big mistake to take £24 million out of the Welsh broadcasting economy—the Government would introduce primary legislation, unless they are doing some kind of dodgy deal in the background which they are not prepared to tell us about in the House.
I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to reply to each of the issues that I am raising, or to ensure that Ministers do so. I believe that, as we move into a fully digital era, the existence of S4C is all the more important for my constituents. It enables them to see Welsh coverage on television, not only in the Welsh language but, increasingly, in the English language.
I also urge the Deputy Leader of the House to consider the issue of the funding of the BBC. Many people in this country believe that the BBC is one of the greatest institutions that Britain has ever given to our society and to the world. We all have our complaints about individual journalists—about their being biased, or not biased—but the honest truth is that around the world, the BBC and the World Service are well respected and admired. Let me say to the Government that anyone in any other country would be astounded at the thought that we would cut the funding of the BBC by any significant amount.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. I particularly approve of his comments about the BBC. Does he agree that the BBC could provide a service for my constituents in Harrow by investigating the circumstances in which ColArt, which runs a factory in my constituency employing some 200 people, wants to shift manufacturing operations from Wealdstone to France, thus putting at risk the jobs of many of my constituents? Is that not a subject that the BBC could usefully investigate?
Chris Bryant
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the phenomenal sagacity and dexterity that he has just shown. Obviously there should be at least an investigative programme by the likes of “Panorama”—if it has any time to spare between investigations of the shenanigans in the Liberal party.
The serious point I am making is that cutting the BBC licence fee has absolutely nothing to do with cutting the deficit, and that, through its investment in all the creative industries, the BBC plays a vital role in many other parts of our British national identity.
That brings me to my next point. One of our actions as a Government of which I am particularly proud was our introduction of the artist’s resale right in the United Kingdom, which has benefited 1,827 artists—although it may be a bit more since this morning. Ten million pounds have gone to those artists. It is mostly the smaller names rather than the very famous people who are receiving the money, but an investment is also being made in the important artistic community in this country. The British art market put out a rumour that our action would destroy it, but in fact the market has risen by roughly 23% year on year since 2003. I urge the Government to ensure that the right applies not only to living artists but to the estates and families of artists who have died, because they are often the people who maintain the heritage of those artists.
Finally, I want to raise another issue relating to south Wales. The defence training academy at St Athan will dramatically improve the quality of training that we give our armed forces. It will provide between 5,000 and 6,000 jobs in south Wales, and should therefore be seen not as an optional add-on, but as essential to our defence of the realm.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great honour to make a few points in the summer Adjournment debate. I begin by suggesting to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that perhaps there should be a small redistribution of wealth from the BBC to ITV. We should remember that it also does a good job.
Let me move quickly on to the subject of South West Water charges. In my constituency—in my view, it is as beautiful as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)—the charges are significantly higher, because we have 30% of the beaches and only 3% of the population to pay the extra charges. I should like the Government to consider some form of national levy requiring people from all over the country to pay for the beaches that they come to enjoy. We welcome them when they come to enjoy those beaches, but we do not think that the retired people of the South West Water area should pay the extra charges. It would mean bills in the South West Water area falling by about £65 to £75, yet the national levy would be in the region of £1.50. I ask the Government to look at this sympathetically.
On Tiverton high school, let me first say that I understand that the coalition Government have of course had to cut back on the Building Schools for the Future programme because there was no money left. We know that that is the case, and I shall not repeat it too often. We need to be sure that we can build schools in the future, and that the money we put into capital spending actually goes into building schools and not on administration, as 20% to 30% did under BSF. I ask Ministers that when money becomes available, Tiverton high school is not forgotten, because that would be good not only for the high school, but for a part of Tiverton that needs regeneration.
I want now to talk about the A303/A30.
Neil Parish
I thought the Deputy Leader of the House might say that as the A303 also runs through his constituency. In Cornwall, we have trunked the whole A303—or A30 as it is down there. That is excellent of course, but by the time many people get to Cornwall they will have passed through Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon. We have to make sure that we trunk the road through Somerset into Devon, and around Honiton in particular, where there is a bad bottleneck. When people get to Honiton, they can link into the dual carriageway that takes them on to Exeter and beyond. It would be great if we could get this done. In 1997, the road was all ready to be built, but then—lo and behold—we got a Labour Government who immediately stopped it. As the plans are all ready, we could go ahead and build this straight away if we had the money.
My constituency has the two hospitals of Tiverton and Honiton, and we have maternity units in both of them. Prior to the election, services were cut in Honiton and they have been stopped in Tiverton. I want to ensure that those maternity services are reintroduced, because it is absolutely right that we not only have midwives to help with home births, but that mothers can choose to give birth in hospital as well. I therefore make that great plea.
I want there to be more competition with BT in the rolling out of broadband into rural areas. At present BT is dictating the speed at which it is being rolled out, and it is currently not being rolled out at all across many rural areas. I welcome the coalition Government’s commitment to helping communities roll out broadband.
The need to take decisive action on tuberculosis in cattle is an issue dear to the hearts of many of us in rural areas. We spend more than £100 million a year on taking out diseased cattle, yet we are not tackling the disease in wildlife. I welcome the commitment of the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that we look at ways in which we can cull infected badgers so that cattle are not re-infected.
My final point is about Zimbabwe, which is, I accept, a long way from my constituency, but many of my constituents come from that country and I was an election observer there in 2000. Zimbabwe is still staggering on, and I hope our coalition Government prove to be more effective than the current coalition Government in that country. I plead with the Government to look in future at helping Zimbabwe to have a proper audit of the farms and farmland there. Zimbabwe could feed both itself and quite a lot of Africa, but at present it cannot even feed itself because that land is not being farmed and not being looked after. The ownership of these farms is now often not for the sake of farming the land, but just for the sake of having property, and that should be investigated.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the three Members who made their maiden speeches this afternoon. Interestingly, all three referred to Margaret Thatcher and the influence she had had on them—in different ways. I am sure that they must be experiencing a sense of déjà vu, as I am and certainly my constituents are. Despite the Government’s pronouncements that they are introducing a new politics, it is clear that they are actually introducing policies that are Thatcherism mark 2: for example, the first steps to privatise the NHS, the attacks on state schools, and the terrible damage they are going to inflict on our welfare system.
However, one marked difference is that Thatcherism mark 1 presented its policies on the basis of ideological conviction. This Government are presenting their Thatcherite policies on the basis of blaming everybody else, not least the previous Labour Government. They continue to run with the canard that they are having to make these swingeing cuts across the whole of our national fabric because we got the finances wrong. To those who take the trouble to read the Gothic novel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer published under the title of an emergency Budget, it becomes increasingly clear that his feverish imagination fanned the flames of the Frankenstein finances that form the basis for these choices.
My central point is that in that fantasy Budget—that Gothic novel—the Government stated categorically that, although it would be a Budget of austerity, they would protect the most vulnerable in our country and the low- paid. That is clearly not the case, and the example I give is their housing benefit proposal, which is a particular concern in my constituency. I know that the Conservatives never listen to the Opposition, but perhaps they will listen to what the Mayor of London has to say on this issue. He is targeting the new cap that will be introduced, which at the moment will affect the majority of housing benefit claimants in the private sector. However, the secretive changes that the Government are introducing to benefit uprating—for example, basing it on the consumer prices index, rather than the retail prices index—will affect all housing benefit claimants.
The Mayor of London said:
“The new cap is lower than the existing LHA”—
local housing allowance—
“in all 33 London boroughs for five bedroom homes, in 25 boroughs for four bedroom homes and in 18 boroughs for homes with three and two bedrooms. In 30 boroughs, the combined impact of the new threshold and the new cap will leave families in three bed homes, whose rents are currently at the median of local rents, with a weekly shortfall ranging from £23 to £360.”
That, as I have said, does not even begin to touch on the impact of the changes being made to the wider benefits system, such as increasing non-dependant deductions.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) discussed the situation of people on jobseeker’s allowance after 12 months. I have received a letter from a single-mother constituent of mine. If, after 12 months, she has not managed to obtain employment, her housing benefit will be reduced, even though she is allowed to look for work that fits in with her family commitments such as taking her child to and from school. She lives in a borough in the centre of London in which rents are above not only the national average but the London average. Despite the Government’s protestations to the contrary, this measure will impact on the most vulnerable. It will affect not only people on jobseeker’s allowance, but pensioners and some people with disabilities.
The Government must rethink this policy. In common with so many of the policies they are introducing, they have markedly failed to think it through. We must consider the serious harm that the ill-considered consequences of such changes could cause. This policy will not save the country any money—if that is indeed the Government’s motive for introducing it. In fact, it will cost us a great deal more. I do not want anyone to have to go back to the days under the previous Thatcherite regime when families with small children were trapped in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I can foresee a time when, if the housing benefit policy is not changed, those days will return. We will see more and more people sleeping on our streets and local authorities will have to push people out into the outer London boroughs, which will mean that the low-income workers on whom this city depends for its smooth running will have to leave. Is that really how we are going to create a thriving economy not only in the capital city but in the country at large? It seems to be the antithesis of that.
It is not too late for the Government to realise that there are alternatives. They simply have to think, for a moment, outside their stifling envelope and realise that their first duty is to the people who sent them here. That will be a bit of a stretch—they are not exactly a representative Government—but they have to think again.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) on their excellent maiden speeches. May I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is no longer in his place, about the facility for a substantive response from a Minister to points raised in the Adjournment debate? In my capacity as a member of the Backbench Business Committee—I see present also a colleague on the Opposition side of the Chamber—and as this debate is taking place in BackBench Business Committee time, I will report that point back to the Committee in time for our evidence seminar in September.
I hope that the House will not adjourn until it has considered the matter of business rates and particularly their impact on small businesses, shops and restaurants in Battersea and other parts of Wandsworth. I am delighted that the coalition Government have signalled their support for small business through a number of proposals, not least the scrapping of the planned rise in employers’ national insurance and the commitment to seek a way to make small business rate relief automatic. Although it is very welcome, the latter move will have relatively little impact in a London constituency such as mine in which business rates are so high, reflecting their proximity to central London but without the footfall of central London.
I should like to ask the Government to go further over this Parliament, as the localism agenda gathers pace, and consider giving local councils a greater role in setting local business rates. This issue was thrown into sharp relief by the dreadful impact on my constituency of the business rate revaluations of 2009 and 2010, by which London was particularly badly hit. Many businesses and shopping areas such as Northcote road, Old York road, St John’s hill, Battersea Park road and Lavender hill have struggled to survive those rises, which were often of more than 100%. The number of empty shops and restaurant fronts bears testimony to the fact that some businesses lost that struggle.
Wandsworth council has been innovative in the face of the difficulties caused by the ending of transitional relief last year and it remains the only council in London that runs a hardship scheme for small businesses. To date, that scheme has helped more than 50 local firms to save money on their bills and stay afloat, the result of which is that they are still paying tax and employing people. Innovative councils could do even more if they had the power to set some or all of the business rate instead of just collecting it. A borough such as Wandsworth with a low tax culture could bring real benefits to its businesses and we could avoid painful juxtapositions, such that in spring 2009, when a local launderette’s business rates increased by 250% while residents in the same road received a zero increase on residential council tax.
I am aware of the chequered history of local councils setting business rates, so that power might have to be earned, but local councils of whatever political complexion that have a clear grasp of the importance of small business to the local economy could play a significant role, through the setting of a lower local business rate, in sustaining existing businesses and encouraging new ones. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will agree that it is important to rebuild the connection between local authorities, local businesses, the services that those businesses receive from local authorities and the local residents who value those businesses. It is worth considering whether to restore some measure of accountability in the levying of business rates. That idea sits very comfortably with the Government’s commitment to localism and I commend it to the House.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I hope that we can consider a couple of extra matters before the House adjourns for the summer recess. When the parties in government talk about public spending cuts, they would like us to believe that they are simply talking about what they claim are the legions of overpaid and underworked public sector bureaucrats who push paper around and introduce more and more regulation. However, the truth is rather different up in west Fife, where the public spending cuts will have a devastating impact on the defence and electricity generation industries.
Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence announced that the Harrier jump jet will not fly from the new super-carriers when they come into service. Hon. Members will recognise that, given that the joint strike fighter will not be available for some time after Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to enter into service, one can draw one of only two conclusions: either the MOD proposes that the Queen Elizabeth should become a glorified helicopter carrier for the first few years of its life; or, even more worryingly, the Department plans to delay the Queen Elizabeth’s entry into service following the comprehensive spending review. I will be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House asks the Secretary of State for Defence to write as a matter of urgency to Members on both sides of the House with an interest in defence to clarify the MOD’s position on the Harrier and joint strike fighter and, crucially, the date of entry for the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales.
Monday’s edition of The Times carried a rather disturbing story suggesting that, as part of the public sector cuts that we hear so much about, the MOD plans to take out of service immediately either the RAF Tornados or the Royal Navy Harriers. Leaving aside the obvious reasons why we need both the Tornados and the Harriers in service for the defence of the nation, as well as the amazing jobs that the aircraft crews have been doing in Afghanistan and elsewhere in recent years, that obviously gives rise to serious concerns for RAF bases throughout the country, including RAF Leuchars in Fife, as well as RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth elsewhere in Scotland. It is not unreasonable to assume that if seven squadrons of Tornados are taken out of service, we simply will not need such a number of RAF bases. I will therefore be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House will press the Defence Secretary to clarify what the Government plan to do about our Tornado and Harrier squadrons.
Longannet power station plays an important part in my constituency. It has served homes and businesses in east and central Scotland with electricity for some 40 years, so it is approaching the end of its natural life. As the House will recall, it is on the shortlist of two for the carbon capture and storage competition, the result of which was expected in October. Many Members would have been worried by today’s statement from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, because he seemed to suggest that the competition would be pushed back to the end of the year.
Hon. Members will recall that when the House debated energy efficiency last month, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), did not have time to answer all the points raised. He promised to write to clarify those points, but it appears that he has lost his writing pad over the past five weeks, because Members have not received answers to their questions. Again, I will grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House will ask the Minister of State to write to me about three specific points, which I shall recap for the record.
First, will the Government still meet the October deadline for the CCS competition? Secondly, is the prize for the competition still that set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) when he was Secretary of State, or has it fallen victim to the Chancellor’s spending cuts? Thirdly, will the Minister of State meet me and other Scottish Members so that we can discuss possible changes to the transmission charges operated by the national grid and how we can make them more equitable to Scottish power stations?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I add my compliments for the three fine maiden speeches that we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice). I am sure that they will make excellent representatives for their constituencies.
Before we break for the recess, it is important for the House to have an opportunity to discuss how localism and the big society are affecting my constituency. Localism is being welcomed and embraced by my constituents. In North West Leicestershire, as in many other constituencies, the biggest local issue in the run-up to the general election was the Labour Government’s top-down housing targets. It was decided that my constituency should have an extra 12,200 houses. The district council was set an impossible task of consulting the local population. The main problem was that there was very little to consult about. The figure was set, and it was decided already that the clear focus for the main thrust of development was to be concentrated on the town of Coalville. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is nowhere in North West Leicestershire where building more than 12,000 houses would be acceptable to the local residents. That level of housing growth, if implemented, would have changed the character of my constituency for ever.
I am very pleased, and my constituents are mostly delighted, that these top-down targets have been dropped. This means that all powers to decide housing numbers, types, densities and where they will be built, now rest where they belong, with locally elected, locally accountable district councils. Many community groups were set up to oppose the top-down targets, and their work is worthy of mention. The Whitwick action group, the Don’t Destroy Donington campaign, the residents against inappropriate development in Ashby and the friends of Thringstone are particularly worthy of mention. It is also worth mentioning that it is easier to lead someone forward than to push them, and this is very much the difference between this Government’s policy and that of the previous one.
For too long, local government and local opinion have been ridden roughshod over by central Government. The Government are often the final arbiters of planning appeals, which have huge effects on local communities, often acting as judge, jury and executioner. Ministers have in the past, with the mere flourish of a penned signature, condemned communities that they do not know, and people they have never met, to years of anguish. For example, the overturning of decisions taken locally with regard to the opencast mine at Ravenstone in North West Leicestershire has, quite literally, undermined the influence of, and respect that residents have for, the locally elected council and councillors. This dumbs down the role of the council, and I believe that it discourages many able people from standing for election. This Chamber, Members will be glad to hear, will be hearing more from me about opencast mining in the very near future. This Government will, I hope, give local councils the chance to show real leadership—something so sadly lacking in the past, when they were mostly there to enact top-down national policies.
I have also seen during the past few weeks how localism feeds into the big society in my constituency, which we so much want to encourage to flourish. I have met some of the selfless people who work in the voluntary sector and seen the work that they are doing to improve and turn around the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in my community in North West Leicestershire. I have been to the Marlene Reid centre, a social enterprise based in Coalville, and to the Turning Point office, also in Coalville, where staff and volunteers are helping those affected by drug and alcohol misuse, and I have been to Home Start, which provides dozens of volunteers to support parents and families struggling to cope who are in need of a little support to get them through their lives. This is the big society in action, and I will be doing all I can to see that these groups have all the support they need from the Government to carry on with their essential work. It is vital that those groups are not subject to undue interference from government.
I want to share with hon. Members an interesting experience. I visited the local air ambulance, which flies out of East Midlands airport in my constituency. The service is funded totally by charitable donations. When I asked whether it would not rather be funded by the Government, surprisingly it said that it definitely would not, as then it would be subject to all the bureaucracy, red tape and targets that would go with that. It would rather keep its independence and raise its own funds. That says a lot about the dedication and commitment of the volunteers and fundraisers who work for the Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland air ambulance, but it also says a lot that is not good about government.
I reiterate that North West Leicestershire has some fantastic selfless people working in the community. The challenge for government is to create the conditions to ensure that their efforts reap the maximum benefits for society. We can do this by devolving powers to the people who recognise what local communities need. Those people do not need the state to interfere with their lives. The time of big government is over: it did not work, and it was far too expensive. Anything that government take responsibility for, individuals and voluntary groups tend to withdraw from. The Government need to relinquish ground back to volunteer groups and individuals. This is the time of localism and the big society, and we will be able to build economically, socially and spiritually stronger communities because of it.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I shall discuss three issues that are causing concern and anxiety in my constituency, but first I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who talked about the beauty of, and gave us a tour around, his constituency. I was lucky enough to be in Morecambe last weekend, and I certainly agree that Morecambe bay is a very beautiful setting. I also visited the Midland hotel, which has gone through a major refurbishment to restore it to its 1930s art deco beauty, partly funded, as I understand it, through the regional development agency in the north-west. I just wanted to put on the record the fact that government can do good things.
The first issue in my constituency that I want to raise is about education. Although Hull was fortunate enough to be in one of the early waves of Building Schools for the Future, so is not part of the coalition Government’s slash-and-burn approach to BSF investment, there remains a concern about the primary capital programme in the city. Indeed, I am still awaiting a response to a question that I put to the Secretary of State. It was due for answer on 14 July, so I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could chase that up for me.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about a failure to receive a response from the Department for Education. I asked a question, which was due for answer on 12 July, about the lists, and I still have not received a reply. I assume that she shares my concern.
Diana R. Johnson
Absolutely. I do share that concern, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to help us.
I want to talk about McMillan nursery in my constituency, which Ofsted recently rated as outstanding. The head teacher, Andrew Shimmin, and his staff do a fantastic job in a part of Hull that faces many challenges. However, the recent weeks and months have been a difficult time for McMillan. We had the very sad death of Kerry Mackinder, who had worked at the school for some time, and the staff’s future is now threatened by Hull’s Liberal Democrat council, which seems intent on making deep cuts without proper consultation and without considering other options for the school.
The coalition Government have talked at length about early intervention, and I know that many Members believe that it is important to put money into children’s lives early, so that we do not have to spend it later when things go wrong. Unfortunately, Hull city council does not seem to take that approach, and there are particular concerns about the new funding formula that Madam Deputy Speaker introduced when she was the Minister with responsibility for children in the previous Government. She made it clear that the new funding formula for early years could take into account the important role that nursery schools play, as they have professionally trained teachers, often work in deprived areas, and often need to keep places vacant in case social services need to place a child urgently in a nursery school.
I was very disappointed to hear not only that staff at McMillan nursery are to be made redundant, but that the nurture group—a positive way of dealing with children’s problems early—is also to be abandoned. Local parents are organising a petition to try to keep the group open, and I pay tribute to the trade unionists who, on behalf of members who work at McMillan, are fighting hard, trying to get other plans for the nursery put forward and challenging the tight timetable for consultation with staff about their jobs.
The second constituency issue that I want to raise is housing. The previous Government agreed to a regeneration scheme in Orchard Park based on private finance initiative credits, and the local authority is consulting the community on that. However, owing to the coalition Government’s stance on decisions made before the election, I am worried that the scheme might not come to fruition, and it is badly needed. I understand that Hull city council has already spent up to £1 million on the consultation and on the preparatory work for the scheme.
In another part of my constituency, Bransholme North, the first housing stock transfer will take place. There was a ballot earlier this year, and the Housing Minister will have to agree to the transfer later in the year, but the uncertainty about the coalition Government’s approach to social housing is causing concern in Kingston upon Hull North, so, as tenants want the stock transfer to happen, I again seek a reassurance that it will.
My final point about housing is that at the beginning of July I received a petition from residents of Auckland avenue in Hull. Led by Mrs Walker and Mrs Lambert, it was about the deterioration in the neighbourhood resulting from the conversion of small family homes into houses in multiple occupancy. I had a look for myself, and there was indeed a deterioration in the area. I have written to Hull city council to ask it how it is planning to use its powers to deal with the problem in that area. Now I understand that the coalition Government have suspended the Labour Government’s legislation on houses in multiple occupancy, which was intended to help communities and residents such as those now suffering in Auckland avenue.
Finally, I turn to transport. Under the Labour Government, approval had been given to upgrade schemes on local roads such as the A63. We were also moving closer to reducing or abolishing tolls on the Humber bridge. Now we are told by the Secretary of State for Transport that we must choose between the road schemes and progress on the Humber bridge tolls. Studies have clearly shown that cutting the tolls would boost the local economy on both sides of the River Humber. Surely the £98 million cost of building the Humber bridge has now been paid back by Humber people. Those are the issues—education, housing and transport —that really matter to my constituents in Hull, far more than the rushed referendum on the voting system.
In a passionate contribution to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about the gerrymandering over the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. On the first day back, we are to be forced to have a Second Reading debate on that Bill without any pre-legislative scrutiny. That is an absolute disgrace.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I should like to place on the record my congratulations to Members who made their maiden speeches earlier this afternoon. Before we break for the recess, I should like to raise a number of local, national and possibly international issues.
I shall start with local issues. I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate Elmgrove, Aylward, Glebe, St John’s and Stag Lane schools in my constituency, which have all received Artsmark awards from the Arts Council in the past week. That leads me to a concern being raised at local level, about the wonderful new Cedars youth centre, which is being developed in a partnership between Harrow council, the lottery and Watford football club. Some £4.2 million was set aside for it, but we are awaiting approval from the Department for Education. I trust that that will be forthcoming before the recess is out.
Seventy years have passed since Britain stood alone and the RAF, and Fighter Command in particular, stood between us and the Nazis. The centre of that operation was at Bentley priory in my constituency. Time, of course, has moved on; now there is a challenge as to what we will do with Bentley priory. There is a clear need to preserve the priory for the nation so that we can celebrate what Fighter Command achieved 70 years ago. We must not allow it to fall into disrepair and disuse and pass it on in that state to our children and our children’s children.
Some hon. Members who know me well might wonder why I am raising this next issue in the House. A firm in my constituency called ColArt, which is probably better known as Winsor and Newton, is currently consulting on closing down its operation in Wealdstone and transferring the manufacturing jobs to France and other parts of the world, involving the loss of 200 specialist jobs in the constituency. The local council and the Government need to intervene to safeguard those jobs for local people and to protect manufacturing industry in London. I trust that that support and effort will be forthcoming from the Government before the consultation period is over at the end of September. This afternoon I met representatives of the factory, who are deeply concerned about what is going to happen to their jobs and to the future of manufacturing in our area. I am happy to place on record my firm and full support for their work, and I will, with the firm, be seeking appropriate measures to ensure that we safeguard that facility for local people.
Finally, I want to discuss a case—Regina v. Robert Nicholls and others—which arose on 28 and 29 June in Lewes Crown court, and which probably would have passed unnoticed but for the learned judge’s summing up in directing the jury. The case concerns a number of individuals who committed terrible criminal damage at a local armaments factory in January 2009. As they virtually admitted that they had done so, it was something of a surprise when they were acquitted of the crimes after the jury had deliberated for a very short period. A week to 10 days ago, the summing up by the judge was released. It reads almost like the case for the defence or a plea in mitigation. In the course of some 87 pages, it lists a whole litany of reasons and excuses as to why it is perfectly reasonable for people in this country to commit criminal damage against armaments factories if those factories are supplying the state of Israel.
This has caused immense concern in my constituency, where there are large numbers of Jewish people who believe that it will provide a licence for individuals who oppose the state of Israel to take criminal action against factories in this country that supply the state of Israel. It is the thin end of a very thick wedge, and the Government—the Ministry of Justice—must step in and take action. We cannot have judges with prejudicial views instructing juries to acquit people where there is no evidence to support that outcome. I have asked the Lord Chancellor to intervene in this case and ensure that something is done, and I trust that that will happen before the recess.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish to use this debate to highlight the devastating impact that the coalition Government’s cuts in public expenditure will have on the city of Liverpool and, in particular, on my constituents in Wavertree. The Government’s proposals for cuts of up to 40% in some Departments will jeopardise the economic recovery, unfairly punish those in the most deprived areas and, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, put 600,000 public sector workers out of work.
Members in all parts of the House acknowledge the effect of the global recession on the country’s public finances, but the new Tory Government have ignored this approach and instead opted to pursue an agenda described by the Institute for Fiscal Studies as amounting to the longest and deepest period of public spending cuts since the second world war. Despite what the Government would have the public believe, these cuts are not inevitable. They are the result of the ideological choices that the Conservative-Liberal Government are making. Economists such as Nobel prize-winning Professor Joseph Stiglitz have warned that the Tory Government’s Budget and their other cuts will result at least in a slowing of the recovery and at worst in a double-dip recession.
Merseyside will bear the brunt of the Government’s cuts far more than other areas of the country, not least because in some parts of the region 60% of the work force rely on the public sector for their income. While some of the more ideologically driven Members on the Government Benches may demonise the public sector as a drag on the private sector, those of us with a more clear-headed view know the important relationship that exists between the public and private sectors. For every £1 that a local government worker earns in Liverpool, they spend 70p there. If that money stops, we will see small businesses close, a spiralling welfare bill and public services straining under the weight of underfunding and increased demand.
Jack Stopforth, chief executive of Liverpool chamber of commerce, has said that the Government are being “unbelievably naive” over the effect of job losses and clearly have
“no awareness of the link between public sector services and private sector supply chains”.
Despite that important relationship, the Government seem determined to further crush any project that would bring necessary jobs and investment to Merseyside. The withdrawal of funding for the Mersey gateway, which would bring 5,000 jobs, and the cancelling of Liverpool’s 26 Building Schools for the Future projects, which has already cost 1,000 jobs, are evidence of that. Today, the Northwest Development Agency has announced more than £52 million of cuts to 101 projects, many of which fall in Liverpool.
There have been a number of short-sighted cuts, particularly the decision not to introduce a tax relief for the video games industry. In 2009, the industry brought approximately £1 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product, and in my constituency and across Liverpool there are a number of video games developers including Genemation, Bizarre Creations, Magenta Software and Playbox. Sony Computer Entertainment, based at Wavertree technology park, employs more than 600 people, and introducing a games tax relief would protect and increase a figure of £415 million in new and saved tax receipts for the Treasury, far outweighing the £192 million that the relief would cost. Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain why the Red Book highlighted only the cost of the tax relief and not the net benefit?
Decisions such as that and the cancellation of the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters highlight the Government’s short-term thinking and strike at the very premise behind their strategy to pursue a private sector-led recovery. They seem adamant that the gap created by their public sector cuts will be filled by increased demand and job creation in the private sector. However, businesses in areas such as Liverpool rely more heavily than others on income from public sector workers.
Not only will the Government raise unemployment with their cuts, but they seem to want to punish those who are unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work. All of us in the House recognise the value of helping people off benefits and into work. That is important for self-esteem, well-being and the economy, and jobseekers should be supported, not castigated. The Government’s plans to freeze jobseeker’s allowance—[Interruption.] Oh, I will sit down. Sorry.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Our function in this House is to ensure that our information about constituents’ problems is translated into creating better policy so that our constituents have fewer problems. Today, I wish to raise two issues that have recently come to my attention.
On educational provision for those with behavioural and learning difficulties, I have had a case in which a lady—I will call her K—brought into the borough her son with severe learning and behavioural difficulties, challenging behaviour and anger management problems. On 22 July, my constituent made distressed calls saying that the previous day, her son had been out of control. He had ransacked the flat and smashed all the furniture. The tutor who arrived to give him the five and a half hours of educational provision that he was due under statute had to leave and said that he would get help. The police came and the mother asked them for help, but they left again. She rang social services but no one arrived. She took her son to the police station, crying out for help. A social worker arrived, saw the smashed-up flat and took the son away for an hour, then brought him back again saying that they could not cope with him.
Over the weekend, I have arranged for special provision to be made for respite for the mother, but the point is that five and a half hours a week of statutory provision for a child is not enough. This child cannot be accommodated in school, but a local authority has a responsibility. When a parent is keeping a child out of school, it gives fines and parenting orders, yet when it is responsible for the child it need put in place only five and a half hours’ provision a week. That is wrong and absolutely inadequate, because it means that the parent can get no respite.
Section 3 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government, ensures that full-time provision is made available. On 14 July, an order introduced provisions of that Act, but not section 3. Will the Deputy Leader of the House say when that section will be introduced, so that children get the educational provision and care that they rightly deserve? My constituent was told that the only way she could get that provision was if the child were put under a child protection order, which would mean that she would be deemed the perpetrator of an assault, when in fact the child was disruptive, violent and aggressive. It is absolutely wrong that that should be the only route to respite for a parent.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I shall focus on something that has not yet been covered in this absolutely fascinating debate: the Government’s attitude to technology in the community, which is a cross-party issue. We all agree on the enabling role that we want technology to play in our communities. I want my constituents in Blakelaw and Elswick to be able to wake up in the morning and look at the latest job vacancies online; for employees in West Gosforth and Westgate to be able to claim their tax credits online; for students in Kenton and Fenham to have access to the world’s most inspirational teachers from their bedrooms; and for pensioners in Wingrove, and Benwell and Scotswood, to benefit from medical and social care in the comfort of their homes.
The Minister for Universities and Science recently made quite a good speech on the importance of science and technology, but the coalition will be judged by actions, not by fine words. In Newcastle, only 60% of my constituents have broadband at home. Social and economic issues rather than availability play a part in that. More than 10 million adults in our country have never used the internet. What has the coalition done? It scrapped the previous Government’s commitment to free internet access from all libraries; cut £50 million a year from an IT fund designed to bring technology into classrooms in order to fund free schools; scrapped procurement and other support for information and communications technology in schools; and rushed through the Academies Act 2010, abandoning the requirement for schools to teach science and maths at all, never mind separate sciences.
The coalition has also abolished regional development agencies, which helped to support science and technology locally; deferred concrete, funded plans to make broadband available everywhere in favour of three small rural pilots; and placed leadership on broadband in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I have a great deal of respect for that Department, and it would be wrong not to recognise the critical role that digital culture plays in the digital economy. However, broadband is not only about delivering content; it is the basis for our future economic resurgence. Frankly, for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to give up leadership on that critical matter is totally dotty.
Building the right broadband infrastructure is complex, and it needs people with expertise to manage it. What broadband expertise does the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have? Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain what the Government are doing to overcome digital exclusion, and what expertise are they drawing on to do so?
Whether a person is digitally literate or not is a matter of choice at the moment—many people leave the operation of their set-top boxes to their children and know more of the dark side of the moon than the inside of their digital phones—but in future, there will be no option, because digital literacy will be as important as the ability to add up. The coalition is failing to equip our children for that future, and in so doing, damaging our economy.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It is a shame that, on only the second day on which the Backbench Business Committee has chosen the business, Back Benchers such as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) are being cut off in their prime and others have not been able to raise all the issues that they wished to raise.
More than 9 million people in the UK are deaf or hard of hearing. That is about one in every seven people, or approximately 14,000 per constituency. I wish to explore issues of accessibility for people who are deaf or hard of hearing to telephone services as well as shops and businesses. Deafness is the invisible disability and many elderly people tell me that hearing aids are automatically seen as a sign of decrepitude. That could explain why only some 2 million people use hearing aids when it is estimated that between 5 million and 6 million could benefit from them. Those who have difficulty hearing find that when speaking on the telephone or face to face people are impatient with them, and even sometimes seem to find it acceptable to be rude to them.
Many hon. Members will associate deafness and hearing loss with the use of British sign language—or BSL. It is important to our understanding of the issue that we acknowledge the fact that only 50,000 people in the UK use BSL as a first or preferred language. In fact, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the UK’s largest deaf and hearing loss charity, estimates that more than 8.2 million people have mild to moderate deafness. I declare an interest, as that figure includes me. I lost all hearing in one ear at the age of 16 after contracting mumps.
I wish to highlight action that businesses can take to better help their customers who are deaf or hard of hearing access them over the telephone. This is an especially important area as more businesses adopt automated answering software and call centre staff as the public’s primary means for contacting them. I am sure that we can all recall frustrating experiences when trying to contact a business by that method. Let us imagine how much more frustrating it would be with a hearing loss. Often one is asked to press a number to ensure that the call can be directed appropriately, but if one does not properly hear these instructions immediately it can be very difficult to seek clarification and often calls go round in circles or are prematurely terminated. It is also deeply frustrating when a person asks the call centre operator to give a yes or no answer, but the operator reverts to the fixed script they have to use and gabbles or mumbles, despite being asked to speak slowly. Some people who have speech difficulties, perhaps after a stroke, also have problems using voice recognition telephone systems, which can be a nightmare.
If a business wishes to have that kind of system, it is essential that there is an early and clear option for people with a hearing loss to be put through to an operator who has received deaf awareness training. There are some very simple steps that businesses can take. These include ensuring that their operators speak clearly and at a slow speed and that they repeat themselves when asked to do so. Businesses must recognise that calls involving customers who are deaf or hard of hearing will be of a longer length. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will ask the Minister responsible to consider introducing a set number on all systems that people who are deaf or hard of hearing could press to be put through to somebody who understands their needs.
I also wish to raise the problems with text relay, which is a national relay service that allows text phone users to communicate with users of normal telephones through a relay assistant. It is a complex system and it does take time, but unfortunately call centre staff and others are reluctant to use it, simply because it does take time. However, some large and high-profile businesses are doing the right thing, including Western Power, Lloyds TSB, Barclays Bank and even Government agencies such as HMRC.
There are some simple steps that can be taken to ensure that people who are deaf or hard of hearing can communicate, and even I was surprised, as someone who is hard of hearing, at just how simple those steps are. People can ensure that they talk in a place with good lighting so that they can be lip-read; they talk in a place away from noisy distractions; they face the person, again so they can be lip-read; they speak clearly, but not too slowly, and do not exaggerate their lip movements; and they do not shout, because that is uncomfortable for a hearing aid user and it looks aggressive.
Better use of a loop induction system would help as well. In a mystery shopping expedition by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, only 22% of shops had an operational loop. It would seem that regional managers of stores are fully aware of the importance, but do not switch them on.
I have many more issues to raise, and perhaps I need to return to the House to discuss them further.
Mr Speaker
Order. I should point out that the Front-Bench speeches will begin at 6.42 pm.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is nice to know that Back-Bench Members are getting such a high profile under this new regime. I would have liked to discuss the imposition of police commissioners at a time of budget cuts. I would like to know why we are abolishing the highest performing regional development agency in the country at a time when Birmingham has the highest unemployment of the core cities, and why we are imposing a VAT rise that will cripple small service sector businesses in my constituency—people such as hairdressers and small restaurant owners.
On the day, however, when the Khyra Ishaq case review has been published, I want to focus on Birmingham council’s decision to review the 23 nurseries it is thinking of closing, including three in my constituency—Millpool Gardens, Selly Oak and Reameadow. The council says today in response to the report that it is going to refocus on early intervention and prevention, but that cannot be done by cutting basic nursery provision; it cannot be done by no one resigning when, in the 21st century, a little girl starves to death when she is supposed to be under the protection of Birmingham city council; and we will not make much progress when not a single person admits responsibility and resigns for that atrocity.
Instead of anyone resigning, what has Birmingham council done? It has appointed a new cabinet member and an additional senior manager earning £120,000 a year—just slightly less than the Prime Minister—in order to improve its services. That is why there is no money for social workers. That is why there are not enough social workers. That is why there is no money to provide basic services and provision in Birmingham. It is a disgrace that the council is getting away with it—and if there was more time, Mr Speaker, I would tell you what we ought to do to deal with it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. Clearly, we have to look at how we allocate time, because I understand that we have had 41 speakers. We have had subjects ranging from fishing quotas and pre-fab bungalows, to maternity services and cancer drugs, and from a much-needed bypass to much-wanted railway improvements. We have also heard three excellent maiden speeches from the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice).
One major theme has been the continuing concern of hon. Members about the loss of new school buildings under the Building Schools for the Future programme. That was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). It is of great concern to those hon. Members and to the head teachers, governors, pupils and schools affected. We cannot have good quality education in schools where tiles have to be stuck back on the walls. Hon. Members have urged the Education Secretary to think again, and I join them in repeating that, for the sake of our schools and for the jobs that would have been created or protected by investment in BSF.
The hon. Member for Witham made a good maiden speech. She had the task of paying tribute to not one but four predecessors, and she did so very well. Like other Labour Members, I do not share her enthusiasm for Margaret Thatcher, but I am sure that most Members are supporters of their local newsagents and other small shops in our communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn made an excellent maiden speech, paying tribute to his predecessors and drawing a picture of the communities from Oswaldtwistle to Accrington, and on to the borders of the Ribble valley. He cited as badges of honour that his constituency contains the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and that his predecessor invaded the stage at a Clash concert. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston also made an excellent speech. On confusion over names, I should tell him that in the last Parliament, we had two Michael Fosters and two Angela Smiths, but there was only one Robin Cook, to whom he rightly paid tribute. He drew some vivid pictures of West Lothian communities and paid tribute to local government leaders, of which he was formerly one.
Several hon. Members raised issues caused by policy confusion in developments in the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West spoke about confusion and disarray caused in Greater Manchester by the Health Secretary’s decision to revisit the consultation on maternity and neonatal services. In Salford, we very much want to keep open our maternity unit at Hope hospital. She is right to draw attention to the confusion caused not only in Bolton, but in Bury, Rochdale and other parts of Greater Manchester. We ask that Health Ministers listen to local people and resolve the future of our maternity services.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) talked about cancer drugs. There is much condemnation of primary care trusts when difficult decisions are made about the funding of certain drugs. It is tempting to think that if all decisions were taken by GPs, that would solve all the problems. However, not all GPs either want or are ready to take on commissioning. We should ask what effect their taking financial decisions will have. What will a patient think when a GP says no to a particular treatment or drug for financial reasons? The disappointment will be the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made a compelling case for fairness in the services delivered to her constituents and voiced her concern about the cuts made by Trafford council. I should say that I was a councillor in Labour-run Trafford from 1995 to 2004. We worked hard to protect care for older people, develop services for children and young people, and even keep our parks and gardens. She is a strong advocate for her constituents, as she showed in her speech today.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) talked about competitive sport. Although I agree with him about the need to encourage excellence, my biggest fear is for all those children and young people who will not be able to afford the costs of participating in sport, particularly now that the grants for free swimming have been cut.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about enjoying Adjournment debates in the middle of the night in the 1980s. For most people, this debate, lasting five hours in the daytime, has been long enough. [Interruption.] “Oh no!” I hear. “We could have gone on longer.” He also referred to his concern about the future of the health service in Islington. He urged Ministers to stop messing with the NHS, a view that I strongly support.
The pre-recess Adjournment debate is a good vehicle for allowing hon. Members to raise issues and express views. The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) has raised nine issues today. I have known him to raise 13, so he was being kind to the Deputy Leader of the House.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) spoke of a local case involving a trader and constituents who had lost their life savings. I hope that her raising the issue today will help to publicise her constituents’ plight.
The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) talked about a superb new leisure centre and a new academy school in his constituency. It is very good to hear of sound investment from a Labour Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson) that Government investment, including that made through regional development agencies, is welcome in many constituencies.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) argued strongly for the first-past-the-post system of voting. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about the coalition Government’s appalling proposals to hack away at communities and change constituency boundaries to suit a political purpose. We will all have more to say on that when we return in September.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) made a strong case for a bypass in his constituency. My constituency of Worsley and Eccles South suffers from congestion, and we have three motorways and some of the most badly designed junctions anywhere. I hope that the Department for Transport will cancel the ill-advised lane gain scheme proposed for junctions 12 to 15 of the M60, and that whatever is saved can be used to help further the proposals for the bypass in Stalybridge and Hyde.
A number of Members have talked in strong terms about planning and faceless bureaucrats, and about central decisions being made on planning issues. However, that is exactly what the Conservative-led Government are doing by closing more than 150 magistrates and county courts, including in Salford. As we have heard, keeping justice local is a key issue in places such as Sittingbourne and Sheppey too. I hope that Government Members will continue to argue against the Government’s centrally driven decision on that.
When we are working in our constituencies over the recess, rather than here, it is important that we keep in mind those in our armed forces, to whom I pay tribute. I pay tribute to those serving in Afghanistan, to those who have fallen and their families, and to those who have been injured. We must always remember their service and sacrifice, and support them and their families.
I should like to wish a good summer break to all the staff who provide so much support to us throughout the year, particularly the staff of Hansard, who make sense of our debates, the staff in the Library, all the wonderful staff in the Tea Room, the other catering staff in the House, the cleaners, the Clerks of the Committees, the police, the Serjeant at Arms and her team, and the Doorkeepers. We really appreciate the work that they all do to ensure that this place runs as smoothly as possible.
Finally, Mr Speaker, may I thank you and all the Deputy Speakers for keeping such excellent order in our debates? The new team has done a great job, and I hope that you all have a good break during the summer.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I want to start where the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) finished, just in case I do not get the chance to say this later. I really want to send all those who work in the House my very best wishes and pay tribute to the way in which they keep this place running. They include the staff of Hansard, the Library and the Tea Room, the cleaners, the Clerks, the police, the Serjeant at Arms and her team, and the Doorkeepers. I particularly want to join the authors of early-day motion 596 in paying tribute to George Blaylock, Clive Burrows, Ken Jones and Clive Thomas, who, after a combined 73 years of service, are retiring as Doorkeepers. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I hope that all hon. Members appreciate how much we owe to the staff of this House and the way in which they carry out their duties.
There is not time to do justice to all the excellent speeches that we have heard this afternoon. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), made the very good suggestion that we should find a mechanism whereby everything that is said in these debates receives a proper response from Ministers. I will do my best to ensure that that happens on this occasion. Certainly, I shall ensure that any points to which I do not respond go to the appropriate Department. Her request was backed up by the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Battersea (Jane Ellison).
I congratulate the three hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today. We had a surfeit of very competent speeches, and I am delighted that the standard of speeches has been maintained by all those who have entered the House this time round. The speeches covered an enormous amount of territory. We went from the Clash with the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) to the jam with my the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). The hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) did something that I always appreciate—namely, he put a few of his more difficult-sounding villages into the middle of his speech. I always do that, because it keeps the officers of Hansard happy. Kingsbury Episcopi! I just throw that in for no reason at all.
On the substance of the debate, there were groups of subjects, and they included schools, which featured prominently. Some hon. Members paid tribute to schools in their constituencies. They included the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). Several hon. Members were concerned about school buildings and the fact that they had fallen foul of the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). Whenever he talks about the mining interests in his constituency, he reminds me of the coal mining area of my constituency, where the pits closed a little earlier than in his.
I appreciate the need to replace our crumbling schools, and I wish that we had had a programme that was capable of being delivered. However, in the case of those schools that deserve replacement, I hope that hon. Members will persevere, and that they will push, push and push again for those schools to be included in future programmes. I know that the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister with responsibility for schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) will listen to those propositions. I hope that Ministers will meet the hon. Member for Bolsover about Tibshelf school. I hope that they will also meet the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).
I think that the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) were talking about schools that were not part of the Building Schools for the Future programme. One of the criticisms of that programme was that it did not extend to primary schools, infant schools or nursery schools, and perhaps that is something that we need to do in the future.
Another sub-theme related to trains. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen talked about the need for a Rossendale to Manchester link. He was supported in that by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) talked about the deficiencies in provision in his constituency, and he mentioned National Express. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) mentioned the famous station at Carnforth, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) talked about the slightly less famous station at Melksham. I am nevertheless familiar with that station, and with the need for First Great Western to do a better job. I hope that we will be able to make progress on what is essentially the railway companies providing a better service. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who is very much engaged with these issues, will take those matters forward.
Another sub-theme was health. I will forgive the hon. Member for Islington North for calling me “hapless”; I think I have quite a lot of hap, although he feels otherwise. He spoke about the Whittington hospital, and I know how important it is. He argued for local decisions on hospitals and against centralisation. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) said that he did not want local decisions on hospitals, but centralisation and a big supercentre. They cannot both be right, but the most important thing is that local provision is what is necessary to provide a good health service in the local area. The points raised will continue to be debated.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) did a side advertisement for the Eisteddfod Genedlaethol Cymru, offered birthday wishes to his constituent, and also talked about alcohol pricing. How we reduce binge drinking is something that we will have to address as a public health issue. I think that the Department is very seized of the importance of that.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke about the two hospitals in his constituency and wants to see a return to the provision of maternity services, while the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) raised the issue of his constituent who needed a cancer drug. I am sure he will be pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced today that from October an extra £50 million will be available to help patients get access to innovative new cancer drugs. Doctors will be put in charge of deciding how the funding is spent for their patients locally, based on the advice of cancer specialists.
I thought there would be a sub-group based on courts when the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) talked about Sittingbourne court. I could join this group, as I am facing the proposed closure of Frome magistrates court. There is a consultation exercise and we will all put our views forcefully to the Ministry of Justice. Decisions will be based on access to justice criteria, which is very important. I hope that he will make his case on that basis.
We now come to a group that I have headed simply as “denial”. This includes the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Bolton West, for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for Leyton and Wanstead, for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who would simply not accept the mess that their Government—the Labour Government—had left. The key phrase came from the hon. Member for Bolton West who said that the choices that are being taken now are not the choices they would have made. Well, we would have loved to have known what choices they would have made, because they were committed to £40 billion-worth of cuts and 500,000 job losses in the public sector. Come on, let us hear what they were!
Let me try to deal with all the rest in the three minutes remaining. The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) ranged from fishing smacks under 10 metres in Leigh-on-Sea to myalgic encephalomyelitis and his constituents Julie Ditchburn and Tinashe Sahanga, Southend airport, clamping and policing. I will make sure that various Departments will get to hear what he had to say.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) raised what sounds like a very important case of the Financial Services Authority failing in its regulatory function in respect of her constituents. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire mentioned Traveller sites and is presenting a petition. He will be pleased that the decentralisation Bill is coming forward in mid-November to give extra powers to local authorities.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) raised competitive sports and I absolutely agree with him, while my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham talked about his constituent in Avoncliff and the attitude of the Environment Agency. He and I share a lot of experience on this issue of micro-hydro power generation and the attitude of the Environment Agency. It is an issue that we must get to the bottom of.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) talked about the law-making powers for the National Assembly of Wales, while the hon. Member for Portsmouth South spoke about houses in multiple occupation and the difficulties of council tax and business rates. I hope that the Department will look at those issues.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) talked about the Mottram-to-Tintwistle bypass and wanted a meeting with a Minister. I think he threatened civil disobedience if he did not get it, so we had perhaps better arrange it. I hope that the relevant Minister will explain why the public inquiry was so mishandled under the last Government.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale talked about the conservation of the conservation of the coastline, while the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) told us that all civil servants are not fat cats—and she is absolutely right; it is an important point that needs to be made. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) talked about Kashmir, while the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about the Hope Cove lifeboat. She raised a crucial issue; she wants to know when a Minister will visit and asked about the freedom of information request. I will make sure that her specific questions are answered.
I have no time to respond to any more questions, but I will ensure that hon. Members do get replies to the points that they raised. May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all staff a very happy recess.
Petitions
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
I wish to present a petition signed by 5,807 people. It states:
The Petition of the residents of Ilford North and others,
Declares that the petitioners deplore the continued captivity of Corporal Gilad Shalit and the violations of his basic human rights; notes that 25 June 2010 marked the 4th anniversary of Shalit's abduction by Hamas militants and that for over four years he has been denied visits from the Red Cross, adequate medical care and contact with the outside world; further declares that the petitioners believe these to be serious violations of his human rights under international law; and further notes that the petitioners believe that the inhumane prison conditions imposed on Shalit are criminal, immoral and unjust.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the British Government, and in particular the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to do all in their power and use all avenues possible to secure the basic human rights and freedom of Corporal Shalit, and call upon the United Nations and International Red Cross to redouble its efforts to secure the basic human rights and freedom of Corporal Shalit.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000852]
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I wish to present a petition from residents wishing to stop Traveller sites from being built on green belt land, which has been signed by 2,181 people. It states:
The Petition of residents of the South Staffordshire constituency and others,
Declares that Traveller sites are being built on green belt land; and further declares that the petitioners believe that planning law should apply to these sites.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward proposals to change the law to prevent Traveller sites being imposed on green belt land.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000853]
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Friends of Sunnyhurst Wood and others. It records the support of the users of Sunnyhurst wood to stop the
“storage of silt from the Paddling Pond and Moat Lake”
being allowed to form
“large unsightly mounds over long periods.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of the Friends of Sunnyhurst Wood and others,
Declares that the storage of silt from the Paddling Pond and Moat Lake in Sunnyhurst Wood results in the formation of large unsightly mounds over long periods.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call on Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council to take steps to prevent the storage of silt in Sunnyhurst Wood.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000854]
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of 730 students from Levenshulme high school, who arranged a special event at the school to raise awareness of the ongoing problem of human trafficking. The petition states:
The Petition of the constituents of Manchester Withington and others,
Declares that the petitioners believe that the continuing and increasing incidence of human trafficking into the UK and across the world is a disturbing situation that brings misery to many adults and children across the globe; notes that the petitioners believe human trafficking is a stain on the moral values of the UK; and notes that the petitioners support the "STOP THE TRAFFIK" campaign.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to put an end to human trafficking.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000855]
Trigeminal Neuralgia
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am very pleased to have secured this debate, and I hope it might provide some comfort to many people across the UK who suffer from the condition of trigeminal neuralgia or TN. I should declare my interest: I have been a fellow sufferer. It is an interest I would gladly disown and, indeed, I fairly recently had neurosurgery to try to achieve just that—to disown it. I am grateful to the Minister for being in his place, and I am sure that he is as pleased as I would have been in his position to be closing the sitting for the Government before the recess.
If I may, I will outline some background to the condition, because part of the reason for securing this debate was to raise awareness of TN. Then I would like to express a little appreciation for those trying to deal with TN and help the sufferers. I will conclude with a few requests of the Minister, of which I have given him prior notice.
The Trigeminal Neuralgia Association UK—TNA UK—of which I am a member, is a support group for people suffering from an agonisingly painful neurological condition. Trigeminal neuralgia affects one or more of the three branches of the trigeminal nerve in the head and has been called “the worst pain known to man.” It is characterised by sudden, excruciating spasms of electric shock-like pain, usually just on one side of the face. Thankfully, it is a relatively rare condition thought to affect less than 0.1% of the population, although the latest TNA indications are that there are 12.6 sufferers per 100,000 people in the UK. It is more common in women than men, and although it usually affects people aged 50 or over, the association is coming across many younger sufferers, even young children.
I remember my first referral to a maxillofacial consultant at the Royal London hospital. He asked me to describe my symptoms. I told him and the medical students who were with him, “It makes me cry”. “There you are,” he told his team, “a classic definition of the condition. You either have a London bus parked on your foot or you have trigeminal neuralgia.”
Apparently there is nothing new about TN. It has been documented from the times of the Greeks and Romans in the 1st century, but because of its rarity research has been spasmodic and it is still a little-known condition often misdiagnosed due to lack of knowledge among some medical professionals.
The exact cause of the condition is unknown, but it is thought to be as a result of damage to the root of the nerve at the base of the skull where it emerges from the brain stem and often because the nerve is being compressed by a vein or artery. This damage causes the nerve to malfunction and send messages of intense pain to the brain in response to just a light touch on a “trigger” area of the face.
The pain can last from a few seconds to a few minutes, and there can be many bursts of pain in quick succession. Many patients suffer for months or years without correct treatment, and even undergo extensive, unnecessary dental work before the condition is correctly diagnosed. There can be periods of complete pain remission, but these gradually become shorter and shorter, and patients therefore live in constant fear of a severe attack of debilitating pain.
Any facial movement, such as eating, talking, smiling or kissing, shaving, washing the face or brushing one’s teeth can provoke an attack, and that can completely destroy any quality of life. There were several occasions in this place when I was preparing to speak and was fearful that I would be prevented from doing so because of the sense of an impending attack. That might have improved others’ quality of life in not having to listen to me, but for some patients being unable to live normally leads to their becoming isolated and depressed, sometimes to the point of suicide.
Normal painkillers do not bring any relief and initially anticonvulsants used to treat epilepsy are prescribed. However, these often have unpleasant side effects and lose their efficacy with time so ever larger doses are required. When the medication is no longer effective, or if the side effects cannot be tolerated, various surgical procedures can be considered, although these carry a risk of complication and results are not always long lasting. The data on the success of surgical procedures are only now being assessed and will be more accurately evaluated in the future. The most effective operation is a micro-vascular decompression or MVD—major surgery that involves moving the offending blood vessel or vessels away from the nerve, close to the brain stem. Unfortunately, TN has a habit of recurring, and even this operation does not always deliver long-term relief.
I should at this point express my sincere thanks to the excellent Mr Neil Kitchen and his first-class team at the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery in Queen’s square, London. He operated on me last December, and I am happy to say that since then, when I was in considerable distress, my condition is much improved and my need for medication is now minimal. I should also say thank you to my wife, Dr Sheila Fitzpatrick, without whose care, love and attention a difficult experience would have been much more painful.
The Trigeminal Neuralgia Association was formed in 1999 by a patient and a doctor, Professor Joanna Zakrzewska. It specialises in treating TN, offers support and encouragement to sufferers, and became a registered charity in 2002. Professor Zak, as she is fondly known for obvious spelling and articulation reasons, is a beacon of hope to all TN sufferers. Worldly and wise, she is the essence of reassurance, and on her own or sometimes allied to Mr Kitchen and other surgeons, she offers sufferers real hope.
The aims of the association are to continue to provide information and offer support to members, and to raise awareness of TN among medical professionals and the general public. TNA UK receives no Government or corporate funding and is entirely dependent on membership fees and donations. All the association’s officers give their time for free, and TNA UK is now in contact with more than 1,000 patients, receiving many new inquiries each week. The officers of the association—the tireless chairman Jillie Abbott, supported primarily by Mr George Cunningham, a former hon. Member and treasurer of TNA UK, and membership officer Mr Clive Clifton—and numerous other generous individuals volunteer to spread the word, helping sufferers and raising awareness. They are all very much appreciated because of their efforts. The association can be reached by searching the web for TNA UK.
I mentioned earlier the misdiagnosis of TN as dental problems. I am pleased to report that the British Dental Association has acknowledged that its members can help in this regard. I am told that it plans to commission an article on facial pain for its British Dental Journal, and is considering a session on facial pain at next year’s BDA conference. We in TNA UK will be happy to do all we can to assist with that, and we are grateful to the BDA for looking at the issue so seriously. I have also written today to the BDA to seek confirmation of the initiatives.
I would be very grateful if the Minister advised the House on the following matters. In his briefing for this debate, have his officials acknowledged that there is an awareness issue? Notwithstanding the rarity of the condition, greater familiarity among medical and dental practitioners would save money and, more importantly, reduce suffering. TNA UK is not asking for funding, although that would be welcome—if the Minister has his cheque book, we would like to see it.
As I have said, the association volunteers work very hard. However, can the Minister advise whether there is anything that TNA UK can do to help additionally promote awareness of trigeminal neuralgia within the NHS family? Is there anything that the NHS can do specifically to support Professor Zak in her research into the condition and surgical outcomes? Finally, TNA UK and individual sufferers would welcome any advice that the Minister might have in respect of their condition and how their overall situation might be improved.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing the opportunity to debate this important issue on the last day before the summer recess. To have the privilege to be the Minister replying to a debate at this Dispatch Box is not something I necessarily expected when we all departed from this House in April, so it is a double pleasure to be concluding business in the House before we leave for a busy summer recess.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on highlighting this important topic, on bringing it to the attention of the House and on raising it with me as the Minister and, through me, with officials. He is right to raise both his personal experience and, in doing so, the experiences of many others who suffer from this condition and who often live with long-term chronic pain. He has spoken movingly and powerfully about the misery and discomfort that the condition can bring. I have heard that in some cases a strong wind just brushing a person’s cheek can be enough to trigger or ignite that intense pain through the nerve endings firing up. That is almost impossible to imagine unless one has personally experienced it, as he has described.
The hon. Gentleman asked about professional awareness. I have to confess that ministerial awareness of this condition was extremely low until quite recently. I had not heard about it—I will be honest—and I have spent the past few days learning as much as possible about it. From what I have learned, I agree that the condition deserves to be much better understood by policy makers, the general public and front-line clinical staff. The hon. Gentleman gave an excellent account of what clinical experts believe causes trigeminal neuralgia and of how the condition can be managed, and he rightly talked about how understanding of its prevalence is developing.
As the hon. Gentleman has explained, there are various treatments available. I understand that in about three-quarters of cases, patients respond well to anti-convulsant drugs, which have the effect of settling the nerve endings. However, although those drugs can be effective in reducing the frequency of attacks, they might not remove the pain entirely. Pain management techniques are then important for helping patients to manage their condition when attacks occur. As he has described, some patients might find that drug treatments become less effective over time or that they cause undesirable side effects. That is when surgery might become necessary to interrupt or block electrical activity in the nerve. There are several options, as he has described, but in the most severe cases, surgery is often the option taken up; it can be invasive and delicate, and it might not always bring the long-term relief that is desired.
Radiosurgery is another option, which may successfully interrupt the nerve impulses. There is exciting work under way using Gamma Knife technology, which is less invasive and can be more effective. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recently issued updated guidance on treating trigeminal neuralgia using Gamma Knife.
I have been told by my policy officials that one of the big challenges in treating this condition is diagnosis, which involves a GP or dentist having to rule out a whole host of other possibilities, including tumours, dental problems, the after-effects of shingles and dysfunction of the jaw. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Royal College of General Practitioners has developed a curriculum statement for neurological problems, which includes the need to consider trigeminal neuralgia in patients with headaches and neuropathies—I think that last word will read better in Hansard than I pronounced it—so it should be something that GPs cover as part of their initial training.
I add that the condition is also referenced in undergraduate dentistry training. Of course, because of its rarity, many GPs and dentists will see it only very infrequently in their practice, so I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the work that the British Dental Association is doing to promote the condition and to keep these possibilities in the front of dentists’ minds. By way of supporting these efforts, I have asked my officials to contact the dental deans to make sure that the condition also features in the continuing education and training of dentists.
The hon. Gentleman’s description of trigeminal neuralgia shows the need to join up national and local approaches to pain management and long-term conditions. As an action arising from this debate, I have asked my officials to look carefully at pain management in the context of the framework for long-term neurological conditions. I want to help the NHS to make the right connections between local services and to align national and local policies more closely to be helpful in that regard. We will have to make sure that all that feeds into commissioning and clinical practice at local level, and there are several areas in which we are looking to build knowledge and awareness at all levels of the NHS.
First, as the hon. Gentleman might be aware, NICE has recently issued new clinical guidelines on managing neuropathic pain. The guidelines specifically mention trigeminal neuralgia and describe the circumstances in which patients should be referred to a specialist pain service. On the back of that, NICE is working with the National Institute for Health Research to explore additional avenues of research that could help patients with the condition.
The NICE guidelines on neuropathic pain recommended four areas for future research, one of which is specific to trigeminal neuralgia and would give us evidence of the effectiveness of one of the most commonly used treatments. The other three topics cover the use of combination drug therapies, factors influencing quality of life, and the question of how much treatment should be influenced by the underlying cause of pain. They will be relevant to all forms of neuropathic pain, including trigeminal neuralgia. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the topics are being considered for research as part the health technology assessment programme, and that a decision will be made in due course.
A second area of interest concerns the future planning of local services. The Government have agreed to press ahead with a national pain audit, to which 200 pain clinics are already signed up. Data collection will begin later this year. The audit will assess not only the organisation of local services to ensure that they meet local needs, but quality of care through the measurement of patient outcomes. The audit will help us to build a picture of patient need, which will help the NHS to build local strategies to improve pain management services. Again, such information will enable us to ensure that the right services are available for people with trigeminal neuralgia.
Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman might also be aware, a consultation will take place during the summer on the NHS transparency in outcomes framework set out in the recent NHS White Paper. We want to hear the views of health care professionals, patients, carers, hon. Members and the public on what measures we should seek with regard to best outcomes and ensuring that patients have the right experiences in the NHS. I would certainly like TNA UK to contribute its thoughts on that, because that would help the shaping of the kind of outcome agenda that we want to see.
Fourthly, I will meet the Neurological Alliance, an umbrella group representing more than 50 neurological charities and organisations, to discuss the way forward on long-term conditions more generally. I understand that TNA UK is part of this group, so I hope that it will make its views known in the alliance so that they can form part of our discussions.
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking third sector organisations such as TNA UK, which he rightly praised, for their work in raising patient awareness. On average, someone with chronic pain will have direct contact with a health professional for only about three hours a year; they care for themselves for the rest of the time. It is therefore extremely important for patients to know about their condition and receive the support that they need to manage their pain. That will become ever more important as we broaden control through personal health budgets and offer patients greater choice and say over their treatment. Good information for patients is the key to unlocking those benefits. I should add that there is also useful information on the NHS Choices website, which discusses the diagnosis and treatment of the condition and puts patients directly in touch with TNA UK.
The hon. Gentleman asked what else TNA UK could do to raise awareness of the condition or to improve the position of sufferers. I have already described a number of initiatives on which we would warmly welcome input from TNA UK. If I may make a final suggestion, the Chronic Pain Policy Coalition is doing excellent work nationally and regionally to inform and shape policy. TNA UK has common cause with such groups, so they could helpfully join forces to make the case for better pain management throughout the country.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and I am now aware of the pain and agony that the condition can bring. Although I am afraid that the Department of Health is not resourced to give equal attention to every individual condition, it is gratifying to know that organisations such as TNA UK are supporting patients and promoting greater awareness. I am keen for us to work with them, and with the hon. Gentleman, to continue improving the quality and effectiveness of treatment for those who suffer pain, and I believe that the White Paper provides useful impetus in that regard.
On a personal note, I wish the hon. Gentleman the very best. I am delighted to hear that his treatment was to his satisfaction, and I hope that it provides him with lasting relief from this distressing condition.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Evans
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much (a) his Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on hospitality in each year since 1997.
Mr Paterson
On 12 April 2010 the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) transferred responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Comparable figures for the Department as it is now configured are not available.
Since 12 April the Department has spent £234 on hospitality.
The NIO has no agencies. It has one non-departmental public body which has incurred no cost on hospitality since 12 April.
[Official Report, 19 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 5W.]
Letter of correction from Mr. Paterson:
An error has been identified in relation to the answer given to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on 19 July 2010, Official Report, column 5W, on hospitality expenditure.
It has come to our attention that the figure of £234 was not up to date at the time of answering this Question as some relevant July costs had not been centrally recorded at the time the Question was answered. The updated figure should have been £438.63.
The corrected full answer should now read:
Mr Paterson
On 12 April 2010 the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) transferred responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Comparable figures for the Department as it is now configured are not available.
Since 12 April the Department has spent £438.63 on hospitality.
The NIO has no agencies. It has one non-departmental public body which has incurred no cost on hospitality since 12 April.
Petitions
Gypsies and Travellers (Security of Tenure)
Proposed Expansion (St Peter's School, Croydon)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
A11 (Dualling)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, in my first speech in a Westminster Hall debate, Mr Williams. I am delighted to have been granted this debate on the economic impact of dualling the A11, and am grateful to the Minister for giving his time. I am also grateful for the cross-party attendance by the many colleagues from all over Norfolk and Suffolk who have come to the debate.
It is poignant that this is the last day of the parliamentary term, for today Members will return to their constituencies—many of them along the A11. Those hon. Members will follow a now familiar path: steady progress past the M25 and an unencumbered glide past Stansted, before turning right-handed, and making steady progress up to Mildenhall. Then they, like 25,000 others every day, will come to a shuddering halt at Barton Mills. As they grind past the service station, and take their life in their hands getting on to the Fiveways roundabout, they fear they will never go faster than 30 mph again. Is that because it is a built-up area? No. Is it because of the number of pedestrians? Hardly. It is because they have reached the Barton Mills bottleneck. Why does that feature endure? Do the people of Norfolk not need a decent road to the capital? The journey from London to Norwich is 115 miles long. Yet for an inexplicable reason, nine miles in the middle of it have been left as a single carriageway.
The Minister will today hear many accounts of the extremely high economic returns that would result from finishing that bit of road. He may wonder how a road-widening project can have such high economic returns, but I urge him to think of it not as a road-widening project between Barton Mills and Thetford—although it is that—but more as the long-overdue completion of the road to Norfolk. The first layout of the motorway network, drafted in 1936, included a motorway from London to Norfolk. Proposals for completion of the dualling of the final nine miles of the A11, known as the Barton Mills bottleneck, were first put forward in 1989. After an assiduous campaign by my predecessor, Richard Spring, and my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley)—I pay tribute to them both—it became a Government priority in 1999. Public meetings on the plans were held two years ago this week. My constituents, and people all over East Anglia, hope that the new Government will finally give the scheme the go-ahead when the spending review is completed.
Today’s debate focuses on the economic impacts of the road, so I will not dwell on the fact that the reasons for improving that stretch of the A11 are not solely financial. Local people are very focused on the tragic human cost of delaying the scheme. There are serious safety concerns, which were brought into sharp focus by a Road Safety Foundation report in June, which found that single-lane roads were twice as dangerous as dual carriageways. To the real economic cost we must add a cost measured not in pounds, but in lives. Having set out the context, I want to explain, first, the overwhelming local support for the scheme, and, secondly, its clear economic justification. Finally, I shall address head-on the central fact facing the Government: the vast, unprecedented budget deficit that the coalition is addressing.
First, unlike some transport projects, the scheme commands wide support. The number of fellow MPs here today from all over East Anglia is testament to that fact. Indeed, I am yet to come across an objector. Indicative of that was a petition of some 16,000 local residents presented to the Department for Transport in November 2008 by Daniel Cox, leader of Norfolk county council. Environmental concerns that were raised have been addressed. The project is supported by both Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which says that
“the road will not harm wildlife in the Brecks”
and that it is
“confident that this is the right deal for nature”.
Local businesses are also behind the scheme. The local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses backs the plans, arguing that an efficient road system is “essential”. Giles de Lotbinière, the managing director of local business Lignacite, says A11 delays are a “hindrance to businesses”. Indeed, international businessman and local landowner Lord Iveagh reflected the general tone adopted by the businesses that I have spoken to when he said:
“the more we can do for the road the better”.
The project of relieving the Barton Mills bottleneck is supported not just by local people, safety campaigners, environmental groups and businesses, but by all three political parties. During the election campaign, Lord Adonis, on a last gasp visit to his friend Charles Clarke in Norwich South, said:
“Labour is committed to completing the dualling of the A11 with construction beginning this year.”
On 23 April, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister spoke out in support of the widening. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that the project was “totally justified”, while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that
“everyone knows it needs to be done”.
So from top to bottom, support is widespread.
What of the economic case? Having done the research, reviewed the evidence, and spoken to the officials at the Department, for whose time I am grateful, I can say that the economic case for finishing the road is compelling. The cost estimate for the scheme is £134 million. Consultants for the Highways Agency estimate that, for that cost, the project will generate £19 million in indirect taxes, and economic benefits of £550 million for consumers and £1.1 billion for businesses; so on the Government’s own figures, the benefits are more than 20 times the cost. That is an astonishing figure, which I shall put into context. A return of more than twice the cost is regarded by the Department for Transport as
“providing high value for money”.
Hon. Members will not be surprised to find that the Highways Agency reports that
“benefits exceed expenditure costs substantially, demonstrating the economic viability of the scheme”.
The report found that there would be productivity benefits in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, and that they would be concentrated on Thetford, Norwich and Great Yarmouth. It is good to see that MPs representing all those towns are present for the debate. The financial case for completing the road is clearly strong, but the impact would be felt far beyond the balance sheets of the businesses of East Anglia. Completing the road would boost confidence among businesses across Norfolk, generate interest from investors and help to create conditions for new employment. Until 18 months ago, businesses around Thetford routed their lorries away from the bottleneck on a Friday because it was impossible to negotiate. Now they are forced to reroute them every working day. That is the real business cost.
The Highways Agency report that I mentioned discusses the risks of not proceeding with the work and states that
“future growth aspirations could be jeopardised by the failure to improve the trunk road. Traffic delays would become sufficiently severe that new development would fail to materialise”.
I said that the benefits are 20 times the cost; let me put that figure further into context by comparing it with the figures for other schemes on the Department’s list. The A13/A130 link at Sadlers Farm has an economic benefit four times the cost; for the A13 passenger transport corridor, the ratio is 2; for the A421 improvements at Milton Keynes, the figure is 1.9; and for the Luton busway it is 1.6. I am told that some schemes in north-east England have an economic return of less than one; I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether that is true.
The reason for that astonishingly high rate of return is clear. We are not talking about a new road project, or even the improvement of a whole road, but the final piece of an otherwise complete jigsaw. The question is why the work has not already been done. I shall not try to answer that question today, although the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) might try to do so. In truth, I find many of the actions of the previous Administration unfathomable, and that is but one of them. Instead, I shall address head-on the hard question that we all face.
There is no ducking the fact that our nation’s finances are in a mess. We have the biggest peacetime deficit on record, and we are borrowing £1 for every £4 that the Government spend. The central task for the new Government in turning our economy around is to deal with the deficit. I campaigned on that platform, and I support it wholeheartedly. We all know that money is tight. The question is how we should deal with the mess.
The economic evidence shows that fiscal retrenchments are most successful when they are done mostly by reducing current spending. I was therefore delighted when the Chancellor forsook the easy option of further cutting capital spending in the Budget. He said:
“Well-judged capital spending by Government can help provide the new infrastructure our economy needs to compete in the modern world. It supports the transport links we need to trade our goods...There will be no further reductions in capital spending totals in this Budget, but we will make careful choices about how that capital is spent. The absolute priority will be projects with a significant economic return to the country.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 170.]
That policy is right, and the proposed scheme would help make it a reality. I believe that the A11 improvement scheme clearly fits into the class of capital spending that the Chancellor is keen to continue.
Last week, the Secretary of State for Transport told the Eastern Daily Press that the scheme had achieved “a very high score” under the Whitehall cost-benefit analysis, and spoke of the “very powerful” economic benefits of removing such bottlenecks. Will the Minister repeat those words today? Will he confirm that the evidence shows a compelling case for the road to be completed? Does he accept that there is virtually no local opposition? Will he now tell us that, even in these difficult economic times, removing the Barton Mills bottleneck is at the top of his list of priorities?
Lastly, will he accept my invitation to join me, one day soon, in opening the final section of this long overdue road, completing the dream of a highway to Norwich? If he does so, the warm and generous people of East Anglia will give him the hero’s welcome that he deserved. [Applause.]
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) has secured today’s debate. This issue more than any other is a priority for the people of South West Norfolk; for too long, they have struggled with a difficult situation, given that the road is one of the main thoroughfares into my constituency. The matter should be given serious consideration by Ministers in advance of this autumn’s comprehensive spending review. The scheme is long overdue, and it is particularly pressing given the need to generate growth in our economy and to ensure that Britain races ahead.
I wish to talk about three things: first, Norfolk’s infrastructure deficit; secondly, specific effects of the problem on the town of Thetford; and, thirdly, the wider benefits that the scheme would deliver to our economy.
Although the United Kingdom is the world’s sixth richest country, it is 34th in the world infrastructure league table. However, Norfolk would rate far behind that. It is the largest county in England not to have a dual carriageway linking to the national trunk road network. We are the only county not to have been included in BT’s plans for super-fast broadband. We do not have the train speeds or railway connections that a county with the economic potential of Norfolk truly deserves.
Of the missed opportunities to improve infrastructure over the past 13 years, the grossest error was the failure to dual the final stretch of the A11, which I put down to mis-prioritisation by the now defunct regional authorities. They decided that the A11 had a lower priority than other schemes that had a far lower economic benefit.
The scheme is readily supported by local businesses. For instance, Jo Pearson of Pearsons (Thetford) Ltd said:
“Thetford, Norwich and the whole of Norfolk, for too long now has been the poor relation; the difference this upgrade will make in economic prosperity and jobs is immeasurable. We have heard all the talk time and again; this project must be not at the top of the ‘to do’ list but a distant memory in the completed pile!!”
People in Thetford and elsewhere in Norfolk are fed up with being told that the project will happen only to find that the digging has not started. I and my colleagues want to see a definite plan for action.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk mentioned the wide support give to the scheme by the local community. I would also mention the Gateway A11 East action group, which is represented here in the Public Gallery and has come to London to show how important the scheme is to them. The Eastern Daily Press, too, is here and listening to today’s debate; the paper has featured the problem heavily in its columns over the years. The scheme has extremely widespread support.
The problem, as has been pointed out, is that we are now in much more difficult economic times. However, Norfolk is not asking for handouts. We did not receive the national insurance tax holiday for new businesses; and we did not receive the millions of public sector jobs that other parts of the country did. Indeed, 72% of the Norfolk economy is in the private sector. To continue growing and making a net contribution to the tax pot—that is what we do in Norfolk—those businesses need their employees to be able to get into work and their supplies to be delivered to their customers. That is all that we ask.
The Norfolk infrastructure crunch is particularly acute in Thetford. Thetford was the ancient capital of East Anglia. It has an amazing number of energetic businesses—[Interruption.] I think I heard an objection; I am happy to take an intervention.
Thetford is a natural hub. We should bear in mind that it is well connected—at least, it would be if the A11 was sorted—to Cambridge, another growing economic area. There is a bottleneck where there should be potential economic expansion. However, although the town may be struggling with the lack of decent road connections, there are plans to build 6,000 more houses over the next few years and many more jobs and businesses will be located there. As a result, what is now difficult may become impossible. There are also plans for a new academy. We have the potential to be a major area of economic growth.
I fear that the people of Thetford are in danger of being all dressed up with nowhere to go. Despite the fact that the town is surrounded by some rather nice bits of dual carriageway, further out it peters out into a single-lane highway, which makes it difficult to transit further. Boudicca was thought to have based her operations in Thetford in ancient times. If she was to try leading her insurgency against the Roman army today, she would not get as far as Cambridge, given the state of the roads.
The road is important not only to the people of Thetford and South West Norfolk; it is economically vital to the nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk pointed out, the Department for Transport says that schemes with a benefit-cost ratio of more than 2 should be considered highly favourable. The guidance also says that in most, if not all, cases, such schemes should go ahead. The fact that the scheme would return £19 for every £1 invested suggests that it would be of huge economic benefit.
The figures suggest that a total investment cost of £100 million would yield tax revenue of £42 million and journey-time benefits of £1.2 billion, and that is before we take into account the extra businesses that might locate in the area when the A11 is dualled. Many companies are currently put off by the poor transport connections, and they are put off not just in Thetford, but in Norwich and all along the A11 corridor. The current Norfolk economy is valued at £16 billion. Between 2001 and 2007, growth in the Norfolk economy outstripped the rest of England by 10%. We could achieve even higher relative growth in our county because the entrepreneurs and the business acumen are there, but we need the infrastructure to support them.
Let us consider why the benefit of such a road scheme is so large. The answer is that this piece of road is effectively a ransom strip. It is the final part that has not been dualled. Recent research from the OECD suggests that connecting up networks so that they work is most important and achieves the most value for money in infrastructure investment. It is not about having individual high-value projects; it is about ensuring that we have a network that works, and that is the missing link in the chain. Those who might question the projected high returns—there are not many of them here today—should look at the projections for the A11 Attleborough bypass, which has just been completed. One year after the project, the Department for Transport commissioned a study to consider the return and how it had compared with the projections. The return on that project was a 5.2 benefit-cost ratio, which was only 0.2 adrift from the projections. I commend the Department for Transport for the accuracy of its economic analysis. Given that such a projection is being made on a similar road, I suggest that the high benefit that we would expect from the A11 Fiveways-to-Thetford scheme will be realised.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, I have viewed the other projects in the pipeline. As far as I can tell, the A11 project came out with by far the highest benefit-cost ratio. Most other projects were in the low units and very few projects hurdled into the tens. At a meeting between the nine Norfolk MPs and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, it was agreed that economic return would be the key criterion, and that it would apply not only within Departments but across Departments. I urge the Minister to ensure that these high-value projects are considered not only within the Department for Transport’s budget but in comparison with all capital budgets across Departments. We do not want to see a high-value project stopped just because it falls under the Department for Transport, and Government capital used on a lesser-value project in another Department. In our meeting with the Chief Secretary, we established the important principle that projects with the highest economic returns should go ahead regardless of which Department they are part of.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
The passion with which my hon. Friend makes her case is commendable. The only budget for roads within Government is in the Department for Transport. It is our budget and we are responsible for it. I will not shirk that responsibility; the buck stops here.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the Minister for his answer. I take from it that the project would be ring-fenced by the Department rather than considered across Departments. The Minister might consider the road budget, but would other budgets be freed up if capital was not being properly utilised in other Departments?
Mike Penning
Of course, other aspects and other money from different parts of other Departments form the package, but the package for roads specifically falls under the Department for Transport. When we consider projects around the country as funding is freed up, we will examine that package, but the actual budget for roads specifically comes from the Department for Transport.
Elizabeth Truss
I shall continue to press my case. Infrastructure in this country has lost out in current spending, and we have all paid the price for that in economic growth held back. I will certainly put the case that infrastructure projects, as part of the capital budget, should be prioritised if they deliver such economic benefit. Clearly, the best option would be for the scheme to be approved under the road budget, and we look to the Minister to consider that as part of the comprehensive spending review.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said, the A11 dualling from Thetford to Fiveways is not just another road project. It is a very important project that will free up a huge amount of business resource, energy and entrepreneurship across East Anglia and help drive growth across the region. We are not asking for handouts in Norfolk. We are a county that delivers jobs, 72% of which are in the private sector, and we are a net contributor to the overall tax pot. What we want is our fair share of infrastructure spending to ensure that we can carry on delivering those economic benefits into the future.
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Order. As a number of new Members are in the Chamber, may I remind them of three points? First, they need not touch the microphones; they will come on automatically. Secondly, no reference should be made to members of the public or members of the press being present. Thirdly, irrespective of the obvious infectious enthusiasm for the A11, there should be no applause.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
I apologise that I have to leave shortly before the end of this debate to attend a Select Committee meeting. I wanted to speak briefly today to show how important the A11 is beyond the corridor of constituencies that it directly runs through. I represent Great Yarmouth and, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), whom I commend for securing this debate, the A11 dualling is hugely important to us. Great Yarmouth has the opportunity to unlock economic growth that could transmute Norfolk, Suffolk and potentially Cambridge with renewable energy and offshore wind farms. They could benefit, too, from our new deep-water outer harbour.
When I talk to businesses, whether they are in the chambers of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses or any other commercial interest, the common comment is about infrastructure. We need high-speed broadband, but, more importantly, we need access by rail and road. The important part of that jigsaw is the dualling of the A11. It would release the opportunity for business to come through.
We do not have a motorway in Norfolk. As my predecessors often joked—unfortunately, it is true—the nearest motorway to Great Yarmouth is in Holland. We need the A11 dualled because it releases massive potential for Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. I wanted to be here today to show that there is an understanding across our county that that road is a vital artery that unlocks so much economic potential. I wanted to ensure that the Minister and the Department know that we all share the belief that this is a massively important piece of investment.
Again, I fully commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk for securing the debate. From Great Yarmouth’s point of view, we should like to see the scheme go ahead. It is an important part of the jigsaw. In years to come, I and my other hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), will no doubt argue that the scheme needs to link up with the dualling of the A47 and other roads, but, for now, the A11 is the key to the jigsaw.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Williams, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) for securing a debate on a matter that is of such importance to the future prosperity of Norfolk and Suffolk. He has already spoken eloquently and passionately and I want to say a few words in support of the case that he has put forward. I speak not only as a fellow Suffolk MP but as someone who has lived in the county his whole life and who, until 12 weeks ago, spent his whole working life of 27 years in Suffolk and Norfolk.
When I started work as a trainee surveyor in Norwich in 1983, only two parts of the A11 from Cambridge to Norwich were dualled. They were the Cringleford bypass on the southern outskirts of Norwich, which at that time was the only dual carriageway in Norfolk, and the section of the A11 around Newmarket where it combined with the A14.
In the past 27 years, the A11 has gradually been improved and today the only section that remains to be dualled is that between the Fiveways roundabout, which is at Barton Mills, and Elvedon, which is in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is vital that that dualling work is carried out as soon as possible. That section of the A11 is a dangerous stretch of road. In rush hour, there are long tailbacks and it is a bottleneck that is holding back the creation of jobs. Those jobs may be in the logistics sector in the Thetford area, in the research and development sector around Norwich, or in the green energy sector in my own constituency, which is further east in the Lowestoft area.
In East Anglia, we have particularly poor infrastructure. We only have motorways along the western edge of the region; we have a rail network that is creaking at the seams; we have poor broadband connections, and we have an electricity network that is in need of a major upgrade if we are to realise the full potential offered by the offshore renewable sector.
Nevertheless, our economy is performing remarkably well. My hon. Friend recently hosted a reception at which various East Anglian businesses launched their “blueprint for growth”. That highlighted the fact that the eastern counties are an economic powerhouse. Indeed, the eastern counties are one of only three parts of the UK that make a net contribution to the UK Exchequer.
That success is in spite of our poor infrastructure. If proper investment is made, we can be at the forefront of the country’s drive out of the recession. We can play a crucial role in helping the coalition to secure its goal of rebalancing the economy across the regions and across a wide range of new industries. Dualling this stretch of road across the Brecks will help to achieve that goal and it will also help East Anglia to become a more attractive location that new companies can move to and where existing businesses can grow. As I have said, that growth will be in such sectors as scientific research and development around Norwich and renewable energy in Lowestoft and Yarmouth.
I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend in his efforts to secure funding for the dualling scheme. However, there is a wider issue to address. It is important that Britain moves away from the piecemeal approach to the provision of infrastructure. We have pursued that approach for far too long and it is putting the brake on economic activity and holding back the creation of jobs.
I recognise that we are in challenging times, with money in short supply. However, if we are to secure long-term economic growth in Britain, including in East Anglia, local businesses and local government need to work together to set out a blueprint of the infrastructure that they need and we then need to consider new ways to secure the investment for that infrastructure. By adopting such an approach, East Anglia can realise its full economic potential and play its full part in delivering the more balanced and diverse economy that Britain needs.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
Mr Williams, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and my other hon. Friends who are here in Westminster Hall today. We “old lags” from pre-2010—the “Alten Kämpfer”, as our German cousins would call us—stand in awe of their enthusiasm and the fact that they really want to hunt as a pack on behalf of East Anglia.
Norfolk has two main trunk roads, the A11 and the A47, neither of which is completely dualled. I have fought long and hard for the A47 to be dualled because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has said, it goes through part of my constituency. In terms of priorities, however, I think that everybody in Norfolk—whether they are business people, local councillors or Members of Parliament—has recognised that the No. 1 priority is the completion of the dualling of this nine-mile stretch of the A11. That is the message that I would give to our hon. Friend the Minister—that this dualling work is the key to unlocking a lot of the economic development that we require in the northern part of East Anglia.
I hope that I can compare and contrast the reaction of the coalition Government with the briefing that I went to in 1997 with the newly elected MPs at that time. It was a briefing from Baroness Hayman, the Speaker in the House of Lords, who was then a junior Transport Minister. We were told then that roads were really not on the agenda; nobody was really interested in roads at that time. However, the great outcry and bellowing from the then Members for Norwich, North and Norwich, South—Dr Ian Gibson and Charles Clarke respectively—and others proved that even then we recognised that roads were absolutely crucial.
If the Barton Mills stretch of the A11 is blocked, perhaps by roadworks or an accident, and if the A47 is blocked at the same time—I think that it happened once that both roads were blocked at the same time—there is no doubt that Norfolk will be totally gridlocked. As I say, that gridlock has actually happened. It is ludicrous that that should happen to one of the largest counties in the country and it obviously has a knock-on effect for our friends and colleagues in Suffolk.
In addition, the A11 is criss-crossed by a number of secondary roads. At times, it is almost impossible for people to get across those secondary roads and I believe that that also has a knock-on effect on the local economy.
It seems that Norfolk and Suffolk suffer from a double negative. First, we have an inadequate road link between Norwich and London. At this point, I must gently tease my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and say that Boadicea was, of course, heading towards Colchester and not towards Cambridge; I think that Boadicea’s old satellite navigation equipment might have been slightly out when she was heading south to our friends in Colchester for a quiet word in their ear and burning down their capital. While I am at it, I also gently point out to my hon. Friend that in Roman times it was Venta Icenorum, which was outside Norwich, that was the capital of East Anglia. Having Thetford as the capital was a later, rather vulgar occurrence under the Anglo-Saxons. [Laughter.] However, Mr Williams, I will pass that by.
As I was saying, the crucial point is that we not only have that inadequate road link but, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out, we have for years had a very inadequate rail link, first run by Anglia and now by National Express. We have all been working to improve that link and I hope that the Minister will pass on to his colleagues who are responsible for the rail network the fact that, when the franchise comes up for renewal, we intend gripping in no uncertain terms, and we will want to interview the various companies that might be thinking of putting in a bid for that franchise.
My hon. Friends have outlined the impact on business and economic development of dualling this stretch of road. My experience of 13 years as a Member of Parliament, in a constituency that is north of Norwich, is that there is no doubt that one of the factors—I emphasise that it is only one of the factors, although I think that it is an absolutely crucial one—in getting investment into Norfolk, either from the rest of the United Kingdom or from overseas, is the perception that our infrastructure, including the important road and rail network, is of poor quality. Even in the age of being able to order goods through the internet, when it comes to companies that ultimately rely on shifting quite heavy duty goods by road and rail, I think that Norfolk and Suffolk frequently lose out if those companies are looking for new places to go to. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that we re-establish that infrastructure.
The northern part of our region has always been a poor relation. Parts of Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire are poor as measured by every index of social deprivation that one can think of. My own constituency only has small pockets of social deprivation, but in particular I am thinking of friends and colleagues in Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and Norwich, where there are major areas of social deprivation. Therefore, getting in new business is crucial.
We should also bear it in mind that we have about 2 million to 3 million tourists coming to Norfolk and Suffolk each year to visit our beautiful counties and one of the horror stories that they invariably leave with is that of being stuck on the A11. We want to encourage tourism, so roads are crucial.
We should also bear in mind, as hon. Members have pointed out, the importance of the right kind of capital expenditure. I know that the Minister is aware of it; my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk has flagged it up. I also pray in aid the support of a colleague who is unable to speak in this debate, although her fragrant presence is before me; I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who, as a Whip, may be seen but, sadly, never heard, or at least heard only in private. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) also sends his apologies, as he is on duty at the Public Accounts Committee. Both my hon. Friends have said that there are two types of capital expenditure. The first, once made, may cost more and more. Such expenditure is important, as it includes schools, prisons, hospitals and so on. The second, apart from the occasional need to repair potholes, produces economic growth after the initial capital investment is made. Roads are one of the most important elements of such growth. I commend my hon. Friends for making that point.
Matthew Hancock
Does my hon. Friend agree with the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Transport, that there are powerful economic benefits to removing the bottleneck?
Mr Simpson
Yes, absolutely. I am sure that colleagues from other parts of the country will make similar points, but I believe that our point about the A11, which is backed up by the quote from the Secretary of State, is a powerful one.
On the politics of the issue, I have every sympathy for the Minister. His civil servants will have produced a good brief saying, “I commend all the people who have spoken, sympathise with them and feel their pain, but I point out that we are in the middle of a comprehensive spending review and I can therefore make no commitments whatever; kisses to all.” I am not being patronising; he is in a difficult position, as are all Ministers in all Departments.
Our most important message to the Minister is that the MPs of Norfolk and Suffolk are absolutely united in the opinion that the A11 should be given priority. We have been to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and some colleagues have met the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to discuss broadband, so we understand the economic constraints, but when the Minister considers priorities during the next few months, we urge him to look carefully at what we have argued for. We believe that, in two to three years, the investment required will produce more tax revenue for the Government and will benefit all our constituents.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Williams, for the chance to contribute to this important debate, and for chairing it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing it. I hope that the presence of so many of us from across East Anglia will make the point that the case has huge cross-party and cross-county support, and that the Minister will recognise that the issue has a head of steam.
I am conscious of time restrictions, so I will focus on some specific economic benefits. I speak as someone who came to politics after a 14-year career in technology venturing, and who has spent most of his childhood and adult life on the A11 in one way or another. I have some experience of the frustrations involved when travelling within or out of Norfolk.
I shall concentrate on three types of economic benefit: local, regional and national. On the local level, as I said in my maiden speech, my constituency is the jewel in the crown that is Norfolk. It is in the landlocked heart of Norfolk and centres on Dereham. My constituency suffers from all the problems relating to marginalisation and detachment from the mainstream economy. Average incomes in Mid Norfolk are less than £20,000, and we have pockets of extreme, often hidden, rural deprivation and of pensioner poverty. Frustratingly, there are many fast-growing small businesses in the constituency that are desperate to grow and spread prosperity, but they are unable to do so because they are cut off and lie in the heart of a county that is also cut off, as Norfolk is the only county not connected to the national dual carriageway system. That serves only to strengthen the perception in Mid Norfolk that we are destined to be either a quaint rural backwater—perhaps not quaint to those struggling to pay their bills, but quaint to those passing through—or, as under the last Government, a giant housing estate, zoned for growth, and described with ugly terms such as “growth point status”.
Neither of those models is what my constituents want. They want a richer and more organic way—dare I say, a Norfolk way, an idea that hon. Members have heard me discuss. It involves a vision of a vibrant rural economy based on jobs in villages, smaller pockets of housing, and entrepreneurship in the countryside. All of that can happen; the only thing holding it back is a lack of infrastructure and a lack of ability to get in and out of the area, whether by broadband, road or rail.
My constituency sits between Norwich and Cambridge, two world centres for innovation in technology and enterprise. It is ironic that it languishes in rural poverty and marginalisation, given that to the west and east are growth hot spots struggling to provide capacity when it comes to housing and transport infrastructure. We do not want a handout; we want a way in and out, so that our local businesses can thrive.
Turning to the regional argument, anybody looking at East Anglia will find it striking that although over the past 15 to 20 years it has had high growth rates, particularly in and around Cambridge and Norwich, it also contains pockets of extreme deprivation. How can Cambridge, an inflationary hot spot of new technologies, be so close to centres of deprivation in Peterborough, King’s Lynn, Cromer, parts of Norwich, Yarmouth, Lowestoft and parts of the Suffolk coast? Anybody coming to the area would think that it must be prosperous. It is as though California had around its perimeter pockets of the extreme deprivation recognisable in bits of the Bronx in New York. The reason is that it is so difficult to get around. Despite having worked in Cambridge for 10 years, I know nobody there who does business with companies in Yarmouth. Companies in Yarmouth should be doing business with companies in Cambridge, but if it reliably takes more than three hours to get there, that will not happen. That key piece of dualling would unlock the regional economy.
Additionally, on the east coast of our county there are national assets in the form of container ports, where huge amounts of national trade arrive before setting off on a journey through East Anglia to the rest of the UK economy over a non-dualled section of road—the A47, to which another hon. Member referred. It is ridiculous, from the point of view of national infrastructure and the national economy, that at the heart of the county is a bottleneck holding back so much growth.
On the national economic picture, the Government have proposed a clear and important programme for getting the public sector deficit under control and promoting private sector growth through the “open for business” programme. East Anglia can lead in such growth and in rebalancing our economy geographically, as well rebalancing it away from an over-dependence on the City, housing and consumer spending. We can lead in three of the world’s biggest growth sectors: biomedicine, clean technology and food science.
In the Norwich research park, more than 2,500 scientists work in what is recognised as a global centre of excellence. A team there under Professor Jonathan Jones has just pioneered the world’s first blight-resistant potato, an enormous innovation with the potential to transform food growing not just in this country but around the world. How ridiculous is it that when companies come here to inspect that technology and discuss licensing it, they may fly to Stansted and then face an impossible journey to a world-class centre of excellence over a single carriageway? That reality is holding back our potential. All we ask is for the Minister to acknowledge the potential that our economy would have if we had that section of dualling.
The section of the A11 that is in my constituency is dualled. However, although that makes it convenient to get around Attleborough, it is not much good if our business people hit a traffic jam when they head south to interact with the national and world economy. We have all made a compelling case on this matter. I thank hon. Members for listening and very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
Last Friday, I was at Ipswich station for the naming of a new train, the Evening Star, which is, of course, the name for Venus in the night sky. Coincidentally, it is also the name of a local newspaper in Ipswich. At that event, I was able to relate the sad story of how the people of Norwich stood in the way of the introduction of a train line from Ipswich to Norwich in the 1840s. It was only through the enterprising intervention of the then Member of Parliament for Ipswich that the train was able to go via Ipswich, and Norwich was released from the isolation that it had hitherto suffered. It is good to see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is carrying on that fine tradition of progressive Suffolk MPs fighting for better transport links to Norfolk and Norwich. I know that some hon. Members could not attend this debate; my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) is pained not to be here, and we are pained by his absence.
We were given a Betjeman-like description of the trouble of driving along the A11 by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. It is a journey that I have made many times. As Betjeman would have understood, when one travels on the railways in the west of our country, the train often goes from field to field, as the railway dodges what were the objections of local landowners. That is why it is so refreshing to have not only a progressive Member of Parliament in West Suffolk, but a progressive landowner in Lord Iveagh, who has kindly and brilliantly championed the A11, much of which transgresses on his land.
We Suffolk MPs are so keen on this route because we are Conservatives, and we believe not in levelling down, but in increasing both the general wealth and the regional prosperity of our two counties. I am pleased to be joined by the Norfolk MPs in that quest; they are clearly following in the tradition of past fine Suffolk MPs. One might well ask why the Member of Parliament for Ipswich is arguing for better road links to Norwich. Well, increased prosperity in Norwich is, of course, very good for Ipswich. The good people of Norwich can visit our superior parks and our pre-eminent museums and galleries. They can also come to be trashed by our transcendent football team. All of those things are good for Ipswich and for the people of Norwich.
Many transport infrastructure projects affect both our counties, and it is entirely right—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) referred to this—that we are hunting as a pack, as the issues affect all of us. In my case, there is the issue of improving the Copdock interchange and the Harris Bacon curve, which will allow freight to go to the midlands and will allow us to improve our main train line from Norwich to Ipswich and London. Of course, there is also the matter of the franchise arrangements, which we will approve in the near future, and my hon. Friend referred to that subject.
Traditionally, our two counties have suffered from a chronic lack of investment in transport infrastructure. That is a missed chance, because we are one of the regions that contribute to the Exchequer—not many do. It would seem sensible to invest in that success to enable the major towns and areas of our two counties to grow and prosper even more. In that way, we can benefit the rest of the country.
Elizabeth Truss
Is it not the case that, under the previous Government, the economic return of projects was not properly considered or factored into decisions that were made? That is why so many rational projects did not go ahead at a time of unprecedented Government spending. They failed to fix not only the roof but the road while the sun was shining.
Ben Gummer
I am pleased to endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. She is entirely right: capital expenditure was neglected, particularly in the east of England. A point that I made in my maiden speech, and that I wish to impress time and again on the Exchequer, is that although the Budget for this year is set—I was glad to see that capital expenditure was protected in it—it is vital that ongoing Budgets bear down as much as possible on current expenditure to release funds for capital expenditure.
As anyone who has driven around the country knows, after going down nice bits of dual carriageway, one suddenly drives into a village where everything is blocked. That has gone on for too long. The issue is not just with the A11. We have failed to finish major infrastructure projects across the country. As for the spending on roads to which the Government wish to commit over the next few years, they should start by tidying up those areas that clearly need investment, and the issue that we are raising is surely at the top of the list.
I would like to touch on one further point. Members from Norfolk and Suffolk have been writing letters of a joint nature on schools, health care, broadband, roads and railways. In all those things, we lag behind the rest of the country, in terms of spending per capita. It is simply unfair for that to persist. It occurred not only under the previous Administration, but under Administrations before them. The situation is unfair, and not just because it fails to release the prosperity of the counties of which I have spoken; it is unfair on the pockets of deprivation that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) mentioned so wisely. It is all too easy for deprived areas that are surrounded by areas of relative affluence to be forgotten because of their wealthy neighbours. That is not fair on those areas.
In 1277—a year much lamented by Welshmen in this House; I count myself as one—Edward I began his invasion of our nation. He progressed with a giant force of not archers or swordsmen, but road builders. He built a road across the Dee from Chester to your beautiful constituency, Mr Williams. I am glad to see a new reincarnation of that great king in my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, who, I hope, will drive a road not to Caernarfon but to Thetford and then Norwich. He will thereby release for both Norwich and Ipswich the prosperity that we can realise only by receiving the investment that we need.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing a debate on an issue that I know he campaigned on long before he was elected. Like so many of us, he raised the matter in his maiden speech—indeed, he managed to lobby me on the issue before either of us had been sworn in as an MP. I also pay tribute to the work of my neighbour the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who is sadly unable to address us. I know she cares passionately about the issue because of the benefits that dealing with it will bring to the people of Norwich.
It is important to recognise the challenges posed to the local economy by lack of infrastructure in and leading into Norfolk. The county’s economic position within the east of England and the greater south-east region is not typical of those areas. Business birth rates in Norfolk are less than 9%, which compares poorly with a rate of more than 11% across the east of England, and prospects appear to be worsening relative to the wider region, with the number of business births in Norfolk down by 17.5% since 2007. That figure compares poorly with a drop of around 5% across the wider east of England.
In 2004, there were 3,690 new businesses in Norfolk; in 2006, that figure fell dramatically to 3,195; in 2008, it fell dramatically again to just 2,765. Norfolk is slipping further behind, and the gap is widening. In the past, East Anglia has generated a high number of start-ups, some of which have gone on to achieve huge success, such as Bernard Matthews and his turkeys. The drop in start-ups in a county that has traditionally relied economically on large numbers of small business operations is worrying. A key reason for that decline is the lack of infrastructure within a sparsely populated county, which puts it at a competitive disadvantage.
Yet Norfolk can contribute so much. There is huge untapped potential in Norwich and across Norfolk waiting to be unleashed by the completion of the dualling of the route. My constituency is at the end point of the A11, and it is appropriate that its starting point was originally the Bank of England, because Norwich businesses will need a fast, direct route to the banks for the enormous proceeds that dualling the road will generate. Norfolk has the potential to be at the cutting edge of green technology, science and research, but that depends on improving our infrastructure. Offshore energy, engineering, financial and business services and creative and media industries are among the areas in which Norfolk could be a world leader, but to develop them we must overcome the shortcomings in our transport system. It is enormously frustrating that a whole county’s development has been held back by a series of delays to a final decision on upgrading the A11.
Norfolk’s transport infrastructure has been under-invested in for decades. The need to dual the A11 was first raised nearly 40 years ago by Edward Heath in 1971. In 1984, the Eastern Daily Press threw its weight behind the campaign, as have dozens of Norfolk MPs over the intervening years, and yet we are still waiting in 2010. It is perhaps because of that long-term under-investment that the economic case for dualling the A11 is so compelling. Norwich is the largest UK city that is not connected to the dual carriageway and motorway network, and making that connection is one of the few low-hanging fruits, ripe and easily picked, that would result in enormous benefits. For Ministers looking for cost-effective ways of delivering economic benefits through infrastructure investment, the A11 is surely at, or near, the top of the list.
Norfolk is geographically isolated and sparsely populated, which provides challenges for economic development, and the poor quality of the county’s road network and its lack of connectedness make those challenges much harder for businesses to overcome.
Matthew Hancock
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only do businesses in Norfolk lose out as a result of that bottleneck, but many businesses at the other end in Suffolk, which would dearly love to work with the great businesses he has mentioned and the great scientists other Members have mentioned, lose out because the bottleneck splits those two areas?
Simon Wright
I certainly agree with that point and thank the hon. Gentleman for making it. The benefits would be not just for Norfolk, but for all the other areas where greater interconnectedness would provide new business opportunities.
The other major roads leading into Norwich and Norfolk from outside the county are single carriageway for significant and extended stretches, which places an even larger strategic value on the A11. Getting Norwich and Norfolk better connected to the wider region is a vital step towards overcoming our geographical constraints and the competitive disadvantage that businesses in the region face. The journey time savings that would result from dualling the final stretch of the A11 are estimated at around seven minutes during peak times, but they could be considerably greater. Lack of capacity on the road regularly leads to delays of up to 20 minutes or more, or considerably longer during peak holiday seasons. Those who witness the A11 at the start and end of bank holiday weekends witness a seemingly never-ending convoy of caravans going nowhere, which is surely a deterrent to return holiday visits to the county, and it unfairly reinforces the stereotype of Norfolk as a remote and peripheral region.
A £600 million benefit to Norfolk’s economy is waiting to be realised from the dualling of the A11, providing significant value for money at a time when public spending needs careful scrutiny for economic impact, as so many hon. Members have said in the debate. The Atkins report identified time savings worth £558 million and a further £136 million of wider economic benefits, including agglomeration benefits. Much of those agglomeration economies will be driven by productivity increases in Norwich. Businesses in my constituency and research institutions in and adjacent to Norwich are particularly likely to see the positive impacts of increased clustering. The region will see the economic benefit of improved connections between two key centres of growth: Norwich and Cambridge.
Ben Gummer
May I mention a third sector of growth, in addition to those in Ipswich that I have mentioned? My hon. Friend might be interested to know that Martlesham has the largest area of software development in Europe, and because of the poverty of the A140 as a road, the quickest way to get there is via the A14 and A11, so getting the third part of the triangle is important for his constituents and mine.
Simon Wright
I certainly take that point on board. There is enormous expertise and world-class research in Ipswich, as well as the existing business opportunities. There is a real opportunity for all centres across the region to benefit from the clustering effect.
Businesses are being deterred from investing in Norfolk because of the A11’s current inadequacies. Tackling the bottlenecks on the route will provide a huge confidence boost to businesses in Norfolk and outside that are looking to generate new investment and employment opportunities in Norwich and Norfolk. Norwich is one of the UK’s top 10 shopping destinations, but despite that some major retailers have held back from investing there because of the threat of hold-ups to deliveries on the A11.
The completion of the dualling of the A11 was identified as the No. 1 priority for Shaping Norfolk’s Future, the private sector-led economic development partnership. Its petition attracted 16,000 signatures and all-party support from the county’s MPs. Norfolk chamber of commerce, alongside Shaping Norfolk’s Future and more than 100 business leaders from Norfolk and Suffolk, submitted a joint letter of support for that proposed scheme. The consensus is strongly in favour of the scheme and the strength of feeling is high.
In conclusion, the reason there is such huge support for the scheme is that the case is so compelling. It will bring major economic benefits to Norwich, Norfolk and well beyond, at a time when capital investment projects need to demonstrate strong justification. I am confident, as I hope the Minister is after hearing our submissions, that the evidence in favour of the scheme proceeding is compelling. I strongly urge Ministers to reach a conclusion on it as quickly as possible so that Norwich and Norfolk can look forward with optimism and confidence to future economic development.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Williams. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing this important debate, which is of great relevance to securing higher economic growth in East Anglia and the wider east of England area. The fact that I am faced by so many Members on the coalition Benches and have no Members on my own Benches shows just how far my party has to go in trying to win back the trust of people in the east of England, a task that we shall pursue with great diligence in the course of this Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) campaigned with great effectiveness and persistence before and after the general election for the dualling of the nine-mile stretch of the A11, between the Five Ways roundabout at Barton Mills and the roundabout at the southern end of the Thetford bypass, and I pay tribute to their efforts. We have followed the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in the Chamber with great interest, particularly those on economic matters. He has quickly demonstrated a zeal for fiscal consolidation, of which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor would undoubtedly be proud. Indeed, given the hon. Gentleman’s background, it would not be surprising to learn that he was the architect of the plan for fiscal consolidation. Today, however, he made a surprising but welcome case for targeted capital investment in transport infrastructure. Who knows what further progress we may make before the end of this Parliament? Perhaps we will find that beneath that only occasionally monetarist exterior there beats the heart of a Keynesian after all, at least with regard to transport investment.
Elizabeth Truss
Is it not the case that even Adam Smith, quite a dry economist, suggested that infrastructure spending was important for the viability of businesses? It is hardly a Keynesian case.
Mr Bain
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and one to which I will return later in my remarks. I know that hon. Members are keen on establishing the provenance of their arguments through literature reviews—indeed, I have an important article to which I will refer later.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk eloquently argued that investment in roads now can generate higher economic growth in the future—I strongly agree. I pray in aid an important article by Nicholas Crafts in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy last year. He cited the problem of the relative lack of transport investment in roads over the past few decades, for which Governments of all political hues should be held accountable. The important point in his piece—indeed, the nub of his argument—was that public investment in roads provides greater returns in private investment. He concluded that the productivity gains obtained “crowd in” and do not “crowd out” private investment. I hope that Government Members take that argument on board.
I pay tribute to the other contributions to the debate from the hon. Members for South West Norfolk, for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who spoke with great insight about the benefits of the A11 dualling for his area, for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Broadland (Mr Simpson), for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Norwich South (Simon Wright).
As the hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned, although investment in completing the dualling could cost the public purse anywhere between £106 million and £147 million, the Highways Agency has estimated that such investment would bring £557 million in benefits to the East Anglian economy and improve safety capacity and journey times along the A11.
The hon. Member for Norwich South referred to the Atkins report commissioned by the East of England Development Agency, Norfolk county council and the Government office for the East of England. It established that benefits could be worth £202 million for commuters and leisure travellers, £355 million for business travellers, including freight and car travellers and an additional 20%—perhaps £136 million—in time savings.
In the “A11 Wider Economic Impacts Study”, Atkins makes a powerful case for the economic benefits that could be brought by the dualling. The report cites increased business efficiency and confidence, and bringing together the communities of Norfolk and Suffolk—tangible benefits that would emerge from the investment.
The section is the last remaining stretch of single carriageway on the M11-A11 route to Norwich, where congestion is a consistent problem, exacerbated at times by agricultural traffic. A public consultation was initiated in 2001, a preferred route was announced in November of that year, a draft order was published in 2008, and a public inquiry commenced in November 2009.
The project has been met generally with favour and approval locally. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Natural England, reportedly opposed to the scheme at first, withdrew its opposition after the Highways Agency agreed to create suitable habitats for nesting stone curlews. On 28 April, as already referred to, my noble Friend Lord Adonis, the then Secretary of State for Transport, on behalf of the Labour Government made a commitment to complete the dualling of the nine-mile section between Thetford and Barton Mills, subject to receipt of the planning report following the public inquiry into the project.
Ben Gummer
I am interested in that admission. Given the journal cited earlier by the hon. Gentleman—I am afraid that I missed that issue, but it seems self-evident that investment infrastructure is important, especially roads—why did the Minister make such a declaration on 28 April this year and not on 28 April 1998?
Mr Bain
As ever, the timing of my noble Friend Lord Adonis was impeccable. He will have made that decision having weighed up all the factors, in his inimitable style.
Other transport capital investment is contributing to economic recovery in East Anglia. Rail freight contributes £870 million to the UK economy each year, and Network Rail’s decision to upgrade the line between Felixstowe and Nuneaton via Ipswich, Ely and Peterborough will help the rail freight industry in East Anglia in particular, potentially taking 750,000 lorries off the roads in the UK and on to rail by 2030.
I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State in his place. During the election campaign there was quite a tough war over the A11 dualling between his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The coalition agreement makes 12 commitments on transport issues, but none relates to the £6 billion plan for roads investment which the Government inherited from their predecessors.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to affirm the Government’s support for necessary improvements to our roads network, of which the completion of the A11 dualling is a key part, and to make it clear that the Liberal Democrat pre-election policy of cuts in new roads investment has been repudiated. More widely, can he outline what his Department’s criteria are in its value-for-money analysis of transport capital projects? Can he indicate which criteria, in his view, the completion of the A11 dualling would fulfil?
My broader point, which was referred to by the hon. Member for West Suffolk, is that countries that have attempted a programme of fiscal consolidation remotely resembling that being pursued by the Government have seen transport as an easy target. Canada in the mid-1990s is a case in point, where spending was slashed by 50%. That must not happen in the comprehensive spending review and in the programme of fiscal consolidation.
Matthew Hancock
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government of whom he was a part failed to invest in infrastructure enough. It is good of him to admit that. Therefore, does he agree that not reducing capital spending in the Budget was the correct decision? Given his citation of the economic literature, does he commend that decision by the Chancellor?
Mr Bain
The point made in the Crafts article, and in a number of studies, is that Governments—both Labour and Conservative—over decades have not invested enough in transport. I hope that that is borne in mind in the comprehensive spending review.
Am I content that the Chancellor has not cut capital investment further? Absolutely. We shall see what happens on 20 October, but transport has a strong case for needing additional capital investment, not least in projects such as the completion of Thameslink and high-speed rail, on the benefits of which I have spoken in previous Westminster Hall debates.
I hope that the Minister will show today that he and the Secretary of State are prepared to fight for investment in our roads, buses and trains, and do not simply see their budget as one which is ripe for pruning by the Chancellor. I pay tribute to the contributions made by other hon. Members and hope that the Minister will have good news for the people of Norfolk and Suffolk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, for the first time on the Government side of the House, under the new coalition.
My hon. Friends are hunting in a pack today, as they do regularly in the House. I congratulate them on doing so. It is good that people stand up for their communities, come together to agree what they agree on and move forward on that. I am somewhat trapped, as hon. Members know, by the draft orders that are still in place. I must be slightly careful about what I say so that I do not prejudice any developments. The spending review is still going on and, once it is over, we will announce as soon as possible which programmes will go ahead. That is the right way to proceed—promises broken are not worth anything.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), referred in his short comments to unfunded projects. We know that many of those projects would not have gone ahead unless the previous Government had borrowed even more and given us even more fiscal problems than we have at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) said that I have a speech written by my officials. Yes, I do, but, if I tried, I would not be able to read it in the next 10 minutes. Actually, because of the nature of the debate, I think that it would not be right and proper to do that. In the time that I have been in the House, I have often sat on the other side of this Chamber and watched Ministers read out, in good faith, what was put in front of them by their officials, but not respond to comments that were made during the debate.
This debate has been excellent, and I shall try to respond to as many questions as possible. If I cannot respond directly today, I shall write to the individuals responsible on the issues that have been raised. So much has been said, and I do not want to leave anything hanging in the air. We will write, talk about the issues and work together to go forward.
I have been lobbied by Members of this House—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), and my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Miss Smith) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon)—who, because of other responsibilities, were not able today to make the points that they would have liked to make. However, they have made their views known to me in the Tea Room, in the Lobby and anywhere else. My broad shoulders can take the kind of lobbying that I get on roads at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) put the argument for the A11 fantastically well. I am extremely familiar with that part of the world. Until I went into the military at 16, I spent every holiday on the Norfolk Broads, and, since I left the military, I have spent at least one long weekend every year in the area. My children are grown up now—they are 19 and 21—but they will not mind my saying that they loved Center Parcs when they were young. We have sat on the A11 more times than I have had hot dinners, long before air-conditioning for cars was invented, cooked while we waited, and then took our lives in our hands as we tried to cross back on to the A11. That was before the new traffic lights were put in at Elveden for Center Parcs. I know that they caused a great deal of controversy locally when they were put in, but they have saved lives.
On saving lives, there were 148 accidents between 2004 and 2008 on this section of the road, 12 of which were serious and two of which were fatal. Our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the people who lost their lives on that road.
The argument is broad. It is about congestion, but what does congestion cause? We have heard today about the economic effects on communities in Suffolk and in Norfolk. I visited many hon. Members during the general election in my shadow Health role, which I had before I moved to my new and exciting role as the Roads Minister. I talk about roads all the time to everyone—I love being the Roads Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) is here today. I went to Great Yarmouth when he was the candidate. I went up the night before because I was petrified about not being there on time for an appointment at 9 o’clock the following morning—I know what that road is like. He was generous and very kind in entertaining me the night before.
The argument is not just about business, although the business argument is there, but about other factors that we need to consider such as pollution, and the environmental effects on constituents of that kind of congestion on the road. Investment decisions have to be made not only about businesses but about homes. There is no point building many homes in a part of the world where the road infrastructure is so bad.
I will ensure that the points raised by hon. Friends on rail infrastructure, particularly for freight, are taken to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, and that she is made aware through my officials of the comments that were made today. I visited Felixstowe only the other day, and I know that investment in rail to get freight out of that part of the country is crucial to such ports. I pay tribute to Hutchison for investing in the railways, not just there but further down the line as well.
In many ways, the things that were said today show what is great about this country. Politicians will not give up on this—I am thinking especially about the new generation of younger politicians. I am conscious that I shall have to look at why this section of the road has not been dualled, and whether there is funding for it. Obviously, I will look at why, in 13 years, the previous Government did not do the work. They did some of the preparatory work, and they knew when they came in how important it was.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East said that the project was important, and asked me to give an answer today. He had 13 years to get the previous Government to do that. Actually, because they borrowed so much and did not worry about the country’s fiscal situation, the funding was there.
The Secretary of State for Transport, officials and I will look at the business case. Projects have gone ahead in the past 13 years with tiny benefit-cost ratios of 1 and 2. Projects with a business case that is a tiny percentage of that for the A11 were started and are going ahead today. All I can say is that, if I had been the Roads Minister then, such projects would not have gone ahead because there was not a local business or environmental case for them.
I cannot change the past. I cannot say today that I will stop projects halfway through. We have said that every road project across the country that has not started will stop, and we have stopped the public inquiries. I do not want public money spent on public inquiries, projects and engineers, plans being drawn up and the public worrying even more, if there is a possibility that many of the projects will not go ahead. If we are to make progress, it is right and proper to ensure that the money is there.
What are we looking at? The BCR for the A11 project is not 2, 3, 4 or, as alluded to earlier, 19—it is actually 20. I shall not beat about the bush. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk asked me to comment on what the Secretary of State said the other day about the project having a very high BCR. I will repeat what he said: it has a very high BCR. We are waiting for the analysis to be done within my Department to confirm that it is 20. If it is not, I am fairly certain that it will be between 19 and 20, and, if that is the case, it is very high.
Can I say today that the project will go ahead? No, I am sorry that I cannot. However, I promise to look at all the environmental, business, community and pollution advantages of each scheme, including the A11 scheme. I most certainly will do that.
Matthew Hancock
On behalf of my colleagues, may I say that we are extremely grateful for the Minister’s thoughtful and direct response? Is he able to publish, or point us to published evidence of, the BCRs for the other projects that are in the pipeline?
Mike Penning
The coalition Government and I, as Minister, are determined to be as open and honest as possible in respect of all projects. At present, there are no projects in the pipeline. When we publish our decisions, I intend to publish what is likely to go ahead and also what will not go ahead.
I am conscious of blight associated with some projects around the country. Believe it or not, communities desperately do not want some projects to go ahead, yet the previous Government were going to force them through. We should not do that, if we believe in local democracy and local people having a right to say what should happen. If there is a shortage of money, and if they do not want a project to go ahead, it is unlikely—not definite, but unlikely—that it will go ahead.
I promise that when we list the projects that will go ahead, the BCRs and business cases for them will be published. We will also publish the business cases for projects that will not go ahead, so that the public know exactly what they are. In some cases, people may wish to challenge a decision not to go ahead, so there will be consultation. It is important that people feel that this is not a done deal, and that they can challenge the business case and start to come forward with some innovative ideas.
Hon. Members may be aware that for junction 11A of the M1, which is one of the other projects being considered, the local community joined the developer and came forward with a substantial amount of money—some £50 million—to aid the project, should it go ahead. That new way of thinking involves developers and communities coming together for a project that they want. I am saying not that that is what should be done in respect of the A11, but just that there are different ways of doing things. We will be open and honest about that as we develop the road programme.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and other colleagues on spending so much time in this Chamber on the last day before the House goes into the summer recess. I congratulate them on hunting as a pack, and I look forward to more lobbying in the Division Lobbies and the Tea Rooms.
Burton upon Trent County Court
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Williams, for presiding over my first appearance in a Westminster Hall debate. I hope that you will be gentle with this Westminster virgin.
I thank the Minister for giving up his valuable time to attend. He knows that I have attempted to make points on behalf of my constituents in Burton on a number of occasions; I am grateful for the opportunity to make my case today. I also thank the Minister for engaging in genuine consultation. Unfortunately, under the previous Government, we got used to consultations that were little more than an exercise in futility—tick-box exercises, rubber-stamping decisions that had already been made in an air-conditioned office in Whitehall, delivering a Minister’s grand master plan. There is genuine reassurance in knowing that we have a proper consultation, with discussion and debate, about the future judicial system. I have visited Burton county court and met the staff, who appreciate having the opportunity to make their case for Burton county court surviving.
The Minister understands that the proposed closure of Burton county court is of concern to my constituents in Burton and Uttoxeter—to those hard-working people employed in the justice system, to those who use the service, and to those who are worried about how the judicial system will operate in this brave new world.
It is important to recognise that savings across the public budget are urgently needed. The previous Government’s excesses and mismanagement have left the country, like many families and businesses in my constituency, facing difficult, tough decisions when it comes to paying for the essentials in life. This debate takes place in the context of those tough financial constraints.
My constituents are not stupid: they realise that the country is broke and that savings have to be made. It is understandable that the Courts Service should bear its share of that belt-tightening, but it is equally clear that that belt-tightening must be done in a manner that protects the interests of justice and, above all, access to justice. Although this debate relates to the proposed closure of Burton county court, it would be a mistake to consider the matter in isolation, rather than as part of a wider reorganisation programme.
Underestimating the role that the county court system plays in our society would be a fundamental mistake. The services offered by Burton county court, and county courts throughout the country, often deal with the most sensitive, painful and challenging elements of modern life; bankruptcy, divorce and family breakdown are all dealt with in our county courts. Those courts represent a direct link between our local communities and the justice system. We must understand fully the impacts that any closures will have on those communities before we proceed with any closures.
The previous Government’s disastrous post office closure programme showed us that proposals that might appear justified when considered in isolation can have a disproportionate effect when their cumulative impact in an area is considered. I fear that those mistakes could be repeated if the proposed closures in the county court system go ahead. That is why I am delighted to be able to urge the Minister to stop and reconsider the impacts.
Nationally, the reorganisation of the court system will mean that approximately 25% of county courts will close. Yet in Staffordshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) knows, Leek county court has already been lost, and it is proposed that two of the four remaining county courts should go, so the cut in my county will be 50%, which is double the amount expected elsewhere in the country. Both the county courts that are closing—Burton and Tamworth—are in the eastern part of the county. Closing both those courts simultaneously would be a double blow to the area, leaving residents in both east and south-east Staffordshire with long journeys to the nearest county court.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Is he aware that in Staffordshire more than 23,000 fines, with a value of more than £11 million, remain uncollected by the Courts Service? Residents of Staffordshire will therefore find it difficult to see why there should be the 50% cuts about which he reminded us.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for his insightful and useful intervention. It is important to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of the court system. As he says, such a backlog of unclaimed fines is unpalatable and uncomfortable for anybody running the court system. I will mention later the impact that the proposals for cuts will have on the future efficiency and effectiveness of the courts.
The proposal in the consultation document is that work from Burton will go to either Derby or Stafford, my hon. Friend’s constituency. The consultation paper states that Stafford county court is 26 miles away by car, by the shortest route, and that the journey takes 45 minutes by car. Even by car, that is no short journey, and the task of attending court will be much more difficult for the 24% of households in my constituency—almost a quarter of my constituents—that do not have access to a car or van and rely solely on public transport. Many of those households are among the most vulnerable in the area, comprising those on a low income, the elderly and people with disabilities. A third of the wards in my constituency that are covered by the county court are among the 20% most deprived wards in the country; that gives an indication of the kind of vulnerable people who are served by the court. That deprivation brings with it related problems of poverty and increased social and family breakdown—precisely the kind of problems dealt with by the county court.
According to the consultation paper, it takes two hours and 23 minutes to get from Burton to Stafford by bus—a journey well worth making, because Stafford is a wonderful place to visit—but the round trip takes the best part of a working day for anybody from my constituency who wishes to attend the county court in Stafford. It takes five hours to travel there and back, not taking into consideration waiting time or the time for the case to be heard. Even the train takes one hour and 40 minutes, with a change, at a cost of some £14.30 for a normal adult return fare. That is simply unaffordable for many on low incomes in my constituency.
It is important to remember that the journey times calculated are for a journey from the county court in Burton to the proposed alternative in Stafford. For the many people who do not live right next door to Burton county court, the journey will be significantly longer, because they will have to go into Burton town to get a train or bus to travel onwards.
As for constituents who live in areas such as Marchington, which is one of the larger villages in the middle of my constituency, or Rocester, the home of JCB, no combination of trains and buses can get them to Stafford county court in time for a 9 o’clock meeting. I accept that Derby county court is more convenient for some of my constituents than Stafford, and it may seem sensible in principle to say that cases will be transferred from Burton to Derby, but many people have doubts about whether that is likely to happen in practice, and what percentage of cases will be affected. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he envisages happening, and how many cases he proposes to send to Derby, and how many to Stafford. That would provide a clearer picture of what we may expect.
Derby court falls outside the West Mercia and Staffordshire area court services. Derbyshire’s courts are subject to a separate review, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that the two reviews will be dovetailed together and considered as a whole. What guarantees can he give that if changes to the county court service in Derbyshire lead to more work being transferred from other courts in Derbyshire to Derby county court, Burton will not fall down the pecking order, with cases ultimately being transferred to Stafford, with the associated difficulties that I outlined?
The suggestion in the consultation paper that work could be transferred to Derby has so far done little to reassure my constituents. We must consider the consequences of the vastly increased travel times. I fear that they will result in people not bothering to attend. If witnesses are faced with five hours’ travel to give evidence for 20 minutes, they will simply not turn up, and that will further frustrate the court system, delay justice and waste even more money—taxpayers’ money. Surely, if the priority is to reduce inefficiency in the court system, our priority should be to tackle non-attendance in court and non-payment of fines, an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred. That is a problem in the civil courts and in magistrates courts, and it should surely be at the top of our hit list. The problem will be made worse by increasing the inconvenience for witnesses who are called to give evidence.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
My constituency has no court facilities whatever, and little public transport, so I can vouch for my hon. Friend’s points about witnesses’ inability to get to court, and the difficulties created for many of those constituents of mine who are called as witnesses.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. I mourned the passing of Leek county court; in a rural constituency such as hers, it is important to consider travel times and the sparsity of public transport. Not to do so would be to the detriment of justice and fairness in the system.
I am worried about the impact on the legal process. It is not difficult to understand that some witnesses will find it difficult if they are forced to travel to court on the same bus as the plaintiff, the defendant or the person against whom they will give evidence. It is not difficult to understand that witnesses may find that a harrowing and frightening experience, perhaps frightening enough to stop them giving evidence. Will the Minister assure me that he does not envisage everyone involved in a case being forced to travel on the same bus to give evidence?
In the consultation paper, the rationale for closing Burton county court seems to rest on two factors. The first is that the facilities have not been upgraded, and that is obviously due to the previous Government’s failure to invest properly in the Courts Service. I yield to no one in my belief that public spending must be brought under control to repair the damage that was done by that spendthrift Government, but it would be short-sighted, and would damage the justice system, if we closed the court to save the one-off capital cost required to bring it up to scratch. Imposing such a cut, which would significantly inconvenience many east Staffordshire court users, to save what would not even amount to a rounding-up error in the deficit reduction plan risks undermining confidence in the bigger picture of balancing the nation’s public finances.
The second reason suggested in the proposal is that Burton county court is not used efficiently. I have met the dedicated, committed and hard-working staff, and there is no doubt but that it is not used efficiently. It has a total of 178 sitting days before district and deputy district judges, but the problem could be easily overcome if we considered the overall effect of the closure of courts in Staffordshire, rather than considering the closure of Burton county court in isolation.
The consultation paper proposes the closure of two courts, the second being Tamworth county court; its work would be transferred to Stafford. Tamworth is 11 minutes from Burton by train, and the bus links between the two are fabulous. That closeness is recognised elsewhere in the Minister’s helpful consultation document, where it is proposed that Tamworth magistrates court be closed and its business transferred to Burton. Surely the answer is to follow that approach, and to transfer county court cases to Burton. That sensible approach would add an additional 60 sitting days, at least, to Burton county court, vastly improving its effectiveness and efficiency, and delivering much better value for money and access to the justice system.
Court users in Tamworth would benefit from the proposal, because they would have to travel only to Burton, rather than to Stafford, and the case load at Burton would rise to the necessary amount because of that increased work load. Furthermore, Staffordshire would bear its fair share of the burden of the reorganisation, losing one in four of its county courts—exactly the national average of 25%. I respectfully ask the Minister to reconsider the proposals, and to ensure that we have a strong civil court system in Staffordshire that offers access to justice for all, rich or poor. I ask him to ensure that Staffordshire shoulders its fair share of the pain, and to guarantee that my constituents will have fair and equal access to justice in the court system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I welcome this debate to discuss our proposal to close the Burton upon Trent county court, subject to consultation. This might have been my hon. Friend’s first appearance in Westminster Hall, but it was certainly a good one, and he ably represented his constituents’ best interests.
Allow me, Mr Williams, to set out the Government’s position on our proposals to reform and rationalise the court estate. I will provide details of the reasoning behind including Burton upon Trent on the list of possible closures. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to respond to the consultation that closes, as he will be aware, on 15 September. County courts across England and Wales have seen a real change in recent years because Her Majesty’s Courts Service has dramatically increased access to online and telephone services. Currently, 70% of money claims, and the vast majority of possession actions, are issued centrally via electronic channels. People can pay fines online for driving infringements, or for not paying their TV licence on time. They can pay off debts or court fees online, using a wide variety of methods. We are working to improve the availability of information on the web and over the telephone, using dedicated information centres with comprehensive details of all civil and family cases, so that fewer people will need to travel to court to ask a question.
We cannot continue to deliver the same level of service in the same way and ignore the changing needs of society. New technologies, which we are all confident about and use in our everyday lives, have not been sufficiently adapted for use in the courts, although they are essential to streamline our processes and improve services for the public. That is why, in addition to consulting on the courts estate, I am inviting members of the public, MPs, and others with an interest, to give me their ideas for improving and modernising the courts service.
HMCS is also looking at how to speed up the experience for court users in the county court by changing how the back offices work. We are establishing a series of large, multi-purpose, multi-skilled administrative centres, which will centralise claims and process work from all county courts, thereby freeing up front-line services and staff to focus on supporting more complex cases that need judicial intervention. That is not a new innovation; there has been an incremental move towards more centralised administrative centres for 30 years. The concept has been successfully tested in local business centres, and we plan to centralise civil work into two key locations in Salford and Haywards Heath, where civil claims will be administered until judicial intervention is necessary. We will also continue to support high-volume users in our bulk centre in Northampton.
Wherever court users can make use of a non-judicial intervention for family and civil cases, we must provide them with all the support and information that they need to explore a variety of dispute resolution routes. A large number of cases go to court, but in practice many people find the full court experience to be inconvenient, intimidating and expensive, as well as slow and unpleasant. That is neither necessary nor in the best interests of either party in the case. Providing options for alternative dispute resolutions, such as mediation conducted over the telephone, is often a better, and less stressful, option for people involved in court cases.
Where judicial involvement is required, we are exploring whether in future physical attendance at court is always a necessity. Can the use of telephone hearings be extended? Does video conferencing technology open new possibilities? In that context, let me point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) that fines are not dealt with by the county court. Fines are one area where we know that having a physical court does not result in higher payment rates. However, my hon. Friend’s point was well made, and I confirm that we have invested in making it easier to pay fines using methods such as telephone, internet and so on, in order to improve the rate of payment.
Since Lord Woolf’s civil justice reforms in 1996, the number of civil cases has declined by 20%. In order to meet future needs of customers in a faster, more efficient and affordable way, we are working closely with partners across the civil justice system, including Citizens Advice and the Legal Services Commission, to increase the provision of mediation and further improve court procedures. Furthermore, we will work closely with the judiciary to support work on procedural improvements.
Although cost is by no means my only concern, given the dire national economic situation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton acknowledged, we cannot forget the savings that would be delivered by this programme of closures. If all courts under consultation were to close, we would achieve savings in running costs of £15.3 million per year, as well as avoiding a backlog of £21.5 million in maintenance costs. A further assessment will be necessary on the level of savings that could be achieved and the potential value that could be released from the disposal of properties.
The closure of Burton county court would save around £106,000 in operating costs that would no longer have to be paid. Furthermore, we would not be liable for the additional investment of around £450,000 in maintenance backlog costs. I confirm to my hon. Friend that we are looking at the area as a whole, and we know that there is a high density of county courts in Staffordshire and West Mercia. As less work is dealt with in the courts, we will need fewer court buildings. We want to ensure that we have all the evidence available before making decisions about which courts provide us with the best service and should remain open. Therefore, I encourage all affected MPs to write in to the consultation with their views.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the Minister for explaining much of the rationale behind his decision, but there will always be people who need to access the court system. Will the Minister explain what he believes would be a reasonable amount of travel time for accessing a county court? Has he done any work on the impact that increased travel time has on non-attendance at county court hearings?
Mr Djanogly
We have considered that point, and we felt that a travel time of 60 minutes would be appropriate. I will come on to that point if I have time. In his earlier remarks, my hon. Friend said that attendance at court is a stressful experience, and he spoke about situations of bankruptcy, family breakdown and divorce. As traumatic as those things are, most people will not frequently get divorced or be declared bankrupt, so the comparison that he made with the closure of a local post office—something used by many people on a daily basis—was not accurate.
Having talked to some MPs during the programme of consultation, I am aware of the prevailing view that the principles on which we are consulting are right. Understandably, however, few MPs wish their own local court to close. The passion about this issue that I have seen from all MPs—not least my hon. Friend—is admirable and important to our constituents. Nevertheless, if we accept that we have to reduce the courts estate considerably for the good of the public, we must also accept that sometimes the court in our own constituency may be the most strategic one to close.
Some of the local county courts in Staffordshire and West Mercia have larger and better facilities that are multi-functional and can take a large proportion of the work in the area. As far as possible, we want to try and focus work in those courts. It is our responsibility to think about what is best for the whole of the area, and we believe that the five larger courts at Hereford, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Telford and Worcester would offer the area a strong, efficient and effective civil court system.
There are 10 members of staff at Burton county court, and a total of 43 staff in all the county courts proposed for closure in the Staffordshire and West Mercia area. Once the Lord Chancellor has made his final decisions about whether and which courts to close, we will work closely with the trade unions to look at the impacts on staff.
No member of the judiciary is based at Burton county court, although two district judges sit a total of 127 days per year, with a further 51 days of deputy district judge sittings per year. That is marginally less than the standard we have set, but we must consider the area as a whole. Across Staffordshire and West Mercia, county courts are considerably underused, with an average utilisation rate of 61%. We know which courts offer the best long-term opportunities to continue to deliver a good-quality service in larger multi-functional facilities.
Burton courthouse is under the freehold ownership of HMCS and does not offer facilities to the standards that one would expect of a county court. For a start, it would not be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 unless significant maintenance work took place. Hearings and counter services at Burton county court will transfer to either Derby or Stafford county courts, depending on which is closer for the parties involved. Both Stafford and Derby county courts are purpose-built buildings with a high standard of accommodation and facilities for court users, judiciary and staff.
Andrew Griffiths
I would like to confirm what the Minister meant when he said that the decision about whether a court user has to go to Derby or Stafford county court would depend on the distance to be travelled. Is it correct to say that if Derby is closer, a person would not be forced to go to Stafford?
Mr Djanogly
The distance would be different for various constituents. One court may be more appropriate than another because of what it does. Not all courts do the same things so we cannot generalise in that way. I appreciate the issues about distance and travel raised by my hon. Friend. He made his points well, and he should submit them to the consultation.
Hospital Services (North-East)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. The debate is about hospital services in the north-east, but I shall focus on services in North Tees and Hartlepool, so I welcome the fact that I can see here my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), as well as the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). I am also pleased to see a good north-eastern Member in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). As I said, I shall focus on North Tees and Hartlepool, but I think that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) will wish to catch your eye, Mr Sheridan, and widen the debate so that it has a more regional perspective. I thank him for writing me a note, asking to participate in the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss hospital services in North Tees and Hartlepool again. We had an important but too short debate on 5 July, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, in which many hon. Members hoped to contribute so that they could express their concern about, and seek clarification on, the Conservative-Liberal Government’s decision to cancel the £464-million new hospital that was to serve the populations of Hartlepool, Stockton, Easington and Sedgefield. I am indebted to Mr Speaker, who, after discussing the matter with me, granted this longer debate so that we could discuss more thoroughly the vital issue of health care and hospital services in my area. We also had a meeting with the Minister in the week following that debate.
The decision by the new Government—one of their first decisions on coming to office—to withdraw the £500-million investment from our area throws the vital issue of health care and hospital services back into complete confusion and mayhem. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, as well as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield and for Easington, are worth much more than that and deserve much better.
It is especially important that there should be excellent health care in Hartlepool and the surrounding areas because the people whom I represent experience some of the worst health inequalities in the country. Much of that is due to our legacy as a former heavy manufacturing town, with industrial diseases and injuries. Much of it is due to the deindustrialisation of the 1980s and ’90s, and the failures of Government at that time to put in place an alternative economic model. Economic inactivity and health inequality go hand in hand, and we have in the past 30 years suffered from high levels of deprivation. Much of the health inequality has to do with poor and inadequate investment in primary health care in Hartlepool in the last half-century. For example, we have had a much lower ratio of GPs per head of population than we should have had for much of the time that we have had an NHS. As a result, we have had to rely on hospitals, whereas other areas may have had suitably high levels of GPs and primary health facilities.
Frankly, much of the inequality has to do with people’s lifestyles. One third of the population of Hartlepool smoke, as opposed to 24% across England. Some wards in Hartlepool have smoking rates of 40% to 50%. The rate for smoking in pregnancy is way above the national average. The proportion of women who breastfeed their baby in Hartlepool is half what it is across the country. Hartlepool is above the national average for the proportion of people who binge-drink, although I would like to point out that it is below the average for the Teesside area as a whole. Rates of early death from heart disease, strokes and cancer are significantly worse in Hartlepool than the national average, as is life expectancy. Although the gap in life expectancy between Hartlepool and the rest of the country has narrowed in the past decade, it remains the case that a man in Stranton ward has a life expectancy some 11 years shorter than that of a similar man in a more affluent area.
All that history—the lifestyles and the poor health outcomes—means that it is vital that we have the best possible health service for my constituents. Although progress has been made, it will take more sustained help and support, and reconfiguration of services, to narrow the gap still further. We have seen more investment in Hartlepool health in the past 10 years—actually, we have seen more investment in primary health facilities in the past five years than in the previous half-century—but the people of Hartlepool still feel battered and bruised when it comes to the future of hospital services.
Since the 1990s, there has been huge uncertainty about what shape the health services will take, and where they will be located. There has been review after review after review—the Tees services review, the Darzi review, the report from the independent reconfiguration panel—and now there is the decision to scrap the hospital at Wynyard. In that time, other areas have seen a reconfiguration of hospital services; in our neighbouring area south of the Tees, one of the best hospitals in Europe—the James Cook University hospital—has been built. Those of us north of the Tees deserve something similar.
While the uncertainty has continued for my area, the hard-working staff in our local NHS have not been provided with the clear vision and leadership needed. That has compromised their ability to provide world-class health care for our area. The uncertainty has led to a loss of morale and subsequent difficulties in recruitment and retention. The trade union Unison is to be commended in my area for proudly standing up for the people who work in hospitals, but the Government’s decision, together with other reforms that they propose, is placing strain on local services and threatening jobs. We need certainty and continuing investment, and the Government, in one of their first acts in office, have provided neither.
It is fair to say that many people in my area might consider the Government’s decision to scrap the proposed new hospital to be appropriate—indeed, welcome—and might think that with a hospital not being built in Wynyard, the University hospital of Hartlepool will stay open, and that services will migrate back to it. It surely defies common sense, as I have been told by some constituents, that a town such as Hartlepool, with a population of 90,000, cannot have a fully functioning district general hospital, with all the modern services that hospitals should provide. It is argued that the decision to scrap the proposed new hospital at Wynyard presents an opportunity to provide that, and will mean that the University hospital of Hartlepool will have a secure future.
That is an understandable stance, based on affection for the great service that Hartlepool hospital has provided down the years. The big events of life have occurred in the hospital for many thousands of Hartlepudlians, including me. I am thinking of the births of my four children, the death of my nana and the saving of my son Benjamin’s life twice—first when he contracted meningitis at the age of eight, and then at the age of 12, when he suffered a stroke. The dedication of people working in that hospital is second to none, and my family are very much testimony to that.
However, I fear that we will not see the return of hospital services to Hartlepool, and that we will have the worst of all possible worlds—hospital services will move away from Hartlepool and become more inaccessible to the people whom I serve, and we will not have a world-class facility in the borough of Hartlepool to replace them.
I fully accept and embrace the changes in health services. I welcome the technological advances that mean that whereas previously certain medical procedures required extensive stays in district general hospitals, those procedures can now be done safely and more cheaply in a local setting. Just a few years ago, high-quality internet use, for example, could be provided only by bulky and costly desktop computers; now, people can have internet access in the palm of their hand. In the same way, such advances are pushing more and more medical and surgical procedures into the community, into GPs’ surgeries and even into people’s homes. I welcome that.
We are certainly seeing that trend in Hartlepool. The Momentum programme is reconfiguring more and more services that were once the preserve of the hospital, putting them into the local clinic, closer to people. I met a man in Hartlepool recently who had had his toes amputated. Just a few years ago, that would have required an operation in a hospital and a lengthy stay there for recovery and recuperation. The man I met had had the procedure carried out in the operating theatre of his GP clinic in the Headland surgery, and he was home in a matter of hours. We shall see much more of that.
The newly opened One Life Hartlepool centre, built as part of the Momentum programme, is equipped to carry out minor skeletal surgery and will do orthodontic work that was previously the preserve of hospitals. GP surgeries increasingly take blood samples on-site rather than requiring the patient to attend hospital. Again, that is welcome.
However, we also have to admit that increases in medical specialisation, coupled with a wider and more miraculous range of things that can now be achieved through science and surgery, mean that many surgical procedures are now reserved for doctors and nurses with very specialised skills, as opposed to those in general medicine and surgery.
In preparing for this debate, I have been in contact with the Royal College of Surgeons of England, and I am grateful for its help. As part of its best clinical practice, for acute general hospitals that provide the full range of facilities, specialist staff and expertise for elective and emergency medical and surgical care, the college recommends a preferred catchment population size of between 450,000 and 500,000 people. However, the college estimates that hospitals of that size account for fewer than 10% of acute hospitals in England, and states that there is unlikely to be a significant shift to that size of hospital in the short to medium term. As it is, the majority of acute hospitals have, and are likely to continue to have, catchment populations of about 300,000. That is significantly more than the population of my constituency.
It is essential that MPs and all representatives listen to the professional advice of eminent surgeons. I do not intend to play fast and loose with patient safety and clinical excellence. As a politician, I realise that I do not know better than doctors, and I want the best possible health care for my constituents. I will fight to the last to achieve the best possible services for Hartlepool. They have to be safe and medically advisable, but if something is seen to be clinically essential by surgeons, it is right that my hon. Friends and I should listen. It is also right that Ministers should listen to eminent surgical and clinical advice, and I suggest that the cancellation of the proposed new hospital means that they did not. I hope that the Minister will do so today.
I believe that Lord Darzi’s proposals of 2005, under which Hartlepool hospital was to become a centre of excellence for women’s and children’s services, and the University hospital of North Tees was to become a centre of excellence for emergency surgery, were workable and feasible. Alas, it was not to be, as other parts of Teesside felt that they could not live with that. Although I thought that the subsequent independent reconfiguration panel review was unnecessary, I respect its decision, the quality of its evidence and its professionalism. I cannot argue with the overpowering weight of clinical advice on the matter.
In the IRP report, paragraph 4.8.5, entitled “Clinical views—the need for change”, stated:
“There was a common view across all staff that no change is not an option. Staff are keen to work with the Trust management and to embrace clinically-driven change”—
“clinically-driven change” is a hugely important phrase—
"that secures the best outcome for patients, staff and the Trust…There was widespread support for a new modern hospital, north of the Tees, concentrating on providing high quality hospital services that cannot be more appropriately provided in local communities”.
The IRP also stated:
“This is not simply a matter of recruiting additional staff. Specialist skills can only be acquired and maintained with sufficient ‘throughput’ of cases. Since safety standards can only be expected to rise in the future, the current model of service provision is unsustainable.”
In the concluding remarks in the report, the chair of the IRP—a GP and the chair of an acute NHS trust in Nottingham—stated in his personal recollections that:
“The clinicians were virtually unanimous in their desire to work on one site. This was not based on their personal convenience but on clinical evidence and a belief that a real and sustainable improvement in patient care would take place.”
I want the best possible services for Hartlepool. The ideal situation if I lived in utopia would be a hospital in the very centre of Hartlepool that provided the widest possible range of specialisms. In the real world, however, I realise that the desire to see a hospital serving the people of Hartlepool, Stockton, Easington and Sedgefield was driven by clinicians, based on clinical evidence and fuelled by a belief that patient outcomes would improve and health inequalities diminish as a result.
To be fair, I think that the present Government recognise that, too. In a recent answer to my written parliamentary question on whether he would implement the recommendations of the Darzi review, the Minister replied:
“The recommendations of the Darzi review of acute health services north of the River Tees were superseded by the advice provided by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to the then Secretary of State for Health in December 2006. This advice formed the basis of the ‘Momentum: Pathways to Healthcare programme’ which was developed by the local national health service to provide a new health care system for the people of Stockton, Hartlepool, Easington and Sedgefield.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 407W.]
From that response, it seems that the Minister accepts that clinical pressures were driving and pushing this matter.
In that context, will the Minister confirm that the proposed new hospital entirely meets the criteria set out in a letter of 20 May from the NHS chief executive to Monitor—criteria that are about ensuring that all service changes are led by clinicians and patients, not driven from the top down? Taking that point further, will the Minister explain how the Secretary of State reconciles his policy of clinical-led decisions with the pledge made during the general election campaign that Hartlepool hospital would not close if a Conservative Government were elected and a Tory MP returned for the seat of Hartlepool? What clinical evidence was there to back that pledge? Is that not an example of top-down meddling by politicians, regardless of clinical evidence? Is it now Government policy for the configuration of health services to be contingent on voting behaviour, rather than clinical decisions?
Will the Minister provide further clarity about his written answer to me, to which I referred a moment ago, on whether Darzi should be implemented? If he believes that Hartlepool hospital should remain open, will he provide additional support and resources to ensure that it can remain open, and that services will return to it? However, this is not just about money; it is about the way in which services are provided and how they are linked.
Since the Adjournment debate of 5 July, and our subsequent meeting with the Minister, the NHS White Paper has been published. It rightly pledges to put patients at the heart of services and decisions regarding services. I welcome that. The phrase used in the White Paper is
“nothing about me without me”.
The White Paper also asks for an enhanced local voice; again, that is welcome. However, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on what should happen if there is a stark difference between what the professionals want and what the public want—if surgeons and clinical teams say that specialism requires a concentration of services on a central site, but local communities say, as they often do, that they like the status quo and that change is unwelcome? How does the Minister envisage such tension being resolved, given that such views are often polar opposites?
The Minister may say that the independent NHS board will be important when it comes to resolving tensions or contradictions, and that its decisions will be based on clinical views and free from political interference. That would be welcome, but does that mean that the NHS commissioning board will have responsibility for resource allocation? The White Paper certainly suggests so, saying that the board will
“allocate and account for NHS resources.”
In that context, I think that “resources” means revenue resources, but does it also mean capital resources? What would happen if the NHS commissioning board recommended that, for hospital services north of the Tees, it was clinically essential that the recommendations of the independent reconfiguration panel were implemented? Would the board’s decisions overrule ministerial priorities?
The Minister may respond along the lines that the independent NHS board will take decisions out of the hands of politicians, but the White Paper contradicts that. It states on page 33:
“The Secretary of State will have a statutory role as arbiter of last resort in disputes that arise between NHS commissioners and local authorities, for example in relation to major service changes.”
In other words, the reconfiguration of hospital services, which can cause bitterness and fear in many communities, as it has in mine, can still be decided by the Secretary of State. That does not take politics out of changes to hospital services at all.
I ask the Minister to address a number of other points. Does he accept that the manner in which the project was assessed within Whitehall—in both the Department of Health and the Treasury—under the Labour Government was entirely in accordance with appropriate procedures? Does he accept that the project was appraised by officials in an entirely appropriate and rigorous manner, and that that was not done a couple of weeks before the general election, but had been planned and prepared for several years? Hartlepool borough council has written to the Secretary of State on the matter. The letter was signed by the chairman of the council and the leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups; they have yet to receive a response, so I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on what he said in the earlier debate.
Will the Minister publish the revised criteria and assessment considerations on which the project failed, so that we can see what is to be done to address the matter? Why are Hartlepool and North Tees rejected, when Liverpool and Epsom are not?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman on that point, so that he need not get confused. As he is a diligent Member, I need only remind him that in our debate on 5 July—in column 150 in Hansard—I went into great detail in answering that question. I am afraid that the situation has not changed since then. That was the accurate answer then, and it is the accurate answer today.
Mr Wright
I thank the Minister for that clarification. Some of my hon. Friends might probe him a bit further on that point, because we are unclear about a number of aspects. Let me return to the point about the appropriate and rigorous procedure that took place in Whitehall. My recollection might be incorrect, so the Minister may have to provide further clarification. Will he confirm whether a letter of direction, which would be needed if the permanent secretary was unhappy with the decision taken by the Secretary of State, was needed for the proposed new hospital? The decision has left Hartlepool and the surrounding communities high and dry. There will be no new world-class hospital, the plans for which were based on clinical decisions, and no money to upgrade existing facilities. I fear that we will soon have one hospital serving the people of my constituency, and that hospital will be in North Tees. That is completely unsuitable for the task, and for the people of Hartlepool, who will find it appallingly hard to travel to.
We have no clear direction from the Government on the future of hospital services; there is only a vague sense of having been told, “You are on your own; you can do what you like.” That is part of a worrying pattern emerging in the north-east. First, there was the future jobs fund, then the working neighbourhoods fund, then the decision on the hospital, and then the scrapping of Building Schools for the Future. The people of Hartlepool and the surrounding areas are worth more than that and deserve better. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that this afternoon and clarify how we will provide help, support and additional resources to improve hospital services in North Tees and Hartlepool.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for allowing me to speak in this debate. I accept and acknowledge that fundamentally he secured the debate to raise issues in relation to the role of hospitals in Hartlepool. However, as it is a debate on hospital services in the north-east and as I am the Member of Parliament for the largest constituency in the north-east and have responsibility for many rural areas that cover well over 1,000 square miles, I want to lay down a few markers in relation to the hospital services in my area.
The Government are engaged in a widespread review of everything from care to hospital facilities, but rural areas—I know that I speak for other Members who represent rural areas—have to be treated and reviewed in a slightly different way. In my constituency, I have a wonderful hospital, which was opened as a general hospital by the former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and which has been consistently downgraded over the past few years. That is a source of great upset to the people of Hexham. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and others will know of the issues relating to the proposed Cramlington hospital, which is still in the pipeline. I have been told by health officials in the local primary care trust and the strategic health authority that there is no difficulty with the hospital going ahead because the funding is assured. Although health has not been as affected as other areas, will the Minister none the less reassure me that the hospital has survived the funding reviews?
In dealing with rural services, let me turn to the issue of the rebuilding of Haltwhistle hospital. Again, it takes the best part of an hour and a half to get there from Newcastle and the various hospitals there. There have been significant difficulties relating to the hospital, not least the fact that people have been waiting for the hospital to be rebuilt for well over 10 years and that has not yet happened. I sincerely hope that those matters will be reviewed. Will the Minister write to me over the next month with some assurances about the way forward?
I have two final points to make. I know that others wish to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for Wansbeck knows of my concerns because they have come up in discussions between ourselves. The issue of care and how it is provided in Northumberland and, I suspect, throughout the north-east has been a nightmare of bureaucracy and difficulty. Tremendous attention to detail is required to improve the situation. Regrettably, at present, care is provided by a multitude of providers, and the budgets are split and differentiated between individual providers and individual utilisers. I accept that a commission has been set up to review care, but it must consider how provision is made, particularly in rural areas such as ours. I blame no particular Government for the problem because it has developed over a period of time, but this is an area that clearly needs review.
Let me finish on an issue that relates to the way in which we review the provision of health care. We need to ensure that the healthy choice is the easy choice. My constituent, Dr Steven Ford, who ran against me as an independent candidate in the recent general election, said that we must be living in a very odd world when, in the middle of an obesity epidemic, the European Union cuts the price of sugar by more than one third. Therefore, we are trying to address the problem of obesity at the same time as we are cutting the sugar price. It seems to me that we would benefit greatly if we addressed that issue in future.
I am grateful for having the opportunity to speak in this debate. I do not need any specific replies from the Minister today, but I hope that he will write to me in due course about the points that I have raised.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on securing this debate on hospital services in the north-east. In my remarks, I intend to focus on the future of hospital services for my constituents in the south of Easington who, until June of this year, were looking forward to the benefits of a new acute hospital at Wynyard, which would have served local people in five parliamentary constituencies: Stockton North, Stockton South, Hartlepool, Easington and Sedgefield. This state-of-the-art hospital costing £464 million was granted approval in March following many years of preparation and consultation, with health professionals and clinicians working on the ground. The original concept for the new hospital was set out by Professor Sir Ara Darzi, and proposals by an independent reconfiguration panel were clear in recommending a new hospital to replace the existing provision spread across two sites, 14 miles apart.
It is evident that the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust will struggle to continue to provide high-quality health care as we move forward into the future with the existing, ageing configuration. I commend the work of health care professionals and ancillary support staff at the University hospital of North Tees and the University hospital of Hartlepool, without whose dedication and commitment our health service could not function.
North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust has worked hard to meet key targets—Labour’s targets—to ensure a high quality and universal standard of health care for all the people in its catchment area. More than 90% of outpatients and 85% of inpatients wait no more than 18 weeks from being referred by their GP to receiving their first treatment in hospital, which is no mean achievement. The trust has also consistently managed to see, treat, admit or discharge 98% of patients within four hours of arriving in accident and emergency. Like services across England and Wales, the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust guarantees to see patients within two weeks if a GP thinks that they may have cancer. That final target, the cancer guarantee, has been kept by the Minister, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) had to work hard for that victory. If the proposed hospital at Wynyard does not go ahead and our services must continue to be delivered from inadequate and increasingly outdated hospital buildings, I have a real concern that patients will suffer. Within the context of the proposed new hospital, I want to touch briefly on NHS targets. The Government’s principal argument against targets has been eroded since they accepted the two-week cancer guarantee, so why can they not admit that targets are important to ensure a universal quality of health care?
Hospital services in the north-east have offered high-quality standardised care during the past decade. As I have mentioned, my concern is that, if North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust is forced to deliver care to patients from two existing and increasingly outdated hospital buildings, the removal of targets that would have guaranteed a certain level of patient care will put patient care at risk. It is possible to foresee a scenario whereby, in comparison with those areas where the Government have allowed the construction of new hospital buildings to go ahead, the services provided in North Tees and Hartlepool—in much more challenging circumstances—could fall behind the standard of care offered by the new hospitals elsewhere in the country.
I remember that the Minister had some difficulty over the figures that were quoted when he responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on 5 July, as has already been mentioned; perhaps there was some confusion over the figures. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify this point, because the record was corrected and I am taking these comments from Hansard, concerning the evaluation of the relative costs of providing health care with and without the new hospital. The corrected version of Hansard reads as follows:
“Over the appraisal period of 35 years”—
that is, the life span of the hospital—
“the total net present cost—that is, the whole-life cost—of building, maintaining and operating the new facility was £5.033 billion, but the cost of repairing”—
Grahame M. Morris
I want to continue on this point, because the Minister is reinforcing my point in relation to the costs. He said on 5 July that the cost of “operating the new facility” was £5.035 billion over the 35-year period that is the hospital’s life span. He continued:
“but the cost of repairing defects, maintaining, operating and providing services from the two existing buildings was £5.24 billion.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 150.]
Therefore, although it was not immediately clear, is that incorrect?
Grahame M. Morris
Okay, thanks. The cost difference is very marginal, when we factor in things such as NHS inflation and so on. The Minister has already given some clarification, but my point is that by not continuing with the proposed new hospital the cost of delivering health care may in fact—
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I have to say that the figures that the Minister has just given in his intervention on my hon. Friend seem to make the Government’s position even worse than I thought it was. What we are actually talking about is a margin of difference of £11,000—based on the figures that he has just given us here in Westminster Hall—across the 35-year operating programme. Now, I am not sure if that is actually correct. I wonder if it is a bit like the lists given out by the Secretary of State for Education; the figures and the numbers keep altering on us. But based on the figures that the Minister has just given us, we are talking about £11,000, and that is the cost of not having a brand spanking new state-of-the-art hospital to serve five constituencies: my own constituency; the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North, for Hartlepool and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), and the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton).
Grahame M. Morris
There seems to be some confusion here with the figures. However, in my mind, perhaps in the minds of other Labour Members and certainly in the minds of the good people of Easington, it only shows what a bad decision it was. I do not believe that it is being made for the stated financial reasons, but instead seems to form part of some type of idelologicallybased course of action taken by the coalition Government.
It is clear now that the saving of £464 million—the figure that was widely quoted to the media at the time of the hospital’s cancellation—is completely misleading. At some point, I hope that we will also get to the bottom of the true costs to the taxpayer of cancelling and pulling the plug on this new hospital development, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool has indicated, has been in the planning since 2005.
On 2 May 2010, in an interview with Andrew Marr, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) talked passionately about how a responsible society should protect the vulnerable. This is what he said:
“The test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society. And that test is even more important in difficult times, when difficult decisions have to be taken, than it is in better times.”
I am sure that many of my colleagues knew at the time, as I did, that that statement lacked substance.
Easington is one of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. Health inequalities still play a large role in Easington; there is shorter life expectancy and poorer quality of life. Life expectancy in Easington is a full two years lower than the national average. The proposed new hospital was part of a clinically led strategic reorganisation of health provision for one of the poorest areas in Britain, which would have gone some way to tackling some of the worst health outcomes in the country.
The latest figures that I have been able to access are the 2007 statistics on standardised mortality rates per 100,000 population. They show clearly that death from illness that is amenable to health care—that is, deaths that would have been preventable with health interventions—accounted for 256 deaths per 100,000 of the population in the Easington local authority area, compared to an average of only 195 across the rest of England and Wales. For all causes, the figure for Easington is 713, compared to 582 for England and Wales. For coronary heart disease, the figure is 112 per 100,000 in Easington compared to 90 per 100,000 across the rest of England and Wales. For cancer, the figure for Easington is 219 per 100,000 compared to 175 nationally.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the success stories in his constituency has been the local primary care trust’s anti-smoking policy—the area has seen some of the largest drops in smoking anywhere in the country? Does he also agree that the fact that that policy will be abolished too will add to the health inequalities in his constituency?
Grahame M. Morris
That is a very good point and the development of community health infrastructure has been integral to the proposal for the new hospital. It is key to improving health and tackling health inequalities.
I have some sympathy with the Minister, as it seems that the proposed hospital suffered at the hands of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as he searched to save around £2 billion in June. However, regardless of the changing economic circumstances that saw Britain’s budget deficit improve by £10.4 billion from the original pre-election forecasts, I do not believe that it is too late for the Minister to give the proposed new hospital a second chance, following a reconsideration of the evidence.
Grahame M. Morris
If you do not mind, Mr Sheridan, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I know that time is short, but I am almost finished and I think that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to speak. I have almost completed my contribution.
As it stands, the future of health provision in North Tees and Hartlepool is being put at serious risk. The cancellation of the hospital at Wynyard can only ever be viewed as a delay—the need for it still exists. Whether it is a delay of five years, 10 years or longer, the people of Stockton North, Stockton South, Hartlepool, Easington and Sedgefield need a new hospital. I invite the Minister to think in the long term and not to abandon a well thought-out project that would improve health care for people who have suffered a legacy of some of the worst health outcomes in Britain.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate, Mr Sheridan. I want to make a business case for the Wynyard hospital based on its effect on the local economy, because the Government’s decision is short-sighted. The new hospital was to be sited at Wynyard park—a 700-acre business park owned by Wynyard Park Ltd that has created more than 1,000 jobs in the past five years. Fifty-five companies have moved on to the site, and the hospital would have been a catalyst for further private sector investment and jobs. The Government go on all the time about the need to rebalance the north-east’s economy, and the Opposition agree with them. One way to do that and to help generate private sector investment would be to invest in infrastructure and public sector hospitals, such as the one that the Government have cancelled.
The cancellation of the hospital came on the back of the announcement about housing benefit. The former Chancellor said that we would take £250 million out of housing benefit through reforms, but the present Government want to take out £1.8 billion, which would greatly affect areas of County Durham. In addition, just under 100 schemes have been cancelled under Building Schools for the Future, which is a problem not just for education, but for construction jobs in the region. On top of that, the regional development agency is to be abolished. It has played a part in work on the Wynyard site and the foundation hospital, and it has tried to attract investment into the area.
James Wharton
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s terminology when he says that the RDA will be abolished, but is it not rather the case that it will be replaced by more localised local enterprise partnerships, which will deliver better for local people in communities across the north-east?
Phil Wilson
Actually, it is being abolished—that is what is happening.
I want to make two points about the RDA. First, it invested £2 million last year in attracting inward investment. On the basis of that money, it attracted £720 million of inward investment into the north-east—82% of inward investment into the region comes through the RDA, so if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Secondly, in preparation for the hospital development, the RDA organised meetings between the foundation hospital and overseas firms to see whether those firms would come on to the site.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the person who had the vision for the Wynyard site was John Hall? He saw the benefits of working with the RDA and others to develop it, and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) was a big supporter of his during the election.
Phil Wilson
That is absolutely right. I heard John Hall speak last Friday, and he also has a lot to say about the abolition of the RDA.
Mr Iain Wright
My hon. Friend is making a convincing economic case for the hospital. Does he agree that the £464 million in investment that was to be provided could also provide about 550 apprenticeship opportunities in the construction industry and elsewhere? The Government say that they want private sector-led growth and recovery, and I agree with that approach, but scrapping the hospital and cancelling Building Schools for the Future will mean that private sector construction industry jobs are not maintained. Is that not a devastating blow for the north-east?
Phil Wilson
That is absolutely right. Over the past 13 years, the number of apprenticeships in the region has gone up astronomically. In 1997, in my constituency, there were fewer than 30 apprenticeships, but there are more than 700 today. Obviously, anything that curtails the growth of apprenticeships in the future should be frowned on.
As far as other jobs are concerned, the hospital would be a catalyst for inward investment and private sector investment. Wynyard Park Ltd worked closely with the hospital, local universities and further education colleges because it realised that high-value medical and other research jobs would come to the area. The company estimated that 12,500 jobs would be created on top of the 3,000 jobs that the hospital would create. There would be 12,500 private sector jobs in the area on the back of the hospital development—just think of the Government’s income tax and national insurance take and all the other benefits that they would pick up on the basis of that growth in the local economy. Public sector investment would kick-start growth in the private sector.
The hospital would also have become an anchor tenant—a tenant that attracted a lot of other investment to Wynyard. In addition, it would have brought greater investment in infrastructure: the roads and transport networks would have improved, which would have brought more businesses to the park. This is not just about the hospital, as great as that would be. My family and I have used the North Tees and Hartlepool hospitals, and they are great hospitals, but it is time to replace them and to have a new hospital. The credible case put by the new hospital’s designers was that the development would be not only a hospital, but a catalyst for growth in the private sector economy in the south Durham and Tees valley area. That case has been completely ignored.
I really get annoyed when people try to say that the project was worked out on the back of a fag packet a few weeks before the general election. I have been attending meetings on the issue since I was elected in 2007, and meetings were going on before then. We need the development to happen.
The Government’s proposals prove what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign when he pointed out that the north-east would feel the brunt of the cuts. He was right to say that we rely too much on public sector jobs, so the Government should give us the opportunity to change that, but that opportunity was taken away from us when the hospital programme was cancelled.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman asserts that the area should be given the opportunity to address the lack of private sector jobs, but that that would not be done by spending more public sector money. We cannot address the deficit on every single occasion by creating private sector jobs through public sector spending, which is surely the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s hospital argument.
Phil Wilson
We are not saying that we should do that at every opportunity, but when we spend public money, we should take the opportunity to ensure that it pump-primes the local economy. That is what the Wynyard scheme was bound to do. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not think that the public sector is of any value, but Opposition Members do.
Phil Wilson
No, several other Members want to get in on the debate.
Figures have been bandied about, such as the £5 billion and the £11,000 difference, which was actually £11 million—the Minister corrected that error, and I noticed it, too, and went up to correct it. That £11 million, over 35 years, means the difference between a new hospital and a hospital that is falling down. Surely we could have found that money somewhere to help to maintain the hospital.
I want to end with a question to the Minister. Three or four weeks ago, we brought down the foundation trust’s chief executive and the chair for a meeting, and I was pleased that the Minister could meet us. I took away from that meeting the view that the Department would look again at the development if the trust could come up with a credible scheme or initiative to get money from the private sector. If all the figures stacked up, would the Department underwrite such a proposal? We are talking about a foundation hospital. Are we saying that foundation hospitals will be around for ever? Things might change—Governments might change, policy might change—but the hospital must still be funded. Are the Government prepared to underwrite any financial arrangements with the banks and the private sector?
On that point, I will sit down and listen to what other Members have to say. The proposed hospital is a missed opportunity for growth in not only the public sector but the private sector in the region.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am grateful to have another opportunity to discuss the need for a 21st century hospital to meet the needs of my constituents and those throughout the north-east; however, I shall be briefer than I was the last time I spoke on the matter.
It was good to hear my hon. Friends talk about specific issues affecting the health of people in their constituencies, and to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) outline the benefits that the hospital could bring over and above health. I want to start with an outline of the health picture in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees. Things have improved in recent years, but much still needs to be done. According to the NHS health profile for 2010, which has just dropped through my letter box, in Stockton-on-Tees life expectancy for men living in the most deprived areas is still nearly 12 years less than for men living in the least deprived areas. In relation to early deaths from heart disease and stroke, survival rates have steadily improved over the years: from 160 deaths per 100,000 people in 1998 to about 80 per 100,000 people in 2007. That is half the number of deaths and there is much credit due to our hospitals’ care and to the local PCTs and health programmes. However, we are still well behind the England average in our progress in relation to early deaths from heart disease, stroke and cancer.
What do the decisions made by the coalition Government mean for the north-east and people’s health? A new hospital has been scrapped. That is a huge blow, and it is still not clear why our hospital was chosen, while others have been given the go-ahead. We have had years of planning, as other hon. Members described, and that was discussed in detail in my Adjournment debate on 5 July. I accept that the decision has now been made, but it is not clear what will happen. There is also uncertainty for patients in the scrapping of Labour’s promises. The coalition has scrapped the 18-week waiting list target and the 48-hour GP access target and downgraded the four-hour accident and emergency waiting time target.
There is also great uncertainty for people who work in the NHS locally, who will commission services in the future. I met Dr John Canning, a member of the Cleveland local medical committee, and discussed, among other things, the re-organisation of the NHS and in particular GP commissioning. We await detailed plans, but I am dismayed that the Government, who in opposition promised “no more pointless reorganisations” are presiding over the biggest structural overhaul of the NHS in 60 years. The NHS needs stability; it does not need to be forced to deal with a huge and unnecessary politically motivated structural upheaval at a time of significant financial pressure on public services.
The new GP commissioners will be responsible for ensuring that their patients get the best possible health care in the best possible facilities. I just wonder how they will make those decisions. Perhaps they will send patients many miles to a new hospital with all the services required by the patient close together and under one roof. Alternatively, will they utilise the services at their local hospital, where the care might be very good but the facilities could be less than first class? Some patients make a positive choice to travel to neighbouring hospitals, which have the most modern and up-to-date facilities, and could be expected increasingly to shun local services because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that in that way they will get better treatment.
The strategy outlined by the foundation trust remains the right one. When Stockton-on-Tees borough council met, every member in the chamber voted to ask the Minister to review the decision; that included the Conservative council leader. So can we look forward to a new hospital? The answer could still be yes if it is the true and honest will of the Government. Detailed work on developing a private finance initiative to meet the costs of the new hospital is well under way, but there remains great uncertainty about whether there will be Government support. If the foundation trust completes the work and satisfies Monitor, its financial regulator, that it has a robust project that will work, will the Department of Health approve it and ensure that the people of my constituency and the surrounding ones get the hospital they need and deserve?
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on securing the debate this afternoon. He is a worthy champion of his constituency and the region, with respect to a range of matters including health, education and economic regeneration. He spoke passionately about the need to deal with the health inequalities that blight this country, and the problems in his constituency in particular, as well as the need for excellence in health care in the north-east, including the new hospital that is at the heart of the debate.
Like all hon. Members who have spoken, I pay tribute to the staff of the NHS, whose work for and commitment to the people of the north-east and the rest of the country is excellent. It was striking to hear the personal experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool had in his local hospital, and what excellent care he and his family received. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who are present today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), and for North Durham (Mr Jones). I know that they all feel strongly and passionately about the issue.
I want to comment on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. He put patient care and safety, which is what the debate is really about, at the centre of his remarks. He set out his concerns about what will happen to patients who are left with the two hospitals, where they will now be treated. Will the abolition of targets affect care and safety? That is an important issue, which I hope the Minister will deal with. My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of finances and how they stack up. I would like to know in particular whether the difference in cost between building a new hospital and repairing and maintaining the two is £11,000 or £11 million. I am sure that the Minister will clarify that.
Mr Burns
If it will help the shadow Minister I shall clarify the point yet again. The reason the question ever came into the public domain was that on the morning of the previous debate the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) incorrectly put out a press statement saying that the building of a new hospital would be cheaper than the maintenance and upkeep of the two existing hospitals, over a 35-year period. The figures, which Hansard originally printed wrongly—hence the correction—showed a difference of £11 million. It was cheaper by £11 million to keep the two existing hospitals. The point was merely to show that the right hon. Gentleman was factually incorrect.
Diana R. Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for correcting what he said earlier, when he talked about the figure of £11,000. We understand that the figure is £11 million. I suggest that in the great scheme of things, if the difference in cost between maintaining and repairing two hospitals and building a state-of-the-art new one is £11 million, Labour Members might think that it is £11 million that should be spent.
Mr Iain Wright
I just want to make two points. First, I am sure that it was an oversight, but I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) is here. In his short time in the House he has been a fantastic representative of that fair area. On the point about net present values and appraisals of the hospital, my hon. Friend may know more than I do about it, but—whatever the talk of £11,000 or £11 million—are the wider savings to the taxpayer from better health outcomes and from ensuring that people do not rely on hospitals for protracted periods also part of the appraisal system? Are they taken into account, or is it a matter of the narrow costs of maintaining existing or new sites?
Diana R. Johnson
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead for not mentioning him; I know that he takes a particular interest in the issue.
I hope that the Minister will explain the rationale for the decision that was made about the hospital, and whether the cost-benefit analysis included the savings that would come about from a healthier population with better access to health services. I am sure that he will explain it. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington also mentioned health inequalities. It is important to ensure that patients and communities have access to high-quality in-patient facilities when they need them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield argued compellingly on business grounds that the hospital could help lead the regeneration of the area. He described the hospital as an anchor tenant that could attract up to 12,500 private sector jobs, a telling point for an area of the country that wants to attract private sector business and stand on its own two feet. He made a compelling case. My hon. Friend also said how good the care that he and his family had received from the local NHS was.
Ian Mearns
It is important that the Minister has now clarified that the figure is not £11,000, as he stated earlier, but £11 million. I am sorry, but the difference between the figures that he gave was in fact £11,000, and I hope that the record will show that. That said, we now know that the figure is £11 million over 35 years, or £314,000 a year, the lack of which will deprive the people in those five constituencies of a brand spanking new hospital facility that could add significant value over that period to detract from the additional cost.
Diana R. Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the cost over 35 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, who I understand is a former non-executive director of the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, spoke clearly about the need for a new hospital. I know that he also tabled early-day motion 273, which attracted a great deal of support, to request a review of the coalition decision about the hospital. He, too, made an important case about health inequalities and why the hospital is needed. He also pointed out that structural upheaval in the NHS at a time when we are facing such financial problems is a recipe for chaos. What is the future for the people represented by him and our hon. Friends? Again, I look to the Minister to explain the coalition Government’s thinking about what will happen to the needs of communities in the north-east.
I do not wish to rehearse the history of this £464 million hospital project—my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State made it clear that it was a top priority for the NHS, and agreed in March this year that it should go ahead—but it had been in planning for a long time. It was not just signed off close to a general election. As we have heard, the coalition Government decided to cancel the hospital project within the first few weeks of taking up their position in Government. It is clear that the Treasury and other Departments reviewed every significant spending decision made between 1 January and the general election on 6 May. The proposal for the new hospital scheme, which received Government approval only in March, was considered properly during that review, but there are questions about why that particular hospital project was cancelled and others were allowed to proceed when my right hon. Friend had made it clear that the hospital was a top priority for the NHS.
Diana R. Johnson
The Minister will be pleased to know that I took great pleasure in reading his response to that debate, but I am still not satisfied with the explanation given. There is room for further explanation why that particular hospital was chosen.
Diana R. Johnson
I am particularly concerned—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned this—about the clear view of all the clinical professionals—[Interruption.] I do not have the speech in front of me, but considering that the Secretary of State for Health talks continually about the need for doctors and clinicians to be in the driving seat when decisions are made in the NHS, and considering that, as my hon. Friend said, it is clear that the clinicians and health professionals involved were very centred on having that one hospital, why have those views been suddenly pushed to one side? Will the Minister explain that, given the coalition Government’s new approach of saying that clinicians are at the centre of decision making? If so, I will be pleased.
Also, on the cost of cancelling the project, how much money was spent getting to the point of preparing to proceed? What yearly maintenance and repair bill does the Minister think will now have to be paid for the two hospitals? What is the coalition Government’s plan for in-patient health facilities for that community? What does he see as the future for either a new hospital or a different style of health service provision in the area? What is his thinking? It is certainly not clear.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections, to which one of my hon. Friends referred, show that the actual deficit was lower than was projected before the general election. We have also seen higher-than-expected growth figures this week, which hon. Members might find surprising. I ask the Minister to reconsider the economic impact of refusing to follow through on the decision to build the hospital, taking into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said about the potential for the hospital to be an anchor tenant to attract important private sector businesses and jobs. I know that the coalition Government are committed to helping the private sector grow us out of our present financial situation, so will the Minister reconsider? The range of Members present in the Chamber shows a clear commitment to ensuring that the people of the north-east get their fair share of resources and the kind of hospital service that they so richly deserve.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on securing this debate. As he and his hon. Friends will know—as the shadow Minister rightly said, they are here in force—we have had a briefer debate on this subject, and I have had the pleasure of welcoming most of the Opposition Members present to a meeting at my Department, where we had a useful exchange of views.
Before I address the main thrust of most of the contributions, which is North Tees and Hartlepool, I will give a brief overview of the health situation in the north-east and will refer to some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).
Earlier this month, as hon. Members know, we published our vision for the national health service in the White Paper “Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS”, which signals the beginning of the most profound reform in the NHS’s 62-year history. By taking power away from Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall and handing it to patients and clinicians, we shall transform the health service from the ground up.
Diana R. Johnson
I am intrigued. I read carefully the coalition agreement, which said that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS and mentioned having elected representation on primary care trust boards, which I understand are now to be scrapped. Will he explain why, in a few weeks, the Government have completely ditched that proposal, which was in the coalition agreement?
Mr Burns
I will certainly explain that when I get on to the specific point about Hartlepool because, unfortunately, as will be unveiled to the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Hartlepool, their comments today are based on a false premise and show that they do not fully understand the previous speeches on the issue, or the meeting we had at the Department of Health. All will be unveiled shortly, and I hope that the shadow Minister will understand the reasoning behind the decision taken.
As I was saying, as part of the vision, and the moving forward on the White Paper, we want every hospital trust in the country to become a foundation trust. We want to direct every aspect of the national health service at delivering clinical outcomes that are as good as, or better than, any in the world. The north-east is already ahead of the game in many respects. In November 2009, it became the first and only region in England to have all of its NHS hospital and mental health trusts awarded foundation trust status. When the Care Quality Commission reviewed hospital services in the region last year, every single hospital trust and every ambulance service was rated either good or excellent for the quality of their services. That gave the north-east the highest score in England for the third year running.
Among those hospital trusts, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust all received double excellent scores for both quality of services and the use of resources. The high quality of services across the north-east is down to the skill, dedication, creativity and sheer hard work of the thousands of NHS staff across the region. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and wish them well in their continued success in providing first-class care and services to the people of the north-east.
Alex Cunningham
Would the Minister care to help us get a hat trick, and to go from double to triple excellence, by having a brand new hospital for the people of North Tees and Hartlepool?
Mr Burns
I admire the hon. Gentleman for his persistence. If he could have a little patience, I shall talk about the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, and will then come on to the hospital that has so dominated the debate.
My hon. Friend mentioned Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and its proposal to build a £75-million emergency care hospital in Cramlington. I am advised that planning permission is currently being sought for the proposed site and that further development work is under way. I hope that that goes some way to answering the point that he raised. I will make sure that I write to him during the next week or so on the other points that he mentioned to explain all the outstanding issues.
I shall now turn to the review of the hospital in North Tees and Hartlepool. The hon. Member for Hartlepool specifically raised the Government’s decision to cancel North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust’s proposal for a new hospital building. As I stated in the House in our last debate on this matter on 5 July, the original proposal for a publicly funded capital scheme received Treasury approval in March this year, in the run-up to the general election. In view of the shocking state of the public finances and the desperate need to reduce the £155 billion deficit, which I need not remind Labour Members was left to us by their Government, the Treasury and other Departments reviewed every significant spending decision made under the previous Government between 1 January 2010 and the general election on 6 May.
Mr Iain Wright
I appreciate the Minister’s explanation and analysis, but if the Conservative-Liberal coalition Government are concerned about the state of the public finances and want to help drive down the debt quicker, why was there not a moratorium on all capital spend in the NHS, similar to that which the Secretary of State for Education put in place with regard to Building Schools for the Future?
Mr Burns
Because, as I will again explain—this is similar to what I said on 5 July—there were a range of criteria determined and, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, we took the decision on the hospital on the grounds of affordability and the foundation trust status of the hospital. If he will bear with me, I will explain that again, so that even if he does not accept the decision, he will, I hope, come to understand the reasoning behind it.
On 17 June, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), announced to the House the decisions made following the Government’s review of spending commitments. The review cancelled 12 projects, including the proposed new hospital at North Tees and Hartlepool.
The aim of granting foundation trust status is to give bodies, such as the trust in the area represented by the hon. Member for Hartlepool, greater financial independence. As well as being able to keep any internally generated resources, foundation trusts also have greater freedom to borrow from either the public or the private sector. As the proposals required an allocation of public dividend capital from the Department of Health of more than £400 million, they were not consistent with that financial independence. Treasury and Department of Health Ministers, including me, decided that, overall, those factors—affordability within the changed economic climate and the hospital’s foundation trust status—weighed against the £458-million scheme for North Tees and Hartlepool more than they did against the other three schemes at Liverpool, Epsom and St Helier, and the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital. For those reasons, the Government withdrew support for the scheme.
Following our previous debate, I was pleased to meet, on 8 July, Paul Garvin—the chair and non-executive director of North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust—together with the hon. Member for Hartlepool and many of his hon. Friends now present. At that meeting, we discussed the possibility of the trust putting forward a new proposal under the private finance initiative. As I have said repeatedly, I cannot in any way give any guarantees that such a scheme would, or would not, be approved. Like any proposal, it would have to be considered on its merits and in the light of the economic climate at the time it was put forward for consideration and possible approval.
However, the advice I would offer the foundation trust is the same advice I would offer any organisation putting forward such a proposal. Any scheme must reflect the changed realities of the national health service, as set out in the White Paper. It would clearly have to demonstrate that it passed the four tests for reconfigurations set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is, it has to have the support of GP commissioners; arrangements for public and patient engagement, including with local authorities, must be strengthened; there must be clear clinical evidence underpinning any proposal; and it must develop and support patient choice.
The economic and policy circumstances have changed since the original proposals were put forward. It would be advisable for the foundation trust to make sure that any revised proposals reflect those changes, and can demonstrate that they have the full support of GPs, the public and the local authority. Any new proposal must be realistic, affordable and provide value for money.
Grahame M. Morris
On the point about providing value for money, and the elephant in the room, which is the implied advice that the appropriate route for a foundation trust is a PFI initiative, does the Minister accept that the evidence suggests that over the 35-year write-off time, or life of a hospital, there would be an estimated additional cost to the pubic purse of £5 million a year as a result of going down the PFI route? That would cost the public purse an additional £175 million over the lifetime of the hospital—money that would otherwise go into patient care.
Mr Burns
I have to say, in the kindest, gentlest way possible, that I fear we are beginning to go around in circles. I have given the corrected figures; confusion was caused by what Hansard originally printed in the last debate on the subject, when I talked about the comparable costs of maintaining the two hospitals that exist and building a new one. There was a marginal £11 million difference.
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman must wait a minute, because I have only 10 minutes in which to answer the questions that the hon. Member for Hartlepool asked. The fact is that the decision was taken on affordability and on the fact that the trust was a foundation trust and so was free to seek other means by which to finance the project, rather than going to the Department for capital funding. Those decisions were taken because of the tough economic situation we inherited after 6 May and the massive deficit the country was left with. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly believes that the No. 1 priority for sorting out the economy is to get rid of the deficit as quickly as possible. Regrettably, tough decisions have to be taken in the light of the dire economic situation.
I must tell the hon. Members for Hartlepool and for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson) in the nicest terms possible, that it was their party’s mismanagement of the economy and deficit that put us in the current situation. We will have to take tough decisions if we are to have a buoyant, vibrant economy again. [Interruption.] If I might continue—[Interruption.]
Mr Burns
I will now answer some of the Opposition Members’ questions. The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked whether there was an optimal population size for a hospital. I have consulted my officials, who tell me that they are unaware of whether there is an official optimal population size for hospitals, so I will look into the matter and write to him with a satisfactory answer as soon as possible, giving him any information we have.
I have already explained, including on 5 and 8 July, the decision that governed the withdrawal of approval for the hospital. On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the future of Hartlepool hospital, there are currently no plans to close it, and that will remain the case unless the strategic health authority and the PCT propose closure. There are no such proposals at present, as far as I am aware.
Mr Iain Wright
I thank the Minister for that clarity. Given the proposals to abolish SHAs and PCTs, what will happen after that?
Mr Burns
It is perfectly reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to express concern about and an interest in finding out what would happen. The answer is that that will depend on a combination of factors, including the national commissioning board that will be created, the GP commissioners and the decision of the local health community. If a local health community put forward any proposals to reconfigure health patterns in its area, it would have to go through all the procedures that are currently in place, and there will also be the changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will put in place to strengthen the community’s input into any proposed reconfiguration. The views and support of clinicians and GPs will be sought, and the focus will be on improving outcomes and affordability, and including the views of local populations.
The hon. Gentleman will know from reading the White Paper and the five related documents that have so far been published, which flesh out the details, that local authorities will have a greatly enhanced role in the provision of health services and the maintenance of health care standards in the local community, and will not be restricted solely to their current role in public health.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government will implement the recommendations of the Darzi review on acute health services north of the River Tees. The recommendations of that review were superseded by advice provided by the independent reconfiguration panel to the then Secretary of State for Health in December 2006. That advice formed the basis of the “Momentum: Pathways to Healthcare” programme, which was developed by the local national health service to provide a new health care system for the people of Stockton, Hartlepool, Easington and Sedgefield. We understand that NHS Hartlepool and NHS Stockton-on-Tees will continue to work closely with North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust on delivering the wider Momentum programme, and will be discussing the options available with the trust. I hope that that goes some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned the generality of the provision of health care, and new health care facilities, in the region, and I can reassure her by mentioning a number of initiatives that have taken place in the Stockton-on-Tees area in recent years.
Mr Burns
Yes, in recent years—there is no point in the hon. Lady sitting there and saying that because, to be frank, anyone who takes a sensible approach to such matters will not try to score cheap party political points. I recognise that for the past 13 years we have had not a Conservative but a Labour Government, and I am mature enough and comfortable enough within myself to recognise that during those years advances in health care were made. I am not one of those narrow politicians who say that, because there was not a Tory Government, everything was awful, or that everything done by a Tory Government is wonderful; it is a mixture of the two. One has to be mature enough to recognise that, as I do. The initiatives I will refer to took place in the past few years, so they were under a Labour Government.
As the hon. Lady will know, 26 of the 46 Momentum business service change projects are under way as part of the “Momentum: Pathway to Healthcare” programme. They consist of detailed service reviews, a revised pathway based on a map of medicine, a value impact assessment and a service implementation plan. Examples of pathways reviewed to date include those on diabetes, respirology, cardiology and haematology. There are also cross-cutting business service change projects under way in the areas of work force and education, IT, and communications and engagement. There is also an integrated care centre at Hartlepool, with which the hon. Member for Hartlepool will be familiar, and an integrated care centre at Billingham, which I expect the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) will know.
Diana R. Johnson
I am pleased that the Minister has read out a list of initiatives introduced under a Labour Government, but I am interested in the coalition Government’s thinking on health service provision in the north-east. What initiatives do they have planned for dealing with the health inequalities that have been mentioned by Members today?
Mr Burns
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity once again to tell her that those are all contained in the vision outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the White Paper that was published last week. It is a vision that puts patients at the heart of health care, so that they can have the best health care of the highest quality. It is based on the premise that there should be a local, bottom-up system, rather than one in which politicians and bureaucrats in Whitehall issue diktats and tell local communities with which they are unfamiliar what they should and should not do. That is the way forward for enhancing health care.
Our vision is based not on processes that are distorted for party political purposes, but on the need to improve outcomes so that people get better health care. The patient experience, whether in a hospital setting or when a patient visits their GP, should be tailored to their needs, rather than to what the state tells them that they should have. That move will be spearheaded by GPs, through GP consortiums, as it is they who are closest to patients, know the health care that they need, and know how patients can best access it. That will all be determined by improving outcomes and the patient experience in order to give the finest quality care that the country can provide—the highest in the world. That is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question.
Ship-to-Ship Oil as Cargo Transfer
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to have my first Adjournment debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan.
The regulations on the ship-to-ship transfer of oil as cargo excite passions right along the Forth and elsewhere, in a way that the dry title of the debate might not credit. Many of my constituents and those of my parliamentary colleagues feel strongly about the need for the regulations, as do all the local authorities in the east of Scotland and a range of environmental organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—I should declare that I am a member of the RSPB, as I am sure many colleagues are.
I place on record that I accept the assurance offered by the Minister that he did not intend to give the impression that the Government were sneaking out the U-turn on the regulations. Labour Members accept that he was merely badly advised by his civil servants, who either did not realise or did not inform him of the hostility and anger that the Government’s announcement would cause in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I was going to let the hon. Gentleman have a free run, but the decision about when to lay the statutory instrument was not the result of ill advice by civil servants—it was my decision. Thursdays are full sitting days in the House. Every single MP who had shown an interest was e-mailed a letter and a copy of the statutory instrument. The measure was laid on a full sitting day—Thursday—and was not sneaked out. I resent how that has just been portrayed.
Thomas Docherty
I reiterate, I do not believe that the Minister was trying to sneak the statutory instrument out by using the form of a written statement. I hope he understands that many Scottish Members of Parliament would have been grateful for the opportunity to have a debate on the subject, perhaps after an oral statement, so I very much welcome today’s opportunity.
Giving a background to the subject might be helpful. The regulations followed a commitment by the previous Government after my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) withdrew his private Member’s Bill, the Environmental Protection (Transfers at Sea) Bill. The Bill was itself the result of an outcry in Scotland against proposals by Forth Ports to start carrying out ship-to-ship transfers in the firth of Forth. The Bill followed the introduction of new Scottish regulations, brought in by the Scottish Government in 2007, which dealt with those aspects of environmental regulations devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Significantly, those regulations were supported by all parties in the Scottish Parliament, including the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives.
Let me clear up one myth that opponents of the regulations—the shipping lobby in particular—have been perpetuating, namely, that the regulations have been rushed in some way. The 2010 regulations took the Department for Transport two years and two consultations to produce. They were eventually laid before Parliament in the so-called wash-up in April, to get through which we assume they must have had all-party support. Therefore, further delay and a third consultation are frustrating. It is unclear to us what new, previously unavailable information might be obtained by the third consultation that was not available from the first two processes. I hope that the Minister’s reply will clarify that point.
May I also make it clear that Labour Members do not oppose ship-to-ship transfers in principle? The Scottish Government and environmental bodies such as the RSPB do not do so either. Furthermore, the Scottish Government cannot be accused of nimbyism when they are championing the use of other Scottish waters. However, because oil spills into the sea are an environmental and tourism disaster, we believe that ship-to-ship transfers must be regulated. We only need to look at what happened in the gulf of Mexico, or closer to home in the Shetland islands with the Braer oil tanker a few years ago, to see what can happen to our environment when things go horribly wrong.
Regulations should ensure two things—that ship-to-ship transfers are carried out in the right and safest place; and, secondly, that they meet the current environmental regulations. Therefore, long-standing good practice should be permitted to continue, as in Scapa Flow, which is sheltered, overseen by the harbour authority and in close proximity to pollution control equipment and expert staff. However, the use of potentially hazardous places such as the firth of Forth, which is open sea, uncontrolled and with little if any nearby pollution control, should be prohibited.
The 2010 regulations, in our opinion and that of the shadow team before the general election, provided just such an approach. They also provided a means to ensure that the operations comply with current EU regulations, otherwise the Government would be at risk of committing an infraction, as I am sure the Minister will confirm.
I do not believe—I suspect that colleagues would not disagree—that the shipping industry should be allowed to pursue the policy of self-regulation for which it is lobbying. Before entering Parliament, I worked at a nuclear power station and on the railways. No one in their right mind would argue for allowing either the nuclear or the railway industries to self-regulate. Given that we require independent, statutory regulation of those two industries, and given the risks involved in the activity that we are discussing, why should the shipping industry believe that it should be allowed to self-regulate? I hope that the Minister will rule out that option today when he replies or, failing that, will expand on his thinking on self-regulation.
The shipping lobbyists and their supporters will complain about the cost to them of following the regulations. However, I understand that the cost is only about £9 million a year, and the proposals would add only an extra half-day’s sailing to reach Scapa Flow rather than the Forth. I do not believe that £9 million is too high a price for the protection of our environment.
As I have made clear, the subject concerns a great number of my constituents. It is rare indeed when the SNP Scottish Government, the Lib Dem and SNP-run Fife and Edinburgh councils, Labour MPs, and Labour, SNP, Lib Dem and Conservative Members of the Scottish Parliament all speak with one voice. That, I hope, demonstrates to the Minister the level of anger felt by many people in Scotland.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The RSPB is one of the big campaigners on the issue. My area certainly experienced such campaigns when I was on the council, which was before 2007—that is how long we have been talking about the matter. The RSPB stated that it could not understand why the regulations could not go ahead. Was my hon. Friend aware of that?
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend has been a champion on the issue in Edinburgh for quite a while. She is right that the RSPB is unhappy. I think it is fair to say that it feels that its voice has not yet been heard in the debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a guarantee today that, as part of his consultation over the next six months, he will find an opportunity to meet with the RSPB and me, as well as with my right hon. and hon. Friends, if he can find time in his diary, perhaps in September or October. The RSPB could then have an opportunity, in person, to make its case.
I am conscious that I have been pursuing this issue for some time.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate that there was some confusion about who would raise this matter, there being two new Members from Scottish constituencies with the same first name. I understand that that caused a little confusion.
I have been aware of the issue for some time, having worked in the Scotland Office. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that, at the time of the build-up to the regulations being laid, there was a considerable period in which there was significant resistance to them from the Department for Transport, although the Scotland Office and other bits of the Government were pushing for them. Could the Minister respond to that point, which is of concern to some of us on this side of the Chamber?
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. He obviously has particular expertise and knowledge of the mechanics of government from his former life. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point. It might also be worth his clarifying what representations, if any, he has had from either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for the Scotland Office. We understand that they are supposed to be Scotland’s champions in the Government, and, given that the Scottish Government and the local authorities have raised the matter with his ministerial colleagues, it would be helpful to get an understanding of whether the Scotland Office has been asked for, or has proactively provided, any input to the review.
I am conscious that I am beginning to approach the Minister’s time, so let me make one final observation. Of course, we would never seek to use early-day motions as a method of gauging the overall strength of feeling in the House. I suspect that the Minister and I would be at one in suggesting that they are not necessarily the best way to make policy. However, it may be worth looking at the two early-day motions that were tabled on this subject.
One was from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who I welcome to the debate. I am sure that she will have some thoughts for us in a moment. Her early-day motion, which began
“That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty”,
asked for the regulations to be annulled, and attracted four signatures.
The counter to that early-day motion was early-day motion 308, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and which attracted 28 signatures. Basically, it said that the House welcomed the regulations, and asked for them to be enforced. Curiously enough, however, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) seems to have signed both motions. Far be it from me to try to establish why a Liberal Democrat might think that he can be both in favour of and against something simultaneously—I suspect that the Minister might have more experience of that than I do.
In conclusion, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. So that we are all clear, I accept the Minister’s assurance that he was not seeking or intending to sneak out the announcement. I hope that he can give us some reassurance on the points that we have raised on regulations and other subjects, and I very much hope that he will be able to shed some light on who has made representations to him so far, and on his plans to take further representations from Members on both sides of the House.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members that it is normal practice to allow the Minister at least 10 minutes to wind up and to give appropriate answers.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Sheridan, for allowing me to speak. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to make a few comments.
On the early-day motion, Members probably know that one is forced to table an early-day motion to pray against a set of regulations, so my motion was a technical intervention to register my concern about the regulations and to pray against them, in the hope that the Minister might consider my arguments for reconsidering them.
To reassure Opposition colleagues, I, too, represent an area that might be viewed as the other part of the Celtic fringe. Some hon. Members who represent constituencies at the other end of the British isles certainly refer to it in that way. I represent an equally beautiful part of the country that prides itself on its natural environment, and it is of the utmost importance to me and all Members from Cornwall to protect that environment.
I also represent the port of Falmouth, which is the third-largest natural harbour in the world. It is a special area of conservation, and we very much prize its environment. It has the last oyster-fishing fleet still under sail in Europe. We manage to consider the environment, while having a vibrant commercial port that not only has contracts with the RAF for servicing its ships, but has ship-repairing, yacht-building and oil-bunkering businesses.
I received representations from constituents who were concerned about the operation of the regulations as laid before the House. We all absolutely understand the importance of protecting our natural environment. I grew up in Cornwall at the time of the appalling Torrey Canyon oil spill, which blighted all the beaches of Cornwall and caused devastation to wildlife. I have lived through such a situation, and the last thing that I would want is to be associated with anything that would jeopardise the environment or cause such degradation.
I felt that it was important to make representations to the Minister, and I am absolutely delighted with the course of action that he has taken to ensure that any regulations passed by the House are enforceable. My concerns were about the enforceability of the regulations and ensuring that they did, in fact, deliver what we all want, which is a balance between environmental protection and a vibrant shipping industry, which makes a great contribution not only to my constituency but to the British isles as a whole.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, for the first time speaking from the Government Benches. I have been chaired by you before, but only when I was in the Opposition.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing this debate—his timing is perfect, just as we go into recess. If he looks around, he will find that many colleagues have disappeared north and south, even though this is a full sitting day. I know about the difficulties of travelling to different parts of the country when the House adjourns. For some time, Thursdays have not been one of the longest sitting days—not very much business was whipped on Thursdays. However—I am afraid that we may all have to get used to this—they are very much a full day, and we could have Friday sittings as well. Written ministerial statements will be tabled on Thursdays.
There was a debate when I first took on this job and looked at the regulations, when I asked about the correct method for informing the House and the country that I had some concerns about how they had been laid. In May, when I became the Shipping Minister, there was a huge pile of paperwork to go through—that is natural enough, for a brand-new Minister. One of the things that struck me, before I received any representations from anyone, was the legislation that had been put through in the wash-up period.
I was here for only five years before the hon. Gentleman was elected, and I do not know all the processes. However, I know that not everything that goes through in the wash-up period has received general agreement, especially when it comes to statutory instruments. It does not work that way, so it is wrong to say that everything was agreed and was fine—it was not. Putting in a statutory instrument three days before the House rises for an election is perhaps not the way to have open government or to discuss things, be able to pray against them and move forward.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s concerns that the statement was made on a Thursday and that Scottish MPs were on their way back to Scotland, but the House was sitting. The written ministerial statement was tabled by 9.30, and by 9.36, every MP who had shown an interest, including every Scottish Member who had done so, as well as Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, was e-mailed with the written ministerial statement and a letter from me explaining why I was going through the process.
Thomas Docherty
On the point about the wash-up, can the Minister clarify what representations either the Conservative or the Liberal Democrat transport teams made against the regulations being introduced in April? That might clarify matters for us.
Mike Penning
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is trying to go. Let me be honest and say that I do not know. In the way that I am looking at the matter now, I do not think that that matters, because it is about whether Parliament was fully informed and had an opportunity to go through the process that was required for such important regulations.
I set out in my letter quite firmly that, although this important issue seems techie, it is not. The environment comprising this country’s shores is important. This is not a devolved matter. I listened intently to hon. Members’ comments. Although we have to take into consideration the views of other Parliaments in the United Kingdom and those of other Members of Parliament, this decision is being made by one of the few ministerial roles that still deals fully with the United Kingdom. I am proud of that.
I considered carefully, and understand exactly, what the regulations were trying to do: protect the environment and bring some ports inside regulation—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife mentioned Scapa Flow earlier—that are outside both it and the European habitats directive, which is not acceptable.
I accept that regulation is required—there is no argument about that—but we are looking for suitable regulation for the process, which is why we have gone into consultation. We need to consider whether the regulations are a sledgehammer to crack a nut, in certain respects, and whether they are enforceable. That is why I asked for the consultation and suspended the implementation of the regulations, scheduled for October. I did not revoke the SI, which was another option that could have gone ahead. Instead, I delayed its implementation for six months so that we could consult fully—Parliament should do that—and find out about any other concerns that the public, those involved in shipping, the RSPB and others may have about how the regulations will work in practice. I do not know what those concerns are, because the consultation is not over. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has already mentioned the concerns in Falmouth about how the regulations will work.
Sheila Gilmore
After such a long gestation period for the regulations, does the Minister understand the scepticism and anger in the communities that have campaigned about this matter and want to see it happen? I came off Edinburgh city council in 2007. We were discussing regulations then and there was a bit of confusion about the degree to which the Scottish Parliament could take part. After such a long time, does the Minister understand how people feel, and is he prepared to give clear reassurance to those who want clear regulation in this regard?
Mike Penning
I understand the public’s concern, throughout the country, about what would happen if there was an oil spill and about the dangers to the environment. I also understand that the consultation was lengthy. But the regulations are sitting there and there is genuine concern on both sides of the argument about whether they go far enough. As the Minister responsible, it is crucial that I ensure that the legislation that is put before the House is fit for purpose.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I was heavily lobbied on this issue immediately after I was elected and I listened to a lot of businesses that are concerned about the job prospects in the Lowestoft area as a result of the ban. I should like to mention in particular the Regulatory Policy Committee’s report, dated 13 April, the summary opinion of which is:
“The case for the prohibition of ship-to-ship oil transfers in UK territorial waters outside of harbour areas has not been made. There appears to have been little assessment of risk in drawing up this proposal, and it is not clear that the environmental benefits will be achieved. Furthermore, there is no adequate explanation for the enhanced environmental benefits of the preferred Option 3, over Option 2.”
Will the Minister confirm that he has had regard to the findings of the Regulatory Policy Committee in coming to his decision?
Mike Penning
Not only have I had those findings, but I will look at them after the consultation is concluded.
One of my biggest concerns is whether all the regulations are likely to work. That is a point of law. If they are not going to work in law, what is the point of having them? The measures in respect of Scapa Flow, the habitats directive and the environmental consequences will have to happen: that is part of the regulations. I understand that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife vehemently does not want ship-to-ship transfer in the Forth, but we have to consider whether there is a legal way of ensuring that that does not happen. Although the hon. Gentleman does not want ship-to-ship transfers, ships could move 12.1 miles off the coast and do the transfers legitimately there. Under the regulations, we cannot do anything if they move outside the 12-mile limit. That worries me an awful lot.
Ship-to-ship transfers also take place off the Suffolk coast. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is not in this Chamber today, is concerned about whether ships will move outside the controlled environment, where transfers happen at the moment, and go beyond the 12-mile limit. My hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) have mentioned concerns about jobs being jeopardised.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked whether I would rule out self-regulation. There will be regulation: there is no argument about that. This is about how far regulation goes and whether it is enforceable: that is the crucial thing with any regulation made in the House.
My scepticism is not based on my lack of willingness to protect the environment. Anyone looking at my track record will know my views on the environment. I am a fisherman and have fished in many of the coastal areas that the hon. Gentleman represents. We have to consider the risk. The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier what has happened in respect of BP in the gulf of Mexico. Sadly, that might happen—God forbid that it does—on any of the rigs sitting out there today. There has not been a spillage from ship-to-ship transfer. The regulations are preventive and will put a burden on the shipping business: there is no argument about that, because that will happen. If we put such a burden on shipping, will ships sail up to Scapa and go in and pay their dues, or will they move a few miles out? I am not a shipping person, but I understand that the margins are not huge. That may happen.
A lot of ships doing the transfers are Russian. As hon. Members know, the Russians have a large fleet, some of which is not the best quality. I hope that the Russians do not get upset about that, but it is a fact. If we can at least see the ships and control them to some degree within our territorial waters, we stand a chance. If they sit offshore, we will not be able to protect them at all.
It is crucial that Parliament sets laws that are enforceable and fit for purpose. I will return to this point. I suspended the regulations because I am concerned that they may not be enforceable and are possibly not fit for purpose. However, I stress that that does not take away the requirement for regulation. I am disappointed that, as revealed in earlier comments, there seems to have been a lack of communication or co-operation between the Scotland Office in the previous Government and the Department for Transport. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that does not exist now and that there is now real co-operation between all the relevant Departments.
I will meet as many different people and representative bodies as possible, including the RSPB. I am conscious that I have not had the sort of representation from the RSPB that I should like to have seen, but I expect to receive it during the consultation.
Of course, the shipping industry is concerned, but it is not just about the shipping industry, as we have heard from hon. Members from around the country, who are concerned about whether these are the right regulations to protect the environment and jobs and whether they are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I will consider that matter carefully during the consultation period.
Strategic Transport (Cambridge)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I am delighted to have secured this crucial debate, especially as it is the last Westminster Hall debate before the long recess. I apologise, Mr Sheridan, for detaining you and the Minister from the break. Transport affects all my constituents daily, in one way or another, and it is a major concern that is raised constantly by residents and employers. Having spent almost my whole life in Cambridge, and having chaired the Cambridge traffic management committee for many years, I know the problems all too well. However, I am enthusiastic about the opportunities to make transport in Cambridge better for all—for businesses using important freight routes, for commuters who make the daily journey to work, and for tourists who come to enjoy the region’s historical and cultural attractions.
If we are to have a transport system that is better for all, we must get our priorities right. That means seriously considering whether we should continue our dependence on cars and lorries. I am sure that I need not rehearse for the Minister road vehicles’ impact on the environment. I have long believed that there are good arguments based on nothing more than simple self-interest. Congestion is increasingly problematic everywhere, and particularly around Cambridge. Everyone knows that, and no one enjoys it, but the evidence shows that, if more roads are built, more congestion fills those roads.
The best argument for doing things differently is simply the A14, which is vital to the region and the country, but is notoriously congested and unsafe. The traffic loads are far above those recommended by the Highways Agency, and almost a quarter of vehicles on the road are HGVs travelling to or from Felixstowe port. HGVs are responsible for more than one third of the accidents on the A14. Anyone who has travelled along the road a few times will know how often there are hold-ups. Even a trip to the supermarket may quickly become an expedition worthy of Captain Scott. Sadly, the Highways Agency’s way of dealing with the problem belongs in the history books. The agency and the county council are trying to ram through a scheme that would see the road widened to a 10-lane superhighway at the exorbitant cost of around £1.4 billion. That is a huge, unaffordable sum, especially at this time of financial constraint.
My concerns are not just financial. The proposed scheme, which the Government have put on hold, would also wreak havoc on Cambridge. The calculations show that several key roads in Cambridge would have a huge increase in traffic. For example, Huntingdon road, which is the main entry into the city from the north-west, could have 60% more traffic, while Horningsea road, to the east, could have traffic levels more than doubled. The effects of that extra traffic on other roads in Cambridge—for example, the ring road system—have simply not been calculated.
That is not to say that nothing should be done. In 2002, when I was a young, new county councillor, I argued that we should make safety improvements as soon as possible, develop a smaller scheme that would also deal with associated problems, such as the Huntingdon viaduct’s end of life, and prevent Godmanchester from being a slip road for the A14. I made my suggestions at a council meeting, but they were dismissed by the ruling Conservatives, who said that a big scheme would be along soon. My proposals would have saved time and money, and they would also have saved lives. It is disgraceful that, eight years on, no safety improvements have been implemented, and a coherent, affordable plan has not been developed to deal with the A14 problem.
I pay tribute, in passing, to Cambridgeshire police, who have taken special measures to reduce the number of accidents, although they can only do so much. The introduction of average speed cameras has been impressively effective in reducing accidents. Will the Minister examine the affordability and cost-benefit analysis of a much smaller-scale improvement that would deal with the main safety concerns, could be delivered soon, would benefit so many residents and start to save lives now?
Sadly, the A14 is not the only problem area for travel around Cambridge. The fiasco of the Cambridge guided bus is another example of poor strategic thinking. As Liberal Democrat leader on the county council, I led the campaign against that ill-conceived project. The money and the space, even as designed at the outset, could have been far better used for other schemes. One problem is that the bus is not guided through Cambridge, which is precisely where a guideway would have been most useful. It is notable that the inventor of the guided bus concept lives in Cambridge, and was an active campaigner against the guided bus.
The county council, egged on by the previous Government, became so fixated on the guided bus that other facilities lost out on resources as a result. That error was compounded by the failure to ensure that Cambridge residents would be able to use the system. There are continuing limits on where it will stop to pick up passengers. In the meantime, other bus routes have been altered, and stops removed from service to allow the guided bus to speed through when, if ever, it starts running. As I speak, the whole project is some £50 million over the allotted budget of £106 million, and is more than a year overdue, with no immediate prospect of running any time soon. Indeed, some of the buses bought by Stagecoach to run on the guideway used to say, “I’ll be on the busway soon”, but were repainted to say, “Will I be on the busway soon?” That shows the level of its concern.
The latest public papers suggest that legal arguments between the county council and the contractors, BAM Nuttall, are likely to run until 2014-15, greatly benefiting the lawyers on each side, I suspect, whatever the outcome. That is not ideal for people in Cambridge who would like to be able to get around. I hope that, when the scheme is finally up and running, it will be effective, and that people will use it. A white elephant with some usage is far better than a white elephant with no usage. But given the broken promises by the Conservatives at Shire hall that it would be built “on cost, on budget” and at
“no cost to the Council taxpayer”',
I am not holding my breath. The Minister agreed in response to my parliamentary questions to hold a review of guided bus policy, and argued that the county council should perform its own inquiry into the system. I thank him for that.
What are the solutions in the A14 corridor? The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the best way to lighten congestion on the A14 is to get freight off the road and on to rail. Our manifesto pledge, as I am sure the Minister knows, was to take money from the major roads budget and to use it to reopen closed rail lines. One such line is the east-west link, which comes in two forms, depending on who one talks to, but both would be beneficial. One version is the Cambridge-Oxford line, and opening up a direct route across the country from Ipswich to Oxford; the other is more northerly, via Nuneaton, and would allow freight to travel from Felixstowe docks without having to use roads until much nearer its destination. Work has already commenced on the Nuneaton section, and I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to see that essential work through to completion, so that we have a functioning freight route.
Those schemes would massively reduce traffic on the A14, making it safer, faster and more reliable. They are remarkably cost-effective, and would use existing infrastructure for much of the route. For the wider region, that would provide far greater freedom of movement for workers and tourists, along with better and safer options for businesses—truly a transport system better for all.
As well as investment in rail infrastructure, which would enable a switch of freight mode, further incentives are needed. A scheme in Switzerland, the Leistungsabhängige Schwerverkehrsabgabe, or LSVA—I apologise to the Hansard reporters and anyone who knows how it is pronounced—is a nationwide scheme that charges HGVs to use the roads. The fee is based on all distance travelled; it is charged per kilometre as well as per tonne. It also includes an element depending on vehicle emissions, and applies to all HGVs weighing more than 3.5 tonnes. Will the Minister investigate such schemes to encourage freight off the road and on to rail, hopefully with the rail scheme that he will help us to deliver?
Another vital step for Cambridge is the introduction of Chesterton railway station. It has been needed for many years and, at a stroke, would reduce congestion in the centre of the city. Surveys show that around 70% of the vehicles parking at Cambridge station come from north of the city, so a station at Chesterton, which is in the north, would see the majority of those vehicles diverted there, bringing welcome relief to residential streets and the historic city centre. That project would be relatively cheap, and would be an excellent fit with Government policy. It would meet criteria for improving access to key centres and reducing carbon emissions. It would also be beneficial for the many high-tech companies around the Cambridge science park, as they would benefit from more convenient travel for their employees, and from better connections to London. On a technical note, such a project would ease the existing congestion at Cambridge station. Cost-benefit calculations are extremely positive, and that proposal was the top regional priority under the former grading scheme.
I understand from the Minister that the Department for Transport is working with the county council to assess the scheme for Chesterton, and that the council is considering funding options. I urge the Department and the council to reconsider the expensive and bloated expansion of the A14, and to redirect funds where they are most needed. Cambridge can grow in a sustainable way only if investment is put into public transport facilities now.
Such investment should include transport interchanges, and one specific issue is that of access to cycle parking at Cambridge station. There is huge demand for cycle parking at that station, as anyone who has used it will know, but there is gross underprovision of spaces. I have raised the issue with Network Rail, First Capital Connect and National Express East Anglia, and those companies have agreed to work on the problem. In particular, Network Rail has committed to looking at providing new double-decker cycle racks at the station, until the large CB1 scheme is complete, and I thank it for that commitment. Will the Minister ensure that such small proposals, which would nevertheless make a huge difference to people’s daily lives, are supported, mandated and funded?
We must encourage people to use forms of transport other than the private car. As a driver, cyclist and pedestrian, I am keenly aware of the conflicting needs of different travellers, but it is a constant balancing act. I have no wish to deny drivers essential access, but I also want to ensure that we promote environmentally sustainable forms of transport around Cambridge. Cycling and walking are the ideal forms of travel, and they help people to stay healthy. Too often, however, local authorities are slow to provide good-quality routes for people to use on which they feel safe and which do not deviate from their direction of travel. Such routes tend not to get the appropriate levels of maintenance when potholes appear and—at least in Cambridge—they are not gritted sufficiently during the winter months.
In Cambridge, we had to reinstate legal cycling along a national cycling route through the city centre after it was banned by the Conservatives. Other measures would also help. A speed limit of 20 miles per hour should be easier to implement on a city-wide basis, so that although the speed limit on major roads would continue to be 30 miles per hour, side streets would have a limit of 20 miles per hour. That would have a limited impact on drivers, but would significantly increase the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.
We need less bureaucracy. In Cambridge, we spent many years seeking permission from the Department for Transport for road signs that indicated no entry to all except cyclists. We campaigned on that for years, and we have finally been allowed a pilot of a sign that should be easy to demonstrate and use. Such signs are more easily understood by road users than the low-flying motorbikes that are the alternative sign.
We must also promote bus services. Buses provide essential access, but too often they are run by monopoly providers, whose main interests are their own financial returns rather than the provision of a proper transport service to the population. Such providers use their clout to extract huge sums of money from councils to provide essential services. Will the Minister defend funding for cycling and walking schemes in Cambridge and elsewhere, and will he support more local powers to improve the bus services? Will he help with the trains so that there is more space to find a seat and tickets are better and more clearly priced? As a parochial interest, could there be a sign in King’s Cross underground station to state which platform the Cambridge train will depart from?
Two years ago, this House made the courageous decision to pass an Act to stop climate change. However, it is no good setting targets if positive action is not taken to achieve them. If we persist in ignoring the fact that it is impossible to build our way out of congestion, we will not only make life more miserable for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike, but throw in the towel in the battle against catastrophic environmental damage.
Making transport better for all in the short term is one thing, and I am delighted to have had the chance to set out my proposed strategy for Cambridge in the coming years, but we should never lose sight of the fact that, by increasing access to public transport and creating sustainable communities, we are not only making transport better for all—we are also building a fairer society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this debate; this is the first time that I have had the chance to welcome him formally to this place, and I also congratulate him on taking over from David Howarth in representing the people of Cambridge. He has asked a number of questions about transport in Cambridge and has raised some important issues. I am pleased to respond to his first Adjournment debate on a subject that I know is of great importance to him and his constituents. He will recognise that he has given me a huge wish list, and I cannot promise to satisfy him on every point in my response.
As a preamble, I shall say something about the priorities of the coalition Government. The coalition agreement makes clear our commitment to a modern low-carbon transport infrastructure as an essential element of a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy. However, I must also make clear at the outset that the overriding need identified by the coalition Government is that of tackling the national deficit. That means that the decisions we take and the speed with which we are able to implement transport improvements will need to be determined in the context of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.
The Department for Transport is playing a full part in the spending review that will report in the autumn; there will be a statement from the Chancellor on 20 October and we have already announced a range of measures aimed at delivering reductions in spending. On 24 May, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave details of £6.2 billion of savings in Government spending in 2010-11. The Department for Transport is contributing to those savings by finding £683 million this year, and that has meant taking difficult decisions on funding. On 10 June, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government published further details of local government savings, including £309 million of savings from local transport funding.
I understand that those reductions and the deferring of decisions on some transport schemes until after the outcome of the spending review will be difficult for many places. Through reductions in ring-fencing we have maximised the flexibility for local authorities to reshape their budgets according to local priorities and identify where efficiencies can be found. There is also an opportunity to rethink transport plans and priorities and ensure that proposals are environmentally, as well as financially, sustainable. Given current financial constraints, it is essential to ensure that any new infrastructure is affordable and offers value for money.
My hon. Friend knows better than I do that Cambridge has always been an important and distinguished city whose origins go back to Roman times and the location of the first bridged crossing of the River Cam inland from the sea. Transport clearly had a crucial role in society then, as it does now. Cambridge is a world-renowned university town with three universities. It is city of science that has hosted such eminent scholars as Newton, Darwin and Watson and Crick. Lately it has built a world-wide reputation as a leader in bio-engineering technology, and the growth of that sector is a powerful economic driver, both locally and nationally.
The growth of Cambridge and the demand for travel has led to increases in traffic congestion. With many more new homes planned for the sub-region over the next 10 years, even more people will be travelling around. Since the 1970s, successive Governments have attempted to solve the congestion problem by building more roads. First came the M11 from London to the south of Cambridge in the mid-1970s. That was later extended to provide a western bypass of Cambridge in 1979 and the Cambridge northern bypass followed soon after as the A45. The old A604 road to Huntingdon was dualled and widened, but it was not until the mid-1990s and the completion of the M1 to A1 east-west link in Northamptonshire, that the whole route was renumbered as the A14. That route became the first major east-west trunk route linking the east coast ports to the manufacturing centres in the midlands and the north-west but, as my hon. Friend will know, the road is now a congested artery.
In widening the old A604 to a dual two-lane carriageway, the Government of the day did not foresee the demand that would be placed on that road once it became part of the A14. As long ago as 1994, the standing advisory committee for trunk road assessment—SACTRA—made clear in its report that new roads tend to generate additional traffic, which must be taken into account in forward planning.
There have been various schemes to widen the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon. The most recent is the present A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton scheme, which emerged as a recommendation of CHUMMS—the Cambridge to Huntingdon multimodal study. My hon. Friend will be aware that a preferred route was announced for that scheme a few years ago, and that a public inquiry was scheduled to start last month. That inquiry was suspended pending the outcome of the spending review, as has happened with other such schemes across the country. It was simply not tenable or sensible to continue with the statutory process of the scheme, given the uncertainty in relation to the spending review. I should record at this stage that there is significant support for the scheme, but there are also many people who have serious reservations about it, on both environmental and financial grounds.
The scheme cost is now in excess of £1 billion, which would be a huge investment for a single road. The spending review means that we must reconsider the affordability of that scheme and all others. We shall need to consider whether we really have the best and most sustainable solution to the problem. We have to ask that question about all schemes.
I take my hon. Friend’s point about safety improvements. It is certainly important that we do not have an absence of safety improvements to a road because we are holding out for something bigger. I had a similar situation in my constituency with the A27. Clearly, people who have concerns about safety have a right to have those addressed. That will need to be factored into any consideration that we undertake in relation to the road that we are discussing today after the spending review is complete. I stress that no decision has been taken about the road as yet.
The previous Administration recognised that there was a separate need to cater for people who live in the villages around Cambridge and who work in the city or at the science park. The solution to that was seen as the guided busway. That scheme was approved by the previous Administration way back in 2001 and construction commenced in 2007, yet it is still not open. It has become a very expensive project, with costs rising from £116 million in 2006 to an estimated £160 million now. That is more than three times the original estimate.
Delivery issues remain to be resolved between Cambridgeshire county council and the contractor, as my hon. Friend said. I know that he has concerns about the project; he expressed those in a parliamentary question, which I answered last month. There are clearly lessons to be learned from both the Cambridge and the Luton to Dunstable guided bus projects. That is why I have asked my officials to consider the history and cost structure of those projects. I have asked for a report by the end of September on that matter and associated matters relating to light rail. Many of those schemes have also come in significantly above budget or were cancelled by the previous Administration. We need to learn the lessons to ensure that that does not happen again.
Let me deal with the issue of tackling congestion in the city centre. First, I want to make it clear that building big expensive infrastructure is not the only answer to tackling congestion. I know that my hon. Friend shares my view that much more can be done to support sustainable travel. We can achieve a great deal by concentrating much more on local interventions that respond to local needs. That will mainly be achieved through the local transport plan process. As I highlighted in a recent speech at the Transport Times conference in Manchester, local transport plans remain the best way for authorities to plan and deliver their strategy for integrated, safe, sustainable and efficient transport in their areas.
However, in line with the coalition agreement to promote decentralisation and devolution of power to local government, my Department will no longer seek to intervene in how local authorities review their progress against local transport plans. That will be a matter entirely for them. After the spring 2011 deadline for renewal of the plans, reports or reviews will no longer be required for central Government to consider.
Local authorities are working hard to have their new plans in place by next April, and I encourage them to be creative and innovative in doing so. Cambridgeshire county council and the city council have done excellent work on sustainable travel in recent years, and I trust that their commitment to that cause and their working in partnership will continue. They have had considerable success in raising bus patronage locally through the development of park-and-ride sites. The traffic management scheme in the city centre, which my hon. Friend oversaw in a previous capacity, has been very successful in promoting safe cycling and walking and containing traffic growth.
If cycling is to succeed anywhere in the UK, it must succeed in Cambridge. Unlike my constituency, Cambridge is, after all, relatively flat and situated in the driest part of the country. Cycling is also the mode of choice for the large student population. With 18% of all journeys made by bike, Cambridge already has the highest level of cycling anywhere in the country. The aim is to increase that further. As a cycling demonstration town project participant, it is receiving some £3.6 million of extra funding for that from my Department. I would like to see the experiences of Cambridge applied to other places at the end of the project.
Enabling people to interchange easily from one public transport mode to another is fundamental in getting people out of their cars. Again, I am aware that Cambridge is at the forefront of that through the development of the station gateway project. That project will deliver a bus interchange facility right outside the main rail station. We are keen for such projects to expand and to be replicated throughout the country.
That leads me on to the issue of rail. Let me assure my hon. Friend that the present Government are committed to making the best use of our rail network, as part of our commitment to creating a low-carbon economy and to improving the travelling experience for passengers. I am pleased to note that Network Rail is expected to commence work shortly at Cambridge station to construct the new island platform. However, the estimated cost of £15 million is obviously high. I shall add in passing that the ministerial team in the Department are quite keen to get better value from Network Rail for some of these projects. That cost does seem to me rather expensive for a platform.
In any case, the new platform will provide much-needed extra station capacity to enable First Capital Connect and National Express East Anglia to operate in a much more efficient and organised manner. The new platform is expected to be in operation by the end of next year. In addition, the completion of the Thameslink programme will give Cambridge faster journey times to London, access to St Pancras and many more direct connections to places south of the Thames.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of new rolling stock for London to Cambridge services is under review by my Department. It is important that in ordering new trains, we get the very best value for money and that the specification is exactly right for the job that we want them to do. My hon. Friend will also be aware that stabling for the new trains was one of the factors taken into consideration in relation to the development of a new station at Chesterton, to which he referred. I know that he is very keen on that project. I appreciate that Chesterton station is regarded as important for the people of north Cambridge wishing to avoid the need to travel through the city centre and for people working at the science park. While the spending review is under way, I can give no assurances about the funding of that project, but I know that Cambridgeshire county council is working hard with Network Rail to develop various technical and funding options, and I welcome that.
Network Rail is also working hard to deliver another scheme that my hon. Friend supports—the gauge upgrading of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail line to take continental-size containers and hence get more freight off our roads and on to rail. He mentioned the opportunity for modal shift for freight from road to rail. Phase 1 of that complex scheme, which is being part-funded by the Government, Hutchison Ports UK and the European Commission, is nearing completion. When it is finished next year, the number of freight trains will increase to eight per day per direction, and when phase 2 is complete in 2014, up to 24 freight trains per day will be able to travel to Peterborough and hence the north. Further work is needed in control period 5, and Network Rail is working on that, but at this stage I can provide no certainty about funding. However, 24 freight trains a day in either direction means a lot of lorries off the roads.
The coalition agreement includes a commitment to make the transport sector greener and more sustainable, which includes reforming how decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise, so that the benefits of low-carbon proposals are fully recognised. Work is going on in the Department and we hope to have something in place to enable us to reassess projects when the spending review is complete, so those two elements of work can come together.
Getting more freight off the roads and on to the railways is one way of doing what I have described. Investing in low-carbon buses is another. That is why, building on that policy framework and on the success of the first round of the green bus fund, I was pleased recently to announce a second round of the fund, worth £15 million, which will support the procurement of an additional 150 low-carbon buses in England. All transport authorities, including Cambridgeshire county council, are encouraged to submit a bid, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take that back to his county council.
The county council should, in identifying its needs and priorities, consider the full range of options available and the potential for attracting funding from sources other than public sector ones. Given the current financial climate, I cannot offer any assurance at this time about the future time scale for taking forward schemes identified, but reviewing the feasibility of options should mean that Cambridge is well placed to benefit from available investment when the financial position eases.
My hon. Friend asked about lorry road user charging. He will know that there is a commitment in the coalition agreement to take forward lorry road user charging. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who was in this Chamber a few minutes ago, is leading that work for the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge also mentioned road signs. A road sign review is under way. I have asked officials to note his comments on that issue to feed them into the road sign review. The object of the review is to make it easier for local authorities to get signage up that is sensible for their areas and consistent with an application of national standards so that people understand the signs if they come from elsewhere in the country. We want to make it easier to get signs up that suit local needs.
My hon. Friend mentioned powers to improve bus services. We have no plans at present to change the regulatory arrangements regarding buses, although the Competition Commission inquiry considering the architecture of the bus network and the structure of the industry is under way. It would be imprudent to take a decision either to loosen controls or to tighten them in advance of that reporting. We expect to have a draft report from the Competition Commission probably by December this year.
It is clear that we face a challenging period. Tough decisions have already been necessary to tackle the UK’s budget deficit. The Government have identified their most urgent priority as tackling the deficit, and transport must play its part in that process. Only when the Government’s spending review has been concluded will we be in a position to see what investment can be made, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to promoting low-carbon forms of transport. We are committed to sustainable transport—
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sheffield Forgemasters International Ltd
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
The Government’s decision to cancel the £80 million loan for a new 15,000 tonne press that had been conditionally offered to Sheffield Forgemasters by the last Government was taken on the grounds of affordability. Sheffield Forgemasters is a great British company with a dedicated, highly skilled workforce and a strong senior management team. The Government’s decision is no reflection on the company’s staff, directors or this particular project.
It is a worthwhile project, but when the coalition Government came into office they discovered that the previous Administration had allocated too much money across Government. In total, the previous Government approved £34 billion of new spending commitments between 1 January 2010 and the general election. It was therefore necessary to seek additional savings of £6 billion in this financial year. This meant that Ministers across the whole of Government had to take a number of very difficult decisions—cancelling the loan for a new 15,000 tonne press that had been offered to Sheffield Forgemasters was one such decision. The cancellation of the loan has not led to redundancies. In fact, the company continues to prosper.
Although the question of equity dilution had no bearing on the decision not to proceed with the loan to Forgemasters, comments made by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been queried and I therefore wish to explain the position.
When giving oral evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee on 20 July 2010, I explained that there is an inherent problem with a relatively small company taking on a very big project. If the company finances the project with a large amount of debt it is likely to become so highly geared that its long-term viability is put at risk. If it funds the project with third-party equity, existing shareholders have to dilute their shareholding. This is not a criticism of the company, its shareholders or the project; it is simply a statement of the problem and it is something that the chief executive of Sheffield Forgemasters, Graham Honeyman, raised in an interview with the Yorkshire Post on 17 June 2010 when he made the following points:
“Private equity would take the whole of the shareholding away from Forgemasters and put it in the hands of somebody else. That is, not just my shares (49%) or the other directors, 65% of the shop floor own the shares in the company. The amount of money to put in to fund the press would more or less have to absorb the whole of the shareholding”.
“The reason why we went to the Government is the interest rates were reasonable. Bank interest rates are very high therefore we would have to make huge profits every year in order just to pay off interest on the debt. This is why we needed support from the Government”.
It is this dilution that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were referring to when they spoke in the House. The chief executive of Sheffield Forgemasters has confirmed that he is prepared to dilute his shareholding in the company in order to facilitate the project. However, it has also been clear that the shareholders would seek a fair price for any equity sale, and at this time their view is that their returns from growing the business organically are likely to exceed those from undertaking the 15,000 tonne press project if the purchase of the press was financed by substantial equity dilution.
On 20 July, Sheffield Forgemasters issued a statement in which the company said:
“We are still keen to undertake the 15,000 tonne press development but feel that the company’s best interests will be served by suspending work on the project for the time being. The opportunities in global nuclear will continue to grow”.
“This pause will give the company, which has invested more than two years and significant funds to this project, time to resume a greater focus on growing our business into civil nuclear and other sectors. We will continue to pursue other development opportunities based around our 10,000 tonne and 4,000 tonne forging presses and our recently completed programme of machine shop improvements”.
“As our thinking develops we will of course take up the Government’s offer of further discussions. The company recognises the difficult financial position faced by the country and accepts the loan offer will not be reinstated”.
The Government understand this decision and the company’s desire to focus on other projects. We have made clear that we stand ready to work closely with the company as it pursues its ambitions and we are willing to look carefully at all proposals, as we would for any project, when the future availability of public funds becomes clearer after the completion of the spending review.
Tax Policy Documents
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are today publishing nine documents relating to tax, following commitments made at the Budget. The Government set out their new approach to tax policy making at the Budget, designed to support their ambition for a more predictable, stable and simple tax system.
(http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/junebudget_tax_policy_making.htm).
The publication of these documents together is consistent with the principles set out in that document; it provides businesses, tax professionals and other interested parties with comprehensive information of the Government’s proposed reforms to these elements of the tax system.
Further detail on these documents is provided below. Copies of these documents are available on the tax policy discussion page of the HM Treasury website and the current consultations page of the HMRC website and have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
PAYE reform
The Government today are publishing a consultation on improving the operation of “Pay As You Earn” (PAYE), which seeks views on the collection of real time information to simplify taxation and reduce burdens on business. It also invites views on an option for longer-term reform to improve accuracy and further reduce administrative burdens, or alternative proposals to the same end. The Government seek interested parties’ views on these proposals. This document is available on the HMRC website.
Furnished holiday lettings
The Government today are publishing a consultation document on a proposal to ensure the tax rules for furnished holiday lettings meet EU legal requirements in a fiscally responsible way, by changing the eligibility thresholds and restricting the use of loss relief. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the proposal set out in the document. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Pensions tax relief
The Government announced in the June Budget that they are considering the issue of pensions tax relief. The Government today are publishing a discussion paper setting out the range of policy issues that would need to be decided in any new regime. The Government seek interested parties’ views on these issues. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Associated company rules
The Government today are publishing a summary of responses to the recent consultation on simplifying the associated company rules as they apply to the small profits rate of corporation tax. As announced in the June Budget, the Government will introduce the proposed legislation in Finance Bill 2011 and it will take effect from 1 April 2011. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Taxation of foreign branches
The Government today are publishing a discussion document on the scope of an exemption for foreign branch profits, aimed at delivering a more territorial approach to corporation tax to enhance the UK’s competitiveness. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the likely impacts of the proposals set out in the document and on implementation of these proposals. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Controlled Foreign Companies interim improvements
The Government today are publishing a short note setting out the aim and scope of CFC interim improvements together with the framework for consultation over the summer. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the nature of these improvements, including possible options to achieve the aims set out here and potential other worthwhile improvements that should be considered. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Modernisation of Investment Trust Company rules
The Government today are publishing a consultation document which sets out the Government’s proposals for modernising tax rules for investment trust companies, together with consequential amendments to the Companies Act by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the proposals for change. This document is available on the HMRC website.
Inheritance tax avoidance schemes
The Government today are publishing a consultation on legislation designed to bring inheritance tax, as it applies to the transfer of property into trust, into the disclosure regime with the objective of addressing the problem of identifying such schemes and users at an early stage. The Government seek interested parties’ views on the detail of implementation. This document is available on the HMRC website.
National Minimum Wage: travel and subsistence schemes
The Government today are publishing a summary of responses to the recent consultation on travel and subsistence schemes implemented for some temporary workers paid at or near the national minimum wage (NMW). The Government have carefully considered the responses and have concluded that, on balance, action should be taken. They will amend the NMW regulations to take effect from 1 January 2011. This document is available on the HM Treasury website.
Ministerial Hospitality
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
I am today publishing the details of receptions hosted by Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government for 2009-10.
The total cost of these receptions was £9251.19.
Date | Host | Event | Venue | Number of Attendees |
|---|---|---|---|---|
12/10/09 | Rt Hon John Denham MP | Eid Ul-Fitr Reception (co-hosted with Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary) | Foreign and CommonwealthOffice | 425 (approx) |
02/12/09 | Rt Hon John Denham MP | CLG Christmas Press Reception | House of Commons | 50 |
15/03/10 | Barbara Follett MP | A reception to recognise the work volunteers did for their communities during the severe weather in winter of 2009/10 | Eland House | 50 |
16/03/10 | Shahid Malik MP | A reception to recognise the efforts of the UK International Search and Rescue Team in Haiti. | Admiralty House | 100 |
03/06/10 | Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP | External Relations Reception | Eland House | 126 |
19/07/10 | Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP | Reception with house builders | Eland House | 13 |
Zero-Carbon Homes
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)
The coalition programme sets out this Government’s ambitions for a low-carbon and eco-friendly economy, and to be the greenest Government ever. Substantial, and cost-effective, reductions in carbon emissions from buildings will be an essential part of our effort.
Much of that reduction will come from retrofitting the existing housing stock, but new-build homes will need to play an important part. The coalition programme commits to continuous improvements in the energy efficiency of new housing. We need to make sure that our homes in future are cleaner, greener and cheaper to run from the outset. We must also meet the challenge to build more homes.
We will therefore ensure that from 2016 new homes need not add extra carbon to the atmosphere.
Our approach will balance mitigating the impact of new development in carbon terms against the viability of that development. This will involve a flexible approach which sets an ambitious level of energy efficiency and carbon compliance measures in building regulations, and enables developers and local authorities, working together, to achieve zero-carbon. The role of local authorities is central in achieving real reductions in carbon emissions, and we will ensure that they will have their say when it comes to delivering zero-carbon homes.
I am announcing today some important further steps on the route to zero-carbon.
First, I can confirm that we will introduce the minimum standard for fabric energy efficiency based on that set out in the recent consultation on the Code for Sustainable Homes. We will take this forward in the future revisions of part L of the building regulations.
Secondly, we will set a national benchmark carbon compliance standard in building regulations. I will need to be realistic and take account of costs. The Government recognise the challenges posed by the 70% level previously proposed and the case for this needs to be re-examined. Therefore, I am commissioning more work from the Zero-Carbon Hub to test what would be an appropriate level. I have asked the hub to report back on this as early as they can.
There has been considerable interest in giving developers the option to meet their further obligations through payments to fund local energy projects, possibly via an existing local tariff mechanism. We intend to explore the feasibility of this option over the coming months, including how the use of such funds for carbon abatement could complement the delivery of other types of infrastructure. We intend to ensure that local authorities have a prominent role in the design and delivery of funds that may be made available through any payment mechanism. We will work with local authorities and the house building industry to establish the precise details of any potential approach.
To respond to these challenging new standards, industry will need to develop innovative and better integrated design and building methods and technologies; methods which will not only enable them to build new and better homes, but which will make our construction industries more competitive internationally in the coming years. To support these efforts, we will continue to work closely with industry through bodies such as the Zero-Carbon Hub and I can confirm that we have made an allocation of £600,000 for this year to support the hub’s work. We will also work with house builders to assist them in complying with these standards, and those charged with ensuring there is compliance, to ensure that energy and carbon savings are obtained.
This Government are committed to ensuring that all new homes post-2016 can be zero-carbon while ensuring that the costs of new build do not prevent appropriate and sustainable development.
Ministry of Defence Resource Accounts 2009-10
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
I am pleased to announce that I have published the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) resource accounts for 2009-10. They will provide a comprehensive overview of the Department’s financial performance for the year, together with data on some specific areas of non-financial performance, including factual information on the Department’s contribution towards public service agreements and departmental strategic objective targets. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House, and will be available online from the MOD’s website at the following link:
www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/Researchers/
Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I would like to inform the House that a written answer I gave on 6 July 2010, Official Report, column 147-8W, UIN 5720, to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), was incorrect. The hon. Member’s question tabled on 2 July 2010 asked what the address is of the head office of each non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible.
In my written answer of 6 July 2010, I provided a list of NDPBs that referred to both the Office of Nuclear Development (OND) and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (GEMA).
The entry that read:
“Office for Nuclear Development: Area 3D, 3 Whitehall Place, London, SW1A 2AW”
should have read:
“Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board: Area 3D, 3 Whitehall Place, London, SW1A 2AW”.
The inclusion of OND was due to OND’s role in providing the secretariat for the NLFAB.
The list included the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (GEMA). GEMA is not a non-departmental public body, but rather it is a non-ministerial Government Department.
These errors were due to inaccurate transcription from an existing internal database.
The full answer should read as follows:
Civil Nuclear Police Authority: H280 Hinton House, Birchwood Park Avenue, Risley, Warrington, Cheshire, WA3 6AS
The Coal Authority: 200 Lichfield Lane, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Herdus House, Westlakes Science and Technology Park, Moor Row, Cumbria CA24 3HU
Committee on Climate Change: 4th Floor, Manning House, 22 Carlisle Place, London SW1P 1JA
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management: Area 3D, 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW
Fuel Poverty Advisory Group: Area 1D, 3 Whitehall Place SW1A 2AW
Renewables Advisory Board: Area 4A, 3 Whitehall Place SW1A 2AW
Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board: Area 3D, 3 Whitehall Place, London, SW1A 2AW
UK Chemical Weapons Convention National Authority Advisory Committee: Area G01, 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW
Nuclear Liabilities Fund: Farringdon Place, 20 Farringdon Road, London EC1M 3AP
EU Explanatory Memoranda 9 June 2010 - 9 July 2010 (Correction)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I regret that the written ministerial statement given on 15 July 2010, Official Report, column 41 WS, contained a factual error:
Meetings of the Lords Select Committee on the European Union commenced on Tuesday 22 June 2010 and not on Tuesday 29 June 2010 as stated.
International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion (Kosovo)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I welcome the delivery of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on 22 July on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo.
The ICJ decided, by 10 votes to four, that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. In coming to this opinion, the ICJ considered general international law, UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the Kosovo constitutional framework.
The Government are a strong supporter of Kosovo’s independence. The United Kingdom submitted arguments to the ICJ in support of the conclusion which the Court eventually reached.
The Milosevic regime’s campaign of ethnic cleansing in 1999, which led to the forced exile in neighbouring countries of around half the entire Kosovo Albanian population, with thousands of deaths and other acts of brutal violence at the hands of Serbian forces, meant that Kosovo could never again be integrated back into Serbia. Kosovo has been functioning as an independent state for two and a half years and the UK holds firm in its conviction that Kosovo as a sovereign state defined by its existing borders is a positive force for stability in the Western Balkans.
Despite differences over Kosovo’s status, EU member states agree about the next steps. Kosovo’s and Serbia’s long term futures are in the EU. All EU member states are backing Baroness Ashton’s offer to facilitate talks on matters of practical co-operation between Kosovo and Serbia. This will help both countries take steps together which will improve the lives of ordinary people of all communities and move them towards their EU future. The Government have made it absolutely clear that any attempt to encourage the partition of Kosovo or re-open status talks threatens stability in the entire Balkans region and will be strongly resisted. We believe that the Opinion’s publication should mark an end to discussions on Kosovo’s status.
The Government will continue to lobby for further recognitions for Kosovo. We believe that the ICJ Opinion will encourage those states who have not yet done so to recognise Kosovo.
Cancer Drugs
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
In 2008, Professor Sir Mike Richards, National Cancer Director, was asked to lead a review of the extent and causes of international variations in drug usage and provide a report. Professor Richard’ report has been in the Library of the House and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office.
I would like to thank Professor Richards and his advisory group for their work on the report. They have undertaken a thorough review, which represents the most comprehensive analysis yet of the extent and potential causes of international variations in medicines usage.
The report explores the extent and causes of international variations in drug usage across 14 countries, including the United Kingdom, for a range of conditions and diseases. The report indicates that there are wide international variations in usage of most of the drugs included in the study. Although a few countries emerge as generally high or low users, there does not appear to be a uniform pattern across disease areas.
As with most of the countries studied, usage levels in the UK appear mixed when looking across the range of conditions. It does however show high levels of use in some important areas, for example of lipid-regulating drugs which are helping to prevent many deaths from cardiovascular disease.
One of the more concerning findings in the report relates to our usage of newer cancer drugs, which lags behind that of most of the countries studied. The findings in this report make it even more important that Government do everything it can to remove barriers to doctors prescribing the cancer drugs they think will help their NHS patients. In the medium term our plans to introduce value-based medicines pricing in 2014, on expiry of the current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, will allow Government to take the initiative on access to new medicines. We will make new medicines available to NHS patients at a price that represents their value, rather than being restricted to recommending against the use of a new drug in the NHS due to the price its manufacturer sets.
However, we also need to act to improve access to these drugs in the meantime. As an interim measure, the coalition agreement set out our plans to establish a cancer drugs fund from April 2011, subject to the spending review outcome. The need for this fund is clearly supported by Professor Richards’ findings, and we will be consulting on our plans for the fund later in the year. But the report underlines the need for action now to help NHS patients access the cancer drugs their doctors think will benefit them.
I am therefore announcing today additional funding of £50 million for this financial year to support improved access to cancer drugs. This funding, which has been found from a review of Department of Health central budgets, will be made available through clinically-led regional panels from October 2010.
This Government are committed to ensuring that cancer patients no longer have to worry about whether they will be able to get the cancer drugs their doctors recommend from the NHS.
Right to Request Social Enterprise Scheme
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)
I will be announcing shortly the second wave of National Health Service organisations that will join the Department’s “Right to Request” social enterprise scheme. Details will be placed in the Library of the House when available.
The “Right to Request” gives all primary and community care staff employed by primary care trusts (PCTs) the right to put a request to their PCT board to set up a social enterprise to deliver health and social care services. Each of these organisations has received the approval of their PCT and strategic health authority (SHA) to pursue plans to set up a social enterprise. With appropriate support, these projects should go on to become successful and financially viable social enterprises that strengthen the delivery of tailored health and social care services in the NHS.
The projects include a wide range of health and social care services, including those for children, young people and adults, and end of life, mental health and disability services. They range from single service lines to whole provider arms.
This announcement is part of the ambition set out in “Equity and Excellence: liberating the NHS”:
“to create the largest and most vibrant social enterprise sector in the world”.
The initiative to encourage and support social enterprises to deliver public services is the first of its kind in the world. The scheme empowers staff to harness their entrepreneurial skills and exercise leadership to improve services for local communities through social enterprise.
I am committed to supporting the creation and expansion of mutuals, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises and want to enable these groups to have much greater involvement in the running of health and social care services.
Control Orders
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the information given in the statement entitled Control Order Powers (11 March 2010-10 June 2010) and laid before Parliament on 21 June 2010.
The statement reports that 10 of the 12 individuals subject to a control order as of 10 June 2010 were British citizens. The correct figure was that nine of the 12 individuals subject to a control order were British citizens.
Criminal Records Bureau (Annual Report)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
I announce that the 2009-10 annual report and accounts for the Criminal Records Bureau has been laid before the House today and published on the CRB website. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
Licensing Consultation
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On Wednesday 28 July the Home Office will be publishing a public consultation on proposals to overhaul the Licensing Act.
In the coalition agreement, the Government set out a clear programme of reform around alcohol licensing to tackle the crime and antisocial behaviour that is too often associated with binge drinking in the night-time economy. In particular, the Government set out the following commitments which are covered in this consultation.
We will overhaul the Licensing Act to give local authorities and the police much stronger powers to remove licences from, or refuse to grant licences to, any premises that are causing problems.
We will allow councils and the police to shut down permanently any shop or bar found to be persistently selling alcohol to children.
We will double the maximum fine for under-age alcohol sales to £20,000.
We will permit local councils to charge more for late-night licences to pay for additional policing.
We will ban the sale of alcohol below cost price.
While we recognise the important role which pubs can play as part of the fabric of neighbourhoods and communities, the introduction of the Licensing Act in 2005 has not brought with it a vibrant “café culture”. Too often on a Friday and Saturday night, the police and local A&E departments bear the brunt of some of the worst excesses of binge drinking and alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. We are determined to change this, and will be proposing to introduce more flexibility into the current licensing regime to allow local authorities and the police to clamp down on alcohol-related crime and disorder hot spots within local night-time economies.
The consultation document will be available on the Home Office website and printed copies will also be available in the Vote Office.
Scientific Procedures on Living Animals
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
The statistics of “Scientific Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2009” (HC 317), was laid before the House today. Copies will be available in the Vote office.
This annual statistical report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. Supplementary information with additional tables is also available on the Home Office website.
The statistical report shows an overall decrease of 36,540 (-1%) in the number of procedures started, from 3,656,080 in 2008 to 3,619,540 in 2009. This fall followed six previous annual increases and is the second highest total since the current method of recording was introduced in 1987. A number of factors, such as investment in research and development and strategic funding priorities, determine the overall level of scientific procedures.
The Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, ensures that its provisions are rigorously applied and only authorises work that is scientifically justified and minimises the numbers of animals used and the animal suffering that may be caused.
The statistical report and supplementary information can be found at:
http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications-and-reference/statistics/
I am also pleased to inform the House that I have today placed in the Library the annual report of the “Home Office Animals Scientific Procedures Division and Inspectorate” for the year 2009.
Publication of the report honours a commitment given in response to a recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in July 2002 that more information should be made available about the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Earlier annual reports focused on the work of the Animals Scientific Procedures Inspectorate. The report for 2009 is the second in which the work of the Animals Scientific Procedures Division licensing and policy teams has also been included.
As in previous years, the report explains what Home Office inspectors do and how they do it and the inspectorate’s role in assessing and advising on applications for personal and project licences and certificates of designation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and reporting non-compliance.
The report also explains how the Animals Scientific Procedures Division and Inspectorate have continued to work towards delivering a better regulation programme to improve regulation of animal experimentation; reports on the successful outcome of the Hampton review of their regulatory performance conducted in 2009; and provides further information on the negotiation of a revised European Directive to replace European Union Directive 86/609/EEC on which the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is based.
National Security Vetting
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
National security vetting is a critically important control for protecting UK interests. It is important for our domestic security, for the protection of sensitive information, and for the protection of critical sites and individuals assessed to be at risk from terrorism. It facilitates information sharing with international partners, and defence and intelligence co-operation.
Vetting arrangements should be as transparent as national security considerations allow. Consequently, a copy of “HMG Personnel Security Controls” has been placed in the Library. This describes the vetting checks that may be made in order to safeguard national security. It describes a renewed emphasis upon a proportionate approach to vetting in terms of the application and decision-making process, to ensure that vulnerabilities are properly managed, subjective judgments are not made, and grievances can be heard. This statement replaces the Statement of Vetting Policy made on 15 December 1994, Official Report, columns 764-766W.
Intelligence-Gathering Techniques
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The annual reports of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Christopher Rose, (HC 168), the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Paul Kennedy, (HC 341), and the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Peter Gibson, (HC 342) have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament.
There is, rightly, a considerable level of public interest in the use by public authorities of covert intelligence-gathering techniques. The Government are committed to ensuring that public authorities only use these powers when it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The commissioners play an important role in monitoring the use of these powers by public authorities, and ensuring compliance.
It is regrettable that systematic failings have been noted by the Interception of Communications Commissioner in some prison establishments, and that a small number of errors have occurred elsewhere. As the commissioners themselves make clear, the details of these incidents cannot be disclosed publicly for security reasons. Following the practice of many years, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Northern Ireland and Defence have been provided by the commissioners with a detailed description of and explanation for these errors. The Government are satisfied that appropriate action has been taken to address these failings.
I extend my thanks to Sir Christopher, Sir Paul and Sir Peter, and to their staff, for their work on these reports.
Employment Support (Disabled People)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
Today the Government are reaffirming their clear commitment to disabled people by launching a new programme to provide support for severely disabled people. The new programme, currently called Work Choice, will be introduced from 25 October 2010. It will sit alongside the Work Programme and will help into work disabled people who face the most complex and long-term barriers to employment and who may require high intensity support in the workplace.
Nearly half of all disabled people work and many more want to work but have not had the right support. Work Choice will provide that support for more severely disabled people who want to move into employment. It will replace the existing confusing array of DWP specialist disability employment provision (WORKSTEP, Work Preparation and the Job Introduction Scheme) across England, Scotland and Wales.
Work Choice will greatly improve upon the effectiveness of current provision by tailoring support to the needs of each severely disabled individual to help move them into and stay in long-term sustainable jobs.
Reform in this sector is long overdue. In the past, provision has been patchy with a fragmented network of providers. Work Choice will simplify the current overlapping set of programmes and will reduce the number of provider contracts from more than 200 to just 28.
Work Choice has been developed in close consultation with providers, disability groups and disabled people and has widespread support.
Work has been ongoing since the coalition Government took office to ensure continuity of support. We are making this announcement now to ensure that all providers are able to prepare fully to deliver the programme from October.
We will now proceed to contract with the successful bidders for the Work Choice programme.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Beecham
Introduction: Lord Browne of Ladyton
Children: Trafficking
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they will provide for trafficked children.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, this Government are committed to tackling human trafficking and to supporting and protecting the victims of this vile crime. Responsibility for the care, protection and accommodation of child trafficking victims falls under the statutory responsibilities of local authorities. They must ensure that the child’s needs are assessed, that they are placed in safe accommodation and that they are given social work support to plan for their care.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that positive response. Does she agree that these children are among the most vulnerable in society and, therefore, that they need collaborative efforts to help and support them? What efforts are being made across government departments and across systems at a local level to provide that support?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I thank the noble Baroness for having given notice of her supplementary question and of the view she takes on the need for collaboration across government. We share that view. The previous Government issued extensive statutory guidance to local authorities and other interested parties—the latest guidance being Working Together, issued earlier this year—with precisely the aim of supporting closer working in areas such as finding suitable accommodation. We entirely agree that these children are extremely vulnerable and should get the best protection possible. I think it is true to say that CEOP is currently rolling out initiatives, the details of which I do not have, but I know that they are under way. At the national level, we are reviewing the operation of the national referral mechanisms—which I think my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for immigration mentioned in the other place—with the aim of encouraging further co-operation among the agencies involved.
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, this is one of those things where you cannot always be certain what you do not know. However, we believe that the figure for the last year was in the order of 325 children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking. I assume that the Minister has read the report from the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, Wrong kind of victim?. In it, it appears that the national referral mechanism treats children who are trafficked as not in fact being victims for the purposes of the convention. What are the Government going to do about that?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I had not heard that the national referral mechanism was not treating children as it should. I shall certainly look into that. But I think it fair to say that observations made by that organisation are among the reasons why the Government have agreed to look at the functioning of the national referral mechanism.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, does the Minister accept that housing trafficked children in care accommodation could place those vulnerable children at risk of further exploitation, particularly of sexual abuse? Will she ensure that work with CEOP and other organisations looks at that in particular and bears it in mind?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I entirely take the noble Baroness’s point and will certainly bear it in mind.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are grounds for thinking that support for child victims is hampered by failure first of all to identify them, often wrongly criminalising them? No adequate facilities are in place to support them yet. Does she agree that that therefore implies that we should have more dealings with children’s services and NGOs at a much earlier time? Furthermore, is she confident that we are complying with Articles 10 and 12 of the convention?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the Government would agree that this is a very difficult area of policy and that we encounter considerable difficulties in identifying the status of children when they arrive. It is not always clear whether they have been trafficked or whether they have been smuggled into the country—and those are two different things. So dealing with some of these individuals lacks clarity. However, I do not accept that the Government are not trying to do their very best. One object of having the review is to see whether we cannot do things better. We believe that we are in compliance with our convention obligations.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, how many prosecutions have there been in the past two years in respect of trafficking, and how many of those have ended in conviction?
Baroness Neville-Jones
There certainly have been prosecutions. I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord the actual figure, but I shall certainly write to him. The most reverend Primate also raised this issue of criminalisation. There are people who have previously been trafficked who then exploit other children who have been trafficked for the purposes of criminal activity. There have been examples in cannabis farms. So it is right to prosecute those who engage themselves in criminal activity.
Lord Brett
The Minister has twice referred to CEOP, a very valuable agency created by the previous Administration which is very highly valued by the public. It is therefore not clear why the Government have decided, in their new regime, that CEOP should not exist any longer. Is it to be merged with another body? More importantly, can the Minister assure me that there will be no less funding than there is at the moment so that its valuable work can continue?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the functions of CEOP will certainly remain within the new structure for the National Crime Agency. There is no intention to abolish those functions. As to the budget figure, obviously I cannot give an assurance of that kind until we know the outcome of the CSR review. But I note the point that has been made.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we are aware of work going on to anticipate problems around the Olympics as regards trafficked women. Is this a problem that has been identified as regards trafficked children as well? If so, are steps being taken to address it during the two sets of Games?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My noble friend is right to say that this is potentially a vulnerable point. We have the Olympics particularly in mind and will be looking to see what measures are necessary.
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, are these children returned to their countries of origin, and what protection is given to those children who have been sexually assaulted, who might be considered by their families to have besmirched the family honour?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I am not aware of any particular category of children who fall into those circumstances. But it is certainly the case that every child coming within the category of a trafficked individual has a social worker attached to them who examines and takes account of their needs before putting forward a plan for their safeguarding.
Agriculture: CAP Direct Payments
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livsey of Talgarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have reached conclusions on the findings of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-funded Dutch Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) study of the likely impact on United Kingdom farmers if common agricultural policy direct payments were removed by 2013.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I declare an interest as a recipient of the single farm payment. The Dutch Agricultural Economics Research Institute’s report, commissioned by the previous Government, is an academic exercise to look at a hypothetical scenario. It should be noted that the data are from 2004 to 2006—a time when exchange rates were unfavourable to the United Kingdom—and fail to account for the 70 per cent increase in UK farm incomes that has since occurred. Finally, there is no chance of direct payments being withdrawn by 2013.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does he not agree that the LEI report indicates that 35 per cent of farms in the UK would become financially unviable if Pillar 1 payments were withdrawn, while 83 per cent of all EU farms would remain viable? Will he seek to reverse the previous Defra policy of abolishing single farm payments, as that would save many UK livestock farms that depend on those payments for their financial viability? The alternative is land abandonment. This subject is very important.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I acknowledge the first half of my noble friend’s contention, but in my initial Answer I explained that the report data are somewhat out of date and that there have been fairly substantial changes in the economic position for farmers since then. My noble friend is right that the financial perspective for 2014 to 2020 will be negotiated in a scenario of much more limited financial resources being available than before. The Government’s view is that Pillar 2 represents a more effective use of those limited resources. However, I am really not expecting direct payments to disappear immediately under the next financial perspective.
Lord Tomlinson
As the noble Lord is a member of a Government who are more and more committed to the role of market forces but is not committing himself imminently to change, what plans do he and the Government have for introducing market forces to agriculture, thus contributing to the savings that they are looking for in every other area of public expenditure?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, no one thinks that this is going to be easy. In my experience, however, there are very few farms that can claim that they have exhausted all potential for making more efficiencies, so I take the noble Lord’s point. Many would benefit from training to improve skills, especially in business management, cost reduction and better marketing strategies, such as through producer organisations. As a whole, the EU has been falling badly behind its global competitors in productivity growth over the past 30 years and the Government are working hard on how this can be reversed.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, let us hear from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and then from my noble friend.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
I am most grateful. Will the Minister reassure the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that successive French Governments have stated repeatedly that there will be no change whatsoever to single farm payments after 2013? Will he also therefore reassure the British taxpayer that they will continue to pay for French farming for the foreseeable future?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the noble Lord is a noted cynic on this subject. I assure him that the British Government will be negotiating hard at EU level for a reform to the CAP.
Lord Redesdale
My Lords, I apologise. I was slightly confused by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, because he said, “This side”, and the Front Bench opposite agreed with him. Will there be any move to deal with the power of the supermarkets in setting prices, which is having a detrimental effect, especially on hill farmers in livestock areas? Indeed, it is one of the major causes of depressed incomes for livestock farmers.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I very much take my noble friend’s point. He should be aware that the coalition programme for government, which was published on 18 May, made a commitment to introduce an ombudsman in the OFT to enforce the groceries and supply code of practice and to curb abuses of power that act against the long-term interest of both consumers and farmers.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, what strategy are the Government putting in place to build up support among other member states for CAP reform and for promoting our interests? Given that the Lisbon treaty now gives the European Parliament a bigger say in agricultural policy, how are Conservative Ministers and MEPs planning to get support there beyond the small and very motley group of allies that they have at present?
Lord De Mauley
The noble Baroness is right that negotiation needs to go on at EU level; indeed, I can confirm that comprehensive negotiations are continuing. She is also right that it is now a matter of codecision, so those negotiations will need to go on with MEPs.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, the Minister has already heard that land abandonment is likely to be one of the greatest challenges for a future CAP. The potential loss of upland farms could have a large impact in my diocese and, I know, in many other areas. What consideration is being given to preventing this from happening in future?
Lord De Mauley
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that question. We recognise that the future of the uplands is a matter of considerable concern to a great many people and organisations. We have a wide range of policies and schemes in hand—the uplands entry level scheme and others—to address individual issues raised by the Commission for Rural Communities. We recognise the potential of the uplands for generating greater public goods and we are working on unlocking that.
Lord Grantchester
I declare an interest as a farmer receiving payments. Does the Minister agree that, to capture improved returns, agriculture needs to move beyond primary processing and up the value-added chain? What is Defra doing to help in this regard?
Lord De Mauley
I agree with that. I have explained a bit about what we think is the right way to go in terms of competitiveness. I will leave it at that for today.
Disabled People
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashley of Stoke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have discussed disability issues with the Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, my department engages regularly with RADAR to discuss disability issues. Ministers and officials at the Department for Work and Pensions are committed to a constructive dialogue with RADAR and will seek RADAR’s continued involvement in the Government’s disability equality agenda.
Lord Ashley of Stoke
I thank the Minister for that response. Can he be a little more forthcoming and tell us how often these meetings are held?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I believe the Minister for Disabled People, my honourable friend Maria Miller, phoned the chief executive of RADAR in her first week in office. RADAR then attended a round table event that she hosted last month. RADAR is a member of a group of organisations that meets regularly—four times a year—with the Minister. The first meeting of that organisation is tomorrow. RADAR is also a member of the Right to Control Advisory Group, which meets every six weeks with the Office for Disability Issues. There are also ad hoc meetings between RADAR and Ministers and officials across government.
Lord Ashley of Stoke
I welcome the discussions but that does not tell me what the Minister has said.
Lord Freud
My Lords, to make it clear, we have a regular dialogue with RADAR and the whole disability lobby. I know that my honourable friend Maria Miller has seen 15 different lobby groups so far.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I know that we are particularly interested in ensuring that disabled people can use transport and achieve places in education. What is the Government’s attitude towards those local authorities that are already cutting fees for transport? For example, there is a college where severely disabled youngsters are now being charged for their transport by their local authority for the first time. Is this the kind of policy that the coalition Government are looking towards?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I place on record the Government’s determination to push ahead with the equality agenda for people with disabilities. We are monitoring the situation very closely. We are signed up to the UN convention, as this House will know. Transport is one of those areas within the convention on which we are determined to fulfil our obligations.
Baroness Wilkins
What steps have the Government taken in their discussions with RADAR to ensure their oft-repeated pledge that the cuts in public spending will not have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable and poor people?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are making sure that all the impact assessments that we are obliged by law to go through are being done on a timely and appropriate basis.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, will the Minister kindly tell us what representations RADAR and other disability organisations have made to the Government in light of the proposed severe cuts to disability living allowance?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are just embarking on a process of investigating what to do in the context of DLA. As the noble Baroness knows, this is due to come in in 2013. We have to design a whole structure of making those assessments. We will do so in full consultation with members of the disability lobby.
Lord Addington
My Lords, when dealing with groups such as RADAR, will my noble friend bear in mind that, good as they are, they will never be able to cover the whole spectrum and government must always try to drag in such expertise as they can from across all the groups and then they must co-ordinate advice, because without advice we will pass more laws and achieve very little?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that excellent point. Clearly, we make an enormous effort to see people right across the disability lobby, not just RADAR. RADAR is part of various groups. It is important that we consult. The House will be familiar with the motto “Nothing About Us Without Us”. We take that obligation very seriously.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I declare an interest as a recipient of disability living allowance. In last Thursday’s debate on the implications of the Budget in relation to poverty, the Minister stated that,
“some laxity has crept into the system”
regarding who is assessed as being eligible for DLA. What evidence is this based on? Which groups of disabled people did he have in mind? He also said:
“We remain absolutely committed to supporting those with severe disabilities”.—[Official Report, 22/7/10; col. 1133.]
To which groups was he referring when he said that?
Lord Freud
My Lords, DLA has grown from 1 million people in the early 1990s to more than 2 million at the beginning of this decade to more than 3 million now, which is a huge expansion. Many of those people were self-referred. Clearly, we need to ensure that the money which we spend on people with disabilities is directed at those who really need it.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that many disabled people are helped back into employment by a variety of organisations, including charities and social enterprises—some very small and at very local level. The Government now propose to pay those who provide this support in arrears and by results. Does the Minister accept that many of these organisations will not have the reserves to see them through this important work and that therefore the one size fits all, that is being proposed here, will not work? How is that compatible with big society support for the voluntary sector?
Lord Freud
My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to the work programme, clearly that is a structure in which consortia will come together and help people right across the spectrum with differential pricing—something which is not currently in existence and means that people concentrate on the easier to help. The work programme will not. The capital is a key ingredient of the work programme. Clearly, capital must go in to support not just the prime contractor but the whole consortia. That is how the smaller organisations will get the resources in order to help the people who need help the most.
EU: European Investigation Order
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to opt into the European Investigation Order.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a patron of Fair Trials International.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has today made a Statement in the other place to the effect that the UK has today formally indicated to the President of the European Council that the UK wishes to opt into the EIO.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response, but I hope she will forgive me if I ask her to recognise that many people were very disturbed by this decision. Is she aware that at present, inter alia, there is no agreed basic standard across Europe for pre-trial evidence gathering and analysis, no implementation of basic minimum procedural defence safeguards and no coherent data protection regime? As a result there is a widespread view that there is likely to be an inequality of arms between defence and prosecution, and that will cover important areas such as proportionality, extraterritoriality and double jeopardy. Given this, would it not have been better for us not to opt in, bearing in mind that we cannot opt out once we have opted in, until we saw the final shape of the document and could be certain that its contents would provide satisfactory safeguards for our civil liberties? Otherwise, are we not signing, or have we not signed, a blank cheque?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I have to disagree with my noble friend. We believe that opting into the EIO is in the interests of justice. It does not transfer any jurisdiction, which is what many might have feared, and we actually believe that the system of mutual legal assistance, which is already operating, deserves to be improved by one of the main innovations that will take place as a result of the EIO—setting deadlines for the receipt of evidence that is sent from one country to another. That is one of the current defects of mutual legal assistance. In other respects, the EIO does not change the present regime.
Lord Brett
My Lords, I welcome today’s decision by the Government, which perhaps gives little comfort to the noble Lord who asked the Question. Should it not be the case—will the Minister agree?—that there should be greater consideration of the rights of the suspect, and should this not include judicial scrutiny at both the issuing and executing stages?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I am afraid that I did not hear the noble Lord’s question. Can he repeat it, please?
Lord Brett
Fortunately it was brief. Does the Minister agree that there should be greater consideration of the rights of the suspect and that it should include judicial scrutiny at both the issuing and executing stages?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, there are certainly some reservations about the operation of mutual legal assistance, which is a separate issue from the actual operation of, or changes to, the regime that the EIO will bring. Some of the matters that we are reviewing include the reservations expressed about the operation of mutual legal assistance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this is a great extension of the European Union’s power and influence over policing in this country and, indeed, over the judiciary? Can I have her assurance that this matter will be discussed in full by both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Neville-Jones
An understood procedure for considering issues of this kind was laid down by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. The Government are following that procedure. The order resulting from that will follow the normal procedure in the European Union.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, does my noble friend think that opting into an arrangement whereby foreign police and other authorities can instruct British police to gather evidence on their behalf sits very well with the proposal for elected police commissioners, in the interests of the big society?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I have to say to my noble friend that there is no provision whereby and no way in which, under the EIO, foreign police authorities can exercise jurisdiction in this country. It is not a provision of the EIO, is not a feature of the MLA, and will not happen.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, my noble friend may have misunderstood me. I did not suggest that foreign police officers would be able to exercise jurisdiction. I suggested that, as I understood it, this new departure would allow foreign police authorities to instruct British police authorities to gather evidence on their behalf. Is that so or not?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I apologise to my noble friend if I misunderstood his question. Foreign police may request the assistance of British police. They may not instruct.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, is that not a transfer of sovereignty which, under coalition policy, ought to be put to a referendum?
Baroness Neville-Jones
The noble Lord is entirely mistaken. This is mutual legal assistance between national legal regimes.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is one of a number of steps that will make it more difficult for people to forum-shop for the legal jurisdictions that best suit them?
Baroness Neville-Jones
It is certainly the case that mutual legal assistance regularises the likelihood of trials taking place in the proper place.
Referendum (European Union) Bill [HL]
Pensions Regulator (Contribution Notices) (Sum Specified following Transfer) Regulations 2010
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1 and 2 March be approved.
Relevant document: 10th Report, Session 2009-10, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 July.
Privileges and Conduct
The Chairman of Committees
That the Report from the Select Committee on Mr Trevor Phillips: Allegation of Contempt (First Report, HL Paper 15) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, this report has been made further to the Motion agreed by the House on 25 February of this year that referred certain allegations against Mr Trevor Phillips to the Committee for Privileges, as it then was. The committee, on the advice of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Scott of Foscote, concluded that Mr Phillips was not guilty of contempt of the House. I hope that the committee’s findings speak for themselves and I shall say no more about them at this point.
The committee has also made two substantive recommendations, to which I seek the agreement of your Lordships. The first is that the guidance issued to witnesses appearing before House of Lords Select Committees should in future state explicitly that any contact between witnesses and the committees should be made through the clerk or the chairman. We hope that this will provide greater clarity for witnesses. Our second recommendation is that the Procedure Committee should be invited to consider the procedure to be followed in a case where a committee intends to make personal criticisms of a named individual other than a Minister. We accept that more work is needed before any changes are made to the House’s procedure, but we felt on principle that the issue should be looked at. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I was on the Joint Committee on Human Rights when these allegations were made. We were advised by our clerks that this was a clear breach of privilege. The effect of the lobbying—which there undoubtedly was—was obviously going to be minimal, because the three people whom others attempted to nobble were grown-up and intelligent enough to maintain the views that they had maintained the whole way through the discussion on Trevor Phillips’s behaviour. Admittedly, there was discussion in the committee and some people favoured a harsher report than others, but we came up with what was in effect a unanimous opinion. However, I am quite disappointed—that is the best way to put it—that this is what the Committee for Privileges found. I yield to no man in my admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. He obviously has an extremely clever legal brain, so it would be a foolhardy person who disagreed with what he said. However, at the time it seemed to us that there was a clear breach and I maintain that opinion.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I will say a few words on the judgment of the committee, because I dissent from it. Perhaps I may take the time of the House to refer to a number of documents that underline my view. Paragraph 21 of the report states:
“We therefore conclude that, however inappropriate and ill-advised, Mr Phillips’ actions did not significantly obstruct or impede the work of the JCHR”.
The judgment of the Committee for Privileges seems to have turned on the words “significantly obstruct”. That should be seen in context. The chairman of the Joint Committee, Mr Dismore, in his submission to the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee, stated:
“The Committee’s consideration of its draft report on the EHRC was hampered by Mr Phillips’ actions. We were unable to agree a report on 9 February. Although we did agree a second version of the draft report on 2 March ... I am in no doubt that Mr Phillips wanted either to tone down any criticisms we made of him in the draft Report or to delay the Committee’s deliberations so that we were unable to report before dissolution. Whether or not he was assisted by being familiar with the contents of the draft, he sought to achieve this aim by persuading Members he thought were ‘friends’ that the Committee’s inquiry was unbalanced and was motivated by hostility to him on the part of me or other Members. This represented a significant interference with our work which is why we looked to refer the matter to your Committee”.
The key words in that statement are:
“This represented a significant interference”.
We therefore have the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights saying that, in the view of the committee, this was a significant interference; we also have the judgment of the Privileges Committee that it “did not significantly obstruct”. The matter turns on those words.
However, if we look back to an inquiry that took place in the Commons in 1994, we have some guidance on how the Privileges Committee deals with these matters. I think that it is worth explaining to the House that this matter was dealt with by the Privileges Committee in the House of Lords because the Commons went into recess and was not in a position to consider the matter fully, although it put into the public domain a number of memoranda that had been submitted to the committee for consideration for a report that it subsequently did not produce.
In the Willetts inquiry in 1994, Mr Willetts, a member of the other place, had been accused of trying to nobble the chairman of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith. In response to a remit from the House to investigate an allegation of improper pressure brought to bear on a Select Committee, the conclusion of that inquiry was that,
“we have to consider how far the term ‘pressure’ is synonymous with ‘influence’. We recognize that, while assent to or reinforcement by one Member of an opinion held by another could be regarded as influence, something further is required, in the form of a positive and conscious [effort] to shift an existing opinion in one direction or another, for a Member’s words and actions to constitute pressure”.
I argue that there was a positive and conscious effort to shift existing opinion because the draft report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights had, in part, been leaked to Mr Phillips. My noble friend Lord Dubs says no, but perhaps I may refer him to another document, which provides us with evidence of that. It is a submission from Mr Phillips himself to the Standards and Privileges Committee, in which he states that he received a memorandum on 22 March this year. I am sorry to delay the House on this matter but it is extremely important, because it is about nobbling the members of a Select Committee prior to the publication of their report. An e-mail received by Mr Phillips from a member of staff of the Equality and Human Rights Commission dated 6 February 2010 states:
“I was talking to someone this evening”—
that is, a member of his staff is being quoted—
“who had had sight of the current draft of the JCHR report. He said the report, in its current state, was fairly weak and emphasised a few points”.
The leak of that report advises Mr Phillips of the contents that are critical of him, which is why he was seeking to influence the individual members of the committee.
All I am saying to the House is that this is an important matter. We are not going to divide on it, but I believe that the Privileges Committee could have produced a far stronger document. It has not taken into account the precedent of pressure on Select Committee members and I believe that today the House is taking the wrong decision.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, it is rare that I intervene in one of these discussions—in fact, I have never done so. However, I feel that I need to because two of our most distinguished Members seem to indicate that the Joint Committee was so wimpish that it could not stand up to being, as it were, lobbied. Who of us has not been lobbied from time to time about the issues that we have been discussing in a committee? I believe that the report before us takes a sensible view of this matter—someone had found out through a leak that they were being strongly criticised by a report, but they had absolutely no way of addressing that matter. That is the main, important recommendation and I congratulate the committee on its balanced report. It takes a sensible view. Furthermore, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that I thought that he was a stouter man than that.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, rather surprisingly, I go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said. If we read between the lines, it seems clear that the committee found that there was a leak. It gave a good reason for not holding a leak inquiry, which appears at the end of paragraph 17 of the report. However, leaks are extremely serious matters and I believe that a leak inquiry should now be carried out.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I rise rather unexpectedly, because I had not anticipated taking part in the debate. However, I rather think that I was chairman of the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges at the time to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, referred. I totally take his point that these are important matters and are certainly not trivial. However, I come closer to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale in thinking that the House would do itself no service by disregarding the considered recommendations of a committee containing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. I for one would not wish to participate in any overturning of such judgment.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, after an interesting debate, I am not sure that whatever I say will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—possibly not even my noble friend Lord Onslow. However, it might be helpful if I briefly explain how the committee went about its inquiry into the allegations against Mr Phillips.
First, we waited until the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges had completed its work. Although that committee did not publish a report, its chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, wrote to me to indicate that his committee saw no basis for investigating the allegation further. That letter is on the record. The Commons committee also published extensive written evidence online, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was quoting from.
As I said in my opening remarks, we then invited three former judges who sit on the Committee for Privileges and Conduct—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine, Lord Mackay and Lord Scott—to consider the allegation in more detail. Their unanimous conclusion was that no contempt had been committed. The reasons are as set out in the report in detail. It was, however, clear to us that Mr Phillips’s actions were inappropriate and ill advised. He should have known better than to contact members of a Joint Committee with whom he was personally acquainted in order to persuade them to influence a committee in his favour. However, a charge of contempt is a grave one, not to be upheld lightly. In this case, there was a lot of misunderstanding and uncertainty over the rules and no clear proof that harm had been done or that the Joint Committee’s work had been seriously compromised. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made the point that the members of the committee are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves.
I do not think, therefore, that it would have been appropriate in the circumstances to have done anything other than to dismiss the allegations of contempt. It might be interesting for your Lordships to know that there has not been a case of contempt in this House since 1870, when the offender was reprimanded at the Bar of the House. Clearly, it is not something that we do too often.
Lord Tyler
Before the Chairman of Committees sits down, would he clarify one point? The fact that the attempt to influence members of the committee was unsuccessful is surely not entirely relevant. The fact that the members were successful in resisting any attempt to influence them is of course important in the outcome, but if someone attempted to bribe a Member of either House but was unsuccessful, would it not still be contempt and a very serious matter? The success of members of the committee in resisting the attempt to influence them is not crucial in this matter, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it was the crucial issue in the matter. The report makes it clear that no contempt was committed.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I press him? The attempt was successful, because the report was withdrawn and rewritten prior to the general election.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, these matters were all looked into by the Privileges Committee and the noble and learned Lords thereon. They were not looking into the content of the Joint Committee’s report as such. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the report had been changed on that account. I certainly do not endorse that suggestion.
Energy: Annual Statement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Statement is as follows.
“In making this Statement within three months of coming into office, we are signalling the importance of this policy. We are setting out a clear strategy for creating the 21st century energy system that this country urgently needs for an affordable, secure, low-carbon energy future.
We face short-term challenges as a result of the legacy inherited from the previous Government. We have the third lowest share of renewable energy in the European Union of all 27 member states—the same ranking as in 1997. In the longer term, we must meet the challenges of a volatile oil market and increased energy imports. We are taking three big steps: we are creating a market for energy savings through the green deal; we are ensuring a properly functioning electricity market; and we will be strengthening the carbon price.
Our action must be informed by the best information about the future. That is why I am also publishing our work on the 2050 energy pathways. That has been worked up in consultation with industry, scientists, engineers and economists. We are making the data and analysis available and inviting comments over the summer. We want to start a grown-up debate about what the low-carbon future will look like and the best way of achieving it.
Those are possible pathways. We are not claiming to be able to see the future with certainty, but we cannot continue on the current pathway: high-carbon, high dependency on imports and highly volatile fossil fuel prices.
Like the other industrial revolutions, the low-carbon revolution will be driven by entrepreneurs, the private sector, local communities, individuals and businesses, scientists and engineers, not government. However, industry needs stable policy and functioning markets. The role of government is to provide the framework and act as a catalyst for private sector investment. As the 2050 pathways work demonstrates, we need to apply these principles to the challenge of changing fundamentally the way we both produce and consume energy.
The cheapest way of closing the gap between energy demand and energy supply is to cut energy use. We need to address the state of our buildings. We have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe. Our green deal will transform finance for improving the energy efficiency of Britain's homes. It will get its legal underpinning from measures in the first Session energy Bill. We are also accelerating the rollout of smart meters. These provide consumers and suppliers with the information to take control of their energy management. Alongside this Statement, the Government and Ofgem are publishing a prospectus for smart meters which sets out how we will do this.
Openness is important to us, as it is to business and the public. Alongside this Statement, I am publishing an analysis of the impact of energy and climate change policies on both household and business energy bills up to 2020, and I will continue to do so on an annual basis.
At the moment the UK is an economy reliant on fossil fuels. As UK oil and gas production declines, this leaves us more exposed to volatile prices and increasing global competition for the resource. The challenge is to spur the capital investment required for new energy infrastructure. The volatility of fossil fuel prices and continuing uncertainty about the carbon price makes such investment high risk, pushing up costs and slowing development. So the first step is to support the carbon price. In addition, I can announce that we are carrying out a comprehensive review of the electricity market and will issue a consultation document in the autumn. This will include a review of the role of the independent regulator, Ofgem. The Government will also be putting forward detailed proposals on the creation of a green investment bank.
The coalition agreement is clear that new nuclear can go ahead so long as there is no public subsidy. The Government are committed to removing any unnecessary obstacles to investment in new nuclear power. In the memorandum, I have outlined some clear actions to aid this. As a result, I believe that new nuclear will play a part in meeting our energy needs.
In the heating sector, I can confirm our strong commitment to action on renewable heat. The Government are considering responses to the renewable heat incentive consultation and will set out detailed options following the spending review.
The UK is blessed with a wealth of renewable energy resources, both on and off shore. We are committed to overcoming the real challenges in harnessing these resources. We will implement the “connect and manage” regime, and I am today giving the go-ahead to a transitional regime for offshore wind farms. Both these measures will help speed up the connection of new generation to the grid. We remain committed to developing generation from marine energy, biomass and anaerobic digestion. Biomass investors promised help under the renewables obligation will continue to benefit.
We also need incentives for small-scale and community action. We are currently consulting on a new microgeneration strategy. I am today laying an order to allow local authorities to sell renewable electricity to the grid.
Fossil fuels can also have their place in a low-carbon future provided we can capture and store most of their carbon emissions. We will introduce an emissions performance standard, and we intend to launch a formal call for future CCS demonstration projects by the end of the year.
This is a bold vision. We will not be able to deliver it without a 21st century network that can support the 21st century infrastructure. The Statement sets out practical measures that we are taking to improve network access and to begin the building of a truly smart grid.
This vision, however, needs to be grounded in reality. The low-carbon economy must happen, but it will not happen tomorrow. There are potentially 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent remaining in the UK continental shelf, but we must maximise economic production while applying effective environmental and safety regulations. We are doubling inspections of offshore oil and gas rigs and will undertake a full review of the oil and gas environmental regime.
We must also remain mindful of our inherited responsibilities. My department is responsible for managing the country’s nuclear legacy. I am committed to ensuring that these essential duties are carried out with the utmost care and consideration for public safety.
The UK does not stand alone. This Government will work together with our international partners in efforts to promote action on climate change and energy security across the world. We are working hard to put Europe at the front of the race for low-carbon technology. This will help refresh the appetite for action across the world after the disappointment of Copenhagen.
In conclusion, this Statement is about planning ahead, providing clarity and confidence in the policy framework. That is why I am also publishing today my department’s structural reform plan to show how we are carrying out our priorities. Once we have completed the spending review, we will publish a full business plan. At last we have an energy policy with real direction and purpose and a Government willing to take bold steps. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement with his usual eloquence.
The Government told us that this would be the greenest Government ever—an ambition which we would and should welcome—but what a disappointment today’s Statement was. I turn first to the long-term transition to a low-carbon economy that Britain needs. Contrary to what the Statement said, the previous Government did have a clear plan—the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, published in the summer of 2009—which was widely applauded around industry, among employers and green organisations. But the current Government seem determined to unpick it.
The Minister talks about the challenges posed by the legacy that the current Government inherited. As the Energy Minister in the previous Government, perhaps I may remind him that that legacy included a massive development of power-generation infrastructure, with more than 20 gigawatts in the pipeline. We paved the way for smart meters and the smart grid. We had bold policies on microgeneration. We reformed the planning system. We also made real progress on renewable energy, including being number one in the world in operational offshore wind farms.
As for renewables, one of the major problems with onshore renewables was the record of Conservative-controlled planning authorities. Why are the Government abandoning the key measures which are essential to achieving the targets for onshore wind set by the previous Government? We are told that the Government want more wind power, so why have they abolished the local and regional targets to make it happen? On 5 July, the Minister himself said in relation to onshore wind that,
“It is our determination that there should be no dramatic increase”.—[Official Report, 5/7/10; col. 5.]
Given their energy strategy, the Government will be deep in trouble if there is not a dramatic increase. Moreover, if we are to see progress on onshore wind, why are the Government proposing to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and bring major infrastructure decisions back to Ministers? I can tell the Minister with absolute confidence that that will lead only to delay and uncertainty for investors.
The previous Government pledged that the renewable heat incentive would come into effect in April 2011. That could help thousands of consumers who are off the gas network to lower their fuel bills and gain a cash reward for greening their heating supply. Micropower Council’s chief executive has warned that the industry faces a confidence crisis if clarity about the renewable heat incentive is not provided soon. We were set to be the first country in the world to have such an incentive. The Government, however, are not prepared to make a decision. They have again postponed making a decision until after the spending review, so the uncertainty in the industry will continue.
Something positive has finally been said about nuclear energy. The trouble is that no one thinks that the Secretary of State’s heart is in it. We had the usual negative briefing about nuclear over the weekend to pave the way, no doubt, and comfort the Minister’s partners in the coalition. I only hope that this really lukewarm attitude will not dampen investment in the future. Nuclear energy is a vital part of our low-carbon energy mix. It can provide crucial balance to the intermittency of much renewable energy, and it could be a source of huge growth in jobs, in the industry and, crucially, in the development of the supply chain in the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to understand that the ambiguity of the coalition agreement, coupled with the Secretary of State’s at best lukewarm support of the industry, puts this at risk. I remind him that we said in our national policy statement that we believe that new nuclear could be free to contribute as much as 25 gigawatts of new capacity. Does he agree?
Then there is the issue of Sheffield Forgemasters. The Minister may laugh, but the Government’s handling of the cancelled loan to Sheffield Forgemasters has been quite extraordinary. It has included misleading statements by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place. Why did the Minister’s department not defend the loan? Did the Secretary of State’s prejudice against nuclear power play a part, or was the decision taken because a high-level Conservative donor in Sheffield lobbied the Government against nuclear power?
We had a Written Statement this morning from Mr Vince Cable saying that affordability is the issue, but it is not true that the loan was unaffordable. Money was set aside in the Strategic Investment Fund, which was announced as part of the 2009 Budget. It was passed as value for money by the Industrial Development Advisory Board at Vince Cable’s own department. Why was it right to give Nissan a grant to make electric cars—a proposal that we support—but wrong to provide a commercial loan to help a British company to be at the centre of the nuclear supply chain? Will the Minister assure this House that funds will be made available if, as was said in the Written Statement this morning, the Government are ready to work with the company?
The Written Statement also referred to the potential of the UK continental shelf, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord could expand on what action his Government propose to take to ensure that that happens. He will be aware of the incentives which the previous Government introduced to help to develop small and hard-to-exploit fields, and I hope that the Government will feel able to continue the work in this area.
In the light of this Statement, the picture for positive government intervention looks bleak. The Government cancelled the £1 billion investment in the green investment bank, and there is continuing uncertainty about the incentive for electric cars and about investment in ports for offshore wind manufacturing. This is a tragedy. The transition to a low-carbon economy offered so much to this country, and the Government are at risk of dashing those hopes.
Finally, on fairness, we all accept the huge challenge of fuel poverty amid the green transition. Why have the Government not confirmed that the coalition will go ahead with the plan for compulsory social tariffs to ensure help to those who are less able to pay their bills? All that can be said is that they await the spending review. I ask the Minister what his plans are for tackling fuel poverty. We heard much about this from noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches when they were in opposition, but they appear nowhere in relation to the green deal.
We had hoped for a major Statement on energy policy. Instead, it looks rather like a disappointing set of platitudes that raise more questions than they answer.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I will try to avoid getting in any cross-party banter, which the noble Lord thinks is appropriate. After all, energy and energy supply require a broad coalition of all parties to deliver the long-term supply to this country. It is ridiculous to have small cross-party scraps and I do not intend to do that. We have been faced with difficult fiscal circumstances, as would the Labour Party had it been in government. Certain things need dramatic and careful looking at in order to see whether we can afford them. Unfortunately, we have gone from a “yes yes” Government to a “perhaps not” Government. If something does not make sense we will not do it.
I take exception to being quoted out of context by Ed Miliband in the other place and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, over onshore energy windmills. I was clear that we endorsed the scenario of 14 gigawatts, a scenario that was presented to us by the previous Government. I merely said that going beyond that was not our main focus. Our main focus is to build offshore, nuclear, renewables, et cetera. For those who wish to study it, the 2050 pathway—a very impressive discussion document which I commend to the House—will show clearly that in order to achieve our energy commitments by 2050 we will have to push hard on all fronts. That is why I can say with great confidence, and reiterate what I have said earlier, that we are committed to nuclear. One reason for removing the IPC is to deliver much quicker and much more effective planning decisions without the bureaucracy that has been alluded to. In the past few weeks, we have given seven grants to seven British companies to deliver products for the offshore market, so we are very committed to that.
The noble Lord also knows that we take poverty very seriously, which is why yesterday we had a special instrument to extend the work of the current Government, which we applauded, to embrace more people who are in fuel poverty into the net and to give them support in the future. I disagree with the noble Lord on a number of these subjects.
Sheffield Forgemasters is not a matter for our department. It is a matter for BIS. It has been discussed endlessly through various Question Times. Just because a commercial decision was made, it does not mean that our commitment is not to nuclear. I re-emphasise what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said. We are committed to nuclear and we are committed to it without a subsidy.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
As regards the Statement made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and perhaps at the risk of being accused of party squabbling, I must say that the party opposite attacking the Government on their nuclear policy takes some beating. The previous Government spent the first 10 years in office believing that they were going to dismantle the entire nuclear industry. It took a lot of argument before they were prepared to change that view.
My noble friend has made a number of important Statements, leading to the Bill and the final Statement in the autumn. It will not be his decision, but will he take note of the fact that this House would very much welcome the opportunity when we resume to debate the Statement that he has made and to express our views on the many issues?
I should like to raise two points. The first is that the Government have inherited a system of support for low-carbon electricity which is in fact fragmented. It is a whole lot of separate systems for different forms of low-carbon energy. Does my noble friend not agree that there is a case not for multiple markets for the different technologies, but a single market for all low-carbon technologies, as was advocated a short while ago in a very authoritative report?
My second point follows up on what my noble friend has said about dealing with nuclear waste. It does not make sense for this very long-term programme, which will stretch over many decades, to be financed on a series of three-year spending programmes. Will the Government take account of that? And when they publish their policy, which I understand will have to be after the comprehensive spending review, there should be a longer term financing structure to fund the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the many companies and bodies that work under its authority.
Lord Marland
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as always, has raised some fundamental questions. I hope very much that we will have a debate on the broader aspects of this subject. We will have assimilated and responded formally to the report of the Committee on Climate Change by 15 October, and that will give us an opportunity to have a major debate, as we did last year. On the low-carbon technologies, one of the important things we have announced in the Statement is that we are addressing the carbon price, which is one of the areas that needs to be fixed. I agree with my noble friend that to have one structure is obviously beneficial to the customer, so we will continue to review this. Lastly, we will have a review of spending, but as I said earlier, that will come after the spending review in the autumn.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I apologise for rising, but I thought that the Minister had already answered the question because the Statement included the statements made by the noble Lord. I, too, welcome the commitment to nuclear power, but I wonder whether we will do more than simply build new nuclear plants. Will the science improve sufficiently to lead us to nuclear fusion, because in the long run that is probably the area we need to go into. Are the Government looking at the possibility of researching it?
The Statement says:
“The cheapest way of narrowing the gap between energy demand and supply is to cut energy use. We need to address the state of our buildings. We have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe”.
I am confused. For example, the school rebuilding programme was aimed at addressing some of the worst school buildings, which can waste a lot of energy, but most of the projects that have been cut are those that were most needed. Is there still a commitment to this kind of rebuilding because the condition of some schools is really not good enough? Does the Minister see that the aim of using less energy requires a lot of improvements to be made to our school and other buildings? If so, why have these cuts been made?
Finally, the previous Government were at least committed to ensuring that listed buildings undergoing repairs and being made more energy efficient were able to claim relief on VAT. Some churches and other buildings consume too much energy, so part of helping to address this was to ensure that VAT relief was available. I have not seen anything about that relief in the Statement. Will it continue?
Lord Marland
The comments of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York are most welcome. The point about our building stock is that it is very old, and indeed one of the oldest in Europe because we are a mature country. The policy we have announced is the green deal, which will accelerate the use of cavity wall insulation, loft lagging and so on, which reduces carbon emissions and the use of electricity. Obviously this will naturally flow through to many schools and government-owned buildings because we are committed to a 10 per cent reduction in carbon emissions in such premises within 12 months. The issue of listed buildings is a significant problem which is outside my scope. However, it is without doubt a problem if you want to put a cavity wall in a listed building.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
I thank the Minister and congratulate him on the Statement made on biomass grandfathering rights. I am delighted—
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
I congratulate the Minister on the Statement on grandfathering rights for dedicated biomass plant. It is very welcome and an important step forward.
Does the noble Lord agree that the support given for offshore wind through the renewable obligation requirements on energy suppliers is an important element in securing investment in offshore wind; that this is reflected in electricity prices and could reasonably be said to avoid a public subsidy? Does he agree that electricity prices reflect support through renewable obligations rather than public subsidy? If so, do he and his coalition partners in the Liberal Democrat Party agree that this is a potential way forward for supporting nuclear power generation?
Lord Marland
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, for his comments. His knowledge of biomass is well known and I defer to no man with greater knowledge. I am glad that he welcomes the Statement on that subject because, as he well knows, it is important that we have ROCs to incentivise and encourage the 400 megawatts of development that we think we can achieve between now and 2013. That is an important and significant step forward. As I indicated earlier, we are committed to nuclear. We shall help nuclear in terms of planning and so on but it will be without subsidy—and an ROC could be considered a subsidy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, the Minister said that he was speaking for a 21st-century energy system. I remind him that in the 20th century the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy recommended a number of things: that we should save energy through the better insulation of houses, factories and public buildings; that we should have more cover from coal generation; and, finally, that we should exploit oil resources in a much slower way. So, basically, we have in the 21st century the same policy as could have been operated in the 20th century if the Government had only listened to the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy. They did not.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that he would welcome comments from all kinds of people in the debate. Can he assure the House that when people say they believe in climate change but do not necessarily believe that it is caused by CO2 emissions from buildings, they will not be called silly names such as “climate change deniers” and that he will have a grown-up discussion with them?
Can the Minister explain why the Government are prepared to subsidise wind power—this point has already been raised—which is the most inefficient kind of renewable power and, at the same time, refuse any subsidy for nuclear power, another renewable source? I am not a great enthusiast of nuclear power but I cannot understand why the Government would want to subsidise an inefficient method and not subsidise a more efficient method.
Lord Marland
Let me first assure the noble Lord that we will not be making any derogatory remarks—or I hope that noble Lords do not hear them from me, anyway—about denial. All views are welcome, and I have invited many noble Lords to the department to hear their views during the past week. We have had views ranging from all sides of the House, both political and in terms of climate change. Those views are fed into our 2050 document and will be treated with the respect that they deserve.
I am glad to have a history lesson on what the Commons did or did not do, but I would take issue on the subject of coal, which is a very dirty and not carbon-friendly product. We need to ensure that it is clean, which is why we are having CCS trial cases, on which we will push the button towards the end of this year. I am delighted that we will have a grown-up discussion on that. We are pump-priming offshore wind technology because, as the 2050 pathway document shows, we need to have energy from many sources. Nuclear is a mature source, whereas offshore wind is not as mature. To see whether it has the economic benefits that we think it has, it must be proceeded with.
Lord Redesdale
My Lords, a number of questions have been asked of these Benches about our position on nuclear power. It is clear that, as this Statement was made by my right honourable friend Chris Huhne, this reflects Liberal Democrat and coalition policy. It quite happily states the position that we have always had on nuclear power—that we would support it as long as there was no public subsidy. That was repeated in the Statement. So I do not think that any deviation can be claimed from the policy that we have had for a very long time. I have expressed that to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on a number of occasions. Personally, I am a nuclear sceptic, but that is a personal opinion.
I welcome this Statement for a number of reasons, not least because, as chairman of the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association, it leads the way to the grandfathering of double ROCs for anaerobic digestion. That will be a very helpful step in decarbonising the gas grid. I have two questions. First, in the rollout of smart meters, will the Minister consider making it a requirement to have a reprogrammable chip in the smart meter? It would be unfortunate if we put in millions of these smart meters and then decided to change their specification—if we did not put in simple technology that we understand so that it can be reprogrammed from outside rather than our having to insert a new smart meter. Secondly, the Government have talked about a consultation document on the roles of Ofgem. Could the Minister also consider a consultation on the roles of Ofwat, which has acted as a massive hindrance to the decarbonisation of the water industry, which is one of the biggest users of electricity and therefore carbon in the country? Will the Minister consider whether, if Ofgem is to be looked at, Ofwat could be not only looked at but probably abolished?
Lord Marland
I shall be brief. I think that the noble Lord’s idea of a chip in a smart meter is a good one, and I shall investigate it. I do not have the answer. I do not recall the smart meter that I have seen having a chip, but it is a very sensible idea.
We are reviewing all the bodies that govern electricity. Ofgem is obviously the primary one, but we have been reviewing all the other bodies to see whether they are fit for purpose and serve the current Government’s requirements.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, the Minister has already said that there is going to be no possibility of subsidy, but I suggest that he be very careful about offering some kind of nuclear/ROCs arrangement, because 8 per cent of domestic electricity bills are already accounted for by that form of consumer subsidy and it is therefore very dangerous to put any more on it. If he wants to increase investor confidence in the nuclear industry—I speak as the chair of the nuclear industry—he ought to look speedily at the question of a carbon price and a carbon floor. Could he perhaps provide a paper for us, which would enable us to see the relative merits of the various positions on this? Until this question is resolved, the massive investments which will be required to realise the nuclear ambitions of this country are not going to happen. With that and the Forgemasters decision, we have the kind of climate in which we get the uncertainty that frightens off potential investors, and that mood has to be changed quickly.
Lord Marland
I totally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, on a carbon price floor. As we have committed to in this document, that is something which we will be reviewing with great urgency. We intend to legislate early in 2011 in the energy Bill, having reviewed it during the Recess. The problem with the carbon price, as he quite rightly identifies, is that it has ranged from €30 per tonne in July 1989 to €16 per tonne in July 2009. It is such a volatile price that it makes planning very difficult, particularly in the noble Lord’s sector, so we will be looking at it.
Lord Maples
Do the Government believe that it is actually possible to meet our energy requirements over the next 30 or 40 years without a new generation of nuclear power stations?
Lord Marland
Perhaps I might draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Maples to the 2050 pathway document. It quite clearly indicates that the best way forward is a mix that includes nuclear, as I have said earlier, and many other types of electricity generation to fulfil the nation’s requirement, which is expected to double by 2050.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I am learning fast what megaphone diplomacy means in this House. First, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, about the position of the previous Administration on nuclear power. I was one of the Energy Ministers during that first 10 years, and I bow to no one in my support for the nuclear industry. In fact, I was the one who began the process that led to the decision on a new generation of nuclear power.
Can the Minister give some indication of what measures are being taken to reassure the nuclear industry about the new generation of build? It is not enough to say that there will be no subsidisation. The mood music has not been good. In the Statement, the noble Lord referred to the fact that the Government should act as a catalyst for private sector investment but, at the same time, the strongest part of the Statement on nuclear says: “nuclear can go ahead”. If we are to meet our climate change goals, nuclear must go ahead. It will not if the environment towards it is negative. It is a major investment.
The Minister is much more knowledgeable than I am about the climate for investment. However, there are the decisions on Sheffield Forgemasters and the Infrastructure Planning Commission, the coalition with the Lib Dems and the issues around planning—all of us who remember the Sizewell B inquiry know the difficulties around planning for new nuclear. Given that mood music, what reassurance can he give to me and to the House that he will meet with the industry and give powerful signals that will show the scientists—the particle physicists and the engineers who are needed to secure a future for this industry—that it can go ahead?
Lord Marland
I congratulate the noble Baroness for her question. I think that it is her first question and I thank her very much. The fact of the matter is: I am not going to say any more than I have. I have said it until I am almost blue in the face, and we have said in writing that we are committed to nuclear. I am not entirely sure that we are inheriting a paragon of all virtue, as she indicated, or that the Labour Party in the previous Government was so committed to new nuclear. I do not see the country awash with new nuclear power stations. The good thing is that we have three consortia who have announced 16 gigawatts of nuclear energy to be built by 2050. The good news is that it will encourage 30,000 jobs.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [HL]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill makes provision for imposing financial restrictions on, and in relation to, certain persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities, for amending Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and for connected purposes.
As we are all aware, this month marks the fifth anniversary of one of the worst terrorist attacks in the UK’s history, and the threat to the UK from international terrorism is still judged to be severe. Our police and security services work tirelessly to combat this threat and to reduce it. The Government must ensure that those organisations have the powers that they need to keep people safe, both here in the UK and abroad, while ensuring that we also protect civil liberties.
Asset freezing is an internationally used and recognised tool that aims to prevent and disrupt the financing of terrorism. The United Nations requires that all states,
“Freeze without delay … assets or … resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts”.
Attacking the financial flows between those people is essential. Some of the most devastating attacks in the past decade, including those in London in 2005, cost less than £10,000 to carry out. Around £150,000 is currently frozen in the UK under this regime, so the magnitude of what could be done with such a relatively small sum is clear. By freezing money intended for terrorist purposes, we can help to prevent individual attacks and the devastating injury and loss of life that they may cause. Focusing on the movement of money can also help to detect when it is being used to sustain wider terrorist networks, a crucial element in many investigations, and helps us to maintain effective relationships with international counterterrorism partners. No other tool in the Government’s counterterrorist finance toolkit can fully meet our international obligations in this area.
Against this background, the purpose of the Bill is to put the terrorist asset- freezing regime on a secure legislative footing. I shall explain why this is necessary. The previous Government relied on Orders in Council, made under Section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946, to give effect to the UK’s obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1373. In February this year, the Supreme Court ruled that, in doing so, the Government had gone beyond the power conferred by Section 1 of the UN Act. Given the impact of asset freezing on fundamental rights, the court concluded that such a judgment on what is expedient should be expressly made by Parliament, not the Executive. The court quashed two of the Orders in Council and, in response, the previous Government put temporary legislation in place to validate those orders until 31 December of this year.
I will now explain the scope of the Bill and its provisions. The Bill focuses on the domestic terrorist asset-freezing regime that the UK is required to have in place under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This is the regime where decisions to freeze assets are taken at a national level, by HM Treasury in the case of the UK, and freezes apply only nationally. The Bill does not cover al-Qaeda and the Taliban. These groups are covered by a separate asset-freezing regime, under UN Security Council Resolution 1267, where decisions to freeze assets are made by the UN and freezes apply globally. That regime is already implemented across the EU by a directly applicable EU regulation.
I should also make it clear that the asset-freezing powers in this Bill are not related to those in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which were used to freeze the assets of Icelandic banks in 2008. That action and the legislation that permitted it should not be confused with the provisions that we are discussing today.
The Bill also includes some amendments to Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The legislation that we are discussing today makes a number of valuable improvements to the current terrorist asset-freezing regime and I have deposited in the House Library a schedule setting out these changes.
First, it makes the legal test for freezing assets clearer and more consistent with other counterterrorism legislation. The language clarifies but does not change the current legal test, under which past terrorist activity is relevant in determining whether someone is a person who is involved in terrorism. This is not an extension of HM Treasury’s power to designate. Secondly, it focuses the prohibitions more narrowly to minimise the impact on third parties. I will return to this. Thirdly, it makes it clear that state benefits paid to spouses or partners will no longer be caught by the asset-freezing regime. We believe that this is unnecessary to prevent terrorist-financing risks. The Bill is in line with a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice. Fourthly, it improves the transparency and accountability of the regime by requiring it to be independently reviewed nine months after this legislation is passed and every 12 months thereafter. The Bill also formalises the requirement for HM Treasury to report to Parliament on a quarterly basis on the operation of the regime. On Monday, I laid the most recent report before the House. As well as providing useful statistics, it makes it clear that HM Treasury has an active policy of reviewing designations. In the last quarter alone, nine reviews resulted in six delistings.
However, welcome as I hope the changes to the regime will be, I recognise that they do not fully address some of the civil liberties concerns that have been raised about the asset-freezing regime, both in Parliament and in the public consultation that HM Treasury has conducted. Chief among these are the legal test for asset freezing, which stands at reasonable suspicion, and the role of the courts in making and reviewing asset-freezing decisions. Both the use of reasonable suspicion and the role of the courts in these contexts have parallels in other counterterrorism powers.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Home Office’s urgent review of the most controversial and sensitive counterterrorism legislation and measures is ongoing and is likely to consider the appropriate safeguards for executive actions in this field. My ministerial colleagues and I are of the view that, unlike that of previous Administrations, this Government’s approach to counterterrorism measures should be co-ordinated and aligned wherever possible. It is too early to predict the results of the Home Office review but I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that, where the review’s conclusions are relevant to asset freezing, and should those conclusions alter the balance in favour of introducing additional safeguards, we will take them into account and bring forward any amendments that may be appropriate to the Bill. That said, I believe that the approach set out in the Bill is reasonable.
I turn now to points raised by the Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill last week. The committee’s experience and knowledge in this area are extensive and the Government value its input. First, the committee raised a concern that the Bill is partial because it does not include al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime or the freezing powers under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. I accept that the Bill does not consolidate the legislation in this area. However, there is a good reason for this. The priority that the Bill seeks to address is the need to put the UK’s domestic terrorist asset-freezing regime on a secure legislative footing by 31 December. As the Constitution Committee’s report rightly points out, this is a tight timetable, even with the present scope of the Bill.
Secondly, the committee raised a concern about why the Bill retains the reasonable suspicion test when other pieces of legislation use reasonable belief. The reason why we have retained reasonable suspicion is that it allows for action to be taken early to meet an imminent national security threat. An example was the use of asset freezes alongside police arrests in 2006 to help to disrupt the transatlantic plane bomb plot. However, as I have said, we will consider this issue further. I agree that, where appropriate, it is desirable to maintain a consistent approach. That is why, rather than taking an independent view of the legal test for asset freezing, we are considering this matter alongside the wider review of counterterrorism powers that is being conducted by the Home Office.
Thirdly, the committee expressed concern that the Home Office review be completed as soon as possible so that any amendments to the Bill can be brought forward in Committee. As the Home Secretary made clear, her review is urgent and will help to inform what additional safeguards, if any, might be needed on asset freezing.
If we are making government amendments to this Bill, we are clear that they should be tabled at Committee stage to allow for full consideration.
Fourthly, the committee raised a number of issues around the judicial process and procedural fairness. I agree with its conclusion that in practice the judicial review process gives the courts a significant scrutiny power and, of course, we welcome that scrutiny, which is fundamental to ensuring that the regime operates in a fair, proportionate and lawful way. The committee has criticised Clause 22 as insufficient in setting out the court’s powers in challenges to decisions. Clause 22 is based closely on Section 63 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which deals with challenges to financial directions made by the Treasury. We believe that there is merit in having similar provisions governing challenges to these types of decisions and in not introducing ambiguity by having differences between the two provisions. On procedures for the use of closed source material, the Treasury is committed to operating the regime in a way that is consistent with ECHR Article 6.
I will discuss the content of the Bill in more detail, beginning with the provisions under Part 1. The effect of a designation under this legislation is to forbid dealing with a designated person’s funds and economic resources, to forbid making funds or economic resources available to such persons and to forbid funds or economic resources being made available to a person when the designated person will obtain a significant financial benefit. This is similar to the effect of a designation under the 2009 terrorism order, but with some significant differences. For example, third parties will breach the prohibitions only if they know, or have reason to suspect, that a designated person will use them in breach of the terms of their asset freeze.
The Bill also provides for licences to permit access to funds and limit the effect of the sanctions, particularly on third parties. It also makes changes to the requirements imposed on the financial and related sectors, which are an essential front line in the fight against terrorist financing. We thank them for the efforts that they continue to make on our behalf, as they bear much of the burden of compliance with this legislation. I am keen to ensure that the burden is minimised, wherever it can be, without increasing any terrorist-financing risks. That is why this Bill will no longer require financial institutions automatically to search historical records for links to designated persons. HM Treasury will remain open to legal challenge to its asset-freezing decisions, including the procedures approved by Parliament in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.
Part 2 makes minor amendments to HM Treasury’s financial restrictions powers under Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. These powers are an important element of the Government’s toolkit to deal with risks posed to the UK by money-laundering, terrorist financing and the development or production of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. They also enable the Government to take action where the Financial Action Task Force has advised that measures should be taken because a country poses a money-laundering or terrorist-financing risk. The risks that these powers address are of a serious nature. I consider it important that we have robust and effective financial tools to tackle them. In light of this, we have identified a small number of technical amendments to these powers.
First, we are introducing a prohibition on knowing and intentional circumvention of any restriction issued under these powers. This is a necessary deterrent to ensure that a unilateral restriction cannot simply be bypassed. Secondly, we are introducing a provision to allow restrictions to be targeted against subsidiaries of companies based in the country of concern, to reflect the risk that such subsidiaries can pose. Thirdly, we will be clarifying that, when the Government direct a UK financial or credit institution to implement a restriction, they will have to apply it across all their branches, wherever those branches are located. Fourthly, we are making provision for the transfer of responsibility for ensuring the compliance of Northern Ireland credit unions with these restrictions from the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to the Financial Services Authority.
I am certain that the asset-freezing proposals that I have put before the House will, when passed, create a secure legislative footing for an important and necessary counterterrorism power. The coalition is firmly of the view that such powers are not to be created lightly and we will keep the necessary safeguards under review as this Bill continues its passage. In this Second Reading debate, I particularly look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. I beg to move.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I should say immediately that, as its purpose is primarily to continue the asset-freezing regime put in place by the previous Government, these Benches do not stand in opposition to the essence of the Bill. These Benches have consistently taken a view that a proportionate, strong and effective regime to minimise the terrorist threat is essential for the security of the United Kingdom.
It is of course the duty of the Opposition to oppose and, in light of the coalescence of the two other main parties, that duty may weigh more heavily than under previous arrangements. I draw the Minister’s attention to this perhaps not entirely startling observation for the purpose of lodging a caveat with him in respect of the Committee stage of the Bill. It may be that certain aspects of it will be tested rather more than he might otherwise have anticipated, given the Bill’s original provenance.
As matters stand, there are a number of points on which it would be helpful to have answers from the Minister. When the previous Government brought forward the temporary provisions Act in February, it was stated in another place that the temporary nature of the measures would,
“provide Parliament with the proper time needed to consider and debate permanent legislation in full”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/10; col. 663.]
The Home Office review, which the Minister mentioned, of a number of counterterrorism measures is of course welcome. It would be useful to know its timescale and when its conclusions, either interim or final, will become available. Is the Minister content, notwithstanding the review being under way, that the Bill should proceed on a stand-alone Bill basis? As he accepts that there are now in place a number of terrorist asset-freezing regimes, the question has been raised, as he noted, as to whether a single Act of Parliament might be a more satisfactory and less complex approach to this difficult subject. He has identified that there are, in addition to this Bill, provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
I note what the noble Lord said in relation to consolidation, but there is also a question which he might wish to consider. As he well knows, there is a grey area between terrorist financing and organised crime. In the review, will there be any consideration of harmonising asset-freezing in these areas?
I note that the Bill contains an innovation on the existing regime in the shape of quarterly reporting and the appointment of an independent reviewer. This doubtless will be in addition to transparency and accountability. However, I examined the impact assessment, but could not find information on the expected cost of this arrangement. Might the Minister assist in identifying the cost of this new office?
I also draw the Minister’s attention to one aspect of the decision in the Ahmed case contained in the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. At paragraph 182, he stated that,
“the harsh reality is that mistakes in designating will inevitably occur and, when they do, the individuals who are wrongly designated will find their funds and assets frozen and their lives disrupted without”—
I stress, without—
“their having any realistic prospect of putting matters right”.
The House has heard arguments in the past about the choice between the current judicial review procedure and the sometimes proposed full merits review. I do not seek to reopen that discussion—but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, was fully seized of the current judicial review procedure and still identified this concern. Will the review consider this, or does the Minister have an answer at this stage to the concern of the respected and learned Supreme Court judge? I look forward to his answers.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, as has been said, it is entirely obvious that one should seek to freeze the assets of terrorists to prevent them accessing funds for the purposes of terrorism; but that, as both noble Lords who have spoken have indicated, does not describe the Bill in full. I appreciate that it was the previous regime, operated in a rather different way from that of the last year or two, that was mauled by the Supreme Court in Ahmed, but it is worth remembering some of the terms that were used, such as “draconian”, “devastating”, “drastic”, “dire” and—not alliteratively—“oppressive”.
Today and during the passage of the Bill we look for assurance that it is not in danger of being found not to be human rights-compliant, not only because human rights and civil liberties are inherently important, but also because, if there is a successful challenge to the Bill, the banks will be open to claims, we will have expensive mechanisms that do not protect the public, and the people who will win—this point was made several times when we dealt with the interim Bill—will be the lawyers, while those designated and their families will suffer. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, that “coalesced” or not, those behind the Minister will seek to be not just critical but constructively critical.
My first question, which again has been anticipated, is not “Why this?” but “Why now?”. We asked for pre-legislative scrutiny at the time of the temporary provisions Bill. The consultation that has taken place was welcome, but it is not the same. Although we are still dealing with protection against terrorism, the governmental and legislative contexts are different. The coalition Government have made it clear, as the Minister said, that they will be,
“strong in defence of freedom”,
and will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation. The review that is being conducted by the Home Office is due to report in the autumn. I appreciate that some of these terms have wide meanings—I am not sure how long autumn will go on this year—but I hope that the Government will adapt the timetable for the Bill to take account of that review.
I understand the problem of the sunset clause in the existing legislation, but there must be ways of dealing with this in order to get the right outcome for this Bill co-ordinated with the work that is going on in the Home Office. For too many years there has been rivalry between Whitehall departments, and I hope that this is not a case of unnecessary demarcation. The Minister used the words “co-ordinated” and “aligned”. I would have liked to see a single review of asset freezing, but I hope that they will be as co-ordinated and aligned as possible. The remit of the counterterrorism review does not extend to this measure and I hope that the Government will not see themselves as committed to a Bill in these terms if the outcome of the counterterrorism review produces points that should be reflected and included.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights will not have its first meeting until the autumn, and I am sure that it will have comments to make on the Bill, as did the Constitution Committee in what I thought was a very helpful and balanced report. I, too, should like to see plans for the consolidation, rationalisation and, indeed, perhaps reform of everything that ranges over the statue book on terrorism, terrorist financing and asset-freezing. I do not think that the fragmented regime is entirely helpful.
I query whether the Treasury, as distinct from the Home Office, is the appropriate arm of the Executive to deal with these orders but, more fundamentally, I question orders being imposed by the Executive without any judicial input or evidential review. It would be possible, for example, to provide for the courts to deal with an urgent situation on an ex parte application by the Executive and then to take the matter over on an inter-partes basis. Having judicial input at the start would automatically provide a mechanism for appeal, which is also missing from the regime.
The reasonable grounds for suspicion are set at a very low threshold and we will need to be convinced that it needs to be so low. Proving to the court on a balance of probabilities that someone is, or has been, involved in terrorist activity—or, if we are stuck with “reasonable suspicion”, an objective test to so designate a person—would, again, deal with a number of concerns. In Committee, I think we will also want to understand how far in the past the terrorist involvement will need to have been to put someone in danger of having their assets frozen.
There is no connection between suspected involvement and an ability or intention to use assets for terrorist activity. An individual with limited means would have no scope for such use but nevertheless could, by definition, given the issues around benefits, be designated. Should not the Executive be required to show that the individual has access to sufficient funds so that use for terrorist purposes is a possibility—a risk, in other words—that the funds will be so used?
Reference has been made to judicial review. If there were a right of appeal instead of judicial review, that would not jeopardise the making of orders by the Executive. However, I am concerned that judicial review gives no opportunity to challenge the evidence on which a decision is made—not that the designee can be sure on what basis the Executive is basing its decision, given the closed material/special advocate procedures, which, in my view, are inherently incapable of delivering a fair hearing. Special advisers are not accountable and I am unpersuaded by the references that I have read to the Bar Council standards. It has never issued guidance, nor has it addressed the ethical issues, and indeed special advisers are not professionally accountable to those whom they represent.
Judicial review can test the legality—a matter of vires—but, in dealing with the reasonableness of a decision, it is only Wednesbury reasonableness, to use the shorthand. That is not the same as proportionality, which addresses the outcome as distinct from the boundaries to discretion. Nor am I persuaded that quarterly reporting and consideration by an independent reviewer are sufficient. They come after the event; they are not a replacement for an appeal. However, to be more positive, I welcome the provision now in the Bill that benefit payments to spouses and partners will not be caught. That, though, does not address the fundamental point of whether the regime is compatible with fundamental rights. We have a licensing regime, and one must question whether it is possible for that to be effective against somebody who is determined to outwit it.
Human rights were not the basis of the Ahmed case—only two justices thought that the regime would pass the human rights test if brought in as primary legislation. The others declined to deal with this, having decided against the Government on other grounds. We are all aware of the Al-Jedda case, which has gone to Strasbourg on appeal. If it reversed at the same time as this Bill is concluding its passage through Parliament, I am glad I shall not have to deal with that dilemma.
Restrictions imposed in the past have been severe. At the time of the interim Bill, I was shocked to learn that they extended to funding for legal advice and representation. The paper reporting on responses to the consultation stated that controls will remain on any state benefits being paid directly to the designated person. I wonder how one aligns this with the DWP expecting the person to look for work, but perhaps that is a different issue. However, there is a big impact, and a stigma, on the family as well as on the individual.
I appreciate the Government’s commitment to bring forward amendments in time for us to discuss them in Committee. Asset freezing is close to a control order by another name. Those orders are being reviewed, and so should the asset-freezing regime be as part of a single co-ordinated review. I hope that the Minister and the House understand that the points that I am making—and those that others will make—are suggestions of changes to the Bill and approaches to the issue which would make acceptable the necessary freezing of assets. In my view, the Bill has not quite got there.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the Minister rightly emphasises that the threat from terrorism remains severe, and that asset freezing is an essential tool in combating terrorism. However, it is also vital that the measures enacted to deal with this serious problem comply with constitutional principles. It was the failure by the previous Government in that respect which led to the adverse Supreme Court judgment in February, leading to the temporary Bill and to this Bill. That history imposes an especial obligation on this House to scrutinise with especial care the proposals brought forward by the Government.
The Bill raises matters of constitutional concern, as stated in the report of the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, and to which the Minister has already referred. The first matter of deep constitutional concern is that the Bill covers only some of the powers to freeze the assets of those suspected of terrorism. The Government have retained the separate al-Qaeda and Taliban asset-freezing regulations and have not brought those powers within the scope of this legislation. That is despite the fact that many people are designated under both types of order—that is the al-Qaeda order and this regime. It is particularly unfortunate that some powers remain under secondary legislation when they cannot be amended on a debate in this House or in the other place. There are also the separate asset-freezing powers under Part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and under Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The Minister said in his introductory remarks, perhaps somewhat optimistically, that those other statutory provisions should not be confused with the provisions in the Bill. If I may respectfully say so, the Government's approach invites confusion from anyone other than a Supreme Court Justice when attempting to identify how the provisions fit together.
It is of course vital to freeze the assets of those who assist terrorism, but do we really need all these distinct powers? The answer given by the Minister in his opening remarks was to refer to the tight timetable that is consequent on the sunset clause in the temporary Bill. I am puzzled why it is not possible to address the question of drafting—it is a question of drafting—by Committee, which will be more than eight months after the Supreme Court judgment
The second point is the scope of the powers conferred by the Bill. Noble Lords will not dispute the need to enact powers to impose freezing orders against people who have been found to be involved in terrorism. It is of course right that those powers should also be available even if the state cannot prove such involvement. Noble Lords will therefore accept the need to confer such powers in relation to people whom the Minister believes, on reasonable grounds, to be involved in terrorism. The Bill goes much further than that. The Bill imposes those powers in relation to people merely because there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are involved in terrorism.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said in his judgment in the Supreme Court at paragraph 199:
“To suspect something to be so is by no means to believe it to be so. It is to believe only that it may be so”.
I have difficulty understanding why it should be appropriate to confer those powers in relation to people whom the authorities do not believe, on reasonable grounds, to be involved in terrorism.
There is no international obligation to go this far, as the Supreme Court emphasised in its judgments. There is an issue of principle here, because to freeze a person's assets is a substantial restriction on their liberty. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already referred to the comments in the Supreme Court judgments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said that those restrictions,
“strike at the very heart of the individual’s basic right to live his own life as he chooses”.
He added that those who are subject to a freezing order are,
“effectively prisoners of the state”.
He pointed out that those powers have a devastating impact not just on the individual but on their spouse and their children.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, commented:
“The draconian nature of the regime imposed under these assets-freezing Orders can hardly be over-stated”.
I have now referred twice to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. I should mention that he has a lifetime of experience of administrative law and of security issues, having served as Treasury Junior from 1979 to 1984. He sat as a judge for over 25 years. He was the president of the Security Service tribunal and the intelligence services tribunal, and he was the intelligence services commissioner from 2000 to 2006, so he knows what he is talking about.
The Minister’s response to this point in opening—why should these powers be conferred in relation to people in respect of whom there is no more than a suspicion?—was that it was thought appropriate to allow for intervention at an early stage. That fails to address the concern about the impact on a person in respect of whom it cannot even be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are or have been involved in terrorism. Can the Minister also please explain why this Bill, in this respect, is drafted more widely than the relevant provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, both of which require reasonable belief and neither of which confers power merely by reference to reasonable suspicion?
My third point is to ask the Minister whether he would accept that these freezing orders can be valid as a matter of law only if the individual concerned is told sufficient of the case against him to enable him to have a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. That was the test laid down by the Appellate Committee of this House in the AF case in relation to control orders. I suggest to the Minister that the same test must apply in relation to freezing orders. I should declare an interest in that I represented AF in the Appellate Committee in the control order case. We will, no doubt, return to these issues in Committee in the autumn, and I very much look forward to the debates. I hope and expect that this House will be as vigilant as the Supreme Court to ensure that constitutional principles are respected.
I have one other question for the Minister. There have been very few changes in the content of the Bill since the draft Bill was published in March, but there is one change of potentially great significance. The title to the Bill has been amended to add the word “etc.”. I was involved in a case in the Court of Appeal in 2007 when Lord Justice Sedley said in his judgment that the court had,
“spent two days hearing argument on the meaning of ‘is’ and ‘where’”,
so much can turn on tiny words. It would be of assistance to know what the Government mean and intend by “etc.”. Is it the intention that this Bill might be the legislative vehicle for bringing before this House and the other place reforms consequent on the current Home Office review of matters such as control orders and pre-trial detention for 28 days? I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain the Government's thinking on this matter.
Baroness Hamwee
My noble friend tells me that a couple of times I referred to “special advisers”; I did, of course, mean “special advocates”.
Lord Patten
My Lords, there is an ever shifting frontier between the activity of terrorists and that of serious and organised criminals, as the example of Northern Ireland has shown us over the decades. To believe otherwise is to engage in delusional thinking on stilts. That said, it is impossible to be comprehensive all the time about every threat related to terrorism and serious crime. It is important from time to time to be highly targeted, as this welcome Bill introduced by my noble friend the Commercial Secretary seeks to be in concentrating on meeting our international obligations to freeze terrorist funds ever more effectively.
Doing this will always be a challenge, however good the legislation, as the sad experience of the Serious Organised Crime Agency has shown us so starkly, with its £0.5 billion annual budget up to 2010 managing to deny access to only approximately £140 million of criminal funds. The Home Secretary, who had a hard-driving tutor when she was at Oxford, is therefore quite right, following her radical, root-and-branch review, to bring this expensive organisation to an end with the setting-up, as she proposes, of the national crime agency. I hope that it will rapidly learn the lessons of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, just as much as they will be pondered by others responsible under this legislation, whether in the Treasury or elsewhere, as they deal with the challenging practical problems of the efficient asset freezing of terrorist funds. It is vital that any strategy includes targeted intelligence gathering, law enforcement action at home, much smarter global regulatory scrutiny, capacity building for other Governments, the protection of charities from terrorist abuse and much more besides.
There is an array of actions to be taken. They include, for example, the breaking of pipelines through which parties move money and manage to operate in mainstream financial sectors, or the exposing of terrorist-financing money trails that lead to hitherto unknown terrorist cells or terrorist financiers before any freezing can be contemplated. Success in these two strands may force terrorists to use more costly and much more dangerous informal means of terrorist financing such as illicit, trade-based commodity systems, ranging from the obvious, such as diamonds, precious metals, narcotics and cigarettes, through to the less obvious, such as trade in honey or even in rare plants.
Fast coming down the track to join these are various forms of cyberterrorism, whose mirror image is cyberfundraising through recruiting of financial supporters. Just as cyberweapons are so much easier to procure—they are more like chemical weapons by comparison to other more general military hardware, let alone nuclear materials—so cyberfundraising is often much easier to achieve and harder to track than the smuggling of the goods and commodities to which I referred.
When in opposition, Members on this side of the House again and again pressed noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, who is not in his place today, to tackle issues such as the performance of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the threat of cyberterrorism. It was all, alas, to scant avail, as we have seen. By comparison, I greatly applaud the work and effectiveness of the 31-nation Financial Action Task Force, an organisation to which I think my noble friend has made a considerable contribution in the past, together with other organisations whose names we do not often hear aired in your Lordships’ Chamber, such as the Egmont Group, representing about 70 financial intelligence units in the different countries that are members. Only a part of its activity may involve work to disturb channels along which terrorist funds may travel or to aid the seizure of assets, but it is vital among the rest of its work in respect of money-laundering generally.
All that said, I have theoretical sympathy—if one can have theoretical sympathy; looking around the Chamber, I do not see any philosophical tendency on the part of your Lordships to help me with whether I can have theoretical sympathy—with the view of the Select Committee on the Constitution that we should always strive to ensure legal certainty, which is a pretty soundly based principle. The Constitution Committee favours all terrorist asset-freezing measures being in one statute because, if this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, we shall have a dual regime between the new Act on the one hand and the al-Qaeda and Taliban asset-freezing regulations on the other. This aim to consolidate would be desirable in the longer term, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in his speech a few moments ago, but we need to get on with tackling the issue as soon as possible through the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Sassoon pointed out.
I end with three more detailed points that verge on questions, which I table now and on which I seek reassurances from my noble friend if he has time at the end of his winding-up speech. First, I assume that Part 1 of the Bill will be extended to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by Orders in Council at the earliest possible opportunity, for all the obvious reasons. If that is not the intention, I think that it should be and I wish to know why it is not.
Secondly, Clause 20 lays a duty on the Treasury to co-operate with any investigation into these matters in the United Kingdom—with, I guess at the moment, organisations such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency or its successors—and internationally. However, I seek reassurance that the Treasury has the staffing capacity to co-operate effectively with the other agencies in asset freezing and, in so doing, to put living enforcement and investigatory flesh on the well drafted bones of this Bill.
Thirdly and lastly, Part 2 of the Bill is intended, as I understand it, to deal with financial restrictions on persons connected with countries of concern, specifically in connection with the development or production of the nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons specified in Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. That Act, when it was just a little Bill and was being drafted, did not take any formal notice of cyberwarfare, cyberterrorism, cyberfundraising or whatever you want to call them—threats that, back in 2006 and 2007, were just gathering the momentum that they are now reaching. Perhaps that is why paragraph 1(4)(a) in Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 specifies all the weapons that I have just listed but does not specify cyberweapons of any sort. It should have done so and I hope that this legislative opportunity will be taken, whether under the “etc.” cover or some other cover, to improve the legislation to embrace the cyberthreat specifically.
There are a number of other questions that I would like to ask, but I sense around me a gathering wish and anticipation rather to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, which I share.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, it is with a great sense of honour and privilege that I speak for the first time in this House. I have, as some of your Lordships may know, spent the past 13 years as a Member in the other place and most of that time as a Minister. I thank all my family—especially my husband, my children and my fiercest champion, my mother—for sustaining me through the inevitable ups and downs and constant red boxes of ministerial life. I treasure that experience, although I am already acutely aware, after only a brief period as a Member of this House, that this is a very different place—one where the weight of history, knowledge and experience inspires in me both humility and trepidation. Yet I hope that, with support from your Lordships, I can in time rise to those challenges and make a positive contribution to our collective work here. The astonishing warmth of the welcome that I have been given suggests that that support will be forthcoming.
I am grateful to the Lord Speaker, to my noble friends and noble Lords across the House, and to the staff and the doorkeepers for their generous assistance and for making me feel very much at home. I am especially grateful to the executive officer for Black Rod and the staff in the Dining Room with whom I exchanged numerous e-mails arranging for my very large family to attend my introduction yesterday. They were unfailingly prompt, patient and helpful. I should also like to thank my sponsors, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and my noble friend Lady Corston, whom I have worked with in previous positions. They are people of great stature and I am honoured that they agreed to sponsor me.
I should like to tell your Lordships that residents in my former constituency, to whom I am also grateful for support over many years, were as delighted as I was at my ennoblement and took it as an honour for the area as much as for me personally. There was intense interest in what my title would be. I did consider Baroness Hughes of Old Trafford, a community in that constituency which is dear to my heart and to which I will refer later. However, as my husband and son are ardent Liverpool supporters and so many people throughout my wonderful region of the north-west of England see everything through the lens of football allegiance, I decided that that would be too contentious, so my full title is Baroness Hughes of Stretford, which honours my former constituents, of Ellesmere Port in the County of Cheshire. The latter is a tribute to my parents, to whom I owe everything. My one regret is that they are no longer here to share this with me.
My parents had no prior association with this House and, both coming from large working-class families in an era when they had no access to higher education, leaving school to work at 14, would have had little chance to do so. However, they wanted the best for their eight children. Although while growing up—10 of us in a little council house—we did not have a great deal in the way of material wealth, we never felt poor. Our parents worked unstintingly to give us everything that they had never had, encouraged us to believe that we could be whatever we wanted to be if we worked hard and gave us strong values of community and family, which have become the bedrock of my political beliefs and are the theme that I want to introduce on what might seem the unlikely topic of anti-terrorism.
As we have heard, the Bill deals with important provisions in the international response to terrorism—that is, the ability to freeze the assets of people suspected of being involved in or facilitating terrorist activities. As a former Minister of State with responsibility for counterterrorism, I am very familiar, as are your Lordships, with the threat faced by the United Kingdom still and I believe that there is a wide consensus in this House and beyond that this country remains a target for terrorists. As the Minister said, the United Nations requires us and other countries to take action, including asset freezing against terrorism, through a series of resolutions that intensified following the attacks of 9/11.
I had some personal involvement in the Government’s response to 9/11 as the cross-government Bill Minister for the emergency legislation that became the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As the Minister said, Part 2 of that Act contained provisions for an asset-freezing regime. As we know, the orders that give rise to our proceedings today were made under different legislation—the United Nations Act 1946—and have now been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court. Hence, the purpose of the Bill is to give comprehensive lawful effect to Security Council resolutions in a proportionate manner, which seeks to strike that difficult balance between executive decisions and some independent scrutiny of those decisions, and the important balance between safety of the public and the freedom of individuals—a balance that is inherently difficult but critically important. These and other national measures that challenge and, if possible—this is the point—prevent acts of terrorism are essential elements in the armoury of counterterrorism. I support them in principle and look forward to hearing the broader arguments about the detail as the Bill takes its course.
Equally important is action at the level of locality and community. It was no accident that my full former title as a Minister at the Home Office was Minister for Counter-Terrorism and Community Cohesion. I think that we ignore the community dimension—and the importance of strong community relations as another effective counterterrorism mechanism—at our peril. That is illustrated nowhere better than in Old Trafford in my former constituency. The community is hugely diverse, with a large number of substantial minority ethnic groups, the largest of which is the Asian community. Because of the conscious efforts of community leaders, especially faith leaders, and their willingness to work with others such as me as the then Member of Parliament, this community as a whole has taken a strong position against acts of terrorism and the ideology that fuels it. I pay tribute today to the imams and ministers who have shown such leadership and courage in challenging members of their own communities. I also pay tribute to Trafford Asian Women’s Network and to local community volunteers from all faiths and none who work to sustain dialogue and good will.
The reach of terrorism is global to local. That is why national measures and international actions such as those that we are discussing today are absolutely necessary, but not of themselves sufficient. Young people now receive information at the click of a key in their bedrooms, linking them to the other side of the world. I was reminded of the potency of this messaging only a few weeks ago when, during the general election, a very earnest young man sought me out to tell me that 9/11 was a fabrication, part of the West’s propaganda to discredit Islam. The most effective challenge to his views came from those of his own community and family in Old Trafford. They were prepared to stand up, tell him that he was wrong and denounce terrorism. I think that it is our job—I certainly saw it as my job—to support those who will do that, particularly with members of their own communities. It is also a key job for government to ensure that all young people, from whatever background, have the same opportunities for success that we all want for our own children. These are themes to which I hope to return as I embark with your Lordships on our work in this House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is my privilege and my pleasure to warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, on her maiden speech. She has come here after a wealth of relevant experience, starting with her academic studies in Manchester and Liverpool, then practical work as a probation officer, returning again to the academic field and then to the House of Commons, as well as to local government where she has a number of important initiatives to her credit. As ultimately the Minister for Children and Youth Justice from 2007 to 2009, her status was recognised in that she attended the Cabinet as well as being the Minister for the North-West. What a tremendous range of qualifications and experience she brings, and indeed what we have just heard in her speech demonstrates how that experience has moulded what she had to say in support of this Bill with its huge implications for the safety of the citizens of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world, including the dependent territories, to which my noble friend Lord Patten referred.
As has been said, the regime dealt with in this Bill is founded on a United Nations resolution. The orders that were made under the United Nations Act 1946 were set aside by the Supreme Court because they went further than the protection that the United Nations resolution required. That may be a wise extension or it may not, and we need to examine this matter quite closely in Committee. However, I do not wish to repeat what has been said so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on this point.
The main issue that I wish to raise is that of appeal. The provision is for an appeal to be made in the form of an application to be judged by the principles of judicial review. That, I think, would primarily be directed to challenging the making of the order in the first place. However, one has to remember that there are detailed provisions in such an order and the licence which accompanies it in respect of the use of funds. For example, a question may arise about the amount that a designated person needs for his family’s sustenance. The idea that such a case would have to go to the Court of Session, the supreme court in Scotland—the senior court, I have to call it now—or the senior court in England by way of judicial review strikes me as extraordinary. There should be arrangements of a much less legalistic character whereby the case could go, for example, to the county court for the adjustment of matters of that kind. Where the fundamental question concerns the order itself, then possibly the provision made is appropriate, but there should also be some provision for other possible challenges.
When the temporary provisions Bill was being considered, I was not the only one to raise the question of looking at other terrorist financial provisions and serious crime provisions. After all, terrorism is an important species of serious crime and it would seem right that the regime should take account of that and have within it a system which applies—possibly with variations—across the board of serious organised crime and terrorism in particular.
I know that the timetable is restrictive and that not much time exists for the matter to be considered; however, it would be a mistake for this kind of consideration to be dealt with by a department. We are waiting to hear what might happen in the Home Office review and how that may affect our Bill but surely Her Majesty’s Treasury should also be involved; as I understand it, this is a Treasury Bill. If we want a comprehensive system, the review should include the departments with responsibility for operating the whole system and not only a part of it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, there should be a degree of consistency across the systems. I heard it said long ago that a legal system that does not have a logical thread through it is destined for collapse. We should think about that. Indeed, when the orders were set aside by the Supreme Court, it was found that, under the then existing legislation, there was no other option but to put new orders in place. Some people wondered why that was so but the Minister in the Treasury explained it in some detail in the other place at the time. However, it showed that the legislation for terrorism was not comprehensive and certainly not strongly interconnected. It would be a great improvement if it were.
I am sandwiched—pleasantly so—between two maiden speeches. I look forward to the one to follow.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I echo the congratulations that my noble friend Lady Hughes has already received on her first-class maiden speech. The trouble is that, in making my own maiden speech just two speeches later, it is a difficult act to follow. It is also an unexpected honour to follow a distinguished former Lord Chancellor, who made a characteristically authoritative and expertly practical speech about the Bill.
I hope that I am allowed to start by expressing a deep sense of gratitude to the electors of Grantham and Stamford, who sent me to the House of Commons—in the case of the electors of Grantham for the past 13 years and of Stamford and Bourne for the past 23 years. No honour is greater in public life than that of being selected by one’s fellow citizens to represent them in Parliament. I also thank profoundly my wife for her absolutely indispensible and splendid support for those 23 years, sometimes very dramatic, on the Back and Front Benches and in government. I thank the rest of my family as well. As my noble friend Lady Hughes said—and it is true in my case, too—although both my parents are no longer here, I owe them everything.
I thank extremely warmly and very specially my two supporters, my noble friends Lord Temple-Morris and Lord Radice. I do not believe that any new Member joining this House could have had kinder, more stalwart, more conscientious supporters than those. I have been quite overwhelmed, as many of us have in arriving here, by the extraordinarily warm welcome that we have received from everybody, from the Lord Speaker, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and noble Lords on both sides of the House, despite the fact that we have arrived in such large numbers in the past few weeks. I am already very grateful for countless small pieces of good advice and help from Clerks, other officials, messengers, waiters, librarians and all those who do such a good job in this place to make our life here more agreeable—and, I do not doubt, to make our activities here more effective than they would otherwise be.
I know that it is a convention of a maiden speech not to be controversial. Although in the course of my political career I have not always been able to avoid controversy or confrontation—indeed, there were moments in life when it would have seemed “abdicatory” or unworthy to have done that—nevertheless, I certainly wish to follow that convention today. I shall make one or two remarks about the Bill in general terms, but I do not think that any of them will be particularly provocative. I shall also make a proposal or suggestion about which I can say in advance with considerable confidence that it is not a matter of public controversy at present because it is not an issue that has been raised in public debate. However, I think that it is an issue that should be raised in public debate, and this Second Reading presents such an ideal opportunity that I think I ought to raise it. I hope that when I do so, if any noble Lord or noble Baroness feels that he or she disagrees with what I say, the disagreement will not be so violent as to make him or her feel frustrated at not being able to jump up immediately to take issue with me.
This is a very important Bill that deserves very careful scrutiny. That goes without saying. It goes to the heart of the liberties of the subject. The idea of a Treasury official by executive order simply paralysing the property of any citizen is a horrific one and in normal circumstances would be intolerable and inconceivable in a free society. Nevertheless, democracy is entitled to defend itself against existential threats, and the situation at present in relation to terrorism is anything but normal. So we have to look at this from the point of view of getting the right balance. That has been the principle governing all the contributions that I have heard on the subject this afternoon.
Clause 22 provides a very necessary and reassuring check on the executive power. There is provision for immediate reference to a court and for immediate judicial review. However, a point that came out of the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, this afternoon is very important: it must be clear that if such a judicial review is to take place, that court must have access to the evidence on which the Treasury’s decision has been based. If it does not have access to the evidence on which the decision is based, how can it possibly decide whether that decision was reasonable? I would be grateful if the Government can reassure me that that will indeed happen.
There has been no mention at all, in the Bill itself or in the discussion so far, of a matter which your Lordships ought to consider: compensation in the case of an unjust or unreasonable freezing of assets. It is quite clear that any of us, any citizen, could be the object of a terrible mistake—not necessarily a wilful mistake, but a complete mistake. A completely innocent citizen could find his or her assets frozen and consequently incur considerable losses, for example by being unable to meet contractual obligations during the period of the asset freezing. The Bill does not seem to address the issue but I am sure that the House will want to satisfy itself one way or the other on it before approving the Bill in its final form. I might come back to the point in subsequent debates on the Bill.
My final general point on the Bill is that there seems to be something of a consensus in the House this afternoon in favour of a consolidation exercise, because there are clearly so many different instruments which can be used to freeze particular assets of criminals, or terrorist members of al-Qaeda, or otherwise the Taliban, and it is not immediately logical why there should be separate instruments. I had rather thought that the Government accepted in practice the case for consolidation. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, defended Clause 22 in its present shape on the basis that its text was identical to that in another, parallel piece of legislation. Once you make that argument, you are basically saying that you really need to have one text. One is therefore making an argument for consolidation. I hope the Government will look again at that issue, and perhaps slightly more urgently than they seem to have done up until now.
My substantive suggestion is that this seems an ideal opportunity to deal with an extraordinary lacuna in the total regime for dealing with criminal and terrorist assets—the lack of any regime whatever to deal with ransoms from hijackings and piracy. It seems to me that those are the proceeds of crime as much as anything else. Indeed, for the victims of a hijacking by pirates, the experience probably does not seem very different from the experience of the victims of terrorists. Yet, at present, we have a growing industry of piracy in the Indian Ocean. People of my generation tend to think of pirates as existing only in fables. I have always thought of Treasure Island when I hear the word pirate, but pirates, as we know, were a real scourge of civilisation in the 16th, 17th and into the 18th centuries, as they no doubt were in previous centuries too. They were largely eliminated in the 19th century by the Royal Navy, often in combination or co-operation with other navies, and it is fair to say that in the 20th century, piracy no longer seemed any more immediate a threat to humanity than the bubonic plague. We took it for granted that it was something in the past.
The 21st century has taught us that that is not correct, and we have a major problem with the growing industry of piracy. There is a problem on both sides, because the risks are minimal to the pirates while the rewards are extremely great. The risks are minimal not because states have done nothing about it; on the contrary, three naval task forces—one EU, one NATO and one American-led—are currently deployed against these pirates. Nevertheless the pirates know that those forces’ rules of engagement are such that no pirate risks being shot unless the pirates open fire first, and although they have made that mistake in the past—the Royal Marines have accounted for a number of pirates, as have the French—no pirates have been lost over the past year or so. The pirates now feel that they have the mastery of that particular game.
Moreover, if the pirates are arrested they are never brought back to this country for trial, because the feeling from the legal advice is that they would immediately ask for asylum and the courts here would give it to them, and that they would remain here for the rest of time. It is not possible to repatriate them to Somalia because there is also legal advice saying that that would be against their human rights. We have a deal with Kenya to accept pirates and put them on trial, but that is an insecure situation; one does not know how long it will continue.
The sanctions are not very great. The danger of any pirate being interfered with by a naval task force is nothing like as great as it ought to be, simply because there is a natural reluctance for any nation state taking part in those task forces to risk its own sailors or marines, except where vessels fly their own flag, although the coincidence of having the right vessel there at the right time so that the nationality of the naval vessel is the same as that of the victims of the pirate attack is a bit difficult to achieve.
On the risk side, the problem is that the risks are not very great. On the reward side, as I have said, the rewards are enormous; I have made some effort to quantify them but I cannot because people are naturally reticent about it. It is clear to me, though, from discussions with underwriters here in London that tens of millions of pounds have been paid by way of ransom quite legally by ship owners and underwriters in respect of ships chartered or underwritten in this country over the past 12 months. The figures are substantial, I am quite convinced—perhaps the Government have some idea of what they are. It would be extremely revealing if we knew what they were.
The idea of taking measures against piracy, sending task forces at great expense, while doing nothing at all about the ransom payments, which can be paid over totally legally, accumulated, managed, transferred and then banked by the pirates, seems to be the equivalent of calling for the fire brigade and continuing to pump petrol on to the flames. There is a complete contradiction here between our apparent determination to deal seriously with the piracy issue and our failure to include it in any terrorist or criminal asset regime. I put that thought to the House, and I look forward to the Government’s response and to taking further part in discussions on this important Bill.
Lord Myners
My Lords, my contribution today will be brief, and much the most important part of it will be to congratulate the my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford on a fine maiden speech, rich in content and insight. The noble Lord earned a very good reputation in the other place for his dedicated representation of the interests of his constituents, first in Stamford and Spalding and later in Grantham and Stamford.
It should not go without notice that on more than one occasion my noble friend was awarded prizes for being the Back-Bench Member of the year and the independent Back-Bench Member of the year in the other place. This speaks powerfully to his intellect and independence of mind. Not only was my noble friend an outstanding constituency representative in the other place but he went on to hold high ministerial office, which required undoubted integrity, given the extraordinarily important and sensitive issues for which he was responsible.
We welcome my noble friend to this House and to these Benches. He is a true progressive, in the sense of his journey to join us on these Benches. His academic record is very good; he took a first at Cambridge, won awards at Harvard and went on to carve out a highly successful career in finance and economics. Indeed, I recollect in the 1990s sitting at the back of a room at the clearing bank where I worked when we occasionally had a visitation from the then Mr Quentin Davies, who briefed us on his views on the economic and financial situation.
I should also seize this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Hughes of Stretford on her equally fine maiden speech, which showed the expertise that she will bring to the House’s deliberations. As I sat listening to these two fine maiden speeches, I turned my mind back to my own, which, if I bother to look it up, I imagine I will find a great disappointment—it certainly did not reach the soaring heights that we heard today.
I turn briefly to the Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, I was responsible for taking the temporary provisions Bill through this House in February. The Government acted in good faith in their implementation of the powers which they believed they were able to take under the United Nations Act 1946. However, the Supreme Court advised that, in its judgment, we were relying too much on the facilitating powers of that Act, hence our need to bring a temporary provisions Bill through this House. I thank noble Lords who participated in that debate for their very useful contributions to an expeditious conclusion which ensured that we had appropriate legislative protection in place and a clear commitment that we would bring a fuller Bill back to the House as soon as possible. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill back in this Session and giving us the opportunity for this Second Reading debate.
Measures to prevent terrorist financing are at the heart of international efforts against terrorism. If you read yesterday’s and today’s Guardian you need no reminding of the continuing great threat that our country faces from terrorism. However, our responses must be proportionate and fair and, at the same time, robust and effective. This is a difficult balancing act—to strike a balance between public interest on the one hand and the rights and liberties of individuals on the other. I am most grateful to the Minister for depositing in the Library a schedule indicating the changes to the temporary Bill contained in this Bill. That is a very constructive step by the Minister; it shows that he approaches the Bill with an open and accommodating stance. I know the House will appreciate that.
I welcome several of the improvements that the new Government have made to the Bill, compared with the temporary Bill which I took through the House in February. Spousal and partner exclusion is a particularly good addition. I am also pleased to see the proposals for review and reporting, although I am sure that in Committee the House will test the Minister on the extent of the review and reporting procedures. Perhaps in winding up the Minister could give us a little more of a feel for the identity of the likely reviewer. How do we strike the right balance between a reviewer who is experienced and one who is independent? Is it the Treasury’s current proposal that an existing reviewer should perform that function, or that this presents an opportunity for the Government to bring a fresh view to this task?
The key issue in looking at the Bill has to do with the term “reasonable suspicion”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about that both in February and today, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, from the Cross Benches. I have reflected long and hard on our discussion of the temporary Bill on this point. I was much taken by the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, which were recited by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, both in the debate on the temporary Bill and today. They are so powerful that I will repeat them as well:
“To suspect something to be so is by no means to believe it to be so. It is to believe only that it may be so”.
As I think more about this, I find myself asking whether there is a better form of words that we should be using here, notwithstanding that I was party to a Government who persuaded the House to support the use of the term “reasonable suspicion” in the temporary Bill. The powers granted to HMT officials are very broad, very pervasive and have enormous consequences. I am not sure that reasonable suspicion is a sufficient test. The Minister will need to satisfy the House—perhaps today, definitely in Committee—that it is not better to use the word “believe”. The Government and the Minister will have to persuade the House that we would wish to grant these powers if the Government could not say that they believed that there was terrorist activity at hand or in prospect.
I am also persuaded that we need to look carefully at the limitations of judicial review in providing protection for those who find themselves in receipt of an order in respect of this Bill. I welcome the Home Office review of counterterrorism powers but I share with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Patten, a view that perhaps the time has come to merge and consolidate. Indeed, in the only political comment in the Minister’s opening remarks, he referred to a lack of coherence and co-ordination in the previous Government’s approach to terrorism. The defence there must be that the situation with terrorism has evolved so radically over the past 10 years that we constantly found ourselves—
Lord Patten
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but he used my name. When the record is published tomorrow, I think we will see that I said the time was not right for consolidation, and that we should press ahead. I remember that my noble friend Lord Sassoon indicated assent from the Front Bench. Rather than seeking to consolidate now, at a later date it may be entirely suitable to have that certainty to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I definitely did not say, “This is the Bill, now is the time, get on with it”.
Lord Myners
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me. He is, of course, absolutely correct. However, the sentiment that there is a patchwork of regulation and legislation is an entirely reasonable one to express. There is considerable merit in pulling all this together in a single piece of legislation at some point. However, if I take myself back to where I was before I accepted the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, I still argue that this situation will continue to evolve. We may never reach a steady state where we can put in place a single piece of comprehensive legislation which will cope with all possible contingencies and developments, including cyber crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned, or piracy, as my noble friend mentioned.
I hope that we will not see any reduction in the availability of legal aid to those who find themselves having to defend an action taken under either the temporary Act or the new Bill. I would welcome an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, that there is no intention to reduce the legal aid available to those entitled to it in securing advice and pursuing their right to challenge actions taken under the temporary Act or this Bill.
I am sure that the general sentiment and thrust of the Bill will receive the warm support of the House. However, as they say, the devil is in the detail and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, said, the House will no doubt wish to pursue a number of issues in Committee.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, to the House. Their speeches were very fine indeed and we look forward to hearing from them as we progress through the Bill.
I am not in any way expert in the minutiae of financial services. My area of interest in the Bill arises from my membership of the Constitution Committee and from my engagement with previous security and counterterrorism legislation in this House and beyond. Let me therefore flag up straight away that indeed we need vigorous measures to deny terrorists the finance that they need to carry out their aims. I therefore look forward to working constructively with the Minister on measures which, however, might impinge on the civil liberties of UK citizens, as well as further complicate rather than simplify the range of counterterrorism measures on the statute book.
Before I detail my concerns, I shall say a word or two about the genesis of the Bill. We are told that its measures lie in our obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. That was a response within 17 days of the al-Qaeda attacks of 11 September 2001 to the use of international terrorism as a threat to international peace and security, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, reminded us. The resolution was legally binding and imposed on member states a requirement to put in place the necessary architecture to respond to the resolution within 90 days. Given the political climate of the time and, indeed, the wide-ranging ambit of the resolution, it was not unsurprising that UK legislation was drafted in haste. That, and further iterations of it, have now been struck down, and we find ourselves in a position whereby we have to have something on the statute book by December, as the Minister urged.
Nevertheless, the timing of the Second Reading is strange. As many other noble Lords have commented, an urgent review of counterterrorism and security powers is currently being undertaken by the Home Office. I welcome the Minister’s reiteration of the Home Secretary’s assurance that the recommendations of the review will be taken on board, but I for one would have preferred a Bill after the review had taken place to incorporate its recommendations.
In its report, the Constitution Committee takes up the issue of the scope of the Bill, which is only partial, in that its coverage of terrorist asset freezing is intertwined with the provisions of UNSCR 1267. We made the point that having separate statutory regimes for terrorist asset freezing makes the law unnecessarily complex and has not been the subject of adequate parliamentary scrutiny. We may find ourselves in a few months with at least four different pieces of legislation to cover this area and, while I heard my noble friend’s opening remarks, I am not sure that I can see why Resolutions 1373 and 1267 could not have been consolidated.
Let me turn to the reasonable suspicion test in Clause 2. As several other noble Lords have commented, both previous substantive Acts—the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008—used the test of reasonable belief. The Treasury argues that this is there to comply with UNSCR 1373. I should declare to the House that I was the officer at the Commonwealth Secretariat in 2001 who was responsible for the Commonwealth ministerial Committee on Terrorism. This group was charged with the Commonwealth-wide implementation of UNSCR 1373. It was not taken by the several Commonwealth countries represented on that committee, all of which have to conform to similar judicial practice to the UK, that Resolution 1373 imposed a threshold as low as reasonable suspicion. Indeed, I do not recall that the UK delegation, which I think was led by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, wished that to be the case in any form whatever.
I accept that there is a requirement for a preventive regime in Resolution 1373. It is clearly evident in clause 1(a) of the resolution, which requires all states to:
“Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts”.
So I accept that the Bill should have a preventive element in it. The reasonable suspicion test, however, is not the sole means by which we could be compliant with the preventive aspects of Resolution 1373. The Treasury, in its response to consultation published earlier this month, argues that there is a further reason for this test—to meet the UK's national security needs. At paragraph 3.7 on page 9 we are told:
“The Government believes that, to be consistent with UNSCR 1373 … and to meet the UK’s national security needs, the asset freezing regime should be preventative in nature … The Government believes that the ability to act on reasonable suspicion is an appropriate standard”.
I argue that the overall national security threat is best dealt with by the National Security Council and the Home Office, while the Treasury should take a more narrow and technical purview and deal solely with terrorist assets rather than with catch-all phrases under the rubric of national security.
When it comes to EU legislation, we have a long history of gold-plating directives to make them vehicles for a lot of other things that we would like. I caution against doing so with counterterrorism legislation. The Treasury argues that the scale and severity of the threat facing the UK is such that it needs in its toolkit a more robust regime than other countries. I suggest to the Minister that his department might concern itself with the narrow approach to asset freezing that I have suggested and leave the bigger questions to colleagues in the Home Office. It is known for its zeal in bringing forth a deluge of legislation on national security, and I am sure that it will continue to keep a vigilant eye on these matters.
In order that we might be convinced of the scale of the threat, will my noble friend tell us how many people are designated and what is the sum of their assets? Implementation of the UNSCR is an obligation on all UN members, and the Treasury might do well to look abroad for good practice, as we in United Kingdom are not unique. I understand that New Zealand has preventive provisions through an interim order that lasts 30 days and is based on the test of reasonable suspicion, and after 30 days requires the Prime Minister to exercise the test of reasonable belief. That could point to the way in which we might proceed.
I turn to the process issues in the Bill. Clause 22 provides for judicial review. In paragraph 24 of its report, the Constitution Committee states that the court would make a determination not as to whether designation is necessary, but merely whether the Treasury’s decision was reasonable. Clearly, this would be inadequate if a person was unreasonably designated. There are further issues of disclosure and closed evidence that call into question the overall fairness of the role of special advocates. I should declare that I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights when it looked into those matters. I am sure that we will probe all these issues in Committee.
In conclusion, I remind the Minister of the words of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 13 July on the Home Office review. She said:
“The review will enable this Government to put right the failures of the last Government and, in so doing, restore the ancient civil liberties that should be synonymous with the name of our country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/10; col. 798.]
I hope that during the passage of the Bill we will bear in mind those words.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I welcome the Bill as there is a general consensus that greater measures are needed to assist in the fight against global terrorism. Terrorism is one of the greatest threats that we face in the 21st century. This legislation will make an important contribution to our national security by helping to ensure that funds are not used to perpetrate terrorist activities. I also welcome the Government’s strategic defence and security review, as stated in the coalition agreement. We have a duty to our citizens and Armed Forces to shoulder the collective task of formulating a robust security strategy for an increasingly dangerous world. I am confident that this legislation will contribute to achieving this goal.
In overcoming the threat of terrorism, we need clear understanding and constant vigilance. I congratulate the Government on the recent announcement of a successful conclusion to negotiations between the European Union and the United States Treasury on the exchange of information on terrorist finance tracking. One part of frustrating the evil intentions of those who inflict terrorism across the world is to starve them of resources—and this lies at the core of the Bill.
It is timely that we should be considering our approach to the terrorist threat just a few weeks after the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 suicide bombing attacks in London, which resulted in the deaths of 52 people. Thankfully, there has been no other major successful terrorist assault in this country since that day. That has not been because the threat has dissipated, and we should not allow complacency to creep into our considerations.
We should not allow a debate to take place on terrorism—and counterterrorism—without spending a moment reflecting on some of the issues that cause terrorism: alienation, grievance, demonisation, a sense of injustice, whether real or perceived, exclusion and political issues. We cannot expect to overcome the terrorist threat without acknowledging the role that these factors play in motivating the disaffected to move towards violence and terrorist atrocities. We need to examine and find remedies relating to the root causes of extremism and terrorism. Community cohesion and counterterrorism are not the same thing and they should not be confused. They are complementary and there are links. We must therefore regard the two issues in the appropriate manner.
Similarly, we need to recognise that the threat from terrorists arises from a multitude of different areas and groups. Those who are radicalised with terrorist sympathies are not restricted to one particular group, religion or region. At this stage, I should like to follow up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, said and make the point that nearly all Muslims are law-abiding and good citizens who are against any form of extremism and terrorism. However, I appreciate that there is a problem with a tiny minority of people who do not follow the true principles of Islam. Islam forbids any form of suicide bombing. It is, indeed, a religion of peace. For example, when we greet each other, we say “As salaam alaikum”, which means “The peace of God be upon you”. As a Peer, I have a coat of arms, and on it I have two doves because I want to give the message that Islam is indeed a religion of peace.
Clause 1 of the Bill defines individuals who have been labelled “designated persons” by the Treasury. This clause is also of extreme importance in ensuring that we fulfil our obligations in implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373. This provision ensures that asset-freezing measures are applied to groups and individuals who engage in or financially support terrorist activities.
Designated persons can be defined only by competent authorities. However, I feel it is important that all competent authorities in United Nations member states act in harmony to make sure that the necessary procedures are followed to combat terrorism on a global basis. It is important to achieve a degree of consistency in tackling cross-border terrorism. I should be grateful if the Minister could advise your Lordships’ House whether bodies in addition to the Treasury will gain status as competent authorities in the near future for the purposes of this legislation.
Clause 2 covers the Treasury’s power to designate persons. This includes instances when the Treasury has reasonable grounds to suspect an individual or group of engaging in terrorist activities. I am concerned by this requirement, as Resolution 1373 expressly states that the assets of those who commit, or attempt to commit, acts of terrorism should be frozen. The resolution does not extend to those whom competent authorities suspect of terrorist activity. Therefore, the burden of proof is not satisfied under this clause.
Furthermore, we must be mindful that whatever we enact could not be construed as a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that all individuals are entitled to respect for their family and private life in accordance with the law.
Our criminal justice system is based on the principle that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Any attempt to interfere with this principle would be to the detriment of our society. Even if a person is proven innocent, there may be a possibility that the person will be branded a terrorist. This could be damaging to a person’s future prospects. Is there any scope for awarding compensation to those who have had their assets frozen prior to acquittal?
Clause 4 states that a designation issued by the Treasury expires within one year unless renewed. The clause gives the Treasury authority to renew a designation at any time before it expires if there are reasonable grounds for doing so. I fear that this clause may encounter the same difficulties as Clause 2. The clause states that a designation may be renewed more than once. However, there is no specification as to how many times a designation can be renewed. I would welcome greater clarification as to the powers of the Treasury concerning the duration. If these powers are wrongly used by those in authority, it could have long-lasting and devastating consequences for individuals and the integrity of this department.
Clause 20 makes reference to the need for co-operation with internal and international investigations. I strongly support this clause; it is in our best interests to work with our European and wider partners to achieve this aim. Foreign policy and national security are intertwined and should be treated as such.
The success of our foreign policy will work to promote our national interests and security both at home and abroad. The question of national security covers a multitude of areas, which is why a narrow approach to this issue has a limited chance of success. Co-operation with our neighbours in the European Union, our partners in the Commonwealth, transatlantic allies and other international organisations is vital to ensuring that we successfully combat terrorism. This threat is not just limited to one continent and therefore requires a multilateral solution. Counterterrorism is dependent on international co-operation, and a vigilance to identify the emerging and constantly altering threats to our security.
I welcome Clauses 33 and 34 as they clearly define the meaning of “funds”, “economic resources” and “financial services”. These are key terms for the purposes of the prohibition stated in Clauses 8 and 9. These two clauses make it an offence for funds and financial services to be made available to designated persons.
At this stage, I would like to declare an interest as I am the chairman of an organisation which provides insurances and financial services. I feel that companies which offer financial services as stated in this clause should be given the appropriate assistance in understanding the requirements of this legislation.
I would be grateful if the Minister could inform your Lordships’ House as to whether any guidance and information will be made available to companies which provide financial services. I wholeheartedly endorse the principles that these measures are seeking to embody in law. We need to maintain our defences and be vigilant in tackling the threat posed by terrorism. We should be robust in seeking to prevent those who cause actual terrorism drawing on the resources that they need to inflict the injury of their design.
I am, however, of the opinion that we must ensure that the provisions of the Bill do not compromise the human rights of law-abiding citizens. This country has a proud history of promoting democratic values around the world and in our local communities. Although we are in a heightened state of security in terms of domestic and external threats, legislation must not be allowed to compromise our civil liberties. It is important to strike a balance to ensure that no ethnic or social group feels as though it is the constant target of discrimination. We must co-operate internationally and focus on marginalising those who idolise or endorse terrorism. We are bound to ensure that we approach the matter in a proportionate, measured and effective manner. It is only through detailed scrutiny that this House can content itself that the Bill meets those tests.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for long. The Bill deals with terrorist asset freezing by the Executive, with the supervision of the exercise of powers by the Executive by review decisions of the court in Clauses 22 and 23 and an independent reviewer of the operation of Part 1 under Clause 25. I am intrigued. Clause 25(5) states:
“The Treasury may pay the expenses of a person who conducts a review under this section and also such allowances as the Treasury determine”.
Is that meant to be pro bono? Who will pay for that independent work if it falls under the Bill?
I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, on appeals. The question of whether the assets are too big or small should not be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide; a lower court could probably deal with it.
My main reason for speaking is to support the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Myners, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Hamwee, on what the Bill seems to suggest is the bar in law. “Reasonable grounds to suspect” is far too low. You may not believe it, but you could stop and search only if there were reasonable grounds to suspect. I have been a victim of stop and search eight times on reasonable grounds. I have been stopped; I have been searched. When the policeman suddenly realises that a middle-aged bishop is unlikely to be committing some crime, that has not stopped me being stopped and searched. “Reasonable grounds to suspect” is far too low. All you need to think is: “He does not look like one of us. He surely must be a suspect”. His assets are frozen and it takes a long time before the appeal and review take place. In that time, that person may have been in a very difficult place.
If people’s assets are to be seized and an independent person is to review it, I should have thought that judicial review would be automatic. Otherwise, you have no money, your assets have gone and it is not easy. Again, I am not happy with this very low bar. There should be a prime facie case before a reasonable tribunal can seize your assets. If that is not the case, we are going the wrong way.
I have just been reading the book written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, The Rule of Law, where he translates for many of us bits of the Magna Carta. Paragraph 39 reads:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land”.
If it is not his equals who are doing it, then the law of the land has to be quite clear about what it is doing. Listen to clause 4 of Magna Carta:
“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice”.
He says that these words should be written above the Ministry of Justice because they are far more powerful than the rather mealy-mouthed words that are there at the moment.
Terrorism is a heinous crime. I do not believe that law alone will deal with it, but when you are taken before a court in this country and people are about to seize your assets, you should know that it is being done justly and not simply on reasonable grounds to suspect. The other thing is that, because terrorism is a crime, surely those who are intending to participate in it should be seen as criminals, so the standard needs to be raised and not just simply ignored. If we see to that, we will not run into trouble.
I finish by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on their wonderful maiden speeches. I was more controversial than they were when I made my maiden speech because it was on the Queen’s Speech, so I could afford to do it. However, I congratulate them and thank them for enlivening our House. I look forward to greater participation in the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to open my speech by offering congratulations on the maiden speeches by Members of my Benches. My noble friend Lady Hughes chose to speak early after her introduction in the House in a debate on an area on which she has considerable expertise. How blessed she is that the opportunity fell to her, but how well she discharged her responsibility and how much we appreciate the fact that she emphasised that all law has to be put in the context of the community that it is there to serve and regulate. She identified a context in which we also safeguard ourselves by the actions that we take in relation to the communities that we serve, as well as by the laws that we enact.
My noble friend Lord Davies threatens to make the name Davies the largest patronymic in the House—that is not something that I could have said before the 1958 Act with regard to life Peers. I welcome him and the great expertise and achievements that he will bring as talents to this House in a range of debates. He quite characteristically did today what I am sure we will enjoy in future: he added a dimension to the debate that might not have been entirely anticipated. I am not sure how the Minister is going to react to the issue of piracy and how it relates to terrorism, but I am certain that what my noble friend identified is a grievance that we all feel with regard to international law and the safeguarding of all who travel on the seas at present. I am grateful to my noble friend for already giving us a flash of the range of inspiration that I know he will bring to subsequent contributions to the House. I am grateful, and quite sure, that both noble Lords will be making their speeches in future with that degree of regularity that we all hope for from those who have a lot to offer.
The Minister engages my sympathy to a degree. After all, only yesterday he was engaged in a major debate on the Finance Bill. It was large enough for him to feel that he ought to break almost all records for a summing-up speech. I hope that we have not presented quite that challenge to him today. Nevertheless, the very late arrival in the list—in fact, in the gap—of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York added force on those issues that I know the Minister recognises as critical, which we are all anxious about with regard to this legislation. All I can say to the Minister is that he will have quite an energetic time in Committee. He must hope that the several weeks’ break before we engage in the Committee will enable him to meet the challenges raised today.
Those challenges have come from all sides and rest largely on the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was the first to identify. Since he is a member of the Constitution Committee, it is not surprising that he would identify its key anxieties about the legislation, with his dire warnings of the extent to which he might engage with these issues in Committee—as if we ever doubted that they would be discussed thoroughly there.
The important thing about this legislation is that it was somewhat rushed into being following the previous, unsatisfactory position, with the orders being struck out by the Supreme Court. Hurried legislation had to be introduced. My noble friend Lord Myners played his full part in that. I noted in his speech an element of reservation about where we are now. An advantage of being in opposition is perhaps that it gives a little freedom from the constraints of responsibility that affect the Treasury Bench, but my noble friend is nothing except honest in wrestling with these issues.
Nevertheless, the Opposition will need some persuading by those who are advocating significant amendment to the Bill before we subscribe to it. Of course, I recognise the great concern felt about civil liberties and the exercise of the rule of law—it has been expressed with great passion by almost every contributor to this debate—and we all share those anxieties. However, there is also the necessity for our society to defend itself. I understand entirely why the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated anxiety about reasonable suspicion being the test. The most reverend Primate also indicated from a strong moral base his acute anxiety.
However, an element of this legislation makes it a little different from all other criminal legislation. That relates to the concept of prevention as well as retribution. Governments have as a prime responsibility for the safety of the citizen. That is why the arguments over the great evolution of the law and the developing democracy of the United Kingdom that obtained in the 19th and 20th centuries took a savage turn for the worse as a result of the real problems that terrorism presented for the community. That is why Governments have to act in haste. The necessity of the defence of the citizen is also why the basis of the legislation on which they work may come closer to infringing civil liberties.
If we did not have this debate in this House, our democracy would be all the poorer and I have no doubt that, when the Bill gets to the other end, the other place will benefit enormously from the extent to which we have explored these issues. However, we as the Opposition are concerned about changes to the legislation, although we obviously appreciate that the present Administration are faced with legislation that has a terminal date and must be replaced by this Bill.
I hear on all sides the other great concept—that of getting this issue into a consolidated measure, which would make it so much clearer and more effective in the courts. However, consolidation is no easy matter. The Administration must perforce get this legislation on to the statute book in a limited period because of the sunset clause that was quite properly applied to the legislation that pertains at present.
I say to all noble Lords who have spoken so strongly and so passionately in this important debate that I hope that the Minister will be able to give solace to those who have expressed anxieties. I also hope that the review will be productive enough, and early enough, to inform our Committee proceedings, as that would certainly help us in those proceedings. However, I do not hold out too much hope on the issues of cardinal principle that are contained in this legislation. At present, the Opposition see no difference between the way in which this Government should act and the way in which we acted to protect our citizens when we enjoyed power.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions, which have made for a stimulating and interesting debate and have played an essential role in providing full and proper scrutiny as we embark on this legislation. I am particularly grateful for the support from the Opposition Front Bench.
I opened this debate by observing that this month marks the five-year anniversary of the London bombings. I believe the whole House will agree with me that we must continue to guard against the threat to the UK from international terrorism. Importantly, a number of contributions this afternoon put this whole debate into context. We were reminded of the local and community context by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, in her very welcome maiden speech; my noble friend Lord Sheikh also addressed this. At the other end of the scale, we were reminded of some of the global contexts, again in a striking maiden speech, by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, who referred not least to piracy. My noble friend Lord Patten not only put the debate into its proper global context but even took us into the realm of cybercrime. This context is very relevant and points to the challenges posed by terrorist activity.
In this context, the Government have inherited an asset-freezing regime that is an essential part of the UK’s counterterrorism toolkit but which has not been grounded on a secure legislative footing, an asset-freezing regime which the UK is required to have as part of its international obligations but which exists only under temporary legislation. The debate today has taken us a step closer to resolving this undesirable situation.
The Government have rightly prioritised national security and public protection, and through this Bill we will ensure that suspected terrorist funds cannot be diverted and used for terrorist purposes. This will help to ensure that the UK financial system cannot be abused by would-be terrorists. But this Government are progressive and so is this Bill. It reasonably balances the requirements of national security with protecting civil liberties. It puts safeguards that did not exist under the 2006 order on a permanent and secure footing, and introduces additional mechanisms to assist Parliament in effectively monitoring the asset-freezing regime.
None the less, we have today debated the merits of this legislation and I will now turn to some of the major points raised. I am reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that I might have tested the patience of some Members of your Lordships’ House last night in trying to respond to all the points in a long debate. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not address every point this evening, but I will write later on points which have not otherwise been addressed.
My noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine asked about the number of people and the amount of money that was frozen. I mentioned it at the beginning, but I will mention it again. We are referring to only 26 people and only £150,000, but we have to remember that not only were some of those 26 people involved in such planned outrages as the 21 July Tube plot, the Glasgow airport bombs and so on, but that the amounts of money that can do so much damage can be very small. The estimates suggest that the 7 July London Tube bombings cost only £8,000.
Another part of the Bill which has been much discussed is the Home Office review. I will only repeat what I have said before in answer to points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The Treasury is working closely and co-ordinating with the Home Office review. The Home Secretary has said that the review will be reported to Parliament after the Summer Recess, which, for the other place, ends rather earlier than ours. I repeat what I said before: it would be appropriate to introduce any government amendments, if we consider them to be appropriate, in Committee.
A number of different questions and comments were raised about consolidation of the legislation into a single Bill, and whether it is counterterrorist legislation or asset-freezing legislation, by my noble friends Lord Patten, Lady Falkner of Margravine and Lady Hamwee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Myners and Lord Davies of Stamford. At the outset I said that of course there is merit in consolidation, but producing consolidated legislation would be a very significant task. There was reference to eight months having passed since February. It has not been that long since the new Government took office and it would not be a simple matter to put together consolidated legislation. Our priority has to be to get the current legislation in place with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny before 31 December.
I turn now to some of the substantive concerns about the legal tests in the Bill. Understandably, there has been a lot of discussion about the reasonable suspicion test. Questions were raised again by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Myners, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in particular. I and the Government very much recognise the concerns that have been expressed, but I have explained and would reiterate the operational benefits of using suspicion to allow early action. But this is a topic that we will consider alongside the Home Office review.
Since there have been quotations from Justices of the Supreme Court, perhaps I may read out something else that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, said to this point—that,
“it may well be that, in a significant number of cases, because of its variable quality and fragmentary nature, the available information does not permit the Treasury to go further than to say that they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person concerned is committing or facilitating terrorist acts. If so, then it may be better to base designation on reasonable grounds for suspicion rather than on some higher standard which could not be readily achieved and which, if applied faithfully, would mean that the Treasury failed to freeze a significant number of assets which were actually under the control of people who committed … terrorist acts”.
This is by no means an easy matter, even for the courts.
A related question was asked by my noble friend Lord Sheikh about decisions breaching or not breaching Article 8—the right to respect for private life. I can assure him that the Treasury considers interference with human rights when deciding to make a direction, and that directions are made only when necessary for public protection. When deciding what is necessary, of course the Treasury carefully balances individual rights against public safety.
A number of questions were put about appeals processes and the question of judicial review. Points were made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We seek to avoid being in a position where there is a need to challenge Treasury licensing decisions. We seek to take a fair and proportionate approach so that challenges are avoided, but if there is a need to challenge, we think that judicial review is the right course. The process can be expedited if the court thinks that there is a need to consider licensing decisions quickly, and indeed the Constitution Committee recognised that the judicial review process is a meaningful scrutiny process. But, again, we recognise that this is an issue to be examined further alongside the Home Office review.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York asked whether judicial review should be automatic. Most UK asset freezes are made at the same time as criminal arrest and charge, so I believe that automatic judicial review would be unnecessary when many people are subject to prosecution for terrorist offences. However, I will take the matter away and think about it further. Another related point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, on the question of whether the court should have access to information considered by the Minister. We expect the court to take a robust approach to any judicial review, examining the evidence on which a decision is made. This would include consideration of closed material so that the court would see all the information seen by the Minister if it wanted to do so. Again, of course, the Treasury in this context always seeks to comply with Article 6 of the ECHR.
The noble Lord, Lord Myners, asked about the availability of legal aid. I remind him that the Treasury has issued a general licence to ensure that, where people are entitled to legal aid, the asset-freezing regime does not prevent them accessing it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, asked a question about innocent people getting off the list. In that context, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, was referring to the AQ regime, where the UN has a list of designated persons. The AQ regime is not part of this Bill and I am not sure whether I need to address that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, asked what would happen if someone was the subject of a wrongful freezing order. If a person’s asset freeze is quashed, that person can start an action for damages, including for breach of contract and under the Human Rights Act. We invite designated persons to make representations to the Treasury on their asset freeze to enable them to challenge evidence that the Treasury has used.
I am looking nervously at the clock but we may get through the points.
My noble friend Lord Patten referred to the importance of tackling the evolving nature of terrorist finance and questioned the poor performance of SOCA. I welcome his important contribution in recognising the evolving threat of terrorist finance and organised crime. The Government are committed to tackling these threats robustly and are already taking steps to do so. That is exactly what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s announcement on 6 July on proposals to establish a new national crime agency seeks to do.
As I said in opening, the financial services sector is very much in the front line. My noble friend Lord Sheikh asked about the guidance that is given to companies providing financial services. I reiterate that we recognise the crucial role that the financial sector plays in implementing asset freezing. The Treasury works closely with the financial sector to provide advice on implementation issues and, in that context, we welcome the input of the British Bankers’ Association to our recent public consultation.
There were a number of questions about the role of the independent reviewer as proposed in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, asked about the cost in relation to the impact assessment, as did the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, asked about identity and commented on the need for an independent reviewer. The independent reviewer will be reimbursed but I cannot put a figure on it at this stage. In the current fiscal climate it will certainly not be a significant sum in relation to the totality of the impact of the legislation. We shall not appoint a reviewer until the legislation has been passed but, when we do, we will want someone who will be an effective and credible reviewer and who will take an independent stance.
There were a couple of questions on procedural matters, if I may put it that way. My noble friend Lord Patten asked whether the Bill will be extended quickly to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Yes, it will. We are already discussing this with the overseas territories and the dependent territories and we shall seek to ensure that they are covered either by an order made under the Bill or through their own legislation.
This brings me to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—I do not know whether it is the most important point of the day—about the mystery of the word “etc.” appearing in the title of the Bill. That was something that I questioned when the Bill was first presented to me, but I assure the noble Lord that there is nothing behind this, other than that it was added to reflect the amendments to the Counter-Terrorism Act in Part 2 of the Bill. That is why “etc.” needed to be put in the Title. There is absolutely no intention of widening the Bill to include any wider conclusions from the Home Office review or anything. I am sorry to prick that sense of mystery.
Lord Myners
Before the Minister concludes—and noting the arrival of the Chief Whip to provide necessary protection in keeping him within his time limit—I should say that he has given us an excellent summing up of the debate. It has been one of the best that I have heard, and I congratulate him on it. He very kindly referred to my question on legal aid. In fact, I asked him to assure us that there will be no cuts in the legal aid budget and the legal facilities available through legal aid to those who find themselves the target of this legislation, because they are in such a delicate and exposed position that they have every right to be able to secure the very best legal protection.
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is doing his best to get me over the 20 minutes. I shall write to him. I shall now conclude, because I am equally nervous about the Chief Whip being here.
This Bill takes the necessary steps to prevent the raising and use of funds for terrorist purposes. I believe that it continues to improve the protection of individual civil liberties in doing that.