House of Commons

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 13 October 2010

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

business before questions

committee of selection

Ordered,

That Helen Jones, Mr Frank Roy and Mr John Spellar be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr Alan Campbell, Mark Tami and David Wright be added.—(Mr Randall.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to increase the transparency of arrangements for distribution of overseas aid.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

The new UK aid transparency guarantee will deliver a step change in the transparency of British aid. Under the guarantee, we will publish full and detailed information on our projects and policies, strengthen accessibility and feedback, and press international partners to follow our lead.

[Andrew Selous]

Hard-pressed British taxpayers will be pleased to have heard what my right hon. Friend has said, but could he tell us how transparency will be assured for the fairly large part of the British aid budget that is spent through the United Nations, the World Bank and international development charities?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is right about this, because there are some 44 international and multilateral aid agencies through which we spend British taxpayers’ money. All of them are being looked at under the multilateral aid review, which we set up immediately after this Government took office. The review will report by the end of January next year and we will decide upon our spending allocations in accordance with the results that we are achieving, which will be examined by that review.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Given the positive response to the annual report arising from the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to ensure that the report goes directly to Parliament and that we have an annual debate on the Floor of this House?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman has some credit for having masterminded and pioneered the Bill that became that Act through the House of Commons. He is right to underline the importance of the transparency that the Act ushered in and the importance of the House of Commons being able to discuss it, with Ministers being accountable to this House for that. So I can assure him that, through the usual channels, I will underline the point that he has made.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

The Select Committee on International Development warmly welcomes the Secretary of State’s initiatives to make aid more transparent, and will co-operate with him and with Parliament to ensure that we give effective voice to that. Does he acknowledge that there are some concerns that ensuring that everything is transparent means that we might sacrifice longer-term, less measurable outcomes for shorter-term ones? Can he assure me and the Committee that that compromise will not undermine the effectiveness of British aid?

[Mr Mitchell]

As the Chairman of the Select Committee rightly says, transparency is about accountability not only to our own taxpayers in Britain, but for the people whom we are trying to help in the poor world; it is about enabling them to hold their own leaders to account. On the nature of evaluation, to which his question also referred, it is important that this should be about not only value for money and the accountancy-driven approach to that, but development expertise. As he says, a lot of development is very long-tailed, so we need to meld both those two streams of expertise together to achieve the right results.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for yesterday’s written statement on the UN millennium development goals summit, which highlighted the decision to record all the commitments made. Making sure that everyone can see and track the progress towards the MDGs is vital, because international effort is simply not enough right now. Those goals can be met, with the international will to do so. Following the summit, can he tell the House what further steps he and his Government colleagues will be taking to increase momentum?

[Mr Mitchell]

May I welcome the right hon. and learned Lady to her new position? I think I hold the record for having shadowed this portfolio for the longest time—five years—and I wish her every success in beating my record. The whole House knows of her passion for gender equality and I am sure that we will work well together on that. We put girls and women at the heart of development, and I look forward to progressing that policy with her. Frankly, we are delighted that someone so senior on the Labour Benches is now shadowing this portfolio.

As she said, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has set in train work to bring together all the commitments that were made by different countries at the summit. ECOSOC—the Economic and Social Council—which is the relevant body of the UN, will be monitoring this on an annual basis and we will ensure that other countries that have made commitments stand up for those commitments and fulfil them, just as Britain must fulfil its commitments.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

2. What mechanisms are in place to monitor value for money derived from overseas aid; and if he will make a statement.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

10. What mechanisms are in place to monitor the value for money derived from overseas aid; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

We are moving from a focus on inputs to a focus on outputs and outcomes—the results our money actually achieves. We will gain maximum value for money for every pound we spend through greater transparency, rigorous independent evaluation and an unremitting focus on results.

[Joseph Johnson]

Will the Secretary of State say what assessment he has made of value for money from the more than £2 billion that the Department has given to the International Development Association over the three years ending June 2011, indicating whether he intends to match past commitments in the next funding period—that is, the 16th replenishment of the IDA?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the next replenishment of the World Bank IDA funds. As I mentioned in answer to the last question, the multilateral aid review will be the body that looks at value for money. At the last replenishment—IDA15—as anyone who follows these things closely knows, Britain was the biggest contributor and that contribution was £2 billion. What I what from the next replenishment is for people to know to what extent we are getting clean water, sanitation, basic education and health care to the people at the end of the track, who do not have them in our world today.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Value for money is, of course, crucial, but there is another issue, which is getting the money to the front line once it has been allocated. Will my right hon. Friend explain what steps he will be taking to ensure that money gets to the front line, unlike in Haiti where, I gather, the vast bulk of aid that has been allocated has yet to reach the areas where it is needed most?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the effectiveness of emergency relief. There are undoubtedly lessons for us all to learn from what happened in Haiti. That is why I have set up an emergency review of the way in which Britain does emergency relief, which is being chaired by Lord Ashdown. That review will focus on all aspects of how Britain does relief and how we co-ordinated with the UN cluster system, and it will focus particularly on the importance of the immediacy of that relief, getting shelter, food and medicine through to people in such desperate circumstances.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

How much money is spent on external consultants to monitor the effectiveness of British aid?

[Mr Mitchell]

Monitoring the effectiveness of British aid in the future will, at least in part, be done by external evaluation in the independent evaluation agency that we have set up. To some extent, evaluation should be built into all projects and into all the work that we are doing, and we are trying to ensure that that happens in the future.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Given the success of the global development engagement fund, what steps will the Secretary of State take to reinstate that fund to ensure that the good work done in schools and communities throughout Britain and Northern Ireland can be continued?

[Mr Mitchell]

We are reviewing the way in which such development awareness work is done. I am looking specifically at trying to ensure that global citizenship is enshrined in the work that schools do. In general, however, I do not think that British taxpayers’ hard-earned money meant for development should be spent in the UK. It should be spent helping the poorest in the world—those whom it is the intention of the House that we should be assisting.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to improve arrangements for monitoring the effectiveness of the delivery of overseas aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)]

What really matters for the world’s poorest is the development results they see on the ground. It is our duty to spend every pound of aid effectively. We will set out expected results for everything we do and monitor them carefully, working with our partners.

[Guy Opperman]

Following the Paris declaration and the subsequent decisions made in Accra in 2008, will the Secretary of State update us on the ability to harmonise the way forward for such donors’ work, rather than being in a position in which that is not complementary, or involves cooking the books?

[Mr O'Brien]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The commitments in the Paris declaration are based on the lessons learned in relation to improving the impact of aid, including having more focus on results while supporting partner countries’ priorities, not least co-ordinating how various multilateral and bilateral donors come together. When I was in Uganda recently I was heartened to see our DFID office taking a leadership role in bringing multilateral donors together as part of the commitment following the Paris declaration and the Accra agenda thereafter.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Let me strongly endorse what the Secretary of State said at his party conference. He said that we have a

“duty to bring an end to the injustice of millions of children dying every year from drinking dirty water.”

Will he reassure the House that he will reject the recent option presented to him by his Department to drop the vital commitments to help 25 million people to gain access to water and sanitation in Africa over the next five years and to help 30 million people in south Asia by 2011? Will he reassure the House that that commitment still stands?

[Mr O'Brien]

First, may I take this opportunity warmly to welcome the hon. Lady to her new post and to congratulate her on it? I look forward to the numerous exchanges that we shall have in the House. She will be aware that we are reviewing all programmes, be they bilateral or multilateral. As we are focusing so much more on outcomes rather than inputs, I think that she can look forward positively to the likely result of the review, particularly in relation to water and sanitation. She is right that they are crucial, and I dare say that during the recent conference season, she, as much as I, was engaged with a number of those making representations to ensure that that emphasis is reflected in programmes as they come through the review of bilateral and multilateral aid.

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

4. What steps he is taking to ensure that people in Gaza receive the humanitarian aid allocated by his Department.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

The humanitarian aid we provided to Gaza following Israel’s Operation Cast Lead was disbursed through United Nations agencies and reputable non-governmental organisations with a proven track record of delivery. DFID officials regularly visit Gaza to monitor projects and we will carry out a formal assessment of what those projects have achieved early next year.

[Stephen Phillips]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The whole House is aware of the plight of the people of Gaza, who have effectively been imprisoned in their country by successive Israeli Governments in breach of United Nations resolutions. For that reason, aid is particularly important to the people in Gaza, but at the turn of the year we learned from the head of the United States mission to the United Nations that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency will be underfunded this year to the tune of $140 million. We are paying our share and the United States is paying hers; what steps is he taking to ensure that our other partners pay theirs?

[Mr Duncan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. UNRWA is facing a serious shortfall in its funding this year: our estimate is that it is currently about $80 million. I met Filippo Grandi, the head of UNRWA in New York, two weeks ago. We are doing our best to urge people to contribute and we will do our bit as well. We hope also to talk to potential Arab donors to assist in making good the shortfall.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The very welcome increase in aid and economic activity in Gaza is due partly to the co-operation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Is Hamas jeopardising further progress?

[Mr Duncan]

The hon. Lady will know that we have no dealings with Hamas, but I am afraid that her interpretation of what is going on in Gaza is not entirely accurate. There are still very severe restrictions in the movement of goods, and we are doing our utmost to urge the Israelis to make more and simpler access possible, especially for products that are necessary for the long overdue reconstruction.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gaza blockade is currently preventing UNRWA from building eight urgently needed schools in order to teach thousands of children? Money for the schools has already been provided by international donors and the plans are there, but access to cement and steel bars is not. Will he take urgent steps to make sure that those schools can go ahead for the new school year?

[Mr Duncan]

My hon. Friend is largely correct. Although it is true that some building materials are getting through to multilateral organisations, they certainly are not getting through to private citizens—for the building of houses for example. Schools must be rebuilt, and we certainly urge the Israelis to ensure that any materials that can be used for the essential reconstruction of schools and the like can be allowed through.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of UK-Israeli co-operation on international development.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

Israel’s international development agency, Mashav, which is part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has a small programme focusing on sharing technical knowledge and humanitarian aid. Mashav operates in a number of countries, including, within the region, Jordan and Egypt, but not in the occupied Palestinian territories. The UK currently has no direct co-operation with Israel on international development. We hope that Israel, having recently become a member of the OECD, will consider joining the OECD’s development assistance committee, which verifies the validity of its aid.

[Mr McCann]

Given the Israeli President’s offer at the United Nations to share its scientific innovations to help to tackle global poverty, as well as its recent membership of the OECD, will the Government be sending a delegate to the forthcoming OECD conference in Jerusalem? If not, why not?

[Mr Duncan]

We will certainly, in the normal way, consider the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has made, and look at it very seriously indeed.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

6. How much each of the three poorest countries in receipt of aid from his Department received in such aid in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)]

In 2009-10, the Department for International Development provided £13 million of bilateral aid to Burundi, £12 million to Liberia and £109 million to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Those figures were published in “Statistics on International Development” on 7 October. I will place a copy in the House of Commons Library. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I want to hear the question from Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Hollobone]

Taxpayers in the Kettering constituency would like to know what steps my hon. Friend is taking to ensure that the poorest, most deserving countries receive most British aid, where British aid can make the biggest difference. Will he please tell them?

[Mr O'Brien]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he makes an important point, not least following the recent Institute of Development Studies report, which states that the bottom billion reside as much in middle-income countries as in low-income countries. However, the key for us, as we go through our bilateral and multilateral aid review, is to measure and to design programmes that will carry the highest impact. The poorest countries of the world are where we can make the most impact with well-designed programmes and with great transparency, monitoring and evaluation.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

If we are to meet our commitments, not just to the poorest countries but to the developing world as a whole, we must reach the 0.7% aid target by 2013. Will the Minister assure the House that he and the Secretary of State will fight to ensure that the comprehensive spending review means year-on-year progress to the 2013 target? We have asked before, but can he now tell us when the Government will introduce legislation to make the target binding?

[Mr O'Brien]

First, may I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and congratulate him on his appointment? We are committed to ensuring not only that we get to 0.7%, but that we introduce legislation as and when we have had the opportunity to finalise the work on it. He can be assured that, as we run up to the CSR announcement, he should have, I hope, something to look forward to. However, he will have to wait for the precise details at that time and during the days immediately thereafter.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Is the Minister concerned by how little of the aid that we spend through the EU goes to the poorest countries in the world, given that less than half the EU aid budget goes to lower-income countries and that some of the largest recipients of EU aid are countries that we would not normally consider poor? Could we not get more money to poorer people and poorer countries if we spent through our own Department, rather than through the EU?

[Mr O'Brien]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question, because a considerable amount of our aid budget does indeed go through the EU. However, that is as subject to the multilateral aid review as any other part of our programme. The question that he raises will be closely examined during that process. Indeed, I shall be going to meet like-minded European Ministers later today and spending time in Brussels on Friday, so I will be able to take his message directly to those who are engaged in that programme.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he had made of the effectiveness of his Department’s projects to support internally displaced people in Sri Lanka.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

DFID has no direct bilateral development programmes with Sri Lanka. However, over the past two years we have committed £13.5 million to humanitarian funding, all through the UN, the Red Cross and NGOs, to target conflict-affected civilians and displaced persons. Our humanitarian programme has been effective and made a significant difference to thousands of Sri Lankan families.

[Heidi Alexander]

As a Member with a large Tamil community in my constituency, I am repeatedly approached by my constituents who are struggling to locate loved ones displaced as a result of the conflict in Sri Lanka. What recent discussions has the Minister had with the Sri Lankan Government about these matters, and what reassurance can I give to my constituents that the UK Government are doing all they can to assist members of the Tamil diaspora in their attempts to find their friends and families?

[Mr Duncan]

We work closely with the Foreign Office, and Ministers in both Departments are speaking to the Sri Lankans about that matter. Some 270,000 displaced people were released or returned to their homes. There are now only about 30,000 remaining in camps. There is access to most of these, except where the camps contain about 7,500 former combatants.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

8. What assessment he made of the outcomes of the recent UN millennium development goals summit in New York.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

The summit in New York achieved real progress and resulted in global commitments to save 16 million women and children, reverse the spread of malaria and tackle hunger and under-nutrition. The UK’s leadership, and in particular the Government’s commitments on aid and results, was noted by all our international partners.

[Claire Perry]

My right hon. Friend mentioned malaria. I am sure he is aware that today 4,000 people in the world will die from that disease, 75% of them under the age of five. Can he please assure the House that he is putting malaria prevention and treatment at the heart of his Department’s programmes?

[Mr Mitchell]

The fight against malaria will be included in every bilateral programme where it is relevant as a part of the bilateral aid review, but I can tell my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] My comments on the fight against malaria do not usually get such a warm reaction from the House. Britain is committed to halving the number of malaria deaths in 10 African countries by 2015.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

What steps will be put in place to monitor the outcome of the summit and ensure that year on year we try to reach the targets set through the summit?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is extremely important that people should be held to their commitments. That is why the Secretary-General is pulling together all the commitments that were made at the summit, and why every year ECOSOC will make sure that we have an assessment of the extent to which those commitments have been met.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

9. What recent assessment he made of the effectiveness of projects funded by his Department in Yemen.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

I saw for myself—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that the House is in an excitable state. That is perfectly proper, but the mellifluous tones of the Minister of State deserve a better audience.

[Mr Duncan]

I saw for myself the challenges faced in Yemen and the impact of DFID’s programmes when I visited in July. I was also encouraged by the outcomes of the recent Friends of Yemen meeting in New York chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

[Graham Evans]

Given the strategic importance of Yemen in the fight against terrorism, can my right hon. Friend give me an update on his conversations with his counterparts in other nations to support Yemen?

[Mr Duncan]

The Friends of Yemen process to which I referred, chaired jointly by my right hon. Friend and by the Saudis and the Yemenis, took some important steps in confirming that they would implement an International Monetary Fund programme. There is, however, a deteriorating security situation and it is essential that we do our utmost to make sure that Yemen does not become a failed state.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s recent visit to Yemen, continuing the good work that was done by the previous Government. Will he assure us that despite recent events, including the attempted assassination of the deputy ambassador, we will continue to fund projects in that crucial middle eastern country?

[Mr Duncan]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Nothing could be more important than spending money now to stop Yemen failing, as the costs and the danger that would follow if it were to fail would be a massive multiple of anything we might do now. It is a serious priority for the Foreign Office, for my Department and for the coalition Government.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with international organisations on relief and reconstruction following the floods in Pakistan.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

The situation in Pakistan remains extremely difficult. In some areas of the country early recovery is beginning, while in other areas emergency relief is still needed, particularly in Sindh province. My Department continues to monitor the situation closely to identify and deliver aid appropriately.

[Mr Bain]

A new report by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank estimates the losses in crops, property and infrastructure caused by the floods to amount to $9.5 billion. Will the Government continue to make representations to the International Monetary Fund and to the World Bank to increase the assistance available for the reconstruction of Pakistan?

[Mr Mitchell]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the post of shadow Environment Minister. Secondly, I assure him that we will continue to lead from the front on Pakistan. In particular, in respect of food security, crops and livestock, which he mentioned, we have made a specific intervention with the recent announcement of £70 million of emergency aid for Pakistan.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 October.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan in the past few weeks. They were Sergeant Andrew Jones of the Royal Engineers and Trooper Andrew Howarth of the Queen’s Royal Lancers, who died on 18 September; Corporal Matthew Thomas from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, who died on 25 September; Rifleman Suraj Gurung from 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles, who died on 2 October; and Sergeant Peter Rayner from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, who died on 8 October. They were incredibly courageous and selfless individuals who gave their lives in the service of our country and for the safety of the British people, and we should send our deepest condolences to their families and to their loved ones.

In the weeks since the House last met, UK forces have completed the latest stage of restructuring in Helmand province. There are now more than 8,000 UK troops and 20,000 American troops there. We now protect one third of the Helmand population, and in my view that is the right proportion.

I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Brigadier Richard Felton and the troops of 4 Mechanised Brigade for their commitment and sacrifice over the past six months. They have done an outstanding job, and I am sure that 16 Air Assault Brigade, which took over command on 10 October, will carry on that effort.

The House will also wish to join me in sending our sincere condolences to the family of Linda Norgrove, who died late on Friday evening. She was a dedicated professional doing a job that she loved in a country that she loved.

Finally—and I am sorry for the long opening of my remarks—I am sure that everyone would like me, on their behalf, to send our best wishes to the President and people of Chile, as they celebrate the trapped miners coming to the surface. We can see the glorious pictures on our television screens.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mr Evennett]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s expressions of condolence and sympathy.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Opposition Members on their choice of leader—even though he is not on the Front Bench and did not win? Has the outcome of that election changed my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the effectiveness of the alternative vote system?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It was good to see the alternative vote in practice, if I can put it that way, although of course, to be fair to my colleagues on the Government Benches, when it comes to the referendum the trade unions will not have quite such a large involvement.

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). It is an important job that he does, calling the Government to account and standing up for Opposition Members. I am sure that there will be many times when we can work together on issues of national interest, such as on Afghanistan, which I was just talking about. I hope that he will not mind me saying that, as well as wishing him well, I hope that he does the job for many, many years to come.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his kind words just then, and for the kind words that he gave to me when I was elected leader of the Labour party? As he said, there will be issues on which we can work constructively, including on Afghanistan.

I join him in paying tribute to our troops who have died in Afghanistan. They were Sergeant Andrew Jones of the Royal Engineers and Trooper Andrew Howarth of the Queen’s Royal Lancers, who died on 18 September; Corporal Matthew Thomas from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, who died on 25 September, Rifleman Suraj Gurung from 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles, who died on 2 October and Sergeant Peter Rayner from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, who died on 8 October. Each of them showed the highest dedication, commitment and bravery. We honour their memory and pass deep condolences to their families.

We also honour Linda Norgrove, who died doing a simple job trying to make the lives of people in Afghanistan better—a necessary part of any political settlement. She too showed immense bravery. May I say to the Prime Minister that we fully support the decision the Foreign Secretary took to authorise her rescue? We must always make it clear from all parts of this House that responsibility for her death lies solely and squarely with those who took her hostage. May I ask the Prime Minister to update the House on his phone call with President Obama about the circumstances surrounding Linda Norgrove’s death and the progress on the inquiry into those circumstances?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman says and the way that he says it, both about our troops and about the tragic case of Linda Norgrove. As he knows, I spoke to President Obama to stress the point that we think it is extremely important that this is a joint US and UK investigation. I do not think there are any further details I can give about what happened that night—the picture is still unclear—but it was right, I think, to correct the early information, which most likely was wrong, about how Linda died. This investigation is now under way. When there is new information to bring to the House, we will bring it to the House. Most important of all, though, is to keep the family informed at every stage. I will meet General Petraeus tomorrow to discuss this further. I particularly want to echo what the right hon. Gentleman says about the responsibility for this. It is an impossibly difficult decision to make about whether to launch a raid and try to free a hostage. In the end we must all be clear: the responsibility for Linda’s death lies with those cowardly, ruthless people who took her hostage in the first place.

[Edward Miliband]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and for undertaking to keep the House informed. He has our full support on the issue.

Let me turn to the issue of benefits and say to the Prime Minister that we will work with him on his reforms to disability living allowance and to sickness benefits, because they are important reforms and they need to be done. On child benefit, though, I think that those on his own Benches and the country at large do have concerns. May I ask him, first, how many families where one parent stays at home will be affected by the changes that he has proposed to child benefit?

[The Prime Minister]

In terms of the number of families who will be affected, higher-rate tax is paid by 15% of taxpayers, and the decision that we have taken is to say that child benefit should not be received by families where there is a higher-rate taxpayer. I accept that this is a difficult choice, but the fact is—

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

How many?

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered the question, “How many?” The answer is that 15% of taxpayers are higher-rate taxpayers. This is a difficult choice, because as we deal with the deficit we have to ask better-off people to bear their share of the burden. The fact is that today we spend £1 billion giving money through child benefit to relatively better-off homes. We think that has to change, and I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he thinks that that is not the case.

[Edward Miliband]

I may be new to this game, but I think that I ask the questions and the Prime Minister should answer them.

I am afraid that that the Prime Minister did not provide an answer to the specific question I asked. By my reckoning, there are hundreds of thousands of families where one parent stays at home, and the question they are asking is this: why should a family on £45,000 where one person stays at home lose their child benefit—£1,000, £2,000, £3,000 a year—but a family on £80,000 where both partners in the couple are working should keep their child benefit? That does not strike people as fair, and it does not strike me as fair: does it strike the Prime Minister as fair?

[The Prime Minister]

What I believe is fair is asking better-off people to make a contribution to reducing the deficit. Let me try putting it this way to the right hon. Gentleman—think about it like this: there are thousands of people in his constituency earning one sixth of what he earns. Through their taxes, they will be paying for his child benefit. Is that really fair?

[Edward Miliband]

I am afraid it is nought out of two on straight answers. We should try to change the tone of these exchanges, but the Prime Minister must provide straight answers to straight questions that I ask him. I am not defending the rich—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard, and if there are colleagues chuntering away who then hope to catch the eye of the Chair, I am afraid they are deluded.

[Edward Miliband]

I am defending the deputy head teacher in her primary school and the police inspector, who are asking a simple question. The Prime Minister used to agree with me. Before the election he went to Bolton, in an event that I gather was called “Cameron Direct”, and he said:

“I’m not going to flannel you. I’m going to give it to you straight. I like child benefit. . . I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means test it, I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

I agree with the Prime Minister: why doesn’t he?

[The Prime Minister]

The problem that the right hon. Gentleman has to face up to is that he left us the biggest budget deficit in the G20, and he has absolutely no proposals to deal with it. He opposes our changes on housing benefit, yes? You oppose those? He opposes our changes on a benefit cap—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just as the Leader of the Opposition must be heard, so must the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman opposes our changes on a benefit cap, yes? Just nod. And he opposes our changes on child benefit. He quoted something to me; let me quote him something back:

“We have to be frank with people and show our mettle. In times of plenty, giving child benefit to high earners is a luxury the country”

cannot afford. That was Alan Milburn, someone who cared—[Interruption.] Ah, he’s gone. I love this—all the Labour politicians who used to win elections have been thrown out of the window. The right hon. Gentleman has to face up to the truth. We have a big budget deficit, and we have to ask better-off people to make their contribution. We say higher earners should not get child benefit. Their child benefit is being paid for by some of the poorest people in our country, and it is about time he protected them.

[Edward Miliband]

I really want the Prime Minister to face up to the scale of the changes he is proposing, and I say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches that they should face up to the scale of the loss. Take a family on £33,000 after tax. If they have three kids, they will be losing £2,500 as a result of these changes. That is the equivalent of 6p on the basic rate of income tax. That is an enormous loss that the Prime Minister is inflicting on a particular group in the population. If he wants to take people with him on deficit reduction, he has to show that his changes are fair and reasonable. I come back to this point: I do not believe his changes are fair and reasonable—does he?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think it is fair for the poorest constituents in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to contribute to his child benefit. That is what he is asking them to do. Let me remind him of something he said in July, which was that

“whoever is the Labour leader will, by the time of the spending review, have to show that they have an alternative plan”.

Where is the alternative plan? That was a speech he made to an organisation called Left Foot Forward. Could I suggest that he put both his left feet forward and tell us what the plan is?

[Edward Miliband]

The truth is, as the whole country will have heard—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People should stop shouting. The public hate it, it is bad for politics and it should not happen.

[Edward Miliband]

The truth is that the Prime Minister has no defence of that policy. He cannot explain to families up and down the country why they will sustain that loss. I see the Chancellor sitting there. Let us be honest: the policy has been a shambles from day one. The rest of the Cabinet knew nothing about it, and the Local Government Secretary said he found out from the media that it would be announced. The Children’s Minister, whom I cannot see in the Chamber, went on the run because he was too scared to defend the policy. I bet the Prime Minister wishes the BBC blackout had gone ahead, given that his conference was such a shambles.

On child benefit, is it not time that the Prime Minister had the grown-up sense to admit that he has got it wrong and that he has made the wrong decision? He should tell middle-income families up and down Britain that he will think again.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has suddenly discovered middle-income families. We are now hearing about the squeezed middle, but who squeezed the middle? Who doubled the council tax and put up tax 122 times, and who taxed the pensions, the petrol, the marriages and the mortgages? Suddenly, having done all that to middle-income earners, Labour wants to stand up for them. That is a completely transparent political strategy to cover up the inconvenient truth that he was put where he is by the trade union movement. It is short-term tactics and political positioning: it is not red, it is Brown.

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

Q2. As vice-chairman of the parliamentary football club and a qualified football referee, I am well aware that there are just 50 days left before FIFA makes its momentous decision on the location of the 2018 World cup. Will the Prime Minister join me in supporting the English bid, which is in the interests not only of football, but of the entire country?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am sure the whole country, and indeed everyone in the House, will want to get behind our bid for the 2018 World cup. I think we can launch and run an incredible World cup. We have the best fans, the best teams and the best stadiums, but above all this country has the biggest enthusiasm for football. We can make it a success for Britain and for the world.

I should also like to welcome Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, who will be coming to No. 10 Downing street after Prime Minister’s questions. Indeed, he is in the House of Commons today. I would like to reassure him on everyone’s behalf that behaviour in this House is always worse than behaviour either on the pitch or on the terraces.

[Mr Speaker]

This is my cue for saying that the House must now calm down.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

It is sometimes easy to forget how far Northern Ireland has come in recent years, but there are still immense challenges to stability. In the light of discussions with the Chancellor on the part of the Northern Ireland Executive and the recent visit by the Deputy Prime Minister, can the Prime Minister confirm today that he will stand by the formal guarantees given to the Executive at the time of the restoration of devolution, especially in relation to the financial package and capital investment stretching through to 2018? Those are critical matters if we are to establish and embed devolution in Northern Ireland in a power-sharing Executive.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes very good points on how far Northern Ireland has come. Everyone on both sides of the House wants to continue that process, make the institutions work and embed the peace that we have achieved in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to my predecessors, who put so much hard work into that.

On the specific issues, the previous Prime Minister made a series of promises, particularly about policing and justice in Northern Ireland, which we discussed when we were the Opposition. We stand by those promises. On the Presbyterian Mutual Society and a group of people who did lose money in the financial crunch—I know how angry it can make people in Northern Ireland when people say, “Nobody lost money”, because they did—we are working very hard to try to find a fair and equitable solution.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Q3. Does the Prime Minister agree with the previous Government’s policy of part privatisation of Royal Mail? Will he urge those on both sides of the House to work together to help to revitalise that great British institution?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. The fact is that Royal Mail is a business that has falling volumes of mail and a £10 billion pension fund deficit, and it badly needs investment, modernisation and change right now. The last Labour Secretary of State supported such reform, the Conservative party supports that reform and the Business Secretary supports that reform, and we are publishing the Bill today, which includes a minimum of 10% employee share ownership and participation in this important move. I hope that the Opposition will not turn their backs on the future, but will back this change, rather than stepping back into their comfort zone.

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

We were all deeply saddened, especially in the Hebridean community, by the death at the weekend of Linda Norgrove, the aid worker from the Isle of Lewis. It was welcome that the Prime Minister took time to speak to her father on Monday. The family have asked me to convey that they are pleased that the US Administration corrected accounts of the events surrounding her attempted rescue and did not attempt to sweep information under the carpet. At a difficult time, the family are grateful for that openness, as they are for the care and support of the wider community in Uig at this time of grief. As Linda’s remains are expected to arrive in the UK this week, may I ask the Prime Minister that if the family need any help, independent or otherwise, in coming to a true understanding of what happened to their daughter in Afghanistan, they will receive it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and the way in which he put it. Linda’s family must have all the help that they need, and I have said that we will do anything that we can to help them and get them any information that they need. Tragically, nothing will bring Linda—that wonderful daughter who led an incredible life—back, but it can help to get all the information about what happened. The British ambassador to Afghanistan, William Patey, has met the family and will meet them again. Along with others, I hope that he can give them information on the background of what happened and why so that they, and the community that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, can try to find some closure to this terrible episode.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

Q4. Lord Adonis said that a pure graduate tax would be unworkable and a catastrophe. Will the Prime Minister take the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who said:“Oh, and for goodness’ sake, don't pursue a graduate tax.”?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and she is right. We looked at this policy carefully over the summer—I am glad to see that the shadow Chancellor is laughing. I gather that at a lively shadow Cabinet meeting they could not agree on their policy. We looked at this in detail, and a pure graduate tax does not work. I recommend to the Opposition the document “Why not a Pure Graduate Tax?”, published by the Department for Education and Skills under the previous Government. It points out that

“there is no guarantee universities would receive the additional funding raised. There would be no direct relationship between what the student paid and the…value…of their course.”

A graduate tax would put up the deficit as it would not break even until 2041. It is a completely flawed policy, totally unworkable and expensive. As a first choice of policy to go out on, it is a complete disaster.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Q5. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he will retain the winter fuel allowance without any changes to the criteria?

[The Prime Minister]

I am extremely sorry, but I did not catch the hon. Gentleman’s question. I will either write to him—[Interruption.] Short questions are a very good thing, but I am afraid that I missed it. Is it in order for him to have another go?

[Mr Speaker]

If it was not heard, let us hear it.

[Mr Cunningham]

Will the Prime Minister retain the winter fuel allowance without any changes to the criteria used?

[The Prime Minister]

I made a very clear promise at the election and I stand by that.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Q6. This year, four British scientists have gained Nobel prizes, confirming their position in the premier league of world science. The comprehensive spending review gives an opportunity to identify areas for investment as well as reducing costs. Does the Prime Minister agree that, with the US, Germany, France and other countries increasing their expenditure on science, it would be prudent for Britain to do likewise?

[The Prime Minister]

It is vital that we retain a good science budget and invest in our science base, but I cannot hide from the hon. Gentleman—or anyone in this House—the fact that we inherited a budget deficit of £155 billion. [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like hearing it, but it is the truth. Those are the facts, and we have to deal with that. We will do what we can to ensure that as we go through this process we help to keep science and scientists in this country. That is what we must do, but it is very difficult to make all areas immune from the spending reductions forced on us by the complete incompetence of the people now sitting on the Opposition Benches.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Q7. In the past two years, Britain’s cold weather payments were increased to £25, but the small print of this year’s legislation does not contain that guarantee. Is the Prime Minister really saying that 4 million of Britain’s poorest families and pensioners will have their payments cut by two thirds and receive just £8.50 this year?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will know, as he worked closely with the previous Prime Minister, that there was never a guarantee about the scheme. We will look at it carefully and make our announcement in the spending review. [Interruption.] He asked a question; he might wait for the answer. He will have an announcement in the spending review.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Q13. Clare Rayner, the president of the Patients Association, sadly died yesterday. Her final words were a warning to the Prime Minister that if he screws up the NHS she is going to come back and haunt him. With the enormity of the financial crisis becoming ever clearer and the comprehensive spending review getting closer, can the Prime Minister reassure the House that we will honour our commitment to spend more on the NHS and improve outcomes to match the best in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I was brought up listening to Dr Rayner on Capital Radio, and I would never want to do anything to upset her or her memory. The House will know that we have protected the national health service and will invest in it, unlike the Opposition, who proposed to cut it.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Q8. The Prime Minister is aware that many small Presbyterian Mutual Society savers are at wits’ end corner. When do we expect to have a satisfactory conclusion to this whole issue, and will he assure the House that the Government will recognise the danger of a double-dip recession in Northern Ireland when the Chancellor makes his speech next week?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman knows how difficult this issue with the PMS is. Achieving a fair resolution is not easy. I believe that we will have it done by the announcement of the spending review on 20 October. That is our goal. An announcement will be made, and he will be able to explain to his constituents what we are going to do.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Q12. This past summer, my constituents in Bromsgrove have had to endure Travellers trespassing on their land, vandalising it and causing thousands of pounds of damage. Will my right hon. Friend consider bringing forward legislation to create a new offence of intentional trespass, so that people who go on to land without the owner’s permission can be prosecuted without the need for a court order?

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly look at the issue. The basic point is that this is an issue of fairness. If everyone else in the country has to obey planning laws, that should be the same for the Traveller community as well. We should have one law that everybody obeys. That is what we will aim for, and we will look at the proposal that my hon. Friend makes.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q9. When the Prime Minister did the deal with the Deputy Prime Minister on the coalition, was it sealed with a traditional gentleman’s handshake or was there some kind of written pledge involved? If a written pledge was involved, why does the Prime Minister think that the Deputy Prime Minister is any more likely to honour his pledge to him than he was to honour the pledge that he gave to students and their families in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

What we fundamentally agreed between us was that it was going to take two parties to dig the country out of the mess that the hon. Gentleman’s party left us in.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Q10. One of the most short-sighted mistakes of the previous Labour Government was the repeal of business rate relief on empty commercial property. What measures can the Prime Minister take to reverse that decision or at least have a moratorium, to give a boost to regeneration, investment and business in the urban west midlands and my constituency of Wolverhampton South West?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that I have to disappoint my hon. Friend a little bit. This was a bad tax. Properties were being left empty not because business people chose to do that; they were being left empty because of the recession. However, we are not in a position, with this massive budget deficit, where we can undo all the bad things done in one go. What we have focused on is getting a lower rate of corporation tax, cutting national insurance on new businesses and giving small business rate relief. Those are all things that will help to get our economy growing. As evidence of that, we can welcome today’s fall in unemployment figures and the growth in employment that we have seen over the past three months.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

After years of falling as a result of Labour policies, unemployment in my constituency rose by 80% during the global recession. Will the Prime Minister therefore explain why his Government are going to close the only jobcentre in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to take the right hon. Lady up on the way in which she put her question. She talked about falling unemployment under Labour, but omitted to point out that it rose under Labour in the past three years. What matters is helping people back into work, and what she will see with the Work programme is the biggest, boldest effort to get people out of benefits and into work that this country has ever seen.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Q11. My constituents very much welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is leading by example in these difficult economic times by taking a 5% reduction in his prime ministerial salary. Is he aware that the chief executive of Suffolk county council is paid a salary of £220,000 a year? Will he join me in calling on her and other senior public sector managers to set an example through leadership by taking a reduction in their salaries, especially given the fact that they are paid 15 or 20 times more than front-line public sector workers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It is right to have complete transparency in pay levels throughout the public sector. For the first time in a long time, we have been able to find out what all these people are being paid and, as a result, there is downward pressure and better value for money throughout local government. I think that this revolution in transparency should continue.

Bill presented

Postal Services Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Vince Cable, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Mr Secretary Paterson, Secretary Michael Moore, Mrs Secretary Gillan, Mr David Willetts, Mr Edward Davey and Mr Edward Vaizey, presented a Bill to make provision for the restructuring of the Royal Mail group and about the Royal Mail Pension Plan; to make new provision about the regulation of postal services, including provision for a special administration regime; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed (Bill 78) with explanatory notes (Bill 78-EN).

Intercity Express Programme

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the Sedgefield constituency, and others,

Declares that the petitioners believe that the Government should implement the procurement of rolling stock through the Intercity Express programme, which would lead to Hitachi building a manufacturing site in Newton Aycliffe; and further declares that this would result in the creation of hundreds of direct jobs and thousands of jobs in the supply chain, of which the majority would be in manufacturing, giving a much needed boost to the North East economy and improving rail services nationwide.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the procurement of rolling stock through the Intercity Express Programme.

And the Petitioners remain, etc. [P000863]

Public Houses and Private Members’ Clubs (Smoking) Bill

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:32

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt public houses and private members’ clubs from the requirements of part 1 of the Health Act 2006 relating to smoke-free premises; and for connected purposes.

Let me first declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Salisbury Conservative club in Bury, which is a private members’ club. In common, no doubt, with many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I also visit public houses from time to time. I must also declare at the outset that I am a devout non-smoker. I have never smoked, and indeed I would encourage others not to start smoking. I would also encourage those who do smoke to stop. I am entirely persuaded that smoking can cause potentially fatal diseases. That said, however, smoking remains entirely legal, and the Treasury benefits by many billions of pounds each year from excise duties and VAT on the sale of tobacco products.

It is now more than three years since the outright prohibition on smoking in public places was introduced on 1 July 2007. Since that time, the ban has been widely accepted in most areas. Although there are arguments for it to be completely repealed, this Bill aims to deal with what has perhaps been the most contentious aspect of the ban—namely, its application to public houses and private members’ clubs. This Bill would exempt such premises from part 1 of the Health Act 2006 and allow them to reintroduce a smoking room if those in charge chose to do so. Smoking would be permitted in a separate room, provided that appropriate and effective air extraction equipment was fitted. Smoking would continue to be prohibited where food was being served.

In considering this motion, it is worth recalling that the Labour party’s 2005 manifesto stated that

“all restaurants will be smoke-free, all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free.”

If only the previous Labour Government had stuck to their manifesto commitment, there would perhaps have been no need for this Bill.

I submit that there are two main reasons why the blanket ban should be relaxed and smoking should once again be permitted in public houses and private members’ clubs. First, there is the economic case; and, secondly, there is what I believe to be an even more important reason—namely, freedom of choice and the desirability of devolving decisions to the lowest appropriate level.

Let me deal briefly with the economic argument. Since the ban was introduced, thousands of public houses have closed down. As ever with statistics, it is possible to choose the ones that best suit the desired argument. Few could argue against the fact, however, that since the introduction of the smoking ban, thousands of public houses have closed down. I do not claim that the smoking ban was the only cause of all those closures, as other factors such as the availability of lower-price drinks from supermarkets, the cost of satellite television and the general economic climate no doubt all played a part. For many, however, the smoking ban was the final straw.

One does not have to travel very far in my constituency to find a public house that has called time for the very last time. There are closed public houses in Bury and in Ramsbottom that are now for sale, and “To let” signs outside public houses are becoming increasingly commonplace. This picture appears to be replicated in constituencies throughout the country. When a rural pub or a local community pub closes down, everyone loses out, not just those who wish to smoke.

Let me turn to deal with the second reason—freedom of choice and localism. I believe that in the case of a private members’ club, the decision should be taken by the members of that club. I believe that the decision on whether smoking takes place in a public house should be taken by the pub landlord. I believe in trusting the people. This means giving individuals the power and the responsibility to take decisions for themselves.

Pub landlords are the right people to decide whether allowing a smoking room is the best thing to do for their establishments. Some would no doubt choose to take advantage of the freedom that the Bill would give them, but I know from my own constituency that many would not. As smoking would continue to be prohibited where food was being served, many public houses would remain just as they are today. Customers would have a choice whether to use a completely non-smoking pub or to use one with a smoking room. The establishment of separate smoking rooms in some pubs would also reduce the incidence of smokers’ being forced to gather on the pavements outside pubs.

The Bill puts into practice the principle of localism that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out with such clarity in his speech to the Conservative party conference last week. It transfers power from the state to the citizen, from politicians to people. It puts the “local” back into localism, and I commend it to the House.

12:41

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I oppose the Bill. The same argument was put to the House not so many years ago in a debate that resulted in the current legislation. The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) was right to say that the original legislation, proposed by the then Labour Government, did not provide for a comprehensive ban in areas of all public houses or private members’ clubs. In 2005 the Select Committee on Health, which I chaired, conducted a detailed inquiry into the issues before the Bill that became the Health Act 2006 had completed its passage. When it had done so, the amendments that had been tabled were put to the vote. Labour Members were eventually given a free vote, as, I understand, were Opposition Members.

Let me give the House a flavour of the results of that vote. The hon. Gentleman described this as a contentious issue. The result of the vote on clause stand part, as amended—there had been an attempt to remove the amendment—was 452 Ayes and 127 Noes. At no time did any Member trying to defend the hon. Gentleman’s position manage to persuade more than 200 Members into the Lobby. It followed a great tradition that in the other place, shortly after the votes in February 2006, Lord Tebbit rose to defend the Labour party manifesto of 2005. At the time some of us, although we had stood on that manifesto, thought it was nonsense from the point of view of public health.

In the same year that the House made that decision, Spain implemented a smoking ban exempting small bars and restaurants. The law was not seen as a success, and as a result of public dissatisfaction with the exemptions the Spanish Government have proposed to extend the ban to all pubs and restaurants, although they are considering an exemption for private smokers’ clubs. An evaluation of the Spanish law found that levels of second-hand smoke were reduced only in bars where smoking was prohibited by law, and that

“Most hospitality workers continue to be exposed to very high levels of SHS”—

that is, second-hand smoke.

That was the issue then, and it is still the issue today: people who work in the leisure sector are exposed to people’s life-threatening habits. It was the issue in 2006, when the original legislation went through the House, and it remains the issue today. Unless bars contain NHS operating theatres with doors that are rarely opened, it will never be possible to avoid the effect of Bills such as this on workers. Evaluations of other partial bans have found limited evidence of health gain, and they are believed to aggravate health inequalities.

I remind Government Members that they have just fought and won a general election criticising the then Labour Government for not ending health inequalities in this country. I agree: they did not do away with health inequalities, and some 50% of health inequalities are created by tobacco use. If Members on the Government Benches are going to continue saying what they said when in opposition, this Bill is the last measure I would expect their Front-Bench team to support, because health inequalities are writ large in tobacco use in this country.

An Australian study of 2004 found that no-smoking areas in licensed premises contained as many tobacco toxins as smoking areas. Even in clubs with completely separate no-smoking rooms there was no material reduction in the levels of harmful toxins in the air. Ventilation systems in smoking areas in rooms that are not fully segregated will not protect people in non-smoking areas. The Select Committee on Health—an all-party Committee, I might add—came to that conclusion. It is also the finding of research by D. Kotzias and others at the European Commission Joint Research Centre. We cannot isolate smoking in smoking rooms and think it has no effect elsewhere. That will not work, and it is the reason why the original Health Bill put before the House in 2005 was changed in the House in 2006.

Let us look at the health gains, because that is what this is about. It is not about leisure; it is about the health of the public. Hospitality industry workers have benefited most from the UK legislation. Evaluation of the Spanish partial ban found that the law had failed to protect them significantly. The most notable health gain for members of the public is the fall in the number of admissions for acute myocardial infarction. Researchers at the university of Bath have calculated that there has been a 5% drop in the number of heart attacks in England, attributable to smoke-free legislation. The figure was higher for Scotland and it was measured within 12 months of the ban coming into force—as Members will know, the ban was introduced earlier in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Similar reductions have been observed in other jurisdictions with a comprehensive ban, including New York, Ireland and Italy. Indeed, the Health Committee went to Ireland when taking evidence for our report.

It has also been suggested that having more people smoking out on the street might increase young people’s perception that smoking is a normal adult activity and so increase the number of under-age smokers. In fact, international research shows that smoking bans are associated with reducing smoking among teenage boys in particular, possibly because it is seen as less normal. This topic has been debated in the House throughout the decades during which I have been a Member, and I have frequently argued for legislation to de-normalise smoking.

Some 50% of people who smoke will die a premature death, as well as having suffered from various diseases and all the other burdens they will carry throughout their life—and that taxpayers will carry for the rest of their lives in having to treat these people in the NHS. It is sometimes argued that we must recognise that smokers put money into the Treasury as opposed to looking at the ill health that is suffered as a result of tobacco use. That is a ridiculous argument.

It was claimed at the time of the Health Bill that banning smoking in pubs would displace smoking into the home, thereby increasing children’s exposure. The reverse has been true. The proportion of homes in England where smoking is prohibited throughout has increased to 79% and children’s exposure has fallen because of that. I have not got the figures to hand, but recently—within the past 12 months—research has found a link between cot death and smoking. That affects young children who do not have anything directly to do with cigarettes, but who are exposed to them through passive smoking. It is irresponsible for any Member to stand up in this House and say we should reverse this measure which has led to such great health gains in this country.

Support for smoke-free legislation in England has risen to more then 80% of adults, many of them smokers themselves who agree that this legislation is right. Support has risen fastest among smokers, half of whom support the legislation as it stands. Most smokers believe the law has been good for their health, good for the health of the public and good for the health of most workers.

There is an issue with the effect on business. I have looked at all the evidence and I must say that trying to introduce smoke-free rooms ventilated to the level that would be necessary would have a negative effect on business; there is no way that will benefit businesses.

Let me finish by discussing the issue of trusting the people. This morning, I found the following words on the hon. Member for Bury North’s website—he has a blog and people post things on it. He said that we should trust the people, and these are the comments of someone called Jim:

“Mr Nuttall, I am a tory voter and a pub landlord, you are so wrong on this and I suggest you use your common sense to drop this headline catching cause.

The smoking ban was one of the few things labour got right in their last reign.”

I dispute that, to some extent. He continued:

“To even suggest undoing it in this manner brings yourself and the party into disrepute. As a landlord my biggest fear about the smoking ban was the proposal you are advocating. In my humble opinion it will create an unfair playing field, that panders to the weak and stupid.

Many people because of the ban have given up smoking, myself included, I do not want to go back to the days of smoky pubs, the blanket ban has worked. My business is proof, I am still trading and making a living”.

I shall not read out the rest, but there are many other comments on the hon. Gentleman’s blog, including some from nurses in his constituency. One of them says that they wished he had put this proposal in his manifesto when he stood for election in May, because they may have then had a different view about the Conservative candidate. I would like to oppose this Bill. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) has been in the House for five years, so I feel sure that he is keenly conscious of the fact that there are two speeches on these occasions and no more.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

12:51

Division 70

Ayes: 86

---

Conservative: 74
Labour: 4
Liberal Democrat: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 3

Noes: 141

---

Labour: 81
Conservative: 37
Liberal Democrat: 18
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Superannuation Bill

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee.

New Clause 1

Consents required for civil service compensation scheme modifications

‘(1) Section 2 of the Superannuation Act 1972 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (3A) below,”.

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) Subsection (3) above does not apply to a provision which would have the effect of reducing the amount of a compensation benefit except in so far as the compensation benefit is one provided in respect of a loss of office or employment which is the consequence of—

(a) a notice of dismissal given before the coming into operation of the scheme which would have that effect, or

(b) an agreement made before the coming into operation of that scheme.

(3B) In this section—

“compensation benefit” means so much of any pension, allowance or gratuity as is provided under the civil service compensation scheme by way of compensation to or in respect of a person by reason only of the person’s having suffered loss of office or employment;

“the civil service compensation scheme” means so much of any scheme under the said section 1 (whenever made) as provides by virtue of subsection (2) above for benefits to be provided by way of compensation to or in respect of persons who suffer loss of office or employment.

(3C) In subsection (3B) above a reference to suffering loss of office or employment includes a reference to suffering loss or diminution of emoluments as a consequence of suffering loss of office or employment.”

(4) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to reductions to which effect is given by a scheme made under section 1 of the 1972 Act after the coming into force of this section.

(5) Subsection (6) applies if—

(a) a scheme under section 1 of the 1972 Act is made after this section comes into force, and

(b) consultation on the proposed scheme took place to any extent before this section came into force.

(6) The fact that the amendments made by this section were not in force when that consultation took place does not affect the question whether the consultation satisfied the requirements of section 1(3) of the 1972 Act.’.—(Mr Maude.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

13:02

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 4, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 14, at beginning insert ‘Subject to subsection (2A),’.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert—

‘(2A) Section 1 shall not come into force until the Minister has laid a report stating that the affected members of the relevant trade unions under section 2(3) of the Superannuation Act 1972 have given their approval by means of ballots to the terms of section 1, and the House of Commons has come to a Resolution on a Motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown approving the report.’.

Amendment 5, in title, leave out from ‘provision’ to end and insert

‘modifying the effect of section 2 (3) of the Superannuation Act 1972 for benefits to be provided by way of compensation to or in respect of persons who suffer loss of office or employment.’.

Government amendment 1.

[Mr Maude]

In my statement to the House in July and again on Second Reading in September, I made it clear the Government’s intention is to make the civil service compensation scheme affordable, and I set out our intention to legislate to underpin the negotiations to achieve that. However, I have made it clear at all stages—and I make it clear again today—that our principal aim has been to reach a negotiated settlement with all six civil service unions to introduce a new successor scheme that would provide, in particular, better protection for lower-paid civil servants.

The current civil service compensation scheme is unaffordable and completely out of kilter with practice in the rest of the public sector, let alone in the private sector, and it actually makes more likely redundancies among the lowest paid and shortest-tenured civil servants. The previous Government recognised that and engaged in protracted negotiations over many months—indeed, over several years—with the Council of Civil Service Unions to try to reach agreement on a successor scheme. I pay tribute today, as I did on the previous occasion, to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) and her predecessors, who persisted in trying to get full agreement from all members of the Council of Civil Service Unions.

Despite those months of negotiations, the previous Government were unable to achieve full agreement. I understand that it looked as though an agreement was there, but at the last minute the PCS—the Public and Commercial Services Union, the largest of the civil service unions—pulled out, leaving a proposed new scheme in place that had been agreed by five unions, but not by the sixth.

Given the extensive consultations and negotiations that took place, which gained agreement from five out of the six unions, the previous Government felt and concluded—I said at the time that I agreed—that it was only right that one union should not hold the right of veto on any change. So in April the previous Government imposed a new compensation scheme that reflected the agreement with the five unions. But for the action of the PCS, that might have been where the story ended, but the subsequent actions of the PCS have led us to where we are today.

The PCS challenged in the High Court the right of the Government to impose a settlement in such circumstances and the Court subsequently quashed the February scheme. So almost literally on my first day in office after the election, I was confronted with a situation in which the previous civil service compensation scheme was still in force and had not been reformed at all. That scheme, as I have said, is completely unaffordable, inherently unfair and in urgent need of reform. It was striking that on Second Reading, when this issue was extensively and thoroughly debated in a constructive and open spirit with no element of partisanship creeping in, every Member who spoke agreed that the current scheme was unsustainable and needed reform. There was complete consensus across the House.

The current compensation scheme is extremely generous compared with the rest of the public sector, let alone private sector, equivalents. A comparison with the statutory redundancy scheme shows that payouts, particularly for lower-paid workers in the private sector, are capped at 32 weeks’ pay at a maximum weekly pay that is still, I think, capped at £380. The maximum that can be paid out to anyone under that scheme is less than £12,000. By contrast, the maximum value under the civil service scheme is the equivalent of six years and eight months’ salary. Typical schemes in the private sector—particularly the statutory scheme—pay one week’s salary for each year worked. The civil service scheme pays at least four times that amount—a month’s salary for each year worked, and in some cases up to three months’ salary for each year of service.

The previous Government spent £1.8 billion on civil service redundancy payouts in the last three years, including a number of spectacular six-figure settlements for individuals. The result of the scheme’s being so generous and unaffordable is that Departments cannot afford to make civil servants redundant, even if they are willing to go voluntarily, if they are highly paid and of long tenure. If Departments need to save money—as they had to under the previous Government and as they will have to under the coalition Government—through redundancies, they simply cannot afford to choose those individuals on high pay and long tenure. In order to make the same savings in salary terms, they need to make many more lower-paid and shorter-tenured staff redundant. The unjust effect of the current scheme’s being so badly structured and unsustainable is that if it were allowed to remain in place, more civil servants would lose their jobs and more civil servants on lower pay would lose their jobs. The coalition Government are not willing to see that happen.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I understand the logic of the Minister’s argument, but I have a constituent who has a business case for her to take early retirement under the voluntary scheme—I have seen the business case, which will save a great deal of money over the next few years. She is not being allowed to go now because of the uncertainty surrounding this process. Do we not have a little disconnect at the moment in that this process and this Bill are stopping people leaving early when it suits them and would save money right now for that Department?

[Mr Maude]

Depending on what the House decides today, some of that uncertainty should be removed. I want Parliament to be able to move quickly to enable the new scheme to be put in place, because it will provide certainty. I absolutely understand the uncertainty that exists for many dedicated, hard-working public servants who know that there might not be a future for them because of the situation—because, frankly, of the previous Government’s legacy of the fiscal deficit—and it is really unfair to leave people in limbo and with that kind of uncertainty. I want us to achieve the greatest certainty at the earliest time so that people know where they stand and so that Departments and agencies that have to make redundancies can go ahead with them and enable people to make the break and start the next phase of their lives.

The caps contained in the Bill are, as I said on Second Reading, a blunt instrument that will immediately limit the amount that can be paid to any individual. Those caps were never intended to be a long-term solution. It is and has always been our absolute priority to create a scheme that is affordable but that provides protection for the lower-paid. However, those protections are complicated to engineer and we felt—I do not resile from this at all—that it is incredibly important to consult thoroughly and to discuss properly how those protections should be configured. The discussions with the unions have been very productive and have led to the scheme, which I shall describe, being configured.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Widespread concern has been expressed throughout the House about the impact of the Bill on hundreds of thousands of civil servants. I welcome the fact that the Government have improved the offer to the civil service, but that offer is not as generous as what was on offer in February and agreement has yet to be reached. Will the Minister agree personally to meet the six unions concerned to try to achieve a negotiated solution? Negotiation has to be better than the blunt instrument that will impose serious changes for the worse to the employment contracts of, for example, defence civilians in the Ministry of Defence who are serving in support of our forces in Afghanistan right now. That instrument will establish a chilling precedent for the future and it is worrying all public servants. Will he make one final effort before the Bill becomes law?

[Mr Maude]

Absolutely and unequivocally, yes. I shall talk a little about the process we have been through and where we are in the negotiations. I say clearly to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that if it is at all possible to achieve a fully negotiated settlement that is affordable and fair to the taxpayer and that meets the concerns of all the unions, we will certainly try to achieve such an agreement with all six unions. I shall say a little more about that in a while, but the answer is definitively yes.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made some good points about individual exceptions in which even the terms proposed in the negotiations with the trade unions might be unfair to individuals who have been through particular hardship. Does the Minister agree that that can be resolved only through negotiation and that aiming to resolve it through legislation would be a mistake?

[Mr Maude]

My hon. Friend is completely right: there has to be flexibility. That is why I have always said that the caps imposed by the Bill are not right for a permanent system because they do not provide that flexibility. The scheme that has been brokered between the negotiators for five of the unions would provide much greater flexibility and would, I think, meet the concerns that he raises.

[John Hemming]

Also in Committee, Dusty Amroliwala, the civil servant responsible for handling the scheme, said that he would have advised any Government to take that approach to break the legislative logjam. He also said that there had been no estimates of what the Bill would save because there was no expectation that what it proposed would be the end result. In that sense, does the Minister agree that this is part of the process of breaking the legislative logjam?

[Mr Maude]

Yes, indeed. If the result of the process that we have been through with the Bill is that it makes a negotiated settlement more likely, that will be extremely beneficial. I do not want the outcome of all this to be that the existing scheme remains in place with the crude caps that the Bill imports. What we want is a new, successor scheme, and there is now a serious prospect of that being achieved. If it can be achieved with the support and agreement of all six civil service unions, no one will be more delighted than I. However, if we have to go down the path of having a new scheme that is supported by fewer unions, that would still be better because it would mean that many of the concerns that have been raised would be met better than by the Bill. That would be infinitely better than the current scheme remaining in place, as it is simply unaffordable and unsustainable, as the previous Government openly accepted.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

In response to the points raised by Opposition Members regarding the difference between the deal that was done by the previous Government and deal being done now, how would the impact on low-income workers in the civil service differ?

13:15

[Mr Maude]

If my hon. Friend will allow me I shall come to that later, because I want to talk in a little more detail about the terms of the scheme that has been brokered by the negotiators for five of the unions.

I repeat that we want a long-term negotiated successor scheme. We want a package of reform that provides genuine protection for lower-paid civil servants, that caps the total amount that can be paid out, that provides protection for those closest to retirement and that reforms the accrual rates. It takes time to negotiate such a scheme and it has been a very intensive process. That is why the caps were put in place in the Bill—as a safeguard to ensure that if agreement could not be reached, we could at least limit the payouts in the short term. I have always been hopeful that we could reach agreement with all six unions by the time the Bill reached Report.

After the intensive negotiations throughout the summer, we reached an impasse. The same five unions that agreed the February deal with the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood came together once again and put to me concrete proposals for reform. Sadly, the PCS refused to join them in that approach. That was disappointing, but I made it clear to the PCS that it was welcome back at any stage if it was willing to put forward concrete proposals, and I wrote to Mark Serwotka, the general secretary, to that effect. In the meantime, my officials and I engaged productively with the remaining five unions to attempt to reach agreement. Last week, all five union negotiators, representing Unite, GMB, Prospect, the First Division Association and the Prison Officers Association, agreed terms with us that they were prepared to recommend to their executives. The terms of that agreement represent a reasonable outcome for everyone involved and deliver on our objectives of being fair, affordable and sustainable.

It is worth dwelling a little on the terms of the agreement. We reached agreement on a standard tariff in which each year of service would provide one month’s salary in the event of redundancy. That compares with one week’s salary for every year of service under the statutory redundancy scheme. The tariff would be capped at 12 months for compulsory redundancy and at 21 months for voluntary redundancy. All civil servants being made redundant would be entitled to a three-month notice period. That is in contrast to a cap, in some circumstances, of well over six years’ pay—six and two-thirds years—and paying up to three months’ pay for every year of service, as is the case currently. It contrasts with the current situation of having a six-month notice period for all compulsory redundancies, but no equivalent notice period for voluntary redundancies. The new scheme will be simpler, fairer and more affordable.

We also agreed on significant protection for lower-paid civil servants. Under the terms of the scheme, any civil servant on a full-time equivalent salary of less than £23,000 who was made redundant would be deemed to earn £23,000 when their redundancy payment was calculated. So for someone earning £13,000 in those circumstances, the multiplier by which the number of years would be multiplied to calculate the redundancy payment would be deemed to be £23,000. For the very lowest paid in the civil service, that is significant additional protection and, I have to say, better protection for the lowest paid than the February scheme. I say again that that would be a permanent feature of the scheme, not a transitional feature of it. It would be in place for all time, or for all time until some subsequent Government chose to revisit it.

Conversely, staff earning more than six times the private sector median average earnings, which is around £150,000, would have their salary capped at that figure for the purpose of calculating their redundancy payment. That would be an end to the mega-payouts, which have been highlighted in a national newspaper recently and which cause a certain amount of offence to taxpayers.

We also agreed on protection for staff who have reached the minimum pension age of 50, allowing them to opt for early retirement when they leave, in return for surrendering the appropriate amount of any redundancy payment. Again I stress to the House that under this proposal that will be a permanent feature of the scheme, whereas in the February scheme, which the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood attempted to impose, it was framed as a transitional arrangement that would run out over time.

I believe that that is a fair deal for civil servants and for taxpayers. Given that we had agreement from five of the six union negotiators on the terms of the new scheme, I therefore proposed an amendment—the new clause that we are now discussing—to allow the Government to impose that scheme, which is a power that the Government thought they had and used when the right hon. Lady was in office, but which was subsequently struck down by the High Court.

I want to make it absolutely clear that there will be an obligation for the Government to consult properly before any scheme is imposed. I believe that that obligation already exists in section 1(3) of the Superannuation Act 1972, but lest there be any doubt, I undertake that we will introduce a further amendment in the other place to put the matter beyond doubt. In the intervening period, I shall want to discuss with the right hon. Lady and with the unions how we can frame that measure in a way that gives the necessary comfort that this is a serious process. That commitment is there. There is already in the existing Act an obligation to consult the unions. It is not framed in quite that way, but that is the effect of it. We shall introduce further amendments if they are regarded collectively, by us all, to be necessary to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt.

I want now to make it absolutely clear what the new clause does. It does not create any unprecedented power for me that has not been available to my predecessors. It simply recreates precisely the power that the right hon. Lady had when she imposed the February scheme. It does not go one whit beyond that. It is rigorously framed so that it goes no further at all than the power in the original Act, on the basis of which the right hon. Lady—in good faith, and with our full support—acted before the election.

Let me say a word about the PCS. I have no wish at all to exclude the PCS from the negotiations. Late last week, the leadership of the PCS came back to me and indicated that they would like to return to the negotiating table. I welcome that and have told them that I am looking forward to seeing their proposals. The other five unions have been making constructive proposals for some little time now, and those suggestions have formed the basis of the proposed new scheme brokered and agreed by the negotiators for those five unions. I have stressed to the PCS that any changes to the proposed scheme cannot exceed the cost envelope of the scheme already agreed, and that any changes must be agreed with the other unions, which have already worked hard to reach this agreement.

May I say a word about the Opposition amendments, which have been grouped with the Government new clause and amendment? The Opposition amendments would effectively invalidate the effect of the Bill, as they would remove the caps, which are the essence of the Bill. There is nothing more to say about that. On Second Reading, I set out the reasons for having the Bill at all, and I have reiterated them today. I say again that no one would be more happy than I would if, the day after Royal Assent is given to the Bill, should it get that far, I am able to put those provisions into abeyance; I do not want us to be in a position whereby those caps are what applies in practice. I want there to be a new scheme—ideally agreed by six unions, but if not, agreed by as many as possible, and imposed using the powers that the right hon. Lady herself used, which the Government new clause will put into effect and allow to be used.

I earnestly hope that a successfully negotiated new scheme agreed by all six unions will follow from today’s debate. I stress that I remain completely committed to achieving that. If we can achieve it, neither the caps in the Bill nor the power contained in the new clause will be needed, but if there were no such agreement, it would be wrong for the PCS to be able to veto any changes to the current scheme, because that scheme has been universally agreed in the House to be unsustainable. This amendment will simply put the current Government in the same position as the previous Government—committed to consultation and to negotiation, but able, in the end, to decide. I commend it to the House.

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I shall speak against Government new clause 1 and in favour of the amendments standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). I give notice that I intend press amendment 4 to a Division, subject to your will, Mr Speaker.

I also want to put on record my appreciation of the conciliatory tone in which the Minister has addressed the House today and note what I think was very constructive scrutiny of the Bill in Committee, which gave the opportunity to hear witnesses.

I would like to identify the common ground that we share, but also what still divides us. We agree that the civil service compensation scheme is in need of reform—as the Minister observed, I spent many hours trying to secure that reform—but it is also important that new legislation take account of the conclusions of the judicial review. It is important, too, that that is done in the right way, giving the 500,000 or so civil servants who are liable to be affected the confidence that the process will be fair and that the fairness of that process is institutional.

The legislation represents very high stakes for the 500,000 or so civil servants whose lives stand to be directly affected by its provisions. The Bill is not simply a blunt instrument for negotiating purposes. For those 500,000 civil servants, it could be a matter of their keeping their home, helping their children through university or averting financial hardship while they look for a new job. We heard eloquent evidence of that anxiety from witnesses who appeared before the Public Bill Committee.

To summarise, we have two central problems with the Government’s position on the Bill. The first problem, as we argued from the outset on Second Reading, is with the unacceptable caps set out in clause 1. Our amendment 4 is intended to deal with that. The second is the unbridled powers that the Government are seeking to impose on any new scheme that fails to secure a negotiated agreement. We will take every step we can to insist that a requirement for consultation and due process appears in the Bill.

13:30

[Mr Maude]

The right hon. Lady describes the powers that we are seeking in the new clause as unbridled, but does she accept that they would be precisely the same powers as she had and exercised only eight months ago?

[Tessa Jowell]

I accept that only in part, in that the scheme set out in the Bill, with the caps, is substantially less generous than the scheme that we negotiated with the trade unions only a few months ago.

[Mr Maude]

I am not talking about the scheme; I am talking about the power in the new clause for the Government to impose a new scheme, which the right hon. Lady has just described as an unbridled power. I am asking her to agree what is certainly the case: that the power that the new clause would give to me is precisely the same power as she had and exercised when she held my job eight months ago.

[Tessa Jowell]

Let me come back on that point. When I was responsible for the negotiations, they were long, as the Minister outlined, and involved a serious and concerted attempt to reach a negotiated agreement. New clause 1 is a necessary way of dealing with the unexpected outcome of the judicial review earlier this year. Had we been returned at the general election, we would no doubt have had to amend the 1972 Act in the light of that, but the critical difference is that we would not have introduced legislation simply to impose a settlement in the absence of a clear commitment in the Bill to negotiation in good faith in order to try to achieve a proper agreement. That is why I stand by my description of the powers, as drafted in the Government’s new clause, as unbridled.

We recognise the need for an amendment to the Superannuation Act 1972. The High Court judgment made a clear case for ensuring that the Government are able to compel a settlement and that no union should be able to veto changes. That is a position that we would support.

[John Hemming]

The right hon. Lady’s amendment (a) would mean that the unions would have to consult their members in accordance with the rules before any new scheme could come in. Does she agree that that would provide the opportunity for a trade union to veto any changes merely by refusing to negotiate or consult its members?

[Tessa Jowell]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the amendment carefully, it will be clear to him that it is intended not to give the trade unions a veto, but to require a report to Parliament on the progress of the negotiations where the power is intended to be used, giving the effect of the imposition of a settlement in the absence of the agreement of all six unions.

[John Hemming]

The amendment states that the Minister must lay

“a report of the consultations that have taken place with the workforce and their recognised representative trades unions with a view to agreement”

and that the report should contain

“a statement that the representative trades unions have consulted their members in accordance with their rules”.

The report cannot include such a statement unless that has happened. That, in essence, would revert to a veto for the trade unions. I should think amendment (a) should not be moved.

[Tessa Jowell]

The approach is intended to ensure that what appears in the Bill when it receives Royal Assent represents a right and proper balance between the responsibility of the Government to secure a settlement and the entitlement of the trade unions to be properly consulted. However, as the hon. Gentleman may not quite be aware, in Mr Speaker’s wisdom he did not select that amendment for debate.

I return to our clear view that no one union should be able to veto a change to the civil service compensation scheme that is the result of negotiated agreement with the majority of unions. The Government’s ability to compel a settlement should be the course of last resort, once it is clear that common agreement cannot be reached—

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Tessa Jowell]

I shall make progress. Many Back Benchers want to speak in the debate and the hon. Gentleman will have a further opportunity.

We cannot support the Government new clause as drafted because it allows the Government to impose changes to the scheme at any point, without the contingent obligation to consult the work force or their representative trade unions.

[Mr Maude]

To be absolutely clear, the Superannuation Act states, at section 1(3):

“ Before making any scheme”—

this would refer to the schemes that we are discussing—

“under this section the Minister . . . shall consult with persons appearing to the Minister . . . to represent persons likely to be affected by the proposed scheme”.

So there is an explicit obligation in the 1972 Act to consult representatives of staff affected by any new scheme. That is absolutely explicit. It was the obligation that the right hon. Lady herself followed scrupulously when holding the job that I now hold, and it is the obligation that I absolutely undertake we have been following. If there is any doubt about it, we will make that even more explicit with an amendment tabled in the other place.

[Tessa Jowell]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but as nearly 30 years have passed since the Superannuation Act was introduced, both the terminology and the reference to the negotiating structure could be updated to make the two commitments clear—the right to impose in the absence of unanimity among the unions, but a right that is exercised only on the basis of clear, systematic, open and proper negotiation with the appropriate trade unions and work force representatives.

The other underlying issue is the lack of confidence in the process so far. The Bill was published before the civil service unions had even met the Minister or his officials. None of the work force had the opportunity, unlike during the negotiations that we undertook, to comment on the proposed reforms, despite the fact that they marked a significant and detrimental departure from the previous package. The obligation to consult the work force at every stage is missing from the Bill.

Given the powers that the Government have asked the House to grant them through the new clause, it is only right that safeguards be put in place to ensure a fair and reliable process whereby the work force have a right to be consulted, the Government are obliged to seek an agreement with the representative trade unions and the House is the arbiter of whether that process has been fair and transparent. If those safeguards had been put in place, we would have supported the Government and not sought to vote against the new clause.

We have outlined a very clear basis for our opposition to the proposed change, but we make it equally clear that if the Minister for the Cabinet Office seeks to introduce in the other place a revised amendment that addresses the judicial review and puts consultation and proper process in the Bill, we will support him. That is dependent on Mr Speaker taking his usual principled and pragmatic view and not judging the Bill to be a money Bill, which would eliminate the possibility of any such constructive amendment and scrutiny in another place.

[Mr Maude]

To be absolutely clear, I am advised that if the new clause were not agreed to and the Bill remained as drafted, it would be possible for Mr Speaker to exercise his discretion—and it is a discretion—and certify it as a money Bill. However, I am also advised that if the Bill were to include the new clause and amendment that I have tabled, the question of its being a money Bill would not even arise. So, if the House were to carry our proposed changes, there would be no question of the Bill’s continuing to be a money Bill for the purposes of the other place; it would go through the full and usual processes there.

[Tessa Jowell]

The Opposition would very much welcome full and further scrutiny, as the negotiations are ongoing.

The issue is about the right reforms, which we seek to put forward through our amendments 4 and 5, whose purpose is to strike out the arbitrary caps that the Government introduced at the start of the process. Those caps have led to an improved offer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, as a result of negotiation, and we welcome that. There is now an improved offer on the table, so we do not understand why the Government oppose our amendment. Given that new clause 1 would give them the power to impose any settlement, why have the caps, which have caused such distress and anxiety to civil servants, remained in the Bill?

We are pleased that the Government claim to have reached an agreement with at least some of the trade unions, and the Government have declared that that will supersede the terms before us. To echo the Minister’s language, I note that he has managed to introduce a “sharp instrument” to replace the “blunt” one, but that leads us to question why the Government persist in wanting those terms to remain in the legislation.

The caps are simply out of kilter with the subsequent agreement that the Minister claims to have reached. He, his colleagues and his officials have told us that he wants a negotiated settlement, and on both sides of the House the consensus is that that would be the right course of action. Instead, however, the Government want to proceed to impose the arbitrary caps that they sought to impose at the beginning of the process. For those reasons, we ask the House to oppose the Government’s proposed changes and to support our amendments 4 and 5.

13:45

The Government, in their handling of the Bill, have already tried the patience of the House to its limit. First, they asked us to agree to caps that they never intended to use, or hoped would never be used or reach the statute book. Then, they asked us to support a set of final provisions that would allow those terms to expire and be resurrected at any time in the future. Now they implore us to support a new clause that, in effect, would give them a blank cheque to draw up a new scheme at any time, with no guarantee that the work force, the trade unions or the House would be engaged in or influence the outcome.

The handling of this Bill has been an absolute shambles, and it is with some sympathy that I say to the Minister that he is now in a hole. The Treasury is breathing down his neck and insisting that he makes whatever savings that earlier in the process he might have pledged, but that now will take a little longer to realise. We will oppose the new clause and press the House to a vote on our amendment 4, simply because the legislation before us will have a profound effect on the lives of thousands and thousands of civil servants, and they deserve better.

[John Hemming]

This has been a rather depressing debate, because the Opposition have demonstrated “oppositionism” at its worst. Everybody recognises that there is a problem and, basically, we cannot afford to pay six and two thirds years’ redundancy payments to some senior civil servants. The Government are trying to look after the low-paid, and our proposals are better than the Opposition’s. The Opposition’s amendment, which admittedly has not been selected, would have reinstated a veto for the trade unions on any proposals for change, something that the Opposition disagreed with when they were in government.

[Tessa Jowell]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the proposals in the Bill provide a better deal for low-paid civil servants earning less than £20,000 a year than the proposals in the February 2010 package?

[John Hemming]

I accept the shadow Minister’s point that the Opposition’s proposals are the same as those in the negotiations, but the whole point of the Bill is that it is not supposed to be the end result. Civil servants have not made any estimate of the savings as a result of the Bill, because it is not supposed to be the end result. This legislation is what the civil service has advised us to undertake in order to break the legislative logjam that the previous Government created. It is about making progress.

On the issue of how we manage the civil service, I think that we should try to look after our employees and aim to minimise redundancies. In the absence of the Bill, however, that would become harder and harder. One thing that must be recognised is that reorganisation has essentially come to a halt, because we will not be able to save money if we have to pay six years’ redundancy to somebody. Paying six years’ redundancy will mean that we increase the deficit.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman keeps using the figure of six and two thirds, but will he concede that that is wholly inaccurate? Under the current terms, the maximum payment is three years. The six and two thirds figure to which he refers includes the enhanced pension that somebody would receive if they were over 50 years old. Will he therefore accept that his explanation is inaccurate?

[John Hemming]

The question is about what we add to the deficit—the actual cash costs. That is the key. The proposals that the previous Government tried to impose were struck down by a judicial review, so we have reverted to the original scheme.

In essence we are trying to reduce the deficit and reduce borrowing, and, if by making redundancies we increase borrowing, that will not get us anywhere at all. That is the reality of life. Underlying that, however, things can be done to reduce the full-time equivalent headcount without reducing staff—finding ways in which people can go part-time and so on. But, there is a legislative logjam that needs to be broken, and we need negotiations. Indeed, the 1972 Act requires them. The Public and Commercial Services Union argues in its briefing that there needs to be a trade union veto because there is no contract. However, those people who have contracts can find that their contracts are changed.

To be fair, I should take a very different view if there were any threat to pension rights. Pension rights are different, but an unaffordable redundancy scheme, in which we cannot reorganise organisations and save any money, is one that we cannot deal with in these circumstances—much that the priority has to be otherwise. To that extent, new clause 1 is the right way forward. I am surprised that the Opposition have taken the view that they would rather this were a money Bill than not, because their amendment would create the situation whereby it suddenly became a money Bill.

[Tessa Jowell]

We want the Bill to have full and proper parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament.

[John Hemming]

I thank the shadow Minister for saying what her objectives are. In the past, the Opposition have often had objectives that they failed to achieve. Their objective was to remove the trade union veto, but the amendment would reinstate it. Their objective is for this not to be a money Bill, but by voting against new clause 1 they would, if successful, make it a money Bill. I accept that the shadow Minister has particular objectives, but what she does tends not to work; that is the reality of the situation.

We have to be effective in terms of running Government. We must do things that work—that achieve results. This Bill is about achieving results: it is about creating a situation whereby there can be negotiations with the trade unions in which we can deal with difficult cases where individuals are suffering particular hardship. In the Public Bill Committee, there was an attempt to negotiate through discussions with the trade unions. That was dreadful—it was almost impossible to get anywhere, and I find it rather sad that anyone tried. The reality is that negotiations have to work in a particular way; one cannot negotiate through a process of producing legislation. We need a blunt instrument that creates an environment in which a negotiated settlement can be arrived at. To that extent, I support new clause 1.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Following the final comments by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I fully agree that we have been trying to create an environment in which agreement can be reached. However, if I were a civil servant watching this debate, with the prospect of the large-scale redundancies that will happen after the comprehensive spending review, I would almost despair. It will be extremely difficult for all of them to come to terms with the loss of their jobs. As a manager in the public sector in a former life, I have always found that people are realistic as long as their views are respected and they are involved in the discussions and negotiations, which have been entered into in a spirit of good will. To achieve that, we need to create a climate of good will where people feel that their views are being heard.

Despite my having opposed every cut of every job in recent years under the previous Government, we were told in the Public Bill Committee that 80,000 jobs were lost but there were only 80 compulsory redundancies. The negotiations that took place on the basis of the protocols established with regard to redundancies and transfer between Departments resulted in a system whereby large-scale compulsory redundancies were avoided. The Minister referred to past practice under the previous Government. As I said, I did not support the cuts that went on, but I genuinely think that they were committed to a negotiated settlement. In my view, had it not been for the interference of No. 10 and the Treasury—this is almost like history repeating itself—we would have obtained a negotiated settlement that all unions would have accepted. However, the settlement was imposed, and I opposed that. The PCS took the then Government to court because it believed that the accrued rights of its members were being interfered with contrary to law because it was an imposed settlement, not an agreed one. It was proved right in the court of law, and we have to come to terms with the reality of that.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point of view on this. Does he believe that it is possible for the Government to negotiate to a satisfactory conclusion with the PCS given its position in all the negotiations?

[John McDonnell]

I do. I will come to that in a few minutes.

The position of the unions in the Public Bill Committee represented an attempt to acknowledge their responsibilities to their members. The PCS was in a similar position whereby, if it had not taken the Government to court to assert its members’ rights to their accrued rights and to consultation and agreement, it could have been taken to court by any individual member for failing to undertake its duty to its members.

Under the previous Government, there was a genuine attempt to negotiate a settlement. Under the current Government, I have found in my discussions with civil servants—not only PCS members but members of the other unions—that there is uncertainty among many of the people who may well be affected by the cuts to come as to whether the Government genuinely want a settlement, and anxiety that the Government are seeking to provoke a dispute. I listened to the Minister’s words, and I am grateful for them: they were positive and tried to create the climate in which a negotiated settlement can be achieved. However, the pattern of negotiations and ministerial statements in the past few months has not engendered an atmosphere in which a negotiated settlement can be brought about. That is why the Opposition have tabled their amendments. Every trade union representative at the Public Bill Committee made it clear to us that it was unprecedented for a Government, in the midst of negotiations, to introduce a Bill to impose a settlement in this way. It has never happened before in negotiations between a Government and the public sector.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall from the Committee that the senior civil servant responsible for the issue said that he would have advised any Government to take this sort of approach?

[John McDonnell]

That very civil servant’s advice landed the last Government in court, where they lost. I met him in the week before the general election and said to him: “You will lose in court because this is inaccurate advice on legal grounds, but in addition, it will not contribute to the conclusion of a negotiated settlement, and we’ll be back again within weeks”—and we were.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not ideologically driven but driven merely by the difficulties of our current circumstances?

[John McDonnell]

I do not believe that many civil servants who will be affected by job losses believe that the Government are seeking to resolve this matter by negotiation, and I am trying to reflect those views. We in this House, and the Government in particular, need to go the extra mile to get back to an atmosphere where there is confidence among the people who may well be threatened with the loss of their jobs, and we need to convince them that there is the opportunity of a genuine negotiated settlement. As I said in Committee, our responsibility is to seek to create a climate in which a just, negotiated settlement can be engendered.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that the Government are inserting a new clause that prevents this from being a money Bill is a sign of good faith from them?

[John McDonnell]

I will come to that.

There has been a litany of disasters during these negotiations. If we want to secure an agreement, we need to try to keep everyone on board. The puerile attempts to divide the unions have been completely counter-productive. The first attempt was to try to insinuate that the PCS negotiator had agreed the terms but had been overturned by the PCS executive. That was put to the PCS negotiator in the Public Bill Committee and it was denied, so it is not true. In fact, the PCS did what it always does as a democratic union—it takes the issues back to the executive. It is probably one of those unions that consults its members more than any other.

The second attempt to divide the unions was by the reference to five unions having agreed a settlement and only the PCS being excluded by refusing to do so. The Minister put out a press release that caused anger among the trade unions. The Prison Officers Association immediately issued a press release saying that letters written to the Minister, in confidence and without prejudice, were put in the public domain. The result is that this week the POA has rejected the deal.

It seems that four of the six unions were originally going to put the deal to their members, but the POA and PCS represent more than 90% of the people who will be affected. They are the unions that we have to convince if we want a negotiated settlement, and they are negotiating on behalf of their members based on what those members tell them through their executive.

14:00

[Mr Maude]

The hon. Gentleman asserts that the POA and PCS represent more than 90% of the people affected, but only 60% of civil servants are members of trade unions to begin with.

[John McDonnell]

I meant 90% of the trade union members with whom the Government are negotiating.

May I tell the Minister what the POA has said about his words? Its general secretary Steve Gillan has said:

“I am annoyed that Mr Maude has leaked without prejudice discussions but I believe this has been deliberate in an attempt to drive a wedge between the POA and PCS. The POA will not allow him to do so.”

The Minister’s actions have meant that the union has now rejected the deal. Those actions were not responsible, and they were in contrast to the words of comfort that he has used here today and elsewhere in trying to engender a good industrial relations climate.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) said, Members need to understand the strength of feeling among PCS, POA and other trade union members about the impact that the changes will have on their lives. We have had heart-rending cases submitted to us by people who have entered into mortgages, for example, believing that they had the security that even if they lost their job, they would have redundancy pay that would cover their mortgages. Now, they might lose their homes. We have heard of other people who were expecting significant compensation related to their salaries, one of whom would now lose £90,000 as a result of the Government’s proposals. No wonder people are angry and concerned. That is why they want their Government and their trade unions to come together to agree a fair way forward.

[Harriett Baldwin]

May I ask again the question that I asked earlier? Can the hon. Gentleman see a way for the PCS to agree to any negotiating position?

[John McDonnell]

Yes I can, and the PCS has written to the Minister again recently asking for meetings. I believe that one meeting has taken place, so there is potential. However, we cannot expect a negotiated settlement to take place when tactics are used that undermine the confidence not only of the PCS but now of the POA. That lack of confidence is now infesting other unions as well.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns about employees beyond those directly affected by the Bill? I am concerned about the hundreds of thousands of employees in the rest of the public sector who will be watching the process closely and wondering what the next stage will be as we rebalance the economy from public sector jobs to private sector jobs.

[John McDonnell]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is valid and valuable. The Bill sets what many believe is a precedent for what will happen elsewhere, so it behoves us to get it right and ensure that we create a climate in which people at least understand that they will get a fair deal.

The Government’s tactic of the use of a money Bill was derisory. This was never really a money Bill, and when we asked for the justification for its being used as one, nothing was forthcoming. I have seen no note from Minister even defining it as such. It was simply a tactic whereby the Lords would have been excluded from amending the Bill, which would therefore have been implemented earlier. This House would have been denied the second opportunity for debate provided by Lords amendments. That tactic had an impact on people’s confidence in the genuineness of the Government’s approach to the negotiations.

The Government’s approach to the concept of accrued rights has been blasé. Their interpretation of accrued rights—that they are not really accrued but are obtained only at the time of a redundancy—seems contrary to not just law but common sense. I cannot see it standing up in any court of law, and it could indeed be challenged in court. As was said on Second Reading—by the Chair of the Public Administration Committee, I believe—the Bill could be enacted and then the scheme challenged in a court of law and the European courts. The Government could lose again, as they already have once, and then we would have to pay compensation to all the people who had been made redundant in the interim. That is no way to treat people and certainly no way to enact legislation.

I have some anxieties about the Government’s new clause, which is why I support my party’s Front Benchers’ efforts to eradicate it. It is there as a threat that the Government will drive people out of employment on the lowest terms possible. It would also enable them to amend the scheme in future. There are now additional proposals to change the protocol involved, the notice period for redundancy and other matters, which would undermine the protection of people who lose their jobs and the flexibility of a manager to avoid compulsory redundancies, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley sought.

The Government’s handling of the issue has soured the industrial relations climate in the civil service and sent a message to trade unions in other areas, such as health, teaching and local government, that what has come to the civil service unions affected may be visited on them. If the Government do not learn the lessons of the debates on the Bill over the past few weeks, they will provoke industrial action, and that action will be justifiable. Unions will have sought to negotiate a reasonable settlement, but the Government will have played fast and loose with the process, refused to listen and imposed something that will have a considerable effect on the lives of people threatened with the loss of their jobs.

To answer the question that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) asked me, the position of the PCS, and now of all the other unions, is that they would welcome the Government going back to the negotiating table for serious negotiations. I urge the Lords to amend the Bill so that it will be brought back here for debate. I welcome the Government’s proposals for amendments in the Lords, because they would give us the opportunity for further debate and a further period in which there would hopefully be serious negotiations. They would give this House a long-stop role, so that we could determine whether there had been a just settlement and whether the Bill should therefore pass.

Finally, the House should not underestimate the strength of feeling of public servants on this issue. We have a responsibility to them and to our constituents whom they serve. If we undermine their role in any way through the Bill, we will live to regret it and so will the Government.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am puzzled by the logic of the Opposition’s position this afternoon. At the beginning of the Bill’s passage, it was agreed throughout the House that every party recognised the need for change. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) tried to bring it about. She introduced her Bill, but she was blocked and prevented from taking it through. The ball passed to the coalition parties, and we have now introduced a new Bill that recognises the bluntness of the instrument required to achieve a negotiated settlement.

We have heard this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Minister about the deal on the table, which, if I understand it correctly, will offer up to 21 months’ pay on voluntary terms, plus a notice period of three months, making a maximum total of 24 months’ redundancy pay for all civil servants earning less than £23,000 a year, but based on that £23,000 figure. That is a better deal than the one that the Labour party offered civil servants earlier this year. When the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said that she would oppose new clause 1 on the basis that our civil servants deserve better, I was left wondering which civil servants she meant. The truth is that the debate clearly shows that those of us who support new clause 1 do so precisely because we want a much better deal for lower-paid civil servants, which is the whole exercise of the Bill.

[Tessa Jowell]

Again, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman were quite specific on the respects in which the Bill’s provisions or those of the improved offer, which are not in the Bill, are better than the February 2010 offer?

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Lady asks in which ways the Bill’s provisions are better. My understanding is that under the new deal that is being negotiated, a lower-paid civil servant—for example, one on a salary of £10,000—would receive up to 24 months’ statutory redundancy payment based on a salary of £23,000, which is better than the deal put on the table by the Labour party.

[Harriett Baldwin]

One theme that has come up in all debates on the Bill, including in Committee, was that we want better treatment for the low paid. I agree with my hon. Friend. I would have thought that the Opposition would welcome the low-pay aspects of the Bill and the improvement in the negotiating position.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

If I may continue where I left off—

[Tessa Jowell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

May I make some progress first?

[Tessa Jowell]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady for the third time.

[Tessa Jowell]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Is the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) giving way?

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Jeremy Wright)]

No, don’t! She is being discourteous.

[Richard Graham]

The point that I had reached was that many in the House clearly agree that civil servants deserve better. Those of us who support new clause 1 are absolutely clear—I have talked to PCS members in my constituency—that many members of the trade unions involved do not understand, and are indeed being misled by their unions on, what is on offer and what is being negotiated. I therefore put it to the House that Members who believe in supporting lower-paid civil servants will support the new clause, precisely because those people deserve better. That is what the measure will achieve and why I support it.

[Mr Maude]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to make one or two comments at the end of what has been a good discussion of Government new clause 1, Government amendment 1 and the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell).

My first point is that the coalition Government earnestly hope to avoid redundancies. It is in our mind at all times that every job lost, whether in the public sector or elsewhere, represents a personal disaster for that individual and their family. All hon. Members should bear in mind that these are grave matters for a lot of hard-working, dedicated public servants. Everything that we do in government will bend towards trying to find ways to avoid redundancies in whatever way we can.

Sadly, because of the lamentable state of the public finances, which the coalition Government inherited from their predecessor, it is unrealistic to expect that there will be no redundancies. Our concern throughout the Bill is to ensure that the terms on which people are made redundant are fair to the individuals affected and to the taxpayer. The aim therefore must be, as I have said repeatedly, a secure and sustainable negotiated agreement with which all are willing to live.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said that the PCS wishes to engage and believes that there should be serious negotiation—he is very close to that union—and I wholeheartedly endorse that approach. The negotiations, which I am bound to say have proceeded without the PCS, have been serious and constructive, and that they have been entered into in a spirit of good will. They may have been fractious from time to time, because these are difficult matters that make a great difference to a lot of people’s lives, but throughout the process, despite repeated invitations to do so, the PCS has not made constructive proposals.

14:15

When Mark Serwotka came to see me at the beginning of this week—I spent a long time with him—and asked to be allowed to put forward proposals to reopen the proposed new scheme that had been brokered by the representatives of, and negotiators for, the other five unions, I said to him, “Yes, I am willing for that to happen, but the PCS must come forward with serious, constructive proposals.” I am still waiting. I want those proposals. I said that they must be discussed with the other five unions, because those unions have put in the hard yards of negotiating among themselves and with the Government on the configuration that best meets their varied needs and requirements.

The PCS must engage with not only the Government—it must do that—but with the other unions, because there is a limit to what can be afforded in these straitened times, and that limit has been reached. Within those constraints, however, there could be scope for reconfiguring the proposed new scheme to meet the PCS’s concerns. However, the first port of call for the PCS is to make genuine proposals to, and to engage with, the other unions involved. As I have said, those unions have been involved much more constructively and in a more open spirit than the PCS.

I want briefly to deal with the points made by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who led for the Opposition, because her position—I will put this as charitably as I can—is somewhat inconsistent. She has said that amendment 4 would remove the caps, which are at the heart of the Bill. That is possible, because new clause 1 would create a power for the Government to impose a new scheme in any event. There is a certain slender logic in that, but I point out that there is a long way to go in the legislative process before that power comes into existence.

That slender logic completely self-destructed when the right hon. Lady said that she would oppose new clause 1. If the House did as she urged, it would not only remove the caps in the original Bill, but deny the Government any power to impose a new scheme in any event. The Government would therefore have no ability reform the existing scheme, which is what she and everyone who has spoken accepts is needed. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand how she can reconcile her opposition to my new clause and her support for her amendments.

[Tessa Jowell]

For the record, I think I have made the position absolutely clear. The Minister’s words were more of a debating game than a substantive discussion of policy. We oppose new clause 1, because it creates no specific obligation to consult. Removing the caps would remove the structure of a settlement that the Opposition believe is profoundly and fundamentally unfair. The settlement is substantially detrimental to 500,000 civil servants compared with our February 2010 scheme, which has been grossly misrepresented by Government Members.

[Mr Maude]

This is not a debating game. The Bill is deadly serious for hundreds of thousands of hard-working, dedicated public servants. The fact is that the right hon. Lady has today proposed removing everything—the ability to create caps on the existing scheme, which she says needs to be changed, and the Government’s ability to impose changes.

Let us look at what the right hon. Lady has argued on new clause 1. She accepts that my new clause is necessary and needed—both words that she has used at times to describe it—but she plans to vote against it on the grounds that it is, she says, an “unbridled power”. It is exactly the same power that she herself exercised earlier this year. Did she feel then that it was an unbridled power? Of course she did not, because there is already on the face of the Superannuation Act 1972 a clear and explicit obligation on the Minister to consult trade unions before imposing a scheme. Sadly, she seems to be unaware of that, so I am happy for the opportunity to enlighten her. She followed that obligation, and I undertake to follow it as well.

In the spirit of good will that has—broadly—dominated these deliberations, I have made a clear commitment that if further amendments are needed to make it clear in the Bill that proper consultation must take place before a scheme is imposed, they will be introduced in the other place. However, it must be recognised that as a “bridling” of this power—to adopt the right hon. Lady’s word—the legislation already contains an obligation to consult, and it has done so for nearly 40 years.

This new clause is necessary to give effect to a successor scheme to the current unsustainable, unaffordable and frankly unfair scheme, and the whole House accepts the need for that change. I stress again that it is the Government’s aim—we will strain every sinew towards it—to achieve a negotiated scheme that is supported by all six trade unions, in which case neither the caps nor this power will need to be exercised. However, to have any chance of reaching that point, it is necessary to reject the right hon. Lady’s amendments and to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

14:22

Division 71

Ayes: 299

---

Conservative: 259
Liberal Democrat: 39

Noes: 240

---

Labour: 222
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 5
Liberal Democrat: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

New clause 1 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

Limits on value of benefits provided under civil service compensation scheme

Amendment proposed: 4, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.—(Tessa Jowell.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

14:35

Division 72

Ayes: 238

---

Labour: 222
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 316

---

Conservative: 273
Liberal Democrat: 42

Amendment made: 1, in title, at end insert:

“; and to make provision modifying the effect of section 2(3) of the Superannuation Act 1972 in relation to such benefits”.—(Mr Maude.)

Third Reading

14:48

[Mr Maude]

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

The Bill has been debated extensively on Second Reading and in the good deliberations in the Public Bill Committee. We canvassed the central issues again in the course of today’s discussions on the Government new clause and the Opposition amendments. I say again that we are dealing with matters of huge significance to large numbers of dedicated public servants, who are in a state of considerable uncertainty and anxiety about their futures, which I completely understand.

We wish to avoid redundancies wherever that is possible, because we recognise—as everyone in the House should—that every single job lost is a personal disaster for that person and their family. We will therefore do everything we can to avoid them, but where they are inevitable it is important that the terms on which civil servants become redundant are fair, both to the individual and to the taxpayer. That is what we are seeking to achieve. I say again that the Government will strain every nerve to achieve a negotiated new scheme that will make the caps imposed by the Bill unnecessary. That would also mean that the power reinstated by the Government’s new clause and amendment that have just been agreed—which simply reinstate a power that previously existed and that was exercised by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell)—would not need to be exercised.

The effect of the passing of the amendments and new clause is that the question of whether this is a money Bill no longer arises, so it will move on to the other place and undergo full scrutiny. As I have said, I undertake to introduce further amendments there to clarify and entrench, to the extent that that is needed, the obligation to consult before any new scheme is imposed. I will ensure that that happens and will discuss the content and format of such amendments with the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and with the relevant unions.

The Bill remains as essential today as it was when I announced our intention to introduce it back in July. We have made huge progress since in configuring what a new replacement successor scheme would look like—sustainable, affordable and fair. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

14:50

[Tessa Jowell]

I agree with much that the Minister said, particularly the extent to which the prospects for negotiated settlement on behalf of 500,000 civil servants, although not necessarily the Bill itself, have improved as a direct result of the parliamentary process to date and the probing questions asked by the Opposition. The offer now on the table is substantially improved, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to introduce further amendments in the other place that will substantially improve what we believe to be a profoundly flawed Bill. I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to avoid redundancy in every available circumstance. I think that the civil servants who service so diligently the purpose of government will be listening closely to what he says.

Perhaps my final piece of advice is to remember that this settlement will have to remain in place for these kinds of negotiations for a very long time, so I urge the Minister to resist the pressure he is doubtless getting from the Treasury to reach the quickest and cheapest settlement, as that will not extend to those deserving civil servants the treatment that not just they but the country expect.

14:53

[John Hemming]

In a sense, it is sad not to see massive press interest in an issue that is very important to many people in this country. I am pleased to hear the Minister express the same views as I have expressed on the need to minimise the number of redundancies, and, if there have to be any, to maximise the number who go voluntarily through agreement so that we absolutely minimise the number of compulsory redundancies. This is about the way we manage staff—I have managed staff for more than half of my lifetime—and I believe it is important to work in consultation with people and to tell them what is going on. Discussions and negotiations are crucial. I very much welcome the Government’s approach to that.

The reality is that this process was started in July 2009 by the previous Government. This is a continuation of a process that everyone recognises was necessary. The Opposition now think that none of this should be done and they want to oppose it all. It is their prerogative to change their minds, but the reality is that we have to get on with it all and manage a very difficult situation. To that extent, we support Third Reading.

14:54

[John McDonnell]

Much has been said about the need for the unions to negotiate. Let me be clear about the unions’ position, as a number of general secretaries are in the building today. The POA makes it clear in its statement that it has rejected the Government’s final offer, but it has left the door open for further dialogue with the Government, which must be meaningful with all the Council of Civil Service Unions present and with no exclusions.

Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services Union has written to the Government and briefed other MPs to the effect that he is keen to re-enter talks, but stresses again that they must be meaningful. The PCS believes it has worked hard to reach a settlement. Let me quote Mark Serwotka:

“From the outset PCS has worked hard to come to a fair deal. We cannot accept the current offer and are calling for further talks. If those talks do not take place we will continue to oppose the Bill in Parliament and will take legal action when appropriate as we have successfully done in the past.”

The two unions representing the vast bulk of the civil service members who will be affected by the Bill are willing to negotiate.

The problem seems to be not the Minister’s willingness to negotiate, but the Treasury envelope within which he is negotiating. If that is the problem, I suggest that the Treasury gets directly involved in these negotiations as well, so that it can see that its attempt to gain a short-term saving will have a long-term cost to the Government. That might help to get some productive negotiations going. By the time the Bill comes back from the other place, we might have a settlement across all the unions, but any attempt to try to divide the unions again will, I believe, be counter-productive. We now need to create a climate of industrial relations that will enable these negotiations to take place successfully for all the unions, not just for a small minority.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

14:56

Division 73

Ayes: 309

---

Conservative: 269
Liberal Democrat: 39

Noes: 242

---

Labour: 221
Liberal Democrat: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

15:10

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

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

This is the 10th London Local Authorities Bill and it is promoted on behalf of the 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation, speaking for Londoners. Although many of us would prefer a reduction in regulation and a lessening of the intrusive nature of government both national and local as that is a laudable aim, we have a responsibility to address the real issues facing Londoners.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

As he represents Finchley and Golders Green, my hon. Friend will be aware that today is the 85th anniversary of a distinguished predecessor as Member for that constituency, the noble Baroness Thatcher. Has he had a chance to speak to the noble Baroness about whether she agrees with the proposition he has just put to the House, namely that there is an excuse for why we should not be deregulating but that instead we need to regulate more?

[Mike Freer]

The last time I spoke to the good lady we discussed many things but the London Local Authorities Bill was not one of them. Having said that, however, I know that she took a great interest in the environment. In fact, she was the Prime Minister who pushed through much of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and many of the regulations we are now seeking to give local authorities power over will allow them to clean up and make the polluter pay. I therefore have no doubt that the good lady would be supportive of the thrust of these proposals even though she is, of course, averse to regulation in itself, as I am too.

The Bill allows local councils to combat the many problems and their effects that we now face in our daily lives. There is a difficulty here in that many of us in this House would like to turn back the clock to a gentler age but, sadly, we live in an irresponsible society in which many traders or other individuals can cause problems for our residents.

The Bill’s main purpose is to replace certain existing regulations and consolidate others. The regulations addressed include those dealing with the sale of vehicles on the highway, nudity in bars, tenant safety in houses of multiple occupation and issues that have serious implications for public health. The Bill seeks to introduce clarity into consumer protection here in London, particularly in respect of food hygiene and the sale of vehicles.

I would like to explain some specific provisions, in order to help Members to come to a decision on the Bill. Let me turn first to clause 4—I do not mean to excite Labour Members by referring to that phrase. Clause 4 allows police community support officers and, most importantly, other authorised individuals—predominantly civil enforcement officers—to require people to give their names and addresses when penalty charge notices have been issued. At present, people are not required to provide that information, thus making enforcement difficult. This measure is particularly important in respect of decriminalised offences such as littering. Those of us who live in urban areas will know the scourge that is the litter left on our doorsteps on a daily basis. That costs all of our councils millions of pounds to clean up. This provision will allow councils to recoup that cost by being able to force those who cause the litter to pay a fixed penalty charge or to pay for the cleaning up. If we believe in the “polluter pays” principle, we should support this provision. Some people might ask whether that is not the role of the police. If we want our police to focus on more serious crimes, it is essential that we allow such low-level crime to be dealt with by civil environment officers and PCSOs. I therefore urge Members to support this clause.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but should this power for police support officers not be a general power decided by this Parliament for the whole country, if that is what Parliament wishes? Why should individual councils have different powers in relation to police support officers?

[Mike Freer]

It is for the Government to decide whether they wish to give that general power to the police. The difficulty here is that, especially with regard to authorised officers such as civil enforcement officers, there is a gap in the legislation. London councils wish to plug that gap. If my hon. Friend wishes to push, through the Backbench Business Committee or other channels, for the Government to pursue this, I will wish him well and support him. However, we have a loophole in London that needs to be addressed.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The problem with that is that London is unique: it is visited by large numbers of people from all over the country and my constituents, for instance, would not be used to such a regime in the Bradford district. How are they supposed to feel when they find on a day visit to London that these powers have been given to local authorities in the capital? How are they supposed to know whether the people concerned have got that power or not? They should be able to have an expectation of what powers people in this country have and do not have.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I believe that the basic premise is that abuse of the law is no excuse. If people are seeking to litter in London, they should take the consequences. I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents would do no such thing when visiting our fine city of London, however.

Clause 6 corrects an anomaly. At present, only commercial premises are required to prevent the accumulation of litter outside their buildings. This measure allows all public buildings—whether schools, hospitals or police stations—to be covered by the legislation. Closing that anomaly makes all people responsible for keeping their buildings clear of detritus.

Clause 7 includes the rather peculiar measure of the reintroduction of the power to install turnstiles in public lavatories. I never thought I would be elected to talk about public lavatories. I thought I had left that behind when I left Barnet council. However, this is not the old-fashioned, almost portcullis-type turnstile of the 1960s and 1970s; this is the modern turnstile that we are more used to in tube stations, which is fully disability-accessible. This measure will allow particularly the City of Westminster to use the revenue from the turnstiles to be reinvested in the provision of services, including those facilities themselves. We are asking our councils to do more with less and we expect public toilets, particularly in the centre of London, to help in that. This provision will allow the City of Westminster to continue to provide much-valued services.

Clause 8 is predominantly about the “polluter pays” principle. Those of us who live near fast-food establishments will be increasingly annoyed about getting up every morning to find a line of fast-food wrappers all down the highway or pavement. We are used to the people responsible being prosecuted for the litter they generate, but this measure allows councils to recover the costs from the commercial operator trading from the public highway. At present, the council can recover only the cost of the administration of issuing a street-trading licence. This allows the council to recover the costs of clearing and sweeping the highway, and particularly of taking away the litter generated by that street trading. In this age of austerity, if we are asking our councils to do more with less, we should allow them to recoup the cost of providing such services from those who caused the problem.

[Philip Davies]

I am puzzled that my hon. Friend blames local takeaway establishments for litter. Surely he would accept that it is not those establishments that cause the litter, but the individuals who visit them. So why does he want to penalise people who are not responsible and let off those who are?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but if he wants to deal with the people who cause the litter, he should support the clause that requires people to supply their name and address when fixed penalty notices are being served. This is a pincer movement, because one provision deals with those who operate the businesses that generate the litter and the other clause deals with those who drop it, and therefore both sides of the argument are covered. The cost of collecting litter in London runs to millions of pounds and it falls on the innocent taxpayer, so either the businesses have to be more responsible or the individuals who cause the litter have to be prosecuted. Either way, the Bill provides the necessary regulations to allow the London councils to get on with it.

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

I have sympathy with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), because we do not want to have a complicated provision that penalises everybody when, often, the actions of an irresponsibility minority are to blame. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) agree that some of the more innovative work has been undertaken in the City of Westminster, although not exclusively there, and that it has aimed at ensuring that as part of a licensing arrangement some of these fast-food outlets must have full-time staff employed outside their establishment—within about 100 yards of it—to ensure that litter is not disposed of there? That takes place at the Oxford street McDonald’s, but I am sure that it is not the only establishment where such an arrangement is in place. I hope that such an approach would get around the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. That sort of voluntary arrangement made at the outset should be encouraged.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some operators, such as McDonald’s, are very responsible and do provide regular litter patrols. However, other fast-food operators, in particular the smaller ones, but even some of the national chains—I shall not give names, but one is at the end of my road—simply do not provide them. They take no responsibility for the litter that they generate outside their premises, nor do they try to persuade their customers to act more responsibly. The Bill would allow local councils to deal with both instances.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend must be aware of the concerns of the Society of London Theatre and the Theatrical Management Association. They feel that their members already pay significantly and that this measure will be an additional charge on them. Those bodies have petitioned against the Bill, so what plans does he have to address their concerns?

[Mike Freer]

We do not know what those specific concerns are; I have certainly not been made aware of the detail, but I would be more than happy to give it some close attention because, as a former leader of a London borough, I have some experience in dealing with street licensing. I share my hon. Friend’s concern that many of our businesses pay large sums in business rates, but that money does not go back to the local councils in full. In fact, my local authority is a net contributor of £20 million a year in business rates. I understand the concerns of business, but the real issue, which the Treasury needs to address, is that of having a fair distribution of business rates so that businesses in London do not feel they are paying twice. That does not address the problem we face with litter caused by street trading in London, and it has to be addressed. I do not think it is fair that the council tax payer has to pick up the bill, although I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raised.

Clauses 9 and 10 are slightly meatier parts of the Bill. They deal with food hygiene, particularly for those businesses involved in the production, processing and distribution of food, requiring them to display their most recent hygiene star rating. In many London boroughs this has been a voluntary scheme and it has performed reasonably well. However, the London boroughs have come together and feel that this needs now to be put on a statutory footing. Over the years, environmental health has become something of a Cinderella service—I hope I am not being too blunt—in that it has been subject to spending reductions. Again, I return to the fact that many London councils will continue to be underfunded and will, in the next few years, have to make ever more efficiency savings and be required to do more with less. Over the past few years, that has led to a risk-based assessment for food hygiene. That means that a good establishment is inspected and receives three, four or five stars and is then left alone for 18 months or so. An establishment that gets one star immediately becomes higher risk and is subject to more frequent inspections, which could take place the following day or the following week. As it is a light-touch, light-regulation regime, the consumer needs some protection. The information on standards should be provided to them at the point of entry to the establishment or should be clearly visible when they are at the establishment.

I do not think that it is unreasonable that food establishments should be required to display their most recent grading. I understand that some members of the British Hospitality Association are concerned that if they get one star, they will be stuck with it. However, a one-star establishment is high risk and will therefore be re-inspected pretty quickly. Nevertheless, I am happy to say that I think that the promoters of the Bill are willing to consider whether those who scored poorly should be able to pay for a quick inspection, if they feel that they have had an off day, in order to improve their score. I think that is quite reasonable.

[Mr Bone]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he is introducing the Bill on Second Reading, which is most helpful to Members. In my constituency, there already seems to be such a scheme. The problem is that, even if an establishment’s one-star rating is found on re-inspection the following week to be a blip, the stars cannot be reinstated for a whole year, which has caused one restaurant many problems.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but that is not my understanding of how the scheme in London would work. I am more than happy to take that away and to get him some reassurance on it, but my understanding is that if an establishment is inspected on a Monday and gets one star, it is deemed to be an off day. The environmental health officers will probably know whether it is an off day; if they have had cause for complaint about an establishment before, they will know of a pattern of behaviour. If they go into somewhere such as McDonald’s and it is a poor visit, they will know that the company takes such matters seriously and that it is likely to have been an off day, but it is less likely to be an off day in a local corner shop that has had a history of complaints, so it will go back on the risk register. I am happy to take away my hon. Friend’s point and to confirm whether the inspection would be within a matter of weeks, if requested by the establishment, to ensure that people are not stuck with an unfortunate grading that they felt to be unfair.

[Philip Davies]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, although I have a fear that this is a solution looking for a problem. Who will know what a star rating means? If I walked into an establishment that had three stars on the outside, I would have absolutely no idea what those three stars meant. I would not know what the criteria were for one star, two stars or three stars. It might satisfy the bureaucratic instincts of the local authority, but it would not add a great deal to the customer’s experience. I am not even convinced that local councils are best placed to decide these things. I am sure that according to the bureaucratic monsters in local authorities the jam produced by the Mothers’ Union would have only a one-star rating, but I would be perfectly happy to eat it. I am not sure that this is an entirely meaningful measure.

[Mike Freer]

I am sure that the jam made by the women’s institute in Shipley is a fine product. The system with one, two, three, four and five stars is relatively understandable. Most people understand: five stars good; one star bad. My hon. Friend understands a three-star or five-star rating on a hotel, but I suspect that he does not know the mechanics of how that star rating was awarded. If he wants to understand just how the gradings have been arrived at, that information is available to him and I shall happily forward him the details. Most people seem to understand one, two, three, four and five stars.

[Mr Mark Field]

Having been out recently with the environmental protection team at Westminster city council and watched them in action, I can give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that these systems, at least in Westminster, work moderately well although, as he rightly says, the test is fairly objective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) must be the first person to have mentioned Cinderella in such seasonal terms in only the second week of October, but this is a Cinderella department and there will clearly be downward pressure on costs for local authorities, so my slight concern is that what is deemed, rightly in my view, to be a deregulatory measure might end up becoming awfully bureaucratic, particularly if a massive set of appeals procedures are to be put in place. My instinctive view is that, if we are going down that route, we should have a review every six or 12 months. The idea that the well-funded muscle of large operators can overturn a hygiene ruling in such a way is unfavourable and would militate against small, independently owned and family-run establishments that had fallen foul of clauses 8 or 9 when it came to their hygiene regulation in any year.

[Mike Freer]

I understand the concern that big operators can dominate the appeals process. That is why larger operators are probably less likely to be high-risk establishments. I understand the concern about burdening our local businesses, but there was an instance in my constituency in which a long-established butcher put many local pensioners into hospital because of its food hygiene standards and the way that chopping boards were used. It was not a chain, but it was a reasonable-sized local business that had been there for many years and had a good reputation among the public. Sadly, it had a bad reputation among environmental health officers. Had there been a grading system on the door, the public might have had a slightly better inkling as to the standard of food hygiene on the cutting boards, which put two or three pensioners into hospital with serious food poisoning. I am keen to avoid regulation, but we have a responsibility, at times, to ensure that consumers have some protection.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Food Standards Agency, which has been given a national remit to look into these areas, believes in the principle of voluntarism? It is very concerned about introducing a mandatory requirement for premises to put signs on their doors that might reflect the result of a survey or inspection that was carried out many weeks or months previously.

[Mike Freer]

I am surprised that my hon. Friend is lauding a national regulatory quango while arguing against regulation. That seems slightly contradictory. Personally, I have no faith in the FSA. In my time as the leader of a large council that had many food outlets in the borough, I had no knowledge of what the FSA did in the borough, of any prosecutions that it brought to bear or of how it improved food standards. London councils, environmental health officers and practitioners on the ground say that we need a system that provides information to consumers so that they can have consumer protection if we are to have a local, light-touch regulatory regime and if we are not to have environmental health officers knocking on doors every week, which clearly is not going to happen.

Let me address clauses 11 to 20 on houses in multiple occupation. The measures give councils the power to issue management notices on the owners of defective HMOs. There are various amendments, one of which is rather minor, regarding the method of doing so—by post as opposed to registered post. One area that my hon. Friends will be pleased about is the simplification of regulation. Currently, if a housing team believe that an HMO operator is operating unsafe premises, they have to go through a fairly convoluted matrix of assessing the risk, the implications, what needs to be done to be put it right and the relevant time scale. That is very resource-intensive, and is particularly onerous if the issue is simply a damaged stair or a wonky banister. The measures allow councils to simplify that process. Normally, that would involve a 24-hour notice period, but the proposal would allow local councils to waive or avoid that 24-hour notice period if a tenant’s health or safety were at risk.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend will know that no less a person than the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the previous Government, has expressed concern about the measure, and indeed opposed part 4 because she believed that further legislation was not necessary. She was particularly strongly against the idea of giving powers in relation to the fitness of HMO stock in London that were not to be given for the rest of England. To what extent will the Bill’s promoters respond to those concerns, because they do not seem to have responded to them so far?

[Mike Freer]

My understanding is that the promoters have responded in that the power to seek entry is now restricted to the directors, assistant directors and one named individual, and is no longer a more wide-ranging power for members of the housing team. The proposers have offered that restriction and I am sure that we can deal with the matter if the Bill is considered in Committee.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once again and I am sorry to have to criticise him on this matter. If he looks at the report produced by the former Secretary of State, he will see that there were two separate issues: total opposition to everything contained in part 4 and concerns over provisions relating to powers of entry under clause 21 in part 5. I accept that modifications have been made in the latter case, but he will also be aware that, even subsequent to that, the former Secretary of State was still not quite sure that those concessions or amendments were sufficient.

[Mike Freer]

I cannot speak for the Secretary of State or the former Secretary of State, but perhaps the Minister wishes to give us some insight into the Department’s view. I am sorry to land him in it, but I cannot speak for him. I understand the concerns, but having a power of entry that is restricted to named individuals or senior members of the housing team is not unreasonable if a tenant is at risk.

I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) the fact that many HMOs are now operated by offshore companies or overseas owners. Therefore, tracking people down and serving a notice can be particularly difficult. This proposal would allow housing officers to gain access in circumstances where they might be frustrated by an absentee landlord. I am sure that the specific issue and the concerns expressed by the former Secretary of State can be addressed if the Bill reaches Committee.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. This is the position: since 2004, the problems of HMOs, particularly in London, have magnified significantly, as every local authority is reporting. The view in 2004 was that certain powers were not required, but local authorities have now made it clear that they are certainly required, as reflected by many constituency MPs. The House must remember that the London Local Authorities Act 2004 took some powers away from local authorities. If we had those powers now, we could use them in these instances.

[Mike Freer]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

[Mr Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being generous with his time. While I entirely endorse what has just been said, particularly in relation to a number of ownerships that are in the Cayman Islands and some offshore companies that are difficult to police properly, these proposals also raise another rather obvious question, which is, who polices the policeman? Some of the worst offenders are local authorities, through either arm’s length management organisations or directly owning property in multiple occupation. Where are the powers for individuals or other interested parties to be able to stand up and say that local authorities, which have some say in the running of particular properties, should also be subject to the powers being brought into play under clauses 11 to 20? It seems to me essential that there should be such protections, because in some cases local authorities are the worst offender in such instances.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend is quite correct, but the big difference between a local authority or an ALMO and an offshore HMO operator is that the local council has democratically elected members who are responsible and accessible to their local residents. If council tenants, ALMO tenants or housing association tenants have a grievance about the way their stock is being managed, they have direct access to the board of the ALMO, which often includes local councillors, or to the local council.

Although I appreciate that there may be difficulties, the major problem with HMOs is not with local authority stock. If the Government are seeking to loosen the regulation on HMOs and move to light-touch regulation, there must be checks and balances that do not allow us to abdicate responsibility. There must be some form of safety net to ensure that local authorities have the ability to step in if they believe that an HMO operator is putting tenants at risk, however deregulated the market becomes.

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

I am a temporary substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who has had to go to a ministerial meeting. He and I have both been troubled by the provisions relating to power of entry. Is not the way to protect the rights of absentee occupants under part 5 to make sure that there is a code of practice to back up the way in which senior housing officers or their nominee behave?

The wording is relatively loose because it is a survey in which any delay is likely to give rise to unnecessary and imminent risk. That is serious, but intervention could take place more often than any of us would like. Members will need careful reassurance in Committee that the measure does not allow an officer of the authority to go in without giving an account, maintaining a record and knowing when permission has been granted. A code of practice is needed, as well as a clear record that is examinable as to when it was applied for, why and what the outcome was.

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If we get to Committee stage, we can consider defining reasonable grounds for entry and the provision of a record of why, who and when. The problem is not insurmountable.

I shall make progress and deal with some of the other significant clauses, particularly clauses 26 to 28. Members are aware that there have been problems in Westminster concerning hot dog vendors. The City of Westminster has been effective in dealing with those rather disreputable vendors, and the proposal allows the council to confiscate the trolleys as they hit the pavement. It provides Camden council with the same powers. I should point out that the measure does not impact on street pedlars, a subject in which some colleagues in the House take a particular interest.

Clause 25 deals with a problem in many residential areas. Historically, we have seen lines of parked cars for sale causing an obstruction, particularly in residential streets, and causing a nuisance to local residents. These unregulated car dealers have got round placing a handwritten note in the window by advertising the cars on the internet, and possibly holding out as a private seller, meeting the potential purchaser on the pavement. The proposal allows councils to prohibit that and gives some consumer protection to local residents from such rogue traders.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Freer]

Indeed. [Interruption.]

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry that the Whip thinks it unreasonable for my hon. Friend to give way. I think it is very reasonable for him to give way. That is how we make progress in the House on contentious legislation. Can my hon. Friend explain whether the vehicles that he has in mind are already licensed with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and whether they have resident parking permits if they are in areas with residents parking? If they have those permits and the licence has been paid in respect of each of those vehicles, what is the problem?

[Mike Freer]

The problem is that it is already an offence to advertise cars for sale on the highway. Even if the seller is a private resident selling a car outside his own house, that is an offence. Over the years we have seen a proliferation of rogue dealers with five, six or 10 cars for sale on the highway, previously with handwritten stickers in the window, pretending to be private sellers. Purchasers would not get the consumer protection that they would by buying from a normal dealership. Owing to the prohibition of such advertising, people have moved their activities on to the web, so the Bill allows for the same prohibition to apply to sales on the internet. It does not affect people trying to sell their own car through a local newspaper; it enforces the existing law, whereby it is illegal to sell a car on the highway, and extends it to the internet.

[Simon Hughes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Freer]

If I could wind up—

[Simon Hughes]

One last question?

[Mike Freer]

Okay.

[Simon Hughes]

The Whip’s not looking; he’s slipped out of the Chamber for a second.

Will the promoters of the Bill, in collaboration with Ministers, look at whether the same power for dealing with hot dog trolleys—the power to nick them if there is abuse—might apply to car salespeople who put cars on the road outside their premises? That has been a frequent problem in Rotherhithe, with firms selling second-hand vehicles that are always parked illegally on the road. They have never been effectively stopped, and it seems to me that the way to deal with it is to give the local authority the power to remove the car if it is parked illegally on the highway.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but the Bill deals with only the removal of an obstruction on the pavement. It is a valid point that I am more than happy to take away to the Bill’s promoters, however.

I understand that many Members might be concerned about increasing the regulatory burden, but I urge them—

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way before he finishes his speech?

[Mike Freer]

I shall make progress, because I have been generous with my time.

We need to ensure that Londoners are protected. Consumer protection is important, and the Bill will not only allow local councils to adopt regulations when it suits their local needs, but more importantly put information at the disposal of London residents for their own protection.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Chris Williamson. Welcome to the Front Bench.

15:47

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am absolutely delighted and somewhat surprised to speak from the Dispatch Box for the first time today, particularly as it is so early in my parliamentary career. It is an incredible privilege, and I genuinely look forward to my exchanges with the Minister in the weeks and months ahead. I am sure that on most occasions we will take entirely different positions, but the Opposition support this Bill, and I believe that the Government are of a similar mind.

The arguments in support of the Bill have already been made, and I do not want to detain the House any longer than is necessary, but I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), the former leader of Barnet council, who eloquently set out the rationale behind it.

I shall briefly set out our support for the Bill. It is worth reminding the House that the Bill has already been agreed to by all 33 London local authorities. As the House will know, London’s councils are controlled by all three main political parties, and, although they may disagree on many issues, on this Bill they speak with one voice. It has been subjected to detailed scrutiny for almost three years by those local authorities and, indeed, by Parliament, too.

Many of the Bill’s provisions are eminently sensible. For instance, it gives local authorities the powers to install turnstiles in public lavatories when they consider it appropriate to do so. That measure is necessary because the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act 1963 prohibits the use of turnstiles in any part of a local-authority owned or managed public toilet. The Bill contains many other reasonable provisions.

[Mr Bone]

On that point, if Parliament has expressed a view nationally about turnstiles, why should there be an exemption for one particular local authority?

[Chris Williamson]

The measure was asked for and debated at length by the local authorities. Indeed, there have been debates in this House about the Bill’s provisions. If Members have difficulties with specific aspects, then surely the appropriate time to raise them in more detail would be in Committee.

Let me point out some of the other very reasonable provisions contained in the Bill, which include powers to recover any additional cleaning costs where businesses put out tables and chairs on the street, and the right to improve the regulation of strip clubs. It also provides the ability to put on a mandatory footing the Scores on the Doors scheme, which is an initiative that has driven up food hygiene standards in pubs, bars and restaurants all over London. That should be welcomed.

The Bill is not prescriptive and does not require local authorities in London to do certain things; it simply gives them the powers to use as they see fit. In the end, it is up to local authorities themselves to deploy the powers at their disposal in the interests of the communities they represent. On that basis, I am pleased to offer our support for the Bill.

15:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on the way in which he introduced the Bill. I pay tribute to the Bill’s proponents, who continue an established tradition for London local authorities in bringing forward private legislation. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on a very assured debut at the Dispatch Box and on his swift appointment. Indeed, I welcome a very considerable percentage of the new shadow Communities and Local Government team. All I can say is this: welcome to the merry world of local government private legislation. I am delighted to see them there, and I hope they will not take it ill if I wish them a long tenure on the Opposition Benches.

From a localist perspective, I broadly agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Derby North. The Bill should be enabled to make progress. However, it may be helpful if I indicate aspects where the Government have concerns and flag up some areas where further attention may be appropriate as the Bill progresses.

Several of the Bill’s provisions are to be welcomed as a genuine step forward, such as those in clause 6 which tackle the proliferation of smoking-related litter outside buildings. Indeed, I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking for opportunities for primary legislation to introduce a similar change across England. Similarly, clause 33 represents a valiant attempt to deal with enduring problems in dealing with litter emanating from vehicles. At the same time, it remedies a drafting error in the original legislation—the London Local Authorities Act 2007—which rendered the provision inoperable, so there is value-added there as well.

The Bill has had a pretty long gestation; it came into being during the tenure of the previous Administration. Following the change of Government, Departments continue to consider the provisions, in some cases, and will want to scrutinise them with a view to the current legislative programme and in terms of the coalition agreement and the Government’s current priorities. For example, my colleagues in the Home Office will wish to reflect on some of the provisions in clauses 4 and 5. I understand the point that is made as regards their advantages, but we need to be cautious in extending powers to issue fines beyond recognisably uniformed police and police community support officers. While not ruling it out, we must be proportionate and avoid a proliferation of fines for what might be perceived as genuinely minor breaches, as that might create in the public a sense of unfairness.

[Mr Mark Field]

I strongly support much of what is in the Bill, but I have some concerns about these penalty charges. We all know as London MPs—or perhaps I have a particular problem with this—that we get a huge amount in our postbags from local residents or people from outside Westminster concerned about the antics of traffic management people putting tickets on cars. Extending penalty notices, particularly giving a power to PCSOs, creates the risk that there will be a perception, at least, of rather untrammelled and somewhat arbitrary powers being utilised by local authorities. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), it may also be somewhat confusing for many people who do not live in London when they suddenly realise that there is an entirely different set of regulations whereby they can fall foul of expensive fines for fairly minor breaches of whatever civil code might be in place. We need to pin this down, as far as we can, to ensure that that level of arbitrariness and untrammelled power is kept to an absolute minimum.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but rather than regard that point as fatal to the Bill’s future progress, the right approach is to say, as I will in relation to other matters, that I hope the Bill’s promoters will discuss with officials in the relevant Departments how they might seek clarification and improvements. I am grateful to him for highlighting that matter.

Similarly, we have to ensure that there is fairness in relation to the provisions in clause 8 for pavement charges. I understand the argument behind the clause, but equally we must ensure that an undue burden is not placed upon small local shops. We need to ensure proportionality.

[Simon Hughes]

May I reinforce that point clearly? The danger is shown in the service charges for people who have bought their property from the local authority, which we all know about. They end up being far higher than anybody ever envisaged, even though they are technically “reasonable” in law. The ability to deal with what is called “street furniture”—tables and chairs—is important, but within limits it should be permitted wherever possible. We need to ensure that local authorities do not give themselves powers that prevent cafés and restaurants from allowing people to sit outside, which is often much healthier than sitting inside.

[Robert Neill]

I have enjoyed sitting outside the occasional premises myself in the past, and the hon. Gentleman is right. It is entirely a question of getting the right balance, and I hope that we can do that with some good will as the Bill makes progress.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will on this occasion, although I might not be as generous as the Bill’s sponsor throughout the whole debate.

[Mr Chope]

I find that rather disappointing, because I do not seek to intervene unless I have a question.

The Minister says that he and Ministers from other Departments such as the Home Office will have to reflect on the contents of the Bill, but it has been around since 2007 and the coalition Government have been in office for many months. How will those deliberations reach a conclusion, and how will it be communicated to the promoters of the Bill and other people who are interested in the subject?

[Robert Neill]

I do not believe the Department for Communities and Local Government can be accused of having twiddled our thumbs unduly. In fact, a number of people would argue the contrary. Our officials are already in discussions with the promoters of the Bill, as are those of other Departments. Difficulties sometimes arise because a number of Departments have an interest in a Bill of this kind, and it is important to get it right, so I do not believe there can be any criticism of the current Government. It is in the nature of private Bills that they sometimes progress more slowly than other types of legislation. I do not intend to disappoint my hon. Friend gratuitously when he seeks to intervene, but equally I am sure that the House will want to make progress.

I wish to touch upon a matter where I understand the point that my hon. Friend and other Members have made. The Government have made a clear pledge to reverse the erosion of civil liberties and roll back the state’s power to intrude on citizens. That is an important principle and may be pertinent in considering some of the provisions on houses in multiple occupation in parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, which have been mentioned. It may help if I offer a little detail.

The Housing Act 2004 introduced a range of measures intended to improve the management standards and condition of privately rented accommodation such as HMOs. It provided local authorities with extensive tools and powers to take action when the condition or management of HMOs falls below required standards. It introduced mandatory licensing of larger, higher-risk HMOs and provided local authorities with the discretion to extend licensing to other categories of HMOs to address particular management problems in smaller properties. It also introduced management regulations for all HMOs, regardless of whether they are licensable, which local authorities can use to take action when they find management problems in specific properties.

HMO licensing works alongside the housing health and safety rating system, which was also introduced in 2004, under which local authorities can make a risk assessment of the likely impact of property condition on occupants of privately rented accommodation. When that happens and when a category 1 or 2 hazard is identified, local authorities have powers to impose improvements.

Of course, failure to comply with an improvement notice and a breach of the HMO management regulations are already criminal offences. Both the licensing and the housing health and safety rating system regimes provide local authorities with an extensive enforcement framework to take action in cases in which the condition and management of HMOs fall below required standards.

Therefore, with regard to part 5 of the Bill, the existing powers-of-entry provisions in the Housing Act 2004 provide local authorities with extensive powers to enter properties and to take immediate enforcement action in cases in which the condition and management of the property falls well below required standards. In such cases, local authorities are required to give a minimum of 24 hours’ notice to the owner and occupiers of a property prior to an inspection. However, in emergency cases—those that involve an imminent risk of serious harm to the health and safety of any occupier of a property or when it is suspected that an offence has been committed in relation to HMO licensing—local authorities may enter the property immediately without giving notice. The legislation also requires authorisation by a deputy chief officer to ensure that such powers are used in the appropriate circumstances, where the severity of the case warrants emergency action.

As I have said, the Government pledged to reverse the erosion of civil liberties and to roll back the ability of the state to intrude on citizens. Extending the powers of entry beyond those that exist would therefore, on the face of it, tend to undermine the purpose of the freedom Bill, which is delivering a key objective of the coalition Government. We have also made it clear that we do not propose to introduce new burdens on the private-rented sector. The Government therefore oppose parts 4 and 5 of the Bill. However, I recommend further consultation between the Bill’s proponents and my officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether improvements can be made that sit in harmony with the Government’s wider civil liberties ambitions.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the Minister for the great attention he is giving to the detail of the Bill. Clearly, the Government have reservations about some aspects of it. Are they interested in a localism that derives from moving more general powers to local authorities to decide such matters, or will such private business continue to have to come through the House?

[Robert Neill]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed, through the localism and decentralisation Bill, to giving a wider range of general powers—for example, a power of general competence—but equally, it will sometimes be more appropriate and proportionate to give more specific flexibilities, such as those in the Bill. Both approaches can be part of the mix.

May I turn to the issue of entertainment involving nudity, which is addressed in clause 23? When the measure was considered in the House of Lords, the previous Government argued that it should be deleted. Clause 23 would amend the Licensing Act 2003 to allow local authorities greater powers to regulate lap-dancing clubs by allowing them to impose clauses on premises’ licences to prohibit entertainment involving nudity. That, I believe, is motivated by the concern that their powers under the 2003 Act are insufficient to allow them to prevent lap-dancing clubs operating within their area, or within certain parts of their area, or to regulate the nature of the entertainment provided within lap-dancing clubs.

When the measure was considered in the House of Lords, the previous Government sought its deletion because at the time, they were seeking the views of local authorities nationally. As a result of that consultation, they introduced legislation. Section 27 and schedule 3 to the Policing and Crime Act 2009 amended the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to allow local authorities the power to regulate lap-dancing clubs as sex establishments. This provides local authorities with much greater powers than those provided by the Licensing Act 2003, and those that would be provided by clause 23.

In opposition, we broadly supported the amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as they went through Parliament, and we remain supportive of those measures, As such, we believe that it would improve the Bill if clause 23 were deleted. It could complicate the licensing framework in London, and possibly undermine the new legislation in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Given that since the London Local Authorities Bill was introduced Parliament has introduced national legislation to deal with the same issue that clause 23 seeks to address, it is no longer necessary and Home Office Ministers may well seek to have it removed. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will reflect on that point as the Bill progresses.

[Simon Hughes]

I hope that that point will be accepted by the sponsors and that we end up with a regime that gives discretion on whether to allow nudity or partial nudity without taking too puritanical a view. However, often the problem is not that people are appearing in the nude, but that some of them were pressured into the job by being trafficked. That is the issue, not whether adults should be able to go and see what they want to see in licensed premises, which should clearly be permitted where possible.

[Robert Neill]

I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he will recognise that that is a wider issue than the provisions of this Bill.

[Philip Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Neill]

I must draw my remarks to a conclusion. I have been generous so far—

[Philip Davies]

Not to me.

[Robert Neill]

There is an argument about whether fairness includes desserts, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister has picked up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I agree with the point that he has just made about sex encounter establishments and that, in that regard, the legislation is unnecessary. Will he consider those aspects of the Bill that are worth while—and that would therefore be worth while for every local authority—and introduce legislation to cover the whole country, so that we do not have to do this piecemeal, authority by authority?

[Robert Neill]

I hear my hon. Friend’s point and I have already set out some of the aspects of the Bill that we think are advantageous and why we wish to see it make progress. I am not sure that my hon. Friend is in a very localist frame of mind, and we may therefore have to part company on the ultimate destination of the Bill.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I hope that my observations are of help to the House and the promoters of the Bill, and I again reiterate my offer of consultation in those areas about which we have reservations. We are committed to giving local authorities more flexibility to reflect local needs and priorities and it would therefore be appropriate for the Bill to progress further. We will seek amendments in Committee to address the areas of concern that I have highlighted.

16:08

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to speak briefly on a point of constituency interest. I am especially concerned about the powers in regard to houses in multiple occupation, and I am grateful to the Minister for offering further consultation in that area. The existing situation is not working for my constituency. We have seen the growth of buy-to-let schemes into small and large HMOs, which have been the bane of my constituents’ lives, whether because of mismanagement in a particular street or the safety of people living in them.

I know that London local authorities have gone through an exhaustive process of consultation and come forward with the Bill. They have identified problems with the ability to identify the landlord of an HMO, or to achieve prompt entry into premises to inspect or take remedial action. I accept what the Minister has said about the powers in existing legislation, but they are clearly not working, especially in London. As the capital city, London has seen immense growth in HMOs, because of housing problems, so the situation in some constituencies has become nightmarish.

The previous Government introduced increased planning powers to try to deal with the matter, but in some ways the current Government have watered them down. I regret that, but the Bill gives the opportunity for more direct, prompt and forceful action to be taken to address some of the problems from which my constituents are suffering. I hope that the consultation will be timely and enable us to pass the legislation, in some form, after the Committee stage.

Finally, the sale of cars on streets has been a nightmare problem in my constituency. We have tried using traffic restrictions, but there are some streets with no traffic restrictions where the whole street has effectively been used as a garage for the sale of cars. We have taken action and resolved the problem where we have seen notices advertising cars for sale with telephone numbers on them. I congratulate my local authority on the work that it has done, but the problem has moved on. The use of the internet now means that those car salesmen can effectively bypass the existing law. I therefore welcome the conditions in this legislation. In a former life, I was responsible for the promotion and drafting of such Bills, but from my past practice, I have never known one to be in gestation for as long as this one. I hope that we can eventually implement it and that that will happen as soon as possible.

16:11

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate. If some of us had not objected to the Bill going through on the nod on Second Reading, we would not be having this useful debate. We would not have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer explain why he thinks the Bill is a good one, nor would we have heard the Minister say what he thinks all the Bill’s shortcomings are. He suggested that clauses 11 to 22 inclusive should be deleted, because he does not support them, and that clause 23 is redundant. It is useful to get that on the record.

This has also been a useful debate because we have been able to welcome the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), who made his maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench. It must be approaching a record to be able to speak from the Front Bench so soon after being first elected. I congratulate him on that, and I listened with interest to some of the things that he said. I cannot accuse him of saying something inconsistent with what happened under the previous Government, which is one of the strengths of being a completely new Member with a shadow ministerial office.

I have a number of concerns about the Bill. Many of them centre around the principle of whether we need to regulate more and whether we need to do so proportionately, and the need to ensure that we listen to groups of people— sometimes quite small groups of people—who are potentially adversely affected or treated unfairly as a result of private Bills. That is why it is so important that such Bills should be considered carefully in Committee, as I am sure this Bill will be in Opposed Private Bill Committee. The Bill is already the subject of petitions against it, some of which I referred to in my interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green.

I shall begin by dealing with the concerns of the Society of London Theatre and the Theatrical Management Association.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend clarify for the House that what we are doing today—deciding whether to give the Bill its Second Reading—is about the principle of the Bill? Also, is it not unusual to have so many different things in private business? I have spent hours considering private business, but it is normally about a specific, single thing for a specific area. This seems to be a very wide-ranging Bill.

[Mr Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very wide-ranging Bill. The fact that it is the 10th such Bill to emanate from London local authorities in a reasonably short space of time shows that London local authorities are pushing at what are reasonable bounds on the powers that they should be taking in legislation. They keep trying to extend those bounds, taking more powers for themselves; indeed, there are powers in the Bill that I think go too far. The consequence of what my hon. Friend has described so pertinently—the fact that the Bill contains a large number of contentious clauses—is that unless its promoters listen to reason and allow it to be amended, it will find it jolly difficult to make fast progress through the House. Even it were to sail through the Opposed Private Bill Committee, it would encounter the same kind of difficulties on Report that the pedlars Bills were up against during the last Parliament.

Significantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green did not refer to the pedlary and street trading provisions in this Bill, but the Bill contains powers to seize commercial goods on the ground not of reasonable belief but of reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. We brought in the reasonable suspicion test, reluctantly, under anti-terrorism legislation. It is draconian in the extreme to seize people’s goods or interfere with their liberty on the ground of reasonable suspicion that they might have committed an offence. Because of the strength of that argument, amendments replacing the term “reasonable suspicion” with “reasonable belief” were accepted by the promoters of the Bournemouth Borough Council Act 2010 and the Manchester City Council Act 2010—two pedlars Bills that reached the end of their proceedings during the last Parliament. The fact that no such amendments have been offered by the promoters of this Bill represents a pretty bad prospect for the Bill, because it suggests a certain intransigence and resistance on the part of the promoters to listen to reason. It might also suggest that they want to give themselves extremely wide powers to seize goods. I believe that such powers go far beyond what is reasonable.

[Philip Davies]

As my hon. Friend knows from our debates on the pedlars Bills, I agree with him wholeheartedly on this matter. I believe, however, that this Bill is worse than those Bills. It deals not only with a suspicion that an offence has been committed, but with a suspicion that an offence might be about to take place. A person could be suspected of being about to commit an offence that might take place. Furthermore, in addition to property being confiscated on that basis, the Bill would also confer a power to confiscate the vehicle in which the property was carried. The idea that central Government are bad and local government is good is surely wrong; the problem in both cases relates to the word “government”. We should not allow any government, local or central, to have such draconian powers.

[Mr Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that, when hon. Members start to look at the detail of these provisions, they will be as concerned as he and I are about their implications for civil liberties. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will report back to his colleagues in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice on our concerns about these fundamental issues of human rights and individual liberty.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me a second bite of the cherry. Does he agree that it is unacceptable for the Government to hide behind the idea of localism on these matters? They should not be allowed to say that local authorities are entitled to do anything they want to, simply on the basis that such decisions are being taken locally. Surely localism must come with some responsibilities.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely; I hope that that is what the Government believe as well, even though my hon. Friend has expressed his concern that that might not be so. Time will tell.

“Localism” is a good term, but it was rejected by Front Benchers in relation to pedlars. I remember Front-Bench colleagues during the previous Parliament arguing that there was a strong case for having national legislation on pedlars, so that there could be consistency across all local authority areas. There is also an enormously strong case for saying that we need consistency in the application of the criminal law, and that people should not have their goods seized unless there is a reasonable belief that they have committed an offence.

May I briefly revert to the petition of the Society of London Theatre and the Theatrical Management Association, as I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green really addressed the concerns set out in it? They are concerned that commercial theatre in London, which is not finding it easy in the present economic climate, is going to be burdened with additional charges as a result of clause 8. The petition submits that its members are already making their own arrangements for the cleaning of the pavement and so forth, and that the basis for the additional charge has not been made clear. The petition submits that the existing wording of section 115F of the Highways Act 1980 is sufficient in so far as it enables London borough councils to recover their reasonable expenses in connection with the granting of permission to put items on the pavement. I hope that the promoters will address that concern before the Bill makes further progress.

Let me move on to clauses 9 and 10, which deal with what is colloquially known as Scores on the Doors—a system intended to ensure that the people providing catering services at retail food outlets have to display their standing by putting up a notice in the window. A petition against this has been drawn up by the British Hospitality Association and another petition has come from the pubs organisation, the British Beer and Pub Association. Both those petitions highlight the fact that there should be a voluntary aspect to this scheme, but London councils are usurping the position of the Food Standards Agency, which has already said that it thinks these issues should be a matter for voluntarism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has said that he and his council have no faith in the Food Standards Agency. If he brings forward a Bill to abolish the Food Standards Agency, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I will strongly support it. In fact, we put in a bid to become co-sponsors of such a Bill, but unless and until the Food Standards Agency is abolished, the reality is that it has the responsibilities given to it by Parliament. It ill behoves a group of councillors, however experienced they might be, to second-guess that organisation and say that it has no faith in it and is therefore going to try to duplicate its role and go further than it has gone.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is appropriate for local authorities to seek to protect the public whom they represent? Does he not accept that the Scores on the Doors scheme has had the effect of driving up standards in pubs, clubs and restaurants that provide foodstuffs for the general public?

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is timely, as I was just going to refer to Scores on the Doors, which has been described as a national food hygiene rating scheme. I downloaded material on it from the internet earlier today, which made it clear that Scores on the Doors is a commercial organisation, describing itself as

“the No. 1 national food hygiene rating scheme”,

enabling official local authority hygiene ratings for food businesses to be found.

Scores on the Doors is the largest such scheme in the world, but it does not cover all local authorities. According to the internet site, there are 124 contributing councils, but interestingly not all the London councils are included in that number. It does not include the London borough of Wandsworth, which I had the privilege to lead some years ago. I am immediately alerted to the fact that even the Scores on the Doors scheme is not universally accepted by London boroughs, let alone by councils more widely across the country.

Someone wishing to search for one of the premises listed on the internet will find that there are 145,931 of them. That is the number of premises that will be affected by legislation second-guessing the Food Standards Agency and introducing a national requirement, subject to criminal penalties for non-compliance. I looked for a reference to a restaurant in my area, but to gain further access to the website I had to accept a general disclaimer. The disclaimer is quite interesting, because it shows that even Scores on the Doors is by no means a panacea:

“The information on the food premises listed here is held by us on behalf of our member local authorities. By accepting this disclaimer, you are submitting a request… to the relevant local authority for the disclosure of summary inspection reports under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”

It also states:

“The information… has been gathered by authorised Environmental Health Officers”.

However, it goes on to say:

“The hygiene rating given to premises on this web site has been based on the latest Primary Inspection carried out and as such represents the situation as found by the officer on the day of that inspection. Therefore the score may not be representative of the overall, long-term food hygiene standards of the business and should not be relied upon as a guide to food safety or food quality.”

Yet the London boroughs are seeking not only to encourage but to require premises to put up signs which are meaningless. If they do not do so, they will be subject to penalties up to scale 3. If they deface the signs—perhaps by adding material from the internet, such as the extract that I have just read out—they may be subject to a penalty on scale 5.

The situation is ludicrous. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green did not have a chance to go into more detail, because if he had done so even more people would be saying that the Bill goes far too far, and that it would be best to make a fresh start.

[Mr Bone]

In my constituency, many restaurants enter the scheme voluntarily, which is fine. However, the rating is a snapshot of a single day, and it can cause great concern to people who are given a bad rating one day and cannot get it altered the next day. It is quite proper for restaurants to have a right to opt into the scheme, but it seems wholly wrong to compel them to enter it.

[Mr Chope]

I entirely agree. The disclaimer states:

“Food premises may only be inspected every 6-36 months as specified in the Food Standards Agency Code of Practice.”

There is the potential for an enormous amount of damage to be caused to the reputation of commercial businesses that will have to stick on their doors something that is unrepresentative of the true position.

[Philip Davies]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on wiping the floor with this part of the Bill and illustrating so effectively what nonsense it is. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), said that the Scores on the Doors process had already raised standards. If the voluntary scheme is working well and raising standards, and if seeing the stars on display is so important to customers, will customers not instinctively prefer to visit only the restaurants that display their stars? If a restaurant or other food establishment chooses not to display its star rating, it will risk not receiving any custom from the people who consider the system so important.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes his point perfectly. We in this House have the privilege of the opportunity to try to introduce some common sense into these measures before they become set in law. I hope this debate will enable that to happen, certainly in relation to clauses 8 and 9, against which petitions have, for good reason, been submitted. Depressingly, the petitions were presented in the other place as well, and they did not have any impact. Nobody seems to have been listening. I hope somebody will start to listen soon because we are talking about potential threats to the viability of lots of small businesses in the ever-important hospitality industry. There is the possibility of gross injustices arising from these provisions.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

If this Bill were to be enacted, how would the provisions of clause 9 apply to a vendor who has no window to his customers and no door, such as the owner of a hot dog cart?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend brings his legal expertise to bear on this issue and asks a very pertinent question. I am not in a position to answer it, but if the promoter of the Bill—or the promoter’s representative in this place today—wishes to intervene to do so, I will gladly give way. If the Bill has been as well prepared as one would hope after three years of gestation, one would expect that point to have been taken into account by its drafters—although perhaps we should not be so certain about that.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was enthusiastic about the only parts of the Bill that my hon. Friend the Minister said the Government were concerned about. That is an interesting cameo within this debate. I hope my hon. Friend will stick to his guns in pursuing his concerns about clauses 11 to 22 and will insist that clause 23 is removed as being absolutely redundant.

[Philip Davies]

The Society of London Theatre and the Theatrical Management Association are worried that clause 23 will have a big impact on their theatres. Occasionally, there is some nudity or semi-nudity in a production and this measure may well have a negative impact on such shows. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that concern as well?

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend the Minister said the legislation that had been introduced nationally since the Bill was first produced covers the national picture. I am sure it takes properly into account the concerns that have been expressed, and to which my hon. Friend has referred.

I want to refer back to an earlier part of the Bill. Clause 7 deals with access to public lavatories. I have the privilege of representing a constituency with one of the highest proportions of elderly people in the country, and we in Christchurch are proud to have been the winner of the loo of the year awards on many occasions. Ours is a prudent council, and it has now reached the stage where the councillor and the officers responsible for winning those accolades do not attend the awards ceremony because they cannot afford the cost of the travel, but they are grateful recipients of the awards.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to flush out the subject a little more, but we are dealing with a London Bill, rather than toilets in his constituency. I know that there is a connection, but I would like to try to keep it a little tighter if we can.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. The great joy for people in Christchurch is that even when they reach a certain age they can travel. They travel outside their constituency to places such as London, and they expect that in London they will find facilities similar to those that they enjoy in Christchurch. Sometimes they are disappointed, and that is where the relevance of all this lies. As they have such high standards at home, they seek them elsewhere.

I am concerned that it would be a retrograde move to allow local authorities in London to reintroduce turnstiles. Not long ago, a short debate was held in the other place in which Baroness Greengross asked Baroness Andrews, who was then an Under-Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, about extending the provisions of the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act 1963 to railway premises. The answer was that it would not be desirable because a lot of railway premises were having their loos and the access to them modernised. However, it was implicit in the answer that the then Government did not believe that the law needed to be changed and that they thought it desirable that we should not need turnstiles in order to gain access to public toilet facilities. This is a particular issue for disabled people, because they find it most difficult, although others may wish to gain access to a public toilet as quickly as possible and they do not want to have their progress impeded. I do not think that we need to spell out the point at any greater length, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Greg Knight]

May I put it gently to my hon. Friend that he has the argument the wrong way round? Surely we should be applauding this measure, because if local authorities are allowed to introduce turnstiles and thereby charge people an exorbitant rate to use the lavatory, the people of London will have far more lavatories to use as more and more councils seek to tap into this revenue raising idea.

[Mr Chope]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he was making that observation, but I suspect that he did. If he did not, he is living on another planet. In the City of Westminster, for example, the council raises an enormous surplus in parking charges, many of which are paid by people who do not reside in the borough. The original idea was that those fees should be reinvested to improve public facilities in Westminster, but that has not happened in practice. The idea that if local authorities can impose more charges for access to public toilets, the quality and availability of those toilets will improve is pie in the sky.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend accept that this could be argued the other way round? He says that turnstiles are not desirable, and that is a perfectly legitimate view. Even if someone would argue that they are legitimate, surely any local authority should be able to introduce them in their local toilets, not just London boroughs. Why would we just extend this privilege to London, and why would the Government not extend it to every local authority that so chooses to use it? I hope that he would accept that such an approach would be pure localism, as opposed to giving localism only to London.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes another very good point. I am sure that if the coalition Government are short of new policies to enact they will think seriously about my hon. Friend’s suggestion. Before they do so, however, they might look at the document produced a couple of years ago by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which set out a strategic guide, spread over the best part of 100 pages, on “Improving Public Access to Better Quality Toilets”. Nowhere in that strategic guide was anything that suggested that the answer to all the problems was to reintroduce turnstiles, which were outlawed in an enlightened moment in 1963. They should probably remain outlawed and I do not think that the case for reintroducing them has been made.

I am also very concerned about the Bill’s provisions on pedlars and street trading, to which I have already referred—my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley engaged in a short exchange with me on that point. Those powers go far in excess of what is reasonable. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green did not consider them when he introduced the Bill. In a sense, this is a warning shot, because a number of us have been jealous of the rights of small groups to be able to carry on their activities and not to find themselves subject to harassment by officialdom. The wide powers that are given under the Bill to Westminster city council and to Camden borough council are a licence for harassment. They give tremendous powers to local authorities to harass the people they wish to drive out of business because it does not suit their purposes and because they find it rather difficult to try to enforce the law as it stands nationally. They want to give themselves extra powers to impose penalties on the grounds of suspicion, and I think that that is wrong.

One is left asking whether anything in the Bill is worth saving, or whether it would be much better to put the promoters out of their misery and not give it a Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Minister thinks that we should give the promoters the benefit of the doubt. For my part, I think that they have had three years in which to try to get their tackle in order and they have manifestly failed so to do. They have not really come to terms with the change in the mood out there, which is very much against interference and regulation by local authorities, pettifogging bureaucracy, penalties, putting pressure on people and making it very difficult for them to argue against penalties, which makes them have to go along and pay another fine or penalty. The promoters misunderstand the mood and there is a great demand for some consistency in our criminal law across the whole country rather than having special regimes for licensing in the London area, as proposed in clause 23, or special regimes for penalties for street trading, as found in the clauses that promote powers for Westminster and Camden.

I obviously support my hon. Friend the Minister as regards the parts of the Bill to which he is opposed. There is so much wrong with the Bill that there is a danger that if we allow it a Second Reading, an enormous amount of our colleagues’ time will be taken up in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. If the promoters are as reluctant to compromise as they appear to have been in the other place, we will end up taking up a lot of time on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading. It might be better to put the promoters out of their misery at this stage and force them to go back to the drawing board and propose a fresh Bill that is more in tune with current thinking.

[Mr Knight]

I hear my hon. Friend’s argument, but all what he says could be put right in Committee. If he feels that the Bill is too pettifogging in some areas, amendments could be moved in Committee to improve it to such a state that only reasonable actions could be taken by local authorities to deal with what is a very real problem. The argument he is developing is not against the Bill per se but against its current drafting. Is it not then for us to amend it in Committee?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point, but he and I will in our time in this place have been confronted many times with Bills that we disliked so much that, although parts of them were not so bad, we felt obliged to vote against them on Second Reading to make a point. This Bill has not arrived here de novo, but has already been through the other place. We have to look on the past as a guide to the future unless we are otherwise advised. The Bill has not been subject to voluntary amendment by its promoters despite the petitions against it from the London theatres, the British Beer and Pub Association and others. If the promoters did not listen to those petitions in the other place, what guarantee is there that they will listen to petitions now? We have not heard anything from my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green to the effect that they will accept amendments. If, when he sums up the debate, he says that he feels, on behalf of the promoters, slightly chastened by the criticisms that have been made, and if he says that they will introduce amendments to meet some of those concerns, I might have a different attitude. Currently, however, I fear that there is so much wrong with the Bill that it does not deserve a Second Reading.

16:47

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

The Bill is deeply disagreeable and it is remarkable that the House of Commons should spend so much time considering something that would take freedoms from law-abiding people in London, particularly in the City of Westminster.

What is the purpose of the Bill’s opening part? It is to give to borough officials powers that are normally reserved for policemen. One might go out of this House and some person employed by Westminster city council, with or without a peaked cap, might come up and say that he does not like what one is doing because one is selling a car over the internet or doing some other desperately evil activity. That employee will then levy a fine and will levy a second fine if the person does not tell him their name and address. I thought it was no right of anybody’s to demand the names and addresses of people going about their lawful business, but, under the Bill, someone who refuses to give it to some official from Westminster city council will commit an offence. I do not want to tell officials from Westminster city council my address—they could look it up on the electoral register, which would not take them very long. That is an initial intrusion on freedoms that we ought to value and that ought to be at the forefront of what the House does.

Having dealt with clauses 4 and 5, let me address clause 8, which is one of the meanest-minded measures we have seen recently. A few years ago, Westminster city council was all for a café culture: “Let’s have people putting chairs out on the pavement and have people drinking in the street”, it said. “Let’s have them pretending they are in Venice or Florence; in spite of the weather, they can think that the sun is shining because they are out on the street.” Now, having persuaded a few restaurants and cafés to put out some tables and chairs, the self-same council wants to say, “You’ve done what we asked and we are very pleased with this charming and delightful café culture”—otherwise known as binge drinking—“and because of that we want to charge you for it.” Does that seem a reasonable way for a council to behave, and is it proper for us as a Parliament to give it a special bit of law to make itself obnoxious to a free people?

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has gone through the hygiene aspects, but I thought I was elected on a platform of deregulation. The Labour Government, for all their virtues, were great ones for regulating and for insisting that everything should be signed, sealed and delivered. Even in a church, there has to be a sign saying that people are not allowed to smoke to deter all those who used to go into a church just to roll a cigarette, light up and smoke away.

There are signs everywhere and the mass of bureaucracy is upon us. Now, the Conservative Government want to ensure that when someone wanders into a café for a small cup of coffee, tea or whatever his preference happens to be, there must be a sign saying the café is hygienic. Otherwise, he might be poisoned by whatever desperate thing it is that the café puts in its tea. Is this necessary? Is it proportionate? Is it a sensible use of the money of business to spend it on putting up signs when people who go into restaurants know that there are forms of regulation and whether the food is any good. If they do not like it, they can have an argument with the restaurateur, say that they are not paying and tell all their friends not to go there. The free market copes here much more adequately than increased regulation.

I am glad to say that the Minister is against all the stuff on housing. Those proposals concern me because they are broadly an attack on private property, which is one of the mainstays of our constitutional settlement. The rights of private property are that which underpins a free society—the right for people to own their own home or to let it out to somebody else—as opposed to what is in clause 21, whereby the self-same peaked-capped man who was fining me for refusing to tell him my name and address then barges into somebody’s house just to check that they are complying with regulations.

As I understood it, the aim of Her Majesty’s Government was to ensure that the right to enter houses applied only when a warrant had been issued—a warrant duly signed by a magistrate—so as to protect us from aggressive officialdom. On the one hand, there will be warrants; on the other, officials from particular and peculiar councils will barge in on people in their homes or in houses that have been let out, telling them what they may or may not do.

I shall finish by referring to the trading of cars on the internet. The absurdity here is palpable. Why can I not put a little sticker in my car, offering to sell it? If somebody wanders past and says, “That’s worth £100,” and I accept it, surely that is commerce at its most basic and simple level. Surely it is what gets people into the culture of trading and activity, and leads to the prosperity of a capitalist society.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It would be an honour.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he make a distinction between a single vehicle being sold on a street and seven, eight or 10 vehicles being sold, which often happens on Bishopsford road in my constituency?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There are all sorts of rules and regulations on planning that affect how someone may trade as a business. I do not think that there is a feeling that that area is not covered. What is not covered is people doing small amounts of personal trading, but the whole approach is so unnecessarily draconian. Indeed, Draco would be rather embarrassed about the harshness of some of the measures being proposed on people doing little bits and pieces—selling a few Christmas cards on the side of the street, selling their car, running a restaurant without having to put up 27 stickers or wandering about without giving their name and address to every peaked-capped official who comes up to them and issues them with a fixed penalty notice.

Why are we even considering giving this Bill a Second Reading? It is against everything Conservatives stand for. It is against what a lot of Liberal Democrats stand for, and I think many socialists as well. We want a free and prosperous society. We do not want, through localism, to have local authorities barging into our lives at every opportunity. As I understand the forms of the House, the Bill will not be thrown out today. More’s the pity.

16:54

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am rather nervous about contributing to the debate, following my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who expertly filleted the Bill in a way that I could not possibly do. I shall not spend a great deal of time adding to their comments, but I shall make a few brief points

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is right to say that the Bill is disagreeable, but I do not doubt the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who wishes to do what he sees as in the best interests of his local area and other parts of London. I hope he listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for North East Somerset and that he will reflect on them at length. Both speeches made it abundantly clear why the Bill should be unacceptable to anybody with a Conservative philosophy. It strikes at the heart of the values that Conservatives should believe in.

I have no doubt that Opposition Members will think that many of the provisions are marvellous. The Bill represents the state running riot. It is a charter for bossy local authorities. That is what brought many of those on the Opposition Benches into politics in the first place. Surely, as Conservatives, we should protect the public from bossy local authorities and over-zealous bureaucrats. We have all seen in our own lives that the moment local authority staff put on their car park warden’s jacket, they think they have become something akin to Hitler, and take great pleasure in ordering everybody about and telling people what to do. We should be guarding against that, not expanding their powers and giving them a charter to go even further.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, the first part of the Bill, which deals with penalty charges and gives local authority bureaucrats powers that we would normally reserve for the police, is deeply disturbing. We should not countenance such a proposal. We saw such freedoms undermined during the 13 years of the previous Government. The last thing we want under the new coalition Government, particularly a coalition that incorporates the word “liberal”, is to go further, giving the state more power over individuals to impinge on personal freedoms. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset so ably said, the right of officials to demand people’s names and addresses is something that we might have expected to see in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, not in a free country. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green will think about that again.

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset about street furniture on the highway. Presumably local authorities will agree to let businesses have street furniture on the highway because they think it is a good thing for their local residents. If so, why do they not let those businesses get on with it? Why would they want to take money off businesses that are trying to provide a service that the local authority presumably thinks is a good one, which is why they gave them the permission in the first place?

One of my major problems with the Bill is that it is intended to damage small businesses. Such bureaucracy is meat and drink to large businesses. I used to work for a large multinational company. Although we may occasionally have been irritated by the volume of regulation and unnecessary bureaucracy, we could afford to employ teams of people to deal with it. We could afford to put up with the extra costs sometimes incurred. Many small businesses, which are struggling enough, especially in the current economic climate, do not have the financial capability to deal with the powers that the Bill would give local authorities.

The Bill reflects the mindset that running a small business is a licence to print money, that everybody who has a small business must have millions of pounds in the bank, that they are unscrupulously ripping off their customers in order to make an unhealthy profit, and that it is the duty of the local authority to get some of that nasty wealth off them. What sort of Conservative would want to promote a Bill with such an attitude behind it?

The only way businesses make money is by looking after their customers and giving them a good service. Anybody who does not do so does not have a business for very long. Businesses are some of the most acutely aware organisations when it comes to social responsibility and contributing to local communities. Local businesses often have a better record of making a positive contribution to their local community than do many local authorities, which are given power after power by such Bills. We should be deeply suspicious of attempts to give local authorities more powers to trample all over small businesses—the many people who are trying their best to earn a living and to put back into this country the entrepreneurial spirit that we have lost.

I cannot really add a great deal to the Scores on the Doors scheme, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made it abundantly clear that it is an absolutely ludicrous provision. When even the Scores on the Doors people themselves claim that their ratings cannot be relied on as a decent guide to the food hygiene of premises, why on earth should we make it mandatory for customers to see such information and for businesses to display something in which the people who promote it do not have confidence?

If the voluntary scheme works well, and that seems to be the consensus, why on earth would we want to make it statutory? Why not just allow the voluntary scheme to flourish? As I said in a brief intervention on my hon. Friend, if a star scheme is so important to customers, and if it is the be-all and end-all of the information that they want in order to judge a premises, any business that does not display it basically invites people to walk past and go somewhere else. The market will sort those things out. If the scheme is so important to customers, all premises will want to display it anyway. That is what the free market is about. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green understands the principle of the free market and how it works. He should want it to flourish, rather than having such little faith in it. That is what we have seen for the past 13 years, with a Labour Government and the mess that that got us into.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Unfortunately, I do not know my hon. Friend’s constituency well, but in my constituency, where there is a tremendous number of takeaway shops and licensed restaurants, we have tried to encourage some responsible behaviour, because many customers have been leaving areas that one sometimes has to tread through with great care. The voluntary approach has not quite worked, so does my hon. Friend not accept that, where it has not worked so well, some legislation should be introduced to encourage a better neighbourhood and environment?

[Philip Davies]

No, I absolutely do not, because I do not want unnecessary regulation. My hon. Friend’s point of view is that the voluntary scheme has not worked, but his colleagues have not expressed that view. Even if it has not worked, however, I reiterate the point that if such information is so important to customers, they will presumably give their trade only to premises that already display it. If they do not like the fact that it is not displayed, they do not have to go to such places; they can go somewhere else. That is how the free market operates, and it is the free market that I believe in. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has such little faith in the free market and the principles upon which it works.

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

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically good case in support of his argument, and I join him in supporting—

[Mr Deputy Speaker Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Some hon. Gentlemen have just come into the Chamber, but in fairness they ought to have been here for most of the debate. I am being quite lenient, but I really do think that we ought to think about that in future.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue. I will have a chat outside with my hon. Friend; we can resolve our potential differences outside the Chamber.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

“See you outside.”

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is much bigger than I am, so I would not want to get into an argument with him.

I accept absolutely the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made about selling cars on the street and via the internet. I came into politics because I wanted to try to encourage people to be entrepreneurs, to believe in the free market, to sell their goods and to be buyers and sellers. I do not want the Government or local government sticking their noses into every aspect of people’s lives. If people want to sell a car and somebody wants to buy it, and they are both happy with the price, why not let them get on with it? Why do we need government, either local or central, interfering in every aspect of people’s lives? Surely we should try to encourage people to do things themselves, so that they do not have to go to big car dealerships. Why do we not just let them get on with it and stop interfering?

[Tom Brake]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be quite so keen on that free enterprise and all those cars for sale if they were repeatedly parked outside his front door.

[Philip Davies]

If somebody is legally able to park their vehicle on a particular part of the street, it does not matter to me whether it is my next-door neighbour’s car, a car somebody is selling, or an ice cream van. My suggested solution to the hon. Gentleman, to which he may not have given any consideration, is that if he does not think that cars should be parked in a particular location, his local authority should put down double yellow lines so that people are not allowed to park there. If people are allowed to park at a particular point, what on earth does it matter whether it is my next-door neighbour’s car or somebody else’s car with a small sticker saying, “For sale: £500”. It seems to make a big difference to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot see why. I ask him to reflect on why he decides that he is a Liberal when he has such an illiberal approach towards people selling their property.

I wish to concentrate on the licensing aspects of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister made a perfectly good point about clause 23, which is wholly unnecessary. A couple of years ago, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I serve, undertook a report on the Licensing Act 2003. We took evidence about certain clubs, including lap-dancing clubs, and we made recommendations about how best they might be licensed. As my hon. Friend made clear, the previous Government, in the last throes of the last Parliament, created new legislation enabling lap-dancing clubs to be licensed as sex encounter establishments—something that people may or may not agree with. As he said, the job has been done. The last thing anybody needs is a London Local Authorities Bill to start trampling all over the licensing regime dealt with by the previous Government and which does much of what the Bill seeks to do. I seek confirmation from him that he will strike out clause 23, which even the biggest supporters of the Bill would concede is completely and utterly unnecessary.

My main point concerns the seizure of goods. I cannot emphasise enough how absolutely outrageous the Bill’s provisions are in this regard. The only fair way to do this is to quote a small section of the explanatory notes. I would be astonished if people who read it were not completely outraged by what is proposed. It says:

“Westminster City Council officers already have power to seize items used in unlawful street trading where the items are required for evidential purposes, or where the items are subject to forfeiture by the courts. On a street trading prosecution, if there is a conviction, the magistrates’ court can order the forfeiture of any goods seized in relation to the offence.”

So the provision is already in statute. It continues:

“Authorised officers cannot exercise their powers of seizure unless they suspect that a street trading offence has been committed.”

The London local authorities are complaining that they cannot exercise their powers of seizure unless they suspect that a street trading offence has been committed. That is not good enough for them: they want to be able to seize these goods even when they do not suspect that an offence has been committed. They say that Westminster city council officers already

“use the powers regularly in the West End”

to deal with

“unlawful sales of hotdogs and other hot food from portable stands.”

But they complain:

“City council officers are unable to seize hotdog trolleys until the vending begins.”

That is not good enough for the poor local authorities—they cannot seize these things until an offence has been committed and somebody actually trades. So they want, through the Bill, to

“enable City Council officers”—

pettifogging bureaucrats in the local authority with, no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, their peaked caps—

“to seize receptacles which are in a street and which the officers have reasonable cause to suspect are intended to be used in connection with a street trading offence.”

Can Members imagine where we would be if the police started arresting everybody who was walking down the street because they might go into the nearest shop and start shoplifting? We are giving such a power to council officers, which is totally unacceptable. Any hon. Member who supports a Bill that provides such powers should be ashamed of themselves if they believe that they support freedoms in this country.

[Mr Bone]

I have to make my mind up whether to support the Bill if there is a Division. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we should vote against it?

[Philip Davies]

I certainly am. I would urge any right-minded person, particularly with a conservative philosophy, to do so, because nothing in it supports such a philosophy.

It gets worse than local authorities wanting the power to seize things they have reasonable cause to suspect are intended for some kind of offence. Let us imagine that I am walking down the streets of Westminster trying to take home a hot-dog trolley that I had just bought. What would I do if a local council bureaucrat came along and said, “Hold on, you might use that to sell hot-dogs illegally, so I’m going to take it off you”? Is that really the type of country we want to live in, and are we happy to pass such legislation? Not only would local authorities be able to seize the hot-dog trolley that I had bought legitimately and was transporting home, but they would be able to seize any vehicle used to transport it where they found it in the street. Are we going to give council officers that power? We must be stark raving mad even to think about giving the Bill a Second Reading.

The Minister and the shadow Minister say casually, “Oh, well, of course there are some deficiencies in the Bill, but let’s just iron them out in Committee.” On that basis we may as well not bother with the Second Reading of any Bill. If we are saying, “We all know the Bill’s a load of drivel, but we’ll pass it now so we look as if we’re being supportive and then fillet it in Committee”, we might as well just let every Bill go into Committee and see what we can do from there on.

The point of Second Readings is that Members may not like certain legislation in principle. I do not like this Bill or the philosophy behind it, which is anti-small business and anti-freedom, and I do not like the draconian powers that some council officers seem to think are theirs by right—not in the country that I want to live in.

[Mike Freer]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am not going to take the closure motion at this point. I have another speaker on my list, and I think it only right that he is called to speak.

17:13

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on the admirable way in which he moved Second Reading. I found it very helpful.

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has certainly enticed me to vote against Second Reading. Many people see this whole process as a waste of time, and I think the business managers would like the Bill to go through straight away. However, we have an important role to play in examining and scrutinising private business. When I came into the House after being a local councillor, I did not expect to be worrying about turnstiles in public lavatories—I thought I had left all that behind. However, we do spend hours scrutinising private Bills, even though only a few Members come to the House to do so. That is what we are here to do, and it is definitely not a waste of time.

In deciding how to vote, we must ask whether a local borough or council has a particular need that is different from the needs of the rest of the country. If it can prove that it does, I am inclined to support it. What concerns me is the tens of thousands of pounds of council tax payers’ money that local authorities spend bringing Bills such as this to the House.

[Mr Greg Knight]

In fairness to the Bill’s promoters, is it not the case that the Bill originated when we had a Government who revelled in red tape, and that the Bill has reached this House when we now have a new Government who are committed to slashing red tape?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I was just about to discuss that dilemma. However, I shall quickly digress, because what concerned me most was that the Minister had so many reservations. I have never heard a Minister at the Dispatch Box with so many reservations about private business, but the shadow Minister, whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box and who did exceptionally well today, welcomed every measure with great glee. As a Conservative, the principle of that position worries me.

However, to return to why we are here today, we must decide whether there is merit in the Bill proceeding and whether there are only one or two measures that need to be addressed in Committee. On Second Reading, every Member of the House can come to the Chamber, but in Committee only a few will examine the Bill. The advantage is that if the House flags up issues on Second Reading, members of the Committee can take them into account.

I was slightly encouraged by the Minister, who is a most excellent Minister, because he ruled out certain things, but I have a dilemma to do with localism. I like the idea of local boroughs and local councils making their own decisions, but there must be an overall cap on that. I am looking forward to what the Government do on localism. The more we allow councils to do, the less necessary it will be to consider Bills such as this in the House.

I am still undecided. Perhaps the Bill’s sponsor will have a few words to say and perhaps he will persuade me that because there are many good things in the Bill, I should let it go through. However, I am of the view that I will oppose it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

17:17

Division 74

Ayes: 293

---

Conservative: 227
Liberal Democrat: 47
Labour: 17
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

Noes: 21

---

Conservative: 17
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Draft EU Budget 2011

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: European Union document No. SEC(2010)473: Statement of Estimates of the European Commission for the financial year 2011 (Preparation of the 2011 Draft Budget).]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Speaker has selected amendments (b) and (a), to be debated together.

17:32

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. SEC(2010) 473, Statement of Estimates of the European Commission for the financial year 2011; and supports the Government’s efforts to maintain the 2011 EU budget at the cash levels equivalent to the 2010 budget, while ensuring better value for money in EU expenditure.

I very much welcome the fact that this debate is taking place in this Chamber for the first time in several years. The debate demonstrates the importance that the House attaches to scrutiny of the EU budget, to the UK’s contribution to it, and to the value for money of EU expenditure.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She says that this debate demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to giving the House a say. Can she tell us whether a vote on the matter, either way, would make the slightest bit of difference?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is assuming that those Members who have tabled amendments will press them to a vote. Perhaps she is prejudging the outcome of the debate. We welcome the debate because, tomorrow, I shall be in Brussels pressing our case in respect of the European Union budget, and it is vital that we are able to say that we have scrutinised the document thoroughly in our European Parliament.

In regard to the European Union, matters such as the single market, enlargement and environmental standards have seen real progress, but the EU budget does not have pride of place among the EU’s achievements. I will not hide from the House the Government’s frustration that some of our partners—and those in EU institutions—do not seem to understand how bizarre it is, when national budgets are under such extraordinary pressure, that the EU should be immune from that. So here in the UK, the week before a very tough spending review, it is only right that we should subject the EU’s budget for 2011 to the same level of scrutiny as our own national accounts.

As I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I will be in Brussels tomorrow, holding discussions with Commissioner Semeta, the Belgian presidency and MEPs on this very subject, pressing them to take the close, objective, pragmatic and responsible look at the EU budget that is long overdue, just as we are doing in the House today. I will, of course, come later to the previous Government’s giveaway of the rebate, which is one of the main reasons why we will see our contributions rising over coming years, but let me begin by summarising this Government’s approach to the Commission’s EU budget proposals.

At the beginning of the debate, let me also clarify our response to the amendments: I absolutely agree with the sentiments of both. Amendment (a) was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the time, effort and work he has put into scrutinising not just the EU budget but a whole range of areas in which the EU has become involved. His persistence has certainly paid dividends in ensuring that this matter has maintained the prominence in the UK Parliament that it absolutely deserves.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said, particularly about the splendid work done by the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am also a member. The Government now have the power to do something about the budget. Having complained about it for so long—I agree with those sentiments—is it not time for the Government to say no to the European Union on these matters?

[Justine Greening]

In fact, we are doing just that. I will come on to more detail about what we are doing now and what we plan to do, clarifying the arguments that we are putting to the European Commission.

Let me be clear that the Government will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. We very much welcome the pressure applied to the European Parliament to reject the proposed rise. We will do our bit as Ministers and as a Government to put pressure on that Parliament, and particularly on our MEPs, to reject any proposed rise. When the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) makes her speech following mine, I very much hope that she will confirm that the Opposition will press their MEPs to oppose any rises in the EU budget. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stone will want to press her further on that.

Amendment (b) was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) who, despite spending less time in this House than my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, has also clearly established his role as one of those MPs who scrutinises all EU matters carefully in a way that adds quality to our debates. I want to make it clear to him that we absolutely agree with the sentiments behind his amendment. We want to see the 2011 budget cut. The problem with the amendment is that if we withdrew our money from the EU, under its terms that would be illegal. We cannot support an amendment that would make our action illegal, so we will have to reject it, but I can tell my hon. Friend that if he had worded the provision slightly differently, we might well have been able to support both amendments. It is with regret that we have to reject his amendment, despite agreeing with its sentiments.

Let us talk about our concerns over the EU budget. It is not just the size of the draft EU budget but its effectiveness that is an important matter of concern.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

Many aspects of the EU budget are, of course, deeply pernicious. Does the Minister agree that a particular shocker is the fact that the original budget had written into its baseline a 4.4% increase in administration costs alone? It would be utterly appalling if we found increases in administration budgets taking place at a time when economies are having to be found right across Europe. What proposals do the Government have to get that increase down substantially? Will we be able to make a saving and secure a reduction in administration budgets as a result of the negotiations?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is shocking and untenable for the EU to propose a 4.4% rise in heading 5 administration at a time when countries across the EU are struggling with extremely difficult and challenging fiscal deficit reduction plans. We have already voted against that rise and we will continue to take the opportunity to vote against it. More than that, I will explain what we are doing to ensure that the next time we have the chance to vote against it in Council, rather than have a minority of countries with us that is just short of a blocking minority, we can actually achieve a majority and make a difference.

If we look at the size of the EU budget, we see that there is a marked disparity between the Commission’s proposed budget increase and the substantial reductions in public spending that countries across the EU are having to make. The Governments of, among others, France, Germany, Greece, Spain and Romania, as well as our own, have all announced sizeable austerity measures¸ and the EU as a whole has taken unprecedented action to secure economic stability. Yet the Commission has proposed that the EU budget should increase by nearly 6% in 2011. The Commission’s draft budget explains that the proposed increase is driven primarily by pre-planned rises in the financial framework, and by large spending programmes such as the research framework programme. As we have heard, however, it is impossible to ignore other elements, such as the startling 4.4% increase in the cost of running the EU institutions themselves.

I think all Members are aware that, arguably, the level of the EU annual budget is to some extent already determined by the overall financial framework, but the Government firmly believe that 2011 cannot be a “business as usual” year for the EU budget. That is simply no longer tenable. As a result of the global financial crisis, Governments across the EU have had to reassess their spending plans, and the EU budget should not be immune to the same pressures. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very clear about that. We are committed to securing a cut in the 2011 budget. Indeed, at a meeting of EU Finance Ministers on 18 May, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor proposed a freeze in the budget at 2010 levels. He said:

“I put to Ecofin that there should be a cash freeze in the budget. It is not acceptable to have an increase in the budget.”

That was in marked contrast to the previous Government’s approach, which saw year-on-year rises effectively unchallenged, and, most damagingly, saw Britain lose part of our valuable rebate—a rebate that had been won by a Conservative Government. This is not strictly within the scope of today’s debate, but as we turn our attention later to the next financial framework, we will do so with our UK contribution rising purely as a result of the previous Government’s catastrophic decision to give away part of our rebate. That amounts to a £2 billion a year hit for taxpayers—£10 billion over the course of a Parliament—and for what? A reform of the common agricultural policy that has simply never taken place.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am sure that it is of interest to the House that the amount to which the Minister has referred is twice the amount that the Government propose to save by cutting child benefit.

[Justine Greening]

That is the sort of argument that I have been presenting to other European countries, including the French Minister who was in London a few weeks ago. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is simply untenable for the EU budget to remain unchallenged when across Europe we are making incredibly difficult decisions on our national budgets. The way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his argument is exactly the same as the way in which I have been pitching ours to our European partners. We are hopeful that, over time, there will continue to be a growing sense among them that we do indeed need to start challenging the European budget that is currently proposed.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is presenting a powerful argument to encourage us to support her. Does she accept that all the Members who have put their names to the amendments, however they vote tonight, are helping her and her colleagues in Europe by demonstrating the strength of feeling and the anger that exist throughout the House?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons why I welcome tonight’s debate. I believe that it underlines the concern that we feel, not just as a Government but as a Parliament. The value that we can gain from the debate is our ability to show that we are united as a Parliament in standing up to the rise in 2011, and in wanting to see it cut.

The Chancellor, Ministers and officials have been working with member states, the Commission and the European Parliament to make our case. As members of the European Scrutiny Committee will know, at a time of fiscal consolidation the EU simply cannot afford to budget for more than it can realistically spend. Therefore, we have also maintained a firm focus on realistic implementation rates, because implementation of the EU budget has long been a cause of concern with a combined surplus and underspend in 2009 of almost €5 billion.

As I have said, the Government will focus not only on the size of the EU budget. We also want to focus on its priorities for spending, because it is clear that certain areas of the EU budget simply do not offer the best possible value for money that we should be able to expect. The common agricultural policy, citizenship spending in some areas and spending on the EU’s own administration are foremost among them. There is also, of course, the perennial question of why the EU is based in both Brussels and Strasbourg. Critically, we want an EU budget that prioritises economic growth and recovery across the EU and worldwide, just as we are doing with our fiscal consolidation measures here in the UK. We want a budget that is focused on prioritising poverty reduction, promoting stability and addressing the challenges of climate change. The Government will therefore work to ensure that funding for activities is focused on areas that offer the best value for money and that offer the best deal for the British taxpayer.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Why does the Foreign Secretary seem to favour increasing expenditure on the common External Action Service so that we have duplicated embassies, with those at EU level undercutting our own and charging us double?

[Justine Greening]

I have no doubt that other Members will refer to that in their contributions. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, we did not support the setting up of the European External Action Service, but as it is now in place our aim is to ensure that it does not duplicate in the way that he says, and that instead it has a role that has some value. We have been concerned about the increased budget because when the EEAS was set up, a key aspect of the conditions was that there would be fiscal neutrality and that is already being challenged. That is one reason why we have been pressing for that to be explicitly put into the terms of the EEAS remit. We have been successful in that, and we are pressing Cathy Ashton to make 10% savings immediately. Discussions on this are continuing in the EU right now. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, therefore.

To make a broader point on the EU budget, it is vital that decisions taken on budgeting are stuck to. There is an underlying problem that I talked about in respect of implementation: in too many projects there is a gap between what has been budgeted for and what ends up being spent. It is quite a basic financial management problem, but it needs to be addressed.

Turning to the background to today’s debate and what has happened so far, in August the Council adopted its first reading position on the Commission’s draft budget. We should bear in mind that this draft budget proposed an increase of 6% in the 2011 budget. That first reading position saw the Council reduce the budget level proposed by the Commission by €788 million in commitment appropriations and by just over €3.5 billion in payment appropriations. However, although the Council reduced the payment levels in the Commission’s proposal, the reductions would still have meant an increase of almost 3% in EU budget spending from 2010 to 2011. Also, although the Council’s position was to reduce spend in the administration budget by more than €160 million and to cut the total budget for the EU’s regulatory agencies by almost €12 million, even that would have left a rise in administration of 2.5%.

I should remind the House that when we had the opportunity in the European Parliament to vote against the rise in the Parliament’s 2010 budget, we took it. Although the Council had battened down the rise proposed by the Commission, the Government could not accept the proposed level of budget increase and we therefore voted against the Council’s first reading. In fact, six other member states joined us: our Nordic partners—Finland, Sweden and Denmark; and the great brewing nations of Austria, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic. The Council’s position was, however, adopted by a qualified majority, although I just remind the House that we were very close to achieving a blocking minority on that vote; we were just three votes away from doing so—we got 29 votes when we needed 32. That is why we have been working so hard with our European partners to put our case, because we want, at the minimum, to be in a position to have a blocking minority. We really want to aim for a majority, and that is what we are working towards.

I know that, as we have just heard, the European Scrutiny Committee is considering the Council’s first reading position and the Commission’s first amending letter. However, I thought it would be helpful for Members taking part in this debate to be given an outline of that developing position. I referred to this briefly in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), but I can say that more than 90% of the 2011 budget for the EEAS is transferred from the existing budgets of the Commission and Council. As he points out, an additional €34.5 million is requested to fund new staff posts and other start-up costs.

Overall, the proposal includes the following: first, the establishment plan of more than 1,600 posts—this includes 100 newly created in 2010, and 18 requested for 2011, carrying a remuneration cost of just under €19 million; secondly, just over 2,000 other staff, 70 of whom are newly recruited this year, costing an extra €2.5 million in 2011; thirdly, other staff-related spending, of which less than €2 million would be additional; and, fourthly, spending on buildings and other operational spending amounting to just over €157 million, less than €4 million of which would be additional.

The amending letter stated that cost-efficiency, budget neutrality and efficient management should guide the EEAS, and, as I said, it set a target of 10% efficiency savings in headquarters. Although the Government acknowledge that some additional funding is required in the EEAS’s first full year, it is essential that the EEAS demonstrates not only value for money, but budget discipline in its funding bids and a firm commitment to substantial cost efficiencies. It is vital that the aim of budget neutrality is respected, so we are pushing for immediate cost savings and stressing the importance of achieving cost efficiencies, including in decisions over the EEAS’s premises.

We have also pushed, thus far successfully, for the Council to state on the record that the term “budget neutrality” for the EEAS applies solely to the context of the EU budget. We pressed for that so that we can counter unhelpful suggestions from the Commission in the future that additional spending at EU level could be offset by savings in member states’ diplomatic services. Such suggestions are completely unacceptable to the UK.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I am extremely heartened by the proposition that my hon. Friend has put before the House this evening on this matter, but will she examine this very carefully indeed? I know that the EEAS was opposed by Conservative Members and is the legacy of those on the Labour Benches. As she would say, we are where we are, but on this point of budget neutrality will she make it her business to look carefully at any further proposals to increase expenditure on the EEAS? Budget neutrality has already been breached by the European Commission and it is likely that further attempts will be made to breach it in future.

[Justine Greening]

I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking across the piece to challenge rises in all areas of the EU budget, including the EEAS. As he points out, only months ago we were given an assurance that there would be fiscal neutrality and that has already been broken. We are challenging that and I believe we are doing so successfully. I assure him that we are making our case very strongly within the EU to challenge those sorts of spends when they are bad value for money and when the money is spent in an unplanned way that has not been agreed and was not passed in the original proposal that was signed up to. As he points out, that proposal was signed up to by the Labour party when it was in government.

So, let me wrap up. Although the annual budget negotiations are not the usual forum to achieve major budget reform, we have still set out our stance. We will be looking for a cash freeze in 2011 and, in this time of austerity, Europe needs to be looking to make the same efficiency savings that we are making in the UK.

I know that the House is interested in this topic, so I shall touch on it briefly. The European Parliament’s Budgets Committee has voted on this budget and the European Parliament in plenary will be voting next week on the European Parliament’s position on the 2011 budget. We have done our best to ensure that our Government’s position on the 2011 budget has well and truly got through to MEPs. We sent a lobbying note to the UK MEPs in September clearly setting out our position.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Would the Minister care to comment on press reports that the European Parliament said that it would make concessions on its budgetary demands only in exchange for concessions by member states on direct resources financing?

[Justine Greening]

I cannot confirm those reports, but I can tell the hon. Lady that the European Parliament is now considering in detail its response to the European Union 2011 budget. It might well decide to take a position that has a broader perspective than purely the size of the European budget and the split of that budget across the headings. As she will be aware, if there is no agreement, the conciliation process will take place, and of course I cannot prejudge how the European Parliament will approach that and whether it will seek a broader negotiation process than just that on the budget. She is right to flag up the fact that the Parliament might choose to do that, which is why it is all the more important that Ministers and the Chancellor are out making our case with the European Parliament and MEPs as to why we believe that saying no to the totally unacceptable 6% rise is absolutely vital for all MEPs. I hope that the Opposition will play their role with their MEPs in ensuring that the European Parliament takes the right position on the European Union budget. I have spoken with James Elles, an MEP who is on the Budgets Committee. As I have said, I will be in Brussels tomorrow to reiterate our position.

We anticipate that the long-overdue budget review paper from the Commission will be published in the next 10 days. We then expect the Commission to present proposals for the next seven-year framework for the EU budget in the first half of next year. I can assure hon. Members that the Government will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations. We are clear about what matters to the UK. We will defend the UK’s abatement, which is fully justified owing to distortions in EU spending, and we want the EU budget to be smaller, so that our domestic efforts to cut the deficit are not undermined by growth in EU commitments.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What my hon. Friend is saying in her feisty way is very encouraging. Will she assure us that if the European budget proposal is for something other than a reduction, the Government will veto it?

[Justine Greening]

The process clearly does not end there. It will go to conciliation and there will be further negotiation within the Council. We are aiming to have a majority in the Council standing against the European Parliament’s proposal for a higher budget.

[Mr Chope]

I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood my question. I was referring to the next seven-year budget, where we have a veto. I was asking whether we will be exercising that veto if we do not get our way in having the budget reduced.

[Justine Greening]

I will not pre-empt where we will be for the financial framework, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that this debate is incredibly important because it sets out the context for that next financial framework—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that the Minister is looking backwards in the direction of her hon. Friend who intervened, but perhaps she could look towards the House.

[Justine Greening]

So, my hon. Friend is right to raise that issue.

In conclusion—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Justine Greening]

No, I think I need to wrap up.

We are absolutely committed to pressing for the EU budget to be smaller. We will not have rises in the EU budget undermining our attempts and our desire to tackle our fiscal deficit. We will challenge the 2011 budget, which does just that.

I welcome the support of this House in sending a common view to Europe. I hope that we will be able to do that later tonight and I look forward to seeing whether we get support from the main Opposition party on this matter, too.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) would commit the Government to an illegal act. Am I right in saying that any amendment accepted by the House for debate is in order and that it would be quite improper for any amendment to commit Her Majesty’s Government to anything illegal? Were not the Minister’s remarks a matter of debate rather than a statement of fact?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for his point of order. Certainly, from my reading of amendment (b), I am not aware of any exhortation to illegality. The hon. Gentleman will understand, and the House will appreciate, that it is not for me to become enmeshed in an argument between hon. Members as to the merits or demerits of a particular amendment. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman, whose concern for propriety is unsurpassed in any part of the House, is quite simply that the amendment is not improper. If it were improper, I would not have selected it; it is perfectly proper. On the subject of propriety, therefore, he and others need have no cause whatever for concern. I hope that is helpful to the House.

18:01

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister certainly talks very tough talk about the current EU budget negotiations, but I have several questions about how she intends to turn that talk into action. She has given a very clear exposition of the negotiations to date—the Commission originally proposed an increase of getting on for 6% in the payment appropriations; the Council then discussed reducing those appropriations; and the UK failed, at that meeting, to persuade a significant number of member states to accept the EU’s position that there should be substantial cuts. We are now at a halfway house, which means that there will still be an increase in the budget. I understand that the EU Parliament will vote next week, on 20 October, on whether to reinstate all the budget lines. Why does the Minister think that the UK Government failed in that way at the meeting and why, when the Chancellor went to ECOFIN in May to propose a cash freeze, was he unable to win a consensus?

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

The hon. Lady talks about failure. Will she remind the House how many times in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government Ministers raised one question about the fact that the European Commission’s accounts were not being signed off by the European Court of Auditors?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is completely irrelevant to the subject that we are debating. The matter has been discussed in the House on many occasions and has been raised by many of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. I understand that, as a new Member, he was not in the House then, but it has been discussed many times.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

No; I want to make a little progress. I have not started saying what I intended to say.

I am slightly confused by the Minister’s stance on the motion and the amendments. The motion states that the Government support

“efforts to maintain the 2011 EU budget at cash levels equivalent to the 2010 budget”—

in other words, a freeze. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) argues that there should be no increase in the EU’s budget, which is pretty much the same position. Although the Minister implied through everything she said that she wants the budget to be smaller, that is not what the motion states. Will she clarify whether the Government are arguing for a freeze, or whether they support the 34 Back Benchers who have signed amendment (b) calling for cuts in the budget? Will she also clarify what she meant when she said that it would be illegal to support amendment (b)? I would be very happy for her to intervene on me to explain the element of illegality. If there were not that illegality, would she call for cuts? If so, why does not the Government’s motion say that there should be cuts?

[Justine Greening]

On the legalities, we are part of the EU—I am sure that some hon. Members wish that we were not, but we are—and we are under a treaty obligation to make payments. If we were to stop making payments, we would breach our treaty obligations, which we are not able to do under law. If we went down that route, presumably any other European country could do anything it liked against any particular treaty obligation it thought inappropriate, which would not be conducive to good diplomatic relationships or to progressing the case that we want to make for a cut in the 2011 budget. I hope that that has clarified matters for the hon. Lady. Perhaps I can press her to confirm whether Labour MEPs will support our Government’s policy stance for a cash freeze in the 2011 budget.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am here to put the questions to the Minister and to find out what her stance is. She is trying to placate Conservative Back Benchers, who are clearly unhappy about the lack of progress being made by the Government. It is tough talk, but it is all talk and there is no action. When she goes to Brussels tomorrow, what will she see as success in those negotiations? What is she aiming for?

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady’s party support a cash cut in the EU budget?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Again, we are not here to answer questions. We are here to put the questions and to get—[Interruption.] The Minister should accept that the Conservatives are now in government. She cannot just do what she did in opposition and talk tough—

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I want to make progress. The Minister cannot just talk tough on European issues and pander to people who want to take us out of the EU. She is here to make progress in negotiations and to fight Britain’s corner. I have asked her what she would see as success in doing that.

On the specifics, we are here to debate whether, when EU member states and regions are all engaged in belt tightening, the EU itself should engage in a similar exercise. The Minister has said that sizeable austerity measures are being implemented across the EU. Does that not in itself prove that this economic situation is a global phenomenon that affects all EU member states and not, as the Government say every time Ministers get to their feet in the Chamber, the result of profligate public spending by the previous Government?

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady tell us whether she now thinks it regrettable that the previous Government gave away our rebate and got no reform at all of the common agricultural policy, which is why this is such a big budget?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The CAP represented 71% of the EU budget, but it is now down to 40%, so that is significant progress, although I agree that there is more work to be done on that front. I shall come to that.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

If this truly is a global circumstance, how come, apart from the Republic of Ireland, this country has the largest deficit of any in the EU and the largest of any in the G20?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is obviously partly related to the fact that the UK has probably the largest financial centre globally—it is certainly far and away the largest financial services sector in the EU. There is a more significant impact on the UK economy, London being as it is, as opposed to other countries.

To return to my speech, I shall not take any more interventions for a while. Labour Members believe, as we have always done, that the EU should always scrutinise its expenditure carefully and closely in cutting waste. We want to ensure that the budget is spent wisely and well, and that there is demonstrable added value for the member states and regions as a result of such expenditure.

We welcome the fact that the EU Parliament has chosen, for the first time, not to go above the ceiling set out in the budget at a time when member states face economic hardship. That demonstrates that the Parliament has at least gone some way to appreciating the challenges, but the issue today is whether we should go further. The Government, despite all their talk and bluster, seem to be singularly failing in their aim of putting a lid on what the EU Parliament wants to spend.

Labour Members fully support the principle that the EU budget needs to play its part in an era of fiscal consolidation, and we do not think it right that there should be significant real increases next year, but we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The EU has key roles to play, and it was noticeable in the Minister’s speech that she made only passing reference to the good things that come out of working with our European partners. In particular, it is important that the EU continues to foster growth and recovery, which is the priority for us here in Britain. As Europe is our largest export partner, growth in Europe is an essential precondition for our recovery.

We welcome the stated key objectives for the draft 2011 budget, which are to support the EU economy and recovery from the economic and financial crisis, and to help EU citizens by reinforcing economic growth and employment opportunities. It is somewhat ironic that as the European Parliament debates and votes on the draft budget on Wednesday 20 October, when it will focus on the admirable and important objectives of supporting recovery and growth, we in the UK Parliament will hear a statement on the comprehensive spending review from the Chancellor, who clearly rejects an active role for the Government in securing such objectives and believes that cuts, cuts and cuts alone are the way forward.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend take on board two observations? On an earlier intervention about the Commission’s budget not having been signed off for the past 10 years, is she aware that neither has that of the Department for Work and Pensions? On a much more practical point, if the great ambition is to make us economically successful, will my hon. Friend reflect on the Lisbon agenda, which was supposed to make us the most competitive and technologically advanced economy in 2010 and has singularly failed to do so? Why does she have so much faith in the 2011 aspirations?

[Kerry McCarthy]

There was also the 2010 strategy. In the flagship initiatives set out in the documents before us today, there are some good programmes that we should support, to the extent that they have demonstrable outcomes and that they make a difference, rather than being fine words that do not achieve what they set out to do.

Let me go briefly through the headings in the budget. The Minister was unspecific. She spoke generally in favour of a cash freeze, but did not specify in which areas. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) will refrain from heckling me quite so much. She is a near neighbour of mine, and we get to talk rather a lot on the television cameras outside the Chamber. It is extremely distracting, and she will get a chance to contribute later if she wishes. That is fair.

Under sub-heading 1a in the budget, on competitiveness for growth and employment, we support funding that encourages the effective operation of the single market, including addressing transport challenges, such as the greening of transport systems, and promoting sustainable, low-carbon economic recovery and growth. It is important to continue to support innovation and research and development on, for example, the environment, clean energy, energy efficiency and promoting a knowledge-based economy. Europe has a key role to play in that.

On structural and cohesion funding, which is included under sub-heading 1b, much of that spending is key to EU enlargement. Sensible steps to ensure that that money is well spent, which we agree should be taken, should not be allowed to slip into undermining the important principle that enlargement is in the UK’s long-term interest.

[Andrew Percy]

I hope that the shadow Minister will be gentle with me—I am a new Member, after all. We keep going back to the same point, which is that for all the good that she says the European Union does—she has highlighted several areas of spending—we still do not know whether that money has been spent, because the accounts are never signed off.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will not repeat the point about the hon. Gentleman not being in the Chamber on many occasions when we have had similar debates. As with any public spending, it is important that there is some measure of outcomes, so that we can be sure that there are demonstrable changes and that objectives will be achieved as a result of the spending programmes. We are committed to that. To use the argument about the accounts not being signed off to dismiss everything good that the EU has done and all the initiatives on which we are working with our European partners is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as I said earlier. The argument is used as a red herring by those who are against the entire European project.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has referred to many good things about the European budget. Is she, in her shadow ministerial role, able to identify anything that she would cut?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I shall come on to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.

We support some of the structural and cohesion funding, but we agree with the Government that budget levels should be realistic and reflect absorption capacity. In certain areas throughout the EU budget, planned spending levels are indefensible, and, in response to the question that was just asked, we believe that spending under heading 2 on the preservation and management of natural resources should not be a priority in the current economic climate. We do not support that scale of spending on agricultural intervention, and we will support the Government’s close scrutiny of it.

We very much welcome, however, the Government’s statement that there should be an increased emphasis on development objectives, including on reaching the millennium development goals in poorer countries, and we believe that adequate funding is necessary to achieve those aims.

Finally, we also support the Government in pushing for reductions in the administration budget.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

No. I am coming to a conclusion, and the hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak in a moment. Where efficiency savings can be found, they should be found, and there are significant savings to be made in that area. I can see that many Members want to speak, so I do not intend to delay the House any longer. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

18:14

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We heard a very interesting and comprehensive analysis from the Minister, and I intend to press my amendment (a) to a vote. I agree very much with the sentiments that lie behind the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell). I wish only that, before tabling it, he had had a word with me about its wording, because I suspect that we would then have been able to arrive at an agreement. For some reason that completely escapes me, however, he decided to go ahead with his wording.

I went ahead with my amendment, because I have to recognise that the Government are about to engage in some incredibly important negotiations. They have to achieve a blocking minority, which I shall explain in a moment. That is not just a technical question, but a question of whether the Government can, first, get enough people to vote on the conciliation agreement, assuming that we reach such a point, and then achieve a blocking minority so that the Commission has to propose a new budget. That is what we are fighting for.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to secure such leverage in the conciliation process, it is not helpful if the main Government party is in alliance with those whom the Deputy Prime Minister calls nutters, homophobes and anti-Semites from extreme fringe parties in east Europe, and not in the same family as Mrs Merkel, Mr Sarkozy and other centre-right leaders?

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say, with reference to the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and as an encouragement and a cautionary note to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that I know the hon. Gentleman’s response will very much focus on matters relating to the European budget?

[Mr Cash]

It will, indeed. I shall make no response to that absurd intervention.

We must achieve our objectives, which are not only to prevent any increase in the budget, but to reduce it. I say that to my hon. Friends as one who, I think, can undoubtedly claim to have fought these battles relentlessly, persistently and consistently for the best part of 25 years—and, if I may say so, with some degree of success in establishing the parameters within which we are now able to address the European issue. In a moment I shall mention what happened at the European Scrutiny Committee this afternoon, merely to illustrate the progress that we have already made in the few weeks that I have had the honour of being the Committee’s Chairman. The whole process has to be conducted in an effective and orderly manner. Otherwise, it plays into the hands of those such as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who want to pretend that somehow there is no justification for our adopting the position that we need to adopt. Tortuous and tedious as it is, the most important thing is to get it right. We have to get the blocking minority if we want to move from wanting to stop the increase to achieving the reduction that follows from it. Let us be responsible about this.

I do not have the slightest objection to the sentiments that lie behind the other amendment. It bothers me, however, that we have two amendments that appear to compete with one another, but in fact convey the same ideas, yet one is orderly while the other is disorderly. I leave it at that; it is for my hon. Friends to judge.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that Mr Speaker has already said that the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) is in order; that there is nothing inherently unlawful about it; that there is no reason, based on either law or principle, why Members of this House should not vote for it; and that it is therefore perfectly in order?

[Mr Cash]

When I say that the amendment is disorderly, I mean that it would, in my judgment, make it more difficult for us to achieve our objectives. I was not referring to it as being disorderly within the framework of the procedures of the House. I make that distinction very clear.

Our net contribution to the European Union is rising from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12 and £10.3 billion in 2015, and our gross contribution is rising from £14 billion to £19 billion. The Budgets Committee is placing a demand on member states to open negotiations on new own resources; the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) says that that is a

“full part of the overall agreement on the 2011 budget”.

It is reported in the Financial Times that MEPs are even considering an amendment to

“open the way to establish a European tax, making the institutions less reliant on contributions from national governments.”

On top of the budget, the European Parliament is shortly expected to vote on proposals to extend maternity rights to 20 weeks at full pay, which will cost the British Government an extra £2.5 billion a year.

It will be well understood in the House that I am gravely concerned about the developments in this direction. I merely want to be sure that the Government, as well as being able to negotiate this particular, rather difficult round, are able to get stuck into reducing not only the budget itself but the functions that lead to that budget, because the two run together—it is like Parkinson’s law.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on something about which he knows more than anybody else in the House. His amendment would freeze the budget, while the other amendment calls for a reduction. That may be difficult to achieve, but would it not be helpful, rather than a hindrance to the Minister, as she flies off tomorrow, to know that a certain number of Members want a cut?

[Mr Cash]

That has to be a judgment for Members in deciding which way they will vote on these amendments. In my view, because of the complexity of this problem and the uncertainties about whether we will be able to achieve a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers—I shall explain the procedure in a minute—we must do nothing that would play into the hands of the Eurofanatics in some of the other member states who want to go down the same route as the European Parliament by endorsing this increase and increasing the budget resources, which is what they are intent on doing in the wake of the Lisbon treaty. That is the problem. It is a matter of judgment, but it is also one of analysis, which is why I take the position that I do.

I may say that I had no discussions whatever with the Government on this issue. I simply tabled my amendment last night because it struck me that in the light of the discussions in the European Parliament—and not in light of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, which I had not seen—the European Parliament was being thoroughly irresponsible, or at any rate the Budgets Committee was. We have yet to discover whether the European Parliament will persist in the same view.

On top of the proposal for the European budget, there is one to extend maternity rights. It is now clear that it is intended to have a £3 billion increase in the European budget for that reason. The 27 member states will be snubbed if the European Parliament votes in line with the European Commission’s proposal. Recent increases do not include the already agreed, and grossly extravagant, €1 billion increase in the European budget for 2010, which was caused largely by the Lisbon treaty.

On the subject of austerity and responsible measures, according to Government figures the collective budget deficit of the EU’s 27 member states will reach the staggering sum of €868 billion this year, which is more than 7% of the bloc’s gross domestic product. That, of course, is because the European financial crisis is real. One need only look at the countries otherwise known as PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain—not to mention France, which must be included in a lot of the analysis, to see the real implications of that for the individual lives of voters in this country. The governing economic and financial framework established by the EU must be not only revised but radically curtailed.

The budget increase also relates to the extensive bureaucracy that we are having to pay for, such as the European External Action Service, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) rightly pointed out. Members, including me, raised the gravest objections to the proposals for that body that were made a few weeks ago.

While Westminster and Whitehall, and the country at large, are quite rightly being asked to make savings, what is happening in Brussels? The European Parliament adopted a resolution on 18 May proposing a budget of €1.707 billion, which is a 5.5% increase on the amended 2010 budget and represents 20.28% of the EU’s administration budget.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Many Conservative Members would broadly agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments; I do not believe there is much division among us on the matter. What practical steps does he think Her Majesty’s Government can take to stop the grotesque expansion in the budget?

[Mr Cash]

The budget is part and parcel of the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, which I shall come on to in a moment. If we are to act properly and responsibly in our own Parliament, we shall have to deal with this Parliament’s relationship with the EU as a whole. If we get that right, we can proceed in an orderly manner to the questions that we must ask in the political environment that we now experience. That will ensure that we are not subject to further increases in European functions or to the assertions of the European Court and other European institutions on the sovereignty of this House.

[Robert Halfon]

Although I accept what my hon. Friend says, does he not agree that by the time all that has been done, the budget increase will have gone through?

[Mr Cash]

With great respect to my hon. Friend, with whom I have had many useful discussions on this matter over the years, I do not agree for the reason that I have already given. It all depends on whether, as a result of the forthcoming negotiations, we achieve a blocking minority in the vote on the conciliation agreement. That agreement has not yet been mentioned, but regrettably it is integral to the procedures that we now face.

I fear that there might be a slight misunderstanding, because I suspect that all Members on the Government side of the House—or even all those in the Chamber—and many people in the Conservative party and the country at large, would agree with both amendments. The distinction I am drawing between them is simply that in the real world we must address such matters in a certain fashion. I do not want to advance my amendment simply because it is mine. It will not do any good if we go too far in merely expressing a sentiment with which everyone agrees, if the consequence of doing so is a counter-productive result. That is why I am taking the position outlined in amendment (a). I urge my hon. Friends—not for my sake, but simply for the sake of ensuring that we get things right—to support it.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is part of a coalition Government—or at least part of a coalition. What discussions has he had with his Lib Dem colleagues on the grand plan that he is setting out to skewer the EU budget?

[Mr Cash]

As a matter of fact, it is pretty obvious that I am not a member of the coalition Government, so let us dispense with that idea straight away. In my votes over the past few weeks, I have probably demonstrated that I have certain reservations about the situation, but I am not going further down that path now.

If the European Parliament is allowed to get away with this, it will add fuel to fire of the riots and demonstrations that are already sweeping many cities in different countries throughout Europe. Those countries face problems of immigration, economic stress and high unemployment, and wilfully to attempt to increase the EU budget when the whole thing needs to be rejected is, to my mind, irresponsible. If the EU Parliament persists, it cannot be regarded as a serious and responsible Parliament. That is my concern.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

rose—

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

I will give way to my predecessor on the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Michael Connarty]

I am grateful to my ESC colleague, who is now Chair of the Committee. I do not disagree with his facts and many of his criticisms are fundamental to the approach of the European Commission compared with that of the UK Government and this Parliament, particularly on the proposal for a tax. However, on trying to achieve a blocking minority, would it not be better in fact to support the Government’s proposal than to take an absolutist approach such as the one he proposes in amendment (a) and, quite frankly, the one that is proposed in amendment (b)?

[Mr Cash]

Mine is not an absolutist position in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman puts it. My amendment (a) says that an increase is simply not justifiable. What is justifiable could also be described as what is fair and right. I have just described what I suspect will happen throughout Europe if people continue to increase the budget irrespective not only of our spending review, but of the crisis in Greece and of the situations in other member states, including very high levels of unemployment, the rise of nationalism that goes with that, and the populism that will emerge from those who want to agitate and create trouble. We want a stable Europe and a stable United Kingdom, which is precisely why I take the view that we need to act responsibly and ensure that the UK Government have every opportunity to achieve their objectives. I assure the House that nobody can accuse me of being in any way reluctant to speak my mind on matters relating to the EU, and I am sure that no one would presume to do so.

[Mr Dodds]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his long years of campaigning on this issue and his work as Chairman of the ESC. Given the provocative behaviour of the European Parliament and its attitude to a budget increase, which he outlined, should this House not put down an equally strong marker by strengthening the Minister’s negotiating hand and saying, “Far from increasing or freezing the budget, we want a reduction”?

[Mr Cash]

I do not want to enter into an unnecessary altercation about this with my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, but if the wording had been put to me, I would have included the words “and if the European Parliament and its committee persist in the behaviour that they are now engaged in, we would have to call for a reduction in the budget.” It would be on that basis, not on the basis of requiring the Government to respond when they are in the process of negotiations. Perhaps the distinction comes at that point, although I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments.

[Mr MacShane]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Cash]

No, I have heard enough from the right hon. Gentleman. All he does is repeat his old mantras—[Interruption.] I do not accept that: I simply need to get to the next point that I wish to make about the procedure that is to be followed.

It is clear in the light of the current state of affairs that the Government should adopt my amendment and reject the increase. The European Parliament, in the current austerity conditions, is wilfully affecting the economies of the 27 member states, and of the United Kingdom in particular. My European Scrutiny Committee has today agreed to have a full inquiry reaffirming the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to the assertions of the European Court of Justice on such matters. The Government have agreed to the Committee’s demand for pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am happy to announce that the Minister for Europe will give evidence in public on these critical matters—and that will have an impact on the issues that we are discussing in this debate—as will other experts on the compatibility of Britain’s membership of the European Union with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in the light of the European Union’s own assertions that the parliamentary sovereignty of this Parliament has been overtaken.

The Government have announced that they will introduce a clause to address the question of parliamentary sovereignty, but our Committee will examine the implications of this in the light of the declaration of primacy of European law by the European Court of Justice and as contained in the Lisbon treaty. All these matters require the closest analysis for the sake of our democracy and the electors of the United Kingdom on questions relating to taxation, spending, the European budget, our contributions and all the functions of the European Union. We have an absolute requirement to get this right and we will have a full examination of the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, including the subject matter of this debate.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend believe that it would have been helpful if the Minister for Europe had been in his place for this debate?

[Mr Cash]

It is always helpful when the Minister for Europe is present, and I endorse my hon. Friend’s view. However, the Economic Secretary has set out the Government’s view and their determination to get the negotiations right. They will have to succeed in that aim, because there is a huge amount at stake.

The Commission submitted its draft budget to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, but the Council rejected the Commission’s proposals by qualified majority vote. The proposals then passed to the European Parliament. In the next few days, it is expected that the European Parliament will adopt the amendments to increase the budget and forward the amended draft to the Council of Ministers and the Commission. The European Parliament and the Council will then convene a conciliation committee to seek to resolve their differences, if any. It is essential that the Government negotiate a blocking minority of 91 within the Council of Ministers to stop the increase at that point. The decisions will be taken by a majority of 14 out of 27 MEPs on that conciliation committee, together with a majority of the 27 member states on the Council of Ministers. That is why it is vital that the Government have the strongest possible mandate to negotiate a blocking minority to determine whether there is agreement in the conciliation committee on the joint text—as I am sure is the intention. If both the MEPs and the Council of Ministers, through their respective procedures, reject the joint text, or if one rejects it and the other fails to take a decision—this point is crucial, and that is why this is such a delicate matter—the European Commission is bound to propose and submit a new budget that will deal with the problem properly.

That is why I take the position that I do in my amendment. I am in no way detracting from the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton. I absolutely endorse those objectives; indeed, I have advocated them repeatedly—relentlessly—over the past 20 years. However, there comes a moment in the tide of man, as they say, when it is essential to get the responsible procedures working in an orderly manner. I do not in any way want to find the Government’s position compromised by a vote that could take place this evening, the effect of which would be to put the Government position into reverse.

We are at a crucial moment. I very much respect my hon. Friend’s objectives, but in this context it is important to get things right. On this occasion, I would strongly urge my hon. Friends to accept my amendment and allow the Government to proceed on that basis, rather than on the basis of something based on a hypothesis.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. As hon. Members will see, there is a great deal of interest in today’s debate. Some 10 Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and as this is a time-limited debate I will ask each of them to consider how long they will speak for, so as to ensure that every Member who wants to make a contribution can do so before the time elapses.

16:15

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate, although I will not detain hon. Members for long. First, I commend the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee for what he said. It is interesting to see him as a restraining voice in Euroscepticism. What he said is common sense. The Government have to go to Brussels or Strasbourg—or wherever they meet—with, one would hope, the united backing of the House or, if not, at least the united backing of those on the Government Benches. I will certainly be supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment; indeed, I will support both amendments if they are put to a vote.

I have been a member of European Standing Committees for some 13 years. Over those years I have debated European budgets countless times, yet in all that time none of them has been approved by the European Court of Auditors. We just seem to nod through the fact that a budget costing the countries of Europe billions every year is not approved by auditors. We just accept it. One cannot imagine the British Government doing that—not having their Budget approved by auditors—every year.

There has been a significant increase in our net contribution, and that will continue. Attention was drawn to the problem yesterday—very well, I thought—by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) in Treasury questions. Indeed, I have spoken many times about the Blair deal—the deal made that December night a few years ago when, apparently without consulting very many people, he arbitrarily gave away a significant proportion of our rebate. The Economist—not a supporter of left-wing Eurosceptics such as myself—said that no deal would have been better than that deal, and it was right. I shall therefore be supporting the amendments.

The budget is fundamentally flawed and has been so since its inception. Throughout that time, the core of the problem has been the common agricultural policy. I have called many times for the common agricultural policy to be abandoned and for agriculture policy to be returned to member states. Member states have different agricultural industries, and each of us would choose what to subsidise and how to subsidise it. Our own agricultural sector needs some subsidies, particularly in certain areas—an example would be Welsh hill farmers—to preserve our rural heritage and industries; it is sometimes necessary for them to be sustained by subsidy. The way the CAP operates is nonsense, however. We have changed it over time, but it has not been properly dealt with.

Another problem is that the net redistributive effect of the budget acts in an arbitrary way, in that some relatively rich countries are net recipients, whereas some relatively poor ones are, unjustly, net contributors. We have a smaller agricultural sector than many other countries, and we have, unfairly, been a net contributor. I would not agree with Mrs Thatcher on many things, but I thought it was right that she negotiated a rebate. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

I shall differ from Conservative Members now, however, by saying that I should like a socialist approach to Europe, whereby the redistributive effects of the budget are balanced in such a way that the poorest countries are net recipients and the richest are net contributors, in proportion to their relative living standards and the success of their economies. As one of the richer countries, we would no doubt be a net contributor, but such a system would be rational and fair. The budget as it stands is neither rational nor fair.

We ought to return to the Blair agreement. If we are to negotiate a more sensible budget with our European colleagues, we should start to look at contributions again. If our own contributions had been negotiated in sterling cash terms, rather than euro cash terms, we might not have suffered so much as a result of depreciation. We are paying more because we necessarily depreciated our currency, although I am glad that we kept our own currency and that we are able to flex it according to our own needs.

Other countries have suffered terribly through being unable to do that—Ireland is a case in point. In real terms, it is part of the sterling economy, not the euro economy, and it has suffered as a result of our depreciation, because it has been unable to depreciate its currency. I have told Irish colleagues whom I have met through the European Scrutiny Committee that the logical thing for them to do would be to recreate the punt and devalue against the euro to come into line with sterling. That would be very beneficial for the Irish, and I hope that they will consider doing it at some point. It would be fairer for us if contributions were measured as a proportion of gross domestic product, because they would not be subject to change as a result of depreciation.

I have spoken many times on the European budget, and I believe that it is nonsense. I am waiting for common sense to appear on the horizon, but it has not done so yet. I hope that, if we have to have net fiscal transfers in the future, they will be considerably smaller because there will not be a CAP. I also hope that they will be related to the relative prosperity of the member states, so that the poorer nations benefit and the richer ones contribute.

[Michael Connarty]

I respect my hon. Friend’s logic, even though I do not support his conclusions on the European Union. He has a background as a trade union negotiator, and I cannot understand why he thinks we should tell the Government that they cannot have a negotiating position and that they must adopt the position that they are given. Surely they need to be able to negotiate what they are looking for—namely the cash equivalent—regardless of how it is balanced within the budget. They will be negotiating with 27 other countries, along with the Council and the Parliament. Is not my hon. Friend’s instinct as a trade unionist to give the negotiators the flexibility to come out with a deal, rather than to given them strict instructions on what they must come out with at the end of the negotiations?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I believe that all negotiators need to have something in their back pocket—something to argue with. If the Government go into the negotiations saying, “My members will not tolerate an agreement unless it is satisfactory”, that will give them some strength. I hope this House will provide that kind of support to negotiators. I would much prefer to be on the Government than the Opposition side, but I hope that the Government will stand up and do the right thing.

Finally, the Minister spoke about standing up for British interests, but that sort of nationalistic approach does not go far enough. What we need is an arrangement that will secure the support of other member states. We have to persuade them that we need a more rational and sensible approach to the budget that is also fair to all concerned—and, indeed, considerably smaller in view of the need to abolish the CAP. If we can get others on our side, we might start to make progress, but if we argue simply in nationalistic terms, I do not think we will.

That said, Britain has a strong negotiating position. If we were in a position to push hard, we would know that the EU needs our membership more than we need to be a member of it. We have a massive trade deficit with the rest of the EU, which gives us a strong negotiating position. If we were challenged by other strong states, they would know that their economies would suffer if we were no longer part of the EU. If we had trade barriers between member states, they would suffer much more than we would. The point has been made many times.

I have some figures with me. Our trade deficit with the rest of the EU in July—the last month for which figures are available—was £3.9 billion. That is for one month, so we need to multiply that by 12 to get an idea of the annual figure. That amount was an increase on the £3.2 billion of the previous month. The EU needs Britain, so let us try to make an EU that is looser, more democratic and leaves greater powers to member states. Let us have an EU that has not a nonsensical budget, but one that is fair and beneficial to all concerned.

18:52

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has done as much as any Member to encourage this House over many years to consider its duties in a wider European context. He is the best kind of Committee Chairman—one who never forgets that the role of his Committee is to hold the Executive to account, regardless of which party is in government. I thank him.

All hon. Members face spending cuts in their constituencies—cuts that none of us wanted and cuts made all the more painful by the economic downturn. With the exceptions of health care and overseas aid, every Government Department is looking for budget reductions of between 25% and 40%. At the same time, however, our net contributions to the EU are rising by 60% over the next two years—from £6.4 billion this year to £8.3 billion in 2011-12 and to £10.3 billion in 2015.

Our gross contributions, of course, are higher still. Currently £13.3 billion, they are scheduled to rise to £19 billion. Although it is true that some of that money is spent in the United Kingdom, it is by no means always spent on projects that we ourselves would have chosen to spend it on. In any case, normal practice in politics is to measure what people actually pay rather than to deduct the notional cost of services they receive in return. Would any Member argue that the basic rate of income tax is not 20p in the pound but zero, on the grounds that the entire sum is given back in the form of roads, schools, hospitals and so forth?

The sum of £19 billion is, of course, colossal—enough to give the entire country a 50% rebate on council tax in perpetuity or to pay off our Olympic debt in a single year. The scope of amendment (b), however, is not nearly so ambitious. It would not strike out the entire EU budget—it is not about that—and it would not even strike out the increase in the year-on-year EU budget. All this modest proposal is designed to do is to reject the additional sum that the European Commission demanded over and above the increases already built into the 2011 budget.

At a time when every one of the 27 member state Governments are struggling to find savings, the EU must show some willingness if not to reduce its budget, at the very least to be satisfied by the increases we have already given it. Why has the EU come back on 15 September and asked for more resources? The Commission has been admirably frank that the additional funds are earmarked for three institutions: the European External Action Service, Europol, and the three supervisory agencies that will regulate financial services. I remind Members that the European External Action Service is the EU’s diplomatic corps. It already has about 20 times the budget of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Europol is the EU’s police agency, and the three new supervisory agencies have been widely denounced as likely to drive revenue away from the City of London to non-EU financial centres.

In other words, we are being asked for this extra money to fund three projects that are not in the interests of this country to start with. How much is the bill? To be precise, the EU has awarded itself a €3.6 billion budget increase this year, and Britain’s share of that increase—not its share of the budget—is £380 million. The bail-outs and the financial stimuli around the world have, of course, recalibrated our sense of monetary value, but even by today’s standards we are talking about significant sums. Given this morning’s headlines about the pressure on public sector jobs, it might be helpful to calculate how that £380 million could be translated into Government spending. It would pay for 6,022 NHS doctors, 12,666 NHS nurses, 14,600 police constables, or 22,332 Army privates.

The purpose of the legislature is to control the Executive. In the last analysis, that is why we are all here. The additional work that we do in scrutinising laws, taking up cases for our constituents and participating in debates is valuable, but essentially supplementary. When we strip it down, we see that Parliament exists to ensure that the Government do not spend our money wrong-headedly. That has been the elementary function of our predecessors since the Tudors, if not the Plantagenets.

[Mrs Main]

I will support the amendment, because I could not look the people of St Albans in the eye if I asked them to make economies and explain why cuts are necessary, and then voted for a measure that would mean the EU’s sucking out more and more of our money. I do not think other Members could explain that to their constituents either.

[Mr Carswell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to the other 32 hon. Members—many of whom are present—who supported the amendment. The £380 million increase comes at a time when there will be costly cuts in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in others—cuts that none of us wants to see—and when it is surely wrong to reduce spending on public services in order to increase the money that we give to EU institutions.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman said that some of the increase would fund the External Action Service. Does he recall that when the service was debated in the House, it was promised that it would be budget-neutral? That was bad enough—there should have been a decrease—but can the hon. Gentleman explain why we are now being asked to finance an increase in its funding?

[Mr Carswell]

I cannot. I wish that I could, and I should have liked to hear an answer from the Minister. I am perplexed and puzzled about why we are now being asked for an additional increase in funding for a measure that we were told was budget-neutral.

The issue before us is indeed one of supply. It is a question of whether we think that our constituents’ money is being well and wisely spent. Do Members believe that, in our current financial circumstances, we should find more resources to pay for, among other things, high commissioners’ entertainment allowances and additional staff for Members of the European Parliament? Is that really the best possible use for this money? Is it better to spend it on that than on the 13,000 nurses whose jobs we might otherwise save, or on 22,000 servicemen? I do not think it necessary to be either Eurosceptic or fiscally conservative to believe that there are better ways to allocate our finite resources. When all the Governments in Europe are cutting their budgets, it cannot be right for the EU bureaucracy to be expanding.

If we do not think that this is the best use we can make of our constituents’ tax contributions, our duty is clear: we should support the amendment and reject the increase. Our predecessors fought a long and bloody civil war to establish that only this House might raise revenue for central Government through taxation. We are the inheritors of a sublime tradition, but also of a heavy duty. It is not for any outside agency, either our own Ministers or overseas Commissioners, to tell us how to dispose of this nation’s resources. We shall make that decision guided by our consciences, and in the interests of those for whom we speak.

I respectfully seek to press the amendment to a vote. Others have signed it, and I hope that they will speak in its support tonight.

19:00

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to cast a protective arm over the Economic Secretary as she confronts the massed ranks of well-argued opposition from those on the Benches behind her. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) gave a masterclass on why the amendment of the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) should not be pressed to a Division, but we will see what happens.

This debate is part of a long process of changing our relationship with our partners in Europe, and I do not know where it may end. The hon. Member for Clacton emotionally talked about the nursing jobs that could be saved and the extra soldiers who would not need to be relieved of their duties, but the problem here is not the fault of the European Union. Rather, it is a consequence of a set of decisions that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition has taken. It is seeking to reduce the deficit over four years, much as if I could abolish my mortgage deficit over that period. I wish I could do that—by starving my children, perhaps, or cutting back on other spending. That is the Government’s decision. It is nothing to do with Europe itself. At the end of the day it must never be forgotten that the EU budget represents just 1% of Europe’s gross national product.

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

That proportion is less than when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Conservative Government.

[Mr Redwood]

Given that the EU is urging all member states to cut their budgets in order to cut their deficits, why does it not show the way by giving a lead in cutting its own?

[Mr MacShane]

I have absolutely no objection to that point. The right hon. Gentleman is right. If he wants to advance that argument, however, he does not have to persuade me, and the hon. Member for Clacton does not have to persuade the fellow signatories to his amendment. We have to link up with others, in the right hon. Gentleman’s case with fellow conservatives and centre-right politicians across the rest of Europe.

The hon. Member for Stone brushed aside my earlier intervention, but the plain fact is that a fortnight tomorrow the leaders of Europe—the vast majority of European Governments including those of Mr Reinfeldt, who has just been confirmed in Sweden, and the new conservative-liberal coalition being formed in the Netherlands—[Interruption.] I am so sorry for the disturbance caused by my mobile phone ringing. I shall make a donation to any charity you wish, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those leaders in Europe will sit down to dinner and discuss precisely the points raised here tonight, but there will be a Banquo at that feast: the British Prime Minister.

I am not going to tell the Prime Minister what to do. He did not quite win the election, but he has settled in well as Prime Minister. He has to decide whether his collegial dining comrades at European feasts where decisions are taken should include rather interesting gentlemen from Latvia, Poland and elsewhere. I can quote the Deputy Prime Minister’s description if it helps, but I think most Members have it in their mind.

The other point that we have to consider is that 20 years ago the EU was largely financed by what is called own resources, such as VAT and duty. I know tax is anonymous but some taxes are less in the payer’s face than others. There has been a massive change in the past 20 years in that the EU budget now comes from direct Government contributions. Therefore these arguments are now deeply sensitive in all nations. People in the poorer—perhaps the east European—countries ask why they are signing a big cheque for the British rebate. I am prepared to defend it, but we would be in a much stronger position if more Members were networking across the continent, making the points they are making today and finding allies and friends of weight and seriousness. Frankly, the Conservatives are not doing that at present. I try to make that point more in terms of political science; at this time in the evening, there is no point in seeking controversy.

This is the first of a serious set of debates, and the Government will have to decide. My estimate is that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, is speaking just as if there had been no change of Government. The European policy of the coalition is no whit different from that of the previous Government in its broad approach to European issues. That may change, but the Conservative party will have to decide whether it wants to confront the deep national interests of this country that have never opted for protectionism or isolationism, no matter how seductively those positions have been put—they have certainly been put that way tonight.

19:05

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I congratulate the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on an excellent and most competent speech. I listened to her and to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), so may I say to him that the last thing she needs is his protective arm around her? He could do worse than to put his arm around himself, because the end of his speech contradicted its beginning. At the end he told us that now, more than ever, our contribution to the European Union budget comes from general Government expenditure. Therefore, if our contribution increases, we have to increase taxation, cut expenditure or run up a bigger deficit, at a time when we are trying to reduce the one we have. He would do well to reflect on that.

I noted that in all the advice the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), gave us, neither of them told us—we will be watching this—how they would advise MEPs to vote when this matter comes before the European Parliament once again, under its procedures. Will MEPs vote in favour of the Council to keep the budget down or are they going to vote in favour of the Commission and for more spending on the European Union? The hon. Member for Bristol East may not want to answer the question tonight, but her MEPs will have to vote or abstain in the European Parliament. They will be watched as to how they vote and we will remind them of the effects that this measure would have in this country.

I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and I wholeheartedly supported recommending this document for debate, because it is precisely the sort of thing that this House ought to debate. Something caught my eye in the figures that the Economic Secretary put before the House: the European Commission was seeking in its budget this year an increase of 5.8% or £7 billion in payment appropriations—at this of all times. That comes after increases in the past three years of 3.9%, 1.6% and 2.3%. That raised a question in my mind: how on earth at a time like this, when this country and other member states are facing such stringency in their public expenditure and are seeking to reduce their deficits, could the European Commission have the instinct to seek an increase in its spending? A cynical mind might say that the European Commission made proposals to increase spending on such a scale thinking that they might be trimmed back and that it was aiming for what it would get when those were trimmed back.

Be that as it may, the Economic Secretary is doing exactly the right thing, exercising her powers and this country’s influence to the utmost. I would like those powers to be greater, but they are what they are and they are being used to restrain the European budget, to seek alliances with other member states and to seek to bring about the reductions that she has talked about. It is in this country’s interest that she should do that, and I am sure that all hon. Members on the Government Benches wish her good luck in her endeavours.

Reference has been made to the rebate, so I do not propose to dwell on that. However, because this country’s rebate has been abated in part—in 2005, somewhat inexplicably, when this country had a veto and could have prevented any such abatement—we must have to bear a higher proportion of any increase in European expenditure than would otherwise have been the case. As has been rightly said, that means that our net contribution to the European budget is set to rise progressively from £3 billion in 2008-09 up to £9.5 billion in 2014. That is a substantial increase, which is inexplicable. Historians will have an interesting time examining the motivations of those who took part in the relevant discussions in 2005, when the case for this country was put by the previous Prime Minister but one.

The thing that strikes me more than anything else as I peruse this document and the various budget headings is how little attempt seems to have been made to economise on the part of the European Union—and not only that, but how little attempt has been made to cut back on planned expenditure. It seems that the European Union is ploughing on as though nothing had changed in the world.

Talking of planned expenditure, one of the worst examples, I am afraid to say, is the European External Action Service. We were promised originally—I remember taking part in the debate with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)—that it would be budget-neutral and the rumour was that nobody in the European institutions believed that. Surprise, surprise, after we were told that it would be budget-neutral and given a solemn assurance to that effect by the European Commissioner, the European Commission started coming back for more increases in expenditure. So far, in the brief time that has elapsed since it started to put that organisation into place, it has already breached the principle of budget neutrality twice, with increasing amounts being sought—the most recent was an increase of £35 billion for an extra 190 posts.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the current financial circumstances we should be talking not about budget increases or even budget neutrality but about reductions in the EU budget, as proposed in the excellent amendment (b)?

[Mr Clappison]

If there were a search for economies in the European budget, one of the best places to start would be the External Action Service. I have a suspicion that although some of its activities might be worth while, the prime motivating force behind the establishment of what is in effect a diplomatic service is the promotion of the European Union itself rather than the interests of member states or their citizens. I suspect that there might be scope for economies.

Let us be clear that what is being sought is planned increases in the External Action Service. Let us spell out the facts of what it will cost so far as it stands—as the Economic Secretary made clear. So far, the cost of the External Action Service, which is on the record under the so-called budget neutrality, is €400 billion. The diplomatic service has 3,700 employees and posts in about 130 nations in the world, many of which already have British diplomatic representation. Spending of that magnitude compares, I am afraid, with the search for economies that is being made in our Foreign Office, where savings of much smaller amounts of money are sought all the time in the face of the demands that have been made to try to economise. It would be sad to see the Union flag taken down in some countries in the world while the European flag was run up. I would regret that, as I think our Foreign Office does a good job in the world and represents the interests of our country. Its prime consideration is to represent this country and our citizens’ interests, rather than searching for exterior political objectives to do with the European Union.

This has been a very good debate. I commend the line that has been taken by the Economic Secretary. The facts are stark and anybody who reads these budget documents will be shocked that such increases are sought by the European Union at this of all times. It also prompts a question about the relationship between the European Union institutions, the Commission of the European Union, our constituents and the man on the street in every European state. What must be the attitude at a time when there is so much concern about the economy, when people are suffering and when cuts are being made if the European Union somehow feels that it is immune from those pressures and can go on increasing its expenditure?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Let me reinforce that point. When referendums have been held in a number of countries, the people have voted against the European Union, in essence. That has happened in France and Holland, and in Sweden when they voted against having the euro. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Mr Clappison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He has a very consistent record on this issue.

An increasing proportion of our laws, certainly as a result of the past 13 years, are being passed in the European Union, which searches constantly for new fields over which to exercise authority. It has made its way into home affairs and justice and it has huge ambitions regarding security and criminal justice. It also seeks to have an increasing influence over foreign affairs, with the establishment of a Foreign Minister and a diplomatic service. We know that it has all those great ambitions and we would do well to reflect, in the House, on what the increases in the budget say about the EU’s attitude toward individual citizens and its accountability to them.

19:15

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for her comments. I shall raise a couple of issues because I should like a tiny bit of clarification on a couple of matters.

I welcome the shadow Minister to her role. Obviously, I am very new here, but what she probably does not know is that, alas, I have had to follow the European budget for 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament. In that time, I followed the abject failure of Labour Ministers who came to Brussels, gave away money and powers and did not care for this country. They did not bother to raise any questions when we were looking at the accounts and whether or not they were signed off. The hon. Lady might have forgotten the failure of a former Prime Minister who went and tried, when he was Chancellor, to get back money from structural funds but failed and then went quiet on the issue. I very much doubt that the hon. Lady has yet, in her new job, read the European budget line by line and page by page. Alas, I did that nine times out of 10: the 10th time, I found a fantastic new doorstop.

I am not going to talk about the budget in financial terms, as my hon. Friend for Harwich—[Hon. Members: “Clacton.”] I love these boundary reviews; they are so much fun. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) has outlined the costs. I want to press home the process behind all this. Having sat on the back benches of the European Parliament, watching all this go through, I have seen the process get to the stage that we are at now, when the European Parliament’s Budgets Committee adopted its wishlist for how much more money it could possibly spend, and I know what comes next. There will be a little knock-back from the Council at the meetings that the Economic Secretary is about to attend and then there will be the stage at which these matters will be decided by qualified majority voting, because that is how all this works.

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

Qualified majority voting is a term that might not be understood widely outside the House. Could we more simply describe it as other countries telling this country what to do?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I suppose so; I have heard it put in slightly more complicated terms. At the end of the qualified majority voting process, member states coalesce into different groups and it is quite remarkable that we have so many member states on our side at this time. That is something else that the Labour Government utterly failed to achieve on any occasion when it came to the budget. I think we are heading in the right direction.

I want the House to give our Economic Secretary the strong message that a number of us are simply reflecting the views of the people who elected us to this place. They see a lot of money being wasted and a lot of excess in the European Union and they know that we want to do something about it, but we need to negotiate from a very strong position. I know that the Economic Secretary is an unbelievably good negotiator. She speaks many languages when she goes abroad to talk to our European friends and those with whom we have to negotiate. I would like her to know that when she goes into those negotiations she can say, “This Government have taken a perfectly reasonable position. We are reasonable, but look at the Members of the House of Commons who are trying to represent their constituents—they are absolutely livid about the position the Government are taking just to get a half-decent cut, or maybe a standstill, in the European budget.” We are trying to give extra force to her argument—nothing more, nothing less.

I commend what we are doing in the European Parliament. My colleague James Elles, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, has tabled many fantastic amendments, some of which might go through, because he is an able negotiator who knows the institutions very well, and some of which will not. However, we will still end up in the same position whereby, at the end of the process, the European Commission’s budget is bigger this year than it was last. That is unacceptable to the British public.

President Barroso recently gave a state of the Union address. I talk about that because I want to put into context where the argument sits now. We might be talking about the 2011 budget for the European Parliament, and I am trying to look forward to how we negotiate in the negotiations that are just opening up for the next financial framework. President Barroso put his cards on the table in his state of the Union address: not only does he want more money, but he wants to raise it in a completely different way. A former Minister for Europe talked about own resources; essentially, President Barroso would like to have a European tax. There is a debate for us to have on that.

Some people want a European tax because more member states are having debates such as the one in the Chamber today whereby their parliamentarians say, “You are spending a lot of money from direct taxation, not from the way you used to raise it.” My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) referred to that and it is unacceptable in the current economic climate.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My hon. Friend adds a great deal to the Chamber with his wealth of experience. For those of us who are new to the EU institutions, will he explain how members of the British public may cast a vote to dismiss President Barroso?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is a good question. I am not convinced that it is possible. There is only one way to get rid of any European Commissioner, and that is to get rid of the whole lot. That involves a process that an individual constituent— [Interruption.] No, I did not. I was way too young to be there.

[Mr Dodds]

May I suggest one way to address the particular issue of getting rid of some of those people? The British people should be allowed a referendum on the question of our relationship with Europe. Instead of having a referendum next May on the alternative vote system, which is not what people want to talk about, should we not have a referendum on this issue, which everybody is interested in?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The answer is yes.

I want to wind up by taking us back to the process that we are involved in. We are discussing the EU budget for 2011. Coming down the track is the EU budget for the next five or six years. If we do not make a stand now, we will be viewed as a pushover when we come to those negotiations next time round. We have done fantastic work. There has been no failure whatever by our Front-Bench team in already getting a bunch of countries to agree with what we are saying on the EU budget. I want the Economic Secretary to know that behind her she has so many friends wishing her to do well. We are just representing the British people in what they want as well.

19:23

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I want to begin my short contribution by stating firmly that I am not anti-European. Much to the horror of many of my colleagues, I am also not a member of the “Better Off Out” campaign. I hasten to add, before my hon. Friends have a heart attack, that I am also not an overt pro-European. I simply recognise that our membership of the EU needs to work in our national interest and provide value for the British taxpayer.

In my constituency and across the country, our membership of the EU vexes people. Typically, they are resentful of its bureaucracy, centralised structure and perceived unaccountability. They cannot understand why so much of our country’s decision-making process has been shifted to Brussels, when it should be here. With that in mind, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recent announcement that a sovereignty Bill would be introduced, allowing authority to remain in our Parliament.

On the topic of today’s debate, the draft EU budget will rightly be subject to close scrutiny. At a time when our country and Europe as a whole are enduring one of the harshest economic climates for a generation, the European Commission has proposed a 5.8% increase in the draft EU budget, demanding an increase in net contributions of staggering amounts from its member states. The UK alone can expect to pay nearly £2 billion more in the coming year. How many schools, hospitals, doctors, teachers and nurses could £2 billion pay for? In the light of the scaling back of departmental budgets in this country most, if not all, will find it difficult to reconcile the two.

In order to put the draft budget and its proposed increase in context, we must be clear about what preceded it and our current spending commitments. It is widely accepted and entirely accurate that the previous Government mismanaged the negotiations of the previous EU budget in 2005, leaving us as a country contributing a significant amount of money with a poor rate of return. Our contributions exceed those of France by some 20%, despite our economy being only a fraction larger than that of France. Our rebate, so generously relinquished by the previous Government, is left greatly reduced. We still have a common agricultural policy commanding a significant portion of the EU budget, yet British farmers receive a disproportionately small amount of the overall funding.

To ask the British taxpayer to fund a further increase to an already over-inflated and questionable contribution would seem a clear affront. In addition, it poses an interesting and important question. At a time when we are asking British taxpayers to tighten their belts in the national interest and driving down costs where necessary, is it fair to ask for belts to be loosened again for an excessive EU budget? In my constituency, Chatham and Aylesford, with two of the most deprived wards in the UK, it will be painfully ironic to many that as necessary cuts and trimming of our public services are carried out in the coming months, we are locked into spending commitments elsewhere that are not always in the nation’s interest.

I share the Government’s drive to get value for taxpayer money in public services and across Whitehall after years of waste and inefficiency, which is why we must ask ourselves whether the EU is prepared to do the same. I admire the Government’s commitment to keeping their own administrative costs to a bare minimum, but in the original draft EU budget published in April I was horrified to see a proposed increase of nearly 4.5% in EU administrative costs alone. I hope this will be looked at throughout the review. It clearly highlights the mindset of those in Europe and raises serious questions about whether they share our Government’s commitment to achieving value for taxpayers’ money.

I welcome the Government’s stance in seeking to freeze cash payments to the EU and agree that this would be the most desirable outcome. The UK’s membership of the EU should be like any club transaction—you get what you pay for. That clearly was not the approach adopted by the previous Government, and once again the taxpayer has been left to foot the bill.

However, in the unprecedented economic climate that we have endured and are faced with, the EU is in the unique position to promote and contribute to the economic recovery. The EU’s mandate ought to be centred on filling a transnational role, tackling issues affecting Europe as a whole such as climate change and energy security, and naturally its budget should reflect that. It is regrettable that the new Parliament is restricted to voting on the basis of the previous Government’s ill-advised negotiations. Not only did the previous Government bankrupt this country, but through the EU budget their legacy lives on.

Our Government is not alone in opposing the rise in the EU budget. Denmark, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands all share our concerns. I therefore urge the Government to seek to form a consensus with other member states who share our concern, throughout the review of the budget. With UK Departments and services under severe financial pressure, and constituents throughout the country facing unprecedented strains on the pound in their pocket, I cannot see how we can justify increasing our contribution to the EU when it, in return, refuses to make similar spending reductions.

19:30

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a delight to speak in this debate as a new Member, particularly as the country was denied a vote on the Lisbon treaty and this is the first post-Lisbon budget.

When the Lisbon treaty was passed, we heard claim after claim that it would make the EU decision-making process more efficient and democratic. How can it have led to more efficiency, when the EU budget is due to increase by 5.8% in payment appropriations? Even the Opposition, with their astonishing record on spending and waste, would struggle to justify an annual increase in spending on that scale. I very much doubt that, in the current economic climate, any Department calling for such an increase in its budget would be given any consideration.

The Government’s position is to keep cash levels at the same rate as last year, but, at a time when most domestic Departments are looking to make efficiencies and cuts ranging from 25% to 40%, why is the EU not being pushed further? With a total budget exceeding €130 billion, it is not unreasonable for the Government and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in her negotiations, to pursue the Commission and other member states to make deeper cuts in order to bring down the cost of the EU and to protect the British taxpayer.

My constituents in Witham and the majority of the British public now understand that the Government are dealing with spending, and that spending must come down. As decisions affecting my constituents are taken, however, they will be furious to see that, although they cannot have their new school buildings or road improvements for now, more and more of their hard-earned money is being handed over to Europe.

Having gone through the draft budget, which is a significant document, I note that there are some significant and questionable increases in spending, which the Economic Secretary should seek to reverse in her negotiations. There is an extraordinary document entitled, “Administrative expenditure of the institutions”. Linked to the budget, it is an alarming read, and figures for each institution, line by line, give a shocking insight into bureaucratic waste in the EU.

Those figures include an 85% increase in “Entertainment and representation expenses”; a 440% increase in

“Miscellaneous expenditure on the organisation of Euromed Parliamentary Assembly meetings”;

a 43% increase to €19.6 million on

“Expenditure on publication, information and participation in public events”;

a 23.6% increase in

“Contributions to European political parties”;

a 24.7% increase in

“Contributions to European political foundations”;

and, on top of that, as we have already heard, the

“Provisional appropriation for the 18 additional Members of the European Parliament”,

which under the Lisbon Treaty will cost €9.4 million.

I have previously questioned the Europe Minister, who is not here today, on that matter, but, while this Parliament reduces its numbers and cuts its costs, subsidies and expenses, surely the Economic Secretary should make the same point about Europe when she comes to negotiate with her European counterparts.

Only last month, another example of EU waste was brought to my attention. Promoted by the East of England Development Agency and the East of England European Partnership, the document entitled, “Europe for Citizens”, opens with an extraordinary and, one could argue, helpful statement, proclaiming:

“Europe for Citizens is a funding programme that basically provides a large number of small grants.”

I find that statement astonishing. In spite of the economic difficulties that face this country and, in fact, other European states, a pot of money amounting to €215 million is available for “High visibility events”, “Town twinning”,

“Structural support for think tanks”,

and

“Support for projects initiated by civil society organisations.”

Trimming those budgets and other activities would save the British taxpayer quite a lot of money and even bring some long overdue financial management to the EU.

Next month, as we have heard, we will have the spectacle of the European Court of Auditors finding, no doubt, even more irregularities in the EU budget for yet another year running. In any well-respected democracy, no organisation spending money on that scale would be able to get away with the auditors not signing off its books, or with the level of previous errors, which most Government Members attribute to the previous Government’s maladministration. I urge the Economic Secretary to ask for stringent guarantees that money spent by the EU will be spent not only efficiently but robustly and effectively, and that the auditors are doing their job properly, because there are so many instances of waste and unaccountability. British taxpayers are not sufficiently up in arms about that issue.

Instead of acknowledging the deficiencies in its budgets and its incompetent financial management, the EU lives in denial, pursuing a policy of blatant spin and propaganda, and attacking any organisation that dares to question how taxpayers’ money is being spent. On its website, there is a whole section devoted to so-called “EU budget myths”, and a “myth-buster guide” has been published. The EU goes as far as to state that we should

“not confuse errors with fraud”

and that there are

“too many errors, usually made by the end users of EU funding.”

This budget and the forthcoming negotiations clearly provide an opportunity to challenge the EU in its way of working.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Economic Secretary engages in these negotiations, which I have no doubt that she is more than qualified to lead given what she said earlier, it would be to her advantage if we supported amendment (b), because going in and asking for a reduction in the budget instead of just the status quo would help our case?

[Priti Patel]

I totally agree with that.

The situation is without a doubt unsustainable. Particularly given the EU’s previous track record as regards misappropriation of funds and lack of transparency, current funding levels cannot continue. EU officials need to understand that the British public cannot be treated like fools. We can clearly see through the spin, the propaganda, and the abuses of taxpayers’ money for endless self-serving vanity projects that are not in our democratic, economic or national interest. Just as sunshine has proved to be the best disinfectant on issues such as MPs’ expenses, it is about time that some sunlight was shone on to the EU budget.

[Nick de Bois]

Give them IPSA.

[Priti Patel]

They are welcome to IPSA, as well.

It is an appropriate coincidence that we are discussing the EU budget on the very same day that Baroness Thatcher celebrates her 85th birthday. What better way to celebrate the Iron Lady’s birthday than for the Economic Secretary to go to Europe tomorrow, stand up and really fight our corner, and say those immortal words, “No, no, no”, giving an ultimatum to her European counterparts and the Commission bureaucrats as they press for larger sums of money to be spent and attack our rebate?

I wish the Economic Secretary well in those fundamental discussions and negotiations. Our country has paid a high price on previous occasions, and our sovereignty has been undermined. We have Europe meddling in our affairs, taking billions of pounds from the hard-pressed British taxpayer. I urge her to put Britain’s interests, and the interests of the British taxpayer, first.

19:38

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support a reduction in the EU budget. As some Members may be aware, I have advocated that any such cut would more than meet the costs of providing a second aircraft carrier for the Royal Navy.

Who would have thought that less than six months after the election we would be having a debate where a Conservative-led Government would be denounced by many of their Back Benchers for being soft on Europe? I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) say—I think that he is correct—that, as far as he can tell, there has been almost complete continuity of policy from the previous Government to this Government in terms of their relationship with the EU. I have noticed that many commentators are similarly remarking that there seems to have been very little change in policy towards the EU. I hope that that is simply a question of settling in, and that when the Government find their feet they will be much more prepared to stand up for British interests.

There is another possibility. Yesterday, we heard that the alternative vote referendum was being brought forward simply as a concession to the Liberal Democrats—the Liberal tail wagging the Conservative dog. I hope that the Government’s softness on the European Union is not another case of the Liberals having received undue concessions from the Conservatives. I point out to Conservative Members that it is not possible to buy Liberal Democrats—they can only be rented for short periods, and one can never rely on their remaining rented. If the Conservatives are counting on the Liberal Democrats to support them all the way, they are likely to be sadly mistaken.

Unless I am very much mistaken, it is noticeable that there are no Liberal Democrats here at the moment, unless Members who are sitting on the second Bench back have joined them.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

They’re all in Europe.

[Mr Davidson]

Are they all in it together? Yet again, I suspect that the Liberals are leaving the Conservatives to do the dirty work for them and put the budget through. I imagine that if the Conservatives carry on their course of action and we have an AV voting system next time around, the UK Independence party will do far better in the first ballot than it might have done in the past. I find it a great cause for regret that the Conservatives seem to have gone soft on Europe in such a short period.

[Mr Bone]

I normally agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, but will he cast his mind back to the previous Parliament? When did a Minister talk the way our Minister has spoken tonight, and when were the Government Benches as full for a European debate as they are tonight?

[Mr Davidson]

That is a very fair point. Not many times were the Benches behind a Minister full of Members denouncing the Government for being too soft on Europe. There were a number of us doing so, but not nearly as many as there are tonight. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

Some of my colleagues who spoke earlier touched on the iniquities of the EU budget. As someone who was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for a number of years, I am in complete sympathy with everything that has been said about how the auditors have qualified the accounts. The whole matter is a complete and utter disgrace. The audited accounts only tell part of the story, of course, because they do not cover the fact that EU income and the income of individual countries is enormously depressed by the extent of fraud, underpayment, under-collection of VAT and so on, which is reflected in the EU budget. [Interruption.] Can I have a lack of heckling from my hon. Friends in front of me, who support most of my arguments?

The EU budget is about not only the net and gross amounts of money flowing back and forward, but how that money is spent. Were it given by the EU to the British Government to spend, we would not be spending it in the way that we are. We have created a dependency culture among farmers. I know a number of farmers—admittedly not many of them are in my constituency—who concede that what they mostly farm now are subsidies. The whole pattern of their growing and activity is determined by the subsidies that are available from the EU, irrespective of the agricultural, financial or economic rationale. That is not rational or right, and such decisions ought to be repatriated to this country as quickly as possibly.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) asked what the actions of Labour MEPs were likely to be, but I think that there is little doubt. We should remember that virtually all Labour MEPs were selected under the new Labour system of allowing only those in favour of ever-closer union to progress. I can remember when a number of Scotland Labour MEPs were Eurosceptic, but when the new system of proportional representation was introduced, Labour put them all out. Ever since, only those in favour of ever-closer union have come forward. I would be astonished if any Labour MEP does anything against those interests and the interests of the greater growth and development of the EU.

[Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s honourable record on this matter, but will he acknowledge that the description that he just gave admirably suits the Quisling-in-chief now occupying the position of Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, who always urged the previous Labour Government on from the Back Benches?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman’s language—“Quisling-in-chief”—was a little strong, and I am sure that he would like to rephrase his view of that individual, even on an intervention.

[Mr Swayne]

I unreservedly withdraw the remark.

[Mr Davidson]

Now that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his remark, I shall not respond to it.

The point about the External Action Service has already been made, but I was astonished at the time of its creation that so many otherwise sensible people believed that it would result in no net growth in expenditure. Of course it was going to, and it was always intended that it would do so. It is interesting that those who wish to be deceived are deceived, including by promises from the European Union to moderate or reduce expenditure. That is simply a fig leaf. Those who accept such promises choose to do so, and then pretend to be astonished when it turns out that the situation is different. The idea that the Lisbon treaty is not the constitution is simply laughable, and only those who wish to be deceived by that twisting of words are so deceived.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the root of the problem is not only the EU budget, but EU functions, which were greatly increased by the Lisbon treaty? The ESC agreed this afternoon that we will examine fully the question of parliamentary sovereignty as against European functions. Does he also agree that a precondition of reducing EU functions is asserting UK sovereignty, and requiring the judiciary to give effect to Westminster legislation and to override European legislation as and when necessary?

[Mr Davidson]

I accept that. It is enormously helpful that the ESC, of which the hon. Gentleman is Chair, will pursue that course of action. I only hope that the Committee does not take too long.

[Mr Cash]

Three months.

[Mr Davidson]

That is very welcome indeed. Pursuing that sooner rather than later is welcome.

The point about the External Action Service is not only that it costs more money, but that it is invidious. The desire of the EU is that it should be a state and that the EAS should be an embassy. I note that the EU has just taken over enormous premises in central London. Those will be nothing other than a centre for pro-EU propaganda and an attempt to intervene directly in British politics and British political affairs in a way that we would not tolerate from any country—I almost said “any other country.” We would not allow the Austrians, the Australians, the Canadians or anybody else to have a propaganda outfit in this country that spent enormous amounts to intervene directly in British politics, yet we are prepared to allow the EU to do so. In my view, its wings ought to be clipped.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who I believe has left the Chamber, commented on the extent to which we reflect our constituents’ anxiety about EU spending. I think that he was wrong, because we do not accurately reflect those. The balance of this debate is clearly in favour of constraints on EU spending, and that reflects the balance of opinion among the public, but I fear that the vote will not reflect that because vast numbers of Conservative MPs will be driven like sheep into the Lobby to support the Government and oppose any proposal to restrict the expenditure of the EU.

I hope that we will be able to return to the discussion of a referendum. It is correct for Conservative Members to point to the Labour Government’s failure to honour their commitment to a referendum on the constitution, but I point to the Conservatives’ failure to do the same. Given that next year Europe intends to re-examine its budget and the common agricultural policy, we should start by saying that that major revision should be put to the British people in a referendum, to determine whether they are prepared to accept the new financial arrangement, which will represent—I hope—a considerable break with what has happened in the past. Of course, it may not break with the past, but it would strengthen the Government’s hand enormously if we made it clear that they were prepared to take any new financial settlement with Europe, achieved after a long period of debate, to the country for resolution.

In the meantime, I support the proposals that urge a reduction in the EU’s expenditure, and I hope that we will not discover that a majority of Conservative Members oppose those proposals.

19:51

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and I agree with much of what he had to say. I have no intention of criticising the Economic Secretary tonight. Indeed, I support the new Government’s position on the European budget and it is much more robust than was the previous Government’s. In fact, I pay tribute to the Economic Secretary’s contribution to the debate, which contrasted starkly with what we heard from Ministers in the previous Government. There is no suggestion that any one part of the coalition is directing another. It is especially unfair to suggest that the Liberal Democrats are not here for the long run. I fully understand that a Lib Dem is not just for Christmas—if you’re lucky, there will be some left over.

I also thank the shadow Minister for her remarks. She did a great deal of good for the argument made by those of us who believe that the European Union and its budgetary processes have gone too far. In fact, by confirming that the Opposition have no policy on the issue of the European Union, she has made our job much easier. The Opposition’s position is very strange. They complain about spending cuts across the country, but they fail to say what they think about the European budget. Do they think that their constituents should be deprived of spending commitments in this country for the sake of an increase in the EU budget? That is a bizarre and strange position, but it is one that I do not have to defend to my constituents.

I urge the Economic Secretary to ignore the advice of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who suggested that we should engage in some sort of trail of dinner parties—presumably paid for by EU taxpayers’ money—as, he said, the previous Government did. Where did that get us? It lost us our rebate and saw the previous Government committing to increasing the EU budget even further. We need no lectures from the Opposition on how to address this process.

I am a committed Eurosceptic. My antipathy to our membership of the European Union is widely known, and I made it very clear to my constituents at the election that I would seek a different relationship between this country and the European Union. However, that is not the debate we are having tonight. We are talking about whether we should approve sending more of my constituents’ hard-earned cash to Brussels to be spent elsewhere. I am not happy to support that position, and I will certainly not support it.

What are we being asked to pay for? We are being asked to pay for a 2.5% increase in the administration costs of the European Union, at the very time when we are telling councils and Government agencies across the country that they have to reduce their administration costs. How can I square that circle to my constituents? We are being asked to approve a 5% increase in contributions to the pension budget. At the same time, I am telling my constituents that their public sector pensions will be linked to the consumer prices index, rather than the retail prices index. We are also proposing to spend an extra 4.15% on the EU schools budget, at the very moment when we will be asking schools in this country—including, possibly, the one at which I taught just a few months ago—to spend less.

We are also asking Government Members and taxpayers to approve more money for the European External Action Service. I am pleased to say that when we had the debate on the European External Action Service, I was one of the Members in the No Lobby. As was mentioned earlier this evening, we were assured that the programme would be cost-neutral, but we now know that we will spend an awful lot more taxpayers’ money on a body to represent my constituents overseas for which they did not vote.

I do not need to talk about what the extra money going on this budget increase could be spent on. We have heard about the 12,000 extra nurses or the 14,000 police constables on which it could be spent. I am not certainly going to go back to my constituents and tell them that I have voted to spend money that could have been spent on front-line NHS nurses, teacher support in schools or our brave servicemen.

We have heard a great deal today about the previous Government and what they gave up. It is an absolute disgrace that they gave up our rebate, for absolutely no reform. For the past 30-odd years, we have repeatedly been told, “Well, we’ll accept this little budget increase in Europe in return for some reform.” We have always been told that some reform is coming down the line, but it never comes, because the European Union is institutionally incapable of reform. There can be no doubt about that at all.

[Mrs Main]

There is no incentive.

[Andrew Percy]

Indeed, as my hon. Friend says, there is no incentive for any sort of reform.

Those who support the budget increase have made great play of the fact that the amount spent on the common agricultural policy has reduced. It has indeed reduced: it is down to about 42%. However, even without the fraud and mismanagement that we all know about, the OECD has warned that the real cost of the CAP is £125 billion a year, so we could go a great deal further. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned the fact that we are now in the strange situation whereby farmers are effectively farming subsidies. However, I have talked to many of the farmers in my constituency, and I have to say, “If only they were.” Instead, we are asking them to manage environmental schemes, and at the very time when we are becoming more and more reliant on imported food.

I mentioned in an intervention on the shadow Minister that we cannot get away from the fact that the EU budget has not been signed off for some 15 years, and there is no doubt that it will not be signed off again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said. Like other right hon. and hon. Members who are present, I am expected to go to my constituents and tell them that we would like to take more of their money to put into an institution that cannot guarantee that the money will be spent where it says it will be spent. I am not prepared to do that on behalf of the good people of Brigg and Goole who sent me here and whom it is my privilege to serve.

There is a broader issue, about the relationship between this country and the European Union, which touches on people’s engagement with and perception of the European Union, which was mentioned in earlier speeches. I note that Open Europe, which is a very sound pressure group, conducted a poll that found that 54% of people agreed with the statement that the Government should drop the Lisbon treaty and not try to ratify it. That 54%, as was proved in other polls, was ignored; the previous Government forced the Lisbon treaty through and broke an election promise. Some 65% of people believe that the European Union is out of touch with normal people, but sadly it is normal people’s hard-earned cash that is used to fund the EU, while 88% could not name their MEP. I wish that I did not know the names of some of my MEPs. Turnout for European parliamentary elections was at its highest in 2004, an abysmal 38.5% when I was up for election as a councillor, and it is a pretty poor pass when councillors such as me are used to drag up the European election turnout.

There is a general view in this country that the political elite is out of touch with the British public on the issue of Europe. My concern is that, if we approve yet more cash for the wasteful institution that is the EU, the gap between what the public expect and the position of the political elite will widen yet further. That would not be healthy.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Many people at the last general election who cared a great deal about Europe and were furious about it felt that voting Conservative was the way to ensure that something would be done about the massive amount of waste and bureaucracy in Europe. We owe it to them to achieve that.

[Andrew Percy]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, what we heard from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury today was incredibly refreshing, and I am heartened that she is going to fly off to Brussels tomorrow and bang the table on behalf of British taxpayers. The British people expect someone to stand up for them in Europe, and I have no doubt that the Economic Secretary will do so.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that this should be a question not of freezing the amount of money that we give to the European Union, but of reducing it substantially? If we are cutting departmental budgets here rather than freezing them, we should also be reducing the EU budget. That is what taxpayers want.

[Andrew Percy]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It has come to a strange pass when I have to explain to my constituents why a number of their play parks, costing some £5,000 to £10,000 each, can no longer be afforded because we have run out of money—as we know we have, because Labour has admitted it—only to have to tell them that we need to find £435 million more to send to projects overseas. I fully accept that some of that money will come back here, but a large chunk of it will not. We would not expect our constituents to invest in a bank that offered that kind of a deal.

I support the strong stance that the Economic Secretary set out earlier, and I hope that there will be significant movement on this issue in the coming months and years. However, we are being asked tonight whether we are prepared to ask our constituents, at a time when we are making massive cuts and asking them to make savings, to foot the bill for much more money for Europe. That is not something that I am prepared to do to the voters of Brigg and Goole.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I want to inform the House that I intend to give those on the Front Benches time to make a brief response to the debate, and I shall do that at 8.22 pm. There are still a number of Members who wish to speak, so I ask them to do the maths and to help their colleagues out if they can, please.

20:03

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Over the past few months, we have spent a lot of our time debating one aspect or another of the financial crisis in which the country finds itself. Britain has a huge deficit, and the British public have collectively built up a mountain of personal debt. All in all, we are in a real mess. The Government have set out a series of measures to reduce the national debt, and I know that many individuals—including people in my constituency—are trying hard to cut down their indebtedness. These are tough times for us all, and we are not alone. Many other countries around the world, including many in Europe, are facing huge financial challenges and struggling to balance their books without pushing their national economies into another recession.

In this era of uncertainty and austerity, what does that organisation of probity and good governance, the European Commission, do? It proposes to increase the EU budget next year by 5.8%, which in real money represents an increase of £6,102 million. What planet do European Commissioners live on? They live on the planet of self-indulgence. They live in a cushioned climate of privilege in which the Brussels gravy train does not stop long enough for them to see what is happening in the real world.

To be fair to our own British Government, at least they recognise the stupidity of the European Commission. As the Economic Secretary wrote in a briefing note and confirmed this evening, the Government are very concerned about the proposed increase in appropriations of 5.8%. They might be very concerned, but I would be absolutely livid. I give at least one out of three cheers to the Treasury for that statement but, sadly, I cannot bring myself to give it any more cheers. My hon. Friend let herself down in addressing the EU problem by proposing that the EU budget remains at cash levels equivalent to the 2010 budget. That is also why I cannot support amendment (a). I bet all those Ministers tasked with making a 20% cut in their departmental budgets are a bit narked. I am sure that in the present economic climate, they would be delighted to be given a zero growth budget.

Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have been inundated with letters and e-mails complaining about the proposed cuts in benefits, increases in tuition fees and changes to public service pensions. There is a great deal of disquiet out there and representing a constituency that has some of the most deprived areas in the south-east within its boundaries, I share some of that disquiet, but I am happy to go into bat on behalf of the coalition Government and to argue the case for those cuts. I believe that in their heart of hearts, most people in my constituency understand that we have no choice but to push through those cuts if we are to reduce the mountain of debt we inherited from the previous Government.

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), however, I would not be able to look my friends and neighbours in the eye if we drove through a programme of painful cuts in our public services, while at the same time bunging the EU billions of pounds to waste on grandiose schemes such as the European External Action Service and the European Institute of Gender Equality in Vilnius, Lithuania, for which, incidentally, the UK is being asked to cough up £800,000.

Next year, the European Commission proposes to spend £7 billion on administration. By my calculation, the UK’s contribution to those administration costs will be about £1 billion. If Government Departments and public bodies in this country are being asked to cut their administration costs, it is surely right to expect the European Commission to do the same.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend note with concern that where the UK has a 15% increase in public spending over five years, the European Union wants to increase its spending by 60%?

[Gordon Henderson]

I am aware of those figures and I think that they are scandalous.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has said that the British Government will press the EU to deliver greater value for money, and I am sure that she and the Government will do so, but does anyone here really believe that our friends across the English channel in the European Commission will actually listen to them? When the draft budget is eventually presented to the European Parliament for debate later this year, do Treasury Ministers really think that anyone other than a small group of British MEPs will take a blind bit of notice of their view? I think not.

I would personally like to see the Government unilaterally reduce the UK’s contribution to the EU budget for 2011 by the average percentage cut imposed on Whitehall Departments. If the European Commission and the European Parliament do not like it and kick up a fuss, we should immediately hold a referendum on Britain’s continued membership and let the British people decide our future once and for all. Perhaps we could hold it on the same day as the referendum on the alternative vote.

I support amendment (b), and I urge Members in all parts of the House to do the same.

20:10

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I think it worth repeating plainly from the outset—not least in response to some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson)—that the last Government failed hopelessly to stand up for the British national interest in Brussels. They failed to secure the overhaul of the common agricultural policy that Tony Blair promised, and they failed to defend Britain’s rebate, as a result of which we now pay an extra £2 billion to Brussels each year. As we have already heard, they also broke their promise to the people to give them a say on their own future through a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The present Government have done more to fight Britain’s corner in Europe in the last six months than Labour managed in 13 years, proposing a referendum lock, retaining Parliament’s right to review the UK budget before the Commission, and defending the rebate.

With that in mind, I welcome the Government’s pledge to work to control the growth of the EU budget and to deliver better value for money for the British taxpayer. That is imperative as we act to reduce the largest budget deficit in the G20, inherited from the last Government. I also welcome the fact that the Commission’s proposed increase for 2011 has been halved, from 5.8% to 2.9%. That is a start.

The case for a more robust and rigorous approach to these negotiations is now overwhelming. It cannot be right for the European Commission to bid for a rise of almost 6% in its budget when so many member states, including Britain, are having to rein in excessive public spending. Let us take just one example. Why is the EU budget on justice and security going up when the UK faces cuts in spending on police and prisons at home? That is even less defensible when we consider the Commission’s detailed plans for the money.

First, there is the enormous waste involved. We have already heard about the EU’s administrative budget, which is set to rise year on year by between 4.4% and 5.5%. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government will continue to resist strenuously an increase in the amount of British taxpayers’ money that is forked out on this bloated bureaucracy? Secondly, there are the special interests—what the Americans call pork-barrel spending. Is it really necessary to spend €104 million on

“increasing the circulation of European audiovisual works inside and outside the European Union”?

Is it really necessary to spend €24 million on bee-keeping, and to spend half a million euros on “aid for silkworms”? Speaking of which, what possible justification is there for Lord Mandelson to continue to pocket £8,600 per month, via the Commission, for a golden goodbye as we freeze public sector pay at home?

As the Business Secretary told MEPs last month,

“no one can understand why the European budget is not being subjected to the same discipline”

as national budgets. Nothing is more likely to erode further the confidence of the British public in a Brussels clique that is woefully out of touch.

As we make cuts at home, the UK taxpayer will contribute £7.7 billion to the EU budget this year, and by the end of the current Parliament that figure is expected to rise to £9.5 billion. As its own budget defies economic gravity, the Commission, unabashed, presses for greater control of national budgets. Will the Minister reassure the House that she will reverse those skewed priorities, and will fight both to rein in excessive EU spending and to safeguard national scrutiny of our own budgetary process?

Above all, this budget demonstrates, line by line, how important it is for Britain to retain its rebate. As of December 2009, the rebate has saved the British taxpayer £65 billion since 1984. Can the Minister give us a categorical guarantee that we will never repeat the supine sell-out of 2005?

Having listened carefully to the debate, I cannot help feeling that the most compelling arguments remain those advanced by the Government when they joined Denmark, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden in voting against this wretched budget in August.

20:15

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I will be as brief as possible. I just wanted to note the following numbers. The total managed expenditure in the United Kingdom Budget will be £697 billion in 2010-11 rising to £700 billion in 2011-12. That is an increase of just 0.5%, whereas the European Union is really gunning for it with a 5.8% increase and, as we have heard, administration costs will rise by 4.4%.

It is worth noting what the Commission has to say about the administration costs. It says it has made particular efforts to limit its administrative expenditure and that rise is partially due to the higher than expected salary increases in 2009. So we in the UK are implementing austerity and limiting the pay rises for our public sector workers while the EU just carries on serenely as though nothing has happened. An increase of €380 million is entirely unacceptable.

We have heard about the total number of doctors, nurses and others who will be affected in the current circumstances, but let us look at the constituency numbers: nine doctors per constituency, 19 nurses, 23 policemen and 34 troops. That is the scale of the situation we are facing. The EU budget is therefore a ferocious and astonishing waste of money. It is entirely unacceptable that over a five-year period we in the UK are having a 10% rise in spending, but there will be a 60% rise for the EU. What do we as a nation get for that? Do we get any value at all?

Finally, I want to congratulate the Economic Secretary on making the strongest and most impassioned case on Europe from the Dispatch Box that any of us has seen in the past 20 years, setting out that the Government will take the EU to task and bang the table and make the points that need to be made. I hope I speak for the whole House when I say that in negotiating on this matter she has our strongest and best wishes. All Members on the Government Benches certainly want her to get the best deal for Britain.

20:17

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Conservative Members clearly have a very simple message for the Minister: we wish her well and we wish her to be strong and fierce in argument and debate, because we think she should be more ambitious. It is not enough just to freeze this budget; this budget has to be brought down. If there is any budget of all the budgets we look at in this difficult time about which we can say, “We can get away with cutting that,” it is this budget. I suspect many Opposition Members would agree with that, were they honest about it. We are talking about a budget of €143 billion or £120 billion, which is more than we spend on the national health service. A big chunk of that budget is down to us, and we get nothing like the value out of it that we get from the NHS.

I therefore hope the Minister will look to the following very important precedent. The last time we had a good battling female Minister who stood up for Britain she was armed only with a handbag, yet with that one piece of equipment she came back with the biggest rebate we ever got: the rebate the Labour party stupidly gave away, and the rebate we need back. That rebate would give us twice as much money as the amount the Government are hoping to save from the cut in child benefit. We know the Minister has the right equipment. She assures me that she has an excellent handbag, so we wish her every success in putting that argument.

The argument to the Greeks, Italians and Portuguese must be that they are having to make far worse cuts than any that are suggested for the European budget. We can cut collectively in a much more sensible way than the damaging domestic cuts they are having to put to their electors. The French have already had riots on the streets over their domestic cuts. I am sure they will agree with our Minister that there are some easy pickings to be had by removing items from this European budget. I therefore also hope the Minister will point out that because this is a levy on all the member states and all the member states are borrowing too much money, every penny and cent of that €143 billion is going to be borrowed. The taxpayers will not just have to pay once, therefore; they will also have to pay all the interest on that and be ready to repay the debt.

Is this really the kind of thing we want to be borrowing money for? Of course it is not. So Godspeed to you Minister: put the case, and win over all those other Governments. They will surely agree with us that it is better to cut the European budget than to cut important domestic programmes.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Peter Bone and ask him to be brief.

20:19

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I shall be brief. It is difficult to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), but I just wanted to say what a change it is to be in the House discussing a European issue when all on the Government side are united. New Back Bencher after new Back Bencher has said to the Minister, “We support what you say; go a little bit further.” We have heard the Minister accept an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) that he has tabled a lot of amendments but I cannot remember his Government ever accepting any of them. The Minister was also kind enough to say that had amendment (b) been worded slightly differently, she would have accepted that too.

The coalition Government are united, but I want to give a little help to the Minister by suggesting that if amendment (b) is passed, or if many Members vote for it, that will help her in the negotiation tomorrow. Just peeking over, I can see that she has got a very large handbag, so I ask her to use it tomorrow.

20:20

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

We have had a very interesting debate. Before it, I had thought there was a chance that perhaps the Conservative party had changed, and that it had learned the errors of its ways and said farewell to Eurosceptism. But no, Eurosceptism is alive and well in today’s Conservative party and, in fact, it would appear to have been given a new lease of life. In reality, many of the contributions made by Conservative Members today were speeches against not only the European Union budget per se, but the European Union as an entity.

I urge Conservative Members to continue to be frank, but I must ask where the Liberal Democrats were. Until recently, that party used to pride itself on being the most pro-European in Britain. Well, in this debate the Liberal Democrats have certainly withdrawn to the fringes, as we have seen them do this week generally. Apparently, no compromise is too much for them, no U-turn too sharp and no sell-out too great. What is true in domestic politics is equally true on Europe.

What about the Conservatives? Let me make it clear that an efficient and effective EU budget is important for Britain. The majority of our exports go to the rest of Europe and that is why the EU budget must act as a stimulus for growth. We need to reinforce the conditions for future growth and, as is said in the commentary on the draft budget, we must invest

“in research, development, and innovation, infrastructure and human capital”

because all of those

“are at the heart of economic modernisation”.

That is not to say, however, that we should not be hard-headed about what areas of EU expenditure should be reduced. It is right that there should be a freeze on EU staff recruitment in Brussels and that various benefits for current and retired EU officials should be reduced. There is a necessity to maintain budgetary discipline, and we must always ensure that there is value for money at a European level. Equally, we should be prepared to say that further savings should be made. Let Britain champion, for example, the ending of the ludicrous circus of the European Parliament travelling back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg—the Government say a lot about it but have done absolutely nothing. Let us examine whether it is really necessary for the EU to promote culture and let us continually make the case for reducing subsidies to well-off farming interests.

Of course Labour Members support the Government’s aim of reducing the EU budget, but the reality is that the amended budget, agreed by the Council of Ministers in August, represents an increase of 2.9% compared with this year’s budget. We know that the UK Government, along with smaller Governments from across the EU, voted against the amended budget. But, we know that the Government lost the debate and the vote in the full European Council—so much for the Government's claim to be winning the arguments in Brussels.

Even though the Government initially mellowed their strident Eurosceptism, which the Conservative party displayed in opposition, their lame and half-hearted attempts to fight for British interests are falling far short of what is needed. The Conservatives’ decision to withdraw their MEPs from the mainstream European People’s party, along with their vacuous proposals for constitutional tinkering, debilitates Britain’s engagement in Europe.

What this country needs is a Government who fight hard for British interests, not through posturing but through purposeful co-operation around a positive agenda—an agenda that recognises that if Britain is to succeed in the modern world, it must be a Britain that is located firmly in the mainstream of international co-operation.

20:25

[Justine Greening]

With the leave of the House, in the short time available I want to respond to the debate. First, may I express my gratitude to the many Members of this House who have expressed their support for what our Government are trying to do in tackling the remorseless rise in the EU budget? Hon. Members have played an essential role in scrutinising the budget and I thank them for their participation.

In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), whose amendment we support, for his reasoned and impassioned comments on the challenging process to cut the Commission’s 2011 budget proposals. Our stance is that we want a cut—a real-terms cut—and as my hon. Friend’s amendment also points out, although we have challenged the budget at a Council level, we now need to put pressure on the European Parliament, too. His amendment does just that.

For the reasons that my hon. Friend set out, we cannot support amendment (b), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell). We need to maximise the chance that we have as a Government of achieving our blocking minority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone so eloquently set out, and amendment (b) would not help me to achieve that objective for the Government. In fact, it would risk preventing me from doing so.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Justine Greening]

I must make some progress, because we have very little time left.

In the wake of the worst financial crisis in living memory, and with the events that subsequently unfolded, we have said today in this House that we believe—rightly—that there is no justification for an increase in the EU’s annual budget of nearly 6%. In fact, as we have heard, countries across Europe are taking steps to ensure fiscal consolidation, and there is a strong case for the EU to follow suit—I know that the House can tell that I am taking that case to Europe directly and making it to those countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) pointed out how they are taking difficult decisions, and I made that exact point in French to the French Finance Minister.

At a time when all our European neighbours are looking to rein in public expenditure, the EU should not be looking to carry on with business as usual. It cannot be a case of carrying on regardless. That is why we voted against the Council’s first reading, which went in the right direction but did not go far enough—a view seemingly shared by everybody in this House apart from those on the Opposition Front Bench. They let us down by losing part of the rebate in 2005 and now in 2010 they are letting us down again by failing to support our efforts as a Government and as a coalition of parties on behalf of the British taxpayer to get value for money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) asked how many MEPs will vote against this provision. I can reassure him that we are already talking to our partners in Europe and in our group—the European Conservatives and Reformists. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), my good friend, and he assures me that he spoke yesterday to the Whip in charge of that group and all that group will be voting against a rise in the European Parliament when it comes before them. I urge those on the Opposition Front Bench to join us in that and to confirm that their Socialist group will do that. If they want to help the British taxpayer, they can start lobbying their own group in the European Parliament in the way that we have already successfully done.

Finally, we have spoken a lot tonight about concerns over the effectiveness of the EU spend and how well it is accounted for. I share those concerns. In fact, the last Government never used their vote when they took a look at the European audit accounts. We plan to be ready to use our vote if we see accounts that fail to meet the standards that we think they should. If we see accounts that contain points made by the European auditors that we believe the Parliament is not taking on board, we will be ready to use our vote in future to challenge the Commission in a way that the last Government never were.

I want to thank Members again for their valuable contributions. It has been incredibly useful for me to have this debate, particularly on the day before I travel to Brussels to defend our national interests and to get the best possible deal for the taxpayer.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justine Greening]

Not unless the hon. Lady is about to say that Labour MEPs and their Socialist group will support us.

[Kerry McCarthy]

indicated dissent.

[Justine Greening]

Sorry.

This year, member states have been taking unprecedented action to restore sustainability to their national finances, making tough choices today to deliver a better future tomorrow. That is the case that I shall be making to my colleagues across Europe in the days and weeks ahead. In these times of austerity, there is no justification for ineffective, wasteful expenditure and there is a real need to scrutinise every euro of spending to ensure that it delivers what is promised. The Opposition might not want to play a role in challenging the unacceptable Commission budget rise, but the Government and we on the Government Benches will. I commend the motion to the House.

Amendment proposed: (b), leave out from ‘the financial year 2011’ to end and add

‘is concerned at the above-inflation increase being made to Britain’s EU budget contribution; believes that, at a time when the Government is poised to make reductions in public spending elsewhere, it is wrong to increase that contribution; and calls on the Government to reduce Britain’s EU budget contribution’. —(Mr. Carswell.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

20:30

Division 75

Ayes: 42

---

Conservative: 35
Labour: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

Noes: 252

---

Conservative: 204
Liberal Democrat: 46
Labour: 1

20:43

Proceedings interrupted (Order, 12 October).

The Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Amendment made: (a), at end add

‘and calls on the Government to reject European Parliament proposals to increase the budget’.—[Mr Cash.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. SEC(2010) 473, Statement of Estimates of the European Commission for the financial year 2011; and supports the Government’s efforts to maintain the 2011 EU budget at the cash levels equivalent to the 2010 budget, while ensuring better value for money in EU expenditure; and calls on the Government to reject European Parliament proposals to increase the budget.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I ask Members to leave the Chamber, if that is what they wish to do, quietly and quickly so that the rest of the business of the House can continue?

Delegated Legislation (committees)

Motion made,

That the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2010 (S.I., 2010, No. 2134) and the Town and Country Planning (Compensation) (No. 3) (England) Regulations 2010 (S.I., 2010, No. 2135), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)

petition

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

20:44

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the Sedgefield constituency, and others,

Declares that the petitioners believe that the Government should implement the procurement of rolling stock through the Intercity Express programme, which would lead to Hitachi building a manufacturing site in Newton Aycliffe; and further declares that this would result in the creation of hundreds of direct jobs and thousands of jobs in the supply chain, of which the majority would be in manufacturing, giving a much needed boost to the North East economy and improving rail services nationwide.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the procurement of rolling stock through the Intercity Express Programme.

And the Petitioners remain, etc. [P000863]

Degree Validation (University of London)

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

20:45

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

To my great surprise, I have just discovered the only joy of being on the Opposition Benches—the wrong side of the House—for an Adjournment debate: I can actually look at the Minister, rather than just seeing his back.

May I declare two interests? One is a formally declarable interest and the other a more personal one. The formally declarable one is that I am an unpaid member of the board of the university of London’s international academy. The other one is that I hold a law degree, which the university of London awarded under what in those days was referred to as the “external system”.

I must relieve the Minister’s anxiety, because despite this debate taking place a day after the Browne report and a week ahead of the comprehensive spending review, I am not asking for money. I thought that I would take away that worry, so that he might relax a little. I am genuinely trying to be helpful, because we need a higher education system that is open, diverse and accessible. Why did I request this debate, and what do I want the Minister to do? I want to put forward a few suggestions. If we all agree that we need to expand the number of people who benefit from quality higher education, we have to do a number of things, some of which Lord Browne pointed to yesterday.

First, and most importantly, we have to stop assuming that the only way in which one can acquire a degree is by being campus-based and studying for three years. Browne is quite clear that we need to move towards a more flexible system that responds to the needs of students and the economy. Secondly, on perhaps a more unpopular point in the current climate, we have debated what the top level of fees should be, but we should stop and consider what we get for those fees. The conclusion that higher fees are either good or bad is too simplistic, because the question is what do universities offer in exchange for the fees that they charge. Thirdly, an even more difficult point is that we have to move away from the belief that there is a magical solution, because at some stage or another someone, somewhere will have to pay for it all. The question is how we raise the money, because nothing comes for free nowadays.

We need to face up to the fact that, first, some degrees from some institutions are of a higher quality and standing than others; they are not all the same. Let us stop pretending that they are. Secondly, some degrees and qualifications offer a better prospect than others of future employment. Thirdly, some people—I suggest an increasing number—will require greater flexibility of access to higher education than traditional universities can offer.

As a result, I want the Minister to face up to some of the perversities that—quite unintentionally, I think—have arisen over the past few years. We have seen universities fined for taking on additional students and given disproportionately little support for part-time students. We will have to encourage institutions such as the university of London and the Open university to provide more high-quality degrees at an affordable price, and with the highest possible flexibility for students.

What is so special about the university of London? People may not be aware of it, but Charles Dickens—well ahead of Alastair Campbell—referred to it as the “people’s university”. Established in 1838, it was the first university in the United Kingdom to open its doors to women, and in 1858 it launched the external system. For more than 150 years, the university of London has offered students the opportunity to sit its exams without having to attend the university itself. Its alumni include seven Nobel prize winners, such as Nelson Mandela, who studied while imprisoned on Robben island and, more recently, Charles Kao, who received the Nobel prize for physics in 2009 for groundbreaking work carried out in the UK on the science of fibre-optic cable.

The strength and reputation of the university of London is based on the fact that irrespective of how a student acquires the knowledge and where they are based—that is very important—academic standards are not compromised. The present-day mission statement of the university of London’s international academy is still faithful to its 152-year history:

“To provide worldwide access to the internationally renowned academic programmes and awards of the University of London and its colleges.”

The enormous breadth of academic resources within the federal university of London enables a range of collaborations within the university to deliver the programmes. The basis of the collaboration between the colleges and the central university is that the academic expertise is located in colleges, whereas the central university undertakes administrative support for the students and other agencies here and abroad.

There is no comparable university offering flexible and worldwide access to degrees of such high international standing. There are currently some 45,500 students in 180 countries studying by distance and flexible learning, with another 6,000 in the UK. The university receives no teaching grant for its external students, and UK-based students are entirely self-funding. The university of London’s international academy may already be well adapted to the new realities to which Lord Browne’s report is pointing us.

Fees are identical across the 180 countries. For example, the largest individual set of programmes—those provided in collaboration with the London School of Economics—cost in the order of £3,500 for the entire degree. That includes materials, access to an online library, and all examination fees. Globally, some 70% of undergraduate students also pay fees to local third-party providers to obtain learning support, but the majority of UK-based students study on their own. If one compares that with an annual fee for a traditional English campus-based degree of £3,290, one can see that the university of London’s international programme offers remarkably good value for money for unsubsidised provision.

How does it work? Let me describe how I took my degree; this may explain why the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, who has Birmingham university on her patch, is making a pitch for London university. It was the early ’90s, I was in Worcestershire, and I had two small children. I wanted to go back to university to kick-start my brain, and I thought that a law degree would be a very good way of doing it. There was no way, financially or practically, that I could have done a campus-based degree, but I could take two years to do year 1, studying tort, contract law and the English legal system by attending lectures at Worcester college of technology, franchised from the university of Worcester. For year 2, studying land law, tort and trust law, I could find local lectures, but for European Union law I attended weekend courses in Cambridge. For year 3, I went down to London on a Friday night to attend lectures on contract law. Incidentally, an exceptionally good lecturer at the time was someone called Nick Bourne, who is now the Conservative leader in the Welsh Assembly Government. For private international law and jurisprudence, I was essentially on my own. That extraordinary mixing and picking of attending courses, doing things on my own and going to other places gave me the flexibility to acquire a degree within a four-year period, at a cost that I could handle, that no other system could have provided.

There were two highlights. One of those was winning the Convocation prize for land law, which meant that I was invited to Senate house and, for the first time, met other external law students. In those days, in the early ’90s, there were quite a number of police officers who would have joined the force without a degree but had to acquire one in order to get promotion. They were men in their early 30s, or even late 30s, who could not have achieved that in any other way. It was extraordinary that even though we were from the hard-nosed ’60s generation who thought that prizes were rather pathetic and we were not going to rise to them, we all had to agree that we had a remarkable sense of achievement. The degree ceremony at the Barbican centre was extraordinary, too, and I knew that my 2:1 would stand up to scrutiny from any other institution. There was a meritocracy of commitment and hard work, but the course was diverse, socially mobile and accessible. We should learn from that system.

London university’s infrastructure and global scope is also important. It has 550 examination centres worldwide and has local relationships with the British Council, national examination authorities and other organisations. That not only provides flexibility for its students in the UK but gives internationally mobile postgraduates access to its courses. For example, a large number of postgraduates are registered in programmes resulting from the collaborations with the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the School of Oriental and African Studies. Those students are often practitioners of international public health and/or international development who undertake part of their studies in the UK and part on assignment overseas.

I wish to say a brief word about the Open university. Like the university of London it cannot—nor should it—compete with campus-based universities. The latter provide a tremendous benefit and learning experience. As I said, Birmingham university is in my constituency and I know its importance. However, institutions such as the Open university, with its very good online teaching material, and the university of London add to the available learning provision. Distance learning is an important part of that. The Minister is quoted in the October edition of Prospect as saying that he has proposed that

“it should be easier for new colleges to set up as teaching institutions with degrees externally awarded by another body, such as the University of London—which is how higher education expanded from about 1850 to 1950. It’s a way of bringing in new providers and giving students greater choice.”

He is absolutely right, and I want to make it clear that London university is not about franchising, which offers opportunities but has inherent dangers. The key thing about the university is that assessment is undertaken by its college-based boards of examiners, to the same standards that are applied to its internal students. That is how it ensures and maintains quality.

I should like the Minister to examine what the university of London’s international programme has to offer, ensure that the vested interests of universities do not hamper the diversity of provision, and above all accept that what matters are academic standards, which can be upheld only if there are rigorous examination boards. It will be a success to me if, in five years’ time, London university has 50,000 students based in the UK, as it did in the 1950s, as well as its international students. Let us not reinvent the wheel, but let us examine what we already have, see what works and build on it.

20:58

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for raising this important issue in the way that she did, because it is of great interest. She began by saying that although it was regrettable that she had to stand on the Opposition side of the House, at least she could look Ministers in the face. I agreed with so much of her speech that she would have been very welcome to deliver it from our side of the House and look at my bald head from behind. It was an excellent speech, and I fully endorse her analysis.

The hon. Lady is a knowledgeable speaker on universities and, as she described, earned her own bachelor of law degree through external study at the university of London.

As the hon. Lady will know, since becoming Minister for Universities and Science, I too have talked about the validation of degrees and external study as a way of realising a more diverse higher education sector. Such arrangements will enable us to enhance and reward good-quality teaching and allow students from all sorts of backgrounds to benefit from a university education, exactly as she eloquently described.

The hon. Lady kindly referred to my comments in Prospect. Of course, in a speech at Oxford Brookes in June, I first tried to set out the argument that the university of London external degree-awarding model could be an important way forward for our HE system. The coalition wants a sector that is open to any provider capable of delivering a high-quality learning experience to students, and one in which the many and varied demands of students are well catered for, and in which providers who are innovative and offer good value for money can thrive.

I should report to the House that the current situation is that any higher education institution with its own degree-awarding powers is free to establish partnership arrangements, including validation, with other institutions, which allows the latter to offer courses leading to the award of degrees. However, I fully understand that the hon. Lady set a rather more demanding test than simply franchising. She talked about people having the ability to sit external degrees and described a direct relationship, and I fully understand the significance of that.

When I have advocated the university of London external degree model, some have worried that it meant that existing degree-awarding powers would be removed from existing institutions, but that is absolutely not the intention. We also have no intention of micro-managing the exact way in which degrees are delivered. However, we want a sector that is open to a much wider range of delivery models, which certainly includes the kind of arrangements the hon. Lady described in the context of the university of London external degree.

We want to encourage degree-awarding institutions to expand their validation and other external examination arrangements with independent partners, including private providers and further education colleges. A course that is validated at a non-degree awarding institution should be subject to exactly the same quality assurance processes, and therefore be of the same quality and standard, as one taught at the awarding institution. Responsibility for the standards and the quality of all programmes and awards remains with the awarding body no matter the nature of the partnership arrangements. The Quality Assurance Agency ensures that by looking at how the awarding body manages its links with partners, which it does at home and abroad.

However, I take the hon. Lady’s point. She specifically wanted to focus on the university of London model. That university has a significant role in the history of the development of higher education in our country. For a century, the majority of English and Welsh universities offered university of London external degrees before they received charters to award degrees of their own. The universities of Wales, Liverpool, Bangor and Bristol—to name but a few—all began in that way. The process, therefore, of setting up a teaching institution that delivered external degrees from the university of London was fundamental to the expansion of higher education, but it retains genuine potential.

New institutions that are focused entirely on teaching could benefit from attaching themselves to established, well-respected university degrees and other qualifications. That is one means for them to build a teaching reputation of their own. That could include, for example, FE colleges looking to improve their HE range or wholly new entrants to the sector. Validation or other external degree arrangements could inspire confidence among applicants, as well as offering them greater choice and cheaper options. They could also help providers to gain traction among employers, who already support a range of externally validated qualifications such as HNDs, HNCs and BTECs, because they represent consistent, trusted standards.

I have already asked the QAA to look at any barriers or implicit assumptions within the quality regime that tie higher education to a model that requires institutions to award their own degrees. Similarly, degree awarding powers should not depend on directly delivering teaching. Any such assumptions should go. Another option is to deliver externally validated degrees online or through teaching centres, as the independent provider Kaplan has started to do. Kaplan is now offering 3,000 places across the country for students to study towards university of London external degrees.

London’s external system, recently rebranded as its international programme, is indeed one of the oldest and most successful distance learning delivery systems in the world. Today, there are registered teaching centres in 18 countries, including Bangladesh, Canada, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Switzerland, Thailand and of course the UK. The system offers more than 100 courses, all of which have been developed by the colleges of the university of London. Students are enrolled as university of London students and are graded to the same standard—the crucial point that the hon. Lady made—but they can access support from teaching centres independent of the university, as well as learning tools provided by the university. Graduates receive a degree certificate from the university of London, and a second certificate indicating the lead institution.

Like externally validated degrees, remote learning through the London international programme, or the excellent Open university courses, gives people more choice so that they can study at a place and a time that suits, often at home—and the hon. Lady gave some good personal examples of that. For new providers, collaboration with a world-class university can give them a foothold in the sector where a validation arrangement may not be practicable.

As well as the domestic challenge, to which the hon. Lady referred, delivery of British higher education qualifications overseas is a growth area, with the university of London and the Open university very much among the pioneers. More and more of our universities, in fact, are moving into what is known as transnational education, allowing them to teach a broader range of students and to work with more teaching providers than direct delivery alone would achieve. I am delighted that our universities are building their global profiles in that way.

The Government side of the House—indeed, on the evidence of this evening, both sides of the House—believes that external degrees and opportunities for new HE providers can be thoroughly debated in the wake of the Browne review and pursued as we get down to the business of supply-side reform. Both are promising ways of growing the sector cost-effectively during this period of austerity and of innovating while guaranteeing quality, because we would be applying proven methods.

After consultation, the Government intend to provide detailed proposals to which the sector can react. We will publish a higher education White Paper, leading—we hope—to a higher education Bill in autumn 2011. That will be an opportunity to consider the ideas that the hon. Lady and I have put forward in the past. It only remains for me to thank her once again for raising these important matters tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

21:08

House adjourned.

Departmental Secondment

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Zac Goldsmith]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants from each Government Department are on secondment to EU institutions.

[Official Report, 27 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 967W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Lidington:

Errors have since been identified with the figures in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on 27 July 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Lidington]

There are approximately 110 British civil servants on secondment to the EU institutions.

The largest groups are from the following Departments:

Department for International Development: 19

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: 10

Department for Transport: 16

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: nine

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs: six

Her Majesty's Treasury: six

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: six.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Lidington]

There are approximately 108 British civil servants on secondment to the EU institutions.

The largest groups are from the following Departments:

Department for International Development: 17

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: nine

Department for Transport: nine

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: seven

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs: six

Her Majesty's Treasury: six

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: six.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 13 October 2010

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Housing Benefit

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Goodwill.)

09:30

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I am very grateful, Mr Gray, to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have joined me today to take part in a hugely important debate on what I consider to be the Government’s very ill-conceived plans to slash housing benefit for the poorest families in the poorest communities—plans that will inevitably force thousands of people to leave their homes, their families and their friends as they try to find an affordable roof over their heads and the heads of their loved ones. In my view, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), can feel nothing but shame at having to come to Westminster Hall to defend such ill-conceived proposals. With his background and knowledge, he should know better.

When we last debated this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) eloquently outlined the devastating implications of the Government’s plans. In addition, we have all been provided with evidence on the impact of the proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), whom I congratulate on her well deserved place on the Opposition Front Bench, and by the research carried out by a range of organisations working in housing.

The Government’s proposals on housing benefit have to be considered alongside the other proposals that were announced at the Conservative party conference last week: the capping of all benefits that a family can receive at £500 a week and the ending of the universal child benefit. All of that comes on top of the housing benefit cuts set out in June and the cuts to child tax credit, maternity allowance and the child trust fund.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this debate. Because I am sure she wants to be part of a responsible Opposition, I think it might help our discussion if, in her remarks, she set out the alternative proposition. Is it her position that rents and housing benefit should simply be uncapped and that people on benefits should be able to choose to live wherever they want to, without any limit being imposed, or does she accept the principle of a cap?

[Margaret Hodge]

As the Minister will know, the Labour Government themselves set the housing allowance. The purpose of this debate is to demonstrate that the intent of the present Government and of the Minister himself will not be achieved by the proposals that he has put before us. That is what I intend to do this morning.

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

Given that we are talking about intent, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is possible that the Government’s intent is not fairness and that, instead, as we are told a senior Minister has said, this is all about highland clearances?

[Margaret Hodge]

I agree entirely. There are several quotes in the press from senior civil servants demonstrating that they think the proposal will create the greatest dispersal of families that has been witnessed probably since the 19th century. Perhaps that is part of the political intent of the Government.

In my view, the litany of cuts that I have outlined—all of them, not just the housing benefit cuts—represent an historic assault on the poorest families in the poorest communities, which I think even Baroness Thatcher would have considered to be a bridge too far.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad that we have reached that point so early in the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we seem to have moved from a position where the proposals look like ill-thought-out budget cuts to a position where they look like a deliberate policy to socially cleanse the poor from central London, which the Minister is defending? We have already seen that process in Hammersmith, with the demolition of council estates. The proposals will ensure that, for ideological and electoral reasons, it will no longer be possible for the mixed communities of London to continue to exist as they have for centuries.

[Margaret Hodge]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In my view, the process is much more about political engineering than it is about achieving sensible reductions in public expenditure. I shall talk about the impact that the proposals will have in my constituency and the borough of Barking and Dagenham. In doing so, I hope to expose the flaws in the Government’s argument and what I think is the shameful agenda that they are, in fact, pursuing.

The Minister claims that the policy objective of the cap on local housing allowance—setting that cap at 33% of average local rents—linking housing benefit to the lower consumer price index rather than the retail price index and capping the total benefits that workless households receive, is to drive down rents. Let me tell him that he will not achieve his objective. His policies will not drive down rents. What they will do is drive out families—drive them in their droves out of the inner-London constituencies where they live to constituencies such as my own in the London suburbs.

Let us consider the facts—these are the facts from the Department for Work and Pensions, not my facts. In Brent, 9,650 families will lose from £18 a week to £160 a week and the families who will lose the most are those with the most children. In Hackney, 16,440 families will lose from £13 a week to £125 a week, and again the families who will lose the most are those with the most children. We can also take the example of Camden, where 2,940 families will lose from £20 a week to £262 a week, and yet again the families losing most are those with the most children.

It is simply nonsense to believe that the rents in Brent, Hackney or Camden will go down. A survey by London Councils found that 60% of landlords who are renting to tenants in receipt of housing benefit would not be prepared to reduce their rent by even a small amount if their tenants could no longer afford to pay the existing rate because of the reduction in local housing allowances. More than 90% of landlords said that they would try to evict a tenant or refuse to renew their contract if the tenant fell into arrears, if the shortfall in rent was more than £20 a week. Those landlords know that their properties will not lie empty. We all know that there is a massive shortage of housing in the capital and we know that, with the drying up of the mortgage market, more people are being forced into the private rented sector, which in turn increases demand in that sector. We know that the buy-to-let market is booming, because investors can get a good return on their properties. Landlords will not lower their rents, but poor people will be forced out of their houses.

Do not just listen to me on this subject—listen to Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor of London, when he says in the briefing that he prepared for today’s debate that the Government’s proposals will lead to

“the loss of the private rented sector as a major safety net for London boroughs”.

He continues:

“We expect landlords to leave the housing benefit market due to the perceived instability of housing benefit in the short and medium term”.

Those are Boris Johnson’s words, not mine.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this debate. I very much want to reinforce the points that she is making. The private rented sector is absolutely vital to meeting housing needs in London. During the past 15 years or so, that sector has begun to recover from very low levels seen in the late 1980s. The real damage that could be caused by these maladroit and ill-considered housing benefit changes could well destroy confidence and take away a large quantity of housing that otherwise would be available to meet the needs of Londoners.

[Margaret Hodge]

I bow to the huge experience and knowledge of my right hon. Friend and I agree entirely with his analysis of the likely impact of the changes that the Government are proposing to make.

In my constituency, all 3,810 households that currently receive local housing allowance will already lose out because of the housing benefit cuts that will come into effect next year, so they will experience additional hardship as a result of those cuts. Because rents in Barking and Dagenham are currently lower than in the inner-London boroughs, private tenants in the borough will not be hit as badly as those in central London, where rents are the highest in London. but as inner-London private tenants are forced to find a home in outer London, rents will inevitably be driven up in the outer-London boroughs. More demand on limited supply will be a double whammy for the people of Barking and Dagenham. Has the Minister commissioned any research to understand better the potential impact of his proposals on rents in outer-London areas such as Barking and Dagenham? If so, will he place that research in the Library?

We know from anonymous quotes in the press that civil servants are telling Ministers that the proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, will lead to the biggest population movements experienced since the industrial revolution. Even at her worst, Shirley Porter deported only 1,000 people out of Westminster, yet this Liberal Democrat Minister is deliberately forcing tens of thousands of families out of inner London, in a shameful act of social engineering and political gerrymandering that will damage our communities irreparably.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady rightly draws attention to the problems. Does she agree that the provision of council housing is one way to address supply and demand, and can she inform us how many council houses were built during the 13 years of Labour Government?

[Margaret Hodge]

I accept the point that insufficient priority was given to the building of council houses under the Labour Government, but we must deal with the situation in which we find ourselves. Making the position worse by deliberately forcing the poorest families out of the only homes that they can find is an outrageous and cruel act of public policy.

Does the Minister accept or even understand that if the reforms proceed, inner London will become a no-go area for the poorest people in our communities? What will be the further impact on my constituency? He knows well that changes in housing tenure over the past 20 years, since the introduction of the right to buy, have created deep social tensions in Barking and Dagenham as new people have moved into the borough and established residents have become unable to secure homes for their sons and daughters. The extreme right and the British National party tried to exploit people’s legitimate frustrations for divisive and evil political ends. We saw them off, but this Government’s housing benefit policies will inevitably reignite those tensions as private tenants from inner-London boroughs compete for homes with established residents of Barking and Dagenham. Has he considered at all the implications for social cohesion of his short-sighted reform proposals?

Has the Minister also considered his policies’ impact on local authority services? If Barking and Dagenham suddenly experiences an influx of literally thousands of families, what will that do to local schools and hospitals, to special educational needs provision and to child protection services in the borough? The proposals will place an unacceptable strain on local authorities in the more deprived outer boroughs—authorities that are already struggling to meet their communities’ needs in areas such as housing and education while planning to meet the 25% to 40% cuts that will be forced on them by the comprehensive spending review announcements next week.

In education, for example, Barking and Dagenham is already facing the huge challenge of keeping up with the pace of demographic change. Demand for primary school places is a particular problem not only for my constituency but across London. As it is, the local authority is having to create hundreds of new reception places every year—337 extra primary school places are needed in 2011 and 247 in 2012—and does not have sufficient funding to meet projected demand. The borough simply cannot cope with further significant levels of inward migration.

Barking and Dagenham council already has a housing waiting list of more than 11,000. That waiting list will only grow longer as more people move into the area and more households seek to be housed by the local authority because they have been priced out of the private sector.

[Mr Slaughter]

As my right hon. Friend may know, that is already happening. Kensington council is urging people to move out before the rush starts. Hammersmith council is urging overcrowded families to give up their secure and assured tenancies and to move into the private sector and rely on housing benefit, without telling them that they will then have to leave the borough next year when that benefit is cut.

[Margaret Hodge]

That is outrageous. I must also tell the Minister that I am absolutely convinced that within a year or two, boroughs and authorities such as Kensington and Chelsea or Hammersmith, from which families move out to areas such as Barking and Dagenham or Tower Hamlets, will cease to take responsibility for providing all the other local authority services that those families will need. They will then be an additional burden on those local authorities.

Who will foot the bill for social services and support for those families? They are already on the edge, and they are bound to make greater demands as they are uprooted from their inner-London homes and lose their links with the local services on which they depend. Has the Minister properly considered the impact of the proposals to cut housing benefit on the demand for other local authority services? Has he received advice on whether the proposals will increase homelessness and child poverty, as I believe they inevitably will?

The reforms will not achieve what the Government claim, but that is only half the story. The truth is that the Government want to drive low-income families out of inner London and other wealthy areas. London Councils estimates that at least 82,000 London households will find themselves in that position, and that is without taking into account the impact of the measures announced at the party conference last week. People will not have the option to move to a cheaper property in the same area because there will be none, unless they are prepared to downsize and move into overcrowded accommodation. They will have no choice but to move to areas where rents are more affordable. That will be a tragedy for families and communities. It is completely wrong of the Government to implement such a policy, with the full knowledge of the demographic upheaval that it will cause, and to leave local authorities to cope with the consequences.

We will also lose the diverse communities and social mix that have been a part of London’s character for generations. Central London will become the home of young professionals and the very well-off who, conveniently, can be relied on to vote Conservative. Those struggling on low incomes will congregate in the outer boroughs, which will become more disadvantaged, overstretched and troubled. The reforms will cause suffering and push more families into poverty by forcing them to contribute more of their income to housing costs. Members of all parties recognise the need to reform housing benefit, but this is not the way to go about it.

The reforms have not been properly thought through. They have the potential to cause hardship of a kind not seen since the creation of the welfare state, and they have been informed by a disgraceful political calculation. How a Liberal Democrat can attempt to defend them is beyond me. What evidence do the Government have to support their claim that the new cap will reduce rents in the private sector? What additional resources will be made available to help local authorities such as Barking and Dagenham cope with any significant increase in inward migration? Finally, how will the Government keep their promise to eradicate child poverty, given the hardship that their policy will inflict on low-income families?

09:48

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing this debate. I am not here to defend the proposals, but I will be consistent with my position during the 40 years of my public life, the past 13 of which I have spent as a Member of the House. If only the present Opposition had been consistent with the views that we are now hearing during their 13 years of Labour rule, perhaps we would not be in this situation.

The right hon. Lady and her colleagues might wish to know that in 13 years of Labour Governments, 6,470 council houses were built. In the first 13 years of the previous Conservative Governments—I am using the same number of years—the figure was 507,200. Labour’s total, as I said, was 6,470.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

How many social houses were built?

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Gentleman has asked how many social houses were built. If we factor those figures in, the number is still considerably lower than that achieved during the 13 years of the previous Conservative Governments. Presumably, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) can give us chapter and verse about how successful the housing association sector is, an issue on which the Government in whom he served failed so lamentably.

[Mr Raynsford]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell hon. Members about the state of the social housing stock in 1997, the condition of the properties in which people were living, the extent of the backlog of disrepair that had to be dealt with and the scale of the renovation programme—the decent homes programme—that was put in place by the previous Government, which has improved the living conditions of millions of people in this country? Why is he being so churlish about that?

[Bob Russell]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct about the inheritance of the new Labour Government, but that makes their concentration on one aspect of housing just as bad. I am not saying anything new; these are points that, as Hansard will confirm, I put to the then Prime Ministers Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), as well as to Prescott when he was in charge of council housing—or rather non-council housing.

In the years of plenty when the economy was thriving, new Labour should have emulated what Clement Attlee did in 1945 after six years of war: introduced a house building programme to house the poorest people in the land. It did not do that. The poorest people were among those the party turned its back on, which is why it lost 5 million votes at the last general election.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I agree that we should have built more houses—I have always said that—but is the solution to this problem to introduce changes to housing benefit that will affect current tenants and will not result in any more houses being built? The savings generated by the cuts will not be ploughed back into building housing, which might have made such cuts more tolerable, so how can these changes be justified on the basis that not enough houses have been built?

[Bob Russell]

If the hon. Lady had been paying attention, she would have noticed that I opened my remarks by saying that I am not speaking in defence of the coalition Government’s proposals—anything but. I am just setting the scene by pointing out that the problems are inherited. I do not agree with how the matter is being dealt with, but Her Majesty’s official Opposition should not come here today and pretend that they are the saviours of the social housing market, given that the record shows that they built only—let me repeat the figures—6,470 council houses in 13 years, in contrast with the previous Conservative Government, who built 507,200 in their first 13 years.

Let me now say that I do not agree with the proposals on housing benefit. I know that the Minister will be aware of them, but I draw his attention to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke—particularly Matthew chapter 19, verses 13 to 15, Mark chapter 10, verses 14 to 15, and Luke chapter 18, verses 15 to 17, which includes the phrase “suffer little children.” I do not want this coalition Government to make children suffer, but that is what will happen as a result of the proposals on housing benefit. I wish to put it on the record that I have already initiated one debate on child poverty in this Chamber since the general election. Another record for the previous Labour Government is that they left 3.9 million children living below the official poverty line. What an appalling legacy. I do not want that figure to increase; I want it to be eliminated.

I am grateful to the Local Government Group, particularly Mr Ben Kind—the public affairs and campaigns manager—for sending me a briefing in advance of today’s debate. That document states:

“The housing benefit measures announced in the June 2010 budget, including capping local housing allowance rates, paid to tenants in the private sector, and setting them based on the 30^th percentile of local rents, are likely to increase homelessness costs, since they will diminish the willingness of private rented sector landlords to let to housing benefit customers. This will have hugely variable and disproportionate effects on different parts of the country.”

On the local housing allowance, the briefing points out:

“Councils will continue to have a duty to house those who are homeless and this will be a challenge to council homelessness budgets. Although the precise extra cost is still hard to estimate, temporary accommodation costs seem certain to be higher.”

I know that from my own constituency of Colchester. It is a relatively prosperous town in a relatively prosperous part of the country, but there are pockets of deprivation. The simple fact is that housing a homeless family is far more expensive for the public purse than putting them in a proper, decent house.

I refer colleagues to the full debate that I had on child poverty, in relation to which I was contacted by the Child Poverty Action Group. In that debate, I pointed out that it is no good for any Government, either this Government or the previous Government, to come up with wondrous schemes and policies for the betterment of people if the basic pieces of the jigsaw—the framework and the corners—are not in place. Such a basic building block is a house. If children do not have decent housing, the rest of the Government’s proposals are almost meaningless.

Social housing is already extremely scarce—I have mentioned the failures of the previous Labour Government—and an increase in the number of people who are priced out of privately rented housing will place additional demands on housing stock. Meanwhile, the increase in the non-dependant deduction could have a negative effect on family and community stability to the extent that young adults feel that they have to move out of the family home. That could have the adverse effect of encouraging the concealment of the presence of and incomes of some family members, which will add to the level of fraud and error in the system.

I do not wish to defend the relatively small number of people in society who abuse the system. Unfortunately, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail think that everybody on housing benefit is abusing the system. The minority who do are destroying the case for genuine people who are not defrauding the system, but who are depicted as scroungers. Of course, we need to tackle that problem, but we must not alter the whole system to deal with just a few scroungers.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in that point. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the biggest scroungers are the private landlords who are charging absolutely exorbitant rents for appalling properties that they do not maintain? We—the public—are paying for that. Is it not time that we got real and dealt with the issue of the conditions of the private rented sector and the rents that are charged? We should start bringing in controls. Attack the landlords, not the tenants.

[Bob Russell]

Let us put on the record that there are some very good landlords. Good landlords would endorse the points that have just been made. It is the rogue landlords—those who exploit their fellow human beings—who we need to deal with. Successive Governments have failed to address that matter.

I come back to the question of supply and demand. Thirty years ago in Colchester, there was no such thing as homelessness. People could be guaranteed a council house within six months to a year, depending on their location of choice. The right to buy was not the real problem; the real problem was the failure to replace with new stock the houses that had been sold. Successive Governments failed to deal with that.

It has been said that we must not use extravagant language and say that the proposals will result in the biggest forced social movement of people since the highland clearances because that is emotive and there is no comparison with that situation. I do not wish to give any comparisons of that sort; it would be wrong to do so. However, it is a fact that if there are benefit changes and the housing cap goes through, the forced migration of whole communities—or a large number of people from a particular community—will take place. Families, pensioners and children will be removed from the communities in which they grew up. That will have a devastating effect on their lives. I want to concentrate on the effect on children because, as I am sure colleagues have realised, I have been picking up on that angle since the general election.

[Emily Thornberry]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is unfortunate when extreme language, such as the reference to the highland clearances, is used. However, did he read in the papers at the weekend that a senior Conservative Minister in the Government described the policy as exactly that? They said that we will not have seen anything like it since the highland clearances. Such references are emotive, but they may be entirely descriptive.

[Bob Russell]

I do not think that our Scottish colleagues would accept that comparison, but the point being made is that people will be forced from their homes against their will. In the previous debate that I secured, I referred to that as economic cleansing. Of course, those families that stay put in their houses and struggle on with higher rent will have less disposable income to spend in local shops and on local services, which will have an impact on their local economies.

Children will be forced out into the suburbs or elsewhere, and it is important to remember that this is not just a city phenomenon, but one that can have an impact in rural areas. It will also have an impact on schooling, as there will be depopulated schools in some areas, because of the forced removal, and overcrowded schools in others, assuming that parents can find the places.

I know that other Members wish to speak so I conclude by quoting from one section of the excellent briefing that I was sent by Scope:

“An unemployed or low-income lone parent or couple with one child (or two children who share a room) is likely to lose around £500 a year once this reform takes effect…These reductions are likely to have a disproportionate impact on disabled people…those living in cities and urban centres with higher property costs—especially London—will be particularly affected…a reduction in the financial support that Housing Benefit provides will further reduce the number of suitable properties disabled people can afford, increasing the risk of them having to live in inappropriate housing, exacerbating their social isolation and dependence on other forms of support.”

I recognise that the coalition Government inherited serious financial problems that they need to tackle, but nowhere in the coalition agreement does it say that poor families should be forced out of their homes or that children in disadvantaged families should be further disadvantaged.

10:01

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing the debate. She spoke convincingly about why the proposals are so misguided and I associate myself with all that she said.

I think that the Government’s announced shake-up of housing benefit is well intentioned; they talk about reducing the welfare bill, getting more people into work and forcing private sector landlords to lower their rents. What is there not to agree with about that? However, anyone who has looked at the proposals will recognise that they are likely to have a devastating impact on families and communities up and down the country. Put simply, many decent, responsible people will struggle to keep a roof over their heads and will have to leave their homes.

As has already been said, in parts of the country, such as London, some high-rent areas will simply become no-go zones for people in receipt of housing benefit. Although, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, much is made in the right-wing press about work-shy households living in Mayfair mansions, the vast majority of those who will be affected by the changes will be pensioners, people with disabilities, people caring for relatives and hard-working people on low incomes.

Only one in eight people receiving housing benefit does so because they are unemployed. In Lewisham, 9,600 people who rent flats on the private market are in receipt of housing benefit. The proposed changes to how the benefit is calculated will mean that those residents will lose on average £17 a week, or £884 a year, from next October. That represents an overall reduction in Lewisham of £8.6 million.

Furthermore, some of the largest families in the largest properties will also have their housing benefit reduced from next April due to the introduction of the weekly cap. Those are not people who have money left over at the end of the week; they often struggle to make ends meet. They already often experience shortfalls between the housing benefit that they receive and the rent that they pay. Last Friday, a gentleman came to my surgery and told me that because he had to pay for his mother’s funeral abroad, he could no longer keep up his rent payments. The Government’s proposals will make situations such as his worse, and the problems that many families currently face in tackling the shortfall between the benefit that they receive and what they have to pay in rent will become even worse.

I accept that one of the Government’s solutions for tackling that hardship is to increase the payments made to local councils for discretionary housing payments. I am seriously concerned, however, that the scale of that increase will not even touch the sides of the problem in my constituency. Will the Minister consider doubling the planned increase in DHP, and has any assessment been made of the amount of money that will come to London for that? I am aware that organisations such as London Councils believe that DHP should be increased by £19 million in the capital to address the unique complications of the private rented sector here.

The problem in London is complex. One of the major fears of my local authority relates to the knock-on effects of the introduction of weekly rent caps in expensive central London boroughs, which have already been mentioned. It has been estimated that nearly 10,000 households will have to move from the five most expensive areas in London to lower-cost areas as a result of the proposed changes, but if anyone in this Chamber thinks that areas such as Lewisham have spare flats with suitably low rent just lying around and waiting to be filled, they are sadly mistaken.

Only one third of rents in Lewisham’s private sector are set within local housing allowance limits, and one third are already occupied by housing benefit claimants. Lewisham has 17,000 people on the housing register and more than 1,000 homeless households in temporary accommodation. My corner of south-east London will simply be unable to absorb a further increase in housing demand because the supply of homes is already so short.

The sad reality of the proposals is that they will actually reduce the amount of housing available to people in need. Research undertaken in London has shown that landlords are likely to withdraw from the market for housing benefit tenants for fear that people will default on their rent payments and because anticipated rental income will no longer cover their costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred to a study that indicated that 90% of landlords would not accept shortfalls in rent of more than £20 a week and that they would evict tenants or bring tenancies to an end as a result, and 60% of landlords have indicated that they would not accept any shortfall. However, I understand that landlords are saying that they would consider lowering their rents if housing benefit could be paid to them directly. Will the Minister consider reintroducing the direct payment of housing benefit to landlords?

Will the Minister outline what support he intends to provide to councils to deal with the problem of increased homelessness? Like many of my colleagues who have spoken this morning, I cannot see how the changes will not result in more and more people being priced out of their homes. Will he commit to maintaining and increasing the homelessness prevention grant, which will help local councils with the additional work that the proposed changes to housing benefit will undoubtedly create?

In conclusion, I urge the Government not to proceed with the proposals and to think hard about whether they fit with the claim that we are all in this together. Are they not, in effect, a vicious attack on some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society? One of the solutions to reducing the housing benefit bill must be to build more social rented housing. I accept that more could have been done on that over the past 13 years, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has already said, the housing sector was facing huge challenges when the previous Government came to power in 1997.

What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about the new supply of affordable homes? My concern is that some of the wider changes being made to the planning system, along with the reduction in capital grant available though the Homes and Communities Agency, will mean that those new homes simply will not be built.

Finally, the idea that the proposals will somehow miraculously get people into work is laughable, and the assumption that private sector rents will be lowered is deeply flawed. The proposals may well reduce the welfare bill, but at a huge cost to my constituents, who are already struggling hard to make ends meet.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Five Members will be trying to catch my eye in the 20 to 25 minutes that we have available. It would be helpful if those giving speeches tried to keep their contributions as short as possible.

10:09

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I will be brief so that everyone can contribute to the debate.

I welcome the debate and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing it, on what she said this morning, and, in particular, on her successful annihilation of the British National party in the general election, which she did on behalf of all of us.

As Members know, I represent Islington North, which is an inner urban constituency. It is perceived by the Daily Mail and Daily Express to be the fountain of all things that are bad in our society. The perceptions are of liberal intelligentsia, cappuccino society and restaurants where new Labour used to meet. I personally have never had anything to do with new Labour whatsoever, so I take no responsibility for that.

Unfortunately, that image has placed itself in the public eye as being fact but, in reality, it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I represent a borough which is the eighth poorest in the country. It has a large number of people living in council or housing association accommodation, a large number of people living in private rented accommodation, and probably one of the lowest levels of owner occupation in the country. I believe it is now down to about 30%, which is less than half the national average. The number of people living in private rented accommodation has gone up by a huge amount and now represents more than 30% of the population. They are not all on housing benefit, but some are.

The local authority has a huge housing problem to deal with, but, in the long term, it can be addressed only by purchasing existing properties and converting them into flats, where appropriate, and by building new properties where land becomes available, which is a huge problem in inner London. Indeed, during an earlier incarnation as chair of housing in Islington, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking managed to secure the purchase of a large number of street properties which were then converted into flats and remain so, so Islington has many street properties. Also, she presided over a considerable level of council house building in the early 1980s, despite huge opposition from the then Conservative Government, so it is not that enormous efforts have not been made to try to address the issue of housing stock.

However, as in every other borough, nothing had been done in the way of major repairs before 1997 because of central Government cuts, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said. The council was reduced to doing repairs only if tenants took legal action against it to get them done, and that was normal throughout London at the time. I accept the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) about the lack of new house building, but he should recognise the enormous repair problem that was left to the incoming Labour Government in 1997, and also recognise that decent homes standards have made a difference.

I have discussed the problems of housing benefit in countless debates; indeed, many Members in the Chamber today have taken part in them. This nation spends a vast amount of money on housing benefit, but I have no problem whatsoever with the principle of it. I absolutely support it, and where housing benefit is paid to people living in council or housing association accommodation, it is all straightforward.

What annoys me beyond belief is when two successive families come into my advice surgery—I shall not reveal names, as that would not be appropriate—family A lives in a council flat and gets housing benefit for the full rent, which is around £100 per week, and family B, who could be living next door in an identical flat with identical social conditions, receives housing benefit of £250, £300 or £350 a week. Why the difference? It is because family B’s flat was bought from the council under right to buy, possibly with a large discount. Someone is able to live off the private rent paid for by housing benefit. That is wrong, and the Government must deal with it, but the problem cannot be addressed by punishing the tenant or attacking people who are in receipt of housing benefit, which is exactly what the Government are trying to do by introducing a housing benefit cap.

What is likely to happen in my community and in the communities of others here today, particularly inner-London Members, is that large numbers of our constituents on a low wage, income support or jobseeker’s allowance and in receipt of housing benefit, will be faced with a horrible choice. The housing benefit will be cut, but the landlord will refuse to lower the rent. They will then be faced with a terrible choice. Do they take the children out of school? Do they move away from the area where their family live, where they may be caring for an elderly relative, where they have community links, where they have their general practitioner or local hospital? They have that kind of social support network, but they will have to try to find a private rented flat somewhere else, some distance away.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend speaks extremely well on behalf of Islington, but may I chip in with this? One argument put forward is that the housing benefit cuts will result in rents dropping, but may I point out to the Minister, who may not know this—I know that my hon. Friend does—that only 12% of Islington’s private rental sector receives local housing allowance? Therefore, if the benefit were cut, the market would simply move on to other people. If we wish to push down rents in the private rented sector, we cannot do it by cutting housing benefit. I would suggest that the Minister listen carefully to my hon. Friend, because the points that he is making are extremely valid, particularly in respect of Islington.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend understands the borough very well. That is the situation, and I suspect that it is exactly the same in Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster and many other inner-London areas. There is enormous demand. This is a fast-growing, vibrant city where there is huge demand for private rented flats. The effect of the proposals will be social cleansing of the poorest people out of what are perceived to be high-cost areas. Like other boroughs, Islington is subject to the peculiar combination of being high cost but poor at the same time. That does not apply in the whole country, but it certainly does in London, and I hope that the Minister will at least begin to understand that.

Islington council cannot house all the people on the waiting list by any manner of means. There are 8,000 families on it at present, and serious overcrowding problems in existing council and housing association accommodation. A small amount of building has been started—I wish it well and welcome it—but I suspect that, after the Chancellor makes his statement, there will be an end to all council house building in this country, unless I have been misled by the media, which, of course, is possible.

I ask the Minister to look at the issue and deal with it in an intelligent, rational and humane way. He should not place a cap on housing benefit but instead look at the exorbitant private sector rents that are charged and introduce at least some form of appeal system against excessive rents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury said, if people are moved out of private rented accommodation, somebody else on housing benefit or housing allowance will not be moved in. The property will be filled by someone from the open market, because that is the reality of the situation.

James Murray, the executive member of Islington council who deals with housing, made an excellent submission to the Work and Pensions Committee, in which he states:

“Islington is a high demand area, with some of the highest private sector market rents…With over 8,000 people on its housing register, and demand for social housing far outstripping its supply, the borough relies heavily on the private rented sector to help house its residents.”

Islington has placed, through the rent deposit scheme, large numbers of people in the private rented sector on an agreed rent, but all those arrangements will disappear. Islington has tried to co-operate with the private sector in doing that and calculates that,

“Over the past 18 months 228 of the 422 households placed through the rent deposit scheme will be adversely affected by the caps.”

The answer is to recognise the housing needs of people in London and the social damage of overcrowding and homelessness, not punish the tenants and victims, and instead—I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester —build as many properties as rapidly as we can and deal with excessive rents, bad conditions and bad landlords, of whom, unfortunately, there are still far too many all over London. It breaks my heart when people living in vermin-infested flats, which we the public are paying several hundred pounds a week in rent for, come to see me. Such tenants feel that they have no rights and feel excluded. Their children are suffering educationally, from overcrowding and everything else.

We need a decent, fair society. The Prime Minister claims that we are all in it together, but I do not believe that he really thinks that, because if he did he would be doing something about the disgraceful way that many private sector tenants are treated. Support the tenants; do not bail out the landlords.

10:21

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing this debate. I am stunned that the Minister, who has, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, been sent here again to attempt to defend the indefensible, seems to have ignored previous debates on this issue. His response to the entirely justified criticism by my right hon. Friend was to try to move the debate, which was endorsed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), on to the failings of the previous Labour Government. It is almost impossible to believe that the Minister did not take on board the litany of facts and figures that were presented to him in this Chamber by the usual suspects, who are here. [Interruption.]

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I beg your pardon?

[Glenda Jackson]

I said “usual”, not “old”. [Laughter.] These hon. Members know, from first-hand experience in their own constituencies, precisely the depth of damage that will be inflicted on our constituents if these proposals go through without any reconsideration or re-evaluation of what is actually, practically, going to happen. If the Government are not going to listen to what the loyal Opposition are presenting to them in this respect, perhaps they will give consideration to organisations such as Citizens Advice, Crisis, Gingerbread and the Chartered Institute of Housing, all of which are saying that the housing benefit proposals will increase the amount of homelessness and that it is unlikely that they will save any money at all.

The amount of social disturbance that will take place is scandalous. Crisis predicts, as I have had occasion to say in this Chamber, that if the proposals go through there will be a vast increase in homelessness. However, there will still be a statutory responsibility for local authorities to house children, so we will go back to the bad old days of bed and breakfast. As Crisis says, it is the norm for bed and breakfast charges to be £60 a day for a room. How much will that save the country? Children will not only lose their homes, but lose their schools, friends and community support and will more than likely lose an immediate and direct medical service, so their parents will have to take them, should they be ill, to the local accident and emergency unit. How will that affect those boroughs to which these thousands and thousands of families are expected to move to reduce the rent they pay and to stay in some kind of reasonably permanent housing?

Citizens Advice has said that there is only a short time left for someone who will have to move out of their present accommodation if the changes are brought in. A family may be forced to change their accommodation twice in as short a space of time as three months. Citizens Advice quotes cases where this has already happened.

It is incomprehensible that the party that purported to be on the side of the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable in our society has signed up totally to the proposals on housing benefit. In one way I am surprised, but in another I am not. The Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), who has become the Marshal Pétain of his generation, had the audacity to speak at the United Nations on the failure of countries infinitely poorer than ours to meet their millennium development goals on tackling infant mortality and reducing deaths in childbirth, but one of the first policies that he has endorsed will make women and children in this country homeless. He has also urged his colleagues, supporters and followers to enjoy their power. Will the Minister do that today? Will he enjoy the power that has been vested in him and use it to destroy families and communities?

My hon. Friends have already said that central London will become a no-go area for basic, usually very low-paid jobs, on which the whole of central London depends. I will be interested to see what happens in the Palace of Westminster if this measure goes through. It is highly likely that there will be a marked reduction in people keeping our offices clean, providing us with food and giving us the services on which we in the Palace of Westminster depend. If that situation is expanded across the whole of central London, what will we see? There will be fewer bus drivers and, certainly, fewer teachers. Teachers are already telling me that they cannot afford to buy and are finding it virtually impossible to rent. The Government argue that we have to attract foreign investment to give yet another kick-start to bring this country out of recession—although they have provided a gentle nudge more than a kick—but if this proposal goes ahead the very services on which this city depends simply will not be there.

It is utterly absurd to think that the outer London boroughs will be able easily to take up the thousands of people who will have to move out of central London—this is not an exaggeration, as the Minister must know—and meet their housing, educational, social and medical needs. Does he really wish to turn this city back to what it was under Thatcherite mark 1—he is signed up to Thatcherite mark 2—when people were living in doorways and slept for the night on gratings? Lincoln’s Inn Fields, for example, was taken over by a tented community. That will be the result of this disastrous policy if the Government do not begin seriously to rethink what they are proposing. If they do not listen to Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, perhaps they will listen to organisations whose sole purpose in life has to do with helping provide people with decent housing. Then perhaps they will, for heaven’s sake, rethink this disastrous policy.

10:27

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is important to realise that issues to do with housing benefit do not just apply in London. I acknowledge that problems in London are great—far greater than in many other places—but the suggested housing benefit reforms will affect other parts of the country in ways that are similar, if not quite so grotesque.

In Edinburgh we will not be affected by the proposed cap. The local housing allowance is already beneath that cap. However, the decision to restrict the LHA to the 30th percentile will affect us, as will the decision to up-rate not according to what the market is doing, but according to the consumer prices index. The proposals will have an effect on the kinds of homes that people can find.

As it is, many people in Edinburgh who are receiving housing benefit or local housing allowance already meet a shortfall on their rent. Housing benefit is not just for people who are out of work, as some of the propaganda would suggest. Many people work and are able to stay in their homes only because housing benefit is available to them, even if it tapers off. Many people are already paying an excess out of their limited incomes because they have not been able to find anywhere else within the LHA. The number of people in that situation will rise. That is a substantial financial difficulty. Some of my constituents are paying £10 or £15 a week out of a limited income just to top up their rent payments. That problem will become greater.

I live in a city with a large private rented sector. It is not as large as in Islington, but 20% of all households are in the private rented sector, which in Scottish terms is high. At the moment, around 18% of private rented sector properties are occupied by people who receive some housing benefit. There is ample scope for landlords, if they no longer wish to have tenants on housing benefit because of the lower local housing allowance, to find other tenants. There is a huge shortage of properties in the city and plenty of other people to fill them without landlords reducing rents. We are a high-cost city and a high-rented city. Students and young people will be able to occupy such properties; perhaps if they are sharing, they will be able to pay the high rents that a household could not meet.

There are other practical issues for people who must move that are not always taken into account. Some of us forget—I had almost forgotten until recently when someone came to see me and told me that she must move—the difficulty of finding a deposit. There are schemes to help people to provide a deposit, but they are limited and those in Edinburgh are very limited. For many people, finding enough money for a deposit to enable them to move is a huge issue. Many of us may believe that it is not that big a deal, but to find £400, £500 or £600 for a deposit, which may be low by London standards, is a lot of money for some people. There are practical issues that make it difficult for people to contemplate moving.

[Glenda Jackson]

The obverse is touched upon by one of the briefings from Citizens Advice. For example, in Brent, if a tenant, because of the changes in housing benefit, finds it impossible to pay their rent and loses their tenancy, they will also lose their deposit because the tenancy agreement is broken before the due date. The landlord wins all round.

[Sheila Gilmore]

That worsens the position.

In Edinburgh, if people with homes in the private rented sector, whether they are in work or not, can no longer afford such homes because they do not receive housing benefit, they will come to the council for help with housing. The council has already entered into lease agreements with landlords for around 1,500 to 1,700 properties to provide accommodation for people who have presented as being homeless. They are outside the local housing authority, and the rent levels are extremely high, which is a serious problem. That was intended to be a temporary expedient, but it has been temporary for five years, and the council has recently entered into another contract because it has little choice. The LHA cap will not apply, but if more people go into such accommodation and the council must take on more private leases to cover the situation, the real bill for housing benefit—we are always being told about the huge total of housing benefit—will be squeezed from one end and will push up at the other end. There will be unintended consequences.

Labour Members recognise that some of the changes and reforms, sometimes well intentioned, have had unintended consequences, and that should be taken into account before the changes go ahead. At the end of the day, the total housing benefit bill may not fall, despite the changes that will badly affect individuals, households and families. It is not good enough to say, “You didn’t do enough about building housing, so we must do this.” If the solution is to build more houses, build more houses. We did that, although they may not all have been council houses, as the Scottish National party said. It came to power saying that it was dreadful that we had not built any council houses, and that it would do so, but the total number built was exactly the same because it gave a little money to councils to build council houses but it took it away from housing associations that were building houses; the global figure did not change.

The answer is not to punish people for the failure of a policy. That is perverse. If there were even a suggestion that some of the money saved would go towards building houses, at least there would be some purpose in the argument, but I do not believe that that will happen. We have had no such assurances. From a perspective much further north than London, I agree with my hon. Friends that the reform is bad and will affect my constituents. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider.

10:35

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) for introducing this important subject and congratulate her on her election success. Importantly, she saw off the British National party. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on her deserved promotion, and I welcome my good and hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am sure does not have the attitude that our Opposition Friends are suggesting.

I shall not develop the argument, but there is an issue with the housing legacy. I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), but the failure to build enough houses, particularly in London, left a terrible legacy for the new Government. We must be honest about that. The waiting list in Southwark is 15,000, and Labour Members cannot back off from that.

We must all face the fact that the population in London is rising significantly all the time, so the social challenge for the Government is extremely difficult. I am sure that it is not in their mind to drive people from one part of the country and forcibly to move them elsewhere, but there is a risk of unintended consequences. In the final week before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review—I know that some of the decisions on housing are not yet finalised—I want to take the opportunity to influence my hon. Friend and our colleagues through this debate and more widely to make the best possible decisions. There is clear evidence that forcing people away from their communities does long-term damage to children and the next generation in their relationships, and to the social fabric and community cohesion.

The campaign for homes in central London, with which I, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others are associated, recognises that some people are born and brought up and have their home and being in the centre of our cities. They should be able to expect to remain there, even if they are not on high incomes, which most of them are not.

I am conscious of the time, but I want to mention three acute issues. The first is the housing benefit changes planned for next year. The Budget statement in June proposed that housing allowance rates be capped in April. Secondly, from October next year, rates will be set at the 30th instead of the 50th percentile of local rents. The method of working them out is complex, but the previous Labour Government set up broad market rental areas, so that they are considered in the community context.

Thirdly, further down the track,

“Housing benefit awards will be reduced to 90 per cent of the initial award after 12 months for claimants receiving Jobseekers Allowance. This will be introduced in April 2013.”

That policy is wrong. It is too inflexible and must be changed. One cannot presume that someone who has been trying to find work has not been able to do so because of their own failure, and that they must therefore move. The consequence of that and some of the other proposals risks forcing people from where they are, and by definition they then become a burden on the local authority if they are in any of the vulnerable categories or have priority needs. The problem does not go away; it simply moves, with trauma to those concerned.

What should our policy be? I can only summarise, but of course we need a policy that delivers more homes at affordable rents in London and elsewhere, including short-term homes, as other Governments have realised, perhaps on brownfield sites and the like. We absolutely need to make sure that empty homes are filled, and that people with spare space are encouraged to move so that that space can be released to others. We must not shake the security of tenure principle, because that is not the right approach.

We must ensure that we do not discourage people who are currently living in private rented accommodation from going into work because the rents are so high that should they start work, or should their partner come to join them, they might suddenly discover that they cannot stay in their property. That is a terrible failure which we must correct, and I have heard the Minister and other people say that they intend to do so.

In the view of London Councils—I stress that this is a cross-party view held not just by the Conservative Mayor but by all three parties that lead councils in London—there must be a review and change to the 90% rule, and a change to the rules currently planned for implementation next year. In its submission, which I hope the Minister has received and which I endorse, London Councils asks the Government to

“reconsider the level of the national cap in London and for the Central Broad Rent Market Area (BRMA) in particular”

and my own area. London Councils goes on to ask for the introduction of a transitional scheme. It also asks us to ensure that

“Current claimants…be subject to the 30 percentile change from April, but not to the national cap”

and that only new claimants who could find a property would be subject to the national cap. London Councils wants a progression—a transition—so that London has an opportunity to work out a solution with the Government, rather than be told the solution by the Government.

The June proposals were over-hasty and need to be revisited. They are not fair. I do not think that the Minister would want the Government to be known for a policy that was draconian and most adversely affected the poor and the disadvantaged. That is not the housing policy that he or I signed up to, and I hope that the Government will not sign up to it either.

10:41

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing the debate. She has done us a great service by setting out to the House the implications for those local authorities that are likely to receive people who move from higher-cost areas. Many of us, including me as a constituency MP, have focused on issues that will impact on the areas from which people will be moving, but we must understand the sheer scale and extent of the proposals.

Almost 1 million households will lose out as a consequence of the combined measures introduced in the June Budget. As was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), that will have implications for the entire country. The measures will have the most extensive impact in London, but that will ripple through all local authority areas in the country, including a particularly sharp effect in the south-west, Bristol, Brighton, Cambridge, Oxford, Edinburgh and parts of the north-west. Although London is at the sharp end of the proposals, it is not exclusively affected.

We heard powerful and well informed speeches from across the Chamber, and particularly from those hon. Members who will see the impact of the proposals. My expert and right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) spoke about the potential damage to the private rented sector, which is a valid point. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) spoke correctly about how the image of work-shy households in Mayfair mansions is completely contradicted by the lived experience of the overwhelming majority of people who claim local housing allowance. She and others mentioned the fact that in east or south-east London, and many other parts of the country, there are no rooms or houses to spare to absorb that movement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about the sometimes perverse consequences of the right to buy, a popular policy that delivered much to those who benefited from it, but which down the line has contributed to some of the problems. In yet another extraordinarily powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) talked about the impact of dislocation on households and children. The hon. Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) and for Colchester (Bob Russell) talked about the impact on children, and they were right to do so.

Before I address one or two of the substantive points and ask the Minister some questions, it is important to place on the record a correct understanding of what housing benefit and the local housing allowance for private tenants actually do, and why they have risen so much. We have heard a great deal—including this week from the Secretary of State—about the explosion in the cost of the local housing allowance. Almost half, 48%, of the entire increase in housing benefit over the past five years has been a result of the growth in the private rented sector. It has been driven by cases and not by rents. Of that, 28% is accounted for by an increase in social rents, while a mere 20% is accounted for by rises in rents themselves at a time when house prices have doubled.

That does not mean that we do not have problems in some areas. We know that there are hard cases and that some people will always swing the lead; that is the case everywhere and in every system. However, such people are outweighed by thousands to one by those who rely on housing benefit and the local housing allowance to keep a roof over their heads. There are ways of dealing with hard cases by allowing local authorities discretion, and some such measures were set out by the last Government in the March Budget. We must not let hard cases dictate a national policy that impacts on 1 million people. That is the catastrophe.

Ministers seem to fail to understand the number of households on local housing allowance who are in work—again, the Secretary of State failed to refer to that. Over the past two years, there have been a quarter of a million new cases of people in work claiming local housing allowance. During the recession, as wages and the hours that people worked fell, people turned to housing benefit and the local housing allowance to stop themselves from being made homeless. The coalition Government have completely ignored that. Research commissioned by my party when considering housing benefit reform last year laid to rest the myth that, taken as a whole, the local housing allowance discriminates against working households.

Research published three weeks ago stated that

“housing benefits arrangements do not seem to unduly favour local housing allowance recipients compared to most low-income working households”.

One clear message is that it would be a mistake to see housing benefit claimants and low-income working families as totally distinct categories. Most interviewees in the research study moved between those categories, sometimes several times, so that the same household could be a low-income working household one week, and find itself on housing allowance in another.

Despite all the evidence and research, in something like 20 weeks, a policy will come into effect that could impact on 114,000 households, mostly in London, who live in properties too expensive for them. The Mayor of London’s own submission contains an expectation that 20,000 children will be moved. In my local authority, 5,500 households will be way above the cap. If we consider that half of those households are larger households with children, that is 5,000 children in one borough. Where are the school places going to come from? Where will those children be educated? Where will health services be found for them? Where will they be found homes? The sheer lack of planning for the scale of population movement, and the debt, homelessness and distress to be caused is overwhelming. That is in 20 weeks. In a year’s time there will be a much bigger and deeper cut with the move to the 30th percentile, which is far wider.

The Minister says that rents will fall. Where is the evidence for that? Will all rents fall? Of course they will not. Some rents will fall, but where are the calculations about the numbers affected in areas where rents do not fall? Does the Minister think that the market does not exist, despite everything that we hear about it? When tens of thousands of people leave their homes in high-cost areas and move to Croydon, Barking, Southend, Hastings or Luton, surely the market will respond and rents will go up. Where will the savings be made? That is before households turn—as they will—to local authorities for rehousing.

Over the past two years, 120,000 households have been placed in the private rented sector by local authorities to prevent people from becoming homeless. What are those households going to do? Has the Minister considered how many of those households will apply to local authorities as homeless? It will be the overwhelming majority. Will local authorities have to pick up those duties and house those households in temporary accommodation, and at what cost? Do we not see the rankest hypocrisy from my own local authority of Westminster, which has been the cheerleader for some of these reforms for what I must say are highly political reasons? In response to a question that I asked the Minister, Westminster was the first council to write to the Government to ask for assistance in dealing with temporary accommodation costs. What extraordinary hypocrisy for it to be holding its hand out for financial assistance while lobbying for the changes that will see the majority of households, particularly those with children, moved out of the borough.

We are talking about a staggering movement of people, an increase in homelessness and an increase in the number of children—many of them vulnerable—throwing themselves on the mercy of ill-prepared local authorities in other parts of the country, including London, which are themselves expected to make a huge cut in their own expenditure at the same time. Many of the households involved are working households.

Has the Minister reflected on the effect of the policies on his own constituency and, indeed, that of the Secretary of State? It is worth remembering how they are affected. In the Secretary of State’s constituency, 13,990 households are losers in the two broad rental market areas affected, and of those, just under 5,000 are in work. In the Minister’s area, a shade under 1,000 working households lose, with families in two-bedroom properties losing nearly £1,000 a year. The policies are impacting in the Government’s own backyard. I hope that that will give them some pause for thought.

Many measures are being proposed to ameliorate some of the most catastrophic impacts of the decisions. The Minister should allow time for impact assessment before local authorities are placed in the position that has been described, because I predict that even with the most minimal impact of the policies, we will see the most distressing scenes that we have seen in many years, as families are forced from their homes, are forced into debt and have to queue at local authority housing departments to make a claim for homelessness. There will also be an impact on the demand for services from local authorities throughout the country, which will have to deal with people’s needs. Please will the Minister tell us what measures are being put in place to allow local authorities to cope with that?

10:52

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I have already congratulated the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck); the Select Committee’s loss is the Labour Front Bench’s gain. She and many other hon. Members who have spoken bring to the debate a great deal of expert knowledge on housing. In the eight minutes remaining, I shall do my best to respond to some of the key points that were made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is a doughty campaigner on housing issues and I hope that he always will be. He raised very important questions. Are the measures not bad for child poverty? What about disabled people? A number of hon. Members mentioned the position of vulnerable groups. My response to my hon. Friend is twofold, but principally it is that if we examine what we are spending on housing benefit, we see clear evidence that a significant part of our spending is not subsidising people in need to have decent housing, but subsidising landlords. In each of the past five years, we spent an additional £1 billion in real terms; each year it was another billion, then another and then another.

I want to put a hypothetical scenario to my hon. Friend. The Department for Communities and Local Government says to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, “We want to spend £1 billion next year building affordable homes.” The Chancellor says, “Yes, I’d like to do that.” Then he goes to the Department for Work and Pensions and we have just put in a bid for another £1 billion and another £1 billion for housing benefit, and he has to go back to the DCLG and say, “I’m sorry. The DWP has claimed that £1 billion. It’s not available for affordable housing. It’s not available for tackling child poverty.” The crucial point is that we have a housing benefit system that protects the vulnerable but does not pre-empt resources that could be spent on the very things on which we in this Chamber want to spend money.

[Ms Buck]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady will forgive me—

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No. I will give way to the right hon. Member for Barking, who initiated the debate, but in the remaining seven minutes, I want to respond to some of the points made in the debate.

I want to correct a number of the inaccurate impressions that have been given. As the hon. Member for Westminster North said, it is a helpful focus in this debate—as distinct from our July debate, which was on the position of tenants—to ask about the position of the receiving local authorities. That is an entirely valid point. We are in discussions with our colleagues in the DCLG. We are working with the local government associations across the country to work out how best to support local authorities, which will face challenges; I do not dispute that for a second.

The allocation of the discretionary housing payments, which will be trebled from £20 million to £60 million, is part of the picture. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out, one of the issues for people will be difficulty in securing deposits, and one of the things that discretionary housing payments can be used for is to assist people in paying for deposits. That is part of the purpose of the scheme. We have deliberately trebled that money and, although I cannot say anything definitive about the allocation of that funding, inevitably we shall want the money to go where the need is greatest, and inevitably that means that London will get a significant slice of that money. That is clear, and I think that it will help.

I want to question the description that we have heard of the private rented sector in London. I hesitate to do that in a room full of London MPs, but I shall give it a try. It has been presented as though it is an incredibly static situation, in which people live in communities for generations and it is always the same property, yet surely hon. Members would accept that there is massive turnover in the private rented sector in London. People move in and out of properties all the time.

The idea that there are static communities where any disruption will somehow undermine the community seems to me a parody of what is actually going on. The same applies to the suggestion that in the most expensive parts of London, there are mixed communities, with people at all income levels. The only people who can afford very high rents are the very rich and the very poor; there is nobody in the middle. The suggestion that we are somehow disrupting those terribly cosmopolitan, mixed communities is not true. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is not true. What can we do about the situation?

[Margaret Hodge]

I think that the Minister has demonstrated, as he will have heard from the comments around the room, a lack of understanding of the nature of the population affected. I am referring to the families, about whom we have concern, who will be dislocated by his proposals. Will he give an undertaking to do just a little bit of research that will demonstrate the potential impact on movement across London, which families that will involve and how they will be impacted? If we shared that research and the evidence, we could then have a sensible debate about the impact of the Minister’s proposition. Will he give us that assurance today?

[Steve Webb]

Like the right hon. Lady, I am keen to have a sensible debate on this subject. She mentioned the evidence that the Mayor of London has produced. The Mayor met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State towards the end of September, and we are in close dialogue with London local authorities and others so that we do understand the implications of the changes.

With regard to turnover in the private rented sector, the local housing allowance scheme only came in just over two years ago, in April 2008, and 75% of private rented sector cases are now within the scope of that scheme. There is huge turnover of people. People are making decisions about new—

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No. People are making decisions about new tenure choices all the time, and we are saying this: why should those whose rents are wholly paid by the taxpayer not face the same constraints as those who are in low-paid work? I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westminster North that the two are not distinct categories; there is movement between the two. However, people in low-paid work are not choosing to live in the most expensive parts of the city, because they know that they would have to be able to pay those rents out of their wages. Why should people on benefit be in an advantageous position, in terms of their housing choice, compared with those in low-paid work? That simply is not right.

I am convinced that nothing in my language or my ministerial colleagues’ language is about clearances or scroungers. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about value for money for the taxpayer, including the low-paid taxpayers in the constituencies of each hon. Member present, whose taxes are going to subsidise those exorbitant rents. Although we have heard that those very high rents are exceptional, I was appalled when I discovered that the 5,000 families to whom we pay the most housing benefit cost the taxpayer an annual £100 million—5,000 families receive £100 million a year just in housing benefit, leaving other benefits aside. It cannot be right that low-paid workers in our constituencies, people dealing with child poverty and disabled people are paying taxes to pay those rents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester asked about the position of disabled people. One of the changes that has not been reported is the improvements to the system of housing benefit for disabled people who need a non-resident carer. We are spending an extra £10 million on writing off that extra bedroom in the housing benefit assessment, because we recognise the particular needs of disabled people.

These are huge issues and it is disappointing to have only a few moments to respond to them. The crucial consideration is to be fair—yes, to people on benefit, but also to the low-paid taxpayers whose taxes are paying for these things. If we simply pay the full, very high rents, we make it very difficult for people to take work, which will ultimately be the best antidote to child poverty and the best long-term prospect for people. That is the goal of the reforms.

Bogus Charity Bag Collections

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is an honour and a pleasure, Mr Gray, to be speaking on this important issue under your chairmanship. This is not the first time that bogus charity collections have been raised in this Chamber. In February 2007, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) held an Adjournment debate on the matter; the then Minister, charitable organisations and consumers wholeheartedly welcomed the debate, and it certainly raised awareness of a growing problem. However, despite the positive response from the then Minister, we meet three years on and the problem is more widespread, not less, and nothing much has changed. I hope that this time this Minister will be able to offer not only warm words, but real action.

House-to-house collections of donated goods are a crucial source of income for many charities—those with and without shops. For example, last year they contributed more than £22 million to the British Heart Foundation for the fight against heart disease, and 43% of sales income came from goods donated through doorstep collections. Age UK raises approximately £25 million per year from charity bags, which accounts for around 60% of the stock sold in their shops.

Even for the vast majority of charities that do not have shops, house-to-house collections form a massive part of fundraising. Legitimate private collection companies—some of which are better than others—are used to collect on behalf of many charities. Their professional fundraising ability means that companies such as Clothes Aid collect around £2 million per year on behalf of their tied charities.

Charity bag collections are a convenient way for people to recycle unwanted textiles. Our increasingly busy lifestyles mean that it is hard to find the time to drop clothes into a shop, and, given that shops themselves are often located in pedestrianised areas, it becomes incredibly difficult to make large donations following a spring clean, or a post-diet or a pre-winter wardrobe update. Like millions of people, I put my clothes in a charity bag and pop them outside my door before heading off to work. I do so in good faith, with the belief that they will be put to excellent use and raise vital funds for whichever charity is collecting. Sadly, it appears that that trust can sometimes be misplaced.

On 13 July, a flyer was posted through the door of my constituent, Mr Philip Wilson. It simply stated that clothes, shoes, blankets, towels and other such items were urgently needed by Breakthrough Breast Cancer; that Clothman Ltd, which it stated was a commercial participator that helps raise money for Breakthrough, would pick up the bags on Wednesday; and that £100 from each tonne collected would go to the charity. It carried the Breakthrough branding, had a woman pictured on the front, a registered charity company number and website details. It also had a mobile telephone number that you could call for further information.

The leaflet looked genuine and a normal charity supporter would not doubt it. However, on this occasion the leaflet went through the wrong door—or the right door, depending on how one looks at it. Mr Wilson is mid-Kent’s fundraising co-ordinator for Breakthrough Breast Cancer, and therefore knew that his charity did not do door-to-door charity collections. He contacted the local council, the trading standards office and the police, but, despite a collection van being stopped mid-act, the operator was allowed to continue for allegedly having the correct registered charity number on the flyer. Of course, the flyer was fake, but the number was legitimate. That incident illustrates the difficulties that genuine charities face.

I first became acutely aware of bogus charity collections during the summer recess, when BBC South East televised an in-depth undercover investigation, which highlighted a spate of incidents across Kent. That investigation was already under way when Mr Wilson contacted the BBC and, shortly after, he came to my surgery. It has become clear that what happened in Chatham in mid-July has happened and continues to happen daily in streets up and down the country.

There are two major problems in combating this criminal activity: one, the legislation and, two, the often relaxed attitude of the police. Taking the police response first, I understand that the theft of a single bag of clothes may not seem like a high priority, but when it is estimated that the theft of clothes is in excess of 36,000 tonnes per year, at a cost of more than £14 million to charity, it should be taken more seriously. There are some examples of a good police response. Derbyshire police have recently conducted a successful undercover operation into this specific crime, and other forces have made individual arrests, but usually the attitude of the police is that they face tight budgets and bogus collections are not a key target or high priority.

The second challenge is the reluctance and/or capability to perform cross-border policing on level 2 or 3 crime. For example, Clothes Aid recently passed over intelligence on a small gang stealing in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and the Met area, but each force has refused to take the lead because it is “cross-border”. That reaction ignores the fact that this is, quite simply, an organised crime, which is cross-county and growing.

If I may, I shall move on to the legislative aspects. For a charitable collection to take place, a licence must be applied for under the House to House Collections Act 1939 and the House to House Collections Regulations 1947. The Local Government Act 1972 transferred all licensing to the local authority, except in London. Larger charities can apply for a national exemption, but without a licence or an exemption doorstep collection is illegal. Although it is feared that as much as 50% of house-to-house charity collection is bogus, Charity Bags notes that only one in 10,000 illegal clothing collections in the UK is subject to enforcement action or prosecution by the local council.

In the Charities Act 2006, the previous Government introduced a new licensing and regulatory regime for house-to-house collections, but secondary legislation is required for it to be implemented. I was concerned to read that the Minister and the Charity Commission have publicly stated that they do not believe that to be a priority. Given the effect on public trust and the financial cost for charities, I respectfully disagree, and I suggest that anything that helps combat this organised criminal activity should be a priority. I urge the Minister to introduce secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity. A better licensing system is only one aspect of the changes required to combat the problem. Since most stolen clothing is exported, I would like to see more robust monitoring from border police and better international intelligence communication.

There needs to be tougher enforcement action against bogus collectors, from the van driver up to the mastermind operator organising the entire ring. The current level of deterrence is laughable, and bogus collectors continue to act with impunity. Consideration needs to be given to whether the bogus operators breach other important legislative and tax requirements, from employment duties through to tax evasion. Finally, the charity industry needs to work together to improve collection codes. I hope all relevant organisations will participate in the consultation on the new code of conduct recently published by the Institute of Fundraising.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, because it is important. One concern raised with me by a constituent was about the transparency of the revenue that goes to charities. I encourage my hon. Friend to include that as part of the consultation; there is a variety of information. There is also the unscrupulous practice of certain collectors picking any charity bag—not their own—and re-bagging it. I support my hon. Friend’s actions.

[Tracey Crouch]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Furthermore, we could consider a register of reputable door-to-door collectors to provide the donor with easy access to trustworthy information. Transparency is extremely important to combating the problem, and we need to work with the charity industry and the legitimate private companies that operate under contract with those charities, to ensure that it exists.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. Sadly, we still have to discuss this issue because it remains a problem, although I and other Members have been raising it for some years.

The hon. Lady mentioned working in partnership with the charity industry, and that touches on the nub of the issue. As she said in relation to cross-border agencies, many agencies—whether trading standards or the police—do not take responsibility. Would it be possible, perhaps using the Minister’s good offices, to get the relevant agencies together to hammer out a solution, rather than having everybody saying that it is not their responsibility?

[Tracey Crouch]

The hon. Lady should be congratulated on, and recognised for, all the hard work that she has done on this issue over the past three or four years; her debate in 2007 certainly started the process of increasing awareness. The fact remains that there is no communication across all the agencies and regulators involved. She raises a good point, which I hope the Minister will take on board.

The charity industry should consider a register of reputable door-to-door collectors to provide donors with easy access to trustworthy information. I now have a greater awareness of some of the bogus activity that takes place, and I recently received through my door leaflets that looked dubious. To be honest, however, it is difficult to find out whether collection organisations are legitimate, and giving consumers easy access to such information will greatly improve the public’s trust in collections and the amount that is donated to charity.

As a nation, we are generous donors to charity, which means that hundreds of charities benefit from millions of pounds, and that pays for many different services that the state cannot provide. Furthermore, our clothing donations help fulfil environmental and waste targets. However, of the three primary ways of donating clothes—shops, banks and bags—two are under threat from thieves. All charities that collect door to door now worry about theft. Half of all donors who no longer give clothes cite scam collectors as their reason for not doing so.

Bogus collection has grown from a small-time deception to a nationwide organised crime, costing charities millions of pounds in lost revenue. Unless the issue is taken seriously right from the top, the scam will continue. I urge the Minister to deliver more than a few warm words and instead to lead the attack so that the public can give with confidence and charities can receive the donations that they deserve.

11:12

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for securing the debate. I want to say a few words in support of her on what is an important issue right across the country.

A company operating in my constituency and across Cornwall has been distributing and collecting charity bags for second-hand clothes. The company is called InterSecond Ltd and it has been appointed by its parent company, Azzara, which is registered in Lithuania. InterSecond could be a company or a charity—it is impossible to find out. Its bags have highly misleading logos, which could easily be confused with those of UK breast cancer charities.

Cornwall council, the licensing authority for charities’ door-to-door collections, has not given InterSecond a licence and is actively pursuing an investigation into the complaints that it has received. BBC Radio Cornwall is warning people across the county that InterSecond’s activity is bogus and that they should not make donations. Such bogus activities are not only misleading, but rob legitimate charities of much-valued income.

Will the Minister consider two actions that he could take? First, when organisations apply to the licensing authority, companies or charities based outside the UK that are beneficiaries of the collection’s proceeds should have to give evidence to the licensing authority that any claims made are true. Secondly, the licensing authority should have the ability to pre-approve the information that will be printed on the bags to make sure that it is not misleading. Clear guidance to licensing authorities would really help.

11:14

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) not only on securing the debate, but on presenting her arguments extremely forcefully. It is also important to register the presence of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who performed a similar useful exercise back in 2007, so she represents some continuity in terms of pressing the case for continued action on this extremely emotive and difficult issue.

As my hon. Friend said so well, we clearly have a problem. We all know, even just from walking the streets of our constituencies and knocking on the doors, that the public are more and more exposed to leaflets, bags and requests for information, and that is irritating them. There has been a change in the economic incentives underlying the behaviour that my hon. Friend is concerned about. Prices for second-hand textiles and clothing are at about £700 to £900 a tonne, so there is some serious money to be made.

The Fundraising Standards Board tells me that there has been a 100% increase in complaints to it over the past year. The media and various Members of Parliament are taking an interest in the issue, which is clearly serious. However, this is not so much about the sums involved or the cash cost to charities, which outside bodies estimate at between £5 million and £15 million a year. What concerns me is the issue of public confidence in charities at exactly the time when we want to encourage more people to give. This is clearly an important issue of public confidence.

Three types of collection activity potentially damage the sector’s reputation. The first is outright fraud, which involves fake charities adopting the names of real charities for their collections, pretending to be charitable and stealing clothes that are left on doorsteps; my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) identified such activities. The second area of activity involves misleading literature that gives the impression that there is a charitable beneficiary, when that is not in fact the case. The third area of concern is the actual theft of bags of clothing left out for legitimate charities to collect.

All that behaviour is absolutely reprehensible, but the question is what we can do about it, and I take on board the point that the issue has been raised over some time. A lot of activity is going on, but the question is how effective it is, and it is important to review that. There are three levers that the Government can pull: more and clearer regulation, enforcement and education. The Government’s position is that the challenge and the priority relate more to enforcement and education than to further regulation.

The regulatory base that is in place is sufficient, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford will know, collections are regulated under the House to House Collections Act 1939 and the House to House Collections Regulations 1947. Where collections are undertaken by a commercial collector on a charity’s behalf, the necessary commercial participation agreement under part 2 of the Charities Act 1992 must be in place. As a Government who see themselves as being in the business of deregulation rather than of adding to regulation, our instinct is therefore not to reach immediately for the regulatory lever, not least because we would be concerned about imposing additional costs and burdens on those who perform their activities in a wholly legitimate way.

My hon. Friend rightly pressed me about the implementation of the Charities Act 2006. She will be aware that it is due for review next year—there is a requirement on the Government to review its workings and implementation—and I have already made an explicit commitment in public that a review of the issues before us will be an explicit part of that process.

The honest answer to my hon. Friend is that if I thought that full implementation of that measure would transform the landscape and make a huge difference, I would have carried that out some time ago. In fact, the advice that I have received is that the net impact of implementation could be marginally deregulatory, in the sense that it would effectively replace the requirement to get a local authority licence to operate in a specific area with a requirement to get certification from the Charity Commission to operate anywhere. I am not entirely persuaded that that would solve the problem, but research is being conducted and, as I have said, there will be an explicit review of the issue in the context of the review of the Charities Act 2006. My hon. Friend has that undertaking from me.

Enforcement was a central concern of my hon. Friend. We look to various players in the field to make a difference and an impression: local trading standards officers, the police and, of course, those responsible for regulating advertising standards in the context of leaflets that are arguably misleading. The debate has prompted me to review what is going on, and on the face of it I am reasonably encouraged by the level of activity and what that tells me about the underlying concern of the agencies responsible.

For example, I welcome the work that the Fundraising Standards Board is doing with the Trading Standards Institute to develop a toolkit to guide all trading standards officers through the relevant legislation and through what evidence is needed to tackle bogus charity collections and effect successful prosecutions. As my hon. Friend will know, the process in relation to detection and evidence is extremely difficult. However, there is clearly partnership work going on to develop a toolkit that will help trading standards officers in that difficult work.

[Tracey Crouch]

I thank the Minister for what he has outlined, but I dispute whether it is difficult to detect the people in question. Quite often they clearly state where they will be, and at what time. It is misleading or misguided to think that it is difficult to catch them and find evidence. It is often very easy to catch the perpetrators in the act. I feel that sometimes it is not a question of catching them; it is a question of the process afterwards—prosecuting them. That is where the slow-down is.

[Mr Hurd]

I understand and accept my hon. Friend’s point. As to difficulty of detection I was thinking not so much of the person in the van as of the mastermind in the control room—the real villain of the piece. I also think that the public will play an increasingly important role in detection and evidence. For example, in my constituency we have rolled out the concept of neighbourhood and street champions, people who have value as the eyes and ears of public agencies, on a range of issues. In the present context they could play an important role in detection and evidence-gathering.

I was trying to summarise some of the welcome activity that I detect is going on among various agencies who are trying to work together to develop better practice. The Institute of Fundraising has a current consultation on its code of fundraising practice on house-to-house collections. That code will apply to all collections of money and goods made house to house, whether they are carried out by volunteers, fundraising organisations or third party agencies.

I note that the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers is doing some work on developing guidance for local authority licensing officers on house-to-house collection of goods. I have looked again at what the Advertising Standards Authority is doing as the UK’s independent regulator of advertising. Again, I am satisfied that it takes the issue seriously and that its connections with the Office for Fair Trading are reasonably robust, so as to create the opportunity to act against those who mislead the public through advertising material.

The police’s sense of their local priorities clearly presents an issue, but the Office of the Third Sector, as was—it is now the Office for Civil Society—has been in regular contact with the Association of Chief Police Officers. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford a personal undertaking to write again to ACPO to press the issue, and to raise the matter of cross-border co-operation that she specified.

The level of fines and the effectiveness of deterrence also needs to be considered. I understand that one of the maximum fines, for collecting without a licence, is about £1,000. There seems to be a mismatch between that and the price of a tonne of textiles, so again I shall write to the Ministry of Justice to explore its appetite for a review of the level of fines and deterrence.

To deal briefly with education, I have reviewed what has been done. My hon. Friend will know that the Office of the Third Sector was instrumental in co-ordinating the “Give with Care” campaign. It distributed about 500,000 leaflets around the country. That was relaunched in 2010. The Charity Commission has been extremely proactive, and keen to raise awareness of fraud and theft. The media, Members of Parliament and various other stakeholders have played an important part in raising the profile of the issue, notifying the public and encouraging them to report suspicious behaviour and perhaps to be more rigorous in checking the claims made on the material shoved through their letter boxes.

I acknowledge that there is a problem, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising it again. The more I look at the matter, the less easy it is to see an easy, quick-fit solution. The nature of the activity is in the shade and at the margin of the law. As I have tried to stress, our instinct is that the question is much more one of enforcement and education than regulation. There is a lot of activity and there are many programmes. The question has been raised—and I join in asking it—whether the activity is sufficiently robustly co-ordinated. Despite the levels of activity, there is always scope to do more and think harder about the issue. My hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Truro and Falmouth have both put some concrete, specific ideas on the table.

I want to close with an invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford: given the scale and complexity of the problem, it is time to convene a round table of those people who are actively engaged in trying to reach a solution. I will do that, and my hon. Friend is invited to participate in that event, given the leadership role that she has played, through tabling her early-day motion and obtaining the debate.

The challenge will be for the people around that table to think afresh, review what we are doing and consider whether we could take cleverer, more co-ordinated and more robust actions to get on top of the problem. There is clearly a significant risk that the problem will undermine the confidence of the British public in giving to charity, at exactly the time when we want them to give more.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Police (Public Trust)

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

14:39

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. Sir Robert Peel, the founder of policing, said:

“The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

His comments were true in the 19th century and they are true today. Policing remains a noble vocation. For many serving police officers, their duties remain much more than a job or profession. At its very best, the police service still manifests the highest of public service attributes; it is public service in uniform. I pay tribute to the 11 police officers who have been killed on duty since 2002 and the 3,271 police officers who have been seriously injured over that same period, and, indeed, to officers on the front line today who are perhaps being injured in the course of their duties.

Like most Members of this House, I was brought up to respect the police, and for the most part that respect still remains, but in recent years I have become aware—not only from the mailbag and inbox from my own constituency, but from the experience of those whom I read and hear about in different parts of the country—that public trust in the police is declining. It is indisputable that a sizable minority of officers are increasingly overshadowing the dedication, courage and professionalism of the vast majority of serving police officers—officers who do the right thing, not the wrong thing. I do not in this debate set out to criticise the police, but, as a candid observer and supporter of those who do their duty, I want to raise a number of serious concerns that I have about some aspects of modern policing, which, in my humble view, unless the police address them, will continue to undermine much needed public confidence and encourage the growing lack of trust in those to whom we entrust so much.

I understand that the police need and want a good working relationship with the media. The success of broadcast programmes such as “Crimewatch” underscore such a relationship working well, and the same is true in relation to the press. The police and the media working well together—working lawfully together—can and does bring results, which are welcomed by the law-abiding public. However, what is not acceptable to the public is when serving police officers sell their stories, whether true or untrue—stories often obtained by officers in the course of their official policing duties. In such instances, disciplinary action needs to be far more severe than it is on the disappointingly rare occasions that such action occurs now. If officers breach internal disciplinary codes over relationships with the media, what other laws and rules might they be breaking? If they break the law, action should be taken.

Police officers also need to be reminded, under caution if necessary, of their legal obligations to uphold the Official Secrets Act. Police officers are not above the law; they are subject to the law and they must uphold the law. Moreover, when senior officers fail to take action against officers who fail to uphold the law, public trust ebbs away. This personal feasting on the media can bring the whole of the police service into disrepute. That lesson applies to senior officers too. They should try to avoid losing their sense of perspective in exchange for a few moments of glory in newspapers, which are decreasingly read. It would be far better for the police to stick to policing.

It is also not for senior and chief officers to decide what is and what is not in the public interest, or what they will or will not investigate. The law is set by this Parliament, by the people and for the people, not around a large and strategic coffee table. That is why the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions must avoid any hint that it is the police, rather than the Crown Prosecution Service, who ultimately decide what cases may or may not be investigated and brought before the courts. That is why I am calling today for a review of what is and what is not “in the public interest”. What does the term “in the public interest” actually mean? Who really determines what is in the public interest, using what criteria?

One of the key areas of concern for many of my constituents and, indeed, for many serving police officers I speak to is the apparent lack of discipline exercised in and by some police forces. It is not acceptable to taxpayers or to dedicated and hard-working police officers for other police officers to break the rules—sometimes consistently—many of whom are subject to no discipline or, if they are disciplined, are only very lightly disciplined. It is the view of those of my constituents with whom I have spoken about this issue that far too many bad apples remain in the police service, often with impunity. For every officer who “gets away with it”—whatever “it” might be—public trust in the police ebbs away.

Indeed, the culture of the police service offering a job for life, or for 30 years, even to officers who have a very poor disciplinary record and years of complaints against them, must end. Honest, hard-working police officers deserve better and so do the public. As one police officer put it to me recently,

“from the junior ranks to chief officer level, there needs to be a 21st century reminder that it is not a ‘warrant card’ that gives the police service its success, but public trust, public co-operation and policing by consent.”

I welcome the Government’s review into policing pay, terms of employment and conditions, but I hope that that review will also look at that important area of discipline and especially at the public demand for chief officers to approach their disciplinary responsibilities far more proactively. That will mean far more than the call to limit payouts at employment tribunals; often, it will mean enforcing warnings and disciplines at a very early stage in a police officer’s career—early intervention. A problem ignored today will often emerge as a more costly and complex problem tomorrow. Chief officers have the rank and the pay to deal with important man-management decisions, and they need to show a little more forthrightness in doing so.

Corrupt police officers should be brought before the courts, and on conviction thrown out of the force. Being dismissed from a particular force does not serve justice in the way that the public rightly expect and deserve. Furthermore, when I say “courts”, I mean local courts. It is not acceptable that officers are brought before courts in a neighbouring county to the one in which they serve. I am sure that it has nothing to do with avoiding potentially negative media and public scrutiny, but whatever the reasons or causes for the practice, it must end. There should be no special treatment for police officers.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his very interesting speech and I agree with the thrust of quite a bit of what he has said. As a London MP, I think that the mendacity of the Metropolitan police at times in relation to some high-profile events, such as the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and indeed even Mark Saunders very recently, is very worrying, particularly as it seems to be a mendacity that is implied at the very highest level.

My hon. Friend made a very important point early in his contribution about policing by consent. Does he have a view on that issue? Policing by consent is a very particular element of policing in this country, which makes us very different from many European countries. Does he not think that now is the time for a much more open and much broader debate about precisely how our policing should be organised? Historically, going back 160 or 170 years, it has very much been a case of policing by consent rather than policing on a European-type model, but perhaps the model of policing and the expectations of the general public are now changing.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I know that he has a lot of experience in this area. In response to his question, I think it is important that when the Government undertake their review, the whole issue of the relationship and building trust between the police and the public is examined. I have touched on discipline already; I will touch on some other issues shortly. I think that my hon. Friend came in just a few moments after I began the debate. I refer him to the words of Sir Robert Peel that I quoted at the outset; perhaps he can read them in Hansard. It is an important point that, of course, the police are themselves members of the public. However, on the question of policing by consent, perhaps we need to look at Bramshill, Hendon and other places where our police officers—from junior officers to senior officers—are trained. We should remind officers that they are policing by consent and that there must be a relationship with the public that does not exist through the warrant card alone but through trust and mutual respect.

As I said, there should be no special treatment for police officers. Police officers are not above the law; they are subject to the law, as we all are. Some officers forget that and as a result public trust in the police ebbs away. [Interruption.]

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. Since there is a Division in the House, I must suspend this sitting. We are running behind time already, so I suspend the sitting for a maximum of 15 minutes, but I give fair warning to all Members that if the two Front-Bench spokesmen and the initiator of the debate, Mark Pritchard, are back before then, I will start as soon as the three of them are back in their places.

14:56

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:04

On resuming—

[Mark Pritchard]

There should be no special treatment for police officers; they are not above the law. They are subject to it, as we all are. Some officers forget that, and when they do, public trust ebbs away.

I am not convinced that internal anti-corruption units bring the conviction rates necessary to root out police corruption. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister will at least consider the feasibility of establishing a national and specialist anti-corruption unit by pooling existing resources that can be called on to investigate allegations of police corruption. The process by which anti-corruption investigations are triggered should also be reviewed. It should not be left to the discretion of chief officers alone to sanction such investigations.

Similarly, action is needed on race relations. Racism within the police or any workplace is completely unacceptable, but race should not be used by a small number of ethnic minority officers as a way to march chief constables down to the bank to hand over large amounts of taxpayers’ money in order to avoid damaging headlines about police forces. I have some sympathy for the comments of Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, on employment tribunals; many more police officers should exercise more resolve in taking on police officers who do not have a genuine employment grievance.

Although the vast majority of ethnic minority police officers undertake their duties professionally, with skill and courage, some constituents of mine fear that some look to their bank accounts before seeking to get on with their duties. White British officers are guilty of abusing the employment tribunal system as well, although their claims are mostly of a different nature. Where false claims are made, officers should be sacked, not promoted. For every spurious police employment tribunal claim, public trust in the police ebbs away.

Of course, many such issues can be minimised and mitigated by the more liberal application of a much needed attribute in some police forces: leadership. I hope that the Minister will consider how leadership might be revived in the police. Surely leadership is not only to be found hanging alongside a gold-framed MBA certificate on a senior officer’s wall.

We need a much improved way to recognise and reward leadership within the police, perhaps by introducing an officer entry qualification or new fast-track promotion for outstanding individuals. For example, the skills of ex-military personnel with experience of leading men and women should be recognised more fully. Others might come from other leadership backgrounds. I fear that bed-blocking by rank, most notably at sergeant rank, threatens to hold back a generation of proven and natural leaders within the police. The police service desperately needs such leaders, and the public want them.

I also hope for a review of the number of police agencies and quangos. It appears that scores of retiring senior police officers—usually they retire quite young—never actually retire. They have little time to spend their generous pensions and large lump-sum payoffs; instead, they leave the force to re-emerge in one of many police agencies or umbrella organisations, usually on higher pay than the Prime Minister.

Bonuses for police officers should stop. A rate of pay should be agreed, and senior officers should either apply for jobs based on that stated rate or take another career path or job. Doing the right thing, doing a good job and believing in their important public service role should be reward enough.

Far too many of my constituents agree that the police, like the BBC, are one of our last great unreformed national institutions, which is concerning. If policing by consent rather than by warrant card is to be re-established, perhaps where colleagues have witnessed a retreat in recent years, I hope that the police will embrace reform rather than rejecting or repelling it.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on such an important issue. Although there are real concerns, the Kent police constabulary, for example, has a satisfaction rate of 87%, according to the Kent crime and victim survey. That clearly shows that, although there are legitimate concerns nationally, some police constabularies, such as that in Kent, are doing an excellent job.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is right to highlight good practice and good police work when he sees it and so, too, are Members across all parties. Indeed, I hope that I have highlighted such things in trying to balance my speech.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an intelligent and compelling argument, but are not senior police officers acting perfectly rationally in taking their lead from organisations such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, whose leadership considers it appropriate to give a running commentary on the fiscal decisions of the democratically elected Government? There is also an institutionalised lack of accountability because local police officers are essentially accountable only to the Home Office, not to elected officials or the people whom they serve at local level.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend brings considerable experience to bear, and he is absolutely right that senior officers in particular should stay out of politics, law making and social work and refrain from commenting on important fiscal and Treasury matters. Clearly, they have a view about their police budgets, but if far more police officers spent more time actually doing the job of policing, perhaps crime would be down even further. I agree with my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to raise the issue.

I hope that the police will very much embrace the reforms that the Government are introducing, rather than rejecting and repelling them. Chief officers should avoid being alarmist and offering up alarmist comments and overreaction in the debate about the public deficit. They can and will form part of the reform process, but they cannot write their own terms, for that would avoid the real and lasting reform that modern policing needs if it is to re-engage with the public and public trust is to be restored where it has been lost.

I end as I began—by paying tribute to the many police officers who undertake their job day in, day out in a professional, dedicated and often courageous manner. Such hard-working officers, of whom there are many in my own police constabulary area of West Mercia, are similarly frustrated by colleagues in the police force who lie, commit perjury, sell private details to the tabloid media and break the Official Secrets Act. Like the public, they are fed up of lazy and incompetent police officers. Such officers should—I say this as a slight aside—be subject to an annual fitness test and certainly to better leadership and discipline, as I have suggested.

Policing remains a high and noble vocation. The United Kingdom has some of the most dedicated and professional officers in the world, but unless there is a marked change in leadership and discipline, the rooting out of corruption and the sacking of incompetent officers, as well as an avoidance of the growing “them and us” approach to policing the public, whom we all serve, public trust in policing will continue to ebb away. That is not in the police’s interest or the public interest, and it is certainly not in the national interest. Let us see a revival of police discipline and leadership; we will then see a restoration of public trust in policing.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. Four Members are trying to catch my eye. As a result of the Divisions, the debate will end at 4.23 pm. I will call the Front Benchers to speak for the last 20 minutes, which means that we have just under 50 minutes. I hope that colleagues will bear in mind that that means that we need speeches of 10 or 12 minutes if we are to get everybody in.

15:09

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in my first Westminster Hall debate under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. It is also a real pleasure to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). I regard him not only as a friend, but as someone who thinks carefully before making his speeches. His was a very thoughtful speech, which raised several issues of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who was in the Minister’s position until very recently, will have taken on board many of the points made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin.

The debate is well attended, which shows the tremendous interest in the House in policing issues. The hon. Gentleman was right to end his speech by praising the work of so many police officers, but he was also right to mark up a number of issues that really need to be addressed. Our debates in the House deal largely with the great issues—the structures and the new landscape—of policing, and we sometimes forget individual cases. Such cases are often brought to the public’s attention through the media and therefore have a disproportionate influence on how people regard the police. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of cases.

We live in exciting times as far as policing is concerned. The Home Affairs Committee is certainly extremely busy scrutinising the Government on a number of policing issues. We have decided to conduct three inquiries into policing this year—they are rather like “The Lord of the Rings” in that they are a trilogy. The first report will deal with police commissioners, and we will rush it out by the end of October because the Bill dealing with the issue is due before the House in November. The second report will deal with the elements of the planned national crime agency, which will result in legislation next summer. The third report will relate to the comprehensive spending review, and I fear that a number of the issues that we raise today will have to be seen in the light of what the Government decide to do about the policing budget.

I want to raise a number of issues that I think will be of use to the House. As constituency MPs, we all have examples of dealings with local people who are concerned about the police, although none of us, except the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), has actually served in a police force.

One of the easiest things for the police to look at, which actually costs no money at all, is how they deal with the public. Good customer service is essential to ensuring that we have policing by consent and it means that when people send letters to chief officers or local commanders, they get a reply very speedily. One of the points made to the Committee in its short inquiry into the Independent Police Complaints Commission earlier this year—in fact, it was in our recommendations—was that if police at the local level dealt more efficiently and effectively with concerns raised by the public, the need for complaints would diminish.

The first aspect that I want to raise is therefore very much in the hands of the police, and what happens depends very much on the personality and character of the chief constable; if the chief constable wants to make sure that something works, it will work. I had a useful meeting last Friday with the new chief constable in my area, Simon Cole. I raised my concern that when I write to the police on behalf of constituents who come to my surgery on a Friday, I do not get a reply for weeks or even months. All that those constituents want to know is what is happening about their cases. If they know, they will be satisfied. They might not be satisfied with the outcome, but they will at least know what is going on.

Providing good customer service and responding to concerns are therefore important. The Fiona Pilkington case occurred in Leicestershire. As hon. Members know, Ms Pilkington made 33 complaints to the local police force before she drove off and set her car on fire. That is an example of what happens when people do not get a response. I hope that everyone learns the lessons of what happens when the police do not respond; I know that Leicestershire police have. If forces get their house in order and provide the right service, that will be very helpful.

The second issue is visibility. I do not know whether the Minister knows how much his budget will be next year or whether he has just received a text from the Chancellor asking him to go to No. 11 to discuss it, but I am sure that his budget will be cut. If it is cut, to the levels that he and I think possible, that will have a huge impact on some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin. The police cannot perform the functions that the public expect them to unless they have the budgets to enable them to do so.

[Mark Pritchard]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that discipline and leadership in the police do not necessarily have to come with a price tag?

[Keith Vaz]

I accept that absolutely; it is one of the common-sense issues that could be dealt with quickly. If someone needs to be disciplined they should be disciplined. There is a defensiveness to the public sector. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has encountered cases against the local health authority in his constituency, as well. When we write in because someone is concerned about their treatment, there is always denial—all the way to the doors of the High Court. Some of the issues can be dealt with by providing proper leadership.

That leads me to my third point, which is about the new landscape of policing. The Minister has a great opportunity, in deciding what will go into the national crime agency, to deal with issues of leadership. Leadership is not being provided at the moment. We took evidence yesterday from the deputy Mayor of London—the kind of no-nonsense politician one wants in charge of a police force. With people such as Mr Malthouse around, one wonders whether there is a need for elected commissioners; there is always someone like him in every local authority.

I hope very much that the Government will pause and think before they shove everything into the national crime agency. The National Policing Improvement Agency is supposed to go in there, with all its police improvement functions, and so is the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is going in there, and the databases will too.

I know that it is hoped that we shall save money—and we all want to get value for money from the police service—but there may be an opportunity in the few months that remain to deal with the issue of police leadership. There will be arguments on either side about whether that should go to ACPO, about which some hon. Members have concerns. I think that it is an organisation that can be developed to take over Bramshill and provide the necessary leadership.

However, to get the police constables of the future, who will be responsive to the needs of the public, it is necessary to start at a much lower level. The career development that is so vital, especially in policing, should be conducted by an agency that is not the national crime agency. All the good work that is being done by the NPIA should go somewhere else, although I do not have a fixed view on where. The Select Committee will consider the matter, but that work is not suitable for the NCA.

The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who spoke briefly and had to attend to other duties in the House, mentioned the Kent constabulary and the good practice there. I saw good practice when I went to Staffordshire a year and a half ago. The former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, knows that I am going to raise this issue, which concerns the forms that Staffordshire police were filling in. They had reduced them from 24 to one.

I wrote to Jacqui Smith and said, “This is brilliant; can you please write to all the chief constables and make sure that it is rolled out throughout the country?” It took months and months before it happened. The Select Committee has its own website—I do not know whether the Minister has seen it—which notes good practice by police forces. One of the examples is what is happening in Kent. Guarding against bad practice, which is what the hon. Member for The Wrekin was discussing, is a good way to ensure that good practice happens. Perhaps it happens through guidance from the police Minister, or perhaps it happens when the dos and don’ts are shoved on to the Home Office website.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is an example of good practice in Northern Ireland, where the Police Service of Northern Ireland has made clear progress over the years. Part of core policy for the PSNI is the interaction of community officers with the general public. They get to know each other and a relationship builds up. Also, for many, there are vocational callings. Some people who are community officers have that vocation in life. That is what they are called to do, and their qualities can be seen coming through in policing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many lessons that can be learned from the progress made by the PSNI in Northern Ireland and the way in which it is developing its relationship with the general public?

[Keith Vaz]

Yes, there are, and the Select Committee members look forward at some stage in the future to coming to Northern Ireland to see what has happened. The developments have been amazing, and the appointment to the PSNI of Matt Baggott, the former chief constable of Leicestershire, is very welcome. We look forward to visiting him there.

On 22 November, the Select Committee will hold a seminar in Cannock Chase. I have written to the Minister to ask him to speak at that seminar, which will deal with all the issues that I have outlined. It is only 41 minutes away from the Wrekin, so I hope that the hon. Member for The Wrekin will attend. The purpose is outside the context of Westminster, where we can get very political about policing issues. Members on both sides of the House and people on neither side—because we hope that there will also be many police officers and members of police committees there—will discuss the new landscape that is proposed.

I am not one of those who feel that the Government have gone too fast on policing. They are right to have set out a strong agenda for change, but I urge them to heed the views of others who may have an input to make into the matter. I know that the Minister respects the work of the Select Committee because he poached one of our best and newest members—the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod)—as his new PPS.

The Minister will not agree with everything that we say, but given what the hon. Member for The Wrekin has said and what others will say, let us not rush ahead on some of the issues. Of course principles are important, but we are dealing with a new landscape. Let us make one that is above party politics and based on consensus, and that will last for at least a generation.

15:26

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I want to extend this interesting debate to consider what we mean by trust. We have discussed the attitude of the public to some of the leaders in the police, but equally important is the public’s trust in the bobby on the beat, and we have not touched on that. I am also concerned to retain a balance in the debate between the bad and good apples in the barrel. The good apples have not had a fair hearing, or been congratulated on what they do.

I am extraordinarily lucky because my constituency is in beautiful Devon and Cornwall and our record on policing is extremely good. In 2009-10 we cut the crime rate by 10%; we have reduced vehicle theft by 27% and overall we reduced antisocial behaviour. I am pleased to say that we are perceived to be the fourth safest policing area in England and Wales, and 63% believe that we are doing a good job, but there is a “but”: despite that record the fear of crime is disproportionately high. That brings me back to the bobby on the beat. Independent research has shown that bobbies on the beat are a key factor in deterring people from committing crime and in making people feel safe. In Devon, we have put 200 more policemen on the front line. We have very active police and “communities together” meetings—most recently, we have met in supermarkets, which makes us extremely accessible; that is where we should be. I certainly welcome the Government’s reintroduction of special constables.

Despite what the figures seem to show, however, we have found that, in relation to trust and confidence, the figures fly in the face of all we have been doing. In 2008, 53.2% of people across Devon and Cornwall said that we were doing a good job, and trust and confidence were high, measured by our approach to dealing with antisocial behaviour. That put us second out of 43 police forces across the country, and compared very well with the average of 46% satisfaction. However, in 2009, we plummeted to 35th out of 43, with the satisfaction rate on dealing with antisocial behaviour down to 46.9%. The question for me and my police team was why?

The challenge—the key issue I would like the Minister to address—is how we should measure trust in the police force. It seems rather bizarre that we have a record of crime and antisocial behaviour being cut in Devon and yet, according to the measurements, trust and confidence in the police is going down. That cannot be right. I urge the Minister to consider how, as a Government, we can introduce appropriate measures that are workable and meaningful to the public. I suggest that we start to consider things other than antisocial behaviour, because I think that a much wider remit concerns the public.

15:30

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I thank you for helping the four of us who want to speak work out an equitable distribution of time in the debate.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I consider the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) a friend in the House. He is tenacious, he never fears to speak out and, on this occasion, I consider nearly everything he said to be utterly wrong. I have to say to him that I thought his contribution was intellectually disingenuous—probably the most intellectually disingenuous contribution I have heard since I became an MP. He made sweeping statements, very few of which were backed up by any empirical evidence. I consider it the duty of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to distance himself very strongly from those statements, unless he has seen the evidence that backs up those claims.

[Mark Pritchard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and compliments. On his latter points, can he give a specific example and provide the counterview to that example that he thinks should be put?

[Mr Watson]

No, I will not be doing that. I have limited time and my real reason for being here today is to talk about the Metropolitan police and their conduct of the inquiry into phone hacking by the News of the World.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, mentioned that it would be nice if chief officers replied to MPs’ letters. Given the national interest in the issue, I would like to gently chastise the Metropolitan police for their failure to respond to what I thought was quite an important letter that I sent to Sir Paul Stephenson on 3 September. In the letter, I asked whether every person whose phone was listed in the Glenn Mulcaire evidence file was informed that they were a target of hacking; and, if they were not informed, who decided, according to what criteria and on what authority, which names were to be investigated and which were to be ignored?

When it became public that a Metropolitan police officer, Michael Fuller, was also on Glenn Mulcaire’s list, I was extremely concerned that Met police officers themselves did not know that they might have been the target of phone hacking. I therefore asked Sir Paul Stephenson if he would confirm how many Metropolitan police officers were on the Mulcaire files. He has not responded.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Watson]

I would like to make my point first. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention at the end of my speech.

I also asked why people on the Mulcaire list were not informed and how many people were on the list of the Mulcaire evidence file, because that is still not in the public domain. Many Members of Parliament were on the Mulcaire lists. We still do not know how many and I do not know if all the Members of Parliament on that list have yet been informed. I asked Sir Paul Stephenson to answer that and to confirm who decided which Members of Parliament should be notified, according to what criteria, and on whose authority. He has not responded. I also asked Sir Paul Stephenson to confirm which victims were selected to be notified and on what criteria. There are a lot of unanswered questions in relation to the Metropolitan police inquiry.

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Watson]

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention later, if he will be a little patient.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

On a point of order, Mr Bayley. Given that we learned today that the Metropolitan police have specifically, in relation to the case raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), sought evidence from The Guardian newspaper, I seek your guidance on the issue of sub judice. I do not want to fetter the hon. Gentleman’s discretion to raise these issues, but I am concerned that he may be transgressing the rules of the House on sub judice in relation to that ongoing police investigation.

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

If the matter is not before the courts, it cannot be sub judice. What the hon. Gentleman has raised is a matter for debate. If we have time and he wishes to speak, he might be able to make a contribution.

[Mr Watson]

Thank you, Mr Bayley. I would not dream of attempting to transgress the rules of the House on sub judice. I simply seek to get the facts, and not enough of the facts are in the public domain.

The Minister has it in his power to cast light on this sorry tale. He could review the Metropolitan police advice to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and thus be confident in his own mind about whether the DPP was given all the evidence required to bring appropriate cases. If the Minister wanted to, he could ask an external police service to investigate the conduct of the inquiry by the Metropolitan police. I would like him to acknowledge whether that is an option he is considering taking. He could, if he wanted to, talk to the Prime Minister about the potential for a judicial inquiry into the conduct of this case.

Members of Parliament, senior police officers, senior members of the military, the heir to the throne and leading celebrities have been the target of criminal activity on an industrial scale by News International journalists, and that has not been adequately investigated. So in today’s debate on trust in the police, I would like to say that I have absolute confidence in the police’s ability to get to the truth.

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Gentleman is being as gracious as ever and I am grateful to him for giving way. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) rightly said that he did not want to play “party politics” with this debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not attempting to do that, but I fear he is perhaps straying into party politics. I think he is at his very best when he is representing the interests of his constituents in West Bromwich—where, if he looks at the latest statistics, he will see that burglary has increased—who are concerned about and have a real fear of crime, rather than trying to make wild accusations and party political points on a very narrow matter. Let us stick to the debate on the important topic of public trust in the police that is important to his constituents and, indeed, throughout the country.

[Mr Watson]

I do not believe that that was a question; it was a statement. I cannot recall one word of any of my sentences that was of a party political nature. I seek to get to the facts after a unanimous inquiry conducted by my own Select Committee—the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport—and the establishment of two further inquiries agreed by both Front Benches in Parliament.

To sum up, will the Minister let me know whether he sees merit in an investigation into the conduct of the Metropolitan police inquiry into phone hacking?

15:38

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing what has turned into a wide-ranging debate on an important subject: public trust in police forces, a subject that is quite distinct from the effectiveness of police forces. Some of the points that he made are very pertinent. It is clear that there are serious problems in the organisation of police forces: for example, the block on good officers developing and being promoted, especially to sergeant, that first hurdle of promotion. The 30-year limit on the service of police officers and the cost of the generous pension system are also issues. However, we must be careful not to damage the way policing works when we discuss whether that is effective or not. We need young, fit and able officers, but we also need the huge experience of older and perhaps less fit officers, who can often defuse situations, negating the need for a chase in the first place.

I want to concentrate on some of the factors that I feel have contributed to the decline in public trust in the police service over recent decades. The central question to which we inevitably return when discussing policing, and with which I have wrestled for 20 years since starting as a serving police officer, is: what are the police for? I must admit that 20 years ago I held a narrow view of police functions, having had the relevant sections of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 drilled into me. Much of that Act deals specifically with crime and its prevention, but it contains nothing about increasing public trust in the police. It was my firm belief then that it was the role of politicians, not the police, to deal with the fear of crime.

However, it should not come as too much of a surprise that, now that I am a politician, my view has changed substantially, although my experiences over the past 20 years have fed that change of mind. Back then I served as a beat officer, focusing entirely on crime, and community officers dealt in the main with building links with local communities, schools and businesses. When officers were needed to police demonstrations or football matches, it was generally those community officers whose duties were changed, not mine, which reflected the absolute focus on crime.

That has continued over the past 20 years, unfortunately aided and abetted by the previous Government’s top-down focus. For the 13 years Labour was in government, it continually undermined local police forces by creating central crime targets dictated from Whitehall. That means that the Home Office now judges a police force on how many crimes it detects and clears up. That measurement is the opposite of what I think we should be looking for from local police services.

The public do not necessarily want the police to be good only at solving crimes after they have been committed; they also want them to be good at preventing them. When I started serving, it was considered to be a good night when a PC came back from the beat and no crime had been committed and no victims had suffered loss or injury. With Whitehall targets, it is now considered to be better for a PC to have spent an entire eight-hour shift dealing with arrests, regardless of the nature of the offence. That culture of central target setting has put pressure on officers to behave in ways in which they might not otherwise choose to act, focusing on otherwise minor offences in order to reach targets and criminalising many groups that have traditionally been supporters of the police. That is not new. I remember being taken as a probationary constable to a local shopping centre in Edinburgh to be shown by my sergeant how easy it was to catch people as they left the car park without having put their seatbelts on. Remote target setting has many such unintended consequences.

New responsibilities have been placed on police forces, such as the recently scrapped policing pledge and confidence targets. More than 4,600 new criminal offences have been created since 1997—more than 28 a month. All that massively increases bureaucracy and overloads police officers with paperwork, removing them from the streets where the public time and again say they want to see them. Surveys continue to show that many people’s top priority for policing is to see more bobbies on the beat.

Those new responsibilities also serve to promote the indiscriminate targeting of groups, using methods that are unacceptable to the public but which police forces may feel they can justify through the potential rewards of producing statistics that show how they are dealing with a particular Government priority. A recent example saw residents in Birmingham’s Sparkbrook and Washwood Heath neighbourhoods told that hundreds of CCTV cameras and automatic number plate-reading cameras were being installed to monitor speeding vehicles and antisocial behaviour among youths. Just days before the cameras were turned on, however, an investigative reporter found that those cameras were to be used by the Home Office and MI5 to monitor people entering and leaving those predominantly Muslim areas.

A follow-up report by the Thames Valley police commissioner gave a damning assessment showing that officers failed to comply with national CCTV regulations or to conduct proper consultation. They did not obtain statutory clearance for the use of covert cameras and there was little evidence that officers had even considered their legal obligations. Furthermore, attempts by the police to conceal the true purpose of the project caused significant damage to community relations, with one community leader reporting that relations had fallen back by at least a decade.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

With all due respect, it is easy with hindsight to criticise West Midlands police for that operation, but we do not know, and never will, what potential terrorist or criminal outrage that surveillance may have prevented. It is slightly unfair of my hon. Friend to take that case in isolation, because it is the duty of all police forces to remain utterly vigilant in an age of international and national terrorism.

[Mike Crockart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point, but that is the defence that is used when none other can be found: “We know things that you don’t.” In fact, what is being said is: “We may know things that you don’t.” That justifies any means by which communities are policed, which simply is not acceptable. Clear guidelines have been laid down for looking into those offences. We are having a major review of much of the terrorist legislation that is being used for such measures. I hope that we reach a position where we can deal effectively with such concerns and potential problems without using the types of behaviour that have damaged public trust in that police service.

Another example, highlighted this week in The Guardian, demonstrates the far more serious flipside of the racial problem outlined by the hon. Member for The Wrekin in relation to policing and justice more generally. It showed that, per capita, seven times as many black Britons were incarcerated than white Britons, which is an even higher ratio than in the United States, where four times as many black people are in prison than white people. Those data, which come from the recently published Equality and Human Rights Commission report on fairness in Britain, show just how much of an effect decades of racial prejudice in the criminal justice system have had on the black community. Another figure that is particularly striking, and that again goes to the heart of the targets culture, shows that black Britons constituted 15% of the stop and searches in Britain in 2008, despite making up only 3% of the population.

All the factors that I have outlined contributed to public confidence reaching new lows. In response to that, Labour again reverted to type, refusing to acknowledge that central meddling was the culprit, and tried to deal with the problem through targets, setting a target for improving confidence in forces’ local crime and disorder-fighting strategies by a minimum of 12%. It also set a national confidence target, to be measured by annual surveys.

What is the answer? How do we reconnect the police with the public they serve? There must be a wholesale revision of the interaction between the police and the public. The coalition’s plans to bring in locally elected police commissioners is certainly a step in the right direction, and there is certainly something to be said for increasing the local accountability of police forces. If communities are involved, they will be able to have more input into the priorities of local police forces, which will go a long way towards restoring trust in the force.

[Keith Vaz]

I ask the hon. Gentleman the following question because he is a former senior officer: does he think that, within the proposals for elected police commissioners, operational independence is guaranteed?

[Mike Crockart]

As it stands, the position is that operational independence must be maintained, and I would argue that it must be sacrosanct. To a large extent, operational decisions have to be made quickly, but that may not be possible under new structures. The amount of information that is needed to make such decisions is immediately available to senior police officers, and they are absolutely the right people to make those decisions.

I have some concerns about the detail of the scheme. I feel that it is probably not local enough, so I hope, as we have urged in our submission to the Home Office, that the plans will be trialled to ensure their effectiveness. It is clear that accountability for policing priorities and dialogue between the consumers of policing and the providers of it need to happen at a much lower level, and in a much more regular and inclusive way. Only by doing that will we restore a degree of public trust in the police and, in so doing, re-establish the principle of policing by consent. That will ultimately answer my original question, what are the police for? This is about working with and in communities to improve people’s lives.

15:49

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. As in the film, I am back to the future in coming back to a role that I had 15 months ago. It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, still in his place. He made his contribution in the thoughtful way in which he normally tries to take forward debates. Many of us will be in Cannock Chase to contribute to the seminar that he has arranged. Some interesting points have been made, and I would like to deal with some of them before the Minister responds.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) made some important points and discussed important challenges for the police. The concern that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), I and one or two others have is that, despite the hon. Member for The Wrekin’s making a caveat at the beginning and end of his remarks, about individual cases and about casting aspersions on the whole police service, some of the high-profile cases and incidents to which he referred do just that.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) asked why fear of crime goes up when crime is actually falling. I shall refer to that further in a minute. If a particular problem or scandal is splashed all over the newspapers every day—such things should be publicised, of course; I am not saying that they should not—that is what happens.

I was the police Minister when we had the horrific spike in knife and gun crime. Unfortunately, I understand from the figures that there is some suggestion that it is happening again this year. One would go to areas of the country where there had not been a stabbing for years, yet people were frightened of being stabbed.

The language and tone of any debate about trust and confidence in the police are fundamental; that was the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East referred. He raised several serious issues. No one would condone corruption, brutality or police officers thinking that they are above the law. That is why my hon. Friend gets so cross about the phone hacking, and why he wants answers and a proper discussion of the matter. At the end of the day, it is knowledge that enables public trust.

The House of Commons Library pack to inform this debate on public trust in police forces is excellent. It highlights several unacceptable things that have happened and which have seriously undermined confidence and trust in various areas. However, if we let those become the narrative and the story for the whole of the police, we will have a real problem.

I have the Home Office’s crime statistics from July, which were published by the Minister. He needs to answer this question, because it goes to the heart of the matter. One of the reasons why people do not believe the crime statistics is that politicians often play around with them and pick out bits that prove their points. If they do that, why should people believe the statistics?

According to the British crime survey, crime has reduced by one half since 1995. Does the Minister agree with that? The report states:

“The most striking new finding within this report is that both the 2009/10 BCS and police recorded crime are consistent in showing falls in overall crime compared with 2008/09. Overall BCS crime decreased by nine per cent…and police recorded crime by eight per cent”.

Does the Minister agree with that?

Does the Minister agree that the same report shows that the fear of crime is going up, despite those figures? That is exactly the point that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot made. I am trying not to be party political, but, to be honest, when the new Government saw the figures, they took the bit that was not such good news and headlined it, rather than going for a big banner headline that crime fell by one half since 1995 and that recorded crime and BCS crime were down by 9%. Is not that one of the things that we should be doing, instead of tucking it away in a little press release? That is part of the problem.

We have to use the figures and what the crime statistics tell us. The UK Statistics Authority said that the crime statistics are reliable and that therefore we should use them more than we do.

[Mark Pritchard]

I dispute some of the hon. Gentleman’s suppositions and comments, but if he accepts that the current statistics are complex and confusing, and that there is a variety of ways to collect data on a range of things that the police deal with, why did he not make changes when he was the police Minister?

[Vernon Coaker]

The point I am making is not so much that the statistics are confusing but that people pick out bits from them to prove their point. The overall crime statistics reflected in both the BCS and recorded crime figures show significant falls in crime. What should we do, if we want to ensure people’s trust and confidence in the police? What confidence can one have in the police?

At a recent conference, the Home Secretary said that the biggest factor was whether crime is falling in police force areas. She said that that is the measure that we should use to give the public confidence and trust in their police force, and to know whether police forces are being effective.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about crime falling in her area. That has to be the banner headline. If we try to undermine the statistics all the time, it is no wonder that people’s fear of crime rises.

In discussing how we keep confidence and trust, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said that some aspects are not hugely difficult. What seems to be difficult is for it to happen in every community in the country consistently and persistently. The things that drive confidence and trust are neighbourhood policing and a visible police presence, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) said. There will be a debate about whether that has happened or not, but we need neighbourhood policing, visible policing and police being around and responding properly when phone calls are made about antisocial behaviour by a few kids on the street.

We are all constituency MPs. How many people come to us about terrorist incidents? Not many. How many come to us because they phoned up about what may seem a trivial incident but, to the member of the public, is fundamental? If that is responded to, even though it may seem trivial, confidence and trust in the police go up. People are not stupid. They know that sometimes things are difficult to deal with, but they expect that if they are worried about a kid who keeps banging on their door, somebody will say, “Yes, it should not happen. We are very sorry.” In the best cases—in an increasing number of cases—the police are recognising that and responding in the way that we would all want.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West discussed the targets set by central Government, which he felt were unhelpful to policing. However, as I mentioned in my speech, during the previous Administration I found that central Government were able to pass on good practice. From his experience, does my hon. Friend believe that it could have been done better? There needs to be a better understanding of the fact that the Home Office has a role in ensuring that good practice in one part of the country is occurring elsewhere. If it does not have such a role, who does?

[Vernon Coaker]

I was coming to the point about good practice. My right hon. Friend is right. The Home Office does have a role, as do the police, police authorities and others, in disseminating good practice and good information. We have talked before about good community engagement, good communication, informing people about what is going on and having meetings. All those things are fundamentally important, as is answering letters, and so on.

The Home Office has a responsibility for disseminating information, whether through websites or in other ways. I am interested in whether the Minister believes that that is so and whether he will deal with some of the issues that right hon. and hon. Members have raised this afternoon, notwithstanding his not agreeing with certain cultures and targets. What role does he think the Home Office has to play in driving up confidence and helping restore trust?

Briefly, on trust and confidence, my experience is that the Minister has responsibility both for police and criminal justice. In respect of confidence and trust in the police, the issue is not only about what the police do, but what other bodies, including local authorities and local councils, do. What those bodies do drives trust as well. For example, the clearing up of graffiti and things like that makes a difference.

How the police interact with the criminal justice system is fundamental. There is a big issue here. Sometimes the police get blamed for the criminal justice system not working effectively with respect to the police. We need to get better in respect of one thing in particular. One of the biggest confidence and trust builders is for local people to know that somebody who is causing real problems in their area, and is arrested by the police and taken to court, has been dealt with by the courts and taken through the criminal justice process.

I should be interested in hearing what the Minister expects from the spending review. Other hon. Members have mentioned what will happen with respect to the coming cuts. We have all talked about visible policing and the importance of officers on the beat. How on earth are we going to maintain police numbers and the current numbers of police community support officers? How are we going to cut bureaucracy if police staff are going to go? What will happen to the number of police stations? What will happen to police station opening hours? What will happen to confidence and trust in an environment where all that is happening?

We are talking about trust and confidence in the police. Part of the modernisation of the police has been the establishment of a number of specialist units, which some people regard as a waste but I think are fundamental. Domestic violence would not have been tackled to the extent that it has were it not for the training and development of specialist domestic violence units in many police force areas.

The same is true of sexual violence. Victims of sexual violence want to know that a specialist officer is dealing with the case. What is happening to child protection? All those things are fundamental. If we want confidence and trust, it is all very well to say that that should be mainstreamed into police business and into their main work, but often when that happens there is a loss of focus with regard to such matters.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East mentioned the new national crime agency, which is supposed to take in the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the National Policing Improvement Agency. I thought that the national crime agency was to be an operational crime-fighting body. The NPIA deals with training, the police national computer and so on. Why would something like that be put into the NCA? If people are to have confidence in the NCA, they want to see a crime-fighting body, not one that encapsulates some of the necessary functions of the NPIA.

Finally, on accountability, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West mentioned elected police commissioners, said that he went along with that proposal and then slightly qualified what he said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East asked whether those commissioners would have operational independence. We oppose the creation of elected police commissioners. First, will the Minister clarify whether the Government’s policy is still, as it was when they were in opposition, to have the power of recall so that another election, to get somebody acceptable, can be held if somebody unsatisfactory is elected as a police commissioner?

Secondly, if the police are still operationally independent, which they should be, of course, what can an elected police commissioner do if he does not agree with what the chief constable does? If the chief constable operates ineffectively, either the commissioner can do something about it or he cannot. How can the elected police commissioner be held accountable if the chief constable is operationally independent—something over which the commissioner has no influence? What will the role of the elected police commissioner be with respect to a chief constable, if the former sees the latter acting unsatisfactorily?

I shall finish where I started, by congratulating the hon. Member for The Wrekin on prompting the debate. He raised some real issues, as did other hon. Members. I say to all police officers out there that the vast majority do a good job in difficult circumstances and they have the full support of every Member of Parliament, notwithstanding some of the difficult incidents that we hear, see and read about. We know that there are bad officers, but we also know that they are not a reflection on the police force as a whole.

16:06

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this debate, on putting his case with his customary clarity and forcefulness and on initiating a debate, to which many right hon. and hon. Members have enjoyed contributing, on a matter that is close to our hearts —the performance of our local police forces and their ability to deal with crime, which is still of great concern throughout the country.

First, I should like to pick up on the last point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and, in doing so, congratulate him on his new position as shadow Police Minister, which is particularly interesting for him as former Police Minister. He will bring an alarming amount of experience and knowledge to bear and will, I am sure, hold the Government to account through a challenging period for policing. I look forward to working with him as constructively as we can in the weeks and months ahead. I shall return to that subject when talking about crime statistics.

The hon. Gentleman recognises that the overwhelming majority of police officers could not be characterised in any way by some of the things that have been said during this debate. I echo that. I am conscious that, in the past few weeks and months, we have talked about police reform, the challenging spending environment and about the decisions ahead that need to be taken, and that we can lose sight of the fact that, every day, police officers throughout the country work hard to keep all of us safe. The overwhelming majority of them act with impartiality and integrity. Sometimes sufficient tribute is not paid to the work that they do. I should like formally to thank them.

Those of us who recently attended the national police memorial day service in Belfast or the police bravery awards and spoke to the relatives of police officers who lost their lives doing their duty in the past year, including PC Bill Barker, who was swept away when attempting to help people on a bridge in Cumbria during the floods, could not have failed to be anything but struck by the heroism and professionalism of the police and be reminded of the job that they do for us. In the course of this debate about police legitimacy, conduct and accountability, how they respond to us, and their links with the public, we should remember all those officers and what they do. We should recognise that this is a period of uncertainty for people who work in our public services, including police officers, and we should be sensitive to that.

Although I disagree with some of my hon. Friend’s sharper points, the issue, which is essentially trust and legitimacy, is a proper one to raise. He referred to Sir Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing, and quoted his famous seventh principle of policing that

“the police are the public and the public are the police”.

My hon. Friend might have quoted Sir Robert’s second principle:

“The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”

In this country, we have a tradition that policing is not only carried out by consent, but that it flows from the fact that the police are of their communities and have the active support of the public. When that support has ebbed away in specific circumstances, policing has gone wrong. We saw that in the past in the way in which the police interacted with black and ethnic minority communities. When confidence in policing goes, legitimacy also goes. Our leaders in the police service are acutely aware of that important link between confidence and legitimacy.

It may help hon. Members if I add a few metrics to the debate to provide an understanding of the extent to which the public have confidence in the police. The last British crime survey found that overall public confidence in their local police was 69%. That may seem to be high, and is certainly much higher than public confidence in, for example, our profession as Members of Parliament and the media; nevertheless, 30% of respondents said that they did not have confidence in their local police overall. Other figures should make us pause: for example, 50% agreed that the police could be relied on to be present when they were needed, and less than half—48%—agreed that the police could be relied on to deal with minor crimes.

I welcome the fact that the same survey showed that the proportion of people who believe that the police in their area are doing a good or excellent job rose from 49% in 2004-05 to 56% in 2009-10. A majority of the public believe that the police in their area are doing a good or excellent job, but a significant minority do not. On public confidence in the police and local councils, there is a problem with questions that link the actions of both. It is difficult to disaggregate responsibility when they deal with crime and antisocial behaviour issues that matter locally, but only around half of respondents to the survey had confidence in the police and local councils together.

That suggests a number of issues on which we should pause to reflect in the relationship of the police with the public. First, hon. Members have mentioned specific incidents that gave rise to public concern. In every case, there were proper investigations by the authorities and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but they left an impression—

[Mr Watson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will respond to his points.

There is a danger, as the hon. Member for Gedling said, that such incidents create a damaging impression of policing as a whole. The problem is accountability. We live in the age of accountability, and people expect institutions and individuals who hold office to be properly and transparently answerable to them. That is right. We must have a system for complaints and the public must be able to take up issues if they believe that police performance has fallen down. We must have an overall system of answerability that commands public confidence and strengthens the links between the police and the public.

The thrust of our proposed reforms is to rebuild the bridge between the police and the public, and in particular to recognise that police forces sprang from local communities. We have never had a national police force in this country. Police legitimacy essentially flows from consent in those communities, and we want to loosen the central grip on policing that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) described and, in exchange, strengthen forces’ local accountability.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister refers to accountability. Does he accept that there is concern among the public, the rank and file in the police and certainly among senior and chief officers that it is difficult to sack police officers who are not doing their job correctly? Will he respond to my earlier comments and say that he will consider the matter, whether it will be part of the review, and whether we can get rid of some of the police officers who are doing such damage to the reputation of the police service?

[Nick Herbert]

I apologise to my hon. Friend, I will certainly respond to the specific points that he raised, but the review into police pay and conditions, which will be led by the former rail regulator, Tom Winsor, has a free rein to consider all such matters, and the way in which police officers are employed should certainly be one. People are free to offer their views to Tom Winsor and his fellow reviewers. That is reasonable, particularly given the scale of the fiscal and other challenges facing the police and their leaders

I turn to the reforms and the specific points made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. A key element of our reforms is that police and crime commissioners should be directly elected, thus strengthening the bond between people and the police, and allowing local forces to be held to account. We also intend to introduce transparency. The public should know more about what is happening with crime in their area, and they should know how money is spent by police forces. That principle of transparency should apply throughout the criminal justice system, and from January 2011 we will introduce crime mapping at street level to provide the public with more information about what is happening in their area.

On crime statistics, I agree that we need a non-partisan debate. It is important to build public confidence in statistics, and the political trade about them has been unfortunate. Local crime mapping will give the public unimpeachable information that is directly relevant. I am afraid that national crime statistics are becoming less and less relevant because they are not believed. We have two measures of crime, but the recorded crime figures are susceptible to alteration and the way the figures are collected has been changed, and the British crime survey misses out large sections of crime.

I would like to return the challenge. I am relatively new to my position, and the hon. Member for Gedling is relatively new to his. If he would like a sensible discussion about how we can collect crime figures, so that in future months we do not have a dispute about the figures but talk instead about policy and what lies behind those figures, my door is open. That would be a sensible thing to do.

[Keith Vaz]

Hear, hear.

[Nick Herbert]

I note the intervention from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. That is a genuine offer; this is the moment to make such a move.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin talked about leadership, and I strongly agree with him about the value of leadership in policing. We have asked the former chief constable of Thames Valley police and chief executive of the National Policing Improvement Agency, Peter Neyroud, to conduct a study into how we can ensure the right leadership and training in the police. In the end, however, that must rest with the police themselves. Part of the reforms that we wish to introduce concerns the reform of the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that it takes responsibility for such matters in an accountable manner.

My hon. Friend also called for a review of agencies and quangos, and he will be hearing a great deal more about that in due course. We have proposed a decluttering of the landscape surrounding policing by winding up the National Policing Improvement Agency and taking those functions to a new national crime agency.

On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I will of course pay attention to all issues and concerns that are raised by people about the whole spectrum of reforms to policing. As he will know, I have been attending to those issues, and I have taken care to pay attention to the views of stakeholders, police organisations and so on.

[Mr Watson]

There are 30 seconds to go. I asked whether the Minister thinks there are merits in having an outside force investigate the conduct of the Metropolitan police inquiry into phone hacking. Will he respond to that point?

[Nick Herbert]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I am running out of time. He has raised such matters before. It was and remains a matter for the police, who have made it clear that they will consider fresh information if it emerges. That is precisely what they are doing, and it is right to await their conclusion. Those matters have been debated in the House and are now subject to investigations by two Select Committees. The right way forward is to await the outcome of those latest inquiries.

In conclusion, I believe that the debate about how we structure our police in the future is important. The Government reforms are intended to ensure that we have a strong connection between the police and the public.

Onshore Wind Turbines

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

16:23

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

I hope that there will be a number of interventions from colleagues, so I do not intend to fill my 15 minutes; other hon. Members might want to speak. I believe that the Government urgently need to reassess their views about the production of onshore wind power.

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets into his stride, I should say that the rules governing 30-minute debates allow for interventions on the hon. Gentleman, or the Minister when he replies, but I have not been notified of an agreement between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for others to speak. Therefore, if colleagues plan to open their mouths during this debate, it will have to be in the form of an intervention. I hope that that is helpful, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his speech.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Thank you for clarifying that for me, Mr Bayley. This is my first Adjournment debate and I had no idea what the rules were. Over the next few minutes I will try to explain why I think that the Government need to change their position on onshore wind—I will obviously speak for slightly longer than the eight or nine minutes on which I was planning, but perhaps Members who would like to intervene can help out.

I have a number of questions about that area of policy. The current official Government figure for carbon displacement by wind power assumes that wind power can replace conventional generation at 100% efficiency. That is clearly unrealistic in view of the technical challenges of incorporating an intermittent and highly variable power source into a strictly managed supply system. Reports from Denmark and Germany suggest that the carbon costs of absorbing wind power into the grid are substantial. I assume that that is also true for the UK.

A substantial proportion of electrical power demand is continuous—the base load. The balance is required to respond to demand that fluctuates in many ways, including seasonally, instantaneously, or even at the end of an England game—or, if it was last night’s game, not at all. There is no effective or economic way of storing energy on a large scale. Therefore, we have a number of conundrums. The key responsibility of the grid is to ensure that the demand for power is met at all times. That is achieved by ensuring the availability of capacity when needed, and avoiding the generation of unusable power.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I assure hon. Members that I have approached my hon. Friend in person and sought his leave to speak. As he gets into his speech, does he agree that one of the most inefficient uses of wind power, and the most damaging to the local environment, happens when there are one or two isolated wind turbines that are close to urban conurbations, as is proposed at Desford in my Leicestershire constituency? Does he agree that a suitable solution would be to have a fixed distance between habitations and those wind turbines?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If we believe in localism, surely we believe that local councils should be able to set distances between renewable energy projects and dwellings. I like to think that such a measure would be contained in any localism Bill that the Government bring forward, and I would argue strongly for that.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Is not the problem the fact that the determination of where such things are sited is left to local planning authorities? It would be helpful to have guidance that enabled local planning authorities to form a view. The lack of direction from the Government on the issue means that there is massive uncertainty for local residents. Two applications in my constituency have just been made, but residents have no idea about the likelihood of them being determined. The second problem with a lack of national strategy is that local authorities duplicate their efforts in gathering information to form their own individual policies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that matter urgently needs to be looked at?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I certainly agree. In my constituency, Daventry district council will look tomorrow evening at adopting a policy. It is happy to be challenged about the distance that dwellings should have to be from renewable energy projects. All local authorities should develop such a plan because it is local people who should buy into these things.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

As we are aware, there is guidance in Scotland, which is manifestly different from the position in England. Does my hon. Friend agree that the right way forward would be the adoption of the guidance that exists in Scotland, which protects the 2 km from people’s houses on an ongoing basis? If we had that, everything would be a lot simpler.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will talk about that point later. It is significant and important with regard to issues of noise and flicker, which I will come on to.

I believe that wind is a burden on the grid. It forces other forms of capacity to be shut down to accommodate wind production when the wind is blowing, and then instantaneously to come back on line when the wind stops. I would like to ask the Minister how much additional gas-fired power capacity—that is the only way that we can power up instantaneously—will be required to accommodate the current targets for wind capacity in the UK? What is the anticipated cost to the electricity markets in lost efficiency and stranded capacity associated with gas-fired plants operating as back-up for wind power? Will the Minister outline the efficiency losses, and the operational and economic impact on other forms of generation that have to modify their behaviour to accommodate the power that comes from wind?

Taking all those factors into account, will the Minister state how many grams of carbon dioxide, or just carbon in general, onshore wind will save per kilowatt hour? Is it not the case that, without massive hydro or other bulk storage, wind capacity must be matched on the UK grid almost megawatt for megawatt by fossil back-up operating at inefficient part load?

RenewableUK has publicly acknowledged that profits for wind farm operators are impressively large. That is largely a consequence of the operation of the indirect renewables obligation subsidy mechanism.

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

Is not the crux of the problem the huge amounts of subsidy involved in operating wind farms, as my hon. Friend is explaining? I understand that it is in the region of £20,000 per mast to the landowner per annum and £100,000 possibly to the operator. That is what is driving the keenness to build wind farms, and we are in real danger of the sustainable tail wagging the energy dog.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree. In 2006, the National Audit Office highlighted the fact that the subsidy for onshore wind was excessive and gave poor value as a carbon-saving measure. Those costs are borne by the electricity consumer, and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets has questioned whether the growing level of that indirect and regressive taxation is acceptable.

The high profitability for onshore wind is skewing renewables investment across our country towards onshore wind and away from research and development for other technologies and other remedies such as energy saving and consumption reduction. It is also, as my hon. Friends have mentioned in relation to each of their constituencies, encouraging large numbers of speculative applications for wind farms.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in relation to wind turbines in urban areas and on industrial estates, certain criteria are needed? In rural communities, different criteria are needed. Does he accept that when it comes to finding the correct locations for wind turbines, there is a different balance to be struck for different areas? Different rules apply to different places.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am not against renewables at all, but I do think that we should try to encourage local communities to buy into these. At the moment, there are speculative applications. A new type of subsidy farming is going on across the United Kingdom.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in our two neighbouring constituencies, the advantage of taxpayer subsidy for these wind farms is encouraging speculative developers to come to not particularly windy places, presumably in the interest of making a few fast pounds on the back of the taxpayer, with no real interest in trying to help the grid and renewables whatever?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I always agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour—I would be foolish not to. Just to prove the point, Northamptonshire is one of the least windy places in the country, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), there is a wind farm at Burton Wold that is operating at 19% capacity on average. That is not helping us to deal with our carbon problem.

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

While we are thinking about the size of the subsidy and the effect on the behaviour of both landowner and operator, does my hon. Friend agree that it is leading to progressively less responsible investment? The example that I want to raise affects both my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and me. In my county of East Yorkshire, there have been wind farms of enormous size—400 feet; 125 metres; 40 storeys tall—getting closer and closer to dwellings and, now, less than half a mile from a dwelling. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) agree that the sheer size of the subsidy is leading to irresponsible investment?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I absolutely concur with my right hon. Friend.

Do the Government believe that the renewables obligation banding for onshore wind is sustainable, necessary or good value for money? Have they considered the effects of the renewables obligation banding in inhibiting renewable diversification? Will the Minister agree at least to conduct a review of the banding for onshore wind?

Noise is a problem that many of our constituents fear when it comes to onshore wind. Different studies show that about 20% of all wind farms constructed in the UK trigger quite serious noise complaints. Since 2009, the wind industry has adopted a new noise modelling scheme that predicts acceptable noise levels much closer to dwellings, leading to planning applications coming forward with big turbines very close to dwellings. There are fewer proposals in remote locations and, as we have just heard, modern turbines are getting bigger.

The Minister knows that his Department commissioned a report. I apologise: it was not his Department, but the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The report was on amplitude modulation and in effect concluded that it was not cost-effective to research wind farm noise problems because only a few people suffer from them. That is patently not the case. However, as the Minister knows, his Department was caught out by a freedom of information request that revealed that in 2006 it had instructed the Hayes McKenzie Partnership to remove from a report a recommendation that acceptable night-time noise levels should be reduced.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to make an intervention on a subject that has not been mentioned but is relevant to my constituency. In my constituency, there are proposals from Peel Energy to build a large-scale wind farm on the marshes between the Mersey estuary and the villages of Frodsham and Helsby. Those proposals would not just result in the ruin of a beautiful area of Cheshire countryside, but lead to the destruction of wetlands that provide a habitat for numerous species of rare birds. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure me that the Secretary of State takes such factors into account when determining these types of application. Some of the structures end up being very close to areas of outstanding natural beauty.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am sure that Ministers will have heard my hon. Friend’s very sensible plea for areas of scientific interest to be looked after.

I was talking about noise. Some of us just do not believe that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is promoting wind farms, and not inhibiting them, by trying to force new noise criteria on the whole country. It is slightly worrying that the Hayes McKenzie Partnership has been commissioned by DECC to carry out the new noise review that the Minister recently announced. The science around noise seems to be a very moveable feast.

It is my contention that onshore wind diverts valuable resources from other renewables that do work and that people like. In my constituency alone, if we diverted the money that might well be spent on wind power towards other things, such as air source or ground source heat pumps and home insulation, we might well be able to insulate just about every house in the constituency and get people to buy in to this.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important subject. It is important, not least in my constituency, where we are struggling with a tidal wave of applications for both onshore turbines and the infrastructure to support offshore turbines, which are often put forward by speculative developers. There is an issue in that respect about the planning guidance. I agree entirely with him about the importance of securing our short-term energy requirements, but also of setting out a proper scientific framework for measuring the different renewable sources that this country could thrive on. Does he agree with me about the importance of identifying those that this country could lead on in a global context? That may not include wind.

Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Leader of the Opposition’s statement of 2009 in a documentary when he was Climate Change Secretary, in which he said that it should be “socially unacceptable” for people to be against wind turbines in their area, like not wearing their seat belt or driving past a zebra crossing, is an unhelpful position and one that, now that he is Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, he might like to review?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I completely concur.

I want to wind up by saying—

[Mr David Davis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way twice to me. I want to pick him up on his kindness to Hayes McKenzie and his gentle language about what was, without doubt, a cover-up of the World Health Organisation guidelines, which said that people, when they sleep, should have an environment at 30 dB. What was said by the Government was something much louder than that—35 to 40 dB. That was a very bad cover-up. Hayes McKenzie was clearly complicit, because it did not put in the public domain what was said. I would like my hon. Friend to tell me whether he thinks that Ministers should undertake to make all the information put forward, in whatever review they do, available in the public domain without limitation or edit.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I would very much welcome the Minister committing to that. Indeed, I have asked him about whether there are secondments from the noise industry to DECC at the moment, and I believe that the reply I got was slightly incorrect. I will contact the Minister.

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I would like the Minister to have time to reply.

There are particular issues with the science behind noise and how DECC handles its contracts and contractors.

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. The comment about the Minister needing time to reply is an extremely good one.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Thank you very much, Mr Bayley; I was about to sit down.

16:40

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on securing the debate. It is a great shame for the whole House that he did not get an hour-and-a-half debate, because there is no doubt that he and the Members here today could have filled the time.

In the remaining 13 minutes I want to go through the issues raised so far and put them in the context of the role that wind has to play in our energy security and our move to a low-carbon economy. I assure my hon. Friend that I understand the concerns that he and others have raised, and as Minister I have taken some of the actions that are designed specifically to address them. Wind has a contribution to make and an integral part to play in dealing with energy security and tackling climate change. We cannot separate security of supply from a low-carbon economy, we cannot have security of supply without a low-carbon economy and we cannot have a low-carbon economy without security of supply. We see those elements as going together, and without them we will not have affordable pricing.

As hon. Members know, we have seen significant growth in the deployment of onshore wind in this country and we expect it to increase over the years ahead. It will be a low-carbon technology that makes the most significant contribution to enabling us to meet our low-carbon commitments in future, but that must be done in a way that takes account of the views of local communities, and one of the most important changes we shall make will address that: people will see the benefits accrue to their communities from hosting facilities that they may not have chosen.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Charles Hendry]

I will give way this once, but I am concerned about answering the questions already raised.

[Julian Smith]

Is the Minister shocked at the behaviour of some wind companies? Speaking for my constituents, the bullying of local communities, particularly in rural areas, by wind companies has been shocking. I would appreciate his comments on that.

[Charles Hendry]

I am not aware of the specific cases to which my hon. Friend refers. If he writes to me, I will be more than happy to look into them.

We have to move to a greater spirit of partnership so that communities can see precisely what they would get out of hosting a facility and realise that genuine benefits would come to them—not necessarily from a wind farm but from other facilities, as well. Other countries have gone down a similar route and we are learning from the approaches that they have taken. We have also seen the significant number of green jobs generated here, albeit not as many as we would have wished from the supply-chain benefits coming to the United Kingdom, and the potential that that brings

I realise that my hon. Friends who contributed to the debate are less concerned about that aspect than they are about the implications of onshore wind for their constituencies, so I particularly want to address those issues. We have seen the benefits from offshore wind, but we recognise that communities often feel concerned that proposed wind farms in their areas will destroy the environment or have other negative impacts. We are convinced that, in the policy of localism that we are going to drive forward, local councils should be the driving force in deciding how they want their communities to develop. That is a fundamental part of the planning changes we are making.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

In terms of localism, does the Department look at any measurements? What concerns inhabitants who debate the possibilities and planning applications is that the applications are turned down and then repeated, coming back with one fewer turbine and then two fewer turbines, so they go through the process again and again, and lose all confidence in any aspiration to real localism.

[Charles Hendry]

That is central to predetermination and to ensuring that more of the work is done through earlier discussion between the developer and the council, so they can agree what they think might be generally desirable. We are making those changes. We also need to ensure that we have lead authorities with particular expertise in handling such applications. Many authorities have not dealt with such applications before and do not know how to handle them when they come through. Finding ways to build a genuine body of expertise within local authorities is part of the approach we are considering.

We removed regional spatial strategies and the top-down regional energy targets, because they moved us away from the localism we want. We are committed, in relation to applications for below 50 MW, to local communities and local councils deciding how their areas will develop. The new planning framework will cover all forms of development and set out national economic, environmental and social priorities. Tackling climate change and ensuring our energy security will be among our top priorities, but as I said, we want communities and individuals to own a stake in our collective low-carbon future. That is why we are looking at how local communities can benefit from business rates staying locally, and why we want more genuine community ownership of applications, so that people can see the link between hosting a facility and the benefits that it brings directly to the local area and to the services that people care about.

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Charles Hendry]

I am running seriously short of time, but in view of the immense seniority of my right hon. Friend, how could I say no?

[Mr Davis]

We welcome everything that the Minister has said so far, but sometimes local community advantage cannot overwhelm the destruction of people’s lives. They will be protected only by leaving the decision at local level and not overruling it time and again at a central appeal.

[Charles Hendry]

Where a case goes to appeal, it will be decided only in relation to the wider planning guidance that the Government set out. If it is felt that the guidance has not been adhered to in making a determination, it is entirely proper that there be an appeals process. In the spirit of fairness, we all believe that it is right that if an application is turned down at one level, people should continue to have a right to appeal for a redetermination. It must be done within the spirit of the rules set down, and that is absolutely key to what we are saying.

In the debate, we have heard a call for the transfer of support from wind to other renewable sources. We do not see wind as the ultimate solution on its own. It has a part to play, but we supported the banding of the renewables obligation certificates, because that started to give more support to emerging technologies, which need more help to come to fruition. The UK should lead the world in marine technologies, and the steps that we are taking elsewhere will ensure that, certainly by the 2020s and beyond, this will be the natural place in the world for people to come to develop those technologies. In the meantime, we need continuing diversity, and that includes wind. We cannot rely entirely on one low-carbon technology. We expect other low-carbon technologies to come through, particularly nuclear technology—without subsidy—which we are making progress on, as well as clean coal and coal with carbon capture. We expect the widest range of renewables possible in the framework.

Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective and developed of all renewable technologies, and has almost zero marginal cost, because once the facilities have been constructed, the cost of the energy—the wind—comes without charge.

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Charles Hendry]

I hope my hon. Friend understands that many points have already been made in the debate and it is crucial that I have a chance to respond to those in the remaining few minutes.

The renewables obligation has been banded to incentivise investment in other technologies, but what is critical about the ROC is that if the wind does not blow strongly, there is not as much income, because the money received is directly related to the amount of electricity generated. It is based on payment per megawatt hour of power generated. Therefore, if a wind turbine is located where the wind does not blow much and where the turbine does not turn much, very little revenue is returned to the area. That was one of the most important aspects of taking such an approach. It is also linked to the wholesale price: if the price drops as a result of there being a huge amount of supply in the system but not a great deal of demand, the amount of money that goes back is reduced. That recognises the changes in demand and supply found more generally in the system.

We recognise, of course, that wind is intermittent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, back-up is required, including from gas, coal or biomass. It could also be done through storage—pump storage and hydrogen or battery technologies are coming through at an impressive rate. That will start to move the technology on from working only when the wind blows to allowing electricity to be available when people need it.

However, there is another side to the argument. Sizewell B, one of our more recent nuclear power stations, has been out of operation for seven months. In that time, it did not produce a single unit of electricity, but our wind system produced 1.8 TWh of electricity, the equivalent of the annual consumption of 400,000 homes. We believe that security of supply comes from a mix of technologies. We cannot put all our eggs in one basket. Having a mix means that if there is a problem in one part, we have a better chance of keeping the lights on, and doing so affordably.

Turbines generally turn about 70% of the time. The load factor figures suggest that it is lower than that, but the turbines may be turning at a relatively low speed for 70% or 80% of the time; there are only a few hours when they are not generating. There was a period at the beginning of the year when they were contributing perhaps only 0.1% of our electricity consumption, but recent figures show that they have been producing 10%. The figures fluctuate, and they need to be seen as part of the totality of what is necessary.

In the time that remains, I shall touch on some of the other issues in the debate. On noise, my primary concern is that the issue is not being treated similarly in all parts of the country. The report that I have commissioned from Hayes McKenzie will consider how noise is to be interpreted to ensure uniformity. It does not seem right that it should be considered in one way in Northamptonshire and in another in East Yorkshire. I assure the House that in appointing Hayes McKenzie I considered who it had worked for to ensure that it can work for local authorities on one side of the equation and wind developers on the other. I want to be convinced—I have been convinced—that the company can provide genuinely independent advice.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) spoke about the previous report. I understand that certain issues were removed before I became involved in this work, relating to things that were outside the initial scope of the report. However, I give an absolute assurance that the Hayes McKenzie report will be published in its entirety and that it will be subject to peer review, so that we can clear about what needs to be done. There is a further review on amplitude modulation by RenewableUK. That, too, will be subject to peer review. I hope that will help to complete the picture.

Other issues were raised this afternoon, and I hope to have the chance to write to my right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that they have a complete response.

Coal-burning Power Stations

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

16:53

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

I am grateful, Mr Bayley, for having the chance to speak on the future of coal-burning power stations. This debate follows one on wind turbines, in which we heard about some of the problems caused by such turbines that have been constructed in constituencies throughout the United Kingdom.

I regret that the 13 years of the previous Administration were largely wasted when it comes to pursuing green technology. There was a great deal of hot air, and the former Deputy Prime Minister made many promises that Great Britain would lead the world in such matters. However, we are regrettably behind the curve. That is surprising, because we have some of the greatest institutions in the world, including Oxford and Cambridge, and many engineers and scientists of world renown. We are blessed by that pedigree of innovation and pioneering technology, yet for some reason we are significantly behind other European Union countries on this issue. That is a matter of profound regret.

I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that we need a co-ordinated Government approach to bringing those scientists together with energy suppliers and other specialists, so that we can work together with the private sector to ensure that future energy generation requirements are provided in the most cost-effective and efficient way. We should not flinch from learning from the experiences of other countries.

As was mentioned in the previous debate, wind will play a part and so will natural gas and solar energy, but I wish to talk about existing coal-burning power stations. What are the Minister’s policies on helping those power stations to convert to clean coal technology or biomass? He will know that European Union directives say that if they are not converted they will be forced to shut. What is his Department doing to help those power stations to convert?

The reason why I feel so passionate about the matter is that we have a major coal-burning power station in my constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham. The Ironbridge power station is capable of generating 1,000 MWe. It is located in the Severn gorge, only half a mile upstream from Ironbridge, which is a world heritage site. It produces enough power to supply 750,000 homes. I am proud of the fact that we have such an important facility in my constituency.

The station’s two 500 MWe units can each produce 12 times more power than Concorde’s jet engines. The low-pressure blades are nearly 1 metre long, and with the turbine turning at a fixed speed of 3,000 rpm, the speed of the tips of the last row of blades is approximately 2,000 kph—twice the speed of sound. I give those statistics because we should be proud of the technology in Shropshire. It would be a travesty—a calamity—if that power station was forced to close as a result of EU directives.

I was on the telephone earlier today to Mr Bryson, the manager of the power station, which is operated by E.ON. He informed me that the station has 200 employees. As the local Member of Parliament, I am primarily concerned with those people’s jobs. I hope that everything can be done to support the continued production of electricity at that plant. I have toured the plant on several occasions, and I have seen that it uses crushed nut shells from Africa; that accounts for about 4% or 5% of what is burned there, although it is obviously nowhere near enough to comply with the European Union directive.

I invite the Minister to visit the Ironbridge power station. When he next travels to our part of the west midlands, I shall treat him to a lovely lunch in Shrewsbury. I would like him to see the power station at first hand, and the tremendous economic benefits that it gives not only to Shropshire but to the whole of the west midlands.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend talk so positively about the coal industry. I hope that he recognises that, globally, there is more than 200 years of coal provision to meet the energy needs of the world. I am glad to hear him talk about clean-coal technology. Does he recognise that there is an opportunity for business in this country to develop clean-coal technology and export it to the world, thus creating a brand new industry and allowing us to lead the world?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Yes, but I am primarily focused on biomass at the moment. Of course clean-coal technology will be an option, and I very much hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

In summary, we can see that the future of coal for UK generators relies heavily on carbon capture and sequestration technology. What has been clear for some time is that CCS is some years away from being economically tangible, and it will take either substantial subsidies or technological breakthrough to make it viable. There are certain difficulties with coal, but I accept, and I hope that the Minister accepts, that that is a possibility. What I hope the Minister will tell us today is what his Department thinks about the prospect of importing biomass for existing power stations, so that they can continue to generate electricity. Moreover, will he tell us what support can be given to them so that they can convert the technology to take in the biomass? Biomass needs full support at this stage from a regulatory and fiscal standpoint, and I very much hope that the Minister’s Department will work with E.ON to ensure the survival of Ironbridge power station.

As I said, I have spoken with Mr Bryson, the manager of the Ironbridge power station. This afternoon, he replied to me, saying:

“As you rightly say biomass is one of the options for the…coal plant and we’ve welcomed the DECC consultation on potential support under the Renewables Obligation for converting existing fossil plants to dedicated biomass. We support this in principle and look forward to the conclusion of the consultation. You might find it helpful to ask the Minister about the progress of the consultation and the impact on closing coal capacity in the UK.”

I should like to speak for longer, but I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), who has the important Drax power station in his constituency, wants to speak. I will therefore conclude my remarks by saying that senior citizens form one of the largest groups of electors in my constituency, and an important forum for senior citizens has more than 7,000 members, which makes it the biggest organisation in the whole of Shropshire. Time and time again, I get representations from senior citizens about their concerns over heating bills and how their pensions do not keep up with the rising costs of energy. I hope that the Minister will assure me that everything possible is being done to ensure that energy and electricity production in this country will be maintained, improved and increased so that senior citizens, businesses and others will not suffer from vastly inflated electricity and energy prices.

17:03

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this important debate and for allowing me a few minutes to voice my support for the future of coal-burning power stations. The future of such stations is clearly important to me, because my constituency is home to two very large coal-fired power stations at Eggborough and Drax; I also have Ferrybridge on the border of my constituency. Drax is one of the biggest employers in the area and is the largest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power station in the country. With a 4,000 MW capacity, it meets the electricity needs of around 7% of the UK, making it a very significant power station.

Coal was responsible for about 44% of electricity supply during the cold spells last winter. Its ability to respond quickly to demand makes coal-fired generation a vital contributor to security of electricity supply. High availability and reliability are among its two most notable qualities.

The UK’s current dependence on gas is potentially dangerous. Gas consumption is marred by price volatility and threats to supply from overseas, with more than 80% expected to be imported by 2015. It is clear that the elimination of a significant amount of coal-fired capacity from 2015 onwards could present a real supply security problem for the UK. As it stands, supplies of coal are four times more abundant than gas, with 200 years of supply, 40% of which comes from OECD member countries.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, Drax has a huge impact on my constituency, too. It is all I see from my front window. However, does he not agree that although we are strong supporters of coal-fired power stations, there is a real potential in the Yorkshire and the Humber region, with its depleted oilfields, for us to pursue clean-coal and carbon capture technologies, which could bring more jobs to our region?

[Nigel Adams]

That is a fortuitous question, because I am just about to talk about CCS. I believe that the coal-fired generation sector has a crucial role to play in maintaining secure and reliable electricity supplies, but that the long-term survival of fossil fuel in the energy mix can be secured only if it is fitted with carbon capture and storage. The Yorkshire and the Humber region is ideally suited for a cluster-type approach to CCS, and a regional pipework infrastructure to transport captured CO₂ from all the major industrial sites in the region to the North sea could cut the UK’s entire CO₂ emissions by 10%.

Like any other sector, to remain viable and relevant, the coal-fired sector needs to be adaptable to change and the introduction of new ideas and technologies. There is a vital role to be played by the coal-fired generation sector in the transition towards a low-carbon economy, most notably through the introduction of biomass co-firing. I have seen such a shift in focus towards a low-carbon economy in action: Drax has committed itself to full conversion of one of its coal-fired generating units from coal to biomass. That is innovative but very costly, and it would not have happened if the single biggest challenge facing the coal-fired generation sector was not reducing its impact on the environment.

Biomass introduction and CCS can be effective ways of achieving a low-carbon economy—that is evidenced by moves within the sector to find greener methods of production. It is important that larger sites feel confident enough in Government support to take new steps in finding alternative methods of power production, because where large sites lead, smaller but equally important sites will follow. I conclude by saying how important a stable and predictable long-term energy policy framework is for the power sector to encourage large scale investments and to instil confidence among coal-fired generators to encourage them to make the significant investments necessary successfully to address the environmental challenge.

16:59

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

It is a continuing pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Bayley, in the second of our two energy debates. It is a bit like a lotto double rollover, with many colleagues having the chance to speak about the wide range of energy issues that face us. A common theme runs through the debates, which is the need to decarbonise our electricity supply system, both in the roll-out of renewables and how we decarbonise the mass generation facilities that we have in this country.

Undoubtedly, coal is one of the most important elements within our energy supply system. In general, it produces about a quarter of our electricity. When I visited National Grid a couple of years ago, I found that more than half the electricity being generated was coming from coal plants. There is no doubting the significance of the contribution that coal makes to our energy security. Nevertheless, we must still recognise that coal is much the most polluting form of electricity generation. For example, a coal-fired plant produces about twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of output compared to a gas-fired power station.

Looking forward, I think that it is not a question of whether it is coal, gas, nuclear or renewables that we use; to ensure our energy security, we need to have some of all of those. But nuclear will take 10 years to build, coal with carbon capture is 10 years away as a commercially viable facility and some of the massive roll-out of marine technologies is also 10 years away. In the meantime, therefore, we will certainly need to have more gas in the system and that is why we are also taking urgent action to guarantee that we have the supplies necessary at a time when we are becoming more dependent on imports.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this debate and on his customary enthusiasm for everything that goes on in his constituency. In his excellent introduction he identified the key issue—the large combustion plant directive. That directive will require about one third of our coal plant to close down if it has not been fitted with flue gas desulphurisation, or FGD, facilities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) will have seen at Drax the scale of the investment necessary for a FGD unit to be attached to a power station. Such a unit covers essentially the same ground area as the original coal-fired power station itself and it costs hundreds of millions of pounds to build. Consequently the companies involved have taken very careful decisions about whether the long-term potential of that plant justifies that investment. However, this is a matter for those companies and at the end of their deliberations they will decide whether they can give that type of plant a new life or whether they will simply have to allow it to use its remaining operating hours and close before 2016.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My hon. Friend refers to the large combustion plant directive. I believe that the capacity crunch will come in around 2017. Is he confident that Her Majesty’s Government will not need to seek a derogation from that directive in order to keep the lights on?

[Charles Hendry]

The evidence that we have is that the crunch, which had looked as if it was coming in around 2017, is now further out. The recession has reduced demand for power by 6% or 7% and demand has not come back up to the levels that it had been at before the recession. So, there is a crunch coming but it will now come towards the end of this decade.

However, that does not mean that we are off the hook, because following the LCPD is the industrial emissions directive, which will deal predominantly with emissions not related to CO_{2 .} That directive will close down much of our remaining coal plant if the measures are not taken to ensure that our plant complies with it.

We have a mountain to climb and it is right that we should look at the range of options available to us, so that we can ensure that we have the generating capacity that will be so central in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham also raised the issue of biomass. I am well aware of a company that is looking to convert the Ironbridge power station to a biomass facility. I am due to come to Shrewsbury in early December. It may be that I can meet representatives of the company then, or I can meet them in London if that is more convenient. I am very keen to learn more about their plans and to learn about how the use of biomass can provide continuity of output, production and employment at the Ironbridge facility.

We see biomass as having a very significant role to play in the energy sector. It can enhance our security of energy supply, because much of the biomass can come from our own indigenous resources. However, we know that sometimes the biomass comes from other parts of the world and we must be certain that the sources of biomass are indeed sustainable. Biomass is also dispatchable; in other words, it can reflect and respond to the peaks in demand. So, if there is a need for back-up capacity, a biomass plant can ensure that we have the continuing output that will be necessary, just as a coal plant can.

Without doubt, large scale dedicated biomass plants can deliver significant levels of renewable electricity by 2020. The renewable energy strategy, which was published by the previous Government in July 2009, estimated that electricity from biomass, including biogas and wastes, would comprise about 20% of all the renewable power generation that will be needed to meet the renewable energy targets that we as a country face.

We also recognise that electricity from dedicated biomass is cheaper than some other large-scale electricity sources. If the biomass generation needed to meet the renewable energy target were displaced by more expensive technologies, there would of course be an additional cost to consumers and, in all the discussion of these issues, that is a factor that we should rightly bear in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham also reminded us.

Moreover, in comparison with some other large scale renewables, biomass can generate more long-term jobs relative to the megawatt-hours of energy output. That is due to the ongoing need for biomass feedstocks creating business and employment opportunities across the UK supply chain.

Use of biomass also provides an opportunity to enhance the forestry husbandry that we have in the UK. I believe that about 40% of our forests and woodlands are not under active management. So there is extraordinary potential and a massive national resource there, not only in terms of biodiversity but providing a renewable energy fuel that can make a major difference in this sector.

The Government support the generation of biomass electricity through renewable obligation certificates, or ROCs, which are tradeable certificates under the renewables obligation. In July, we announced that the support for dedicated biomass electricity plants under the ROCs would be “grandfathered”. That means that for 20 years the price that they would receive would be guaranteed, up to the 2037 end date of the obligation. I think that that will provide the certainty that investors are looking for.

However, we also recognise that we are receiving more inquiries from generators about the potential of switching to biomass and we acknowledge that we simply do not have enough understanding of the potential of that switch and what it can contribute. So we have called for evidence as part of our consultation on the ongoing work of the renewables obligation. That consultation will close on 19 October and we want everybody who has an interest in this issue to respond—I certainly hope that E.ON will contribute—so that we can understand the full range of interests and ensure that we can put a system in place that will encourage us to go forward.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Can my hon. Friend tell me the best way for anyone who wishes to contribute to that consultation to participate in it? Is it just to write to him directly?

[Charles Hendry]

My hon. Friend asks a very apposite question. Anyone who wishes to participate can access the consultation through the Department of Energy and Climate Change website. Alternatively, they can write to me, or to my hon. Friend himself and he can pass any correspondence on to me. They can even write directly to my officials. Whichever way they choose to participate, we will be pleased to have their input and I can give an absolute assurance that it will be taken into account.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of carbon capture and storage, as did a number of other hon. Friends. I think that CCS is potentially one of the most exciting areas of energy development in the UK. It is an area in which we should be leading the world and in which we are absolutely determined that we will lead the world. CCS can reduce by 90% the CO₂ emissions from a coal plant and we think that it is an area in which we must move forward faster.

In this country, we have the sequestration facilities in the North sea, with the depleted oil and gas fields; we have the skills of people who are used to working in the extremely dangerous and hazardous conditions of the North sea; and we have some of the best university expertise, at Edinburgh, Imperial college, Nottingham and elsewhere, which can be brought to bear to ensure that we take CCS forward. Therefore, we are looking at exactly what needs to be done to make CCS happen.

The coalition agreement was clear that we want to have four power stations—commercial power plants—equipped with CCS, as part of our vision of taking CCS forward. We want there to be a much more rapid development of CCS. [Interruption.]

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. I regret to tell colleagues that there is a Division in the House, so I have to interrupt the Minister.

I ask all colleagues to get back to Westminster Hall as soon as they possibly can. We will start again as soon as the initiator of the debate, Daniel Kawczynski, and the Minister are back in their seats.

[Charles Hendry]

On a point of order, Mr Bayley. I do not have a huge amount left to say. Would it be appropriate for me to write to colleagues on any remaining points that I have not answered already, if that would be to their convenience?

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

I can give the Minister two more minutes to conclude, but more than that is impossible.

[Charles Hendry]

We can certainly cover the remaining points in the course of a couple of minutes, because I think that it would be more convenient for colleagues if I deal with those remaining points now. We will be putting in place—

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?

[Charles Hendry]

If I may, I will give way for 30 seconds to my hon. Friend, because he knows so much about this subject.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way. I will be very brief.

Last week at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who is also the Minister with responsibility for Government policy, all mentioned CCS, which was very good news for anyone interested in this issue or, indeed, in climate change. Is the Minister personally confident that the coalition Government’s commitment on CCS will survive the spending review?

[Charles Hendry]

My hon. Friend tempts me to go into an area that is way above my pay grade and the Chancellor would be deeply annoyed if I set out the response to the spending review now. We have looked at these things very carefully indeed, we have a clear commitment to CCS and we believe that it has a massive contribution to make. We are rolling forward the development of projects 2 to 4, in addition to project 1. We think that that is part of the way forward. We are determined to make this technology work in the UK and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to achieve that outcome.

Question put and agreed to.

17:19

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Written Statements

Wednesday 13 October 2010

ECOFIN (30 September - 1 October 2010)

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The informal Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 30 September to 1 October 2010. Many of the items discussed at this meeting followed on from issues covered at the 7 September ECOFIN, details of which are below.

The Informal ECOFIN began with a Ministers’ lunch discussion focusing on IMF reform. Ministers then held an initial discussion following a Commission presentation on its economic governance proposals. The informal Council also discussed the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth, focusing on means of making progress on structural reforms.

During the afternoon session, Ministers were joined by Central Bank Governors. Discussions centred on the economic outlook, IMF reform and G20, and the outlook and risks for the financial markets. The importance of fiscal consolidation was reaffirmed.

On the second day, discussions focused on credit rating agencies; financial reform in the EU and US; and a framework for responsible and growth-enhancing behaviour of the financial sector, looking at Basel III and financial levies and taxes.

ECOFIN: 7 September 2010

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 7 September 2010. The Chancellor of the Exchequer represented the UK. The following items were discussed:

Financial supervision

Following trilogues, Ministers agreed the financial supervision package. The new proposals will see:

a European Banking Authority established in London;

nine day-to-day supervision of financial institutions remaining at the national level, except for credit rating agencies which, as agreed in December 2009, will be supervised by the new markets authority;

a guarantee that decisions by the new authorities in crisis times and when settling disputes between supervisors cannot impinge on the budgetary responsibilities of national Governments;

a European systemic risk board established to monitor and advise on systemic risk.

The Government are content with the final agreement, which fully reflects the priorities secured by the UK in July.

European semester

Ministers endorsed the EU semester. The Government are content with the agreement, which recognises that the UK’s budget will be sent to the EU after it has been presented to Parliament.

Bank levy

The Council exchanged views on bank levies. The Government are a strong advocate of the use of levies as a complement to wider reforms aimed at reducing the probability and impact of banking failures. However, national Governments should decide how proceeds from any bank levy are deployed.

Tax on financial transactions

Ministers held an exchange of views on the possible use of financial transaction taxes. The Government believe that if these are to be properly considered, further discussion would be needed around whether the financial transaction taxes model offers a stable and efficient mechanism. The Council agreed to further discuss the financial transaction tax and bank levies at the informal ECOFIN, before returning as a formal agenda item in October.

Further Education Estate (Further Investment)

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

On 8 September 2010, I informed the House that the Skills Funding Agency had written to 149 colleges notifying them that they will each receive a renewal grant of up to £225,000. There are also 21 who will receive an enhanced renewal grant taking their total grant up to £1 million. This will help enable colleges to modernise their facilities, giving them a much needed boost at a critical time.

On 8 September I also notified the House that the Skills Funding Agency was still working with a further five colleges to resolve affordability issues so that they can also benefit from the capital investment. I am pleased today to inform the House that these five colleges will all receive a £225,000 renewal grant.

One hundred and fifty-four colleges will now receive over £50 million in capital support this financial year, making a real difference to learners and communities.

The full list of the successful colleges are available on the following website:

http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/

Local Government Accountability

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

The coalition programme sets out this Government’s commitment to ending the era of top-down Government and giving new powers to local authorities to work for their communities, accountable to local people rather than central Government. In support of this approach, today I am announcing changes to local area agreements (LAA) reward grant and the national indicator set. These changes, alongside our previous decision to end the comprehensive area assessment, mark the end of the old, top-down local performance framework. I am also announcing a less burdensome approach to the way local authorities provide data to central Government.

From today, the Government are putting local areas fully in control of their local area agreements. This enables local authorities and their partners to amend or drop any of the current 4,700 LAA targets without needing ministerial agreement. Where they choose to keep the targets, central Government will have no role in monitoring them. I will also not be requiring local authorities to prepare an LAA from April 2011, once the current agreements expire.

I will not be making any payments for performance reward grant for the current LAA targets. Deficit reduction and ensuring economic recovery are the most pressing issues facing Britain today, and of course local government has to take its share of the cuts. My aim is to give local authorities the flexibility they need to protect key services, by removing ring-fences around their money, scrapping comprehensive area assessments (CAA) and getting rid of unnecessary top-down targets and their related bureaucracy.

I am also announcing today the replacement of the national indicator set with a single, comprehensive list of all the data we expect local government to provide to central Government. While in the past, local authorities were required to report against a headline figure of around 200 national indicators, we know that in reality the number of reporting requirements was far higher. My aim is to make the data requirements we place on local government transparent and to review and reduce this for April 2011. I will involve local government in this review, to help us ensure the list contains only the minimum of central Government data needs. We will also keep the sector informed over the coming weeks about when individual data collections can cease, as we make the transition to the single list. We will also work with the sector to develop a process to review the list on an annual basis. Once the list is in place, my commitment to local government will be that if a data requirement is not on the list they will be under no obligation to collect and provide it.

In future, the emphasis needs to be on local authorities being democratically accountable to local people rather than to central bureaucratic systems. That is why I am encouraging local authorities wherever possible to make their performance data accessible to their citizens.

Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Written Statements

[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 September 2010, Official Report, column 139W to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) contained some inadvertent and minor errors in that VAT had not been applied consistently, the effect of which was to overstate the cost of the chairs. In fact several of the most expensive chairs were purchased for slightly less than the previous answer indicated. The hon. Member’s question tabled on 27 July 2010 asked how many chairs the Department of Energy and Climate Change had purchased since its creation; how much the Department spent in each such year; and what the five most expensive chairs purchased in each such year were.

In my written answer, I provided details of the Department’s expenditure on chairs for financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11. An error was made whereby VAT was included in the costs of a small number of chairs although the text of my answer suggested all costs excluded VAT. As a result the total cost of chairs bought by the Department was also incorrect .

The correct information is as follows:

DECC was formed in October 2008 and London-based staff moved into the Department’s headquarters, 3-8 Whitehall Place, London, SW1A 2AW, between March and June 2009.

In financial year 2009-2010 1,093 chairs were purchased by DECC.

The total cost for the above chairs was £261,000 excluding VAT.

The five most expensive chairs purchased were special chairs for staff required under health and safety advice. The cost of these were as follows: £811.10, £777.64, £773.85, £755.09 and £729.55 excluding VAT.

From April 2010 to date 25 chairs were purchased by DECC.

The total cost to date is £7,700 excluding VAT.

The five most expensive chairs purchased to date were special chairs for staff required under health and safety advice. The cost of these were as follows: £744.65, £722.15, £689.70, £682.75 and £633.75 excluding VAT.

Environment Council (14 October)

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 14 October.

The Council will hold an exchange of views on the proposal for a regulation modifying the directive concerning the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. The Belgian presidency will seek the adoption of Council conclusions on; the 10th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the convention on biological diversity; and on the preparation of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN convention on climate change and the sixth session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto protocol. The presidency will also seek the adoption of procedural Council conclusions on an analysis of possible options to go beyond the objective of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases and evaluation of the risk of carbon leakage.

The following topics will be covered under “any other business”:

Presentation by the Commission concerning state aids to the coal industry;

Presentation by the Commission on the results of the technical committee work on a draft regulation concerning the “end of waste criteria”;

Presentation by the Commission on Stakeholder Consultation on:

Report and possible proposal of a methodology to apply to emissions from carbon stock changes caused by indirect land use changes;

Communication on a road map for a low-carbon economy by 2050, also with a view to determining the necessary scenarios for 2030;

Communication on mainstreaming climate adaptation and mitigation in EU policies and climate-proofing of EU financial instruments;

Information from the Commission on progress towards achieving the Kyoto objectives concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions for implementing the Kyoto protocol;

Information from the Commission on Aviation and Climate Change—Developments at the ICAO Assembly;

Information from the Commission on the implementation of the Commission decision on the use of 300 million allowances from the new entrants’ reserve of the emissions trading scheme for the demonstration of carbon capture and storage and innovative renewable energy technologies;

Information from the Czech delegation on the sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the protection of European bats; and

Information from the presidency on the main environmental events organised by the Belgian presidency;

Presentation from the Swedish delegation on a review of the Community strategy on mercury—possible future action;

Presentation from the Finnish delegation on International environmental governance: preparation of the second meeting of the advisory group of Ministers;

Presentation from the Dutch delegation concerning a seminar on the financial perspectives and the environmental aspects of the EU budget.

Synathon BV v. Licensing Authority of the Department of Health

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

In 2001 and 2002, the Medicines Control Agency (a forerunner to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) refused to accept certain marketing authorisation applications from Synthon. Synthon challenged the decision by way of judicial review.

In 2008 the European Court of Justice issued a judgment in relation to C-452/06 Synthon v. Licensing Authority of the Department of Health following a decision grant by the then Licensing Authority (the Medicines Control Agency) to refuse to grant a marketing authorisation for Synthon’s paroxetine mesylate product.

The Court’s judgment was that the United Kingdom should pay compensation for Synthon’s consequential lost profits.

Following a mediation held on 23 and 24 September 2010 the Department of Health has agreed to pay Synthon €33.25 million inclusive of legal costs in full and final settlement of their claim.

House of Lords

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 13 October 2010.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Education: Overseas Students

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked By

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to enforce the rules that require students coming to the United Kingdom for study to have an intermediate, rather than elementary, level of English.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, in order to enforce the rule that students must have an intermediate level of English when applying to study in the UK, the UK Border Agency will refuse applications in cases where students who are required to have an English language test set by an approved provider cannot present the verifiable evidence of having so achieved that qualification. These rules came into effect on 12 August.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, that is a very encouraging Answer, because I have asked questions in this broad field at least four times, and this is the first time that we have heard a positive Answer about progress, compared with the shambles whereby something like 20 per cent of overseas students are still here five years after graduating. Does my noble friend recognise, like those of us who watched the television this morning, that the wonderful rescue taking place in Chile has been achieved by sheer skill, organisation, professionalism and true leadership? Will she ensure that the Foreign Office, the UK Border Agency and the home agencies involved, for once, co-ordinate their activities so that genuine students can come to genuine universities and genuine colleges?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the whole House would endorse what the noble Lord said about the skill with which the miners in Chile are being rescued from what would otherwise have been a terrible fate. As to the skill with which government departments are to operate on overseas students, we have put in place a number of measures which indeed include co-ordination between individuals in the UK Border Agency and Foreign Office posts. The system is designed to do two things. One is to monitor the conduct of sponsoring institutions so that they do their duty by ensuring that students who are registered with them actually turn up. The other is to ensure that the students actually come; and if they do not come, they will be penalised. If the institutions fail to ensure that their students turn up and do not correct that, they will have their licences taken away.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness acknowledge, contrary to the point of view put by the questioner, that in fact the previous Government took action against unscrupulous course providers through the sponsor licensing system? Can she say how many education providers were closed as a result of those actions?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the previous Government certainly began to put measures in place. This Government have built on those measures, very much strengthened them and are still evaluating whether we have strong enough measures in place. If we want to take further measures, we shall announce them before the end of the year. As to the numbers, 220 institutions have been suspended since the tier-4 system put in place by this Government took effect; 53 of those are permanent suspensions and 78 are still under evaluation. Real measures are being taken—with teeth.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, what is the position of language schools, which are extremely important to some seaside towns?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Indeed, and no part of the Government’s policy is aimed at doing anything other than enabling genuine language schools to offer genuine language teaching to genuine students—one of the points made earlier by my noble friend. The English language qualification for those courses is lower because it is designed to enable people either to do a foundation course or to learn basic English, so different rules apply. On the other hand, we intend those students to actually be in genuine institutions.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

Does the Minister consider that adequate safeguards are in place to detect impersonation in oral examinations by those who present themselves at the borders with supposed qualifications? If so, what are they?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, if you are to be required to have an English language qualification before you turn up, that obviously has to have been acquired somewhere else. A register has been built up of approved institutions, which have to demonstrate that they are both able and capable of providing the necessary qualification. They have to have a trading presence in this country and a reputation established independently of their application to government. If that is done, it is hoped that the qualifications will prove genuine. However, there is also monitoring of those institutions, whereby people go along and inspect whether they are still providing courses of the right level and whether the students are attending.

[Lord Tomlinson]

I go back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Hunt about the number of institutions that are no longer in business compared with when the previous Government introduced the review that led to the points-based system. Will the Minister agree with me if I suggest that 2,000 colleges did not get the necessary level of accreditation ever to be put on the register, and that the number that she gave was for institutions that were accredited but have since been knocked off the register? Therefore, the total number of institutions that are not providing higher education services where they were previously is around 2,300. Does she further agree that it is imperative for the financial success of higher education that overseas students come to our higher education institutions, to part-mitigate the cuts that have been made in higher education and will be made in the spending review next week?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I think that this Question is about English language qualifications for students arriving in this country. I found it difficult to follow the noble Lord’s logic. Many of the institutions that were operating without either the necessary qualifications or a licence were clearly being allowed to do so under the previous Government. I have said that we have suspended some of the institutions that were accredited, and I shall look at whether others have fallen out of the system. However, we are certainly applying extremely rigorous standards to the 2,000 or so institutions that are accredited as things stand at the moment.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme]

Does the Minister, who is herself fluent in French and German, agree that it is equally important that English students learn foreign languages?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Je le veux bien. Yes, of course.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, the points-based system does not apply to those who come from the European Community. What is being done to measure their competence in English?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The standards that have to be met for competence in English must comply with a European framework regulation, so a student coming here to do an advanced course has to meet that European level of qualification.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology: Regulation

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:13

Asked By

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans for the future regulation of human fertilisation and embryology.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the Government fully recognise the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority since 1991. However, as a result of the Department of Health’s review of its arm’s-length bodies, the Government believe that there is scope to streamline healthcare regulation. The HFEA will continue for the time being but we propose that its functions will transfer to other bodies by the end of this Parliament.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he assure the House that he will stand by the report of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee of three years ago and not endanger the statutory functions of the HFEA, including the all-important database and the guidance to patients, by splitting up the functions between five other committees, thereby saving no money at all and endangering the worldwide reputation of this model of regulation?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I recognise the experience of the noble Baroness and I pay tribute to her time as chair of the HFEA. The review that we have conducted has been based on a close examination of the functions of every arm’s-length body. Whereas some 20 years ago it may have made sense to look at a single body for carrying out the functions undertaken by the HFEA, she will agree that the functions concerned are very different. Times have moved on and we think that there is a more logical way to parcel out those functions which does not dilute in the slightest the efficacy or the efficiency of the regulatory action.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

My Lords, I beg to disagree with my noble friend. What remains the same, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, is the fact that we must enshrine in legislation and through regulation the very special status of the embryo. Since 1991, the HFEA has carried out that function very effectively indeed and it has done so because it has the support of the British people. As regards bringing these regulations in house, will the Minister say why the public should have more confidence in him as the Minister than in an independent regulator?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I need to make it clear that our proposal is not to bring the regulation in house; it is to distribute the regulatory function between several different bodies. I also emphasise that there is absolutely no suggestion that we are changing the special status of the embryo. We have no plans to re-examine those parts of the legislation which recognise that status. We fully recognise the role which the HFEA has played in establishing the UK as a world leader in this area, but times change and so has the way in which we regulate the delivery of healthcare. That is the basis on which we have looked at this.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, when I was a government Minister and the BMA, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Nursing ganged up on me, I always thought it was wise to listen. All those bodies have expressed very serious concerns about the government proposal. Has the Minister had meetings with the royal colleges and the BMA about their concerns? Has he discussed in particular the real risk to loss of specialist expertise and public confidence and the risk to patient safety?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we intend to engage fully with all interested parties on this matter but it is early days. The noble Baroness quite rightly raises the specialist expertise available to the HFEA. We fully recognise that. We are very keen that the expertise is not lost but is made available to the CQC or to the new research regulator, if we set up one. I understand that, where a function of one organisation transfers to another organisation, it is customary for the relevant staff to transfer as well. I emphasise that matters are at a very early stage.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, given the special ethical status of the early embryo, does the Minister agree that the integrated function of the HFEA, whereby the licensing of the clinics, the licensing of research and the extensive database are held together, minimises the risk of unfortunate incidents? If the HFEA is dismembered, the likelihood of such unfortunate incidents is likely to increase.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I recognise, as will the House, the noble and right reverend Lord’s experience in these matters. At this early stage, we will look very carefully at the design of systems to ensure that the expertise and the scrutiny functions, which we associate so well with the HFEA, are not diluted or lost in any moves that we make in this area.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority. Just as with the HFEA, the HTA works efficiently and effectively to ensure public and professional confidence in the regulation of human tissue, and to ensure that it is used safely and ethically and with proper consent. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial in any transfer of functions that the confidence of both the public and professionals is maintained; that consent, respect and dignity are maintained; and that any disruption to well-regarded regulation is kept to a minimum?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, again, I thank the noble Baroness for the work that she does with the HTA. The answer is yes in every case.

[Earl Ferrers]

My Lords, in his Answer, my noble friend referred to an arm’s-length body. What does that look like?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, my noble friend will be pleased to learn that it is a sort of portmanteau term that can apply to a quango, a non-departmental public body, an advisory committee and bodies of that ilk.

Roads: Cyclists

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:21

Asked by

[Lord Palmer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that cyclists abide by the Highway Code.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government support a combination of information, education, training and enforcement to ensure that cyclists abide by the Highway Code. The enforcement of cycling offences is a matter for individual chief officers of police. The hazards caused by cyclists who break road traffic laws are recognised by chief officers and action is taken where offences are detected. The Government support action taken by the police to deter and reduce the number of cycling offences.

[Lord Palmer]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that slightly unexciting reply, but does he not agree that it is a scandal how remarkably few prosecutions are made against cyclists who do not adhere to the Highway Code—most especially driving on pavements?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I know that all noble Lords are extremely concerned about that type of offending. It adversely affects noble Lords, because they tend to be a little bit older than the average member of the population.

[Baroness Sharples]

Can my noble friend tell us how many successful prosecutions there have been against cyclists who have gone against red lights?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the short answer is no. The reason is that most offences are dealt with by fixed penalties—the penalty is about £30—but detailed records are not kept because that would not be a good use of public funds.

[Lord Haskel]

Does the Minister accept that most cyclists abide by the Highway Code purely out of a sense of self-preservation from the motorists who do not?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is most important that every one reads the Highway Code from time to time, in order that they understand their obligations as road users.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I ride a bike—in fact, I was riding one this morning—so I declare that interest, but, in balance, I also drive a car. Let us get the issue of bike problems into some kind of perspective. What percentage of the road accidents in which our fellow citizens died last year were due to lawbreaking by cyclists, and why are the Government abolishing Cycling England, which seeks to train cyclists?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we will have to wait for the comprehensive spending review later next week to answer that question.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I speak as a motorist and a cyclist who seeks perfection in both areas and fails miserably a lot of the time. Does the Minister agree that there is a real difference between traffic offences committed by cyclists or anyone else and breaches of the Highway Code? Simply breaching the Highway Code may be impolite, foolish or dangerous, but it does not necessarily amount to an offence. Does he agree that cyclists are far more vulnerable than drivers of cars, lorries, et cetera?

[Earl Attlee]

I agree with my noble friend and, returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, the reason why the police concentrate more on motorists is because they cause more serious accidents than cyclists.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, the Minister said that the Government are keen to educate people about cycling. Could he start with one of his own quangos, the Carbon Trust, which has just put out a circular to its members saying that they must not cycle to or from work or between meetings, especially on Boris bikes, because it has not been able to do a risk assessment on the quality and safety of Boris bikes?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be fully aware that this Government are concerned about the overapplication of health and safety regulations.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

Does the Minister have any information on how many accidents occur at dusk and at night to cyclists who have no lights or high-visibility jackets?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is a legal requirement to have a rear light, a rear reflector and a front light. It is not a legal requirement to carry reflective clothing, but the Highway Code recommends that proper clothes—reflective clothes at night and fluorescent clothes during the day—are worn at all times when riding a bike.

[Viscount Bridgeman]

Will the Minister be assured that the All-Party Group on Cycling, of which I have the honour to be a member, sets an example for all to follow?

[Earl Attlee]

I am very grateful to hear that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, will the Minister speak urgently to the Mayor of London? A consequence of his cycle hire scheme is a dramatic increase in the number of cyclists on the roads in London not in the correct attire, with no helmets or reflective clothing. Such circumstances dramatically increase the risk of serious injury or even death.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is very easy to overestimate the risk of accidents when riding a bicycle. The health benefits of riding a bicycle are very great indeed. For every year of life we lose to a cycling accident, we gain 20 years of life. Therefore, the bike hire scheme has great health benefits.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, may I put in a plea for the pedestrian? A lot has been said about cyclists, but is the Minister aware that the group most vulnerable to cyclists is pedestrians? The reason why there are not so many accidents is that pedestrians have to jump out of the way on pedestrian crossings and when the lights are green for pedestrians on red lights. It is a scandal.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I fully understand where the noble and learned Baroness is coming from, but in 2009 no pedestrians were killed, 66 were seriously injured and 14,000 suffered slight injuries on our roads. This is a 21 per cent reduction on all pedestrian casualties hit by cyclists compared to the 1994-98 average.

[Lord Brookman]

Following on from the previous question, I recall that this House, in which there are a lot of new faces, had a solution: the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharples and Lady Trumpington. Give them the legislation, and they will sort the problem.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think it is a little bit late for the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to start riding a pushbike.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked By

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they consider would constitute a “significant change” to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill such as would, according to the oral evidence given by the Electoral Commission to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on 14 September, affect the referendum date if made after 5 November.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Attlee for warming up the House. The rules for the conduct of the referendum are very closely based on those for parliamentary general elections. We therefore consider it unlikely that significant issues will arise during the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and I promise that I will not mention Mr Mark Harper. But the Minister will be aware that the Electoral Commission has to have that legislation by 5 November, six months before polling day. Does that not mean that this House is being held to ransom by restricting our capacity to revise and amend the Bill, thereby placing limits on the constitutional role of this House?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I have no objection to the noble Lord mentioning Mr Mark Harper, whose profile seems to be increasing by the hour. In fact, he sent me a message about his triumph only last night from the other place where the Bill cleared various hurdles with very comfortable majorities. It is only a week or so since the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was telling me that this House would not have proper time to debate the Bill. Let us see. The Bill seems to be making good progress in the other place and when it comes here, as always, the Government will listen carefully to the views of this House.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the significant change to which this Question relates can be relevant only in terms of Part 1 of the Bill, which, as my noble friend has already said, made considerable progress in the other place yesterday? In those circumstances, will he take this opportunity to assure the House that if there is an importation of Commons filibustering tactics on the Bill this would not be encouraged?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, personally, I would think nothing so unworthy of the Members of this House. This Bill deals with matters mainly to do with the House of Commons. When it comes here, this House will treat it with the respect due to such a Bill, but will give it the scrutiny that will help the Government in making it a good Bill to take to Royal Assent.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, it is such good news to hear about Mr Mark Harper doing well in the House of Commons. In relation to this Bill, regulations are being passed before the Bill has even had its Second Reading in this House. In addition, the referendum will take place on a day that all the evidence to the Select Committee on the Constitution in this House said would be a day on which the referendum would get swamped by the Scottish election general, the Welsh general election and the local elections. Will the Minister explain what the hurry is? Why can the referendum not take place within 12 months from May?

[Lord McNally]

First, I welcome the noble, right honourable, learned and everything else Lord back to the Front Bench. It is said that they never come back, but there he is. A lot of scaremongering and false arguments are being put forward. Various bodies are suddenly elevated in their opinion. The Electoral Commission has said that it is possible to successfully deliver these different polls on 5 May. I suggest that, instead of trying to imply that the process is somehow flawed, we should watch its steady progress where we will deliver a very thorough examination at this end. I am sure that we will have an excellent Second Reading debate and a good Committee stage, and the Bill will be all the better for the deliberations of the House of Lords.

[Lord Grocott]

Does the Minister remember the numerous occasions when he was sitting down there on which he complained about Bills being rushed through the House of Commons without proper scrutiny and subject to draconian timetabling rules? This Bill currently going through the House of Commons was described, I should remind him, by the Leader of his own party as being part of the most significant parliamentary reform since the Reform Act 1832. It is being rushed through in four weeks. Has the transformation in the Minister’s personality between when he was sitting here and now that he is sitting there reached a position whereby he thinks that four weeks in the House of Commons to consider a major constitutional Bill that has had no pre-legislative scrutiny is sufficient?

[Lord McNally]

We all go through transformations. Here is a Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, two of the most—let me put this at its most polite—efficient government business managers in either House. If anyone doubts that, there are probably Members on that Bench who have the scars that show the persuasive talents of both noble Lords. The fact is that all oppositions complain that Bills are being railroaded and stampeded—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord McNally]

Yes. Instead of all this indignation, why not wait for Second Reading, when noble Lords can make their speeches? As I have said, Mr Mark Harper is taking personal responsibility for this Bill in the other place and is making excellent progress. If I can emulate Mr Harper’s success, I will be well pleased.

Communications Committee

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:36

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Bragg be appointed a member of the Select Committee.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Krebs be appointed to the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) in place of Lord Sutherland of Houndwood

Motion agreed.

Deputy Chairman of Committees

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Skelmersdale be appointed to the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.

Motion agreed.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:37

Moved By

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

That this House takes note of the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate this important report and I particularly look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. This debate on the report of the Bloody Sunday inquiry follows the publication of that report on 15 June this year and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s Statement in response, which was repeated here by my noble friend the Leader of the House.

The tribunal, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, was established by the previous Government to investigate the events of Bloody Sunday on 30 January 1972. Its report ran to over 5,000 pages and covered the events of that day authoritatively and in great detail. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a full and frank Statement in response to the tribunal’s unequivocal conclusions. The Government were absolutely clear that what happened on Bloody Sunday was “unjustified and unjustifiable”. I reiterate that today. The conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, are shocking. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, we do not honour all those who have bravely served in upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.

I am sure that noble Lords are familiar with many of the conclusions in the report, but I should put on record again some of the tribunal’s key findings. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, found,

“a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline”,

by members of Support Company of the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, who entered the Bogside,

“as the result of an order … which should not have been given”.

Crucially, the noble and learned Lord concluded that none of the casualties,

“was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury”,

or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting. What is more, the noble and learned Lord found that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to assist others who were wounded or dying. Patrick Doherty, for example, was shot while,

“crawling … away from the soldiers”.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, found that subsequently many of the soldiers,

“knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing”.

I put on record again the Government’s apology for the events of that day. The Government are deeply sorry for what happened.

Fifteen June was a momentous and historic day. The report’s conclusions and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s Statement received global coverage and the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. The Taoiseach generously recorded how the,

“brave and honest words of prime minister David Cameron in the House of Commons will echo around the world”.

Of course the events of 15 June were most significant for the families of those killed and those injured on Bloody Sunday. In reflecting on the events of 15 June 100 days on, an article in the local Derry Journal newspaper recently reported how the lives of the families had been affected. One lady, who lost her brother and whose father was shot and injured, recounted:

“Before, I might have slept for about four hours a night and had a real problem sleeping but now I can easily sleep for six to ten hours a night”.

Another man, who lost his brother, recalled that, after entering the Guildhall Square on 15 June:

“It was obvious that this really mattered to everyone in Derry, not just us”.

I am sure that the whole House will join me in acknowledging the profound effect that this report and the Government’s response have had on the lives of those families and the wider community in Northern Ireland.

Let us also acknowledge the sacrifice made by those members of the security forces who lost their lives in the Troubles. Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the British Army’s service in Northern Ireland. More than 250,000 people served in Operation Banner and displayed enormous courage and determination in supporting the police and the rule of law.

It is symbolic of the significant progress that we have seen in Northern Ireland that the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, could receive broad acceptance across all parts of the community. The First Minister, Peter Robinson, noted his acceptance of the findings of the report, the conclusions of which were inevitably more challenging for unionists. The families themselves, even in the emotion of 15 June, looked beyond the success of their own campaign and made reference in their statement to all the victims of violence. The visit by the four leaders of the main Protestant churches in Ireland to the Bogside shortly after publication demonstrated the potential for such a symbolically important report to promote reconciliation.

Moving on from the violence of the past to build trust and confidence across the community is one of the great challenges facing Northern Ireland today. Many others who were bereaved during the Troubles looked at the events of 15 June and asked: “What about us?”. There cannot of course be a Saville-type inquiry for all the thousands of Troubles cases, but much work on these sensitive past cases is ongoing. The Historical Enquiries Team is investigating all 3,261 deaths from the Troubles in Northern Ireland, including the deaths of soldiers and members of the security forces who lost their lives upholding democracy and the rule of law. The high satisfaction rate that the team is achieving demonstrates the important role that it is playing in helping to bring a measure of resolution to families. Other families are pursuing cases through the Police Ombudsman or inquests.

There also remains a demand for public inquiries into a number of specific legacy cases. The Government’s overall position is clear: there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries. The Bloody Sunday inquiry was initially forecast to last for two years and to cost £11 million; it ended up lasting 12 years and costing more than £191 million. Public inquiries do not provide any guarantee of satisfaction for victims’ families. The response to the recent report of the Billy Wright inquiry was much more polarised and showed that even an inquiry lasting six years and costing £30 million can be accused of not having answered critical questions.

While the Government’s general position is clear, that is not to say that we do not recognise the sensitivities in specific cases and the need to look at each case on its merits. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is meeting a number of families who have brought their cases to him and will consider their views in a detailed and measured way.

Dealing with the past in Northern Ireland is a complex and wide-ranging task. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions and there will inevitably be some people who are never able to come to terms with what happened. The Government do not pretend that there are any easy answers. Indeed, under devolution, important powers relating to victims services, policing and the courts were devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government have been clear that they will not impose solutions on the people of Northern Ireland.

The Consultative Group on the Past, co-chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Mr Denis Bradley, produced a series of proposals aimed at helping Northern Ireland to build a shared future that is not overshadowed by the events of the past. Its report in January 2009 was an important contribution to the ongoing debate. However, it was clear from the summary of responses to the group’s work published by the Government this summer that there is little consensus about it in Northern Ireland. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is listening to the views of people from all parts of the community. He intends to set out the Government’s thinking early next year.

Leadership will be required from all those involved in the events of the past 40 years—in Westminster, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—if Northern Ireland is fully to put the past behind it. For the people of Londonderry, or Derry as others prefer to call it, recent events have shown how important it is to move forward. Those who carried out the terrible attack in the city only nine days ago have nothing to say about the future and so cling to a past that everyone else has left behind. They will not be allowed to drag Northern Ireland back. We are confident that the political stability that Northern Ireland is experiencing can endure. The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, is an important contribution in helping Northern Ireland to put the contentious events of the past behind it and to move forward to a genuinely shared future. I beg to move.

15:48

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, for providing this House with an opportunity to have a thorough discussion of the findings of such a vital report—a report that has healed many wounds. I, too, look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven.

The Saville inquiry’s findings are not only crucial in establishing the truth of what happened on that fateful day 38 years ago but also of great consequence for the future of Northern Ireland. Many noble Lords speaking today have huge personal experience in Northern Ireland and have shown a consistent interest in its progress towards peace. I must make special mention of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, whose wonderful work with Denis Bradley in chairing the Consultative Group on the Past has been an important step in dealing with the legacy of 40 years of violence and mistrust in Northern Ireland. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, I believe that we will benefit from his wise experience today.

The events of Bloody Sunday can and should never be forgotten. The findings of the Saville report were long awaited by all those affected by what happened during the course of the civil rights march in Londonderry on 30 January 1972. More important, the conclusions of the inquiry were painfully anticipated by the families of the 13 civilians who were killed by Army gunfire on that day, as they were by those who were injured. The finding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing the area or going to the assistance of others who were dying is truly appalling. Conclusions that one person was shot while,

“crawling ... away from the soldiers”,

and another was shot, in all probability,

“when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground”,

are shocking and indefensible.

Bloody Sunday occurred in the context of a reignited campaign of armed violence by paramilitary groups and internment without trial by security forces policing the streets. The British Army was in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday, as it had been since the flare-up of violence in 1969, as an aid to the police service of Northern Ireland in restoring order to the city. The men and women of the British Army are, I believe, second to none. We owe an enormous debt to the work of our Armed Forces, which have played an essential role in maintaining order and achieving peace in Northern Ireland. Their record of service is justly commendable. However, the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, shocked us all. What happened on that day was wrong and we agreed with the Prime Minister when he said in his measured and honest Statement on 15 June that,

“you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible”.

He was right to say that,

“what happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/10; cols. 739-40.]

We welcome the full and unreserved apology from the British Government and we share that apology.

It was vital to get to the bottom of what happened on Bloody Sunday because of the impact that the events of that day had on the subsequent 30 years of violence and political unrest in the Province. It was vital and it warranted an independent judicial inquiry because of the distinct nature of who was involved in what occurred in Londonderry that day. As Tony Blair said when he announced the Bloody Sunday inquiry to the Commons in 1998:

“Bloody Sunday was different because, where the state’s own authorities are concerned, we must be as sure as we can of the truth, precisely because we pride ourselves on our democracy and respect for the law, and on the professionalism and dedication of our security forces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/98; col. 502.]

The inquiry was vital because of the shortcomings and unanswered questions left over from the Widgery inquiry. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton remarked in evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee in the other place, the Widgery inquiry was both,

“an unsatisfactory and unfair inquiry”.

Finally, Saville was vital for the Bloody Sunday families, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, suggested.

The Saville inquiry has established the truth. That is what it set out to do and its value is immeasurably large. However, from these Benches, we argue that this value can be truly realised and sustained only once certain questions have been answered. In his Statement marking the publication of the Saville inquiry, the Prime Minister told the other place that there would be,

“no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/10; col. 741.]

So what now of the inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane? What about the deaths of the 11 civilians at Ballymurphy in 1971, an incident where some of the soldiers on duty on the day were the same service personnel who were to be in Londonderry six months later? What about an inquiry into the Omagh bombing? To focus on the Ballymurphy case, in the context of the announcement that this is the end of the line for public inquiries, will the families find it slightly confusing that the Secretary of State recently met those who lost their loved ones at Ballymurphy? Perhaps it raised expectations of success in their call for just such an inquiry.

The noble Lord rightly spoke of the importance of reconciliation and commended the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. The purpose of the HET, a specially convened independent police team, is to try to help people bereaved by the Troubles by answering their questions and looking at each case thoroughly, with a view to bringing forward any new or remaining evidential opportunities. The HET hopes to bring a measure of closure for the families of those killed and to bring some closure on the past. The HET is looking into more than 3,000 deaths. Its budget was originally set at £34 million over seven years. The HET is half way through its case load and it has spent all its allocated money. The scale of the historical case review is unprecedented and the HET has neither the human resources nor the budget to conduct complex inquiries like the Bloody Sunday or the Billy Wright inquiries. The Government cannot rely on the underresourced HET to deal with all the remaining cases, especially any future complex inquiries. The Billy Wright inquiry cost £35 million and that was for just one incident and one death. There are cases remaining of the complexity and profile of Billy Wright and it seems clear to these Benches that the HET is not the mechanism to address them. I also remind the House that, while funding for public inquires comes from central government at Westminster, the budget of the HET is supplied by the Government at Stormont.

However, this is not a time to stand still and tell the HET how to handle its workload. The situation in Northern Ireland is peaceful, but still fragile, as recent violence has made clear. It is crucial that we build a consensus to find a process to replace inquires, if they are to be ruled out. We must find a process to deal with the complex past; we cannot shut it down.

We in this House are all agreed that Northern Ireland has made outstanding progress out of the dark days of the violence of the Troubles and we celebrate that. We can and must build on this peace, and the lessons of Saville, by addressing the needs of Northern Ireland in the round. One crucial way in which to do this is through investment in community policing. The Government must affirm their support for all communities in Northern Ireland with proper investment in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If this does not happen, there is a very real risk that the community policing role will be taken over by dissidents. Northern Ireland is not immune from value for money, but it is a special case and should be recognised by the Government as such. The Secretary of State must win his battle with the Treasury ahead of next week’s comprehensive spending review. A large percentage of Northern Ireland’s population is employed in the public sector, but the Troubles helped to bring about this state of affairs. Private investment in Northern Ireland is possible, and is happening, but it needs help and encouragement. Northern Ireland needs to be given the means to ensure that the ends of peace are sustained. Economic support for Northern Ireland is support for the peace process itself.

The Saville report clearly states the significance of events on 30 January 1972:

“What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland”.

The truth has been arrived at and, with it, some closure for the Bloody Sunday families. I am glad that my party while in government made the decision to look again at the events of Bloody Sunday and I am immensely proud of the work that we did with the parties and communities of Northern Ireland to bring a successful peace settlement to the Province. Of course, we worked with many noble Lords in this House, on the Benches opposite and from the Benches around us. Tony Blair said that the aim of the Saville inquiry was,

“to establish the truth, and to close this painful chapter once and for all”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/98; col. 502.]

I hope that that is what it has done.

The value of the Saville report cannot be underestimated, but remaining questions must be answered. The Government must anticipate potential situations in Northern Ireland, must be sensitive and get to know the communities and must stick to the principles that enabled us to build, prosecute and deliver peace to Northern Ireland. I am confident that that is what they will wish to do.

15:58

[Lord Eames]

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as co-chairman of the Consultative Group on the Past, set up by the British Government to inquire into ways in which we could not only bring out the truth of the past but bring about reconciliation. I also declare an interest as Bishop of Derry three years after Bloody Sunday. For those reasons, and for other obvious reasons, when the Saville report was published it was a very sombre occasion, not only for those such as myself who were deeply involved in the work of the community in that particular area, but for those who, throughout the length and breadth of the Troubles, ministered to people of all denominations and political outlooks who were the victims of the tragedy of those years. I use the word sombre because I can think of no other appropriate word which would remove triumphalism, or any other equivalent word, from that occasion.

Like many, many others, I welcome the way in which the report was received in Westminster, and particularly the response of the Prime Minister. I also welcome the way in which this debate—a welcome debate—has been introduced by the two previous speakers, who have brought before us a much wider dimension than the simple details of that report. If I might issue a plea in this debate from my personal perspective, it would be this. While there are details in that exhaustive report which obviously must be addressed, I beg that the House put it into perspective, because it is one attempt—a lengthy attempt—to put one more piece of the jigsaw of the past into perspective. I hope that we do not lose sight of that fact.

Let me tell your Lordships of a conversation that I had a few days after the Saville report was published. It was with a widow of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, which played such a pivotal role in the defence of the community during the Troubles. I had buried her husband, and I wondered what her reaction would be to the Saville report. I did not get the reaction that I had anticipated. She said, “Thank God he’s not here to hear that, because if it’s true”—and she accepted the findings—“he would have been ashamed that this had brought such shame on the British Army in the Troubles”. That helps to put into perspective the vast number of brave men and women who took a part in the security forces during our Troubles and who, despite the very dangerous situation in which they worked, were not guilty of some of the things that have been alleged and proved under the Saville report.

In putting it into perspective we must also recognise that, when looking into the past of Northern Ireland, the key word is “victim”. It is not just the victims that we think of immediately—those who have lost loved ones, on whatever side of the community they come from—but the way in which standards suffered. Morality was questioned, and ethical issues were raised which were swept inevitably under the carpet because of the speed and pressure of events which were a tragedy for the entire community. Whenever we come across attempts to try and find out what happened in the past, there will always be mention of the Saville reports of this world. But does a report answer all the questions, or does it by its very nature pose other questions that it cannot answer?

I think, for example, of another part of the diocese where I worked in those days—the small village of Claudy, which was devastated by an IRA bombing. Innocent people representing both communities, and children, were among those who died in that explosion. The justifiable feeling of people such as those in Claudy, and in other areas in Northern Ireland who looked at the expense, length, publicity and attention given to Bloody Sunday was to say, “We too are victims. We, too, suffered. We, too, lost loved ones. We have questions that are not being answered. We have asked society to help us find what they call justice”.

Immediately you are faced with what I have described in the past as the huge ambit of interpretations of what “justice” is. For one person it will be to see a prosecution of those who caused the loss of a loved one, and they will not be satisfied until they see someone in the dock being sentenced for the crime. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who simply say, “We want to know what happened and how it happened, and we simply ask human questions”. As I have said in this House before, I will never forget the mother of the young policewoman who was killed in the explosion in Newry, who simply said to me, “Archbishop, I have only one question in finding justice”. I asked, “What is it?”. She said, “Did she have her dinner before she died?”. That was a simple human reaction, at the other end from those who seek justice in our courts. That illustrates the huge expanse of what it means to be a victim.

When we debate this report, we have to recognise that it lifted both a veil and a burden from a large part of the community of Londonderry. When I went there as a bishop, I was very conscious on my first visit to the Bogside of how deeply feelings ran about the events of Bloody Sunday. At this distance, therefore, I can understand the reaction to the tribunal’s report when it was published. I also recognise and pay a warm tribute to the actions of my successors, the church leaders in that city, who on the publication of the report went into the Bogside and simply listened, talked and prayed with those most affected, no matter what denomination they came from. As has already been said today in this Chamber, that is another indication of how far society has come.

There are, though, two levels to this discussion. There is the marvellous, courageous political progress made by the politicians in Northern Ireland, but there is also the question of any change of heart among ordinary people leading ordinary lives every day on the ground. One is political progress; the other is the question of human reconciliation. From what I am told, the reaction to Saville has been a huge step in that direction. People have said, “We have found justice. We have an answer to some of our questions”. Even though that is true and there has been general relief, however, one has to think again of the feelings of that widow who said to me, “I feel a bit ashamed that this should cast any aspersion on the reputation of the British Army”.

Moving on from that, I want to quote the words of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—if she will forgive me quoting her—when she wrote,

“there is an ongoing, articulated need for the investigation of so many of the unsolved and of some of the ‘solved’ atrocities of the Troubles”.

I interpret her words to mean that until society—every one of us—finds some way to deal with the past, this is going to go on and on crossing our path.

The Government have said that this is the end to open-ended inquiries. In the light of the expense and everything else involved, we would welcome that. I certainly would. However, I pose another question: with what do we replace that system? What do we say to society will be the alternative to Saville? If we do not come to terms with the sensitive nature of dealing with the past in a place such as Northern Ireland, there will be a constant drip-by-drip exposure and calling of attention to atrocities, to events and to suspicions—the list is endless. Coroners’ courts, investigative journalism and ancillary events to court cases will go on and on not just for our generation but for the generation—the most important one—that will read of the Troubles in history books. Memories are what make us, mostly, what we are, but they also dictate what we could become. I urge Her Majesty’s Government, if they do not see the future of inquiries in the currently accepted sense, to give urgent and honest consideration to what they will replace the inquiries with. What will they place in the vacuum when they take away the system of inquiries into the past?

The Consultative Group on the Past, of which I had the honour to be co-chair, suggested the establishment of what we called a legacy commission that would bring together the threads of detection, reconciliation and building up for the future. We were told that the cost involved in setting up such a commission would be prohibitive, but then we learned of the cost of the Saville report. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to accept that the time is right, through the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to urge the local parties in the devolved Administration to take the courage to address how they deal with the past on a cross-community basis. For obvious reasons—for political reasons—that is a very sensitive issue. No local political party grasps with open heart the issue of how to deal with the past. However, until there is that sort of agreement and the establishment of some structure to make that possible, the drip-by-drip agony will continue.

I pay tribute to the successive Secretaries of State—many of them sitting in your Lordships’ Chamber—with whom I have had the privilege of working over the years. I believe that they will agree with me that the complexity of the issue is such that it will not be answered by one report, one tribunal or one decision but must be directed to where it matters most. The answer must come from the bottom up, from what society is ready to have and from what society is prepared to do.

Let me finish on this note: a sign of dealing with the past is a gauge of a society’s maturity. The question is whether Northern Ireland is mature enough to find the truth of the past. Saville would indicate, encouragingly, yes. If that is a true indication, I believe that it is up to the party politic in the devolved Administration—encouraged by Westminster and Her Majesty’s Government, supported by the Irish Government—to find a way in which that drip-by-drip agony can come to an end.

Reference was made to South Africa. I have studied the South African truth and reconciliation process but I have also looked at Chile, Argentina, East Timor and other efforts to look into the past. Do you know what conclusion I have reached? When all the dust settles we can forget about legislation; we can forget about laws, tribunals and debates. We end up looking into ordinary human life and the reaction of people to tragedy. Thank God I see—as, I hope, do those who, like me, live and work in that part of the United Kingdom—the seeds of real hope. We must grasp the fact that, until we deal with the past in a holistic manner, we will face other Savilles and other questions that we must answer honestly.

16:15

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, I follow the speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, with some trepidation, as you can well imagine. I had the privilege of standing with him on the steps of Omagh town hall following the tragedy in Omagh, the home of my wife. I rise to speak because I have been intimately involved with Northern Ireland for the past 43 years, through marriage and family, and in aspects of the peace process. In parentheses, I say that members of my family have not been killed in the Troubles but they have experienced the effects of bombings and the loss of neighbours as a result of the events of these past years.

This afternoon I express appreciation for the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, in what has been a painstaking, exhaustive and, I am sure, often exhausting inquiry. My own observation, together with those of various episcopal colleagues from Ireland, is that this report has brought about significant healing. Again, I pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for playing his considerable part in the Province during the inquiry period.

Welcoming the report in June, the most reverend Alan Harper, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, reflected in his news release that,

“the contents of the report will be painful for many people, not least the families of those killed, those injured and those present on the day. It will also be a day of painful memories for the soldiers involved on that day”.

I endorse the remarks of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, in relation to the British military. Alan Harper continued:

“Furthermore, some of Lord Saville’s conclusions and recommendations may meet with limited acceptance by some people”.

While there is little doubt that Archbishop Harper was right, in conversation with him and the present Bishop of Derry and Raphoe earlier this week the overall sense was that the Saville report has brought significant healing. Certainly, the publication itself was regarded as a significant milestone and achievement. Further, in support of other noble Lords, the Prime Minister’s words were well received on both sides of the border.

As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has observed, the action of the non-Catholic church leaders with the Bogside residents after publication was also significant. This courageous act on the day after publication was co-ordinated by Bishop Ken Good and involved him, together with the moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the president of the Methodist Conference. Following prearrangements, the three leaders walked into the Bogside and met the residents and, at the memorial to Bloody Sunday, handed over a replica of a sculpture of two people shaking hands across the river in Londonderry, which symbolised building bridges and healing wounds. The occasion was emotional, with tears, embraces and handshakes but, above all, a sense of the Protestant community reaching out a hand of reconciliation.

As others have observed, it is inevitable, however, that one person’s blessing is another’s impoverishment, or that a feeling arises that some get justice but others do not. Where Saville has encouraged, even liberated, the people of the Bogside and elsewhere in Derry, for the people of Claudy and elsewhere there remains a sense of impoverishment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, pointed out. I will not return to the events of Claudy, Omagh and elsewhere as they have often been mentioned by others, or, indeed, to the Historical Inquiries Team except to say that we need to continue to reflect on how we deal with the ongoing sense of loss and bereavement in cases where no one has been brought to justice.

As Alan Harper has reflected:

“We know all too well that history cannot be re-written”.

He continued that, while we hold the,

“victims of Bloody Sunday in our prayers let us continue to remember the thousands of others whose suffering continues and whose memories have been re-awakened”

by the publication of the report. “Our hope”, concludes the Archbishop,

“is that the lessons of the past will help us to build and sustain a better future for all our people and that neither bitterness nor disappointment will be allowed to blight our future”.

Few of us would disagree with that. It is true that things are often worse than we imagine, but is also true that they are much better. Back in darker days in Northern Ireland, there were those committed to a simple mantra, “Pray peace; think peace; speak peace; act peace”. On one of his visits before his death, the German pastor Martin Niemöller, an arch opponent of Nazism and a victim of Hitler’s concentration camps, observed of the people of Northern Ireland, “Every day hundreds of acts of forgiveness are carried out in this Province, far more than anywhere else in Europe”. He was speaking then, of course, before Bosnia and other Balkan conflicts, but it was then—and, I believe, is now—significant testimony to a people who seek to add a measure of grace to the world.

I welcome this report and thank all who have been instrumental in its writing.

16:22

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, as I do not want to spend time looking at the details of the Saville report, I start by saying that I share the view of those who think that some of the events recorded were unjustified and unjustifiable. However, I stress that they were events committed only by some. I noted the paragraph in the report that commended the appropriate and proportionate restraint of aspects of the Army activity on that dreadful day.

I start from a privileged position of having served as a Minister in Northern Ireland for more than six years—only one of two who has done so. I do not have a Peterborough accent; I am the only native-born son who has had the privilege of being a Minister during direct rule. I have seen violence and the consequences of violence and I have had to deal, on the Government’s behalf, with the consequences of violence. It is against that background that I want to make two points arising from the Saville report—perhaps two lessons. The first is to remind your Lordships' House that the action of the Army in support of the RUC was a slightly unnatural action for an army to have to take; it was training the Army to behave in a somewhat different way from that in which armies normally behave. That gives me the opportunity to express my personal appreciation for the work that the RUC did—it was the Royal Ulster Constabulary in those days—and the work that the Army did, at great personal risk and sacrifice, on behalf of the people of the whole nation, of the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of us Ministers. I owe my life to the diligence of some Army officers and some RUC officers, and I remain grateful.

As we think of the behaviour of some who should not have behaved as they did, I share the view of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, that we must not tar the majority by the actions of what was, in the context, a very small minority. I come back to the behaviour of the Army, because, from all the Saville report, each of us will have been attracted by a particular sentence. I will tell you the sentence that attracted me. It was about the difficulty in separating out the potential rioters from the mass of ordinary marchers. That encapsulates one of the most difficult aspects of policing in Northern Ireland or in similar circumstances. The majority were doing what they were democratically permitted to do—to express their opinions, even if, on occasions, the Government did not like those opinions. Under the cover of that democratic process, a few evil people wanted to create danger and violence.

In other words, security and political development are inextricably linked. The problem which we all had—I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, under whose leadership I had the privilege of serving—was that we all understood the fine intricacy of security and political development. If, on a dark night, a 19 year-old Army officer with half a second to decide whether his life was at risk shot someone, and it turned out to be an accident, the political consequences reverberated—as they did all the more in Londonderry. I became a Minister 15 years after these events, and the political problems in Londonderry were palpable. No one could have believed that the feelings of the local people had been stirred up by some political activity. Had that been the case, I would have loved to have had ownership of the political activity, abilities and skills that created that sort of a reaction. This was gut. It may or may not be a coincidence—I do not care today to choose—that, as a Minister, it was on the streets of Londonderry that I came closest to losing my life.

I pay tribute to Bishop Edward Daly—he was that iconic priest waving a white handkerchief photographed in the middle of the troubles on Bloody Sunday—for the work which he, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and other churchmen did to try to handle the situation. One of the things that I would have liked to have seen effected, which I spectacularly failed to achieve, was to make it a matter of government policy that when the Army is acting in support of the civil powers, and someone gets shot, the Army person is deployed somewhere else until an inquiry establishes the facts. If that is a matter of policy, no blame can be attached to the individual for the individual circumstances. In political terms—by which I mean trying to develop the circumstances in which political progress can be made across the Province—that would have been a big advantage. However, I have to say, as a member of Her Majesty's Government at the time, that that did not become government policy. I regret that and it may still be a lesson that might beneficially be learnt for the future.

The second lesson that I want to draw follows in parallel with the excellent speech, if he will permit me to say so, that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, has just made. He and I have not colluded but your Lordships are going to hear some of the same messages that he so eloquently gave us. Twelve years and £190 million amount to an awful lot. We deal with numbers here. Outside, people think that the inquiry went on for ever and cost the earth, but we are supposed to have some sense of perspective. When I awoke one morning in Northern Ireland—I was the Finance Minister for the Province at the time—my officials told me that the previous night’s bombing had cost the British Exchequer £25 million. It was a part of the IRA’s strategy that, if it could do enough damage, eventually we would run out of patience to pay the money and go away. I pay tribute to my two noble friends for the way in which they made it clear at the height of the Troubles that, no matter what it cost, the British Government would not back off. However, now we find that there will be no more open-ended inquiries.

I remind colleagues that peace or the absence of violence are not the same as reconciliation. They are quite different. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, referred to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. I had some reason to be exposed to that and I do not advocate that we should go down the same road. However, I do advocate to your Lordships that we should learn the lesson that, unless we focus on doing something about reconciliation, we will continue with the danger, so adequately pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that the present fragility—her word—might continue. If fragility lasts too long, it becomes more fragile with the passage of time.

I remind the House that, when government or the organs of the state are in the dock, people can look to the Government to take action on their behalf. However, when it is not the organs of the state that are in the dock, to whom do the people look to get the sort of help and closure that Saville has given? People need help to heal the past. Therefore, although I do not challenge the Prime Minister’s comment that this is the end to open-ended inquiries, I say to the House, as did the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, that that leaves a problem unsolved. We need to find a new way to address those issues.

Perhaps I may illustrate the point by reference to the bomb at Omagh. We are outraged, and rightly so, that 11 people died on Bloody Sunday, but three times that number died in Omagh. Does Omagh not raise serious questions about the need for resolution and reconciliation and for trying to take a step to heal the past for the benefit of the future? I believe that it does. Twelve years and £190 million are not the answer, but an answer needs to be found if Northern Ireland is to prosper. Like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, I passionately believe that it will prosper only on the back of reconciliation and healing, and I was pleased that the right reverend Prelate also used those words. Northern Ireland needs to be healed. People need the past to be addressed and, in my view, finding a way of doing that constitutes the biggest challenge that the Saville report has laid down for government.

16:35

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I served as a Minister in Northern Ireland for a much shorter period than the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. Several years have passed but his reputation was very high when I got to Belfast in 1997. I remember the day when Mo Mowlam, the Secretary of State, said to me that there was to be a further inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday. I felt an enormous sense of relief because, although I had not been in Northern Ireland all that long, it was very clear that the situation had to be dealt with if any progress were to be made towards a peaceful resolution. I and those around me were delighted.

In the long period between then and now, there was a nervousness about what the report would bring. I believe that we were all mightily relieved when we saw the report and the very positive response to it by the Prime Minister. I never thought that a British Conservative Prime Minister would be cheered outside the Guildhall in Derry. None of us could have anticipated that, even a short time before the report came out.

I do not want to approach this in a mood of self-congratulation for this country, but I do not believe that there are many other countries in the world which could deal with an event which had blotted their past in such an open, honest and apologetic manner as we did. It was apologetic in the sense that the Prime Minister apologised for what happened. That is a sign of strength and we have to build on that strength. We all know that the events of Bloody Sunday were disastrous for Northern Ireland; and they were disastrous for the whole of Britain and Ireland as well. We all know how much support the IRA gained from the events of Bloody Sunday, as it did from a mistaken attempt to introduce internment there.

There is one respect in which Bloody Sunday was different from other tragic events in Northern Ireland’s history and why there was an even greater need for an inquiry into it than into some of the other events—although I shall speak about that in a moment—and that, of course, is Widgery. The fact that Widgery said, effectively, that everything was all right and that the report was widely regarded as a whitewash made it even more important that there should be another inquiry into the events of that tragic day in Londonderry. I understand that it is the first time in British legal history that there has been a second inquiry into the same events, and probably into the same facts.

Some people say—and I understand why because a life is a life however it is taken away—that many other tragic events have taken place there and that many people have been killed by republican and by loyalist terrorists, but one important difference, which has been referred to already, is that our soldiers were the servants of the state of this country. It is right to demand higher standards of those who act in our name than of those who act as terrorists or paramilitaries outside the law. For that reason, I think that the Saville inquiry is different and represents a different mood from some of the demands for inquiries into some of the other events which were not done by the British state.

Nevertheless, although the British Army came out of the events badly in Londonderry on that day, I think we all have a high respect for it. I certainly do. I saw it in action in Afghanistan when I was there briefly early last year. We need to pay respect to the Army, even though on this occasion it is important that we get into balance what happened; the report is rightly critical of it.

I turn briefly to the lessons from the Saville process and the issues for the future. Of course, it was costly and took a long time. Although the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, made it very clear how important it was to have the inquiry and get those results, and I very much agree, the fact that it cost so much has made it harder to have similar inquiries. That is why the Prime Minister said that there would not be any more public inquiries and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said that there would be no more open-ended inquiries. I think that that is a pity, because the process was good. Had it been quicker and less expensive, we could have decided that other issues required an inquiry, but we have been a bit stymied. I understand that, this afternoon, the noble and learned Lord, Lord, Saville, is giving evidence to the Northern Ireland Select Committee in the House of Commons, and that the committee was going to ask these sort of questions. It is a pity that we could not have had those views to hand prior to this debate.

Other events happened in Northern Ireland, and every speaker so far has referred to them and said that we have to do something about them. I do not think that we can just ignore Ballymurphy because there was no whitewash Widgery-type inquiry about it. We cannot ignore it because that also involved soldiers. In Claudy, although no British troops were involved, I think that our Government were in some way complicit in transferring a particular person into Donegal and out of our jurisdiction.

So we have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, because they, above all, are entitled to closure and to some greater inner peace in their minds about some of those events. We call this the Eames/Bradley report for short, but the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, played an important part in the report and in our debate this afternoon. For all the good work that it is doing, I do not think that the historic inquiries team is the best way to deal with some of the events to which we have referred. It is not independent in the sense that the Saville inquiry was independent, and it is burdened with a lot of work on lower level but important issues. We need to find a different way to deal with the outstanding issues.

There was criticism of the report that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, produced, along with Denis Bradley, but we ought to revisit its conclusions because although some of them were criticised very much, others are very relevant today and we would be paying a disrespect to the work that went into that inquiry if we simply said, “We will move on; that wasn’t very good”. I have read it again over the past day or so and I think that there are some very important conclusions in it which are relevant to how we move forward. I am not totally clear as to the best way ahead, but that of course is a responsibility for the Government. All that I hope is that they will look again at the conclusions in that report.

One outstanding issue is Finucane. There have been inquiries into Billy Wright; we have had the report. The Nelson and Hamill inquiries continue. I do not think that we can leave Finucane alone; there is too much concern about it. If we simply say that nothing needs to be done about it, we and the people of Northern Ireland will regret that day. It represents one important item of unfinished business in Northern Ireland and it has to be addressed; we cannot duck it. I do not want to go into a long debate about what happened under the previous Government, but we cannot just move away from that one. Next year, there will be crucial Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, and I would not want the Finucane issue to bedevil the discussions and debate in that election campaign.

I shall refer to just two other issues. The Northern Ireland Bill of Rights is not directly relevant to Saville, but it is indirectly relevant. It has been put into the long grass, although the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission did a lot of work on it. I hope that the Government will look again at it to see what of the report on the Bill of Rights that was put before them is worth bringing into law. That is important.

Lastly, I shall refer to an issue that my noble friend Lady Royall referred to: community policing. In the end, Saville is about establishing a long-lasting peace, and community policing is an important aspect of that at the moment. If any financial decisions were to be announced on the 20th of this month that damaged community policing in Northern Ireland, they would prove many times more costly in terms of lives than the money that would be saved. I urge the Government to think hard. Community policing is now an essential part of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and anything that takes away from that would be damaging to the future of Northern Ireland.

Having said that, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, on his report. It was an important day in the history of Northern Ireland when the report was produced. I echo the words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames: what we need is an ongoing healing process for the people of Northern Ireland. The Saville report is part of it, but we have some way to go.

16:46

[Lord Smith of Clifton]

I thank my noble friend Lord Shutt for introducing this important debate and I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Macdonald. First, like so many other noble Lords, I believe that the tone, tenor and substance of the Prime Minister’s response to the Saville report were appropriate in every respect. I congratulate Mr Cameron on that. It helps to make for satisfactory closure, to use the current argot, and allows the political system in Northern Ireland to mature. The development of a more normal politics, and one that is appreciably less sectarian, is desperately overdue.

Secondly, we are all indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and his colleagues for producing such a detailed, meticulous and comprehensive analysis of the events of Bloody Sunday some 38 years ago. As so many noble Lords have said, such a report was necessary to redeem the reputation of United Kingdom justice and government more generally since the earlier and—as is now widely recognised—infamous Widgery report was published. That was a whitewash and a cover-up on an unprecedented scale. The widespread reaction against Widgery’s findings was, as Saville notes, totally counterproductive and acted as the best recruiting agent for the Provisional IRA. All future public inquiries should be compelled to take a crash course on the dangers, both immediate and longer term, of hasty fixes and fudges.

It was fitting, therefore, that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who responded to Saville in the way that he did because it was a Conservative PM, Edward Health, who set up the Widgery inquiry in the first place. Widgery was a stain on the United Kingdom judiciary. It placed a further and unnecessary strain on the judges in Northern Ireland, who were carrying out their duties under the most trying circumstances. I have known the last four Chief Justices of Northern Ireland, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, who is speaking in this debate, and have witnessed the impartiality and assiduity that they all brought to the exercise of their duties. That dedication survives and bodes well for the future constitutional development of Northern Ireland.

In welcoming the Saville report and the responses that it evoked, I believe that there remain two more general UK-wide considerations. The most worrying is the use of the British Army in peacekeeping operations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, referred. There are some successes, of course, of which we must be proud, but too many unacceptable outrages are still being perpetrated. The immediate reaction of the military is always to claim that lessons have been learnt—that was said after the publication of the Saville report—but the events in Derry 38 years ago were not dissimilar to what has happened more recently in Basra in Iraq and in Helmand province in Afghanistan. Basically, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, pointed out, the military are not adequately trained to carry out peacekeeping, which is essentially a police operation. I can only hope that in the defence review being undertaken much more provision for training the Army in police methods will be considered. It will be more important in the future than aircraft carriers. I ask my noble friend to reassure me on this point.

Furthermore, will my noble friend say whether there was any truth in Monday’s Guardian report that official archives illustrated that Ministry of Defence policy was to fully prosecute republican paramilitaries while being lenient on loyalist paramilitaries? That would resonate with one’s observations at the time and would be consistent with the woefully misleading findings of the Widgery report.

Finally, there is the question of cost, to which others have referred. Almost £200 million is as unbelievable as it is unacceptable. The problem lies in the fact that lawyers, both as barristers and as judges, have no experience of project management. In fact, throughout their careers, they are managed by their clerks. Only in the topmost positions in the judicial hierarchy are they called on to manage and that comes late in their careers. As has been said, the Ministry of Justice must attend to this problem of excessive costs. By way of a benchmark, I ask my noble friend what the budgetary spend of Derry City Council was in the past financial year. As others have said, we must find a solution. The Government must come forward on it because, if you are not going to have public inquiries or if you are going to truncate them severely, as seems likely, you must have some mechanism to deal with these sorts of issues as they arise, as they clearly will, not just in Northern Ireland but elsewhere where we deploy our Army. We must now all pray that Northern Ireland can progress and develop as a mature civil society and democratic polity.

16:51

[Lord Bramall]

My Lords, the inquiry, headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, aptly summarised that the events of that January afternoon 38 years ago were indeed a tragedy. They were a tragedy, of course, for the 13 civilians, who in the course of a civil rights march lost their lives when they had done nothing that could have justified their shooting, and for the widowed and bereaved. But they were also a tragedy for the British Army, in that, albeit in one small area, some soldiers from one company and one battalion failed to come up to the very highest standards of discipline and restraint for which the British Army is rightly admired. As has been said, that increased nationalist hostility towards it, thus making its very difficult job even harder. Also, the events were a tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.

An earlier, contemporary inquiry, conducted by Lord Widgery, tended to take the view that under the circumstances and in the noisy confusion prevailing at the time, in which security forces were clashing directly with demonstrators in a highly emotive area, some error of judgment by individuals as to which targets should be engaged when intent on protecting themselves and their comrades was almost inevitable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, however, considered quite categorically that the failure of certain soldiers in that one company, properly and beyond all reasonable doubt, to identify the targets being engaged as posing a direct threat of death or serious injury to themselves or their comrades—that is, à la yellow card—was so serious as to constitute a totally unjustified and therefore unjustifiable use of force.

This assessment was fully accepted by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government, the British Army and the whole country. In a masterly Statement that he made in another place, he gave a fulsome, heartfelt apology to all those who had suffered and to the bereaved. To this, all who mind about the rule of law, just as much as the high reputation of the Army, would wish to subscribe. I believe that the Prime Minister’s Statement has also had a good reception in Londonderry.

The least that your Lordships’ House should do is to take note of the Bloody Sunday report. However, I believe that it is important that noble Lords should be mindful of what the inquiry did not say or imply. For instance, it had no truck with and specifically rejected any suggestion that there might have been a sinister predesigned plot actually to cause casualties among the rioters and any, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, described them, paramilitaries “pour encourager les autres”. The inquiry did not deny the right of the chain of command to order, if it thought it appropriate, arrests of troublemakers during the march, which, although organised as a civil rights one protesting against internment, had in fact been banned and involved rioting.

The inquiry did not consider that there had been any general breakdown of discipline and indeed made it clear that most soldiers throughout the area behaved with a high degree of responsibility and in accordance with the yellow card. I am glad to say that the battalion that I once had the honour to command, the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Green Jackets, as it was then, positioned at Barrier 14 to prevent the march from reaching the heart of the city, was particularly singled out for praise for the restraint and proportionality of the force that it used in dealing with intense rioting.

What did go seriously wrong, as both inquiries pointed out—and this of course is the nub of the whole business—was the spontaneous action that was taken when the vehicles and men of the Support Company of 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, appeared in Rossville Street. The commanding officer of the battalion had in fact exceeded his orders in sending the Support Company into the march from the north to make arrests—as well as one ordered by his brigadier from the east through Barrier 14—and in allowing the Support Company to follow the march down the now revised route, virtually chasing both the marchers and the rioters back into the Bogside and making it difficult to separate one from the other, an action that he had been ordered by his brigadier to avoid. So it was that at that point, at 4.30 pm, the arrest operation, although six arrests had been made, took second place for that company if it was not forgotten altogether, while the soldiers, believing that they were under fire, turned their attention to engage their imagined assailants, firing, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, put it,

“with a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline and control”,

with the tragic consequences that we now know.

There had been shots from both sides in other areas, and these continued, but the first shots in this particular area were probably fired for rather obscure reasons by an officer with Support Company itself, a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. This would in no way have prevented other members of the company from believing that that shot and the others that followed might be directed at them. In street fighting, as I can confirm from very personal experience, because of echoes, ricochets and the short time lag between the crack of the bullet and the thump of the gun firing, it is extremely hard to differentiate between fire that is going and that which is coming your way.

That would be particularly the case on the edge of the Bogside, where the expectation of hostile fire would have been so great. After all, in 1972 we were in the middle of an intense insurrection, which had every intention of toppling the structure of government, with no-go areas, massive destruction of property and numerous assassinations of security forces personnel and civilians to give expression to that policy. Certain areas of West Belfast and Londonderry, particularly the Bogside, were highly dangerous places, where the security forces could invariably expect resistance of one sort or another. It was all so different from what we can imagine today. This knowledge would be quite enough, on the occasion of this noisy and sometimes violent march, at least to induce a high level of apprehension even in hardened troops, particularly as that battalion was unfamiliar with the area.

Perhaps I may, as an old soldier with some experience of that sort of tension and stress, ask noble Lords for a moment to put themselves in the shoes of those young men of 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, back in the entirely different environment of 1972. To help in that, I cannot do better than to quote the report’s own description of their predicament:

“We appreciate that soldiers on internal security duties, facing a situation in which they or their colleagues may at any moment come under lethal attack, have little time to decide whether they have identified a person posing a threat of causing death or serious injury; and may have to take that decision in a state of tension or fear. It is a well-known phenomenon that, particularly when under stress or when events are moving fast, people often erroneously come to believe that they are or might be hearing or seeing what they were expecting to hear or see … It is also possible that in the sort of circumstances outlined in the previous paragraph, a soldier might fire in fear or panic, without giving proper thought to whether his target was posing”,

a direct threat. Under such circumstances, the temptation must have been very great to see any figures who might be sheltering behind suspicious areas such as barricades, as some were, or on the balconies of the Bogside flats, from one of which acid was indeed thrown down, or throwing things that could be loosely imagined to be nail bombs—one of the casualties was found to have a nail bomb on his person—or crawling purposefully holding something that could conceivably be thought to be a rifle, as posing some sort of future threat and therefore a target to be engaged before worst fears could be realised. It might even, in their opinion, have justified some sort of prophylactic fire into potential ambush areas to deter hostile and perhaps lethal resistance, which is absolutely common practice in normal street fighting. In that part of the United Kingdom particularly, of course, it is not possible to condone such judgments when close adherence to the yellow card could have prevented them. However, in this stressful, untidy situation, it should be possible for open-minded people to appreciate why this lapse of fire discipline could have occurred.

There I hope we can leave the matter. When you consider that 651 service personnel have been killed and 6,307 wounded since the start of the Troubles, not to mention the grievous police and civilian losses—many inflicted in absolutely cold blood—and the leniency in terms of early release, pardons, amnesties and so on subsequently given to the perpetrators of these crimes, it would be a great abuse of even-handedness and justice to single out these unfortunate soldiers of this one company, who should not have been in that area in the first place. Whatever their shortcomings, they were trying to do their duty as they thought fit in support of the civil power and the interests of the law and order for which we should always be grateful. Specific action against them is bound to be difficult and time-consuming and would cause the opening up of old scores and prejudices. This would not benefit in any way the peace process, which our Armed Forces helped to bring about, and the hoped-for coming together of the various communities. If this inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, can at last bring this whole tragic incident—and the past—to a decent and emphatic conclusion, then the time and public money spent on it may at least be said to have been in the national interest.

17:04

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, in his recent memoirs, the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, addresses the issue of the inquiry which he asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, to establish into the events of Bloody Sunday. In his memoires, Mr Blair said that as time passed and as more and more money was spent, he became more and more jaded and asked himself whether he had done the right thing and thought perhaps it was not a justifiable move. However, in the end, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, reported and there was that remarkable response by the people of Derry, Mr Blair came to the conclusion that he had done the right thing and that the expenditure was justified. I regard Mr Blair’s attitude in this respect as being entirely understandable and I think that it would find many echoes in your Lordships' House. I have more respect for Mr Blair’s work as Prime Minister than is probably now fashionable in your Lordships' House, but I am unwilling to leave the matter quite there.

I must first declare an interest as one of the two historical advisers to the tribunal, appointed in the late 1990s. The other was my friend, Professor Paul Arthur of the University of Ulster. I should describe briefly, so that there can be no misunderstanding of my subsequent remarks, the role of the historical adviser. It was, first, to provide historical background papers about the situation in Derry and Northern Ireland for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville; at a later date, to advise about a document search—where documents were likely to be found in government archives based on my own experience as a historian—and suggest places to look; and, finally, to do an analysis of those documents. All this work was completed in the last century and all of it is a matter of public knowledge. The work is posted on the inquiry’s website. In fact, I had never spoken to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, until this afternoon, just before he gave evidence on his inquiry to the House of Commons Select Committee.

That was the nature of our involvement. We were extraordinarily fortunate in terms of documents and personnel. Very few documents that seemed to be relevant had disappeared. Let us contrast that with the more recent inquiry into the death of Mr Billy Wright, which cost £42 million and was considered to be much less satisfactory. That was not because of any absence of professionalism on the part of those who worked on that inquiry; it was simply because, although the events connected with Mr Wright’s death were only 10 years ago, a surprisingly large number of the dramatis personae were dead whereas a surprisingly large number of the dramatis personae of Bloody Sunday, 38 years ago, were still alive. It was also because many documents in the Billy Wright case had taken a walk whereas the same documents in respect of Bloody Sunday had not. So we were extremely fortunate, particularly in the matter of the survival of documents.

Even for £200 million, no inquiry can give the absolute truth. In the 1880s in London we had the special commission of inquiry into Parnellism and crime. Relevant documents with regard to the conclusions of that special commission have become available only in the past 10 or 20 years. I am absolutely certain that, over time, documents will become available and memoirs written which will change parts at least of the story as given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. That is not a reflection on the professionalism and lucidity which he has brought to his report; it is simply a reflection on the difficulty of establishing the absolute truth of these events. I fully support the conclusions that he has reached, but since the report has been published I have heard from a nationalist, Derry and Bogside point of view criticisms of certain points which seem to be at least serious, and I have heard people with connections with the Army criticise other points in a way which seems also to have a degree of seriousness. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, has done a remarkable job, in particular in the handling of sensitive intelligence matters which I did not think could be handled so well, but even at that price, you do not get a guarantee of absolute truth. What you get is a very good job and a remarkable piece of work by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville.

I remind noble Lords of the real context of why we got the Saville inquiry in the first place. It was not because Lord Widgery said that those who died were guilty—because he did not; it was because Mr Gerry Adams and the leadership of Sinn Fein said that there was a conspiracy on the part of the British state to bring about these events. The Saville inquiry was set up because a calculation was made by the then Prime Minister, as part of the peace process that led to the successful negotiation of the Good Friday agreement some months later, that it was necessary to bring Sinn Fein along. It was an entirely defensible and correct political calculation on the part of the Prime Minister of the day. But the actual circumstances are often misrepresented.

Let me explain. What did Lord Widgery say in April 1972 about those who died? In the conclusion of his report he stated:

“Each soldier was his own judge of whether he had identified a gunman. Their training made them aggressive and quick in decision and some showed more restraint in opening fire than others. At one end of the scale some soldiers showed a high degree of responsibility; at the other … firing bordered on the reckless”.

He concluded:

“None of the deceased or wounded is proved to have been shot whilst handling a firearm or bomb”.

Lord Widgery's report is inadequate in many ways. It does not reach out to the people of the Bogside who suffered so much pain on that day, but he did not say that those who fell were guilty of any crime. If there is any doubt about that, John Major, the Prime Minister before Tony Blair, said in the House of Commons that those who died on that day should be considered innocent. There was therefore no need as such to address that question. There were other important questions that rightly had to be addressed and I hope I showed by the fact that I was happy to work for the inquiry that I believed it was important to get to the truth of these matters. But it is not the case that Lord Widgery actually said that those who fell on the day were guilty.

On the other hand, Mr Adams's views, taken two months before the establishment of the inquiry on 7 December 1997 to the Independent, are very clear. He said that one question that is very much on people's minds is Bloody Sunday. He said:

“Everybody knows it was a premeditated attack as part of the military-political strategy at that time. You'd think it would be relatively easy to set up an independent inquiry to sort everything out, but to do that the Prime Minister has to challenge all that stuff. That’s the test”.

It was as a response to that challenge that Tony Blair took the correct decision to establish the Saville inquiry. But it is quite important to realise the real context of the political decision.

The immediate casus belli is a claim of conspiracy. In my view, the release of documents before the turn of the century made it clear that there was no conspiracy at the level of the British Cabinet, no conspiracy at the level of the Northern Ireland Cabinet and no conspiracy at the level of the higher reaches of the Army or the Ministry of Defence. That was for the price of £20,000 or £30,000. A large part of the tribunal's conclusions state that there was no conspiracy. I do not say that the many other tens of millions of pounds subsequently racked up in this century were irrelevant or wrong. This afternoon, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, before the Select Committee in another place, made a very serious point that the Ministry of Defence had lost contact with many of the soldiers and it was necessary to pay private inquiry firms to establish contact with many of the soldiers involved. I regard that and many other things that he gave instance of this afternoon as entirely legitimate expenses that the inquiry subsequently entered into.

There is a point here about the peculiarity of the English in these difficult situations to lawyer-up with this model of inquiry. The Belgians, confronted with the difficult question in their own past of the possible involvement of the Belgian state authorities in the murder of Patrice Lumumba, had a commission of historians. The Swedes, confronted with issues about how their security forces had operated during the Cold War, had a commission of historians. The Dutch, confronted with issues of how their army performed in the Balkans—sensitive, difficult and painful issues for the Dutch people—had a commission of historians. In England, we lawyer-up. There is a certain model of inquiry and certain expenses inevitably follow from that inquiry, which is part of the reason already given by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in this respect.

I shall give noble Lords another example. The eight days of the former Prime Minister, Mr Edward Heath, in the witness box, contributed absolutely nothing to the final conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, while contributing a significant amount to the earnings of the barristers involved in the questioning. All we needed to know about the former Prime Minister’s views about Bloody Sunday were in the Cabinet conclusions of two weeks before, when it was perfectly clear that his opinions and attitudes about what to do about Derry were, if anything, benign and conciliatory, and certainly did not edge or lead towards the murderous events that took place. Then there is the case of Mr David Shayler, the intelligence officer. His evidence on a key intelligence question took one hour, but there were several days of lawyers asking questions to establish his credibility before he could go into the witness box.

So there is a problem with how we do this type of work, and its cost. We regard Saville as having been successful and benign, in certain important respects, regarding the impact of his report on Northern Ireland. We must also face up to the fact that we have new inquiries coming in, one of which is rumoured to cost £52 million and another £40 million. We are very fortunate indeed that the Saville inquiry, partly through luck, turned out to be so authoritative in some many crucial respects. Already, in the case of the Billy Wright inquiry, we have an example of a very expensive inquiry, costing £32 million, which is widely regarded as somewhat unsatisfactory in its impact in Northern Ireland, although through no fault of those carrying it out. That is an awful lot of hip replacements and other operations in the National Health Service. Hundreds of millions of pounds are racked up on this, again and again.

I conclude by making an observation about Mr Blair’s opening case for setting up the inquiry in the House of Commons. He said about the Armed Forces, I think entirely correctly, that,

“it would be a disservice to them to believe that they should have anything to fear from an inquiry that establishes the truth, where people accept that people were killed in circumstances in which they should not have been killed. Far from undermining support for our armed services, I believe that … we underline the fact that, unlike the terrorists, we do not have anything to fear from inquiries into the truth”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/1998; col. 512.]

I believe that Mr Blair spoke the truth that day and that it is a truth that is much to be respected.

The truth now is that a Martian who came down to earth and listened to the post-Troubles debate about Northern Ireland would conclude, after listening to the BBC news on a regular basis, that the following people died during the Troubles—those who died on Bloody Sunday and those who died in the other celebrated cases in which we have inquiries, which we have mentioned this afternoon. The Martian would also conclude that we have a very serious problem with collusion. In certain cases there appears to be evidence that there has been an element of collusion between state forces and loyalist paramilitaries, but the number of republicans killed by loyalist paramilitaries is just over 30. So even if all these were cases of collusion in which state forces had helped the loyalist paramilitaries, that would be less than 1 per cent of the total of those who died during the Troubles. It is also worth bearing in mind—and it has already been referred to—that for every one member of the IRA who fell during the Troubles, eight members of the security forces fell. Those are very important facts that have to be kept in mind.

We need now an attitude towards the past that does not privilege certain deaths. It is quite correct that we have led the way in those cases in which the state has behaved badly, but in a modern democracy we need to have more than that. Why? Because it demoralises the centre ground in Northern Ireland and those people with conventional morality who cannot figure out this way of dealing with matters. Most importantly, we rely on our Army and security services to help us in another and probably greater threat of terrorism. We need those in our Army and security services to know that while we will of course be vigilant with respect to wrong-doing, we also respect the work that they are doing and that the way in which we approach these matters, including the story of the Troubles, reflects that respect.

17:19

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, it is a great honour and a privilege to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. I do so with a sense of trepidation, in that I am following so many powerful speeches, and with a sense of privilege to be taking part in such an important debate. I am delighted to start by thanking all the staff in this building for the great kindness and patience they have shown towards me in the past few weeks. They have certainly needed their patience; I am conscious that I have asked the same questions many times over, usually regarding the directions to some place which I have already been to. Police and doorkeepers have made these rather strange first few days a great deal easier than they would otherwise have been.

Like my fellow new Members, I have been welcomed with great warmth and generosity by noble Lords from all sides of the House, and from all parties and none. Speaking of different parties, my supporters came, perhaps slightly unusually, from two: my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, the president of the Liberal Democrats, acted as introducer and supporter to a number of new Liberal Democrat Peers, and in spite of heavy burdens elsewhere she did the same for me. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is not a Liberal Democrat but she was my pupil-mistress. Indeed, I was her first pupil when I was called first to the Bar. The noble Baroness will not thank me for mentioning that that was over 30 years ago. She has, however, remained an inspiration to me throughout my career in the law. I thank them both for their great kindness.

The spirit of this place is deeply impressive and I am delighted to be here. When the Deputy Prime Minister, as he then was not, first spoke to me last October about the possibility of my becoming a Liberal Democrat Peer, I naturally imagined that he was proposing that I should join a small, independently minded band of committed troublemakers. Instead, and much to my surprise, I find myself sitting on the government Benches. We shall see how much difference that makes to my noble friends—or, I suppose, in the end, to me.

The events that occurred on 30 January 1972 in the Bogside were of startling import to the United Kingdom. Twenty-six unarmed, mainly British, citizens were shot by soldiers of the British Army on the streets of a British city. Thirteen of those mainly British citizens, seven of whom were teenagers, died immediately or soon after, while another man died four and a half months later. At least five British soldiers fired shots at people they knew posed no threat at all, and five members of the public were wounded with shots to the back. Each killing, each wounding, was unjustified. Each was unjustifiable. No single victim had posed any threat of death or serious injury to any soldier.

The British Government have held two investigations into these momentous events. The Widgery tribunal was established in the immediate aftermath of the event. It largely cleared the soldiers and the British authorities of any blame, going no further than to describe the behaviour of some of the military as “bordering on the reckless”. That report was published in circumstances of great controversy at home and abroad, but its conclusions were accepted without hesitation by the then British Government. It seems to me that it is partly because it became so widely believed, not just throughout the United Kingdom but around the world, that Widgery had failed abjectly to uncover the truth of that day that the establishment of a second inquiry became inescapable.

No great country can knowingly allow a great injustice to lie. This is all the more so when that injustice involves the state’s own responsibility for the deaths of its innocent citizens, and particularly when that responsibility has previously been obscured by a failed inquiry headed by a then serving Lord Chief Justice. The wrong had to be righted.

This is not at all to say that the Saville inquiry was capable of righting all injustices in Northern Ireland. Of course it was not, and never could be; no one believed that to be its purpose. In particular, it has left quite untouched the terrible injustices that terrorism has wreaked upon the unionist communities over too many years. In the face of great cruelty, the resilience of the people of Northern Ireland has become a matter of historical record. Likewise, the courage of the overwhelming majority of British soldiers is overwhelmingly recognised and I pay tribute to it.

I spent five years of my life as Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales, much of which time was spent prosecuting terrorists of all hues and bringing them to justice. I therefore understand what terrorism represents and the great evil that it creates. I understand the misery that it brings, and the importance of destroying it utterly. But it is important to recognise the difference between illegal violence perpetrated by terrorist gangs on the one hand and illegal violence perpetrated by the state on the other. The state’s response to each category will necessarily differ. In the first case, the state has the duty to put it down; in the second, the state has an additional duty to put it right. This, I think, was the intention of Saville and, in so far as it ever could be, this intention has been realised. The inquiry took far too long and cost far too much but, when the report came, in its central findings it was exemplary. It is meticulous, it is scrupulous and, above all, it is fair.

It is said that when the Prime Minister received a first-draft response to Saville composed by his officials, he tore it up, sat down and wrote what he intended to say in his own hand. Well, good for him. Everyone wants justice; the thirst for justice is a critical marker of the human spirit, and I believe that we are all born with it. Through Saville, and through the Prime Minister’s eloquence in commending its ringing conclusions to Parliament last June, the British state has at long last delivered at least a measure of justice to all the victims of Bloody Sunday. I believe that in doing so, the state has strengthened itself.

17:27

[Lord Carswell]

My Lords, by way of exordium, I tender congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, on his maiden speech, which has been a notable contribution to this debate. He, of course, is better known to the profession and the world at large as Ken Macdonald, Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003 to 2008. That, as everyone connected with the law certainly knows, is one of the most difficult and exacting jobs in the law. If I may paraphrase the great showman Barnum, you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and that is engraved on the heart of every DPP.

The noble Lord’s early training fitted him well for the duties of the post that he discharged with such distinction. After reading PPE at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, he was called to the Bar and engaged in criminal practice for 25 years, taking silk in 1998. In the process, he not only acquired the thorough knowledge of criminal law and practice that is the essential grounding for a DPP but also acquired the mature experience and honed the fine judgment that are so necessary for making some very difficult decisions on prosecutions.

It has been said—I think this goes back to Lord Kilmuir—that judges should be very careful to conduct themselves and to speak in such a way that they do not get reported in the daily papers. A good DPP may aspire to that, both by the quality of his decisions and by avoiding unnecessary controversy, but he can never hope to escape what Horace called the “civium ardor prava iubentium”—the horrid citizenry yelling at him telling him what to do or, if you like, the newspapers. The noble Lord has come through that experience with a high reputation and he is a worthy addition to this House. We look forward to hearing many more contributions from him.

Some 37 years ago, in August 1973, I appeared as counsel at the inquest into the deaths of those who died in Londonderry on 30 January 1972. My function was to present to the coroner and the jury the evidence that had been furnished to me, which was a mere fraction of the material considered by the Saville inquiry. Many years later, when I was Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, I presided over a court that considered at least one legal issue arising out of the inquiry proceedings. If those are interests, I certainly declare them very willingly and at once. For those reasons, and for many others, I do not wish to make any comment in the House on the content of the Saville inquiry or the findings of the tribunal, nor do I think it appropriate for me to attempt to comment on the elaborate and expensive form that the inquiry took.

My purpose in speaking today is to raise the more general issue of whether it is beneficial to hold further inquiries into the many distressing events that occurred over the past 40-plus years in Northern Ireland. We must be the most inquired-into segment of the populace in the world. The litany of inquiries is long and ever lengthening: Cameron, Scarman, Widgery, Diplock, Gardiner, Baker and Saville as well as the recently concluded Billy Wright inquiry and the ongoing Hamill inquiry—and those are only the ones that I can remember. All of them have involved huge amounts of time, energy and resources.

Successive Governments have been understandably concerned about the proliferation of open-ended inquiries and the diversion of ever scarcer resources to them, and Governments have sought powers to limit them. Again, I do not want to get involved in the arguments about the usefulness of the limitations that might be imposed. I have a more fundamental point to make about whether we should call a halt to inquiries into the past and to investigation of events that took place long ago.

Two reasons are generally advanced in favour of pursuing such inquiries in future. The first is that, if those who have committed crimes can be brought to justice, they should be, and so investigation of cases long regarded as old and dead may be justified so long as those carrying it out can see a realistic possibility of resolving them. I would certainly not dispute that the process is generally in the public interest and it must always go on. The second is the more arguable question of the extent to which inquiries help victims or benefit the community. The prevailing view, which your Lordships have heard expressed many times this afternoon, is that the extended pursuit of truth gives comfort to those who have suffered bereavement or trauma through terrorist action and that such pursuit is always justified.

One cannot live in Northern Ireland, as I have done all my life, without being all too well aware that a considerable body of people have suffered badly—some have suffered dreadfully badly—from terrorist action. No one could fail to feel enormous sympathy with them over the hurt, pain and distress, bodily and mental, that so many have endured and will endure until life’s end. Nothing I say is intended to minimise that. Numerous government initiatives have rightly been directed towards assisting such people and the provision of welfare for them. The work and effort of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and his Consultative Group on the Past are only one part of that.

One of the aims of many of the bodies concerned with this is the investigation of past deeds and the ascertainment of the truth, as far as it is possible to do so. To that end they support continuing with inquiries and investigations of all kinds. This does not factor in the indefinable issues involved in the public interest. Many, though by no means all, of the people who have suffered are extraordinarily keen to pursue the facts of past events, however long the journey and however far it may take them. One respects this desire if it will help to heal their wounds. However, against that I detect a growing feeling that we, as a community, would benefit from trying to put the past behind us—in the common and overworked phrase, to “move on”—and that focusing for too long on the wrongs of the past is picking at old scabs, keeping old wounds raw and keeping people on edge, which is detrimental to the health of society.

Like so many things, this involves a balancing of interests. Should the desire of some to pursue inquiries to the very end prevail, or should the interests of the community prevail in drawing a line? I have come to the conclusion—which I must express unequivocally, though I fear I find myself in disagreement with many noble Lords who have spoken—that those who say it is in the public interest to call a halt to further inquiries are right. People have been hurt—many badly and some dreadfully. Much can and should be done to help them in various ways. However, as a society we badly need stability. One of the best ways of achieving that would be a long period with as little disturbance as possible. Furthermore, Northern Ireland is now in the process of tackling the many problems of today. It needs all the impulse and creativity that it can summon, untrammelled by the weight of old divisions and antipathies. To this end, the talents and energies, both emotional and practical, of its people must be harnessed. That can only be for the public good.

Like all societies riven by divisions and strife, Northern Ireland has to put them behind it if it is to flourish. In that, increasing prosperity can only be a useful lubricant. If people in countries with problems such as those experienced by Croatia can do it with some success—I am assured by responsible people there that many of them are trying to—we can do it. If we are to develop as a mature and peaceful society, it is better that we should do so without inquiries, which are commonly so prolonged and often controversial, and may produce too little real enlightenment in the end. To reiterate the cliché: it is time to move on.

17:38

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, I am prone to speak directly at times, so I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, will forgive me if I say how much I disagree with him and suggest that he might like to think about whether he would have made his speech before the Saville inquiry. If there is any logic in what he has said, it would have been better, or at least as good, to draw the line then, rather than now, would it not?

I was pleased to hear the words of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney and, indeed, those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in defence of the Army.

Too many who have never had the experience of making a difficult decision, taken on imperfect information and when they may have been frightened, are quick to condemn those who react wrongly under those pressures.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said pretty well all that had to be said about what happened in Londonderry in the wake of the publication of the inquiry. That has been repeated today from both Front Benches. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for the way in which she facilitated private all-party briefings on Northern Ireland when she was Leader of the House. Those were very helpful indeed and I hope that that practice will continue.

My introduction to the politics of Northern Ireland predated some of the nastier experiences I have had. I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Robin Chichester-Clark, the last Ulster Unionist to hold office in a Westminster Government. In that role I frequently went back and forth to Londonderry in the early 1970s. It was an extraordinary experience to see how different things could be in different parts of the same kingdom.

It should not have taken 12 years to produce the report, nor cost £190 million in outdoor relief for wealthy lawyers. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, observed, we are all indebted to them for this report; indeed, we are highly indebted. It was right to discover what happened that day, so far as we could. I do not differ from what has been said about the tragic errors and failures that led to such a loss of life. However, there is something else about the report which seems to have largely escaped notice; it is testimony to the existence of an entirely different attitude towards public affairs, politics and public order in Northern Ireland from that which we experience and enjoy in the rest of this kingdom. That was the thought which first came to me back in the early 1970s when I was going back and forth to Londonderry. I emphasise this by quoting from paragraph 3.119 on page 46 of the principal conclusions of the Saville report, which refers to,

“allegations that Martin McGuinness, at that time the Adjutant of the Derry Brigade or Command of the Provisional IRA”—

I observe in parenthesis that that is a terrorist organisation—

“had engaged in paramilitary activity during the day. In the end we were left in some doubt as to his movements on the day”.

The paragraph goes on to say that,

“he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this”.

We can imagine what would have become of the career of my right honourable friend Mr Michael Gove had a judicial inquiry found that during an illegal demonstration in favour of free schools he was probably armed with a sub-machine gun, and that it was possible he might have fired it. It is unlikely that he would today be the Secretary of State for Education. But we have no need to imagine the fate of Mr McGuinness: he is the Minister for education in part of this kingdom, in Northern Ireland. It seems that there are different ways of ordering our affairs in those two parts of the kingdom.

When I asked a little while ago if there would be an inquiry into the murders at the Grand Hotel, Brighton 26 years ago, my noble friend Lord Shutt told me:

“The Government have no plans to hold a public inquiry in relation to the terrorist attack on The Grand Hotel, Brighton, in October 1984. As the noble Lord will be aware, there was a police investigation following the attack and one man was subsequently convicted of offences relating to the bombing”.—[Official Report, 28/6/10; col. WA216.]

One man; but we all know that that one man did not decide to do this on his own. He did not go out to buy the explosives and the timers on his own. He did not finance the operation on his own. He did not think of it on his own. Many of us have suspicions about who was in charge of what we know—because they owned up to it—was an IRA/Sinn Fein operation. Why was it so important to inquire at such cost and such time into what happened, and who was responsible for what happened, at Londonderry, but so important not to uncover the truth about who was responsible for what happened at Brighton?

I end as I began. There are different standards for Northern Ireland and the rest of this kingdom. While those different standards exist, we will never find long-lasting and true peace in Northern Ireland. The inquiry began by adopting the title of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I fear that that adoption of the very language of those who set out to break the law and confront the forces of the law underlines my view of the difference in our standards.

It would not take long or cost much to establish who was behind the murders at Brighton—or indeed those at Claudy or Omagh, I suspect. IRA/Sinn Fein have claimed responsibility in some of those cases, and I understand that the identities of those who commanded the terrorist organisation at relevant times are well known to the authorities. Surely they could be invited to defend themselves against the suspicion that it was they who procured those bombings, not least that at Brighton. Or is it that the deaths at Brighton count for less than those at Londonderry? Or is it as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, might imagine—that the Queen’s soldiers are sitting ducks for inquiries and the members of the Army Council of Sinn Fein/IRA are, like the godfathers of the Mafia, not just too well connected and too powerful to be brought to justice but too important for the truth about them to be not merely known but to be published?

17:48

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will forgive me if I do not follow him in considering whether there should be an inquiry into the Brighton catastrophe.

It is clearly right that today we should be holding this debate on what happened on Bloody Sunday. We owe it to those who were killed and injured. In a sense, there is nothing today that we can add to what the inquiry said in the last paragraph of its overall assessment:

“Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland”.

Those words were repeated by the Prime Minister at the end of his Statement on 15 June. I was privileged to hear that Statement and, just as there is nothing to add factually to what is contained in the Saville report, there is little, if anything, to add by way of comment to what the Prime Minister said in that remarkable Statement. I shall never forget it: it was heard in absolute silence. My noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames, if I remember correctly, was sitting beside me. As we heard it, he described the atmosphere as sombre, as indeed it was. However, at the end of that Statement, the Prime Minister said that it was time to move on, and so it is. The great merit of the Saville report is that we can now do just that.

It is easy enough to say—as many have, although not I think today—that the inquiry took too long and cost too much. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, did not say that in his opening remarks and I am very grateful to him. He drew attention to the length of time and the cost but did not say that it was too long or cost too much. I am grateful for that because the task that the tribunal set itself was truly gigantic. This was an inquest into the deaths of 13 members of the public. They were not all killed together by a bomb. In one sense, it would have been much easier if that had been so, but they were killed by 13 separate shots fired by 13 different soldiers. Therefore, this was not just one inquest; it was 13 separate inquests into 13 separate deaths. The tribunal was determined to get to the bottom of each death and surely it was right to try. It has, in fact, succeeded in doing so to an extent that I find astonishing.

One of the tribunal’s difficulties was that there were a huge number of potential eye witnesses to what happened in the crowd that day. Obviously the tribunal had to listen to all those who had something to say. Therefore, I am not at all surprised that the tribunal took some five or six years out of the total length simply to hear the evidence before reconstructing, on the basis of that evidence, what happened.

There was another reason why the Saville inquiry may have thought it right to take as long as it did. There had been a previous inquiry, which has been referred to often this afternoon, by Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice. The Saville inquiry referred to it in a single, rather dismissive sentence in the first paragraph of its report and never alluded to it again. The reason, of course, was that the Widgery inquiry was wholly inadequate, as we can now see, and indeed was a significant cause of subsequent unrest. The Saville inquiry was determined not to make that mistake; nor did it.

Here, I echo very much the important point made by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames when he said that one cannot say, as the Prime Minister did, that there should be an end to such open-ended inquiries. As my noble and right reverend friend asked—and I ask the same question—what is the alternative? If it takes 12 years to get to the bottom of what happened on Bloody Sunday, we must simply take 12 years. You cannot set up an inquiry of this kind and then cut it short by some arbitrary time limit. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, indicated that a special rule might be thought more applicable in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, he accepted that it is time to move on there. If the Saville inquiry means that we can move on, as I believe it does, then surely, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, the money that we spent on it was worth while.

That brings me to my last point. We have spoken of the expenditure of money, but there was also a human cost to which I should refer. I pay tribute to the three members of the tribunal. They all bore a huge burden over many years. However, the main burden undoubtedly fell on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said about the enormous skill with which the noble and learned Lord conducted the inquiry.

What I now have to say about him may sound like an obituary, but I can assure the House that the noble and learned Lord is still alive. He was one of the youngest judges ever to be made a Law Lord. He had hardly settled in when he was asked to undertake this inquiry. Many Law Lords might have refused. No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, thought that the inquiry would be finished within two years, which was the estimate given by someone, though heaven knows on what conceivable basis that can have been formulated. I know that the noble and learned Lord was looking forward greatly to returning to his ordinary work in the House of Lords; in fact he was longing to come back. So he had no conceivable incentive, if anyone should suggest it, to prolong the inquiry—quite the opposite.

I have no doubt that, at the end, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, undertook the inquiry because he regarded it as his duty to do so. The fact that it took 12 years meant that, to his great cost, it was too late for him to return to his ordinary work in the House of Lords. At least he has the consolation of knowing that, like Othello, he has done the state some service, and for that we should all be profoundly grateful.

17:57

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I have the greatest regard for him as an eminent jurist and I am sorry that he will not agree with at least one of the things that I am about to say.

I have read that part of the report that is available in print. It seems to me to be a clearly argued, thorough and convincing report and I hope, trust and pray that it brings closure to the families of the victims and to the two communities in Londonderry—or Derry—and in Northern Ireland. It is undoubtedly a remarkable achievement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and his colleagues.

However, it would be quite wrong not to say on the occasion of this debate in this place that there is a big problem, which has been referred to several times: this inquiry took so long and cost so much that the Government have, apparently, decided that we can never do such a thing again. I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Royall that that is a regrettable decision. It deprives the country of an enormously important check and balance in our system of governance. Of course, we hope that nothing so horrific will ever happen in our history again, but we all know that that is unlikely to be the case. I am extremely worried about the abandonment of the whole concept of an inquiry of this kind.

Before we take such a definitive decision—this is where I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will not like what I have to say—I hope that we will look again at the way in which this inquiry was conducted. I am certain that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, acted with the greatest integrity and professionalism. I do not for one second suggest—to anticipate what might be in some colleagues’ minds—that there was any financial motivation on the part of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, in this matter. I do not doubt that he could make vastly more money doing other things. Whether that is the case for all the lawyers involved, I really do not know. However, I attended the inquiry on one or two occasions and, rather more frequently, I followed it on the internet and, at the time, I was frankly appalled at the leisurely pace at which it was conducted. Sometimes a witness would not turn up and, so far as I could judge, there was no sanction at all for that. The inquiry would simply be postponed for two days, there apparently being no alternative work programme in place. I was quite shocked by that. Also, as we heard this afternoon, it took five days to cross-question Ted Heath, the Prime Minister at the time of those events.

Rather than just abandoning the idea of having such inquiries, however, we owe it to ourselves and the country to find a way in which, in future, such inquiries can be viable and can be conducted with a greater degree of discipline and a rather more focused, businesslike management of the whole process, which I am sure is possible. It may be that different financial incentives have a role in that. I just mention in passing, without in any way suggesting that this would be appropriate in such a judicial activity, that in the City it is now normal, before lawyers are hired for any transaction, including the most complicated and the largest, where the complexity and the time involved can least easily be predicted at the outset, for the lawyers to be asked to quote a fixed price before they are appointed. There may be alternative structures that should be considered. We should not just abandon the whole mechanism without thinking about how it might be made more viable and realistic in future.

That said, I should like to make just four points about the general context in which this horrific event took place. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, has just reminded us, this is a moment to try to seek historical truth. One has to start with the fact that these events took place against the background of a march organised by the Civil Rights Association. Most people taking part in that march were clearly entirely peaceable in their intentions. One has to ask: why was there a march in this country organised by the Civil Rights Association? The reason is that, at that time, and during the whole of the 50 years for which the Stormont Government existed, there had been serious abuses of civil rights. Indeed, the civil rights of the Catholic minority had been systematically suppressed for all that time. There were problems in housing and education. There was deliberate gerrymandering of constituencies. There was a terrible problem with job discrimination in the employment market. It was not just that the Government of Northern Ireland acquiesced in job discrimination; from time to time, they promoted it. Lord Brookeborough, who became the third Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, urged unionists to employ only Protestants—to use his phrase, to employ Protestant lads and lasses—and vaunted his employment of 100 per cent Protestants. That was the background. In those days, there was a culture in Northern Ireland that it was a Protestant state and that if the Catholics did not like it they could go down to the Free State or, after 1948, to the Republic.

Only two people, or groups of people, did anything about that. One was a very brave man, Terence O’Neill, who was bitterly attacked from within the unionist party—many of the attacks were co-ordinated by the Reverend Ian Paisley—and politically destroyed. Some people will recall the extraordinary furore that was created in Northern Ireland when Terence O’Neill visited a Catholic school—it was the first time in the 40 years since Stormont had started that a Prime Minister, or any Minister, had been in a Catholic school. That indicates the psychology at the time.

The only organisation to do anything about that was the Civil Rights Association. It organised a number of peaceful demonstrations, which were turned violent by extreme unionists—many of them also organised by people extremely close to the Reverend Ian Paisley. There was disgraceful violence in Armagh and at Burntollet Bridge, just outside Londonderry, in 1968-69. Against that background, it is of course not justifiable or forgivable but it is perhaps humanly understandable that a climate—a fertile field—was created in which extremists and terrorists from the IRA could present themselves as being the defenders of the Catholic community, which was under such attack and systematic discrimination. That is not a happy story.

My second point is that, although I have deliberately been harsh on them, this was not entirely the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government of those days. The buck really stops here in Westminster because the Northern Ireland Parliament was not a sovereign Parliament like the Irish Parliament in the years before 1800; it was a subsidiary Parliament created by the Government of Ireland Act 1920. We had ultimate responsibility for the way in which it was conducting the governance of Northern Ireland and we did nothing whatever about it.

It would be easy to make a party-political point and say that on the whole that period was dominated by Tory Governments, that a ruthless alliance was formed before the First World War by Carson and Bonar Law in their attacks on the third home rule Bill and that it was all the fault of the Tories. I do not say that, however, because I am ashamed to say that Labour Governments of the time—the minority Labour Government of 1924 and the Labour Governments of 1929 and 1945—were equally negligent about this scandal taking place in Northern Ireland. I am happy to be corrected, but as far as I can recall no Liberal voice was raised in all those years against what was going on in Northern Ireland. That was a disgraceful situation.

It was the fault of Westminster, this Parliament that created Stormont. It simply acquiesced in that completely intolerable situation, which ended up in the appalling situation that we have become familiar with over the past 30 years. There are lessons in that for everybody. I cannot conceive of another devolved Parliament in the United Kingdom behaving in the fashion that the Stormont Government and the majority in the Stormont Parliament did, but if that were ever to happen I hope that in Westminster we would not fail in our responsibilities as we did last time.

My third point is that the background to this appalling event—the tragic disaster on Bloody Sunday—is internment. It is extraordinary that the mistake of internment was made at all. British Governments—Whig, Tory and Liberal—throughout the 19th century voted through these two Houses in Westminster coercion Acts that had the same effect and allowed arrests without any judicial process, the holding of people without trial and the suspension of habeas corpus. They were a complete disaster and did not work at all. Many Irish leaders of the time were arrested in this way, including Parnell, who was arrested in 1881. When the coercion Act had been passed and before Parnell was arrested, as he expected to be, somebody said to him: “Mr Parnell, who is going to take over the Irish parliamentary party if you are arrested?”. He responded, “Captain Moonlight will take over the Irish party”, and Captain Moonlight did. The equivalent of Captain Moonlight took over in the 1970s after internment. That was a terrible mistake and we should learn from it, because we could make similar mistakes in other parts of world, overthrowing our constitutional liberties, supposedly in the interests of security, but in fact finding that that sacrifice is entirely counterproductive.

My final point is that, after this ghastly tragedy of Bloody Sunday, we had to face conflict with the IRA for the next 25 years or so. Why did we have to do it? It was to uphold the principle of democracy, the fundamental principle of a free society. Constitutional and political decisions can be made and constitutional arrangements can be changed only by the democratically expressed will of the people, not at the point of a gun. We had to resist the IRA and we did so. I say “we did so”, but the British Army and the RUC actually did so. I accept the appalling criticisms in the report before us, but 99 per cent of time the British Army behaved with incredible courage and great professional restraint. It was because of that, above all things, that we came through and successfully defended that essential principle of a free society.

I also want to say a word about the RUC, which was equally incredibly brave. Many of those men must have felt tempted to drop that profession and get away because it was so dangerous. I am not easily moved to tears, but I have with great difficulty, because grown men do not weep in public, restrained them when going into the police station in Londonderry on more than one occasion and seen the incredible number of names of RUC officers killed during the Troubles in that city. It is absolutely horrific. I make a particular point about the Catholic officers who, of course, were even more vulnerable to revenge attacks and to their families being intimidated and who stayed with the RUC throughout those terrible years. We owe an enormous debt to our security forces—to the British Army and the RUC—in those very difficult times. It is a debt that we must never forget.

18:10

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, before I move to the subject of this debate, I should like to record my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, on his eloquent maiden speech. I was a law student at King’s College, London, when the tragic events of Bloody Sunday occurred. I remember coming to this place in disbelief and horror to try to find out what had happened and how it was that Bernard McGuigan, Gerald Donaghy, Hugh Gilmour, John Duddy, Gerald McKinney, James Wray, John Young, Kevin McElhinney, Michael Kelly, Michael McDaid, Patrick Doherty, William McKinney, William Nash and John Johnston had been shot dead, and 13 other people wounded. The Widgery report was a travesty. Lord Widgery indicated that some of those killed had been handling weapons and nail bombs, which was relied on for decades by certain politicians and has been recorded extensively in publications.

The families and the people of Derry waited a very long time for the truth to be told. As the Saville report states:

“The firing by soldiers of 1 PARA on Bloody Sunday caused the deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland”.

The families of the dead and the injured on Bloody Sunday conducted themselves with huge courage, determination, dignity and integrity in their long fight for justice. It was so good to see the scenes in the Guildhall Square in Derry when the Saville report was published. It was good, too, to hear the Prime Minister apologise unequivocally. This was an important moment for everyone affected by these terrible events.

There must be learning from Bloody Sunday. British forces serve in many places across the world. Their sacrifice must always be remembered, but learning must take place. As the Prime Minister said in another place:

“Openness and frankness about the past, however painful, do not make us weaker; they make us stronger”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/10; col. 741.]

In Northern Ireland, almost everyone has been affected in some way by the Troubles. I was 26 when I was caught in a bomb explosion. I was pregnant and as a consequence of my injuries my unborn child died. It is not easy in such circumstances to move on. I know that personally; yet my pain was as nothing compared to so many—compared, for example, to the pain of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who has spoken today.

The pain of those whose loved ones have died and who have never had the benefit of a proper investigation is an ongoing and terrible sore. Eleven people were killed in incidents involving the Parachute Regiment during three terrible days in Ballymurphy in 1971. These events have been referred to earlier today. It all started on 9 August 1971 on internment day. Over those three days 11 people were killed—Francis Quinn, Father Hugh Mullan, Joan Connolly, Daniel Teggart, Noel Phillips, Joseph Murphy, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr, John McKerr and Paddy McCarthy. There have been no proper inquiries into these deaths. All that happened just five months before the Bloody Sunday shootings and both events involved officers of the same regiment.

As noble Lords have heard, there have been many atrocities in Northern Ireland—too many. Many of them received only the most perfunctory of investigations for a variety of reasons, some of which were simply the number of atrocities and the small number of police officers to investigate them. But the families of those who died were often left uninformed and alone. I met one UDR widow who told me that the only contact she had after her husband was murdered was when officers came to collect her husband’s gun. Another lady said that police officers told her that they would find the killers of her UDR husband and that they could come back and tell her. For 30 years she sat looking out of the window and waiting, but nobody came. I have also worked with the families of the disappeared, whose loved ones were abducted by the IRA. Their bodies, as we all agree, need to be returned to those who grieve for them but have no grave to visit.

All the bereaved families of Northern Ireland still grieve. Some of it happened a very long time ago and some of it more recently. As the police ombudsman, I reported on many cases, but the most complex investigation was that into the activities of a group of UVF police informants in North Belfast. A man came into my office in 2002 and told me that his son, Raymond McCord, had been murdered by UVF informants who had been committing the most serious of crimes for over a decade, that many of these crimes were known to the police, and that those informants were not made amenable for the crimes which they committed. It seemed to me unlikely that this could have happened. Nevertheless, it was my statutory duty to investigate, and I did so. He was right. A group of UVF police informants were linked to at least 10 murders, 10 attempted murders and at least 76 other serious crimes committed between 1991 and 2002. I have to tell noble Lords that before 1994, they murdered Catholics, and after the ceasefire, they murdered Protestants. Some police officers had deliberately colluded with those informants and allowed them to go on committing crimes, deliberately obstructing the efforts of other officers to bring them to justice. These findings did not destroy, but enabled a stronger and better police service and a community in North Belfast that once again is working with the police. As a consequence of that investigation, 11 men now stand charged with the most serious crimes, including murder. The investigation continues.

The deaths and atrocities of the Troubles are not ancient history. I think of the recent attempted murder of PC Peadar Heffron and the murders of Sappers Patrick Azimkar and Mark Quinsey. Dissident republican paramilitaries are still trying to murder people. Loyalists, too, are not at peace. Just last month, the Independent Monitoring Commission reported that the murder of loyalist Bobby Moffett on 28 May this year was sanctioned by the UVF. The commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is a member, stated that the reasons why the UVF sanctioned the murder were to,

“stop Mr Moffett’s perceived flouting of UVF authority, and to send a message to the organisation and the community that this authority was not to be challenged”.

We still have a serious problem.

Much has been said about the cost of Saville, and this is used as an argument to close down the past. With the deepest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, it is surely inappropriate to refer to those who seek investigations into the murders of their loved ones as “picking at scabs”. It is said that the investigation of past atrocities costs too much and that it could undermine the peace. Indeed I was told on occasion that I should not report because I would destroy the peace process, destroy the RUC, destroy the PSNI, et cetera. None of this happened. As the Prime Minister said, the revelation of the truth makes us stronger. I have listened to endless calls for us to move on, but the reality, as the American poet Maya Angelou said, is that:

“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again”.

I know that justice and policing have now been devolved. Notwithstanding that, the Government have a clear interest in the security situation in Northern Ireland, and recent warnings by MI5 in relation to dissident republican activities are chilling. We have to find a way to deal with the past; we cannot ignore it. Currently, four bodies investigate the past in Northern Ireland: the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the office I held, investigates deaths which may have resulted from police misconduct. The Government also asked us to investigate a number of other cases in which the security forces killed people, and into which there had not been an investigation that was compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In that context, for example, the alleged “shoot to kill” deaths investigated by John Stalker and later by Colin Sampson were referred to my office. I initiated the work, having read the lengthy investigation files created by Mr Stalker and Mr Sampson. The work is massive, but the United Kingdom does have legal and moral obligations.

So the Police Ombudsman investigates; the coroner investigates; the Historical Enquiries Team, established by the PSNI and part of the PSNI, reviews deaths occurring before the Good Friday agreement. The HET reports on inquiries in cases where there can be no investigation to lead to a prosecution; it does not investigate those cases. If it finds that there is scope for an investigation it passes the case on to the PSNI for investigation, which then starts again.

All this produces duplication of work and complex legal situations. For example, when I was investigating a case in which it was alleged that a police officer and a civilian were involved in a murder, the law required me to investigate the police officer and the PSNI to investigate the civilian. The consequence of this was that the police officer was my suspect and the civilian was my witness; and for the PSNI, the police officer was its witness and the civilian was its suspect. I do not need to explain to noble Lords the legal difficulties in disclosure and process consequential upon this situation.

In Northern Ireland four different organisations, at least, are responsible for investigations—I have not referred to the Health and Safety Executive, for example—but I am sure that the resulting complexities and inefficiencies were not intended when the various pieces of legislation were passed. Nevertheless, that law now exists. In addition, there continues to be concern in some quarters about the fact that the actual historic investigations are carried out not by HET, which has some independent personnel, but by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I do not make any attack on the integrity of the PSNI in saying this; I simply report one of our unfortunate realities.

There has been much news in the papers recently about the Metropolitan Police investigation and recent arrests in relation to the murder of Police Constable Colin Blakelock, who was murdered in October 1985 on the Broadwater Farm estate. There is an ongoing process here in Britain of reviewing cold cases and there have been significant successes, particularly as a consequence of developments in forensic science. If the relatives of those murdered in England, Wales and Scotland can expect investigation, why must the situation be different in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom? To decide not to investigate is effectively to give impunity to all those who have killed.

I know from experience that many of these investigations will be profoundly difficult. Over the years, witnesses and suspects may have died, memories will fail, dementia will afflict some witnesses and forensic opportunities will have been lost because of the failure to manage exhibits properly and the passage of time. The RUC routinely destroyed evidential exhibits which were contaminated by blood—noble Lords will understand that many exhibits in murder investigations are contaminated by blood—files were lost as a consequence of explosions and files were contaminated by asbestos and destroyed. None of these is a reason not to try to investigate.

The people of Northern Ireland lived for 40 years in a situation in which even agents of the state were involved in both unlawful killings and other unlawful and, indeed, criminal activity. In these circumstances, confidence in the rule of law was inevitably seriously undermined. As we seek to establish a new Northern Ireland—which is still part of the United Kingdom—we should surely do all we can to consolidate that peace so that it does not break down again and so that we do not see the re-emergence of terrorism as a daily problem in our lives.

I have previously suggested—I do so again—that there should be one independent investigation unit charged with investigating all the unsolved deaths of the Troubles. It should have full police powers and be properly resourced; it should incorporate the Police Ombudsman’s historic inquiries, the HET inquiries and any current police investigations of deaths which occurred during the Troubles. This would obviate the necessity for the current duplication of work and it would be cheaper to run because one could utilise the current combined costs of the PSNI historic investigations, the HET and the Police Ombudsman historic investigations.

There are accounts which can be given to families even where there can be no prosecution—I have done this. In so doing, it is profoundly important that the families are given every piece of information except that which may imperil life or jeopardise current investigation or anti-terrorist methodologies. We do not need to protect the methodologies of the past.

As Saville concluded, Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland. There are still things to be done to address the consequences of the Northern Ireland Troubles and I urge the Government to think about the establishment of one unit to investigate the past. I record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for organising today’s debate.

18:26

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

My Lords, the Saville report is a thorough examination of the events and issues arising from Bloody Sunday. The Prime Minister has apologised to the families of those who died. Loss of life has a direct, negative effect on families and communities for generations, and he refused to defend the indefensible. The state is an arbiter of justice and must be held accountable to maintain its credibility. The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir David Richards, has endorsed the Prime Minister's apology, and Army procedures have been amended to ensure that there is no recurrence of incidents of a similar nature.

However, it should be remembered that the events of Bloody Sunday took place at a time when Northern Ireland faced great political and social instability. In 1972, 140 members of the security forces and 250 civilians were killed on the streets of the Province. We all owe an immense debt of gratitude to those who served in the security forces. Without their bravery and dedication, the number of civilian deaths would undoubtedly have been very much greater. There were many who paid with their lives, and their families had to deal with loss and bereavement.

The report gives rise to a number of moral, political and financial questions concerning future prosecutions, treatment of the past and the enormous cost of this type of inquiry. These have important implications for future policy, each of which I shall attempt to address in turn.

The possibility of instituting criminal proceedings against some Army personnel is under consideration. Some have suggested that a verdict of unlawful killing should close the matter. Others consider that soldiers who lied may have committed perjury. This matter, too, is under investigation. I have no hesitation in supporting strongly the maxim that everyone is equal before the law and equally subject to its terms. However, for several reasons, I do not believe that prosecutions of military personnel in these circumstances would constitute an even-handed application of the law.

First, it is always easier to prosecute agents of the state, who may be held accountable for their actions and are readily identifiable, than terrorists, who are unaccountable and usually unidentifiable. Secondly, since it is now almost 40 years since the events took place, much of the relevant evidence must inevitably be unreliable. Thirdly, many IRA prisoners were released early from prison under the terms of the Belfast agreement. To apply different sentencing rules to proceedings against military personnel would be unjust. Finally, the undertaking given by the Attorney-General in 1999 that witnesses at the inquiry would not be able to incriminate themselves should not be ignored.

Several suggestions have been made concerning future expedients for investigation of past events and promotion of reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland. Recently, proposals for further inquiries on the Saville model have been widely canvassed. I believe strongly that these are misguided both on practical and financial grounds. Clearly, it is difficult to distinguish in terms of gravity between the facts of Bloody Sunday and those of many more other tragic incidents. One thinks, for example, of what has become known as Bloody Monday in 1972, when the IRA placed a no-warning car bomb in the Londonderry village of Claudy. Nine people were killed and 32 injured. The report of an eight-year investigation published in August this year concluded that a Catholic priest was directly involved: this fact was concealed by senior police officers, government Ministers and the Catholic hierarchy. Undoubtedly, the families of the Claudy victims have feelings of betrayal and injustice. Clearly, they also deserve our sympathy and recognition.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, their interests would not be best served by the establishment of another Saville-type inquiry. Saville was sui generis. The inquiry formed an integral part of the negotiations leading to the Belfast agreement. Furthermore, huge media attention meant that the worldwide reputation of the British Army and British justice were at stake.

We have heard that the Saville inquiry cost around £200 million. It is reported that 14 lawyers became millionaires during the 12 years of its deliberations.^. Vast sums of public money have also been spent on inquiries into the deaths of Billy Wright, Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill. However, do such inquiries, which primarily examine the state’s role in the relevant events, really benefit the victims, their families and indeed society as a whole? May not further examination of painful events lead to greater alienation of communities rather than the healing of divisions?

In my view, scarce public funds could be put to better use in ameliorating the quality of life of victims and their families. Indeed, in Northern Ireland, a Commission for Victims and Survivors has already been established and four victims commissioners have been appointed: the search for a satisfactory method of providing aid to victims should not be abandoned.

There are proposals to establish a legacy commission or a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission, but I believe that they would have little merit. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who headed the latter body, considered that a similar commission might not be effective in Northern Ireland. More specifically, Judge Albie Sachs of South Africa’s Constitutional Court acknowledged that the commission emerged from intense and specific needs in that country. In contrast, Northern Ireland was never governed by an apartheid regime: it was a liberal democracy threatened by terrorism where no one was ever denied voting rights on grounds of ethnicity or religion. This essential truth is often obscured by the fog of propaganda that usually surrounds political developments in Northern Ireland.

Moreover, the South African commission was established after the cessation of the ANC’s campaign of violence. Regrettably, recent bomb attacks in Northern Ireland are clear evidence that a significant number of Irish republicans have not abandoned violence as a political tool. For that reason, the moral dilemma posed by the possible grant of immunity from prosecution remains acute.

It has been suggested that a legacy commission which would not offer an amnesty might be more appropriate. However, if immunity were not offered, it is unlikely that perpetrators of terrorist acts would be prepared to testify; as a result, such a body would necessarily be ineffectual. In the light of the issues I have raised, can the Minister give an assurance that no new or existing body will be given the power to grant immunity from prosecution for any act of terrorism committed in Northern Ireland after today’s date?

Effective ways of dealing with the past do exist. The Historical Enquiries Team, a unit of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, is still working on outstanding cases. Its main aim is to bring closure to those families who have unanswered questions about the death or disappearance of loved ones. The team has a running cost of over £6 million while the PSNI spends around £11 million a year on investigating and reviewing past murders and inquests. This represents public money well spent; proper funding of existing bodies is usually more effective than the creation of new, controversial and often expensive quangos.

Another constructive proposal that has been supported by Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Peter Robinson, is the establishment of an aural and video archive for victims and survivors of the Troubles. This would be a relatively inexpensive way of facilitating research by victims and survivors who wished to learn more about incidents which affected them. Above all, the views of victims’ relatives and of survivors should be listened to with empathy and respect. If they wish to recall past events, their accounts should be recorded with understanding and sensitivity. The foundation of a memorial bursary might be a fitting recognition of their suffering, which would at the same time leave a positive legacy for future generations.

To provide closure, the truth must be told, but a plethora of costly inquiries is not a necessary prerequisite for this. There comes a time when it is in the interests of all to move on rather than engage in re-examining painful incidents from the past. This simply causes further hurt, rather than healing divided communities. The Government clearly want to draw a line and move forward, and I am in full agreement with this approach. May Saville mark the end of costly legal inquiries. May it be the inquiry that marks an end to all inquiries into the Troubles. We must continue to listen to victims and survivors and help them rebuild their lives: at the same time, we must avoid the rancour which inevitably accompanies litigation and the attribution of blame. It is my hope that Northern Ireland can move forward to a positive future in a spirit of tolerance and understanding.

18:36

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, first, I put on record how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for giving us the opportunity for today’s debate, which, after the contributions we have heard, has been extremely worth while. I thank my noble friend Lady Royall for her comments earlier, with which I associate myself. I join others in praising the commitment and diligence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and his team. This was clearly a highly complex, controversial and difficult inquiry, and the final report and the Government’s response do both him and the Government great credit.

Many of your Lordships have quoted from the report. He makes it clear that none of the 13 people who were killed or those who were injured posed a threat of causing death or serious injury on the day now known as Bloody Sunday. His conclusion regarding what happened on that day is the quote that most affected me. He said:

“What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland”.

It was not just a catastrophe for some people of Northern Ireland, for one community or another; it was clearly a catastrophe for the whole of Northern Ireland and beyond. Although in 1972 alone 500 lost their lives, in over 30 years more than 3,500 were killed and many more were wounded. It just was not possible for people to get on with their lives and put behind them the violent political war around them; it touched every part of society.

The effects of those years never leave those who lived through them. We are all aware of the obvious impact, but a small example, not a dramatic one, was brought home to me shortly after I was made a Minister for Northern Ireland in 2001. That was a time, as noble Lords may recall, when the Assembly was suspended, at the time of what became known as Stormontgate. My noble friend Lady Armstrong informed me that I was going there as a Minister, she said for a matter of weeks or possibly a few months. I remained there for three and a half years. While I was on my first duty weekend, Belfast was hit by a bomb scare. My recollection is that the bomb was real but for some reason it did not properly detonate, so there were no injuries, but it created total chaos and traffic congestion all through Belfast on a Friday afternoon. Roads were closed, and people could not get home or into events in the city in the evening. That night at a concert at the Waterfront Hall, it was obviously the main topic of conversation. The comment that stayed with me was from a woman of about the age that I am now. She was really quite upset and said, “I’d forgotten. This is what it was like every single day, and today has brought it all back”. She went on to tell me that she had sent her children across to England to get them out of Northern Ireland. She was not the only one. There were so many young people, crucial to the future of Northern Ireland, who left their homes. Many of them never returned. In so many ways, the euphemistically named Troubles were a catastrophe for the whole of Northern Ireland.

In looking at the issues that the Saville report raises and the wider issue of how we deal with the past, I should like to use my time in this debate to speak as a former victims Minister for Northern Ireland, in which I followed in the distinguished footsteps of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. In that role I visited and spoke with many individuals and groups across the political divide who had lost loved ones, and with others who had been injured and suffered themselves. For very different reasons, they all described themselves as victims or survivors of the Troubles. It is very difficult for us in other parts of the UK to really and truly appreciate the depth and impact of these emotions. When so many people in the community have been affected and had to live with the suffering day in and day out, that collective experience can offer support. It can, however, also make it far harder to bear. There is an incredible network of support groups for victims and survivors. Some are for just one section of the community, whereas others are cross-community; some offer counselling and some offer health treatments. They all, however, offer comfort.

Among the organisations that had an impact on and impressed me was one called CALMS, in Londonderry, or Derry, where I met two young women from very different backgrounds. One had lost her brother, who had been in the IRA, while the other—who had become her friend—was from a Protestant background; I think it was her father who had been killed. Both of them and their families had suffered, but they had been prepared to talk to each other and share their grief. They wanted to try to understand something from the experience. They admitted that it was difficult. Neither felt completely at ease in each other’s community, but they had challenged each other’s misconceptions about who they were and what they believed in, with amazing results. Others found it far harder to mix in that way but nevertheless found comfort in being able to relax with others who had been affected as they had, and who understood.

I was hugely impressed by a group of RUC widows that I met—women who, when their husbands died, were left with small children and had to raise families on their own, with very little support. They had never been thanked or praised for what they had achieved for their families. I also recall visiting Ballymurphy women’s centre in west Belfast, which my noble friend referred to a moment ago. At that time there were few ministerial visits to the area and a heavy police presence. Outside the centre, there was a peaceful but clearly highly emotional demonstration for the 11 people killed in 1971, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, described. They held up photographs of their loved ones who had been killed. They just wanted to know why this was allowed to happen and how it could have happened. They just wanted answers.

Many people have struggled to make sense of the information they have received about the death of their loved one. I met so many people who had painstakingly tried to piece together information from different sources to try to get to the truth. Others just wanted the opportunity to tell the story of how they had been affected without the fear of others’ judgment. I think I understand the Government’s position on not having any new inquiries but I do not yet understand what will replace them. The Minister has referred to the work of the HET and the police ombudsman. However, we can never use those to replace a mechanism for getting to the truth, or underestimate the need to know the truth. That is not to say that it is easy, because it is not. It is often difficult and often painful and it is always complex. However, it is surely the right thing to do.

The extremely impressive report by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley faced some criticism when the Consultative Group on the Past, which they jointly chaired, tried to address how Northern Ireland can deal with its past. Some of the proposals were more acceptable than others to the majority, but the group’s work was impressive and comprehensive and tried to address not only the complexities but the pain. It advised against public inquiries but considered that an historical cases review body—a legacy commission—could be part of the way forward. So I know that there are different views on this issue. Some want an independent national committee or a truth commission, while for others it is more personal. It is clear, though, that doing nothing about the past is not an option, and where collusion is suspected it is all the more important.

I appreciate the arguments about the cost of inquiries or the alternatives; surely there is not a single person in Northern Ireland who supports the inquiries who could not think of other ways to spend that money, such as on creating jobs or on building new schools. We have also heard about the need for hip replacements. However, it is the Troubles that have exacted such a high price in both financial and human cost that it is probably immeasurable. That creates a duty to try to take some action to deal with the issues that have been raised today.

I am not aware that anyone is asking for any other Saville-type open-ended inquiries. People are asking for a mechanism that allows independent investigation and an apology where appropriate, and that is essential.

In looking to the future, we cannot see political issues in isolation. We have to recognise the current economic climate and its impact on the political. During those 30 years or so, Northern Ireland did not suffer just physically and emotionally, it also suffered economically. Today’s report from PricewaterhouseCoopers makes worrying reading. It reports that 20,000 jobs could be lost under the public spending cuts, which would have a knock-on effect of 16,000 job losses in the private sector. Will the Minister press on the Government the need to consider seriously the impact of any public expenditure cuts in Northern Ireland? For reasons that have been discussed today, there has been a greater emphasis and dependence there on the public sector, which provides around 30 per cent of the jobs in the economy. Who other than the Government would invest in Northern Ireland after Bloody Sunday?

The devolved Administration are committed, and actively seeking, to bring in new private investment and create a greater proportion of private sector jobs. To succeed in that, though, they need the political stability to earn and maintain the confidence of private investors. If cuts are made too deeply and quickly, that will impact on the economic—and therefore the political—stability of Northern Ireland, and that hard fought-for private sector investment will just melt away. Political and economic stability are related, and it would be illogical and wrong for the Government to work to preserve one while undermining the other.

In conclusion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and his team have done more than present an exceptional report on Bloody Sunday; they have reinvigorated the quest for truth. Governments, in setting up the inquiry and in the way that they have responded, have helped to create confidence in the process of truth and investigation. The challenge now is to ensure that everything possible is done to maintain economic and political stability for the whole of the community, and that the way forward meets the needs of the future and does not ignore, but properly deals with, the issues of the past.

18:47

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, it has been said on a number of occasions in quoting the Saville report today that Bloody Sunday was a personal tragedy for the victims and indeed for their friends and families, a social and political catastrophe for all the people of Northern Ireland and a military and political disaster for the British Army. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, has rightly made that crystal clear. I am not at all convinced, though, that had his report come out and been greeted or responded to by the Prime Minister with a carefully crafted response pointing up all the difficulties of the time, the pressures that the Army was under and so on, there would have been any transformational outcome from the expenditure of this enormous amount of money and long period of time.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, as did my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven in a wonderful maiden speech, it was the Prime Minister’s speech that was transformational for the people in Derry. As I listened to it myself, I was reminded very much of the remarkable speech that Barack Obama made on racism during his presidential campaign, where he tore up his carefully crafted speech and wrote something that was passionate, human and engaging with the problem. That is what the Prime Minister did: he engaged passionately in a committed way, understanding quite deeply the pain that was involved for all concerned, and he gave a complete, total and absolute apology. To me, that is what was transformational.

To say that the Saville report was crucial and positive is not to say that the inquiry is the only way that things could have been done, nor is it to say that expenditure of almost £200 million over 12 years was necessary to reach such an outcome. I find it difficult to see how it was necessary to spend a great deal more than South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was dealing with the pain of the whole period of apartheid. Whether that was the only and absolutely necessary way of dealing with the problem is the issue that I wish to address this evening. Frankly, I do not believe that the expenditure was necessary and I think that we need to learn from our experience. However, that is not to say that what we have gone through has not been importantly transformational or that the outcome of the Saville inquiry—the report itself and the judgments on it—was not absolutely right, crystal clear and extremely important. For me, that is not the issue.

As has been pointed out already, there are limitations to any such judicial inquiry. Let me give just one example without referring at all to the wider political context. On 9 June this year, the historical inquiries team published another of its many reports. The report investigates the killing of 41 year-old William McGreanery, who was shot by a British solider in September 1971, substantially in advance of Bloody Sunday. Although the RUC’s Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan in Londonderry had advised that the British soldier involved should be prosecuted for murder, the then Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, Sir Basil Kelly—indeed, he was the last such Attorney-General until the recent appointment—said no. It was said:

“If soldier A was guilty of any crime in this case, it would be manslaughter and not murder. Soldier A whether he acted wrongly or not, was at all times acting in the course of his duty and I cannot see how the malice, express or implied, necessary to constitute murder could be applied to his conduct”.

There is a case to be made that that ruling—entirely inadvertently, I am sure—might have created a sense among young British soldiers at the time that they enjoyed an element of impunity if they were acting in the course of their duty. Such a case could be made. All I want to point out is that that would have been outwith the remit of the Saville inquiry, yet wholly relevant to understanding how the events of the time came about.

The key to understanding the importance of Bloody Sunday and the greater need for an inquiry into those events than into many other circumstances is the profound symbolic significance of Bloody Sunday. Next year, we will recall the tragedy of the sinking of the “Titanic”, with the loss of many hundreds of lives. The fact that we will not remember many other ships that sank with terrible loss of life means not that those who died on the “Titanic” were more important than those who died on other ships but that that tragedy was, in the words of my noble friend and countryman Lord Mawhinney, iconic. To give a perhaps more relevant example, those who died in the Sharpeville massacre were not somehow more important than others who died, but there was an iconic or symbolic significance to their deaths that somehow came to embody all sorts of other things. That kind of significance is by no means unique. Indeed, my friend Professor Vamik Volkan, who has looked at many areas of trouble and conflict throughout the world, has observed that, in almost every situation where such conflict goes on for a long period, there is what he calls a “chosen trauma”. He does not mean that the trauma is chosen in a conscious way but that there is some traumatic experience that comes to sum up and express, almost in a couple of words, the awfulness of people’s experience.

The need for an inquiry into Bloody Sunday was not because there needed to be an individual inquiry into every other case to achieve what was necessary but rather because the inquiry emblemised something. However, the inquiry could emblemise that only if the British Government then responded with true regret and deep apology for what happened. This is why it is not only the inquiry that we need to understand, but the response that it evinced.

Then there is the question of whether this inquiry is of the kind that should be embarked on. There has been almost a suggestion that if the Government say that there should be no more open-ended inquiries, there should be no more inquiries of any kind. It seems to me that that is not the question. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has pointed out that there are at least four institutions that undertake inquiries: the HET, the PSNI, the ombudsman and the coroner. There is no proposition to get rid of the investigative capacity of the PSNI, the ombudsman or the coroner, so of course investigations will continue to take place. The question is: how do we deal with the legacy of the past, which we all desperately hope will not return under the pressure from dissident republicans? How we deal with the legacy of the past is no easy matter.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, has experience of how difficult it is, no matter how much time you allow and how much you consult, to come up with a mechanism or device that deals with the past. First, it is not always possible to cure and redeem all of the past. As a psychiatrist, I found it frustrating at times that people seemed to accept that if someone had been physically damaged by having lost a leg, it was not replaceable, but if there was a psychological problem, there must be some way of resolving it. That is not true. Some people are emotionally destroyed and it is not possible to repair the damage. That can be true of communities as well. We should not always assume that everything can be resolved.

Secondly, in trying to resolve things we should be a little modest about what we can do. That something needs to be done does not necessarily mean that the Government should be doing it. There are already investigative agencies that need the resources to continue to investigate the past. They are continuing to do so, as has been made clear. However, when we talk about the victims and the need for closure, how much resource has been given to assist the emotional and support needs of individuals and their families? I tabled a Question in your Lordships’ House for the previous Government, to ask whether they had looked at the financial consequences of giving help and succour—psychologically and emotionally—to the victims of the Troubles. Had they looked at any other part of the world where this had been necessary? Had they looked at the financial consequences of dealing with these things for the health service in Northern Ireland? The answer was no, they had not looked at it at all. They had focused entirely on legal devices for addressing these problems. I am in no way against legal devices; I just do not think they are the only way of dealing with our problems. There are human, psychological, relational and emotional ways of dealing with these things that have been hugely under-resourced in Northern Ireland.

Thirdly, we should not underestimate the importance of the political process in helping people to get over the experiences of the past. It really does make a difference to many people to see former enemies working together for the benefit of the community. Many people then feel that whatever the pain they suffered, at least the community has somehow moved on. That responsibility is a heavy and burdensome one on those who are currently Ministers in the devolved Assembly. They must show that political progress can work, and that relationships built now from the ashes of the past 30 years in some fashion redeem all the misery that was created. I hope they appreciate and understand that.

I have already mentioned that there are other institutions that can undertake inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, has pointed out that in other countries they do not depend solely on lawyers to assist them when it comes to inquiring into the past. There are others, which have other contributions to make. Perhaps we have pushed it too far. I am still, though perhaps not for much longer, a member of the Independent Monitoring Commission. Why was it created? It was created precisely because we discovered the limits of the judicial process in resolving problems. It was given powers quite outwith the normal powers to address some of the questions that needed to be dealt with.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not recognise the extraordinary disproportionality between the size and the sheer resources devoted to the Londonderry inquiry as opposed to the paucity of resources devoted to inquiries where the victims are on the other side of the political divide?

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I entirely understand that. I also appreciate that even in comparison with the paucity of the money devoted to those legal inquiries, the amount of money devoted to caring for victims’ emotional needs is pitiable in my experience of working with some of these people. My concern is precisely that we focus too much on judicial inquiries of any kind.

I have noticed in the recent past that people in Northern Ireland—former journalists, academics, victims on all sides, former paramilitaries, those who have lost loved ones, former security force members—have started to come together to tell each other their stories away from the limelight and reporting and with no support from government at all. I am rather more hopeful that that kind of rebuilding and knitting together of relationships among ordinary people in Northern Ireland may do more to heal our broken society than any further major government interventions other than the normal, proper due process of the administration of law done with a human face and a human heart.

19:01

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for enabling this debate to take place. I declare an interest as when these events occurred I was the military assistant to the Chief of the General Staff, Field-Marshal Lord Carver, based in London, and as such I had to give evidence to the Saville inquiry for four and a half hours. Like my noble friend Lord Bew, I am bound to say that I thought that was perhaps a touch long to repeat the same question several times. The question was all about whether General Carver—as he then was—had been part of a conspiracy with the Prime Ministers here and in Northern Ireland to use the march as an excuse to go into the Bogside and take it over, which was totally removed from any possibility of achievement, let alone desire, because there were simply not enough soldiers available to take on that task.

For me, Bloody Sunday began with another event which I shall never forget. On that morning, a very gallant close friend and colleague, Major Robin Alers-Hankey, died in hospital in London. Robin had been shot in Londonderry in September while commanding his company. He was putting down a march not very far from the area described in the report when the crowd opened, a sniper fired through the gap and the crowd then came together so that it was impossible for the soldiers to follow up and capture the sniper. Those were the sort of events that soldiers were up against almost daily in Londonderry. Like my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall, I had the great honour and privilege of commanding that battalion when it came back from Londonderry, having been its second-in-command and involved in its training to go there.

There has been a great deal of criticism of the Widgery report during today’s debate. However, two aspects of that report and the Saville inquiry are exactly the same: first, that no deaths would have happened unless the ban on marches had been defied, which inevitably led to a clash with the security forces—that was the circumstance—and, secondly, that some soldiers acted with restraint and some without fire discipline. All that has happened in the intervening time is that a great deal more details are available in the Saville inquiry. It has gone into much more than Widgery did. Sadly, as a result of all this, 1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment and Bloody Sunday join Brigadier-General Dyer and Amritsar as examples of stains on what the British Army stands for and does.

Perhaps I may make one or two comments about the circumstances of operating in Northern Ireland which echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said, and very firmly contradict the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. It was always a great problem for us going into Northern Ireland in those early days after we were put there in 1969, not as the Army to do an army job, but as people to take over from the RUC when it became exhausted. Unlike many other situations around the world in what were called peacekeeping operations or keeping the peace, the Army went in when the police handed over to it. You acted as the Army and you gave the situation back to the police as quickly as you could. Unfortunately, from 1969 onwards, there was a long period when the Army was acting as police, for which it is not trained or equipped, in areas where law and order did not run under the hands of the RUC. It was always problematic and difficult for soldiers who were trained to act as soldiers to have to be pseudo-policemen.

I had the great privilege of commanding my battalion in Belfast for four months, and then I commanded the brigade there for two years. During those two years, every Sunday, for month after month, there were marches which we had to put down. I was very fortunate in having an extremely good policeman in Belfast with whom I worked very closely and we always agreed at what moment we the military would take over responsibility, and we handed it back to him as soon as we could,. It always remains for me one of the great tragedies of Bloody Sunday that Brigadier MacLellan, who was in a similar position to mine in Belfast, was denied the presence of his policeman, Chief Superintendant Lagan, who chose that day not to be there. Lagan had recommended that the march be allowed in the first place and, therefore, he was, in a way, opposed to what happened. However, the absence of a policeman made life doubly difficult for Brigadier MacLellan, particularly in the difficult position of deciding on the moment when arrests squads could go in.

That is, of course, a matter for Saville and the past. As Lord Acton once said, hindsight is the privilege of the historians. I have been interested that the theme of this debate appears to have been the words, “It is time to move on”. It is certainly time to move on as far as the Army is concerned and, like many other noble Lords, I listened with admiration to the very clear, unambiguous and brave words of the Prime Minister on 15 June which were read out in this House. It was instantly followed by a message to the Army from the Chief of the General Staff. I should like to read out from it, because it seems to have been made exactly in that same spirit. Referring to the whole of Operation Banner, the message states:

“The overwhelming majority of those deployed conducted themselves with utter professionalism, restraint and humanity and played an important role in protecting the people of Northern Ireland, providing much needed stability and thereby helping to set the conditions for the peace Northern Ireland enjoys today. The cost was high: we will always remember the 651 service personnel killed, and the 6,307 wounded during the course of the operation, not to mention the grievous police and civilian casualties … We ask a lot of our young soldiers, given the incredibly complex environment in which they have to operate and the magnitude of the decisions they have to take, often on a daily basis. I want to stress that rightly we are held to account for our conduct and must always operate within the law. But I would like commanders to assure those under their command that they will, like me, support all soldiers who have acted in good faith and in keeping with the Army’s values and standards, if and when their actions come under scrutiny ... It is a sign of a healthy organisation that we can look back on our past actions, admit our mistakes, and learn from them, so we are stronger and better for the future”.

Having heard the wise words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others, it is clear to me that Northern Ireland wants to move on. I believe you can take a view—many noble Lords have mentioned aspects of this—that Northern Ireland could be better and stronger in the future having been through what it has. It is of course important that aspects of the past are cleared up and healed, and I absolutely accept the need for something other than inquiries. My noble friend Lady O’Loan mentioned one organisation and, in terms of simplicity, I would always welcome that. However, in achieving that and looking forward, I hope that there will be inquiries into all aspects of what went on and not just those involving the security forces. In view of what they have done and what they still do, it would be wrong for them to feel that it is they who are always going to be singled out, as opposed to those who have perpetrated the problems that they have been brought in to solve.

19:11

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Coming in at No. 20 behind a list of eminent speakers, I think that much that I would have referred to has perhaps been said, but noble Lords will forgive me if there is some repetition in my comments.

In a 30-year reflection on any event, there is sometimes a tendency to look at matters through rose-tinted glasses, although I suspect that, on close examination, we could all be guilty of that. Two hundred million pounds is a large sum of money by anyone’s standards. Were this House to have such a colossal sum at its disposal, what an appreciable difference we could make to the lives of all the people of Northern Ireland. Instead, in an economic climate such as this, this £200-million Saville inquiry—perhaps the most expensive foregone conclusion in history—borders on the obscene. It is a misappropriation of taxpayers’ money that, to be truthful, has changed very little in Northern Ireland’s society. It is the epitome of excess—the ultimate example of profligacy. And to what end? For this is the fundamental problem: a vast sum, a huge report and an astonishing 12 years later, nothing much—perhaps a few millionaire barristers aside—has changed. It is staggeringly ironic that, £200 million further on down the road, Martin McGuinness is on record as saying that an apology would have been sufficient.

The outcome was doomed from the start, as I shall explain. It was ever apparent that, no matter the result, at best one section of the community would be sceptical over the findings, feeling disfranchised and alienated and regarding it as a sop; at worst, some would have resorted to more violence on the streets, had they not got the result that they wanted.

The sad truth is that, yet again, the Protestant community was resigned from the start to the inevitability of the outcome going against its views of the events. Such resignation stems from past experience of government policy over at least two generations, which has been to appease those who shout the loudest and to acquiesce in the views of those who could prove the bigger threat. The harsh reality is that the predictability of the findings is further proof of the extent to which successive Governments and the establishment at every level have incessantly pandered to those who are contemptuous of the rule of law in the UK. They behave thus in a vain attempt to keep the seemingly acceptable face of republicanism on the supposed straight and narrow political path. However, your Lordships need no aide-memoire on the futility of feeding the proverbial crocodile. This inquiry was part of the deal, which has its roots in the Belfast agreement, to entice republicans away from terrorism and into the political process.

Evidence was heard from none other than Martin McGuinness, who admitted to being the IRA’s second in command in the area on the day in question. That is the same Martin McGuinness who now sits as Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister and who would probably be recognised as a statesman. In June, one national newspaper said of Saville that,

“nobody, but nobody, would order an inquiry into him”—

Martin McGuinness. It went on:

“This is one-directional justice. Each individual will have to work out for themselves whether this constitutes the mature behaviour of a democracy at its very best, or a wasteful exercise in appeasing a political sympathy that has been appeased for too many years”.

Mr McGuinness, as we are all aware, suffers from selective amnesia. Over the summer, we learnt that he forgot that he had spoken to a priest named Father Chesney, who was the prime suspect in the Claudy massacre. Claudy is not that far from Londonderry. Initially, Mr McGuinness vehemently denied even knowing this man; indeed, he could not remember talking to Father Chesney on his deathbed, which one would suspect would be an emotional, evocative and unforgettable experience. Paradoxically, he can clearly remember incidents from 30 years ago on Bloody Sunday, in which, he claims, he was not involved. However, as he cannot appropriately account for his whereabouts over some 25 minutes that day, it appears rather convenient that his memory of that in which he was involved, as events unfolded, is apparently not so sharp. We are told in the report:

“We consider it likely that Martin McGuinness was armed with a Thompson submachine-gun on Bloody Sunday and we cannot eliminate the possibility that he fired this weapon”.

There can be no doubt that the IRA was represented in the Bogside that fateful day and that Martin McGuinness was a member at that time.

To put the events in context, 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment was on site as tensions were running high following the slaughter of two RUC officers three days before. The civil rights march, as we have been reminded, was not a legal march. Gunfire broke out against the Army, which returned fire—Lord Widgery described it as being done “recklessly” and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, describes the actions as “unjustified”. The outcome of both inquiries is fundamentally the same. Saville, of course, was much more expensive.

As I have previously told this House, we had no need for a £200-million inquiry to establish that there was no premeditated plan to shoot civilians on that day. We did not need an inquiry of this length to inform us that, as a consequence of IRA actions prior to that day, parts of Londonderry “lay in ruins”, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. Therein is an injustice itself.

Many murders, bombings, shootings and hijackings were perpetrated against innocent people in those 30 years of Northern Ireland’s tragic history—all without a public inquiry. It should be remembered that no one has ever been charged, let alone convicted, of the murders of the two RUC men that effectively sparked the events of Bloody Sunday. Moreover, the RUC lost more than 300 of its officers during the Troubles and, for more than 200 of those murders, no one has ever been tried, convicted or put before a court. Of course, for those officers of the law there will be no public inquiries. There will be no inquiry into the Remembrance Day massacre at Enniskillen; the massacre of the innocent at the La Mon House Hotel; Bloody Friday, when a series of bombs were planted strategically across Belfast leaving few routes of escape; Teebane, where workers were slaughtered in their van as they returned home; Kingsmill, when the IRA separated the Protestants from the Roman Catholics and gunned them down in cold blood; the Ballygawley Road/Omagh Road massacre of soldiers; Narrow Water, when 18 paras were massacred; and Darkley, when a small Pentecostal church was invaded by the IRA and people were murdered as they worshipped. There was the murder of Lord Mountbatten and the bombings at Hyde Park, Warrington, Brighton and Canary Wharf. I could go on. The list is seemingly endless.

It has been said in this House that there is but one inquiry that needs to be dealt with. I think that I have demonstrated quite clearly that there is more than one. It strikes me that there are 101. So why was there a Saville inquiry? The answer is abundantly clear. Political expediency was the order of the day, although that is no reflection on those who carried out the inquiry. This had absolutely nothing to do with truth and justice. Purely and simply, this was an attempt to appease the unappeasable—to soften the iron will of those who had terrorised Northern Ireland in a systematic campaign of annihilation and who were increasingly demonstrating their capacity for destruction and mayhem on the mainland.

The report has pilloried the Army for its actions on that day. The truth is that the soldiers had a job to do in exceptionally difficult circumstances. It should be remembered that, but for their presence in Northern Ireland, many more lives would have been lost. I want to get that on record. I want to pay tribute to every soldier who served in Northern Ireland during those dark 30 years of misery and for the sacrifices that many were called on to make, including the laying down of their lives.

When the Saville report is stripped of its glossy cover, millionaire lawyers and high-profile status, what remains? Certainly, in the wake of this 12-year inquiry, there are lessons to be learnt. So many ineffectual reports from numerous commissions have been produced; this has been the second run at a report covering the events that are now known in common parlance as Bloody Sunday. But for how much longer and how many more times will we be forced backwards to trawl through the ashes of the evil deeds that have gone 30 years before? I suspect that some would be content to carry on with such fruitless endeavours until the past is completely rewritten to suit them and their purposes.

The people of Northern Ireland want to move on. They have severe economic challenges to face and consider that money could be better spent on delivering services to enhance the standard of their lives. Let me be clear: the people of Northern Ireland are done with money pits that deliver very little. They have no appetite for further public inquiries or the nonsense of a proposed truth commission.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with some apparent authority about the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not know on what he rests his authority, but I am aware from my seven years working with the victims of the Troubles across the whole community that there are many such people. Is he not aware that there are many people who would like the answers to what happened to their loved ones?

[Lord Morrow]

I have heard what the noble Baroness has said. I have been an elected representative for some 35 years, during which time I have presented myself continually to the electorate and have been returned at every election, so that may be some authority. In relation to people wanting answers, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, is quite right. People want answers, but I am not sure that they want to be trawled through more endless inquiries. There has to be a better way. Quite frankly, we have made a new start in Northern Ireland. Let us give it a chance and try to move forward. Are we are going to continually go down the road of selective inquiries? Bloody Sunday was a real tragedy and people lost their lives, and I do not minimise it in any way, but are we going to go down the road of setting a hierarchy of victims? Is that what we want to achieve? I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, takes that point.

19:25

[Lord Glentoran]

My Lords, in 1971, 496 people died in Northern Ireland, which was the highest casualty rate in any year of the Troubles. I am not as confident as everybody would appear to be about the Saville report. Throughout the 12 years that it has been going on, I sat on the Benches opposite and hassled to try to get something out of it in a reasonable length of time. I failed abjectly. However, we have been in power for only a few months, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State got the report published and the Prime Minister made his major Statement in a very short space of time. Why that did not happen under the previous Secretary of State is anybody’s guess.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I respectfully point out to the noble Lord and the rest of the House that the report was ready to go when the election was called. It was ready as a consequence of the actions of my Government working in tandem with the Government of the noble Lord. I fully respect the noble Lord, but I do not respect what he just said about the timing of the publication. The Prime Minister did a magnificent job with his Statement, but I take issue with the noble Lord on the timing issue.

[Lord Glentoran]

I accept what the noble Baroness says, but will attempt to correct it after a nod in this House. The reason why I am little unhappy about the report has not been mentioned. It is that a certain lawyer who was representing the Army claimed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, cherry-picked the evidence to help to paint the picture that he wanted,

“after 12 years and 191 million pounds to give a report which gave very clear findings even where in truth the evidence didn't support them”.

Another negative about the report is from the civil rights organisation British Irish Rights Watch. It states that what saddens it is that after all this time and all this effort very little more is known about Bloody Sunday than was known before the inquiry took place and that the report begs more questions than it answers.

That is a serious warning about the future. I accept the plight of the victims and that victims are our major concern and should be. In Northern Ireland, when we are talking about the affairs that we are talking about today, there is nothing more important than the care of victims, particularly in the past.

The world has changed. Londonderry is now a city of culture. Who could have imagined that in 1972? As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and others said, the Prime Minister made a fantastic, emotional Statement in another place that went a long way to appeasing a large number of people in Derry. I have spoken to one or two people to whom noble Lords might not have expected me to speak, one of whom was at our party conference. He assured me that the families of Bloody Sunday victims are largely relaxed—they are unhappy and sad—and do not wish to push for prosecutions.

Where are we now? Where do we go? A lot of people have talked about where we are and where we go, but we have not had any answers yet. A lot of the press statements and other comments—I also have it from Sinn Fein—indicate that prosecutions are not being sought. There also is legal evidence of the requisites that will have to be met if prosecutions are to take place. There has to be a better than 50/50 chance of getting a conviction, which has to be in the public interest. Certainly, defence lawyers would use the 38 years, or perhaps 40 years, rule before bringing people to trial. So that rules out prosecution of the soldiers. A further fact is that if soldiers were brought to court and convicted, they would not spend a single day in jail because of past legislation and all the other things that go with it.

As far as we are concerned, prosecutions for the future are off the table as regards Bloody Sunday, even though—someone might want to stir things up—some soldiers have admitted perjury. However, they still cannot be prosecuted because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, said, they cannot convict themselves. Hence, that is out too. We have no possibility of any convictions, trials or prosecutions for the happenings of Bloody Sunday.

Let us return to where we go now, on which a lot of people have spoken. I agree that we have to go forward. We have to find a way of giving people some satisfaction that they know what happened. We have to do our best to ensure that the families of victims and so on are kept as well informed as possible about what happened on particular days. I do not believe that going forward with major inquiries costing millions of pounds, with the sole objective of finding some evidence to give comfort to family and friends, is a way to go.

Of the inquiries that are going on now, as is well known, the Wright inquiry found nothing. It did not even find how guns were got into the jail. Mr Wright, the father, is still as bitter, twisted and unhappy as he was before. He got no satisfaction out of that inquiry, which cost £30 million. We can go on. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has some good examples, while I am reading out the not-very-good ones. That is where I think that we are.

In summary, I do not believe that the Saville report was a great success or that it achieved very much more than the Widgery report. The whole thing was almost a white elephant. I accept what noble Lords have said about being wise with hindsight, but that is where we are. It is very important that, following the speeches made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, and others, we find a Christian, solid way of going forward, and of handling these things when they happen.

19:33

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, even though I disagree with 90 per cent of what he said. We have had a sober, measured and wide-ranging debate on the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Many noble Lords who have spoken today served with great distinction as Ministers in Northern Ireland, while others have spoken movingly of their personal experience, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. Noble Lords have also shared their political and legal judgment with the House, and we have had the welcome and authoritative maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven; we welcome him very warmly to the House.

As the final sentence of the report’s principal conclusions states:

“Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland”.

Many noble Lords have repeated those words and I believe quite rightly too. Given that another 26 years of sectarianism and wrecked lives across Northern Ireland would pass before the Saville inquiry started in July 1998, and given that the inquiry itself would be so controversial in its length and cost—we have heard about that from many noble Lords—it would be remiss of us not to reflect on the lessons both of the events themselves on 30 January 1972 in Londonderry—Derry—as well as on the public inquiry process and its future. In response to the publication of the inquiry report on 15 June 2010, the Prime Minister mentioned,

“the wholehearted support of Her Majesty’s Opposition”.

I commend him on that. But the conclusions of the report are absolutely clear:

“There is no doubt. Nothing is equivocal. There are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong”.

This was reiterated in our debate by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, in his welcome opening remarks.

Also in his June Statement, the Prime Minister expressed his immense pride in the skills of the British Army, and we have heard those expressions of pride repeated today by noble Lords and the noble and gallant Lord. They have talked of the difficult work undertaken by the Army over the years in Northern Ireland, where in 38 years, over 1,000 members of the security services lost their lives. Having been one of the longest serving Whips at the MoD—it certainly felt like that—I am keenly aware of the extraordinary sacrifices that the members of our Armed Forces undertake on our behalf. But the Prime Minister concluded that on that day, 30 January 1972:

“Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The Government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces. And for that, on behalf of the Government—and indeed our country—I am deeply sorry”.

His apology was greeted with an outpouring of relief and pent-up emotion by the families of the dead and wounded, as my noble friend Lord Dubs has said. One would hope that, with the publication of the report, 38 years of bitterness, questioning and cynicism went some substantial way to being salved.

The report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, is clear about the 13 mainly young people who were killed that day and the 15 others who were also injured by the Army. Saville concludes that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm. Moreover, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, reiterated that conclusion. Saville also finds that the soldiers of Support Company reacted by losing their self-control, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training. Given those stark findings, can the Minister give the House any information about the timetable in which the Director of Public Prosecutions will come to a view? I do not make any judgment about prosecutions, a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, but I would ask about coming to a view about the matter because I believe that that is hanging in the air and needs to be answered.

Noble Lords who, as I do, wish to see a modern, reconciled Northern Ireland striding forward, free of division and recrimination, will acknowledge the shocking findings of the Saville report and that there was a need for those families to find the truth. I take note of the wise words of my noble friend Lady Smith on the complexity of truth: truth is never simple. What contact since the publication of the report has there been with the families concerned by the Government? What discussions have taken place within the department on the way forward as far as the families’ needs are concerned?

It is clear that the Saville conclusions throw into stark relief the fact that many other families and communities across Northern Ireland have suffered loss and violence. We know that more than 3,000 people have died in the conflict in Northern Ireland and that closure for their loss has never been found. Every innocent life lost and family scarred is a tragedy. Therefore, it is important to look at the work of the excellent Historical Enquiries Team and to see what further support it requires in its endeavours to deal with the past. What financial settlement do the Government have in mind for the HET given its present limited budget? Do the Government believe that the HET can in the future run inquiries of the scope of anything like Saville, Billy Wright or any of the other outstanding cases? What about Ballymurphy, the Omagh bombing and Pat Finucane?

If large-scale open-ended public inquiries are to be ended, what is to be put in their place? The Minister will know that you cannot deal with the past just by closing it down. The Inquiries Act 2005 was an attempt to deal with the issue of open-ended inquiries; however, in the debates on that Act, the point was made continually and strongly by the Opposition that inquiries need to be independent. That independence comes at a cost. What is the future for independence if it is not the route of the public inquiry? That question, in many different forms, was raised by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Carswell, and Lord Lloyd, the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Bew, who made a special plea for historians in his contribution, and many other noble Lords.

In terms of dealing with the burdens of the past, I reiterate the words of my noble friend Lady Royall in thanking the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley for their work in the consultative group on the past. I suggest that noble Lords who have not taken part in this debate should look at that important work. The fact that a consensus was not found should not diminish its importance.

The Saville inquiry was costly, long and has been the source of heavy criticism. However, its value is incalculable, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, because the Government’s commitment to it over the years has built up trust in the community. Unless you have trust, which is a precious commodity, especially in Northern Ireland, you cannot move forward—and building up trust is about the future of Northern Ireland.

In looking to the future, on 20 October the Government will announce their views on the comprehensive spending review. Many are extremely worried at the effect of the cuts on the regions and nations that heavily rely on public sector spending; Northern Ireland is one such example. As economic well-being and political stability are so bound up in Northern Ireland, I implore the Chancellor to tread softly.

We welcome Saville. Our debate today will, I hope—along with further discussions in another place and in partnership with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly—be part of a continuing conversation about the future stability, in both economic and security terms, of a modern Northern Ireland, without ever forgetting the sacrifices of the past.

18:25

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. I welcome the wealth of experience and knowledge that noble Lords have brought to this serious and sensitive subject.

I thought that I knew why most people were here today and now I know why everyone is here. It is because in the Chamber today are those who have had a significant involvement at ministerial level, those who are resident and involved in Northern Ireland, those who represent, even personally, the victims, those who represent the Army and those who represent the law. Tone is important and there has been a splendid, measured tone.

Under the counter here, I have the 10 volumes of the Bloody Sunday report. I am delighted that no one has said, “What about that comment on page 538 in volume 10?”. Happily, they have not been needed and I am grateful for that.

I have heard noble Lords use the phrase, “It’s time to move on”. However, I have also heard, not necessarily in these words, “There are a lot of people still searching for the truth”. We have to mesh these together. If the search for the truth can be concluded for most people—I do not know about everybody—it gives the help needed to move on.

I made notes on all noble Lords’ contributions and I shall do my best to give some response to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who until May had responsibility in this House for matters relating to Northern Ireland, asked about further inquiries and what is still to happen—it was raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. The Government are acutely aware of the sensitivity of a number of the contentious legacy cases. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is endeavouring to meet all the families concerned in the cases mentioned by noble Lords. He has already met Omagh and Ballymurphy families and intends to meet the Finucane family shortly—in fact, he may have met them already. He will carefully consider their views. The Government’s response to the report and to other recent high-profile cases, such as Claudy and Billy Wright, demonstrates that they are taking seriously their responsibilities for the past. There is no question of their hiding from the truth.

Many speakers have mentioned the number of lives lost—the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was one of them. We are not supposed to show exhibits in the House of Lords, but I have with me a book called Lost Lives. I can quote from it. It is nearly three inches thick. It sets out the number of deaths in the period from 11 June 1966 to the end of the Troubles—8 May 2006 is the date that the book goes to. There were 3,712 deaths. It is quite interesting to see the disposition of them. The breakdown is: civilians 2,087, police 509, Army 503, republican paramilitaries 395, loyalist paramilitaries 167 and undefined 59. Those are the numbers, but the remarkable thing about looking at the book is that from 11 June 1966 to the date of Bloody Sunday, 30 January 1972, there were 242 deaths. That is enough. There were 13 deaths at Bloody Sunday, but the balance between 256 and 3,712 is since bloody Sunday. We will not know and we cannot rewrite these things, but had it not been for Bloody Sunday, could it be that there would have been somewhat fewer than 3,400 deaths since? That is an important point.

We all pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for his work with Denis Bradley particularly, and the work that he has done over many years in Northern Ireland ministering to the people and playing such a special role there. As one of the earlier speakers said, setting the tone was very important. He mentioned open-ended inquiries, but it is a matter of finding a way to replace the open-ended inquiry. He raised the problems of such inquiries and mentioned the possibility, as he did in his paper, of a legacy commission or truth and reconciliation commission. He also mentioned getting the people at Stormont to agree. That is something that many people have been addressing in terms of the Government here. Much is made of pursuing things that are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. Some things are joint matters but many things are now their responsibility.

At first, I did not understand the entry into our ranks of the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, but we soon found out. Marriage brought him an interest in Northern Ireland, with his wife from Omagh. He also referred to the HET, peace and Martin Niemöller in Northern Ireland, showing the interest of the church in what has gone on in that place.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, was concerned about healing the past in Omagh. We must look at healing. Healing really needs an answer.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was the first noble Lord to raise Widgery and then relate that to the position of Saville and the change. For many people, that is why we are here. We had to have the Saville report because of the Widgery report. That link is important because Widgery was quick and cheap, but it did not do the job. It was because of the concern that that job was not done properly that we are here having this debate today, following a report published earlier in the year.

Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, to money. There is of course the police reserve. It is right to raise the question of resources for the police. I cannot say anything about settlements and how that is going to go—that is something for next week. Nevertheless, the Government are well aware of the need for resources and, indeed, there is the fact that there is the police reserve.

My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton referred to lessons learnt by the Army in peacekeeping operations. As the Chief of General Staff said in the light of the Saville report, the ways in which the Army is trained and how it works and operates have all changed. The Armed Forces have detailed and formalised procedures to ensure that operational experience is examined and lessons are identified so that gaps are addressed, mistakes are not repeated and good practice is continued. Lessons were identified following deployments in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, operations in Afghanistan have benefited from lessons identified as a result of operations in Iraq.

With regard to military training for peacekeeping operations, I am advised that this is kept under regular review and tailored to the individual circumstances of each operation. Even during operations, the approach can be adapted to take account of experiences on the ground. There were and are significant differences between those internal security operations conducted in Northern Ireland and those counter-insurgency peacekeeping operations undertaken in Iraq and Afghanistan. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, mentioned the defence review, which will be announced next consideration in ensuring that we have dispensed capabilities that matched the task that we have planned to perform.

The noble Lord also raised the point about the £191 million spent on Saville and referred to what might be the budget of Derry City Council. I can say that the council’s present budget is £36 million for the year. I just caution the noble Lord a little because, although £191 million is a lot, £36 million is a lot. The comparison is not the same for someone living in Londonderry/Derry as it would be for any English person, because in Northern Ireland housing and education are not devolved to councils, unlike in local government here, for example.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is not in his place, but he was concerned about the Army. I can understand the old Army man speaking in that way, but the report is the report—and sadly wrong was done and it has had to go into that report.

The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, was phrased in terms of “on the one hand, on the other”. I understand the historic perspective and understand his contribution in relation to where we started, before anything to do with the Saville report. But this is the dilemma of the report. It is the best effort; it is a summary and consideration of evidence, about which a view is taken. We are in a situation where one could say, “This is what somebody said to the police 38 years ago, this is what they wrote or said to Widgery, this is what they wrote or said to Saville, and they do not all quite match. Then this is what somebody else said and then there is another witness”. On balance, a view is taken, which is what has been written.

One thing about the report is that it was indeed incredibly interesting to read it page by page, but eventually it got monotonous in one sense—I hate to say that—in terms of the business of this view and that view but then, on balance, that is now what we come to. I understand how the noble Lord, Lord Bew, comes to his view of “on the one hand, on the other hand”, but the work has been done and we know what the conclusion has been.

I was delighted to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Macdonald. Again, he clearly had the understanding about the difference between terrorist violence on the one hand and violence perpetrated by the state on the other. It came absolutely clearly through that speech and we look forward to his future contributions.

When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, spoke, I wrote down “inquiry fatigue … stop the inquiries” as his cause. This is the dilemma of wanting to move on, yet people are not ready to move on because, while they are not asking for multimillions, they do not feel that they have had satisfaction from some process or another. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to the Written Answer that I sent him. What the noble Lord might not understand is that it was the third Answer that I eventually signed off. However, he mentioned—

[Lord Tebbit]

Were the other two any better?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

The noble Lord got the third one. He does not want to know about the first and second ones. Reference was made to the private all-party briefings. Those will commence; I spoke to the Secretary of State about them and he is happy to come along. We will endeavour to arrange one of those meetings before too long.

I want to say this about the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He has a personal position as a victim and because his concern is about an event in Brighton it is not covered by any procedures such as the HET. There is very much a serious case. It was interesting that he followed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, with an entirely opposite view, because it was that of the victim saying, “No, I can’t yet move on”. I would like to find a way of moving on. I believe that there ought to be a way—I do not know what it might be—in which even the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, can eventually move on, because he feels that he has had some satisfaction. In one sense—

[Lord Mawhinney]

I admit to being somewhat anxious about this personalising of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. We all know that he has a personal involvement, and a memory and experience which none of the rest of us would have wished, but can my noble friend address the policy point that my noble friend Lord Tebbit was trying to make? Rather than personalising his contribution, the policy point was: what is the basis for determining what should and should not be the subject of an inquiry?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, it is all about tone and using the right words. I am trying my best. I do not want any hurt in terms of what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, might feel. I used that example only because in one sense his was a personal contribution, which leads on directly to a policy point. That which is in place to address what many believe to be hurt does not appear to be in place as far as the noble Lord is concerned, because of an event that took place in England. The Government should look at that, and I will take it back to the Minister. I do not believe that anything is in place at the moment, so in my view there is a policy point which an endeavour should be made to address.

[Lord Tebbit]

Will the noble Lord allow me to explain for a moment, please? I am grateful to him. The point that I sought to make is that it seems to many of us that the Government and the previous Government were extremely anxious not to allow to be known to the general public with certainty the names of those who organised that particular attempt to murder the Prime Minister of this country.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I do not believe that that is necessarily the case; that is the noble Lord’s view. I do not think I am able to comment any further, and I will leave the point there.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and the tremendous work that has taken place. He could see as a lawyer himself the incredible service that a fellow lawyer had performed over 12 years. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, made reference to costly inquiries and the concern that that cost could turn people away from an inquiry when one was needed. I have to say that the words I used were, “No more open-ended inquiries”, and that is important. I was pleased to hear his own perception of the history in Northern Ireland. Much of the first of the 10 volumes is about the history. I was looking at it myself and thinking about Captain O’Neill, James Chichester-Clark and Brian Faulkner and the way in which the more liberal—with a small “l”—Lord O’Neill, as he eventually became, was replaced at Stormont. Yet at the same time in London—this is why it is important to see what was going on at the time—there was concern that somehow Northern Ireland should embrace other people. There was an effort to get other people in, but other unionist people did not want that to happen. That in itself means that I do not see the idea, which comes out in the report, that there was collusion in what happened. The London view at that time was to try to get a Stormont that was more inclusive, embracing and so forth.

I think I am at the point where I ought to call it a day in terms of this debate. To sum up: the challenge now is for us all to ensure that the past is dealt with in a sensitive manner that allows Northern Ireland, as has been said, to move forward in a genuinely shared future. We must all work to ensure that hope and reconciliation continue to overcome hatred and fear, and that those who would seek to undermine the progress that has been made will never succeed in doing so. Hope is the greatest weapon that we hold against those who peddle fear, and it was that hope that was so powerfully embodied by the recent success of Londonderry/Derry, the city by the Foyle, in being named the 2013 City of Culture. We must all acknowledge the strides forward that Northern Ireland has taken. As we look back on the terrible events of 38 years ago, we must be thankful that Northern Ireland is now a very different place.

In conclusion, the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, has—to use a quote that has been adopted by the families—set the truth free. In doing so, the report has, I believe, helped to close a long-running and painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s troubled past.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 8.10 pm.