House of Commons

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 15 February 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

1. What recent progress he has made on the preparation of guidance on the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

3. Which bodies he has consulted in the preparation of guidance on the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

6. When he plans to implement the Bribery Act 2010; and if he will make a statement.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I am at present working on the guidance to commercial organisations to make it practical and useful for legitimate business and trade. It will be published once I am confident that it addresses the legitimate concerns of all those who took part in the consultation process and who have made representations to me. The publication of the guidance will be followed by a three-month notice period before full implementation of the Act.

[Mr Binley]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the offences in the Act should not prevent businesses from using legitimate and proportionate promotional expenditure or corporate hospitality? I welcome the fact that he is going to prepare guidance, but will he do so on the basis that there is some fear and lack of knowledge out there, which needs to be dealt with?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I have had meetings with organisations such as the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, whose members are particularly frightened about the prospects. Ordinary hospitality to meet and network with customers and to improve relationships is an ordinary part of business and should never be a criminal offence. I hope to put out very clear guidance for businesses of all sizes to make that clear and to save them from the fears that are sometimes aroused by the compliance industry—the consultants and lawyers who will, of course, try to persuade companies that millions of pounds must be spent on new systems that, in my opinion, no honest firm will require to comply with the Act.

[Joseph Johnson]

Many of our competitors overseas will not be so keen to rule out bribery as a means of competing. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that British businesses are not put at a competitive disadvantage?

[Mr Clarke]

Along with the United States and others, we are one of the leading countries in pressing for a drive against corruption in the world, because corruption is bad for all business, including British business when it tries to export to other countries. Because of the debate that is taking place about the Act, I have had to reassure my American colleagues that we are not falling behind and that we will implement the Act. It is very important that we put ourselves where we should be—in the forefront of stamping out corruption not only in the developing world but in international trade generally.

[Paul Goggins]

May I encourage the Secretary of State to get on and implement the Act as soon as possible? Will he provide an assurance this afternoon that when the guidance is published, there will be no loophole for joint ventures or subsidiaries that would enable British companies to turn a blind eye to corruption?

[Mr Clarke]

I give that assurance, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am trying to get on with it. I believe it is possible to satisfy those who think we should give a lead in helping to stamp out corruption in international trade and other aspects of international relationships, and at the same time satisfy honest businesses that do not want unnecessary costs and burdens put upon them. They want the situation explained clearly to them so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, ordinary hospitality cannot possibly be affected by the Act.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that the Act will eventually be implemented, his comments today sound like rather a watering-down of the proposals. Yet the Foreign Secretary said at the Dispatch Box just two weeks ago:

“Both parties in the coalition supported the Bribery Act when in opposition, we support it now, and it will be brought in rigorously, effectively and fairly.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 733.]

Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that that is how the Act will be applied?

[Mr Clarke]

First, there is no watering-down of the Act. All parties supported it when it went through the House, and we are going to implement it properly. It requires me to provide statutory guidance to businesses on what steps they should take to ensure that they are trying to prevent bribery, and that is what I am working on. I believe that it is possible to produce guidance and enforce the Act in a way that produces the rigour and fairness that the hon. Gentleman demands. There is no backing down from the principles of the Act at all.

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

2. What assessment he has made of the potential effects of his proposals for legal aid reform on the provision of face-to-face legal advice; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We published initial impact assessments, including equality impact assessments, with our reform proposals, including the proposal to establish the community legal advice helpline as the single gateway to civil legal aid services. Face-to-face advice will continue to be available where it is appropriate.

[Mr Cunningham]

I am very interested in that reply. What does the Under-Secretary mean by “appropriate”? That seems to me to be a little get-out clause. I assume that he does MPs’ surgeries. If so, he knows that people need face-to-face contact with their representatives—in this case, solicitors—to help them out. The measures will hurt some of the poorest families.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that we are not considering some future project—the advice line exists. It was used by 600,000 people last year and it is getting something like a 90% satisfaction rating. Poorer people can be called back so that they do not pay for the call. Those who live in remote areas often greatly appreciate the telephone call, and those who are disabled also much appreciate having access by telephone. I take the exact opposite position from the hon. Gentleman and say that the advice line will help vulnerable people.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Does the Under-Secretary accept that restricting advice on housing matters could result in more homelessness and additional costs to homelessness budgets in local authorities?

[Mr Djanogly]

No, I do not, because we are not proposing to remove legal aid when imminent homelessness is a possibility. Legal aid will be retained in that situation.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is deep resentment in my constituency about the attack on the South Manchester law centre, which is hugely valued, and about the attacks on advice bureaux? Will he understand that the activities of the malign Legal Services Commission will remove access to legal services for people on limited means?

[Mr Djanogly]

Just to be absolutely sure, neither my ministerial colleagues nor I, as far as I know, have attacked the South Manchester law centre in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If he would like to give me details of exactly what he is talking about, I would be happy to take it up.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Many senior barristers earn hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds from the public purse in the form of legal aid. What plans has the Under-Secretary to introduce a form of cap to stop the funds running to such sums?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have no proposals to put a cap in place. The amount of work that is carried out will be just that. We are looking at the rates that are paid in certain circumstances, and people’s eligibility to receive advice in the first place.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Citizens Advice, the main provider of face-to-face advice, faces cuts of up to 45% and law centres face cuts of 70%. Legal service funding is an essential part of the income of all law centres and most CABs, but, according to the Government’s own figures, it is being cut by 90%. I welcome the Business Secretary’s U-turn on reinstating debt advice for one year only. Will the Under-Secretary take the opportunity, in considering the many responses to his consultation, to perform his own U-turn and drop his plans to end social welfare legal aid? If not, does he accept that the whole country will become an advice desert, and that he will be known as the man who ended universal access to justice?

[Mr Djanogly]

Anyone who suggests that there is universal access to justice in the context of access to legal aid has missed, for a start, the restrictions that the previous Labour Government put on access. We need take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman’s party, which, on the day the election was called, cut criminal legal aid by 13%. We take no lessons from him.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the likely effects of the planned reduction in the legal aid budget on citizens advice bureaux and law centres.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We published equality impact assessments with our reform proposals. They considered impacts on the not-for-profit sector collectively, but not on individual types of not-for-profit organisation. We are working closely with colleagues across Government to formulate a coherent approach to that issue so that we can encourage and co-ordinate support for the valuable not-for-profit sector.

[Anas Sarwar]

The reforms mean that people are now expected to represent themselves in an increasing number of proceedings. However, the Government’s figures show that the success rate for people who receive proper legal advice and help before appearing in court is double that for those without representation, even though their cases have equal merit. Given that the Under-Secretary has already mentioned potential cuts for CABs and law centres, how does that fit with the principle of equal access to justice for all?

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that the not-for-profit sector, while being valuable, often offers legal advice in circumstances in which general help is needed. There are many different funding streams, and we are talking about the legal aid funding stream, whereby CABs, for instance, receive only 15% of their funds from the Ministry of Justice. That makes it a cross-departmental issue, which we are taking up on a cross-departmental basis—something that the Labour party failed to do throughout its period in government.

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

I am encouraged by the Minister’s emphasis on cross-departmental co-operation. Will he assure me that he and his colleagues will do everything they can to maintain the continuation of services such as the Wiltshire law centre and the citizens advice bureau in my constituency, which often find that legal and social issues cannot be distinguished?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend says that some centres find that legal and social issues cannot be distinguished, but that depends on how they are funded. For instance, only 50% of CABs receive any Ministry of Justice funding whatever. That very much depends on whether a centre offers general or legal help. However, I repeat that we realise that advice provision needs to be looked at on a cross-departmental basis. We appreciate that there is an issue for not-for-profits, and we are determined to address it.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that the other funding streams he talks about are often from local government to advice bureaux, law centres and CABs? All over the country, they are being decimated. Many valuable voluntary advice services that give not legal advice, but wraparound, general advice, face enormous cuts. Thus, people lose out on benefits and opportunities, and often end up homeless as a result of a lack of appropriate advice at the necessary time.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and has clarified a point that I made earlier: there is a difference between general advice and legal advice. We appreciate that not-for-profits have an issue when we consider funding streams all added together. Those who attended the legal aid debate two weeks ago would have heard me make a plea to local government to support the general advice provided by their CABs. I repeat that plea today.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to ensure that prisoners gain the skills and experience required to find work after leaving prison.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

With the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of offender learning, which includes how best to provide learning that will improve prisoners’ employability. The Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”, sets out our intention to make prisons places where many more prisoners work and gain employment experience.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I welcome the Government’s emphasis on rehabilitation. Up and down the country, including in Staffordshire, many organisations work very hard and very effectively—and cheaply—on that. Will the Minister agree to meet me and colleagues from Staffordshire to discuss how we can continue to support such organisations?

[Mr Blunt]

I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues from Staffordshire. Prisons and probation trusts already work with a large number of community organisations, but the Green Paper makes it clear that we want an ever-wider range of community organisations and individuals to become involved in helping ex-offenders to lead law-abiding lives. The system change that we are making, which I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friends, will enable the big society to help us to deliver a revolution in rehabilitation.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not understand that all his good intentions and fine words will be swamped by the massive spending cuts that his Department is taking? Closing three prisons and cutting the building programme will worsen overcrowding, and cutting 23%—some 10,000—of the front-line prison and probation staff will reduce the number of opportunities for prisoners to train and work. When will he come forward with a credible strategy?

[Mr Blunt]

We are about to come forward with a credible offender learning strategy. The budget will remain very much the same as that which we inherited, because we realise that that strategy is a priority. Unfortunately, a significant amount of the money spent under the previous Administration went to waste. If the hon. Lady reads the reports from independent monitoring boards, she will see repeated complaints about the quality of offender learning in prisons under the previous Administration. We will put that right.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

7. What plans he has for the size of his Department’s budget for civil legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We published impact assessments alongside our reform proposals setting out their potential financial implications. We estimated that the savings to civil legal aid would be around £255 million by 2014-15. Total civil legal aid expenditure was around £900 million in 2008-09.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

We all appreciate the need to make savings, but citizens advice bureaux, including the Charnwood CAB in my constituency, play an important role—hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention to their CABs. Mention has been made of the difference between legal and general help. May I suggest that the Minister consider, with the Department for Work and Pensions, simplifying the length of the forms that people need to fill in? The CAB currently helps benefits claimants who sometimes have to fill in forms of up to 52 pages in length.

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are in discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions on exactly that matter, and more generally on improving early intervention, so that preferably people will not need to go to a tribunal at all.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

We heard evidence this morning that conditional fee agreements were driving up costs in clinical negligence cases. Will the Minister look again at Lord Justice Jackson’s view that legal aid in such cases should not be cut?

[Mr Djanogly]

We are indeed doing that. The consultation on Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations closed yesterday, and we have had a large number of responses. We will look carefully at those over the coming weeks and come back with our response to the consultation. I agree that this is an important matter in terms of legal aid and conditional fees arrangements in so far as half of clinical negligence cases are funded by the former and half by the latter.

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

On budget savings, has the Minister had a chance to consider how much might be saved in the legal aid budget by not allowing cases of unaccompanied children and young people whose asylum claims have failed to be dealt with under legal aid, and indeed those who have fled domestic slavery? Will he look again at whether the savings derived are appropriate, given the impact that it will have on these categories of people?

[Mr Djanogly]

In all those circumstances—the hon. Gentleman mentioned a lot quickly—I think that we will be retaining access to legal aid.

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

Recently, Ministers drew attention to the staggering sum of £38 per head of population in England and Wales being spent on legal aid funding. That figure is £3 in France and £5 in Germany. Will he give us the comparisons with the rest of the regions of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Scotland?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that England and Wales spend more on legal aid than anywhere else in the world except Northern Ireland. In Spain, the figure is about £2.50, in France £3, in Germany £5 and in other common law countries it is more like £9 to £11. Some people say that our system is different, but actually other common law countries spend about a third of what we spend on legal aid. After our proposals, we will still be spending more on legal aid than any other country in the world.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

8. How many prisoners with convictions for violent offences were released under the early release scheme between 2007 and 2010.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Between 29 June 2007 and 9 April 2010, 81,578 prisoners were released under the end of custody licence scheme. Of those, 16,335 were violent offenders. The scheme finished last year with the last release on 9 April.

[Mark Menzies]

Does the Minister agree that the consequences of the previous Government failing to get a grip on reoffending were that our prisons reached bursting point until the then Justice Secretary had to release prisoners early, thus putting the public at risk?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. By failing to plan properly for the necessary prison accommodation, the previous Government were forced to resort to the end of custody licence scheme. More than 1,600 of those 80,000 prisoners released committed further offences while on the scheme, including very serious offences. One of those offences was murder.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

How confident are the Government that fast-tracking the release of prisoners with sentences of imprisonment for public protection—IPP prisoners—will not put the public at increased risk of serious crime?

[Nick Herbert]

We will take no risks in this respect. All prisoners who have to be released under the IPP scheme will be properly risk assessed. I repeat that the problem with the previous Government’s approach was that these prisoners were released automatically simply because the previous Government had run out of space. However, that scheme was cynically brought to an end just before the last election.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Of the 16,300 or so prisoners whom the Minister mentioned, how many were failed asylum applicants who were not deported?

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid that I do not have those figures available for my hon. Friend. However, there is a separate issue about the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails, and it remains the Government’s policy to seek to remove them on release as soon as possible.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that on four occasions—in 1984, 1987, 1991 and 1996—the previous Conservative Government released prisoners earlier and with far fewer safeguards? Let me also ask him about the early release of prisoners convicted of violent offences. He mentioned that those serving an IPP sentence will be released early. Exactly how many of the 6,000 prisoners currently serving an IPP sentence will be released early, and what criteria will be used?

[Nick Herbert]

I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that none will be released early and all will continue to be risk-assessed.

[Sadiq Khan]

Let me ask the Minister to answer this question accurately then. Can he confirm that, as a direct consequence of the cuts that his Department has accepted from the Treasury, there are now fewer programmes for those on an IPP sentence, which means a longer delay before they go on a programme? Can he also confirm that the consequence of the cuts in front-line probation and prison officers will be less rehabilitation while in prison, and that another consequence of the cuts that he has accepted will be cuts to the Parole Board, which will mean a double whammy of more prisoners being released prematurely and less rehabilitation in prison?

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman has to get his attack right. One moment he seemed to be saying that we were about to release too many IPP prisoners; now he seems to be saying that we will release too few. Which is it? The fact is that there has been a growth in the number of IPP prisoners. Everybody accepts that IPP sentences have become de facto life sentences and that we have to address that, but there will continue to be a proper risk-assessment of any prisoner released from an indeterminate public protection sentence.

[Mr Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of language translation support for foreign national prisoners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Translation and interpretation services are provided locally through central contracts. It is for the local prison authorities to determine the extent to which translation services are needed on a case-by-case basis.

[Mr Brine]

Foreign national prisoners constitute about 15% of the total inmate population at HMP Winchester. A constituent of mine who is a member of the local monitoring board has raised concerns with me about the language translation support made available to foreign inmates there, particularly where deportation documents are issued. Does the Minister agree that putting in place efficient translation measures would help to improve the speed and efficiency with which inmates who have served their sentences and are awaiting deportation from our country are moved through the system?

[Mr Blunt]

I certainly would agree. We want to make it clear that we want absolutely no administrative hurdles put in the way of deporting foreign national prisoners back to where they belong.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Just for the purposes of planning for language services, will the Minister indicate what changes he expects in either the percentage or number of foreign national prisoners in this country over the next 12 months, so that we can judge his success in deportation?

[Mr Blunt]

All I know is that, having inherited the utterly dreadful position that we face—a position for which the right hon. Gentleman bears some responsibility, having held responsibilities in this area in the past—we are determined to make as much progress as possible. He understands, having presided over a doubling in the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails, just how difficult it is to get them sent home once they are here, but we will be making as much progress as we possibly can.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

10. With which third sector organisations he plans to work to deliver his rehabilitation revolution policy.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The voluntary sector has a critical role to play in delivering the Government’s rehabilitation revolution. We will open up the market to enable a greater number of independent providers, including from the voluntary and social enterprise sectors, to contribute towards reducing crime and reoffending. We have consulted widely with the sector to develop the proposals in our Green Paper.

[Fiona Bruce]

Excellent work is being done by local voluntary organisations, such as the Message Trust in Manchester, to help ex-prisoners stay away from reoffending. What can the Minister do to ensure that smaller charities are not excluded by large corporations bidding for payment-by-results schemes?

[Nick Herbert]

I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we certainly do not wish the smaller charities to be excluded from the rehabilitation revolution. The organisations that she mentions are not in the pilot scheme that we are running in Peterborough, where the social impact bond involves two key voluntary organisations, and we want that to continue in the other pilots that we are pursuing.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

We obviously welcome the rehabilitation revolution, but is the Minister aware that there is concern among prison governors about the increased amount of time that inmates will be required to spend in their cells, thereby being unable to partake in any rehabilitation, because of the cuts to the prison budget? What assurances can he give prison governors that they will not have to increase the amount of time for which prisoners are just banged up?

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid that prisoners were also spending too much time in their cells and not pursuing purposeful activity under the previous Government, when there were increases in spending, year on year. So this problem is not simply linked to spending. We are determined that prisons should be places of work and purposeful activity, so that we can focus on reducing reoffending.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Assuming that payment-by-results schemes get beyond the pilot stage, what commissioning organisations do Ministers envisage deciding between private, public and third sector bidders, and how will the scheme function to provide contracts on a scale that charities and third sector organisations can undertake?

[Nick Herbert]

As we set out in the Green Paper, we are consulting on how the five pilot schemes should proceed in various sectors, in order to see how we can make payment by results work. The existing pilot, involving the Peterborough social impact bond, is also still running. Our intentions are to unlock the expertise of the independent and third sectors in order to reduce reoffending, and to examine how the public sector can participate in the schemes.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

In the corner of Staffordshire and Cheshire, we have a state-of-the-art community chaplaincy scheme, which has got reoffending down to 12 %, compared with the national average of 70%. In the meeting that the Ministers have promised to have with Staffordshire Members, will they undertake when considering rehabilitation to take account of the best practice shown by that scheme in Stoke-on-Trent?

[Nick Herbert]

Those are precisely the kind of schemes whose expertise we want to unlock, and we want to engage more of them where we can. The rehabilitation revolution will provide an opportunity to do that. The key is to upscale such projects and make them more widely available, which is why payment by results offers such an important opportunity.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

11. What work his Department is undertaking on the future of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Government are committed to establishing a commission in 2011 to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights. We will make a statement to Parliament on the precise terms of reference and the appointment of the commission in due course.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wishes to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, while the Deputy Prime Minister seems determined to defend the Act. Will the Secretary of State make it clear today, once and for all, on which side of the fence his Department sits?

[Mr Clarke]

What my two right hon. colleagues agreed on in the coalition agreement was to establish a commission to investigate the case for a Bill of Rights. I am now discussing that with the Deputy Prime Minister and, as I have said, we will announce in due course the terms of reference for the commission that is to resolve the issue.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Yet again, the coalition Government are doing the right thing by looking at a Bill of Rights. The Secretary of State never wastes any time, so will he tell me when the commission is going to report and when we are going to get some action?

[Mr Clarke]

We have firmly and urgently committed ourselves to establishing the commission in the year 2011.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

12. What advice his Department provides to members of tribunals hearing appeals against decisions on the award of disability living allowance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Ministry of Justice does not provide any advice to members of tribunals, because the judiciary is entirely independent of the Government.

[Bob Russell]

Well, I suggest that it is about time the Department did something. It has only to look at the case of Mr Robert Oxley, which I raised at Prime Minister’s question time last month. The Minister would do well to look at the records of the tribunal in Colchester, and particularly at the cases heard by Mrs Hampshire.

[Mr Djanogly]

I must emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is not for Ministers to adjudicate on judges’ behaviour, because they are independent of the Government. I can tell him, however, that tribunal members undertake annual refresher training, which enables them to carry out their duties effectively. Any appellant who is unhappy with the decision of a tribunal can appeal to the upper tribunal. If an appellant is unhappy with the conduct of the panel, or a member of the panel, they can make a complaint to the regional judge.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

The tribunal system is under a lot of pressure, with an average wait of between 11 and 12 weeks. This is not only because of disability living allowance claims, but because more people will be coming into the tribunal service as the Government proceed with their migration of those on incapacity benefit on to employment and support allowance. The system is already experiencing stresses and strains. What are the Government going to do to ensure that people get the correct determination in as timeous a way as possible?

[Mr Djanogly]

We have been in touch with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that we have a better, more seamless system between the two Departments. We have also been dealing with the increase in tribunal hearings, which the hon. Lady rightly brings up, and have increased the number of judges and the number of medical staff. I am pleased to say that it is now within our sights to end the backlog.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

13. What plans he has for community sentences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

We want non-custodial sentences to reflect more clearly and closely the principles of sentencing. Community payback will be a more definitively punitive disposal—more immediate and more intensive. Restoration to victims will also have a higher priority, with compensation orders to victims becoming the first consideration for sentencers. Public protection will be delivered through curfews and reporting requirements and more flexibility for offender managers to deliver rehabilitation through interventions tailored to the individual circumstances of each offender.

[Mel Stride]

Community sentences are often seen by the public as a bit of a soft option. Can my hon. Friend provide some specific examples of how he will ensure that they are tough enough?

[Mr Blunt]

The Green Paper sets out our intention to make community payback more intensive, more immediate and better enforced. We also intend to provide tougher punishment and better public protection by increasing the duration of electronically monitored curfews. The maximum hours might be increased from 12 to 16 each day and the maximum length of a curfew from six months to a year.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

14. What plans he has to increase the amount of work carried out by prisoners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

We have set out our intention to make prisons places of work and industry in the Green Paper published on 7 December 2010, and our response to the consultation will be published in May this year. Achieving a significant increase in useful work, which is also economically positive for the Prison Service, victims and rehabilitation, is a high priority for this Government.

[Chris Skidmore]

Does the Minister agree that we need to get more prisoners working so that when they are released, they are more likely to get back into employment? How many hours does he suggest prisoners should spend working each week?

[Mr Blunt]

We would like get to a position where prisoners work an ordinary working week of 40 hours. No one should underestimate the difficulty of making that a reality across the entire prison estate, as prisons have different purposes and a different physical geography in each case. I am absolutely determined, however, to use all our endeavours to maximise the amount of productive work done in prisons. That is why I have said that this is a first-order priority, certainly for this Prisons Minister.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

15. What assessment he has made of the likely outcomes of the planned reductions in the legal aid budget.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

Our approach to the legal aid reforms has been to focus resources on those who most need help in the most serious cases in which legal advice or representation is justified. I believe that the outcome will be a system that is more responsive to public needs, allowing people to resolve their issues out of court, using simpler, more informal remedies where appropriate, and encouraging more efficient resolution of contested cases where necessary.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My constituency is one of the most deprived in the country and is also 60% non-white. Given that the Government’s cuts to legal aid will disproportionately affect those on low incomes, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and women, can the Minister explain how his plans for legal aid are in any way fair?

[Mr Djanogly]

I should point out that people on high incomes do not get legal aid. We need to change behaviour; there needs to be a less contentious approach to the law and early intervention, which means looking at new ideas such as mediation.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

With regard to the outcomes of the reforms, particularly in family law cases, will the Minister clarify and confirm that in such cases, divorcing couples’ equity and assets will be taken into account when determining legal aid so that those who can pay do pay?

[Mr Djanogly]

In public family law, legal aid will remain. In private family law, legal aid will be removed, because we believe fundamentally that the taxpayer should not have to pay for a regular divorce, a contact application or splitting up family assets. People should go to mediation to sort out their problems among themselves—not at the cost of the taxpayer.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have an example of a case in Sheffield where a 62-year-old grandmother used legal aid to go through the processes she needed to go through to care for her two grandchildren, who were otherwise at risk of going into care. Will the Minister assure me that grandparents in such a situation will be able to do that in future? Otherwise, the cost to the state of caring for small children will be considerably more than that of the legal aid.

[Mr Djanogly]

What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we do not propose to remove public family law legal aid, and that includes cases in which the state wants to take away someone’s children.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

16. What plans he has for future funding for training for employees to work in young offenders institutions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The juvenile awareness staff programme, known as JASP, is the only training programme that is specifically designed for staff working in young offenders institutions holding those aged under 18. In partnership with the Youth Justice Board, the National Offender Management Service provides JASP training for staff working in public sector young offenders institutions. Funding from the YJB for JASP training is agreed for 2011-12.

[Karl Turner]

I am sure that the Minister shares my concern about the tragic case of Adam Rickwood, who committed suicide shortly after being restrained by youth detention officers when in custody in 2004. Can he assure the House that the savage cuts to his Department will not result in any diminution of safe restraint techniques in such institutions?

[Mr Blunt]

Let me take this opportunity to convey, again, our commiserations to the family of Adam Rickwood, who died in such sad circumstances. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is, of course, yes.

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

17. What plans he has for the future of sentencing guidelines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Responsibility for the issuing of sentencing guidelines rests not with the Government but with the independent Sentencing Guidelines Council. It is for the council to decide on what matters such guidelines should be prepared for the courts.

[Mr Nuttall]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but I think that many people outside the House will look to it for leadership on the issue of sentencing. Will he give a clear steer to the council that we must never see a repeat of what we saw last month, when a judge was unable to do what he wanted and send a house burglar to prison because of the sentencing guidelines?

[Mr Blunt]

Let me caution my hon. Friend slightly against wholly relying on the account of that case that we read in the press. What we ought to know is that the judge was able to give that individual a very significant community sentence. Indeed, he concluded that a prison sentence would probably have been a rather lighter punishment, given all the conditions involved in the community sentence. However, the House will have an opportunity to make its views heard in due course when a sentencing Bill is introduced.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

19. If he will bring forward proposals to reduce the time taken by tribunals to determine the outcome of appeals against work capability assessments for employment and support allowance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Tribunals Service has already acted to increase its capacity to dispose of more appeals. It expects to return to normal levels of work in hand for employment support and allowance appeals by the summer of 2011.

[Duncan Hames]

In Chippenham, 50% of such appeals are consistently upheld. Those cases need never have arisen if the Government’s assessor, Atos Healthcare, had had a sufficient incentive to get the decisions right in the first place. The cost to the Department and the taxpayer was about £10 million last year. Will the Minister discuss with the Department for Work and Pensions mechanisms by which the liability could be transferred from the taxpayer to the Government’s contractor?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can confirm that the Department for Work and Pensions has worked to improve the quality of the original decision making and its reconsideration process so that only appropriate appeals filter through to the Tribunals Service. I am in regular contact with the Department to discuss the matter.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

20. Which organisations he consulted in preparing guidance on the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave in reply to Question 1.

[John Howell]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments on statutory guidance. During the Committee stage of the Bribery Bill, there seemed to be little appreciation among Labour Members that there were such things as legitimate promotional activities for companies. Will he ensure that the guidance is both clear and practical?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Justice, led for the Opposition at that time, and I believe that it was Conservative Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell)—who raised the problems that could be posed for legitimate businesses. It is because of those problems that we need the guidance, and the guidance must make it absolutely clear that ordinary, legitimate promotion—hospitality and similar activities in which people engage in order to project the quality of their company and its products or services, and to establish personal relationships with clients and customers—is all part of international trade. The Bill can be used to tackle corruption without damaging British business at a time of, we hope, revival in our international trade.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

21. What plans he has for the future of the prison estate. Our current plans are to build the prisons to which we are contractually committed, and we recently announced the closure of three prisons. The Ministry of Justice recently published a Green Paper outlining proposals for reforms to sentencing and rehabilitation. We are considering our long-term strategy for prisons in the light of these policy developments.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is it possible to give an update on the planned closure of Lancaster Castle prison, particularly in regard to the redeployment of staff and future use of the castle?

[Mr Blunt]

The Ministry of Justice is in discussions with the Duchy of Lancaster, which owns the castle, regarding its future use after its closure as a prison. All staff at Lancaster Castle will be either redeployed to other establishments, retained at the prison to provide ongoing maintenance or offered the opportunity to leave the service on voluntary exit terms.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell the House what proposals his Government have for the future market testing of existing prisons in the UK?

[Mr Blunt]

We inherited a competition strategy from the last Administration, which is continuing. The strategy is being applied to prisons that are currently in the public sector, particularly Birmingham.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

23. What recent progress his Department has made in recouping outstanding financial penalties that remain uncollected by HM Courts Service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

We have published impact assessments and equality impact assessments alongside the legal aid consultation, and these set out in detail what we think the effects of the proposals might be. We must face up to tough choices, and our proposals focus resources on those who need help most for the most serious cases in which legal advice and representation are justified.

[Kris Hopkins]

I think that was the wrong answer to my question.

I hope the Secretary of State has made progress in collecting the money that criminals have been fined, and may I ask that once we have collected some of the money and we have made a contribution to reducing the deficit, we increase our prison capacity?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister delivered his answer with admirable force and self-confidence, but I think it suffered from being the wrong answer, as he was, perhaps, not expecting to be responding to this question. If he can provide us with the right answer to the question now, we will be very grateful.

[Mr Djanogly]

I think the appropriate answer in the circumstances, Mr Speaker, is that we will look into this issue and get back to the House.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

May I begin by making a topical statement, Mr Speaker?

Hon. Members will know that I am determined to deliver much overdue reform to the way in which the criminal justice system operates. Every year, 1.8 million criminal hearings and trials take place. The police, judiciary and others far too often find that the bureaucratic, inefficient system works against their best efforts, rather than for them. It is immensely frustrating that, for example, the key people in the system—the police, prosecutors and probation staff—are often unable to e-mail each other the crucial information they need to bring a prosecution; it all has to be done in hard copy. The average straightforward case heard in the magistrates courts takes 19 weeks from the offence being committed to the case concluding, and only four out of every 10 trials in the magistrates courts go ahead on the planned day. We cannot afford to maintain this sort of system that wastes the time of the police, victims and witnesses.

I am therefore working on radical plans to modernise and reform the criminal justice system and reduce these bureaucratic failings with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the judiciary, the criminal justice agencies and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who will take the lead role in co-ordinating our efforts. I look forward to receiving any representations on the subject and will report back to the House in the summer.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State did not also lay out the plans in the course of his answer.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his very full answer. Many young offenders are drawn into a cycle of crime that sees them spend many years of their life in detention. What steps does he think will help young people to get a second chance?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The first thing is to have increased early intervention to avoid their needing a second chance in the first place. Then we need to ensure that young offenders are offered more of an opportunity to pay back their victims and communities, and to incentivise local partners to reduce youth offending and reoffending by using new payment-by-results models.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

In this Saturday’s excellent Mary Riddell interview in The Daily Telegraph, the Lord Chancellor said:

“I slightly expect that some crimes will go up”.

I remind the House that in times of both growth and recession between 1997 and 2010 the level of crime consistently went down. I know that he is neither sloppy nor complacent, so can he tell the House what crimes he thinks will go up, why he thinks they will go up and what he is going to do about it?

[Mr Clarke]

During the period of the Labour Government, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, acquisitive crimes against property fell particularly sharply. That was because of the growth of the economy and the boom, among other matters; these things are not too simple. The biggest fall in crime achieved when Labour was in office was on vehicle crimes, because the vehicle manufacturers greatly improved the security of the vehicles and made this more difficult. In this contentious and not simple area of what causes crime and what does not, I have always been inclined to believe that in times of recession the level of crime against property is likely to rise and in times of growth it tends to fall. That is why I have to be prepared to accommodate however many people are sent to us by the courts. What we are doing about it is making what I hope is a more effective system of preventing crime and of diverting people out of crime but punishing severely those who commit it.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

T2. According to Ministry of Justice figures, only 44% of people convicted of burglary offences actually get immediate custodial sentences. Does the Secretary of State think that that figure is about right or does he intend to take legislative steps to increase it?

[Mr Clarke]

As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), said in reply to a question a moment ago, sentencing is a matter for the Sentencing Guidelines Council and for the judges, who hear all the facts of the case; they can hear a victim’s statement and they can hear mitigation for the accused. We keep an eye on percentages, of course, but the sentence in each case has to be the appropriate sentence for the facts of and the offender in the case. Although burglary is a serious offence that normally attracts imprisonment, it covers a wide range of circumstances, from someone breaking in with a hood over his head in the middle of the night to someone walking through an open door grabbing a knick-knack and running out through the door again. So we have to leave it to the judges.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

T6. Has the Secretary of State considered carefully the representations that he will have received concerning clause 151 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill on universal jurisdiction? He will be aware that restricting access to the British courts in respect of crimes against humanity committed anywhere in the world will send a very bad message to the rest of the world and will make this country a more pleasant place for war criminals and those who have committed crimes against humanity to try to come to.

[Mr Clarke]

I must make it absolutely clear that the Government are not reducing, in any way, the importance we attach to the proper enforcement of the law against those guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity. We are making a slight change to the circumstances in which a citizen can obtain an arrest. The prior approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be needed, in order to make sure that there is a reasonable prospect of prosecution in the case; that is not where we are at the moment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that nobody on either side of the House wishes to see this country downgrade the importance we attach to enforcing crimes against humanity and war crimes.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T3. It is reported that about 70% of prison inmates are believed to have two or more mental health conditions and that about one in 10 prison inmates have a serious mental health problem. What steps are the Government taking better to identify and help prisoners with mental illness?

[Mr Blunt]

As we made clear in the Green Paper, we will, with the Department of Health, have invested £50 million by 2014 in establishing a liaison and diversion service, both in the police stations and in courts, to ensure that people who should more appropriately be treated in the health service do not go to prison. Of course prisons and secure mental hospitals will remain the appropriate place for offenders who have committed serious offences and pose a risk to the public. Prison health services will continue to provide care and treatment for the majority of prisoners with mental illness, with the additional support of specialist mental health inreach teams.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

T7. On the planned national diversion service, will the Minister tell the House who will provide the mental health assessments in police stations and courts that will be necessary for that service to work? Have the necessary provisions to provide that service been included in the budget?

[Mr Blunt]

Those assessments are a matter of health rather than justice, so the Department of Health is leading on establishing the liaison for diversion services.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T4. How does the Lord High Chancellor envisage promoting the big society in his Department, particularly in terms of shop theft and having some kind of community payback in relation to those who have stolen from society in that way?

[Mr Blunt]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend who has done particularly good work in this area in getting policy changes under the previous Administration. We want to make restorative justice and compensation orders the first point of departure for such offences so that offenders are able to make good to their victims.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

T8. Will the Minister reconsider his original thinking on the definition of domestic violence and the evidential requirement when deciding whether to make legal aid available in family law cases?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I have to tell the hon. Lady that we have just consulted on this—the consultation ended yesterday—and that we will consider carefully what people have said. We put a definition of domestic violence in the Green Paper and we will look carefully at how people have commented on that.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

T5. In an effort to save legal aid, and following the vote in the House last Thursday, why not now exclude expressly from any legal aid application prisoners who seek to claim compensation from the Government for not having the right to vote?

[Mr Blunt]

As I understand it, the likely level of compensation would mean that prisoners making such claims would not be eligible for legal aid in any event. However, that will not prevent the situation with no win, no fee arrangements, as a substantial case list is being created by solicitors touting for custom.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The whole House will be aware of the worst scenes of poverty in America. Will the Minister with responsibility for legal aid think again? Currently, both local authorities and his Department are cutting the money available for advice. Where will the people of Haringey, the constituency in which the baby P and Victoria Climbié cases occurred, get that advice?

[Mr Djanogly]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that citizens advice bureaux and not-for-profit organisations have been able to do legal aid work for only 11 years. Before that, they just gave general advice. He must appreciate that when the previous Government allowed those organisations to do legal aid work, they did not look at the matter holistically. They did not look at the various funding streams coming together or at the waste in the system. Now that the money has gone, we are having to look at those things.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T9. I was delighted to hear over the weekend that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has managed to find an additional £27 million to pay for CAB debt advisers. Could any additional funding be found by the Ministry of Justice for groups such as the Brighton housing trust in my constituency, which plays an important role in providing housing advice of the kind that, if it is not dealt with at an early stage, ends up costing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, we are looking at various early interventions in relation to housing, welfare benefits, special educational needs and, importantly, private family law.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Minister recognises that there is a need for advice on debt, benefits, housing and many other things. The problem faced by the constituents of Members on both sides of the House is that although the cuts to legal aid are happening now, his proposed solution seems a long way off. What is going to fill the gap?

[Mr Djanogly]

We accept that there are issues in terms of funding because a lot of advice is given as general advice and is mainly funded by local councils. We are in discussions across government about how we can approach the matter holistically to make sure that such provision stays in place.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that increasing the number of people in our prisons should not be an end of Government policy in itself, but rather that the prison population should reflect the number of indictable crimes committed?

[Mr Clarke]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, although determining how many prisoners we should have can become a completely false argument, as that is determined in any event by the courts reacting to the level of crime and proposing appropriate sentences. We are determined to use prisons so that not only do they punish the offender, but, where possible, we can increase the number of offenders who are persuaded to give up crime when released and cease to offend thereafter, which will reduce the number of victims. I think that the approach taken by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), is the common-sense approach and in the public interest.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor should not allow himself to be pushed around by The Sun newspaper. Does he agree that the cause of public justice would be best served if News International spent less time traducing the characters of Ministers and more time revealing to the Metropolitan police the contents of the e-mails held in the data warehouse in central London?

[Mr Clarke]

I shall try to avoid following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in answering that question. Kelvin MacKenzie could confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I have not been pushed about by The Sun for as long as either he or I can remember.

I was amused to read the article by the leader of the Labour party in The Sun this morning, remembering his resounding promise not to try to out-right the Conservative party on the subject. I was reminded of an article by Tony Blair published just before the 1997 election and entitled “Why I Love the Pound”. When I read the Leader of the Opposition’s article this morning, I was relieved to see that he listed many things on which he agrees with me and did not indicate a specific area where he committed himself to doing anything different from what the present Government are doing.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Crawley court house in my constituency deals with a large number of cases, including those emanating from Gatwick airport. Will the Minister agree to meet local magistrates, my local authority and me to see whether the court house could be part of a major town centre redevelopment that is shortly to get under way?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, I am indeed happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State think again about the compounding impact of the legal aid cut and Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals on victims of criminal negligence? It would be wrong for injured parties to have to fend for themselves, and if they pay for the compensation and the costs of cases, the wrongdoer will be getting away, which would be unfair.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman makes it clear that Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals and our legal aid proposals are being run in conjunction. We were very concerned that they should so that practitioners would be able to compare the two—that is especially relevant in cases of clinical negligence—so we will be doing exactly that.

Armed Forces (Redundancies)

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

15:32

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on redundancies in the Ministry of Defence.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

As a result of the strategic defence and security review and the comprehensive spending review, it has, sadly, been necessary to plan for redundancies in both the civil service and the armed forces. At all times this should be done with sensitivity to individuals concerned, and with an understanding of the impact that it will have on them and their families. There are two recent cases in which this has not happened. Let me deal with them both.

First, there are the 38 Army personnel who have received an e-mail, as reported in today’s press. This is a completely unacceptable way to treat anyone, not least our armed forces. The correct procedure was not followed. I regret this, and want to reiterate the unreserved apology already made by the Army and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. Arrangements have already been put in place to ensure that it does not happen again, and the Army are already investigating the particular circumstances.

Secondly, there is the redundancy of trainee RAF pilots. It was always going to be the case that with fewer airframes we would need fewer pilots. The fact that people found out through the publication of inaccurate details in a national newspaper will, I am sure, be deprecated on both sides of the House, and can only cause the individuals concerned undue distress. I understand the concerns of those facing redundancy, and I understand the temptation of the Opposition to exploit issues for political advantage, but I hope that with issues as sensitive as individual redundancies, we can refrain from making a sad situation worse for the individuals and their families.

[Mr Murphy]

Yesterday I came to the House to support strongly the Government’s actions on Afghanistan, but today we are here for an entirely different reason: the revelation that dozens of soldiers with decades of service have been sacked by e-mail. It is a shame that Ministers had to be summoned to the Commons, when they should have immediately asked to come here voluntarily.

We all know that we cannot stop every redundancy in the armed forces, but this is no way to treat soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary of State says that we should not play politics with such issues. Sacking anyone by e-mail is always wrong; sacking members of our armed forces in that way is utterly unforgiveable. But, unfortunately, as the Secretary of State says, a pattern is developing. One hundred RAF trainee pilots were sacked by media leak, some only hours away from getting their wings.

What is worse about this sordid affair is that the Government’s response has been to blame everyone else. In the morning it was the Army’s fault; by lunchtime it was a civil servant’s fault. But it was not the Army that decided to cut the deficit this far and this fast; it was not a civil servant who decided to go into a rushed defence review. It is the Government’s fault. They are locked into a logic of rapid deficit reduction, which means that mistakes are being made, some of them serious.

The country wants straight answers to direct questions. When will the Secretary of State announce who will be affected by the further reduction of 17,000 in the armed forces? On the sacking by e-mail, despite the Secretary of State’s previous promises, why did the Ministry of Defence agree that a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan should be sacked, and will the Secretary of State take personal responsibility for making sure that that never happens again? On RAF sackings, how many of the RAF trainees were within hours of fully qualifying as pilots? Have all those affected now been officially informed?

In all these matters there is a fine line between callousness and complacency. This was a callous event; the Government’s response this morning was complacent. They must act, act now, and make sure that it is never repeated.

[Dr Fox]

The right hon. Gentleman should stick to agreeing with the Government; he is much more impressive on such occasions. What is sad today is not just the opportunism but the utter lack of humility, because we would not have had to reduce the armed forces or the civil service to such a degree if we had not inherited from the Labour Government a black hole in the MOD budget of £38 billion and a national deficit of £158 billion—[Interruption.] So before Opposition Front Benchers go about pointing fingers, they should look—[Interruption]—and the right hon. Gentleman should look, to the Government of whom he was a part, who left us economically wrecked. We will set out—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber, and I am disturbed to note that a lot of it is being made by Members on both Front Benches. It does not impress me; it does not impress others. It should stop, and the Secretary of State will be heard with respect.

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

The Opposition need to ask themselves why we have to make those reductions. It is because of the incompetence and the economic inheritance that they left behind. We will set out the programme of reductions in staff—the 17,000 mentioned—over the next five years. There was a great deal of inaccurate information in the newspaper story about the RAF trainee pilots. They are being briefed individually and collectively on the specific proposals that affect them. It is appropriate that that happens in private, not on the Floor of the House of Commons.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

The events of the past 48 hours are sad, sorry events at which we should all express some regret, not least in the case of the individual who is serving his country in a hot war on the other side of the world. Does the Secretary of State accept that such events have a resonance beyond the units, and indeed, beyond the services, in which they occur? Does that not place an enormous obligation and responsibility on him and his fellow Ministers—to some extent discharged by the fact that he has come to the House personally to respond to the urgent question—to ensure that everything possible is done so that something of this kind never happens again?

[Dr Fox]

Indeed. As I have said, we will take every measure to ensure that this does not happen, but we can never guarantee that individuals will not make mistakes; that is part of human nature. On the case that my right hon. and learned Friend mentions, the individual concerned was on assignment from Permanent Joint Headquarters working on an IT project in Afghanistan. He was on a temporary assignment, and not part of our regular forces sent into combat in Afghanistan.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of interest in this question, and I am keen to accommodate it, but short questions and short answers are imperative if I am to have any reasonable chance of doing so.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

What implication will the decision on the sacked RAF pilots in training have for the hundreds of jobs at RAF Linton-on-Ouse, outside York? Could some of those who are surplus to requirements as fast jet pilots be put on to helicopters instead, given the shortage of helicopter capacity that we heard about so often from the Secretary of State when he was in opposition?

[Dr Fox]

At all times we will endeavour to find alternative positions where available. I should say that with reductions of some 5,000 being made across the whole of the RAF, that will be relatively difficult to accommodate, but we shall try to do it wherever we can.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The whole House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for being so straightforward in coming here to apologise for what is, without any question, a most disgraceful episode in our country’s history. Will he do two things? First, will he lay out precisely how he intends to make sure that this does not happen again? Secondly, the public will be asking for something for which they should be asking—a few hides to be flayed.

[Dr Fox]

A proper administrative inquiry by the Army is under way, and it will report in the usual way. It would be inappropriate to, in effect, try members of the armed forces on the Floor of the House of Commons.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Over 1,000 service personnel in the most defence-dependent community in the UK face redundancy or re-posting when RAF Kinloss closes later this year. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the correct procedures are followed with each and every one of these servicemen and women?

[Dr Fox]

As I have already said, we will at all times do what is required to help those who are leaving the armed forces in every way we can. That will, of course, include following the procedures that are very clearly set out.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

An unintended consequence of the introduction of NMS—the new management strategy—into the armed forces 20-odd years ago was that too often officers may be encouraged to see themselves as managers rather than leaders. Will the Secretary of State satisfy himself that within the chain of command that he has inherited, the military covenant is being properly served, particularly in relation to the 38 electronically sacked warrant officers?

[Dr Fox]

As I have said, the Army is already undertaking an investigation of its own, and I expect that to conclude fully in a matter of days. The inquiry will draw the appropriate lessons on whether the chain of command was appropriately followed in this case. It would be appropriate for the inquiry to come to conclusions, and not for us, without the full information, to do so.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State’s tone in responding to the shadow Secretary of State was surprisingly strident. Just so that the House is clear, he is not actually blaming the previous, Labour Government for this abominable failure in procedure, is he?

[Dr Fox]

I would hate the hon. Gentleman to get the wrong impression. What I am blaming the Labour Government for is the financial mismanagement that left a black hole of £38 billion in the MOD budget, and a massive deficit to get rid of. Without those, we would not have had to make redundancies of this scale in the first place.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On the future loss of so many pilots of fixed-wing aircraft, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would never admit to acting under duress, even if his toenails were being torn out by the Treasury. However, can he at least reassure us that some degree of flexibility in the availability of future fixed-wing aircraft pilots will be preserved, just in case we need them in the next 10 years?

[Dr Fox]

All redundancies will be carried out under the compulsory redundancy process so that we have the correct shape of armed forces—and I can tell my hon. Friend that these days, even the Treasury conforms to the norms of human rights.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify for the House why no Minister appears to have had an oversight role in this process? In my 10 years in the private sector dealing with redundancy, it was normal practice for a senior manager to take on that responsibility.

[Dr Fox]

Indeed, senior managers have taken responsibility. I have already had a report from the line managers responsible. When I have had the full information I will be able to determine where the responsibility lies, and what action may need to be taken by the Army.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the sacking by e-mail of a number of senior non-commissioned officers is deeply regrettable—but it is no matter for Ministers. This is a straight lack of leadership inside the Army. I am amazed that we have seen nobody in uniform in the media apologising for this gross piece of conduct.

[Dr Fox]

I realise that my hon. Friend will have been busy with his duties in the House, but the Assistant Chief of the General Staff has been in the media explaining the Army’s position on this matter. It is entirely appropriate that any measures that need to be taken in response are taken by the Army, not by Ministers—as I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his years of experience, will understand.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know that not only members of the armed forces but civilian staff, too, are affected by redundancies. I have written to him about the uncertainty over the future of civilian staff at Massereene barracks in Antrim. I hope that he will look into that matter.

[Dr Fox]

Indeed I will, and I shall be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman if there are particular cases and circumstances that he wants me to look into. In general, the redundancies that will occur in the military as a result of the strategic defence and security review and the comprehensive spending review will be compulsory. For civilian staff, we want to consider natural wastage and voluntary redundancies where possible.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

With soldiers from the Colchester garrison in 16 Air Assault Brigade currently deployed in Afghanistan, I remind the Secretary of State what he said to me on 8 November in response to a direct question:

“We need to maintain the Afghanistan rotation. It is therefore in the interests of common sense and fair play that no personnel serving in Afghanistan, or on notice to deploy, will be given compulsory redundancy.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 12.]

Does that pledge still stand?

[Dr Fox]

Yes.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State comment on ministerial responsibility? Everybody else seems to be blamed, but nobody on the Government Front Bench. Will he agree to come back to the House and make a statement about this matter, and the dismissal of the RAF trainees, when all the facts have been established?

[Dr Fox]

The redundancy process in the RAF will proceed as it should. The individuals concerned will be informed, and we will see whether alternatives are available for them. Those who need to leave will do so under the rules for compulsory redundancy, which are set out clearly for the armed forces.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What is the current rate of natural wastage for civilian and uniformed personnel? In future, will it be possible to achieve the reductions mainly through natural wastage rather than compulsory redundancy?

[Dr Fox]

The cases are different for civilian and military personnel. In the military there is a compulsory redundancy programme, so that we maintain the shape of the armed forces. We must maintain not just those on the front line, but the enablers whom they require. Things are different in the civil service—and while we will be losing 17,000 personnel across the armed forces, we will be losing 25,000 from the civil service in the Ministry of Defence.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

RAF Valley, in my constituency, is a centre of excellence for fast jet training. Civilian staff and trainee pilots were unsettled, to say the least, to read reports over the weekend about redundancies. As the Secretary of State said, it is not for him to make redundancy announcements in the House. However, as Secretary of State, surely he should indicate what the impact of his announcement of job cuts will be on the RAF, so that bases such as RAF Valley have the stability and clarity that they need for the future.

[Dr Fox]

We set out in the SDSR what we believed the shape and size of the RAF would be, and the need for fast jets in the future. When it comes to redundancies, it is hugely to be regretted that not only did the information appear first in a national newspaper, rather than coming down the chain of command to those involved—which is the correct process—but much of the information was inaccurate. That was a double blow for the personnel. As I said, those personnel will be informed personally of the decisions that affect them, so that their personal circumstances can be taken into account. I have no intention of announcing redundancies through the House of Commons.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend be able to exercise some degree of flexibility in the case of pilots who were close to achieving their qualifications?

[Dr Fox]

That is primarily a matter for the RAF, but I have already asked for Ministers to be fully informed about the progress through any course that is being taken. It would make common sense to ensure that those closest to the end of their course could be allowed to continue, if possible. Not all those in the press stories, or the numbers in the press stories, will have to be made redundant. I hope that there will be some flexibility, and that common sense will be shown.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Is this a betrayal of the military covenant?

[Dr Fox]

No, it is a betrayal of the people of this country, where economic incompetence has forced us to reduce the size and budget of our armed forces to a level that we would not have chosen.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the recently announced redundancies will not affect our ability to continue with our mission in Afghanistan?

[Dr Fox]

The whole of the SDSR was predicated on success in Afghanistan. Nothing that has happened in respect of any announcements made by the Army, the Navy or the Air Force will impact on our operations in Afghanistan. They remain the priority for the Ministry of Defence and the Government.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

Even the previous Government, who were notoriously slack on controlling spending, made the MOD one of three Government Departments that were put into special measures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all MOD redundancies need to be understood in the context of a Government and a Department where spending was rampant and out of control?

[Dr Fox]

It is no secret that when this Government came to office, not only did we inherit generic economic incompetence, but inside the Ministry of Defence there was a specifically difficult case. I shall set out in the near future measures for achieving better control over the MOD budget, not least in real time.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that we will make sure that this episode will not be repeated in the case of the 3 Commando Brigade, based in my constituency, which is set to go out to Afghanistan in a few weeks?

[Dr Fox]

As I said in answer to an earlier question, none of those preparing for or on deployment will receive redundancy notices. I shall certainly ensure that all the lessons are learned from this episode to make sure that no one else in the armed forces is put in that position either.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Should we not design a new armed forces “parliamentary deficit denier” tie? We would not have to make redundancies if it were not for the fact that when the present Government came into office, Labour had left the Ministry of Defence with the largest unfunded overdraft of any Government Department.

[Dr Fox]

Not only is my hon. Friend correct, but the debt interest repayment that the country will have next year is bigger than the MOD budget, the Foreign Office budget and the overseas aid budget combined. What was shocking today was the fact that there were no regrets and no remorse, just naked self-interest from the Opposition.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

When I was serving in the armed forces under the previous Government, colleagues of mine were given their redundancy notices while serving on the front line in Bosnia. That was not by mistake or leaked e-mail; it was an entirely deliberate process carried out by the Labour Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the phoney anger from those on the Labour Benches is designed to cover the fact that they left the MOD in a state of overspend, underfunding and complete chaos?

[Dr Fox]

I think that in the months ahead we will see a number of ingenious smokescreens created by the Opposition to make the House discuss anything other than the appalling economic mess that they left behind—not least as it impacts on our armed forces.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the significant, and indeed forced, expenditure on urgent operational requirements by the last Government—money that had to be taken from the reserve, which even the Labour-dominated Defence Committee commented upon last year—has contributed at least in part to the challenges that he now faces?

[Dr Fox]

I did not expect to have to defend the record of the previous Government at any point, but when our armed forces require equipment it is the duty of the Government of the day to ensure that they get it. The UOR mechanism has been a very effective way of achieving that, and the current Government intend to carry on that practice.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am proud to have RAF Linton-on-Ouse in my constituency. When graduates there have received their wings they proceed to RAF Valley and other RAF stations. There will be huge uncertainty surrounding the continuation of the programmes of both those who have graduated and undergraduates who are currently at RAF Linton. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give us today about their future?

[Dr Fox]

As I have said, it is greatly to be regretted that we are losing personnel from the armed forces, including 5,000 from the RAF. All of us would wish that that was not the case, but we must deal with the economic reality as we find it. It is important that when announcements are made about redundancies, they are made appropriately through the chain of command, not through national newspapers or political announcements in the House. It is appropriate that we give sensitive treatment to those who are to lose their jobs. I believe that is how the whole House thinks it should be done.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Nobody should lose their job via an e-mail—but particularly not members of the armed forces, who put their lives on the line for this country. If whoever was responsible for sending that e-mail has not done the honourable thing by standing down and resigning, should they not be sacked?

[Dr Fox]

As I said earlier, the Army is already looking into the particular circumstances of the situation. There has been an appalling mistake, and I know that the individual concerned will be absolutely mortified that it occurred. We need to find ways to ensure that it does not happen again, but we have to be careful about hanging individuals out to dry, particularly very experienced individuals, because of demands from the media or anywhere else.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The inaccurate reports of the firing of RAF pilots who have nearly completed their course will cause a great deal of anxiety to members of the RAF. The Secretary of State has rightly not gone into the details, because he wants officers to be informed first, but I ask him seriously to consider coming back to the House in due course so that we can question him further on this matter.

[Dr Fox]

I am sure the House will have a number of occasions, at Defence questions and in future debates, to question me on the implementation of the SDSR and the CSR, and on the reasons why we had to make the reductions that we did, and how we are implementing them. When we have given information to the individuals concerned, then and only then will be the appropriate time to make announcements to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to right hon. and hon. Members for their succinctness, which has meant that everybody who wanted to contribute had the chance to do so.

Auto Windscreens

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

15:58

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I rise to propose that the House should discuss a specific and important matter that I believe should have urgent consideration—the decision of Auto Windscreens to go into administration yesterday, with the possible loss of 1,100 jobs.

Auto Windscreens employs about 400 people in my constituency, in head office, call centre and manufacturing functions. The loss of those jobs would be catastrophic to an area that is already set to be the worst hit in Derbyshire by the cuts in public sector jobs. Staff were sent home yesterday, and as of today there is no money to pay them for the 14 days’ work that they have done this month, nor for their ongoing employment. However, in an effort to sell the business as a going concern, the administrator, Deloitte, has not yet made staff redundant, so they are effectively in limbo. The company is unable to trade, which will make it more difficult for it to be sold. Time is very much of the essence.

I would like to debate what action the Government can take to support Deloitte to get Auto Windscreens trading again. With every passing day that it is not trading, the task of finding a buyer becomes more difficult and the challenge of turning the business round grows. I would like to debate what action the Government can take to support finding buyers; to help them access the funding required to get the business back on a stable footing; and to support either the moribund regional development agency, which would previously have been expected to co-ordinate the response, or the fledgling Sheffield city region local enterprise partnership, to undertake that co-ordination.

I would also like to debate whether, in the absence of Auto Windscreens, Autoglass, the UK market leader, would have an effective monopoly, and the impact on pricing and, by extension, insurance premiums. I would further like to debate what action the Government can take, in the event of the company failing to be salvaged, to assist the 1,100 employees to find work, and to find out whether discussions have taken place with the trade union to explore the possibility of some sort of employee or management buy-out.

Auto Windscreens is an important employer in my constituency, an important contributor to the UK economy, an important part of the UK automotive industry, an important supplier to the motor insurance industry, and an important component of any private sector-led recovery.

At times like this, it is vital that the employees affected, and people throughout Britain, can see politicians working together swiftly to save those jobs in the national interest. I hope that we can debate in the Chamber what can be done, or that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) will agree to meet me, the administrators and any other people who can help get Auto Windscreens trading again and save those 1,100 jobs, which we can all ill afford to lose.

[Mr Speaker]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Master’s Degrees (Minimum Standards)

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

16:02

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit universities awarding Master’s degrees unless certain standards of study and assessment are met; and for connected purposes.

It is assumed in our society that hard work, ability and merit are the determining characteristics necessary to obtain academic qualifications, yet there is a glaring anomaly in our system of higher education, which undermines the value of postgraduate credentials: the byzantine practice whereby Oxford and Cambridge universities award a complimentary master of arts degree to anyone who has graduated with a bachelor’s degree from their institutions. I say “complimentary”, but I understand that Oxford colleges often charge a £10 administration fee. In those cases, people’s BA(Hons) are automatically upgraded to MA(Oxon).

While most postgraduate students who hope to obtain an MA must undergo at least a year’s study, have their abilities tested by examination and pay significant tuition fees, often around £4,500, graduates who attend Oxford and Cambridge can automatically convert their bachelor’s degree into an MA, regardless of academic merit.

That is not only unfair to the 200,000 students who get their MA the hard way, but fundamentally undermines the integrity of the MA marque. Worse, apparently 62% of employers when surveyed reported that they thought that the MA(Oxon) or MA(Cantab) were genuinely earned postgraduate qualifications.

Eleven years ago, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education said:

“The Masters title causes much misunderstanding…most employers think it always represents an award for postgraduate study.”

There is no logical or justifiable defence of that historical anachronism, which grew out of ancient circumstances that have long been irrelevant to modern academic practice. To preserve the MA’s academic integrity, it is time to discontinue Oxbridge colleges’ ability to award unearned qualifications that can so easily cause confusion. That is why my short Bill would prohibit granting master’s degrees unless certain minimum academic standards are attained.

Let me be absolutely clear at the outset that I do not blame Oxbridge graduates for taking the opportunity presented to them on a plate—it would be nice if we all received a similar offer. The problem is that that outdated and unfair practice reinforces the suspicions of many of the privileges and advantages bestowed on a small number of very fortunate people, often at the expense of everyone else. For example, in my role before entering Parliament, when sifting job applications and hiring for research positions, I would often see CVs citing that master’s degree brand. Presumably, would-be employers are frequently superficially impressed by what appears to be a mark of high academic distinction.

It is not just me who objects to the practice; The Daily Telegraph reported last year that Cambridge academics are beginning to feel distinctly queasy about the situation. Dr Neil Dodgson, a computer academic at Cambridge, said:

“Many find it offensive that we should award a degree for doing nothing more than being able to breathe for three years…It is only a matter of time before our MA spawns a PR disaster. Perhaps it is time for us to acknowledge that the rest of the world has moved on, and to align ourselves, reluctantly, with a world that believes that a degree should only be awarded for academic achievement.”

Surprisingly, the issue has rarely been aired in Parliament or more widely, and yet the practice is a wrong that the stewards of those great universities could and should put right themselves. I genuinely hope that the new vice-chancellor of Cambridge university will take a more enlightened approach than his predecessor, who famously said that

“universities are not engines for promoting social justice”.

I recently surveyed some of my constituents and received some interesting replies. One woman replied:

“I didn’t realise that the fortunate graduates of Oxbridge could obtain an MA by simply sending in an admin fee! My son worked hard for 2 yrs for his MA”.

Another wrote:

“Thanks for informing me about the £10 MA from Oxford and Cambridge! If this is true, then it’s really too much. My husband (UCL) told me that he didn’t think this was the case. Please confirm. I had no idea. I will tell my 23-year-old who did his masters the long way!”

Another said:

“As someone who is studying for a postgraduate diploma I do feel it is unfair that this might be the case”,

and yet another told me:

“It only reinforces the privileged position that these two universities hold in our society…only academic achievement should enable any qualification at university and not the equivalent of a round of drinks.”

Some will say, “Everybody knows that it’s not really a master’s degree,” but clearly, the survey information and what I have learned from asking around show that most people are oblivious to the small print on the Cambridge website or the statement in the QAA literature. Others will say, “Oxbridge graduates work harder and have higher abilities, and the MA reflects that.” Notwithstanding the fact that that argument is usually made by those who attended Oxford or Cambridge, such an attitude is obviously insulting to the other 100 universities in the UK, which have fine academic records.

Many will say, “This is just the politics of envy, and you are just jealous.” Perhaps people who want access to such unearned privileges are envious, but others who object to the practice just want a fair system based on real rather than fake merit. Others will say, “Well, this whole thing is not to be taken seriously. There are far higher priorities for reform.” It is true that there are far bigger questions, including what is happening to tuition fees, but the Bill is one small step to rectify a simple problem, which it will achieve—crucially—at absolutely no cost. Anyway, if it is such a petty issue, surely nobody will object to ending the practice.

We need the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to recognise that it is time that masters’ degrees represented postgraduate study. We need Oxford and Cambridge to consider the situation themselves, and I shall write to them to urge them to do so. Finally, we need legislation to uphold the integrity of what should be the finest British traditions of fair play and achievement-on-merit in our higher education institutions.

16:09

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

I must confess that the spirited call of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is a reprise of a perennial squabble that I have had with my brother over the past two decades or so. Like the hon. Gentleman, my brother took a master’s degree that involved two years of postgraduate study, while I qualified—if that is the right word—for my MA as a result of gaining a degree from Oxford university. My college, St Edmund Hall, has a history dating back to 1278. At that juncture, the requirement was to surpass 21 terms after matriculation before qualifying for a master’s degree, having taken a bachelor’s degree prior to that. That topping-up arrangement applied happily—dare I say it—for more than six centuries, before Leeds university was even founded let alone started handing out degrees of its own to deserving, and perhaps some slightly less deserving, candidates. Perhaps it is the other universities that should change their role to take account of the history of Oxford and Cambridge, which have established a well-set path of 21 terms post-matriculation by which someone qualifies for a master’s degree.

There is a more serious point about what the hon. Gentleman has said. Our elite universities are now global brands. They should not sit back and take ever more Government interference. Only last week, a proposal was made by the Deputy Prime Minister of the coalition Government to give ever more powers to the access regulator. If he has his way, in future universities will be banned from charging higher levels of tuition fees unless they adhere to fixed Government quotas on admissions. In my view, this is all wrong. The hon. Gentleman and his proposal are, I am afraid, part of that same muddled thinking. Our excellent and elitist universities do not need any more interference in their governance. Otherwise, I fear that we run the risk of some of our best institutions deciding before too long to go private. I am thinking not just of Oxford and Cambridge, but of the London of School of Economics and Imperial college—to name but two—in my constituency. We should be proud of the finest of our traditions in the higher education sphere. It is one of the relatively few areas in which we have a global leadership, and my fear is that ever more Government interference—of the sort articulated by the Bill—will lead to a diminution of that excellence and elitism. If that is the case, we will all suffer.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would expect me to know, or at least to check to ensure that I know, the procedure. I love nothing more than to hear him talk, but I am afraid that I am allowed to call only two Members to speak in a situation of this kind.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Chris Leslie, Nic Dakin, Kerry McCarthy, Helen Jones, Cathy Jamieson, Bob Russell, Mr Mike Hancock, Philip Davies, John Cryer and Mr Dennis Skinner present the Bill.

Chris Leslie accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 148).

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your responsibility extends, of course, to giving advice to those who might not be quite as familiar as yourself with the procedures of the House. I should perhaps declare an interest as the chancellor of the university of St Andrews and as the holder of a master of arts degree from Glasgow university. How could I find an opportunity to put it on the record that the first degree in the ancient Scottish universities is an MA?

[Mr Speaker]

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, he has just done precisely that, and with a skill that might be of interest to new Members who might benefit from it. I appreciate the good grace with which he accepted the selection of speakers on this occasion. I apologise to him for having momentarily forgotten about that high office that he holds, but I am not likely to do so again.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the fascinating short debate we have just had, are you in a position to inform the House whether the practice of making right hon. and hon. Members who happen to be lawyers honorary Queen’s counsels is still in existence?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that I can inform the House on any aspect of that matter. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know—I cannot imagine that he is referring to any particular Member—it is not within my bailiwick. I think that we had better leave it there.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Money) (No. 2)

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

Queen’s recommendation signified.

16:14

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of charges payable to the Chief Counting Officer in connection with the referendum on the voting system for parliamentary elections.

The resolution relates to Lords amendments 31 to 34 to paragraph 20 of schedule 1, which were inserted in the Bill in Lords Committee. The resolution gives the chief counting officer, who is the chair of the Electoral Commission, a power to incur expenses for the effective conduct of the referendum in certain, limited circumstances and to make payments in respect of those expenses out of the moneys to be provided from the Consolidated Fund. The original money resolution, which was agreed to on Second Reading in this House, covered only the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of charges payable to regional counting officers and counting officers in connection with the conduct of the referendum.

This additional resolution is needed because it has become apparent to the Government and the Electoral Commission that further savings in the cost of the referendum can be made by allowing the chief counting officer to pay costs directly from the Consolidated Fund. For example, Royal Mail has indicated that it may be able to provide a cheaper service for any sweeps of mail centres—a service to ensure that any postal votes still in mail centres towards the end of polling day are identified, extracted and provided to returning and counting officers before the close of poll that evening—if it can contract for this on a national basis with one individual, rather than having to negotiate and contract with the more than 350 officers conducting the poll locally. The resolution is therefore pragmatic.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Those of us who are worried about the amount of money to be spent on the proposal might be persuaded a little more if the Minister could give us an idea of by how much the cost will come down as a result of this resolution, and say what other measures he can take to try to secure better value.

[Mr Harper]

I can reassure the House that, because of the way the Bill and the amendments are drafted, the chief counting officer can directly recover expenditure only where it has been incurred in a way that provides a clear financial benefit to the public purse. The test is that the chief counting officer may recover expenditure that she has incurred for the purpose of running the referendum only where that expenditure would have been incurred by local or regional counting officers in any event, but where it was more economical for it to be incurred by the chief counting officer. The resolution is therefore aimed at saving money.

[Mr Redwood]

How much?

[Mr Harper]

The whole point is that it is not possible to predict every eventuality. The resolution says that if by spending money herself centrally, the chief counting officer can get services at a lower cost than all the individual regional counting officers, she will be able to do so, thereby delivering a saving, although it is not possible to quantify this in advance. I have given a specific example of where we know there is an ability to deliver a saving, but I cannot give my right hon. Friend the certainty on the numbers that he seeks. However, having given him the detail that I am able to, I commend this resolution to the House.

16:18

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

As the Minister set out, this is a minor money resolution, and we do not have a major problem with it. However, perhaps I can use this opportunity to raise an issue in relation to the combination of polls—the reason we need this resolution—as it affects Scotland. As I am sure the Minister will know, electoral registration officers in Scotland have said that they will not now be able to perform the whole count for the Scottish parliamentary elections overnight. All they will do is the verification—both of the referendum, as the Bill requires, and the parliamentary elections—and then they will stop, leaving the count to take place on the Friday.

I understood from what the Minister said in previous debates that nothing would get in the way of ensuring that the count happened as soon as possible in Scotland and Wales, and in local government. Before the last general election, all parties combined to try to ensure that the overnight count happened. Disappointingly, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has refused to suggest any amendments to the Bill. I therefore wonder whether the Minister could assist us by saying something that might help to ensure that the election results are known in Scotland overnight.

[Mr Harper]

It might be helpful if I remind the House that, when the chief electoral officer set out her guidance about the count timing, she also set out a number of principles. One of her principles—which is also one of the Government’s principles that was shared across the House—is to ensure that the results of the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the results of the council elections, are counted and made known first. She was reassured by counting officers in Scotland and elsewhere, and on that basis, she made a determination about the time of the referendum count. I am sure that if she is given different information by those counting officers, she will want to ensure that her principle is upheld—namely, that we should still know the results of those elections before the count takes place for the referendum.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Minister, but, unfortunately he has not yet replied to my letter of some weeks ago, so I am unable to know the full purport of what he is saying. The point is that we believe not only in the principle that the elections to elected office should be counted first, but that the counts for the elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and for the local elections should happen overnight.

[Mr Harper]

The rules for the referendum are set out in the scope of the Bill, but it would not be within its scope to change the law pertaining to the counting only of the votes in the elections. The important thing that we have set out about the combination is that nothing that happens with the referendum count will change the timing of the election results. I think that there was a shared view on both sides of the House that we want to see those results counted as soon as possible, so that people will know who is running the devolved nations.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but the Minister’s reply is very disappointing. Either he does not understand the law that he himself has drafted and the statutory instruments that have gone through in relation to the combination of polls in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, or he is being—how can I put it—somewhat obtuse. The necessity for most people is that they want to know the election results on the night. However, because of the way in which the Government are combining the polls, and because of the Bill and the statutory instruments that went through at the same time, the people of Scotland will not know their election results on the night. The Minister will have unpicked one of the elements that has been absolutely standard in British history for more than 100 years—namely, that the results are announced immediately. This does not have much to do with the money resolution, Mr Speaker, but I have made my point none the less. I think that it is a great shame that the Minister has behaved in this way.

16:22

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I want to put on record that representatives of the Electoral Commission came before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee again last week to discuss the amendments that are before the House today. One of the questions that the Committee looked at was that of the cost of the referendum. It will cost £100 million to run the referendum, at a time when, I hardly need remind the House, we are looking at cuts—let me say “reductions”—to every other aspect of public expenditure. It would appear that, in addition to that expenditure, the voter education campaign that the Electoral Commission is quite rightly required to undertake will cost something like £7 million. Local authorities will also have to bear additional costs, which we will not know for another six months or so, in running the referendum. That is not a reason not to have the referendum, but it is important that the House and our electorate understand just how much it is costing the taxpayer.

16:24

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I should like to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), having perhaps given the Minister slightly more time to reflect on the genuinely valid points that my hon. Friend raised. I know that colleagues from other parties were also nodding in agreement when he was raising them.

The returning officers in Scotland are up to the same trick that they were trying to pull before the 2010 general election, when the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) gave a clear instruction to the returning officers that they could not delay the start of the count for that general election in Scotland until the following day.

Let me place the Minister under notice that I shall seek two guarantees from him and the Deputy Leader of the House. The first is that he speaks urgently to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—I suspect he will have a number of opportunities to speak to them in the Division Lobbies in the next four hours—to get them to set the record straight on the Scotland Office position on the counting. Will the Minister also guarantee—I will take him at his word, as he is an honourable Gentleman—that either he or the Secretary of State will write to the returning officers in Scotland to remind them that they receive a payment for carrying out these duties?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does not the hon. Gentleman share my absolute and utter surprise that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Under-Secretary have yet written to returning officers to get this issue clarified and resolved?

[Thomas Docherty]

I fear that in some ways I am not surprised, because we have learned over the last nine months that the Secretary of State for Scotland is like Macavity the cat. When it comes to any issue—whether it be the coastguard, defence or anything else—he is posted absent. The hon. Gentleman’s point is valid because the Secretary of State should be writing to returning officers to remind them that they receive an additional payment for carrying out their duties in unsociable hours, so there is no reason for the count not to happen. If the returning officers insist on delaying until the following morning, will the Minister guarantee that those payments will be withdrawn from them and their staff? Why should we pay them for a service that they are not carrying out? Will he also confirm that he will write to returning officers to remind them that, during our Wednesday evening debate on the Standing Order at the end of last year and during the course of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, he gave an explicit guarantee on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that the count would take place as soon as practically possible—namely, straight after the polls close in Scotland?

16:26

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

We are debating a money resolution, the whole purpose of which is for the House to exert some control over the expenditures of public money and to be accountable for them. I find it curious that the Minister was unable to tell us how much money was involved in the wider issue of paying for the referendum, and unable to help the House by telling us by how much he might be able to reduce that rather large bill as a result of this mini motion.

Many of us are reluctant about the entire measure; we do not think that it is either urgent or important, but we believe that controlling public expenditure is vital. When we see discretionary items such as this one, we are even more enthusiastic about exerting very strong control over the expenditure if it proves to be the will of Parliament as a whole that the proposal goes forward. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will have some figures to present to us and will be able to give us a little encouragement about why we should support this particular money resolution. He hinted that it could mean a bit less, but some of us would like it to be a lot less. I hope the Minister will think again.

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman is giving way. I think he has completed his speech. Is that so? I am correct.

16:28

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). My Broxbourne constituents are horrified at the cost of this referendum, which some commentators have said could be as high as £250 million. I dare to say that this money would be far better spent on employing doctors, nurses, teachers and soldiers.

16:28

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I recognise, as do we all, I am sure, that this referendum measure is before us because of the coalition agreement. If the Conservatives had won the election outright and gained a majority, they would certainly not be putting it forward. I also accept that public expenditure should not be the dominant reason why the House should not pursue a particular course. I must say, however, that there is very little evidence of any desire in the country at large to have a referendum on what sort of system should be used for electing Members of Parliament. How many letters have we received? How many e-mails? Do people come to our surgeries and tell us that this is one of the most important, crucial issues of the day? The answer is no. [Hon. Members: “No!”] The noes are coming from the Conservative Benches, but I ask my hon. Friends: am I wrong? Is it not a known fact that there is so little interest in the matter?

I must also say, however—and I know that at some stage this evening we shall debate the Lords amendment concerning the nature of the threshold—that, like others who have spoken, I see little justification for spending what will be a very large amount of money on a referendum on the system for electing Members of Parliament at a time when we are constantly told that we must be careful with our public money, when allowances and benefits are being taken away from people, and when, in my view and, I believe, that of most Members, there is little public wish for such a referendum.

Question put and agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTING SYSTEM AND CONSTITUENCIES BILL

(PROGRAMME) (No. 5)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 6 September 2010 (Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at this day’s sitting.

2. The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the second column.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I gather that the Division bell did not go off in the Jubilee Room just now, and that some Members were not able to vote because they did not realise that the Division was happening

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will ask Attendants to check the Division bells in the Jubilee Room. If they continue not to work, we will ensure that the Attendants call Divisions in the Jubilee Room separately, and I will clearly make allowances for that when I call for the Doors to be locked.

16:31

Division 201

Ayes: 312

---

Conservative: 257
Liberal Democrat: 55

Noes: 240

---

Labour: 216
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 6
Conservative: 5
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 31. If the House agrees to this amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1

Referendum on the alternative vote system

16:47

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendments 3 to 7, 9 to 15, 18 and 21 to 26.

Lords amendment 27, and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Lords amendments 28 to 103.

Lords amendment 104, and amendment (a) thereto.

[Mr Harper]

It is no secret that the Bill has received extensive and lengthy debate both in this House and in the other place. It had eight days of debate in this House and the Lords Committee stage took place over the four months from November to February, taking 17 days and more than 110 hours. I think that, with one exception, it was the longest Committee stage of any Bill in my lifetime. I am glad that we finally now have the chance to consider the amendments made in the Lords.

The amendments in this first group encompass a range of changes that were made or accepted by the Government in the other place. I shall set out their effect and the Government’s overall approach briefly to make the best use of time available for debate. The Government have been consistently clear about the fact that we are prepared to make changes to the Bill where we believe they will make genuine improvements and will not undermine the key principles underpinning the Bill. Those principles are clear and we believe they are right. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just calm down for a moment and let me proceed? The people should be given the chance to vote on the electoral system that is used to elect Members of Parliament and we should have a system for drawing up constituencies that better ensures that voters have an equal say wherever in the United Kingdom they live.

We have made changes to the Bill in response to points that were made in this House. On the referendum, we accepted changes to the wording of the question, and we also accepted amendments from the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform to clarify the regulation of spending by media outlets during the referendum campaign and to remove the power that has existed since the 1940s for a Minister to modify a boundary commission’s recommendations.

In the House of Lords, we accepted or made a number of amendments on both parts of the Bill. We accepted and made technically effective an amendment in part 1, which relates to the holding of the referendum, that would allow the date of the referendum to be moved if practical reasons made it impossible or impracticable to proceed on 5 May. We brought forward an amendment to part 2 on Report to change the consultation process, on the Boundary Commission’s recommendation, so that it includes public hearings. The hearings are intended to deal with the concern raised about the need for an oral element in the consultation process. We believe that they will provide an opportunity for the public and the parties to express their views, but in a way that will allow more effective engagement than the old, legalistic inquiry system.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I do not agree with the Minister that there was ample time to discuss the matter in this House; the reason for the prolonged debate in the other House was the insufficient time here. On the oral hearings, will he tell the House how many such hearings will take place and—there is a Welsh dimension to this—whether they will take place in people’s local communities or just in large towns?

[Mr Harper]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he knows as well as I do, and the view is shared by everyone in the other place, that there was an organised filibustering campaign, which is unprecedented in the way in which the other place conducts its business and of great concern to all those who value its self-regulating nature. That view is not only held by me, but shared across the other House. On his second point, we propose that there will definitely be some public hearings, and there will be up to five in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and each of the English regions. We will allow the boundary commissions to use their discretion to decide where they hold the hearings so that they can reflect the issues that people will raise.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill, as proposed by the Government and as it left this place, contained no provision for an oral process at all. The Government listened carefully to the proposals made in the other place and brought forward those changes, which were accepted without Division. He will also know that his colleagues in the other place then suggested effectively taking us back to the very legalistic process. A full debate was held and the other place decided that that was not an appropriate method and that it was content with the public hearings that we proposed.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The Minister has made the outrageous claim that there was filibustering. I attended the debates several times in the early hours of the morning to watch the noble Lords debating the issue and I am surprised that he regards some of his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place, such as Lord Tyler and others, who tabled amendments which were then accepted in the early hours, as having filibustered. Does he think that it was only Labour peers who filibustered, or does he make that claim just because he was forced to wait for his Bill?

[Mr Harper]

There is a general acceptance in the other place, not only among Conservative peers and those supporting the Government parties, but from many Cross Benchers, that the behaviour, not of the House of Lords but of a small number of former Labour MPs who have gone to the other end of the building, was unacceptable.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Community councils in my constituency have discussed the removal of the right to make oral representations in public inquiries on parliamentary changes in conjunction with the presentation of information to them from the Boundary Commission on local council boundary changes. It will still be possible to consider local council boundary changes in a local public inquiry, so why is it wrong for a parliamentary constituency to have the right to a public inquiry over the most fundamental changes to boundaries since the 19th century?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of people’s ability to have their say in person. Such provision was not in the Bill originally, but we listened carefully to the debate in the other place, and there were a number of very good arguments. Among others, Lady de Souza and Lords Pannick and Wolff were of the view that it was important to allow local people to have a say, so we tabled a Government amendment and an associated new schedule enabling an outlet for local opinion, and that was included in the Bill.

The proposed changes were accepted without a Division in the other place, but I have said—I think, accurately—that there was then an attempt effectively to turn that process of public hearings back into the largely discredited legalistic inquiry process. There was a debate, but the other place, having decided that it did not want to accept the idea, was content with our proposal for public hearings.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I do not agree that the proposals before us are anything like proper inquiries, but let us assume that the Minister is right and they are concessions. Does he not accept that Wales loses 25% of its Members while the rest of the United Kingdom loses 7%? Does he not think, therefore, that there should be more such assurance in Wales than in other parts of the country?

[Mr Harper]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, which is that public hearings are different from the old discredited system of local inquiries, he is spot on. They are designed to be different, because the academic evidence is very clear: the old system of public inquiries did not lead to an improvement in the boundaries.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

I am happy to take interventions, but let me at least answer the right hon. Gentleman first. Then, of course, I will take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about Wales, he is quite right that Wales’s share of the House of Commons will fall from 6% to 5%, but we debated the issue in this House, the other place debated the representation of Wales, and both Houses decided that the current over-representation of Wales is not acceptable. All parts of the United Kingdom should be treated equally—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Apart from the Isle of Wight.

[Mr Harper]

We will get on to the Isle of Wight in due course, but the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the other place tabled and supported an amendment to treat the Isle of Wight differently, so it is no good him chuntering from a sedentary position.

[Tristram Hunt]

In evidence to the Political and Constitutional Affairs Committee, we heard last week from Professor Ron Johnston, who listed examples of case after case where public inquiries and the voices of local people had changed the results of Boundary Commission studies. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) will back that up. There is no argument that the system is somehow discredited; it is a proper voice by which people can have their say.

[Mr Harper]

The Government accept the argument, and accepted it in the other place, that we should have a process in which local people, particularly, can have their say. That is why we brought forward the proposal for public hearings—

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

rose—

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

rose—

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me just answer the hon. Gentleman’s point first. Then, I shall try to take points from Members according to the order in which they rose.

Having read other contributions from Professor Johnston and his colleagues in their British Academy report on the matter, I note that they made it quite clear that local inquiries resulted in little change, and that those arguments raised at local inquiries which had not already been raised in writing did not have any bearing on the result.

We listened carefully to arguments for allowing people to have their say in person, however, and we particularly wanted a process that was more accessible to the public, not just to political parties and their lawyers. Those in the other place—Cross Benchers in particular—were content with our proposals.

[Stephen Williams]

I was also at the Select Committee hearing with Professor Johnston of Bristol university to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) referred. Professor Johnston actually said that public inquires were usually games for political parties, and that some parties were able to hire expensive barristers. The public were often frustrated by political parties and their barristers, but the hearings that the Bill proposes instead are likely to give the public more say than hitherto over the process.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose argument holds a great deal of water, because that is broadly what the British Academy report said about local inquiries. That report was produced by a team of academics headed up by Professor Ron Johnston, so if that is what he said at the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, it stacks up very well with what he said in writing.

17:00

[Sarah Newton]

I strongly welcome these amendments, because it is vital that people’s voices are heard, especially those of the people of Cornwall, who mounted a hugely successful campaign about our desire to keep Cornwall whole. I hope that through these opportunities for public meetings, we might yet succeed in achieving that. Does the Minister agree that it would be very desirable to have one such public meeting in Cornwall, given the strength of feeling there?

[Mr Harper]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is obviously not for the Government to tell the boundary commissions what to do, but one of the reasons for ensuring that there can be several inquiries in various regions is that the commissions will be mindful of the areas where they suspect there will be considerable public interest. It is fairly obvious to everybody that, in the south-west of England, Cornwall will be one of those places where members of the public, in particular, and of course Members of Parliament, will be very keen to make that case.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) has first dibs.

[Joan Walley]

Given that not all of us have been party to all the debates in the other place, can the Minister tell us how local people will have their say? Whatever the Government are saying about localism, I cannot see how, under the new arrangement that he is bringing to the House, people will understand how they are going to have their say. It might be all right for Cornwall, but it might not be for Stoke-on-Trent.

[Mr Harper]

When the boundary commissions decide to hold their public hearings, they will of course publicise them. We have set out that the commissions will be able at the beginning of those public hearings to lay out the details of the proposals on which they are hearing from local people. I would have thought that the hon. Lady’s constituents in Stoke-on-Trent were as capable of participating as those in Cornwall and in other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will be happy to take interventions when I have made a little more progress. I think that the House would expect me to do that in a time-limited debate.

We have also amended the Bill to provide that the boundary commissions must publish all the responses to their initial consultation and allow an additional period during which people will be able to make further representations or counter-representations related to the arguments put forward by others. This is the second area where we thought that some good points had been made in the debate, and we acted in response to an amendment tabled by Lord Lipsey on the Opposition Benches. We think that this amendment, in combination with the public hearing proposals, will deliver a consultation process that represents a real improvement not only on the one that was in the Bill originally, but on that in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.

We have made other significant amendments to part 2. We have tabled amendments explicitly to empower the boundary commissions to use wards as the building blocks for constituencies—the other place got very exercised about that—and to give the commissions discretion to take account of existing parliamentary boundaries. The amendments respond to concerns about the degree of explicit guidance given to the commissions on what they could take into account. We have accepted an amendment expressly enabling the Boundary Commission for England to take account of the boundaries of the City of London.

In response to an amendment from Lord Williamson, a Cross Bencher, we will require that a review is established after implementation of the new constituencies at the next election to consider the impact of the reduction in the number of seats in this place to 600. There was extensive debate about that in the other place, where we heard all about the fears, largely of those who had been Members of Parliament, that slightly fewer—7.6% fewer—Members of Parliament in this place may place constraints on their ability to do the job. We thought that Lord Williamson’s suggestion of a review in the next Parliament to consider the effect of that reduction to see whether there were some lessons that could be learned was very sensible, and we were happy to accept it.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems strange to many Members across the House that we are reducing this House to 600 Members while increasing the size of the unelected House of Lords by 150 peers?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend makes what would be a good point if it were not for the coalition Government’s clear commitment to bring forward a draft Bill in the near future—early this year—to reform the other place. If we were not doing that, he would have a solid case, but given that we are proposing to do that, his case falls away and there is just a timing difference.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Cash]

Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that some of us are beginning to think, in the light of the forthright position that the House of Lords has taken on the threshold, which we will come to later in the debate, that that House may be more trusted by the electorate than those on the Government Benches?

[Mr Harper]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not expect me to be tempted to debate the threshold now, because we will come to it later. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. There is a good case for electing Members to the other place. He knows that the coalition Government have committed to a wholly or mainly elected House. We are in the process of drafting that legislation. From what he says, it is clear that he does not agree with that, but I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to go into the case for or against House of Lords reform in this debate.

[Mr Winnick]

There will be an interesting debate on thresholds in due course. On the numbers, is the Minister surprised that it is dawning on people outside the House of Commons that far from being a democratic move, it is pretty anti-democratic, because the Government of the day, whoever they are, will simply have more authority? Given that even the most junior Ministers have a Parliamentary Private Secretary, there will be fewer Back Benchers to scrutinise the Government here and in Select Committees. For Governments, the fewer Back Benchers, the better.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman obliquely raises the issue of the number of Ministers. He knows that we have been clear at this Dispatch Box and in the other place that we know that there is an issue with that. However, we do not think that this Bill is the right place to deal with it, partly because of the issue of House of Lords reform. We will have to tackle how many Ministers there are not only in this place, but in the other place. As well as the number of Ministers, he touched on the number of PPSs, which currently is not regulated. We have made it clear that the Government will deal with this issue, but that this Bill is not the right place to do so.

[Mr Winnick]

In my lifetime?

[Mr Harper]

This debate also took place in the other place and it was content with our proposals. I do not wish to speculate on the hon. Gentleman’s longevity.

Amendment (b) to Lords amendment 27 would require the arrangements for the review into the reduction of constituencies to be put in place between 1 March and 1 November this year. We do not agree with the Opposition’s thinking in that amendment, because to assess the effect of the reduction in the number of constituencies we must have seen the effects; we should not speculate about them. We think that the Cross-Bench proposal to have the review after the next election is much more sensible.

We have made a number of more minor, technical amendments, including an amendment to ensure that existing legislative powers to change the date of the poll for Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly elections are not affected by the provisions on the combination of polls on 5 May. That amendment was made in the other place, but in response to concerns raised in this House by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We have made amendments to apply the Electoral Commission’s new civil sanctioning powers for new offences relating to loans; to give the chief counting officer the power to be reimbursed from the public purse for expenses that she incurs because it is economically beneficial to the public for her to do so—that is the debate that we had on the money resolution; to ensure that a single definition of registration officer applies throughout part 1; to place an explicit obligation on the chief counting officer for the referendum to take steps to facilitate co-operation between regional counting officers, counting officers and registration officers; and finally, to provide that an elector who registers or who is already registered for a postal vote at one of the polls combined with the referendum, and who is entitled to vote in the referendum, is automatically registered for a postal vote for the referendum.

[Thomas Docherty]

Going back to the point that the Minister made as he rattled through that list, and to the debate that we had a short time ago, will he now confirm, as he did not take the opportunity before, that the Secretary of State will write to returning officers in Scotland to instruct them to begin the count for the Scottish Parliament election as soon as the polls close, and not to delay it?

[Mr Harper]

In response to that debate, which—from memory—was about whether to include in the Bill a power to direct those counting the votes, I said that that would be out of scope and I confirmed that that was the case. If the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about some returning officers in Scotland, there is nothing in the Bill that has caused them to take that decision. It is a decision that they have taken of their own volition. Some returning officers in Scotland have confirmed that they will count overnight and that there is no problem in doing so. Some returning officers have said that they do not propose to do so, but that is nothing to do with the combination of the polls. It is to do with their judgment about how they want to conduct the count.

As I was saying, similar provision about the combination of polls and postal votes has been made for those registered for other forms of absent vote. I believe that the raft of changes made to the Bill, which the Government have accepted, demonstrate that we have been willing to listen and engage constructively with both Houses of Parliament and to agree to all the proposed changes to our proposals that we believe were merited.

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid I completely disagree with the Minister’s interpretation of events over the past few months. I wholeheartedly congratulate their lordships on the process they have engaged in, and I make no apologies for the fact that Labour MPs have been holding the Government to account in this House, or for the fact that in the House of Lords there are people who were elected previously and who are able to bring a degree of expertise to the debates when discussing elections.

I note that yesterday Sky News was reporting that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, would take revenge on Labour peers. Bring it on. In legislation on the reform of the national health service, the reform of schools and public services that everybody depends on, Labour peers down the other end will do as robust a job as they have done on the Bill. If there was anything that showed that the Government have not been acting entirely in good faith, it is today’s programme motion, which allows only four hours for 104 amendments to be considered, including the time taken for votes.

I am not sure that my interpretation of what has happened is the same as the Government’s. I say to all hon. Members in all seriousness that I fear that many Members who end up voting for the Bill will regret the day that they did so. The Government have bulldozed their way through every convention so far, ludicrously combining two pieces of legislation that should never have been in one Bill—only because that was a way of keeping the coalition together—pushing forward with no pre-legislative scrutiny of a measure that had no electoral mandate, curtailing debate in this House, for the first time ever threatening the guillotine in the House of Lords, then packing the Lords with pliant new Conservative and Lib Dem Members every day and suspending all the normal rules in the House of Lords.

We will rue the way in which the Bill was pushed through and the legislation itself, because we are not legislating on the basis of long-term democratic health for this country, or on the basis of sound principle, but solely so as to meet the partisan needs of the coalition.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from a certain amount of amnesia. When his party was in office in the previous Parliament, there was guillotining all over the place.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman sometimes suffers from amnesia himself. I was talking about guillotines in the Lords. It has been a fundamental principle of the constitutional settlement in this country that the House of Lords is a self-governing House and never has a programme motion.

When there was a Labour Government of just one political party, we never had a majority in the House of Lords. By virtue of how the Government are progressing at the moment, with a large number of new peers being appointed—117 since the general election—they are approaching the point at which they will have an absolutely majority in this House and the other House.

17:15

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the Minister on that point, because I know what he is going to say—that it will not give the Government a majority. However, the coalition’s statement says that they intend to keep on appointing Members of the House of Lords until the percentage share of the vote in the general election is matched there. That will give a majority to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. If the Minister wants to intervene now, I am happy to give way.

[Mr Harper]

I want to make it clear that we have appointed a number of peers, but that a number of them in the resignation honours list of the former Prime Minister were, of course, Labour peers. Even with the new peers who have been appointed, the coalition Government have 40% of peers, well away from a majority.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister knows perfectly well that the Government are getting very close to the stage at which they will end up having an absolute majority in both Houses. The vast majority of peers who take part in the daily business of the House and vote with the most regularity are those who take a party Whip. Among those, there is already a majority for the governing coalition. The Labour party never had that when in government. My main point is that we have to have some brake on the Government, especially if we go forward and have an elected second Chamber. Otherwise, government becomes autocracy.

Lords amendment 104, so the Minister would have us think, effectively introduces a real opportunity for local people to have their say on proposals from the Boundary Commission. It was a Government amendment tabled in the Lords, but it was introduced in a way that was not quite as the Minister suggests. In fact, Lord Falconer had tabled an amendment and was prepared to waive it because the Government said that they would return on Report with a full process that would embody the ideas behind public inquiries. In fact, Lord Wallace of Tankerness said specifically that

“the Government’s position has been that we are open to considering reasonable improvements to the process, provided that they do not compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, and that still remains our position.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2011; Vol. 724, c. 1069-1070.]

I do not know what fundamental principles of the Bill might mean that local people cannot have an effective voice, but that is what we have ended up with.

Let us be absolutely clear that what the Government propose does not meet the objections made by the Cross Benchers, Labour peers or many others who believe that local people should be able to have a proportionate say after the Boundary Commission has made proposals. For a start, the inquiries will not be local. There will be five at most across the whole of Wales and five in each region. I look forward to going to one of the five in the south-west, covering an enormous region with wide diversity. Each hearing will probably cover about 10 constituencies. I say to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who spoke earlier about Cornwall, that I do not think there is a chance in hell of local people in Cornwall having their views heard properly in the process. In addition, because of how the Bill is constructed, it will be impossible for the Boundary Commission to do anything about it even if it says that Cornwall should not be split up. The principle of the Bill to which the Minister is so adherent in some parts of the country, but not in all, is that the size of parliamentary constituencies should be equalised—too aggressively, I believe.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman define “local people”? Is he talking about unelected local people, local councillors or everybody?

[Chris Bryant]

I mean all those. There is an important distinction, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who is not in his place, said earlier, was discussed in the evidence that was given to the Select Committee last week. Political parties have their views to express—in the past, some have employed a barrister to express it for them, and that is perfectly legitimate. Sometimes, local councils want to take a view because they have a role in electoral registration and so on, but often local people in a small village, such as Much Marcle or Midsomer—if anyone is still alive in Midsomer—who are independent of any political affiliation, want their voice to be heard. They want to say, “No, frankly, we in Acton Burnell don’t”—or do—“want to be in Shrewsbury constituency.” We need a process whereby the people of Acton Burnell, where Parliament was held at Michaelmas in 1283, can express their view, and that will be impossible if there are only five hearings across the whole region. There will not be a hearing for each constituency. It is not each constituency that will be considered right or wrong. That is one of the problems.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The hon. Gentleman is being cynical. If the people of Acton Burnell, who are in my constituency, wish to remain there, they can feed that information through to me and I will put that view at the public meeting.

[Chris Bryant]

I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that all views expressed by anybody in his constituency should undoubtedly, at all times, be expressed solely through him. However, there is another version of democracy, whereby sometimes people disagree with their local Member of Parliament and might want to adopt a different position.

[Mr Winnick]

The Minister said that public inquiries are discredited—we obviously disagree with that. However, is not it interesting that in previous Parliaments, we heard no such condemnation of public inquiries from the Conservatives, whether in government or in opposition? It is the first time that that has happened.

[Chris Bryant]

Much as I would love to agree with my hon. Friend, I recall previous comments: when people lost the argument at a public inquiry, they tended to hold forth against them; when they won the argument at a public inquiry, they tended to support them. However, in many cases, the Boundary Commission’s original proposals were overturned through public inquiries because of the voices of local people, such as the people of Acton Burnell, of Much Marcle and so on. Sometimes it happened because of the intervention of political parties. None the less, the end result has been constituency boundaries that, in the main, are accepted by the people who are represented.

[Paul Murphy]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for boundary inquiries. My constituency was preserved 27 years ago by a long public inquiry. However, I am not sure whether the Minister grasped my earlier point. In Wales, there will be a 25% reduction in the number of seats—I was not arguing about the principle, but making the point that the disruption to the political and constitutional landscape in Wales is hugely greater than in other parts of the country. We should therefore have more public hearings in lieu of the public inquiries.

[Chris Bryant]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition, there are some specific concerns. For example, it is possible that, as a result of the boundary changes, we would end up with no single constituency in Wales with a Welsh-speaking majority. That is not of particular concern to my constituents in the Rhondda, but it is of concern to the British Parliament that that voice could be lost.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

One of the reasons for my losing faith in the old system of public inquiries is that, for all the arguments that the Conservative party presented for a fairer distribution of constituencies, we finished up with a manifestly unfair distribution. We need a speedier system, which can use fresher and more up-to-date data to deliver a fairer distribution of constituencies. That should happen.

[Chris Bryant]

It might be that the Conservative party lost because it did not advance good arguments, which goes back to my earlier point.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing]

(Epping Forest) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Lady does not mind, I ought to make a little progress.

17:30

One other significant problem with the Government amendment on hearings and inquiries is that there will be no process of resolution. There will be two days of hearings to consider some 10 constituencies, and a rush of people will come, make their case and leave. At the end, there will be only a verbatim transcript of what was said. There will be no process by which somebody weighs the arguments on different constituencies or the whole area, no summing up, and no report written for the Boundary Commission.

That will give the Government two problems. First, it will almost certainly lead to a much higher number and greater frequency of judicial reviews, which was raised in the House of Lords by two noble peers. Lord Woolf said:

“If there is no provision for an inquiry”—

by which he meant a proper inquiry, not just a hearing—

“I anticipate that there will inevitably be an increase in applications for judicial review…If this amendment is not accepted, the issues that will be sought to be raised on applications for judicial reviews are ones which the courts will find peculiar difficulty in dealing with.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2011; Vol. 724, c. 1067.]

The real danger, therefore, is that we will end up with a slower, more complicated process, because instead of taking their argument to the public inquiry, people will simply take it to court. That will be expensive, so those who can afford it will do better out of the system, and the process will be delayed, which the Government are keen to avoid on principle.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman just said something that simply is not true. He said that no one will weigh up the arguments that are put at the public hearing, but that will happen. The boundary commissioners will look at the oral evidence and the written representations, weigh them up and make a judgment. Mr Speaker is of course the ex-officio chair, but the deputy chairman of the commissions is a High Court judge—someone who is legally qualified and perfectly able to chair a process that makes such decisions.

[Chris Bryant]

Lord Pannick made similar points to the ones I just made. He said:

“It is absolutely inevitable that the introduction of such a procedure will exacerbate rather than diminish the sense of grievance that has led people to make representations in the first place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. 143.]

People’s sense of grievance will be exacerbated because they will make their arguments not to an independent person who weighs them up and submits a report to Boundary Commission, but third hand to the Boundary Commission, which, as the Minister says, will then make the decision. That will lead to a greater sense of grievance about the structure of parliamentary constituencies. I say this to Government Members: every single one of you will go through that process, and you will rue the day if you do not change the proposed system.

[Mrs Laing]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) exactly explains why the old system was dominated by clever lawyers and barristers, and clever political argument, and why it must be changed—it had nothing to do with local people. The hon. Gentleman just admitted as much.

The hon. Gentleman’s point on judicial review is a strong one. Does he agree that judicial review, and therefore delay and uncertainty, will be stopped if the Bill is certain and precise? That is why we cannot allow, for example, Lords amendment 19, which mentions circumstances of “an exceptionally compelling nature”. That is imprecise, but it is our duty to produce precise legislation, and thereby to obviate the necessity for judicial review.

[Chris Bryant]

Large parts of the Bill are not sufficiently precise, and the Opposition have tabled amendments to improve the quality of the legislation. The hon. Lady is a member of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, but I am not sure whether she heard Professor Johnston’s evidence last week—[Interruption.] I see that she is brandishing a document, like Excalibur. My reading of his evidence is that he felt that, in certain situations, the Acton Burnells of this world could effect change. We want that to be possible under the new system. We want the people of Cornwall, if they want to, to say categorically, “We do not want to cross the Tamar in the creation of a constituency.” However, there is no provision in the Government’s Bill, either for that voice to be heard effectively and transmitted to the Boundary Commission, or for the commission to act upon it. The commission can do absolutely nothing to act upon it because it is bound by the 5% rule, which is why I hope that the hon. Lady will support the 7.5% rule. If she has a way of improving the provision so that it is more precise, I would be delighted to sit down with her later and draft a new version.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Is not the problem with the process that, in principle, after the public hearing, the High Court judge chairing the original boundary commission is effectively the appeal judge to his own decision? I cannot think of any other process in administrative or public law in such an unsatisfactory situation.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a perfect point. He is absolutely right. Someone cannot be judge, jury and appeal judge of their own decision. The danger is that people will go to court to try to resolve the problem. That is inevitable. All the Cross-Bench lawyers who spoke in the Lords debate made that precise point. That is why we have tabled an amendment to a Lords amendment—I hope that we can divide the House on it, unless the Government are minded to accept it—that would make it clear that public inquiries are intended not just to allow somebody to make a representation, but to effect change if necessary.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because we are on a time-limited debate and I have already given way to him once. He knows that I nearly always give way to everybody.

We have also tabled amendments to Lords amendment 27, which would allow for the creation of a committee after the next general election in June 2015 to consider the effects of the reduction of seats from 650 to 600. It is our fundamental assertion that it would make far more logical sense first to consider the role of MPs, what their job is and therefore how many MPs we need, and then to draw up the boundaries, rather than the other way around. That is why we have tabled amendments to that effect. As we have suggested many times before—Conservative Members have said this as well—there is no electoral mandate for the reduction from 650 to 600. There is no logic behind it and no Minister has ever been able to come up with a reason that figure has been chosen, other than, we suspect, the fact that if we went down to the original Conservative manifesto proposition of 585, we would lose another wodge of Liberal Democrat seats, and consequently—[Interruption.] I merely suggest to hon. Members that they might choose to table amendments to take us down to 585. However, we do not accept the way in which the motion has been advanced.

I want to refer briefly to two other issues. One is the matter to which the Minister referred in his swift run-through of minor amendments made: the issue of postal voters which was raised when we discussed the matter in Committee of the whole House. If someone is registered for a postal vote for an election in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland, will they automatically get a postal vote for the referendum? As I understand it, that is now to happen—[Interruption.] Actually, I know because I read the Electoral Commission’s report on it. Some people are concerned that others will by dint of that receive two postal votes for the referendum, because some people are registered in two places, including many MPs, who might be registered at their flat in London as well as in their constituency. They might be registered in both of those for postal votes and might then get two referendum ballot papers. That is obviously an issue that needs to be addressed. It was discussed in Committee.

[Mr Harper]

That is no different from the existing system, in which those on two electoral registers might get two ballot papers, but it is very clear—Members of Parliament will be as aware of this as anyone else—that voting twice in the referendum would be a criminal offence, as would voting twice in a general election, and I am sure that no Member of this House would want to do such a thing.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister is being querulous. I was not suggesting that anybody wanted to do that, but there are some unscrupulous people out there who are not Members of this House who might want to do such a thing. The danger is that we will open ourselves up to an element of fraud.

My final point is about Lords amendment 18, tabled by Lord Tyler, which adds a criterion that the Boundary Commission can look at when considering the new boundaries that it draws up, namely the boundaries of existing constituencies. I am sure that all hon. Members think it a sensible idea for the boundaries of existing constituencies to be borne in mind when drawing up new constituency boundaries. I am delighted that on that, if nothing else, we agree with the Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There are about 11 minutes left, so brief speeches would be welcome.

[Mr Walker]

I will be extremely brief, because I come here naked, without a formal speech to give. All I would say in response to the two Front-Bench speeches that we have heard is that I think that the Lords did an absolutely magnificent job. The Bill has been rushed through this House in haste, and the Lords did exactly what they are meant to do, which is to act as a reforming and revising House. We will ignore some of their recommendations this evening at our peril.

The Prime Minister is not one for taking revenge against those who disagree with him, or perhaps delay his ambitions. I therefore disagreed with the shadow Minister when he quoted Sky News and said that the Prime Minister was gearing up great armies to swoop down on the House of Lords and duff them up a bit. However, I am concerned about the vague promises made by those on my side of the House about setting up a commission to review whether reducing the number of Members of Parliament to 600 is a good idea. This really should have been done by now, as part of the work of a far wider cross-party commission, bringing together all parts of the House to look at the proposals, because we are talking about fundamental constitutional reform. If such reform is to be successful, it will need to carry the support not just of Members of Parliament but of our constituents.

Our constituents will be concerned about what they are seeing, because in essence we propose to reduce the size of the House of Commons by roughly 10%. We do not propose to reduce the number of Ministers, and we are increasing the number of peers by 150. I am sure that some proposal or other will be made to address the question of the House of Lords—there might be a proposal for an elected upper House—but that could be kicked into the long grass and become a third-term aspiration for this coalition Government.

[Mr Harper]

I will be brief in my intervention, given the time limit. As my hon. Friend has said that he thought that the House of Lords did a good job, he should know that the proposal for a review after the next election was made by Lord Williamson, a Cross Bencher. It is a proposal that we agree with, and it had broad appeal in the House of Lords, not just for those who take a party Whip, but for Cross Benchers. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend will welcome the proposal, which the Government accepted, and which we propose to accept in this House.

[Mr Walker]

I would say to the Minister that we should have shown more foresight in this House, and addressed those issues here before passing them over to the House of Lords.

I conclude by saying that I support any movement and organisation in this House that is difficult, and makes some attempt to resist the will of the Executive.

[Ian Lucas]

Of all the appalling aspects of this piece of legislation, for me the abolition of local public inquiries is quite the worst. No party ever proposed to abolish them before the general election. If the parties now in government had a particular concern about public inquiries, I would have expected them to express it in manifesto commitments on which the electorate could have given their verdict in the general election. However, it is only since the general election that the issue has been raised.

When the idea was raised, I was anxious to obtain the views of local people in my constituency. I highlighted to community councils—the equivalent of parish councils in my constituency—the fact that the right to deliver oral representations to a public inquiry was about to be abolished. My letter to those community councils was considered at the same time as a report from a boundary commission relating to local councils. Representations had been made by councillors of all political parties objecting to boundary commission proposals for local councils. The community councils were most concerned about the local council provisions. They then saw my letter, and became aware that the right to make representations about a parliamentary boundary change was to be taken away from them.

In Wales, public inquiries will continue to be held on matters relating to local councils and Assembly seats, but they will be removed for matters relating to parliamentary seats. The only reason why they are being removed is the electoral deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who want to remove those public inquiries because they need to get the changes through by the next general election. That is why this huge constitutional Bill was not delivered in draft; it is also why many of us on both the Opposition and the Government Benches had our right to make speeches on important issues removed through the use of the guillotine when these matters were considered before Christmas.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend is rightly highlighting the implications of this provision for Wales. In the context of Northern Ireland, the Bill still ignores the fact that constituencies for the Northern Ireland Assembly are exactly coterminous with parliamentary constituencies. The Boundary Commission’s terms of reference do not allow it to address Assembly considerations, but it will be the implications of the Bill for the Assembly that will prompt people to call for local inquiries. Villages will be cut off from their hinterland, which will raised geo-sectarian issues. Those are the controversies that people will want to put in front of a local inquiry, but the Bill will remove their right to do so.

[Ian Lucas]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a powerful point about Northern Ireland, and I can speak for my constituency in Wales. The Bill will have profound implications for communities across the United Kingdom. In due course, the Boundary Commission will reveal the proposals and people will see what they are. Only at that stage will people will realise the true horror of the Government’s proposals. They represent the antithesis of any form of localism, and they will take away responsibility from local communities.

The dripping sanctimony that we used to hear from Liberal Democrats and Conservatives about localism is in marked contrast to their appalling unreadiness to listen to any arguments about the Bill. They should be deeply ashamed of this legislation. All legislation should be made for the long term, and should carry as much cross-party consensus as possible. Members who support the Bill will have to explain to their constituents why they will no longer have the right to make oral representations on any proposed changes to their local constituency. Those Members will rue the day that they voted for this legislation.

[Mr Jenkin]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that this whole matter is being rushed. If there is one thing that should not be rushed, it is the prospect of constitutional change. The pressure of time on our proceedings on the Bill arises solely from the Government’s desire to achieve the date of 5 May for the referendum. That date is cemented into the bit of the coalition agreement that was not published, and it exists purely for political purposes. This is a purely political device, perhaps to try to get a yes vote, or to try to boost the Liberal Democrat turnout at the local elections being held on the same day. Let me be absolutely blunt: there will be barely 11 weeks between the Bill receiving Royal Assent and the referendum, even though the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 stipulates that there should be a period of six months in which to prepare for a referendum.

This referendum is being indecently rushed. Unfortunately, Lords amendment 2, which proposes that the date should be changed, does not do the trick. It does not require the date to be changed. I do not know whether the Government intend to accept that amendment, but it would have no practical effect. The House of Lords has made clear its discomfort with the fact that the referendum was to be held on the same date as the local elections and the Assembly elections. I will not detain the House on that Lords amendment if there is no Division, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that this is a shoddy way to conduct a referendum. It is unconstitutional, it is political—deeply political—and it is not an objective way to address this issue. It will undermine the value of any referendum result, and I shall certainly support a later Lords amendment to address the problem.

17:45

[Mr Harper]

It is worth putting on the record the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) said, the evidence from academics such as Professor Ron Johnston is clear. They said that in most cases inquiries made little impact, and they clearly saw them largely as an exercise in allowing parties to seek influence over the Electoral Commission’s recommendations. They also said that it would be “a major error” to assume that all inquiries of the past largely involved the public having their say. They were very clear about that, and they welcomed what the Government were doing.

On the question of how many public hearings there will be, we have trebled the time for written representations and we have added a four-week period for counter-representations, which we think will be a more effective process than the legal process that existed—

17:45

One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment 2 accordingly agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Lords amendments 3 to 7, 9 to 15, 18 and 21 to 104 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 31.

Clause 11

Number and distribution of seats

[Mr Harper]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 19.

[Mr Harper]

The amendment would give the Boundary Commission the discretion to propose constituencies within an extended 15% range of the UK electoral quota in the event that a commission considered that exceptional local ties or geographical circumstances made it necessary for a viable constituency. That means that the plus or minus 5% rule could be extended to plus or minus 7.5% in the exceptional circumstances set out in the amendment.

The Government believe that the principle of “one vote, one value”, so that there are votes of more equal weight across the country, is paramount. That is the fundamental principle underpinning the Bill. It is not an abstract concept, nor is it, as some of our opponents like to say, about a slavish adherence to arithmetic. It is right for electors across the UK to have an equal say not just in who will be their local representative, but in who will form the Government of the day. For votes to have equal weight in a single member constituency system, the constituencies must contain a broadly equal number of electors.

The existing legislation that determines how the boundaries are to be drawn—the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986—also has that principle at its heart. Indeed, in one sense it could be argued that it involves a tighter rule, because it suggests that the Boundary Commission should aim for exact numerical equality, but the rules in that Act are contradictory and compromise the principle of equality. We see the large variations in the sizes of constituencies at the moment, which is why the Government’s proposals set a clear range for the number of electors that a constituency may contain.

I have already said that absolute equality is not practicable. There are a small number of specific exceptions, which recognise the practicalities of genuinely challenging geography: those are the two provisions that we inserted into the Bill at the beginning. I will not dwell on the subject of the Isle of Wight now; we will have an opportunity to do so later. More generally, the Bill allows for constituencies to vary by 5% either side of the quota. On the basis of the register data for 2009, that is about 8,000 electors. Within that range, commissions can take account of local circumstances.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

As the Minister knows, we have debated this issue many times before, but I have not heard him explain precisely what is significantly different about the two constituencies identified in the Bill, or why they are so significantly different that they should be identified. It would be useful to have that on the record.

[Mr Harper]

We have defined the difference. Both constituencies constitute groups of islands which, owing to their challenging geography, are not readily combinable with the mainland. I know that some Members, including the hon. Gentleman, wanted more exceptions to be made, but few if any argued that we should not have made the two exceptions that we did make. Although most of the argument in the House of Commons was in favour of further exceptions, we were reluctant to make many, because we believed that the general principle of equality was important.

There was a clear rationale for the Government’s proposal for 5% either side of the United Kingdom electoral quota. It is the closest to equality that we can achieve while allowing wards, which are themselves drawn with local factors in mind, to remain the building blocks of constituencies in England which account for the majority of seats. We believe that that strikes the right balance between the principle of more equally weighted votes at national level, and flexibility to allow account to be taken of specific circumstances at local level.

The amendment was proposed in a constructive spirit by Cross Benchers in the other place who wanted to ensure that exceptions were strictly limited, and it was debated at length. However, the Government disagree with the Lords, for the following reasons. First, we believe that however emphatic the drafting, attempts to limit the exercise of the discretion in exceptional circumstances are unlikely to be as successful as the proposers of the amendment hoped. Each exception would constitute a further precedent, and as the number of exceptions increases, so does the scope for argument. That is clear from the existing legislation. Boundary commissions are supposed to aim for equality, but because of all the other factors that they must take into account, the size of some constituencies varies by up to 50%.

[Andrew George]

I would be interested to know why the Government believe that they know best how to divide the country into constituencies. If the primary purpose is to reduce the number of Members of Parliament to no more than 600—a laudable aim, which I strongly support—would it not be sufficient for the Government to stick to that, and allow the Boundary Commission to do its work?

[Mr Harper]

No, I do not think that it would. The existing process causes a significant variation in the size of constituencies. Even if we set aside differences between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, where there are different electoral quotas, we see within England significant differences between parliamentary constituencies that effectively mean that the weight of someone’s vote, in terms of the say that they have in the House, is significantly different from the weight of someone else’s vote. The Government do not think that that is right: we believe that constituencies should be of more equal size, so that votes are of more equal weight across the whole United Kingdom.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The Minister conveniently ignores the fact that in some constituencies, such as those containing a large number of students or a large number of second homes, people will have registered twice. Constituencies will therefore not be equal, and individual registration will bring that sharply into focus at some stage in the future.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman has raised three issues. First, I can tell him that we propose to continue to use the registered electorate data. Secondly, I can say in answer to his point about our proposal to introduce individual voter registration that—as I have made clear in the House before—the Government are as interested in the completeness of the registers as in their accuracy. The hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely, will know that we propose to conduct pilots this year with a range of local authorities to examine public sector databases, and the possibility of using the data to ensure that the electoral register is more complete. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman will know that ownership of a second property does not, in itself, allow people to register to vote; the electoral registration officer must be satisfied that they genuinely reside in the area concerned.

[John Mann]

This is not just a question of second homes; it is also a question of the presence of students. Some constituencies contain 20,000 students, many of whom are dual-registered. There will not be equality of size; indeed, we will not know whether there is equality of size, because the students’ home constituencies will vary dramatically. We can only guess what the figures would be.

[Mr Harper]

The Bill does not change the process of using the registered electorate data—which are the best that we have—to make the necessary decisions. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point holds water.

[John Mann]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more, but then I must make some progress.

[John Mann]

The Minister is kindly giving way again, in the interests of good debate.

My constituency does not contain many students. Whatever limit is set, that will be the number of people eligible and wanting to vote. Other constituencies—Sheffield, Hallam, for instance—contain vast numbers of students. There will be a big difference between the number of voters in Bassetlaw and the number of real voters in Sheffield, Hallam. What has that to do with equality of size of constituencies? The Minister has lost the argument, has he not?

[Mr Harper]

No. I am not entirely certain what argument the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, and I suspect that I carry at least quite a few Members with me. We are not changing the basis on which we use registered electorate data. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a limit to the number of people who had registered to vote, but everyone in his constituency who is eligible to vote is able to register. I would encourage everyone who is eligible to register to vote in his constituency to do so, and to use that vote in an election—as, I am sure, would all Members on both sides of the House.

[Mrs Laing]

The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) does not hold water at all. First, given that there are students and people with second or third homes all over the country, if someone moves from one constituency to another having registered two votes, those votes will cancel each other out. When the movement between constituencies is considered as a single total movement of population, we see that that will apply throughout the country. Secondly, that is exactly why we need a variation of about 5%.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend mentioned the number of votes. It is true that if someone genuinely resides in more than one location, rather than merely owning property in those locations—I know that this has been an issue in some parts of the country including Cornwall, and I urge returning officers who do not believe that someone genuinely resides somewhere to be firm about challenging that claim—even if they receive two ballot papers, they are entitled to vote only once. That is the point that I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Currently it is possible to obtain more than one ballot paper, but it is a criminal offence to use more than one in the same election.

[Andrew George]

May I clarify a point? As the Minister said, we have debated the issue before. Does he mean “reside”—in which case people with three or four homes could presumably register in each of the places where they occasionally reside—or does he mean “primarily reside”? Surely it must be decided where people’s primary residence is, rather than where they occasionally reside. People with second homes—and third homes, and fourth homes—have a significant advantage over all other voters, in that they can choose where to deploy their vote most effectively.

17:59

[Mr Harper]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this point: it is an issue in Cornwall, where a number of voters have second properties. The case law clearly talks not about “primarily reside” but about “reside”. However, it is also clear that if a second-property owner pops there on holiday for two weeks a year, that would not count as residing. Many hon. Members genuinely live in more than one location of course, because we spend some of our time in London and some of our time in our constituency. Many Members will therefore be registered to vote in both places, but for parliamentary elections we will exercise that vote only once. I suspect that Members will tend to do as I do, which is exercise it in such a way that we can vote for ourselves, either because it makes a difference electorally or because it is more emotionally satisfying—or both.

I shall return to the point I was making before we went off on a number of interesting detours. However emphatic the drafting, we do not think that attempts to limit the exercise of discretion in exceptional circumstances are likely to be as successful as do those in the House of Lords who proposed the amendment. It may be true that the drafting will discourage a court from finding against a boundary commission that chooses not to exercise that discretion, but the commissions will be under considerable pressure to exercise it, particularly given the inclusion of the concept of “local ties”. Exceptional local ties may actually exist in the UK, but the concept is already the Trojan horse which allows political parties to make arguments that are in their electoral interest—and, frankly, in their electoral interest alone.

The Boundary Commission for England noted in its fifth general report that there was usually more debate at local inquiries about local ties, in their many varied and often subjective guises, than about any other matter. That is one of the main reasons why constituencies are as unequal in size as they are today. It seems to the Government that this amendment would in practice simply increase the amount by which constituencies and the weight of vote vary, and do so by far more than those who argue for it imagine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who is a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, made this point in the previous debate when she said it was important that we have clarity and as much certainty as possible. The Government’s view is that that will not be the effect of this amendment, which is why I am arguing that we should not agree to it.

[Mark Durkan]

Is it not the case that clause 11 provides for constituencies in Northern Ireland to not conform to being within the plus or minus 5% UK quota? Instead, they will vary greatly, and far more widely than that quota; the Bill makes specific provision for that. Why can Northern Ireland constituencies deviate more widely from the UK quota, and from each other, than other constituencies? These are constituencies that will also be electing six seats each to the Assembly. This completely contradicts both the Minister’s arguments and the principle of proportional representation that is in the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Harper]

I think we debated this matter at an earlier stage in the House. The reason is very simple: Northern Ireland is a very small part of the United Kingdom and there is an issue in respect of seats being allocated between the constituent parts of the UK. If a Northern Ireland constituency is on the cusp of being or not being allocated as a seat, we could end up with a situation where a boundary commission’s ability to have flexibility was constrained to a far greater degree than the plus or minus 5%. The point of the provision is to make sure that in such cases, in that very small part of the UK where there are relatively few seats, the boundary commissions are able to take proper account of local ties. In no other part of the UK is that effect likely to take place, because the next smallest part of the UK is almost twice the size. We thought this was a sensible measure to make sure the boundary commissions were not constrained to a far greater degree than they would be in other parts of the UK because of the relative smallness of the population of Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

This stems not from the size of Northern Ireland, but from the problem of fixing—from the fact that the Bill fixes the number of seats at 600 and 600 only, and from the way in which seats are then distributed to the different constituent parts of the UK. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with being able to take account of local boundaries or geography or anything else. It is because of this insistence on 600 and 600 only.

[Mr Harper]

Well, it is certainly true that even if we allocate using the Sainte-Laguë method—which is the one we specify in the Bill, and which is generally agreed by academics who are far more knowledgeable about these things than me to be the fairest way of allocating—it is always the case that there might be a seat that is close to the cusp of allocation. As a result, in this small part of the UK the boundary commissions might find their discretion overly constrained, and far tighter than the plus or minus 5% stated in the Bill. The measures for Northern Ireland were therefore to try to make sure that its boundary commissions were not overly constrained and unable to take account properly, as they can in the rest of the UK, of those important local ties with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar.

The Government did not think that it would be possible to limit the effect of this amendment to genuinely exceptional matters. In this respect, there is an interesting Court of Appeal judgment. In Al Rawi and others v. Security Service, the judge said:

“Quite apart from the fact that the issue is one of principle, it is a melancholy truth that a procedure or approach which is sanctioned by a court expressly on the basis that it is applicable only in exceptional circumstances nonetheless often becomes common practice.”

That is exactly what we fear here.

We also think the amendment could lead to a general increase in the risk to the timetable for the review. That is important because the boundaries we used at the last general election in England were based on electoral registration data that were a decade out of date. If we do not complete the boundary review before the next general election, we will be fighting it on electoral data that are 15 years out of date, which is clearly unacceptable for those who argue that we should be using up-to-date data. We think that the terms in this Lords amendment, such as “exceptionally compelling”, “viable” and “necessary, are very subjective and would require the boundary commissions to apply new tests that they have not applied before. Because they are subjective, and also because there will be arguments between the four commissions in terms of consistency, we think they will provoke an increased number of applications for judicial review.

That incentive could diminish if, and when, the first judicial reviews are not upheld, but even though successful judicial reviews are unlikely, applications for permission would have to be dealt with, which would impact on the resources of the boundary commissions and, potentially, make it impossible to achieve what is already a challenging timetable of completing the boundary review by October 2013.

We also think that the case for the additional 2.5% either way has simply not been made. Increasing the band of tolerance in one constituency will mean there is less room to account for local circumstances in others. Therefore, the commissions would be asked in effect to trade off the rights of different communities both close to and far from each other. We think the Government’s consistent band is much more sensible. The variation in this rule also has no objective rationale, because it does not solve any real-world problems. All the specific problems that have been advanced—such as the arguments put forward for Cornwall and for Argyll and Bute—are outside that range, so this amendment would not solve any real-world problems, but would bring with it a lot of significant potential problems.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I understand why it is thought that the move to the 5% limit is required—to stop the boundary commissions going off-piste and having very different constituencies—but does the Minister agree that in many areas of the country the 5% will give greater flexibility for local ties than is currently the case, because we will be removing the requirement to try to get even closer to equality? Can the Minister also explain why once a boundary commission has satisfied the 5% requirement, he is not asking it to try to get closer to equality where possible?

[Mr Harper]

This measure gives boundary commissions the range to be able to take account of issues such as local ties, but it also sets the quota. Boundary commissions should aim at the quota, but we want them to have a range so that they can take account of those local ties. I think my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into suggesting a much tighter limit and a more aggressive move towards equality, but the Government think it is right to take account of some of those local matters, but there should also be a limit so that we end up with more equal constituencies.

[Mark Reckless]

But surely under the new arrangements we will not be requiring the boundary commissions to aim at equality. We will be requiring them only to get within plus or minus 5%, and once they have done that they will be able to give complete consideration to local ties without worrying about getting closer to equality.

[Mr Harper]

The boundary commissions will have to draw up a scheme of constituencies and they will have examine the entire country. In some constituencies there may not be much need to vary from the quota, perhaps because there may not be many ties to take account of. However, there will be such a need in other areas, which is why this proposal to allow a much wider band would be very damaging. If they allow more flexibility in some areas, it will be taken away from others. That is why we want a consistent rule across the United Kingdom.

[Thomas Docherty]

I wish to clarify something that I have been asked about several times. Have the Government given any guidance to the boundary commission as to whether it will work from south to north across the country or from north to south? The direction will have a significant impact on the shaping of the constituencies, so I genuinely ask the question.

[Mr Harper]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by “country”, because of course there are four boundary commissions.

[Thomas Docherty]

In each one.

[Mr Harper]

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there will be one scheme for the whole area. We have suggested in the Bill that the Boundary Commission for England does this by region. The regional boundaries are not absolute and it is able to propose constituencies that cross those boundaries, but given the size of England it seemed sensible to give the Boundary Commission at least a starting point from which to work. The rules that will apply are in the Bill and it would not be appropriate for the Government to try to influence how it conducts the review. If the Government were to do so, the hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to object.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that clarification. Has the Minister had any discussions about whether the Boundary Commission for Scotland is minded to start this from the English-Scottish border and work north? Alternatively, having exempted the highlands and islands—I will not repeat the argument about that—will it work southwards? The direction will significantly affect the shape of these new constituencies.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman was asking two questions. On the first, I have not had those discussions with the boundary commissions and I do not think it would be appropriate to do so. On the second, I am not sure that the direction would make the difference that he suggests, but he should put his question to the boundary commissions, rather than the Government.

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

Could the Minister clarify the precise situation, because this is slightly confusing? Surely if England is to be divided into regions, each of those regions would have to contain a set number of seats, given that a particular day would be pinpointed. The notion that a particular constituency could cross a regional boundary must be nonsense. We have to work on the basis of a particular region having a certain number of seats, for example, 35 or 45. Any decision taken at the 11th hour for a constituency to cross a regional boundary would have a huge knock-on effect on all the other seats within that region.

[Mr Harper]

No, the process for allocating the fixed number of seats in the Bill is by country. So the 600 seats will be allocated between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by the fair and impartial process set out in the Bill, which is generally accepted to be the best one for doing these types of divisions. The boundary commissions wanted guidance in the Bill about how to divide up England so that they did not have to do it all in one go. So they will use regions as a starting point, but nothing constrains their ability to cross regional boundaries if they think that that makes sense, taking into account the factors that they are able to consider. The regional boundaries and the allocation of seats to regions are not hard and fast things set out in the Bill.

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

rose—

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

rose—

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I have a dazzling range of talent to choose from, but I have not heard yet from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

[Mr MacNeil]

Have the Government done any theoretical mock-ups of how the arrangements might look starting from the south, starting from the north or using any regional basis? Have they worked out how the pieces might fall at the end of the day?

[Mr Harper]

No, we have not. That is not a matter for the Government; it is a job for the boundary commissions and it is not appropriate for the Government to do it.

18:15

[Christopher Pincher]

The Minister has mentioned that the Boundary Commission for England will operate using English regions. Does that mean that it will start by clustering together English counties and then work to refine the boundaries within those counties, or will this be done specifically at regional level?

[Mr Harper]

I can understand why hon. Members are asking me these questions, but these are matters for the boundary commissions. One of the things that we made very clear in the debate when we were being accused of gerrymandering by the Labour party was that in our system the boundary commissions draw the lines, whereas in some other countries those lines are drawn by political parties in legislatures. We have set the guidelines for the boundary commissions and the rules are in the Bill, which we hope will be passed by Parliament and thus enacted. The detail of how the boundary commissions go about that work is a matter for them and they are experienced in doing such work. When they have these public hearings, having published their proposals, they will set out the nature of the scheme under which they are going to listen to people, and they will be very clear about how they have reached their decisions. These are matters for the boundary commissions. I can understand why my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me on this, but it would be wrong for Ministers to try to get involved in directing the boundary commissions on how they carry out their work.

[Mr Mark Field]

Does my hon. Friend not appreciate the concern that when we are discussing whether there should be any variance, be it of 5% or 7.5%, it is important to know how the process operates? If the entire United Kingdom—its 650 seats—were to be considered at once, there would be almost no need for any variance. If things are considered on the basis of smaller clusters, one can see the relevance of having that sort of variance, particularly if there is also a desire to avoid crossing ward boundaries. We do need to have an understanding of the process. If we do not have at least a basic understanding of how it will operate, it will be difficult for us to make any value judgment as to where the variance should lie, which is the subject of amendment 19.

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis that if we were conducting a single review across the whole United Kingdom, we would not need the plus or minus 5% flexibility at all. We would still need it. At the extreme, we could say that every constituency had to be exactly the same size. We would then end up with a map with lots of straight lines on it, but I do not think anybody would think that that was satisfactory. We therefore set a plus or minus 5% variance, so that the boundary commissions can get seats pretty close to that quota, in order for votes to be of equal weight, but they can also take properly into account the things that hon. Members and those outside this place think they should be able to consider. I do not believe that he was in for the earlier debate, but he will know that the former Member for his constituency had an amendment in the other place proposing that the boundaries of the City of London can be explicitly examined, and I hope that he will welcome that. These are matters for the boundary commissions and we should not be prescriptive about how they carry out their work.

[Andrew George]

Given the nature of some of the questions that the Minister has been asked in the past few minutes, does he agree that perhaps there should be an opportunity to review the wisdom of going ahead on the basis that he is describing? Clearly many hon. Members are not fully aware that this inflexible, sanitised and homogenised approach will result in lines being drawn through constituencies where sitting Members believed that there would be no significant change to the boundaries. That will be happening across the board as a result of the very changes that he proposes.

[Mr Harper]

I recall distinctly that we had this debate in the House in the first place. The boundary commissions set out clearly in evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the reduction to 600 Members and the clearer hierarchy of rules would mean that there would be significant change across the country, except of course for the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and one other Member, whose constituency boundaries will remain the same. Members were very clear about that at the beginning, so I do not think that that is a new piece of information.

Arguments have also been advanced that this extra bit of discretion would mean that parliamentary constituency boundaries would not need to cross county boundaries where the area is a little bit over or under the 10% band of tolerance, but the Government do not consider constituencies that cross local authority boundaries to be a problem in principle—certainly not for electors, who should be the focus of our concern. The 7.5% discretion rule would not solve the problem: it would just move the line somewhere else.

The Government’s proposal of allowing 5% on either side of the UK electoral quota has a clear rationale: it is the closest we can get to having fair and equally weighted votes for electors while still allowing local factors to be taken into account, using wards as the building blocks in most cases. We think that is the right judgment in principle and in practice. Our reasons for disagreeing with the amendments do not detract from the usefulness of this debate, which has been valuable, but we think that the principle of one vote, one value and having more equal-sized constituencies is right. The amendments compromise that principle and would cause practical problems for the review. That is why we oppose them.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

First, I point out that the Government decided that one hour should be set aside to discuss these amendments and that the Minister has taken up almost two thirds of that time. I do not criticise him, because he took many interventions, but it is a bit rich for him to accuse the House of Lords of filibustering. He should bear that in mind when we are considering constitutional Bills of this nature.

The amendments were moved by a Cross Bencher, Lord Pannick of Radlett, in the House of Lords, which is a revising Chamber, when he demolished the points that the Minister has raised this afternoon. The House needs to consider whether we are setting a precedent for how constitutional matters are taken forward—ignoring revisions made in the Lords that were moved by an expert Cross Bencher. I fear that the Minister has fallen into the trap of praying in aid the Lords, particularly Cross Benchers, when they agree with his points, but finding excuses for disagreeing with them when they disagree with him, let alone when they overturn a Commons decision by a considerable majority. For the avoidance of doubt, let me reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I said on a number of occasions as the Bill went through the Commons, which was repeated by Opposition spokespeople in the other place: we agree with the principle of creating more equal-sized constituencies, but we have practical concerns about the way that the Bill seeks to pursue that reasonable objective.

Lord Pannick’s amendment would inject some common sense into the rigid mathematical formula in the Bill for redrawing boundaries. I remind the House that the original Bill proposed that there should be flexibility in the size of constituencies of 5% either side of the electoral quota or norm, so that constituencies could vary between 95% and 105% of the electoral quota. The Bill also accepts that there should be exceptions for Northern Ireland, for Orkney and Shetland and for the Western Isles.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my disappointment and that of my constituents that the Deputy Prime Minister has sought to make special cases for the Western Isles and the Isle of Wight but has ignored Cornwall completely? Does he agree that the 7.5% differential is the best and last chance that the people of Cornwall will have to protect their historic boundary?

[Sadiq Khan]

I agree with every word the hon. Lady has said. She has sat through many debates in the past few months without having the chance to speak in them. It is interesting that we are lectured regularly by the Deputy Prime Minister about principles but that he is willing to throw them in the bin when it suits his party political purpose.

In addition to the exception for the Western Isles and others, the Government are making a further exception for the Isle of Wight, so there will now be two seats with 55,000 voters—so much for one vote, one value. The Government have put aside their concerns about the knock-on consequences and about equality of seats where it suits them, so equality is not the only value or issue being considered. It is obvious that there have to be exceptions on equality for the Bill to be workable in practice.

Lord Pannick’s amendment 19, which was passed by a fair majority in the other House, represents a compromise. To give the amendment the justice it deserves, it is not just the average between the positions of the Government and the Opposition, but a genuine refinement of the measure. To paraphrase, it is fair, reasonable and workable. Having constituencies that can vary in size, in exceptional circumstances, between 92.5% and 107.5% of the norm allows sufficient flexibility to satisfy the concerns of many who think that the Government’s approach way too rigid. When a Bill of this constitutional significance has not had proper pre-legislative scrutiny, it is incumbent on the Government to pause and consider the criticisms made by all-party Select Committees of the Commons and the Lords.

The amendment was moved in the other place by one of the country’s leading lawyers. If we ignore it, that raises questions about the purpose of having Cross-Bench experts in the other place. It was passed by a significant majority, but the Government, rather than seeking to accommodate it, are trying to overturn it in the Commons by taking advantage of their huge majority. The amendment was passed by a significant majority in the Lords after 60 new Government peers had been placed there. That speaks volumes about the merits of the arguments behind it.

Reliance on a rigid mathematical formula could result in problems in parts of the country where there is a risk that unique geographical and historical circumstances will be disturbed and that the local legitimacy of constituencies will be undermined. That is not just our opinion; it is shared in many quarters.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I want to make some progress.

Democratic Audit, a think-tank attached to the university of Liverpool, has argued that greater flexibility is needed in the system for a number of reasons. It would lead to far fewer county boundaries being crossed, a reduction in the number of wards being split, a lower chance of towns and villages being divided between constituencies and better community cohesion. Let me throw into the mix that such flexibility would also mean that the clarion calls from Cornwall for the preservation of parliamentary representation west of the Tamar would be satisfied—no doubt to the relief of those Members who represent the fiercely proud people of that part of the south-west.

I emphasise that the amendment is not partisan, so it ought to find favour on both sides of the House.

[Andrew George]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I want to finish my contribution so that others can speak.

The wording in Lord Pannick’s amendment is designed to prevent exceptional circumstances from simply becoming the norm—a concern that the Minister has articulated—and the Opposition do not question Lord Pannick’s legal judgment. His amendment is deliberately drafted to allow the boundary commissions very narrow discretion to depart from the electoral norm by up to another 2.5% either way. They could do that only if they believed that two criteria were satisfied. First, further departure would have to be “necessary”—not reasonable or desirable, but necessary. Secondly, the departure would have to be necessary in order to address “special geographical considerations” or local ties of an “exceptionally compelling nature”.

Lord Pannick has already forcefully demolished the arguments that the Minister put forward in his lengthy contribution today. It is worth reminding the House that before Lord Pannick drafted the amendment, he met the Leader of the House of Lords, the Government spokesman on these matters Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the Minister himself, and the Bill team. He then sought to address constructively in his amendment the concerns they had raised with him. I urge Members on both sides of the House to recognise the inherent sense of realism that the amendment brings to the Bill and I hope that they will see fit to support it in the Division Lobby.

18:29

[Andrew George]

I wish to make a few brief remarks on this most inflexible and rigid part of the Bill. The amendments would move things in the right direction by giving the boundary commissions greater latitude and flexibility than they would have had under the original Bill. In my view, that is a result of the intransigence of the Prime Minister, rather than the Deputy Prime Minister, in insisting that we adopt a situation in which there are just 600 MPs. A more flexible approach would have been to say that there should be no more than 600 and to allow the Boundary Commission the latitude and flexibility to interpret that alongside a clear instruction to work towards more equalised constituencies.

The Government have won that argument, and certainly the current range in electorate sizes across constituencies is intolerable and more effort must be made to achieve greater equality across constituencies. However, to do so in the sanitised, homogenised, rigid, inflexible and intransigent way that the Government propose is not the solution, because that will continue to create a wide range of significant anomalies across the country.

Given some of the interventions that we have heard, particularly from Government Members, it will be interesting to note how the work of the Boundary Commission will dawn on those Members as it does its work. They might believe that the whole town they represent, or the whole part of a shire county, for example, which they feel comfortable with, will not be changed, other than a little nibbling away at the boundaries, which they can tolerate. However, the Government’s approach will mean that we will end up with lines being drawn straight through those constituencies, and the associations that have been established over years between Members of Parliament and their towns will be divided as a result.

I do not know how it will all pan out. As we have heard, although there will be guidance for the Boundary Commission to work within what I call the Government zones, but which others have described as regional boundaries, there is no absolute requirement for it to do so.

[Mr Mark Field]

Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that every major boundary review, including those that took place before the 1983, 1997 and 2010 elections, resulted in more than half of all constituencies changing, often substantially. That is the nature of any boundary review.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I think that the inflexibility of the proposals will result in much more significant changes across the country. Having argued that we should have far fewer MPs than even proposed in the Bill, I am not averse to the idea of significant changes being made at one time to the process by which MPs are elected, but I do not think that it should happen every five years, irrespective of what has happened before. That will happen across the country every five years, and as a result of these proposals the changes will be very significant indeed.

All I am asking is that the Government take a less intransigent and more flexible approach—the 7.5% figure is a reasonable extension, frankly. In order to be able to address many of the anomalies, from Argyll and Bute to the Cornish seats and the highlands, the Boundary Commission will need to be given a great deal more latitude than the amendment proposes, as the Minister has rightly said. We had the opportunity to extend the exceptional geographical circumstances of the Western Isles—

[Mr MacNeil]

Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

[Andrew George]

Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and Orkney and Shetland. When one considers the geographic arguments for those constituencies’ exceptional status, one sees that it is reasonable to argue that exceptional geographical status can be justifiably extended to other constituencies.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I am a supporter of Cornwall in that argument, and of Isle of Wight and Argyll and Bute. Following an earlier question to the Minister, I have a question for the hon. Gentleman. Given the geographical constraints on his constituency in the south-west, from where the Boundary Commission will obviously have to start moving, how much more territory will have to come into his constituency? He is restricted to the north, south and west and so can expand only eastwards to increase his electorate to roughly 80,000.

[Andrew George]

I am not engaged in special pleading. My constituency is in the bottom left-hand corner and as far away from England as one can get in Cornwall, and of course it includes the Isles of Scilly, which have some special geographical considerations, so it is clear that I do not need to worry. There will no doubt be some oscillation of the constituency’s eastern boundary. I am here not for special pleading, but because I believe that a significant injustice is going on across the whole country and that the intransigence in the way it is being handled is simply unacceptable.

[Mrs Laing]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew George]

I will not give way, because we have only 11 minutes left and I want to finish to allow other Members to speak. We had the option of extending to other constituencies the exceptional geographical status that is applied to Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney and Shetland and the other places that have been mentioned. All the amendment would do is give the Boundary Commission reasonable latitude and discretion to accept the arguments for exceptional status that will inevitably arise. Otherwise, the Government’s intransigence will leave a legacy that I believe the House will regret.

[Paul Murphy]

I do not understand why the Government and the Minister are being so rigid and fundamentalist on this issue. The Minister has already accepted the principle that there can be 5% leeway in the size of the electorate and that that flexibility is the result of local ties and circumstances. Many of us wanted a flexibility of 10%, but the Government wanted 5%. After weeks of debate in the House of Lords and in this Chamber, he is for some reason sticking to the rigidity of 5%, despite knowing full well that the 7.5% flexibility would not result in the problems that he has suggested. Of course it would not, because the principles are exactly the same.

The Minister represents a constituency that has distinctive circumstances as a result of its locality—the former coal-mining area of Forest of Dean. If it was turned into Gloucestershire parliamentary district No. 3, does he think that that is how his constituents would want to be represented in the House of Commons? Of course they would not. They would want to ensure that they have someone who understands their locality and all the special reasons that make it so important. I have already named two examples from Wales, as we have a number of Welsh-speaking constituencies that, generally speaking, have Welsh-speaking MPs to represent their linguistic interests in the House. With the 25% reduction in MPs for Wales, that is no longer likely to be the case.

[Tristram Hunt]

Does that not point to a lack of understanding about the nature of the Union? Those balances and inequalities are represented in this Chamber, because that is the price of holding together the Union, and the Government’s utilitarian approach does no favours to the United Kingdom.

[Paul Murphy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in the sense that the unity of our kingdom is based on the recognition of the differences within it. Those differences can be reflected linguistically, culturally, socially and in other ways. The rigidity with which the Government have embarked on this course puts that Union in danger.

[Mr Harper]

I set out from the Government’s perspective the reason why we settled on plus or minus 5%—a 10% range that is based on more equal seats but allows the use of wards as building blocks. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the principled reason why he thinks that 7.5% either side of that quota is the right number?

[Paul Murphy]

That extra flexibility allows for the factor that I have just described in Wales and elsewhere to be taken into account—of course it does. I should argue very strongly for 10%, but the Government have a particular principle behind their legislation, which incidentally is based not in any way on logic, but on expediency.

[Mrs Laing]

The right hon. Gentleman is doing very well, as ever, at putting before the House what appears to be an argument based on principle, but in reality are not he and his Labour party colleagues afraid of the inflexibility of a 5% variation, because it would take away their in-built advantage under the current unfair system?

[Paul Murphy]

In the examples that I have just given, of Welsh-speaking constituencies in Wales, the seats are held mainly by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrat party, so there is no advantage for the Labour party in that. I am not arguing a partisan point; I am arguing that 7.5% would provide for that flexibility throughout the United Kingdom and avoid the worst excesses of the Bill.

[Mr MacNeil]

A couple of moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Union might become weaker with the passage of the Bill. How much weaker does he think that 88-year-old Union—stretching back to 1922—might be after Royal Assent tomorrow?

[Paul Murphy]

The Union will be weaker as a result, because the Bill will not take into account the various points that I have just described. If we do not allow the small countries within our larger country to be properly represented within the Chambers of the legislature, we will ensure a bad effect on the relations between different parts of that country.

As a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I really do not believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, that the Government have thought for one second about the political impact of the changes before us on the constituency boundaries in Northern Ireland. They do not understand that, when we drew up the Good Friday agreement, much of our argument was about how we could create a sensitive balance between Catholic and Protestant, Unionist and nationalist in Northern Ireland. That balance will be upset by the rigidity on which the Government have embarked, and at this very last moment I urge the Minister and the Government to change their minds.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My problem with Lords amendment 19 is new paragraph 5A(b) of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which states that

“such necessity arises from special geographical considerations or local ties”.

I want to focus on “local ties”, because that is why I shall vote against the amendment. It is bad law, and, looking at “local ties” and how that might be expanded, we should consider my seat, Elmet and Rothwell.

First, let us focus on Rothwell, which between 1917 and 1955 had its own parliamentary constituency. After that, it was included in others, and at the most recent election it fell outside a safe Labour seat for the first time, making me the first Conservative MP for Rothwell.

Moving on to special interests and local ties of an “exceptionally compelling nature”, however, I note that outside my constituency there is a village called Sherburn in Elmet. Many people in that part of the world, when I tell them that I am the MP for Elmet and Rothwell, say, “Ah, I live in Sherburn in Elmet; you’re my MP,” but of course, I am not, because it is not in my constituency.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour refers to Sherburn in Elmet. I assure him that the people of Sherburn in Elmet consider themselves very much in North Yorkshire and would be appalled at the idea of being seen as part of Leeds.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Absolutely. That makes my point entirely. When considering special circumstances and local ties, would not Sherburn in Elmet, part of the Celtic kingdom of Elmet, become part of a constituency incorporating Elmet? Would that not come under special interests and considerations? Would not precedent be brought forward in the courts in terms of representing that seat? The amendment is absolute nonsense which leads to grey areas in the Bill.

I want to talk about the 5% barrier. In the Leeds area, Elmet and Rothwell has 78,000 electors, and perhaps this point did not occur to the Opposition when they put their proposal together, but their variations on 76,000, the figure in the Bill, take us perilously close to the 68,000 electors in Leeds North East, a Labour seat; to the 65,000 electors in Leeds East, also held by Labour; and to the 65,000 electors in Leeds Central—Labour. The only exceptions are Morley and Outwood, which has 74,000 electors, although I believe the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) would need only a 1.5% swing to lose the seat; and Pudsey, which has 69,000 electors. The 5% barrier is fine; it allows us not to go down the path of dividing villages or streets. The idea of trying to increase the percentage is just an attempt to preserve the Labour party’s in-built advantage.

[Mrs Laing]

The amendment cannot stand: first, it is unclear, and it would be wrong for this House to make laws that are unclear; and secondly, it is unfair.

18:46

Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.

18:47

Division 202

Ayes: 317

---

Conservative: 268
Liberal Democrat: 49

Noes: 250

---

Labour: 224
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 6
Liberal Democrat: 4
Conservative: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 16 disagreed to.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 19.—(Mr Harper.)

19:01

Division 203

Ayes: 320

---

Conservative: 269
Liberal Democrat: 51

Noes: 249

---

Labour: 224
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 6
Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 19 disagreed to.

19:15

[Mr Harper]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 17.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment 20 and Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu.

[Mr Harper]

The amendments concern the effect on the Isle of Wight of the Government’s proposals for votes to have more equal weight, which has been a subject of much debate both inside and outside Parliament. I know that myself, having visited the Isle of Wight at the invitation of its Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), last autumn.

As we said in the earlier debates, the Government believe that the principle of one elector, one vote—or, rather, one vote, one value—is paramount. [Interruption.] I think we all agree with the first proposition. There is consensus on that. It is right that electors across the UK should have an equal say not just in their choice of local representative, but in who form the Government of the day. As I said in the previous debate, for votes to have equal weight in a single-member constituency system, constituencies must contain a broadly equal number of electors.

Although absolute equality would be right in principle if—as was said in a previous debate—we were all desiccated calculating machines, in the real world some flexibility is needed to recognise local circumstances. Exceptions compromise equality, so the Government’s view is that the number of exceptions must be very limited. [Interruption.] Calm down. The Bill presented to the House by the Government provided for only two specific exemptions from the parity rule for two Scottish island constituencies —Na h-Eileanan an Iar and Orkney and Shetland. The rationale for those exceptions was clear. They are remote island groups not readily combinable with the mainland, and legislation in practice already recognises their unique geographical circumstances.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is always generous with his—with the House’s time. He mentioned the issue of the highlands. Is he not aware that in Scotland there are many islands? I look to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), where there are a large number of islands attached to the mainland. North Ayrshire and Arran also has an island.

[Mr Harper]

My point was that the exemptions were for remote island groups not readily combinable with the mainland. In the two examples that the hon. Gentleman gives, the islands are already combined with the mainland as a parliamentary constituency. That is a clear distinction. I do not understand the point he makes.

[Albert Owen]

I represent a distinct island community. Previously, when I supported the Isle of Wight and other constituencies being lumped together, the argument was that it did not have enough electorate. Now the Government’s proposal is for two distinct seats on the Isle of Wight, with 50,000 electors each. My constituency, Ynys Môn, the isle of Anglesey, has 50,000-plus, so the rationale has changed. Will the Minister reconsider the uniqueness of islands? The existence of a bridge does not make it any less an island or a community.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman should wait to hear my argument. In the previous debate, Opposition Members made great play of the fact that when the House of Lords votes on matters, this House should consider them. The Government were clear about the Bill that we introduced. We were clear in the House of Lords about our argument. We resisted Lord Fowler’s amendment, but Members of all parties in the House of Lords did not agree with the Government. If hon. Members will allow me to make some progress in my argument, I will explain why the Government have tabled the amendments in lieu.

The Scotland Act 1998 provided a specific exemption for Orkney and Shetland. There are other constituencies that include or comprise islands, but these have either already been combined with the mainland or, in the Government’s view, such combination would be possible. Clearly, the Isle of Wight does not face the same geographic circumstances as the island constituencies in Scotland. Newport is only three hours from London, and there are regular ferry crossings. In shaping our proposals, we took account of the fact that the island increasingly looks to the mainland in pursuit of greater partnership—for example, in the creation of the Solent local enterprise partnership, which is supported by the island council and covers the economic area of south Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. [Interruption.] Well, I am arguing that that is why the Government thought it was perfectly possible to combine the Isle of Wight with the mainland. The House of Lords, though, took a different view.

In coming to the view that the island should not be granted a specific exemption, we concluded that the practical problems that would arise for an MP attempting to represent a constituency that is already the length of Wales, as in the case of Na h-Eileanan an Iar, or some 12 to 13 hours from the mainland by ferry, as in the case of Orkney and Shetland, would not arise for a cross-Solent MP. We were not persuaded that an MP could not effectively represent two different communities, as a cross-Solent MP would have to do. Many Members represent constituencies that contain citizens with a range of diverse cultures, languages and interests.

We have, however, listened to the arguments put forcefully in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and in the other place, most notably by Lord Fowler, who is with us this evening in spirit, and Lord Oakeshott. We judge that the strength of opinion evidenced by the vote on the amendment in the other place, which had cross-party support, including strong support from the Labour party, is such that the Bill should be amended so as not to require a constituency shared between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.

The amendment passed by the House of Lords was intended to achieve that, but it would leave to the discretion of the Boundary Commission for England the question of whether there should be one seat on the island or two. We believe that that poses some practical problems. For a start, the amendment does not specify the basis on which the Boundary Commission should decide how many seats to allocate the Isle of Wight. Nor does it except the constituency or constituencies on the Isle of Wight from the calculation of the electoral quota. The Isle of Wight’s smaller or larger than average constituencies would therefore have an effect on the average size of other constituencies across England. If an exception is to be made for the Isle of Wight, we believe that it should be treated the same as the other exceptions in the Bill in a consistent and fair way.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that the Boundary Commission has considered the boundaries of the Isle of Wight on a number of occasions, and has previously discussed whether there should be two constituencies? It has rejected that option on the grounds that it would be difficult to define where the boundary should be and what the islanders’ wishes were. If the Boundary Commission had discretion over exactly what happened, there might be a repeat of those previous processes unless it were directed to conclude otherwise.

[Mr Harper]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the views of local people, when I visited the island myself and spoke to people there, they were very clear that they were not being prescriptive about whether they wanted one seat or two. The clear message that I got was that they did not want one that crossed the Solent. They did not say that they wanted only one seat—they were relaxed about whether they should have one or two. I believe that the nub of Lord Fowler’s point was about the nature of a cross-Solent seat, and our amendments in lieu reflect that.

[Andrew George]

There are, of course, other parts of the country, including Cornwall, where people recognise boundaries in precisely the same way as people on the Isle of Wight recognise their boundary on the Solent. Is the irony not lost on the Minister that when we have 650 seats in the House of Commons the Isle of Wight has one, but when the Government are seeking to reduce the number of seats in this House significantly, they double that representation?

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my argument, which does not have very much—[Interruption.] No, I am just saying that I have not got to that bit yet. If he will let me, I will get to it.

The amendments that we have proposed in lieu of Lord Fowler’s amendments would resolve the problems that I have mentioned. The Boundary Commission would be required to create two constituencies wholly on the island. They would obviously be outside the range of 5% either side of the quota—otherwise we would not be having this debate in the first place—but each would be closer to the quota than a single island constituency would be. That would ensure that electors’ votes were closer in weight to those cast elsewhere in the UK, which we believe is important.

Our amendments also make consequential adjustments to the formula used to apportion seats to the constituent parts of the UK and to calculate the UK electoral quota, so as to be consistent with the approach taken to the other exceptions in the Bill. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who is not in her place, they will therefore provide the Boundary Commission for England with a clearer task than under the amendment made in the other place.

[Tristram Hunt]

What is the difference in actual votes between the 76,000 quota and Isle of Wight constituencies of 110,000 or 55,000 people? Would 3,500 votes mean another whole constituency in the House, when the number is going from 650 to 600?

[Mr Harper]

I am sadly not able to do the maths at the Dispatch Box, but we have examined the matter, and what I have just said is borne out. I will do the maths when I sit down, or maybe inspiration will strike me, but two seats would be closer to the quota than one. That is the basis for our decision, which is very clear [Interruption.] The debate in the House of Lords supporting the amendment of the—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I know that hon. Members feel very strongly about this matter, but persistent heckling really is not what we expect in the Chamber. Interventions, yes, but not heckling.

[Mr Harper]

The amendment that was accepted by their lordships’ House, which we accept in principle, was supported by all parties. The Cross Benchers supported it, along with every Labour peer who voted in the Division, some Liberal Democrats and some bishops. However, we believe that the Boundary Commission needs to be given clarity and certainty so that we do not end up with a confusing and challengeable boundary review.

[Mark Reckless]

We might note the precedent of what the Boundary Commission has done in the past when it has had to choose whether to give, say, two or three seats to a London borough. Its decision has been based on trying to get as arithmetically close to the quota as possible. The amendment clarifies exactly that principle for the Isle of Wight. If the matter had been left to the Boundary Commission, precedent suggests that it would have given the Isle of Wight two seats rather than one.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is quite right, but it is important for the Boundary Commission to be certain about the matter at the beginning, so that it can then undertake the rest of the boundary process. If the decision were up to the commission and it were to make a certain assumption in its initial proposals, and then come to a different conclusion as a result of the extensive written consultation process and public hearings that we have laid in place, it would have to make a radical change to the proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who is now back in her place, said in a previous debate, certainty and clarity are very important to ensure that the boundary review is carried out properly.

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

I support the amendments fully, but once the Isle of Wight has been given two seats, the argument for absolute uniformity has fallen, which it did not in the case of Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Shetland Islands and so on. If the Isle of Wight can have special treatment, why not Cornwall and, as far as I am concerned, why not Somerset? Every county now has a special case to make that ought to be considered. In largely accepting the Lords amendment, the Government have given the game away.

19:30

[Mr Harper]

I think that my hon. Friend helps my argument. As I said, this is part of the parliamentary process. The Government introduced a Bill, which did not include an exception for the Isle of Wight. When Lord Fowler tabled his amendment, the Government strongly resisted it—indeed, we were criticised for doing that—but the House of Lords took a different view. My hon. Friend mentioned Cornwall, but the House of Lords debated Cornwall, voted on it, and decided, by a considerable margin, that the case for Cornwall had not been made. I appreciate that some hon. Members disagree, but that was the view that the House of Lords reached. It did not reach the same view about the Isle of Wight. There was a majority of 74 in the other place for making an exception for the Isle of Wight. That was not the Government’s position, but a strong message from the other place.

Inspiration has now struck me, and I can answer the question that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) asked. Based on 2009 figures, one seat would be 34,366 away from the UK quota and the two seats would be 20,748 away from the quota. That is a significant narrowing of the difference.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Although the Lords are wonderful guardians of our constitution, the debate has seen any number of perfectly sensible amendments rejected, and the Government have not lost a single vote in the House. I therefore do not see the logic of saying, “We must give in to the Lords on this, but on everything else we’ll tell them they’re wrong and send the Bill back.”

[Mr Harper]

I think the difference is the strength of view in the other place on the matter. [Interruption.] That view was also consistent and cross party. The Labour Lords who voted in the Division in the other place all supported Lord Fowler’s amendment. It is therefore extraordinary that Labour Members are making so much noise now. The Government have acknowledged the debate at the other end of the corridor. Given my hon. Friend’s previous comments about their lordships, I would have thought that he saw more strength in the case. On the basis of the arguments that I have set out, I hope that that case will be supported.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but I think that that was the shabbiest speech I have heard from a Conservative Member. The Parliamentary Secretary appeared to suggest that Labour Members are now arguing against what we supported in the House of Lords. We support what was carried in the House of Lords: we would prefer the amendment that was carried there to be accepted here. It is absolutely shoddy that the Government, to give themselves an extra parliamentary seat, will provide for two seats for the Isle of Wight. It is not so much a gerrymander as a ferrymander.

As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) effectively said, the Parliamentary Secretary has driven a coach and horses through his own argument. His argument so far has been that there must be equalisation at all costs. It has been, “Don’t recognise local ties, county boundaries or ward boundaries.” He tries to insist on mathematical perfection, but when it comes to this one place, there must be an exception.

We agree that there should be exceptions. We believe that there should be some other exceptions, too. The argument that the Parliamentary Secretary makes could and should apply to Cornwall, Somerset and all the counties—and, indeed, ward boundaries. We should recognise more exceptions.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I wish that the hon. Gentleman could have presented that argument precisely and briefly when the Bill was previously in the House, then perhaps we could all have had the chance to debate the subject at an earlier stage. However, does he agree that the debate about Cornwall in another place focused on cultural issues rather than geographical considerations? Sadly, the Government’s approach does not address those factors.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. Some specific geographical issues need to be borne in mind. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will hate any reference to my constituency, but a former Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, Alec Jones, was once presented with a suggestion that the Cynon valley should be included in the Rhondda constituency, even though for much of the year it is almost impossible to get from one to the other. Alec Jones wisely said, “Bloody hell, somebody’s got hold of a flat map.” Those are precisely the sort of arrangements that we will end up with.

[Stephen Williams]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, because the hon. Gentleman voted for the programme motion. There is a short time left and we ought to hear from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who should be the only hon. Member for the Isle of Wight.

The argument that has been adduced in favour of the Isle of Wight should surely apply to Anglesey, too. There is no argument against that—except for the fact that it is represented by a Labour Member, and happens to be in Wales.

There is an additional problem with the Government amendments. Because they are trying to force two parliamentary seats on the Isle of Wight—I suspect that that does not reflect the view of the people of the Isle of Wight; they think that it should be separate from Hampshire, but they have not argued for two seats—it will be difficult to draw the boundary. We are more likely to end up with one constituency of 60,000 or 65,000 and one of 30,000 or 35,000 than an exact divide.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, too, voted for the programme motion, so I shall not give way.

Someone of cynical mind could look at the list of parliamentary constituencies for which exceptions are being made and draw conclusions: one, by virtue of 13,000 sq km, to the Liberal Democrats; one, for Orkney and Shetland, to the Liberal Democrats, one, for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, to the nationalists—at the moment, but I hope for not much longer—and two for the Isle of Wight. Some have suggested that that means two Tory seats in the Isle of Wight. It may be one Tory and one Liberal Democrat: perhaps that is the rescue seat for the Deputy Prime Minister come the next general election.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I had a speech prepared to deliver today, but I do not think that I shall need it; I am using another.

Let us go over what happened. When I first heard of the proposals, I got together with the County Press, the island’s weekly paper, and Isle of Wight Radio, our local radio station, to see how “we” could fight “them”. It was energising to do that. We all met representatives from the island’s Labour party and Liberal Democrats—and, of course, the Conservatives—as well as the chamber of commerce, and the One Wight campaign was formed.

We appointed a non-political spokesman, Richard Priest, who has done an admirable job of fronting the campaign.

[Mr MacNeil]

I would just like to point out that there was some international support from the SNP.

[Mr Turner]

That is correct, but I would not use the word “international”.

Although opinion was divided on whether the ideal solution was for one or two MPs, we were united at the outset in the view that what was simply unacceptable was the notion of one and a half MPs, with one part of the island placed in an unholy alliance with a part of the mainland.

Eventually we all agreed that even if the island were to remain under-represented, that was a price worth paying. We got support from many places. Among many others, printing was done free of charge by Crossprint; Marc Morgan-Huws of the bus company Southern Vectis donated the use of the One Wight bus, which thousands of people signed, and Paul Bertie of World Leisure printed T-shirts for the campaigners. I would like to thank them all, as well as those whom I do not have time to mention. Everyone involved played a significant part.

My amendment was not debated in this Chamber and there was no vote, but I want to place on record my gratitude to the hon. Members from all parties who pledged their support for it. I like to think that we would have won if the opinion of the House had been tested. None the less, the Bill went to the other place unamended, and the island’s cause was taken up by Lord Fowler, who is a long-term resident of Seaview, on the island. His skilful management in the other place led to a significant victory and a majority of 74 in favour of keeping the Isle of Wight separate. He found support from all parties, as I did, for the island’s cause, in addition to considerable support from Cross Benchers.

I thank all the noble Lords and Ladies who supported the amendment, and I pay tribute to Lord Fowler. His many years of experience in this House and the other place stood him in good stead in fighting the island’s cause. The whole island owes him a debt of gratitude. I hope that Seaview residents, after short congratulations and celebrations, will permit him to return to a once-again peaceful island.

The fact that islanders were prepared to be under-represented added to the strength of our argument, but the Government were scrupulously fair, and once they accepted the case that we should be separate, they offered us, like the Scottish islanders, over-representation, which I welcomed.

[Tristram Hunt]

In a perfect world, would the hon. Gentleman be in favour of a single Member or two Members for the Isle of Wight?

[Mr Turner]

I am in favour of whatever is voted for by the island.

I admit that I felt a twinge of sadness at the thought that I would be the last MP for the Isle of Wight, but the right decision has been made for the island and I support it unequivocally. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to the arguments and for making the right choice, albeit rather late in the day.

This is a victory for the island and the islanders. Everyone who supported us can be proud of the part that they played. I look forward to joining hon. Members of all parties in the Aye Lobby.

[Albert Owen]

It is a great pleasure to follow a fellow islander in this debate. I supported the Isle of Wight exception all the way through, and like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), I have been consistent in the view that there should be exemptions for unique island constituencies such as his and Ynys Môn—the Isle of Anglesey.

I have a lot of respect for the Minister, who has had a difficult job in presenting the Bill to the House. He has been courteous and amicable in taking interventions. He was rigid in his responses, and always said that he would not give an exemption to the Isle of Wight and gave his reasons for that. However, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, the Minister has now let the cat out of the bag: the exemption is a political fix, pure and simple. To argue for days and days in the House for no exemption for the Isle of Wight, Cornwall and other historic places, and then all of a sudden to make a U-turn for political advantage, is an absolute disgrace.

The people of Anglesey are proud people. It has been a seat since 1535, during which time it has been represented by four different parties, which is perhaps unique in the House. The Liberal Democrats represented Anglesey for many years, as did the Conservatives. I can tell the House that Anglesey will give its verdict in the May elections on its shabby treatment by this coalition Government of Liberals and Conservatives.

Wales has not been treated fairly in the Bill. The 25% reduction in the number of seats is an absolute disgrace. What is more, the Anglesey community is unique. It is coterminous with the county council. It has unique linguistic as well as historic characteristics, but they have not been recognised.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight was supportive of islands such as mine, and I am still supportive of his, but the Government have gone a step too far by conceding seats that will represent in the region of 50,000 to 55,000 electors. If they want to put that down as a marker, they should reconsider seats such as Anglesey. The island will be a single constituency in National Assembly for Wales, so there will be confusion at the next elections if they take place on the same day. One set of voters will be voting for the island and another set will be voting for the island-plus. That is completely and utterly wrong, and the Minister should reflect on it. He is looking at his notes, and he has been courteous all the way through, but I hope that he can now somehow please Wales, because thus far, Wales has been treated grossly unfairly.

19:44

[Dr Whitehead]

I want briefly to reflect the view from the other side of the Solent. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who has fought a magnificent campaign on the principle that the Isle of Wight should be a constituency in its own right. Indeed, the island is a unitary authority. It has close links with the other side of the Solent but it is a distinct community, council and island, with its own practices and traditions, rights and functions.

Before becoming a unitary authority the island was divided into two district authorities. As hon. Members who took any interest in that arrangement will know, the division of an island that is essentially a unitary entity proved extremely difficult. I predict that should two seats be required for the Isle of Wight, a similar difficulty in defining what part of the island goes—

19:50

Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 17.

Lords amendment 17 disagreed to.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 20.—(Mr Harper.)

19:47

Division 204

Ayes: 311

---

Conservative: 262
Liberal Democrat: 49

Noes: 244

---

Labour: 223
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 5
Liberal Democrat: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 20 disagreed to.

Amendments (a) to (e) proposed in lieu of Lords amendments 17 and 20.—(Mr Harper.)

Question put, That the amendments be made.

20:00

Division 205

Ayes: 318

---

Conservative: 266
Liberal Democrat: 52

Noes: 233

---

Labour: 220
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Amendments (a) to (e) made in lieu of Lords amendments 17 and 20.

Clause 1

Referendum on the alternative vote system

[Mr Harper]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (a) and Lords amendment 8.

[Mr Harper]

The first amendment to be moved on Report in the other place by the noble Lord Rooker and agreed to by a majority of just one vote provides that:

“If less than 40% of the electorate vote in the referendum, the result shall not be binding.”

The Government oppose the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill on two key grounds. First, it goes against our view that people should get what they vote for, and, secondly, it introduces the perverse consequences associated with thresholds.

Before going into those arguments, however, I should remind colleagues that we have debated the question of whether to impose a 40% turnout threshold before, when an amendment to this effect was tabled on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I note that he has tabled an amendment today that seeks to reintroduce his proposal from Report, turning Lord Rooker’s proposal into a straightforward turnout threshold by mandating the Minister to repeal the AV provisions in the event that turnout is less than 40%. It is worth recording that, when this House voted on that proposal the first time round, it was resoundingly rejected by 549 votes to 31. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), speaking for the Opposition, said that he did not think it appropriate to bring in a threshold.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

My next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), is often very wise, and I have had the chance to reconsider my position on this matter. Possibly the Minister has, too. I realise that the Deputy Prime Minister—he who has just discovered that there are alarm clocks in Britain, and who feels the pain of the cuts by shopping at Sainsbury’s instead of Ocado—is the most derided politician in the land at the moment, and that people are not exactly going to be galloping to his support, but is not a 40% threshold appropriate for a constitutional change such as this?

[Mr Harper]

I shall treat the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks as political posturing and nonsense that have nothing to do with the Lords amendments. On his second point, I shall explain why I will be urging the House, in a consistent way, to take the same view on these matters that it took in Committee and on Report, whereas the hon. Gentleman, if those on his Front Bench follow suit, would seem to be demonstrating a bit of shameless opportunism.

[Mr Cash]

Does the Minister not think that it might be a little shameless to leave the House of Lords to discuss questions relating to voting in constituencies by our own constituents?

[Mr Harper]

I am sorry; I did not quite understand my hon. Friend’s point. We debated and voted on his proposal on thresholds in this House, and it was defeated by 549 votes to 31—[Interruption.] Well, my hon. Friend should have another go, because I did not really follow the point he was making.

[Mr Cash]

This is an electoral reform proposal in which we are asking the electorate to decide in a referendum what they want to do. Does he not think it a little shameless that the question of whether that decision should be subjected to the 40% test should be decided by the House of Lords rather than by the House of Commons? Perhaps my hon. Friend can answer if I put it that way.

20:15

[Mr Harper]

No, I think that the decision should ultimately be made by the elected House, which is why I will ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to disagree with the Lords amendment. I hope, following the logic of my hon. Friend’s argument, that he will support the Government in the Lobby.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does the Minister acknowledge, as we are facing a considerable and potentially irreversible constitutional change, that a precedent has been set by the Scotland Act 1978, which made provision for a turnout threshold? That was among the reasons why the then Labour Government subsequently foundered, following the withdrawal of support by the Scottish National party. So a precedent has already been set for a turnout threshold.

[Mr Harper]

In that case, it was not proposed by the Government, so I do not think that that makes the case. There was a clear vote in Scotland in favour of the proposal, but the turnout threshold was not reached. That did not settle the question; it merely enabled the question to fester for a number of years without being settled. I do not think that my hon. Friend is correct.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend says that he wants this matter to be decided by this House, but would not that be the effect of Lord Rooker’s amendment? If there were a lower than 40% turnout in the referendum, it would be for this House to decide what to do. Is that not a good idea?

[Mr Harper]

No, because it is more important to allow the people to decide. The coalition wants to enable the public to decide. I will explain in a moment why the effect of a threshold would be to deny the public that opportunity.

[Mr MacNeil]

The Minister is absolutely right to say that the 40% turnout threshold for the referendum in Scotland was wrong. As he said, it ensured that the will of the people was not acted upon. In fact, the will of the people was acted upon with bells on 18 years later, because the scare stories in 1979 brought us a Scottish Parliament that was far more powerful than an Assembly. The point tonight is that in a referendum on first past the post versus AV, there is a simple choice either way. If the public are sufficiently supportive of first past the post, it will win in a straight run-off against AV—and vice versa. If neither system can garner sufficient support, then so be it, but the Minister is absolutely right to say that there should be no threshold whatever. There should simply be a straight choice between the two.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the most convincing arguments was heard in our previous debates in this House, which is that a turnout threshold effectively makes every abstention a no vote. People abstain from voting in referendums for any number of reasons, but treating all those who abstain as effectively expressing a preference is not the right thing to do. A turnout threshold would give those in favour of a no vote a positive incentive to stay at home. As I said in our earlier debate, we should, as democrats, encourage people to go out there and vote yes or no. The important thing is that people take part, and a turnout threshold would encourage some of them to stay at home.

Such a barrier would also create some very strange mathematical scenarios. For example, if 39% of the electorate turned out, the result would not be binding, even if 75% of those votes were in favour of change. So, even if the public had expressed a clear preference, it would not count. On the other hand, a result in which 41% of the public had turned out, even if it were a narrow 51%:49% result, would count. There is no logic to that proposal; it makes no sense.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

This whole argument is against a motion that was not passed in the other place. It is against one that was defeated where there was a threshold that amounted to a veto on the result if the turnout were below that threshold. Does the Minister not accept that this Lords amendment is completely different in character? All it does—although it is a very important “all”—is to ensure that if there is a turnout of less than 40% in total, the matter will come back to this House. To pick up the Minister’s example, if, say, there were a 39% turnout and 75% of that 39% had voted in favour of a change in the voting system, I cannot conceive that this House would fail to endorse it. On the other hand, if there were a 25% turnout and if it were approved by only—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

In fairness, many Members want to contribute to the debate. Can we please come to the end of the question?

[Mr Straw]

In those other circumstances, the House would surely think again. Is that not a very sensible way of proceeding?

[Mr Harper]

No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are simply trying to ensure that the public get the choice. If we insert a threshold—even the one put forward by the noble Lord Rooker, which was supported in the other place by a majority of only one—it effectively means that we are saying to the public that even where there was a clear decision, it would not be binding and the matter would come back to this House. If we were to agree with it, there would be no point; if we were to overturn it, it would be outrageous. Thresholds are not part of the traditions and practice in this country. We have discussed the one example of where it was used, and we found that it was not a very good precedent.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me make a little more progress. I am conscious that other Members want to contribute and I have been generous in giving way.

As drafted, the Bill that left this House offered simplicity and, above all, certainty—the certainty that every vote would count and not be distorted by an artificial barrier. When people go to the polls on 5 May, we should listen to what they have to say, whatever their view. As well as the issues of principle that I have outlined, there are also some technical and practical deficiencies. Before I go on to them, I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).

[Mr Jenkin]

I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that the amendment only requires the House of Commons to think about a poor turnout and how to respond to the result under such circumstances rather than automatically triggering a small yes vote with a low turnout and a new voting system. Does the Minister not recognise the irony of his position? Here we are looking at a referendum that might introduce a new voting system under which a Member elected to this House will be required to get 50% of the votes cast, yet we cannot even put in a threshold to require a 40% turnout to give credibility to the result of a referendum. What serious constitution around the world does not have some form of threshold and why should we not introduce one in this case?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me be quite honest: a number of Members are still seeking to catch my eye, so we need shorter interventions.

[Mr Harper]

I will take your injunction as implicitly indicating that I should give way to fewer of them.

On the effect of AV, it is not, of course, the case under our system of optional preferential voting that it is necessarily 50% of the votes cast that counts; rather it is 50% of the vote remaining in the count. If lots of people choose not to accept a preference, AV does not imply that a Member of Parliament must get more than 50% of the vote. I simply disagree with my hon. Friend. He will know that I am as unenthusiastic about the alternative vote as he is, but I think the right thing to do, which is the Government’s policy, is to have the referendum so that he and I can go out and argue for a no vote, while other colleagues wanting a yes vote will make that case. We can then both seek to get as many people as possible to vote on our behalf. The Government’s view is that if there is a turnout threshold, it will provide an incentive for those who favour a no result to stay at home. I do not think that we should be encouraging that.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me make a little more progress.

There are some technical and practical deficiencies, some of which were partially addressed in Lord Rooker’s Third Reading amendment, which the Government did not oppose pending full consideration in the Chamber. The definition of electorate was dealt with, as was how the turnout would be calculated. A problem with the original amendment was not remedied, as it leads to the creation of an internal contradiction in the Bill. It makes no consequential change to clause 8 to clarify that, in a case where the turnout is less than 40%, the referendum result is no longer binding. As it stands, clause 8 provides that the result is binding, irrespective of the turnout.

In addition, neither amendment makes any reference to what kind of process would follow a non-binding result. In the debate, Lord Rooker and his colleagues indicated that, in the event of a yes vote where the turnout was less than 40%, the question of whether the AV provisions should be implemented should return to Parliament. That point has been repeated by Members of all parties, but it is not made clear in the Bill or in the Lords amendment with which we disagree. There are also some issues with the definition of turnout.

[Mrs Laing]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Given that my hon. Friend is the acting Chairman of the Select Committee, I will give way to her.

[Mrs Laing]

It is in my capacity as acting Chairman of the Select Committee that I wish to make this point. The amendment is—sadly, because I want to see thresholds, but not as the amendment introduces them—deficient. It is not clear. The definition of vote is not clear and the definition of electorate is not clear. The Electoral Commission provided the Select Committee with the evidence—I do not have time to provide it now, but it is on the record—and if a law is not clear, it is bad law.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is quite right. I was just coming on to the point that there is also the question of whether the definition of turnout in their Lordship’s amendment is correct. Lords amendment 8 specifies that

“the turnout figure is to be calculated on the basis that 100% is defined as the total number of individuals who are entitled to vote in the referendum, as defined in section 2; and… under Part 1 of this Act”.

That means that the turnout figure would not include those who had voted on the day, but whose votes were deemed, for whatever reason, to be void. Those void votes are not counted. As Lord Wallace noted in the other place, the Government’s view is that if eligible electors go to the polling station and vote, they have “turned out”, so they should be included within the turnout figure, even if their vote is subsequently deemed to be invalid. Although this aspect clarifies how to interpret Lords amendment 1, it does not necessarily do so in the right way.

[Mr Gray]

The Minister rests his argument on technicalities, which no doubt the Government could sort out by tabling amendments themselves. Returning to the main point of the debate, does he agree that Lord Rooker’s amendment would allow this House to decide how low the threshold should be if there were a very low turnout in the referendum? In other words, if, for the sake of argument there were a 5% turnout, would the Government believe that to be sufficient? No, I do not believe they would. If it were 35%, I believe they would. What level of turnout does the Minister believe to be a reasonable level to account for “the will of the people”? What would he view as a sensible turnout in the referendum—25% or lower?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend has made a number of points. Let me say first that I did not rely on the technical arguments; I made the principled case at the outset, before adding that serious technical amendments were involved. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) pointed out, the Government’s original position was simple and clear, the Lords amendments are complicated, and introduce a great deal of uncertainty.

In referring to what the House might do if the amendment were passed, my hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that some Members, understandably, wished to use an amendment passed in the other place by a majority of one as, effectively, a threshold amendment. If the threshold were below a certain point, they would wish to block the decision of the people. As I said earlier, we have taken the view that we should give the decision to the public, that we should campaign in favour of whatever is our side of the argument, and that we should all provide an incentive for the maximum possible turnout rather than some of us providing an incentive for those favouring a particular side of the argument to stay at home.

[Mr Winnick]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

I will take one more intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

20:30

[Mr Winnick]

There may well be a 40% turnout, but the turnout could be higher. Who knows? It will depend greatly on the campaign, and on the people’s interest or lack of it. However, will the Minister answer the question raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)? At what point below 40%—10%, 15%, or 20%—would the Government conclude that the result did not carry any credibility whatever?

[Mr Harper]

We have already discussed what constitutes the appropriate level of turnout, and the issue arises constantly when elections are held. However, when a general election produces a Government who may make significant changes, we do not say that a Member of Parliament has not been elected because the turnout was low. Indeed, when we debated the issue on another occasion, it was observed that a fair number of Members of Parliament would not be here if that had been the test. That is not the way in which we make judgments in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said that, as the Electoral Commission had pointed out, leaving the provisions in the Bill risked rendering the outcome of the referendum unclear both in law and on the ground. We think that the public should make the decision, and that the referendum should be binding and not subject to the turnout threshold. Our colleagues in the other place debated this proposal with their usual consideration and care, but, having done so, voted for it by the slimmest of margins—a majority of one. Having considered both the practical difficulties and the issues of principle, I believe that the arguments for overturning the decision in the other place are compelling. I ask the House to oppose both these amendments and the consequential amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister’s last few words were something of a giveaway. He suddenly introduced a threshold of his own: a special threshold for votes in the House of Lords, which must secure a bigger majority than one for the Government to take them seriously. That is an interesting innovation.

I will vote yes in the referendum in May, although I hear what is said by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), and I pay tribute to him. I recognise that the first occasion on which the House of Commons sat on its own was in his constituency, but that was only because it had been summoned to Shrewsbury first to see the hanging, drawing and quartering of the Welsh prince Dafydd ap Gruffudd—and that really was a shame.

I will support the alternative vote, which is why, in Committee, I strongly opposed what I considered to be wrecking amendments in respect of thresholds. However, I believe that this is an exceptional referendum for two reasons. First, unlike the vast majority of referendums that have been held in this country and many others, it will not just advise, but will implement legislation. That means that, if there is a yes vote, we will not have a second opportunity to consider all the elements of how the alternative vote will be implemented.

Secondly, as we have asserted from the outset, we do not believe that this referendum should be combined with elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and with local elections, because that will produce very different turnouts in different parts of the United Kingdom. There might well be deep resentment in one part of the United Kingdom because another part, on a very different turnout, had ended up with a different result.

[Stephen Williams]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, although there is very little time and he voted for the programme motion.

[Stephen Williams]

No threshold was involved in the referendum to create the National Assembly for Wales in the summer of 1997. The area represented by the hon. Gentleman, Rhondda Cynon Taf, voted yes in that referendum. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the votes of his own constituents should have been invalidated because the turnout was not above 40%?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I am not saying that at all, but that referendum was not an implementing referendum; nor was it held at the same time as other elections. That is a completely different matter therefore, and I think we behaved entirely properly in introducing our legislation for Wales. Incidentally, in the 3 March referendum I shall also be voting in favour.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the hon. Gentleman really saying, “These are my principles on referendums, but I don’t like them so I’ve got some other ones”? He says one thing on the one hand, and another thing on the other. There is no consistency at all from those on the Labour Front Bench.

[Chris Bryant]

No, that is not true. [Interruption.] Yes, it is interesting to hear an argument for consistency from a Scottish nationalist. That is almost as interesting as hearing that argument from a Liberal Democrat. [Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) was already laughing before I said that.

The Minister cited me, and claimed that I was going to say all sorts of things. Actually, in Committee in this Chamber I said that

“there is no fixed determined policy that we are completely and utterly in all cases implacably opposed to thresholds. Nor, for that matter, is there a belief that we ardently should have thresholds.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 847.]

My point is that there are times when thresholds might be suitable, and there are times when thresholds will not be suitable. Indeed, the Minister quoted a bit of my speech, but I went on to say that

“I fully understand that there are others who say that because of the way in which the Government are pushing forward with this legislation and because it is an implementing referendum, a threshold would be appropriate.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 849.]

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to 1979, when we had a Scottish referendum under the 40% turnout rule. A majority voted yes, the whole issue festered for 18 years, and when the Labour party came back to power and it had another referendum, it rightly learned the lessons of the past and did not have a 40% threshold. Will he please learn the lesson of the past?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That was why I was opposed to the versions of thresholds that were brought forward in Committee. There were two different versions. One was that it was necessary to get 25% of the electorate to vote yes, as well as more people voting yes than voting no. The other was a 40% threshold. If neither of those two conditions were reached, the result was to be an automatic no and we were to stick with first past the post.

That is not what this amendment’s threshold would do. This is a very different referendum, and consequently needs a very different style of threshold. All this threshold would do is say that Parliament ought to have a second thought. It would say that if we do not get up to 40%—if, for instance, the turnout in England is 15% or 20 %, whereas in Scotland and Wales it is closer to 43%, 44% or 45%—there ought to be a moment when Parliament thinks again about the implementing process in going forward.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished constitutionalist, and I wonder whether he thinks that in the context of referendums being used more frequently, and for deciding on European matters and constitutional issues, it would be a good idea to settle on a threshold for all referendums, so that people knew where they stood.

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am very grateful to be called distinguished about anything, but I do not think he would carry the House on that point. I am not a fan of referendums generally at all, because I think the whole point of parliamentary democracy is that Members are elected to take decisions, provide leadership and represent the people in our constituencies. I think that is the best way of advancing policy. However, where there are referendums, I think it is better if they are advisory ones rather than implementing ones. That is the point I would make about the whole referendum issue before us.

I think this is a special referendum and I therefore think it needs a special threshold. That is precisely what Lord Rooker’s amendment provides for, which is why we will be supporting it tonight.

[Stephen Williams]

I will be as brief as possible, as I know that many Members want to speak.

My basic point is that we have many elections in this country where we do not require a threshold in order to give legitimacy to the result. We know that this referendum is very likely to be taking place on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local government, and because of the historical pattern of those elections we also know there is likely to be a low turnout in them. In 2009, only two of the 23 wards that elected councillors in the city of Bristol had a turnout of more than 50% and only six had a turnout of more than 40%, and 15 had turnout percentages in the 30s or 20s, yet we do not say that the councillors elected to represent Bristol were not legitimate. We know that turnout usually dips in the year after a general election, and the turnouts in 1998 were even lower. In May 1998, I was last elected as a member of Bristol city council, in Cabot ward, on a turnout of 18%, although I received more than 53% of the vote. Nobody said that I was not fairly elected to represent the electors of that ward.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Stephen Williams]

I am about to stop to allow others to get in. Bristol’s turnout is traditionally higher than that of most of the other great urban areas of this country, yet we do not say that the people elected to run our great cities in England are not fairly elected and cannot make those decisions. We do not have thresholds for those elections, so we should not have a threshold in this circumstance either.

[Mr Straw]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I am a supporter of the alternative vote system, as I have made clear, not least in a tract that few people read, to which I contributed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in 1986. I also spelt it out in this House on 9 February 2010 in a very big debate on AV. On the issue of consistency, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) may recall that he voted against the whole idea of having a referendum on AV then, so there is always a place in heaven for sinners to repent. On the threshold, I say to him that the excuse of technical defects in an amendment is the last refuge of a Minister who has nothing to say. If the only problems with Lord Rooker’s amendment are technical defects, he should ask the parliamentary counsel to draft amendments and they will go through like a dose of salts.

On the principle, the Minister was arguing against an all-or-nothing threshold, saying that if we did not reach the threshold—this is a very different one from that for the Scottish Assembly in 1979—the whole referendum result would be nugatory. That is not the case here, because this is a skilfully put together threshold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda says, it does not render nugatory a result on a 39% or 35% turnout; it brings the matter back to this House. However, were the turnout derisory, we would of course need to think again. For those reasons, I strongly urge hon. Members from all parts of the House, regardless of their view on the merits or otherwise of AV, to vote for this Lords amendment.

[Mr Cash]

Last night, Lord Rooker, to whom I pay great tribute, said that his amendment required tweaking, which is what my amendment (a) does. In a nutshell, it says that if the threshold of 40% is not reached, the Minister would have an obligation to introduce legislation to repeal the alternative vote provisions. Why do I say that?

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Cash]

I will not give way.

I say that for a very simple reason, which is that when this House votes to pass legislation for a referendum so that the people can decide, just as it is necessary, according to the principles of the Bill, for there to be a system of preference voting that is said to be fair, so it has to be fair for the electorate as a whole to know that when the decision is taken there is a proper threshold. According to all the constitutional authorities, there is no credibility in a referendum whose turnout is less than 40%—I am talking about turnout, not a yes vote, which is what the Cunningham amendment related to in the 1970s. I tabled my amendment in order to be useful, to help the Government get this right and to help the Lords, who have done a great job, ensure fairness for the electorate by providing that a 40% threshold is the principle on which the provisions should go forward.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has referred to the wrecking amendments we debated and voted on in Committee. Essentially, what we have tonight are wrecking amendments that are bubble-wrapped. No matter what the sophistry of Opposition Front Benchers or anyone else, we know what the intention is: to put a serious and direct brake on the possibility of the referendum being won.

20:45

There will be barely 11 weeks of campaigning given the time left, and the imposition of a threshold will create a completely unequal situation. In the south of Ireland, people deliberately created all sorts of confusion during referendum campaigns so that they could say, “If you don’t know, vote no.” If we agree to anything that passes for any sort of threshold, people in this country will have an incentive to say, “If you don’t know, don’t vote”, knowing that votes that are not cast will count as votes against. That is completely unfair, and if people are supporting the Bill in the name of equal votes, they should not support a threshold that creates a completely unequal situation.

[Mr MacNeil]

If the threshold were accepted, would that mean that if neither the first-past-the-post nor the AV systems were acceptable to the people, the single transferable vote must be preferred? The threshold argument has to cut both ways.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. People might have a variety of reasons for not voting, such as that they do not believe the alternative vote is a big enough reform of the voting system. If people do not vote, that does not mean that they are voting for the status quo.

[Mr MacNeil]

I shall take full advantage of the remaining 30 seconds—

20:46

Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

20:46

Division 206

Ayes: 317

---

Conservative: 253
Liberal Democrat: 54
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 247

---

Labour: 217
Conservative: 20
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Lords amendment 8 disagreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 16, 19, 1 and 8.

That Chris Bryant, Mr Philip Dunne, Mr Mark Harper, Jonathan Reynolds and Stephen Williams be members of the Committee;

That Mr Mark Harper be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that over the past few weeks we have had to ask questions of the Government in relation to Home Office statements not being made to this House. We have strong indications this evening that tomorrow the Home Office is to make announcements on immigration policy that affect the immigration cap. We believe that the press lobby have been informed; indeed, the Minister responsible has offered an off-camera briefing to the press on the issues involved. How can we take this issue forward when it seems that the Home Office has now become a serial offender?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am grateful for having been given notice of that point of order. There is no information about a Government statement tonight. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Advice could be taken from the Table Office, and I suggest that he seek it there.

Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill (Money)

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

Queen’s recommendation signified.

21:01

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred in consequence of this Act by a Minister of the Crown, government department or other public authority.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) for introducing this important Bill. I am pleased to confirm the Government’s support for the Bill, subject to certain amendments at the Committee stage. On Second Reading, it was the will of the House that the Bill should be discussed in Committee.

The primary measure that the Government are supporting is the requirement for contracting bodies to consider how they might promote or improve economic, social or environmental well-being when commissioning services. This includes a requirement that authorities consider whether to consult the persons who will benefit from the service. The decision on how authorities should take account of this wider value is left to the authority. It is already best practice to take account of wider value when undertaking procurement and to consult in such circumstances, and guidance and tools are already available. For an individual contracting authority, the costs are likely to be small. The measure therefore triggers the need for this new money resolution, which I commend to the House.

21:03

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I do not wish to detain the House for much longer on this matter. The Opposition supported the Bill on Second Reading, and we wish to see it go into Committee, where we think it can be strengthened. We very much want local authorities to have strategies in place to promote social enterprises and to consider how they can better meet the needs of their communities and continue to develop public services in a way that it is truly responsive to local needs. We therefore support the resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Senior Courts of England and Wales

That the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2010 (S.I., 2010, No. 3038), dated 23 December 2010, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 December, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Court of Judicature: Northern Ireland

That the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 3) 2010 (S.R. (N.I.), 2010, No. 430), dated 23 December 2010, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 December, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Political Parties, Northern Ireland

That the draft Control of Donations and Regulation of Loans etc. (Extension of the Prescribed Period) (Northern Ireland) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.—(James Duddridge.)

Question agreed to.

Economic Development (North-East)

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.)

21:04

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

Now is an appropriate time to sound a warning about the changes that are being made to economic development structures in north-east England. The extent to which the coalition Government intend to abandon the Labour Government’s approach to these issues is now clear, as is the outline of their successor strategy, such as it is. It is my contention that the coalition approach is fundamentally wrong on both counts.

The economic development issues facing north-east England are not typical of those facing the United Kingdom as a whole. Of course our region is not sheltered from national and international economic trends. Regional economic development in the north-east is dominated not so much by our unique industrial history as by our transition from it. No region has done more to help itself, and there was a broad consensus in the region on the economic development strategy until the last election.

I had the honour and privilege of being Minister for the North East in the Labour Government. I tried to do the job in a less partisan, party political way, certainly less so than my other ministerial job. My objective was to drive up the prosperity of the region by broadening and diversifying its employment base, with an emphasis on the private sector. That strategy was right for the north-east. It is not for the state to pick private sector winners and losers, but it is for the state to respond at regional level to private sector-led initiatives and to work closely with the private sector in bringing promising projects to fruition.

Our region is essentially two conurbations and a rural hinterland. We make up 4% of the United Kingdom’s population. The single regional structure of the Government Office and, in particular, the development agency worked well for us.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unique thing about the north-east is that there has been support going back many years not just from councils and the public sector, but from the private sector, the TUC and other sectors recognising the need for the region to speak with one voice?

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great things about economic development in our region is that it has proceeded with consensus, with buy-in right across the region sector by sector, including the public, private and voluntary sectors. We have understood the need to stick together, to talk to each other and to speak coherently on the issues. The fact that we did so is one of the great successes of our region.

Through the single approach that we took, we were able to avoid the poverty of ambition and the attendant dangers of parochialism. Working relationships across agencies and between the private and public sector were good, and there was a general feeling in the region that we were getting somewhere.

On Teesside, the issues relating to Corus and the process industry have features in common. The way forward has to be private sector-led. The private sector needs dialogue with national Government through the regional development agency. It is not reasonable to ask local government, even neighbouring local authorities acting in concert, to deal with issues of this scale. The same is true for the economic development potential of the underused industrial sites at the east end of the Tees valley.

In our region, there was general enthusiasm for the carbon reduction strategy, and for applying our traditional industrial and manufacturing skills to the challenges of combating climate change. There is excitement about the development of the electric car at Nissan. The region is also host to other electric vehicle manufacturers. The Clipper offshore wind factory at the Walker technology park is the only such factory in the UK so far. The potential for the development of printable electronics at Thorn, the innovative photovoltaic products of Romag glass, and the strong case made by Rio Tinto at BIyth and the mutually compatible bid from Tees Valley to be part of a carbon capture and storage pilot, all show how deep and widespread the region’s enthusiasm for this approach goes. We are, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) pointed out recently to the House, host to the United Kingdom’s green pub of the year, the outstanding Battlestead’s hotel at Wark.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

There is great enthusiasm not only for green pubs but, as my right hon. Friend said, for the new technologies in the region. Does he agree that as well as being great in the private sector, that enthusiasm needs to be matched by the public sector so that the supply chains and the skills that the new technologies need are provided?

[Mr Brown]

I strongly agree with all that. In my discussions with individual public sector agencies, as well as with private sector companies, that enthusiasm was matched right across the piece. People understand the importance of it and see the opportunities for the economy of our region. One of my misgivings about the Government’s approach is that the public sector’s ability to respond is financially constrained.

The policy approach that we adopted meant that our region had the fastest growth rates of any English region right up until the banking crisis. The Pricewaterhouse study of One North East found that, over a five-year period, the agency had directly created more than 24,000 jobs, helped to create over 1,000 new businesses, helped a further 1,700 companies improve their business performance, helped more than 6,000 people into employment, and assisted more than 98,000 people to gain new skills. In particular One North East’s work in the area of business competitiveness and development, which covers activities such as overseas investment and enterprise support, realised an overall return of £8 for every £1 spent.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend did on behalf of the region as Minister for the North East, and in particular to the support that he gave us in Easington. What is his view of the cost of redundancy following the winding up of the regional development agencies, which the Minister has indicated will be £464 million over the four years, including salaries, redundancies and transition costs? The alternative, the local economic partnerships, have no budgets. Does my right hon. Friend think they are an effective vehicle to drive economic growth in the region?

[Mr Brown]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and for his kind remarks about my involvement as regional Minister. I was tremendously impressed by the work that is going on in Easington district, the exciting film projects that we visited together, the work of the coal board residual authority in his constituency, and the opportunities that there are, working with Durham county council, to bring to an end long-standing and intractable labour market problems in the eastern part of County Durham. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his predecessor, our friend John Cummings, for the enormous amount of work that has been done locally to try to give hope where at times it seemed that there was not much room for it. I felt that we were getting there, and it would be very sad if the ideas and projects that I am so enthusiastic about, and that I know my hon. Friend is so enthusiastic about, end up set back because of events in the region.

My key point is that the economic development agency was the principal agent of change and transition in north-east England. Far from being a burden on the taxpayer, it repaid its cost, in the region, several times over.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I echo the warm thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) to my right hon. Friend for his work as regional Minister. We all saw the benefits of that.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Nissan, which he mentioned earlier, on winning the European car of the year award for 2011, one of many awards that it has won for its Leaf electric vehicle? Does he agree with Nissan, especially in the light of the recent rise in unemployment figures, that that achievement and all the jobs it has created in the north-east would not have been possible without the grant for business investment scheme that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has now scrapped along with the very successful RDA, One North East?

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Nissan was able to take advantage of the support for industry that was in place under the previous Government. What it is doing is not just manufacture a new motor car, because, as its Leaf advertising says, it is much more than that. It is a completely different form of transport. It is a very exciting development and we all wish it well and are proud to have it in our region. I know that she is proud to be the constituency MP for it.

That project would not have happened had it not been for the active intervention of the then Labour Government in making grant support available. It was actually because of the intervention of the then Secretary of State and his willingness to champion development in the north-east of England. We had rivals and competitors in our friends in continental Europe, who were also bidding for the plant. It speaks really well for the work force at Nissan that they are so highly regarded within the Nissan family of companies that they were a contender for the project. The clincher, however, was the support that the Government gave and their willingness to stand by the region.

My fear is that public sector cuts will affect the north-east disproportionately. As well as the closures of the economic development agency and the regional office, there are redundancies in each of the local authorities and other public bodies and vulnerabilities at the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs complex at Longbenton in east Newcastle. If the Minister can say something reassuring about that site, which is the largest single concentration of public sector employees in the western world outside the Pentagon, it will be welcome.

Jobcentre Plus does a good job for us in the north-east. It has had to cope with major redundancy rounds at Atmel, Northern Rock, Nissan and Corus, and it has handled those difficult situations as well as anybody could. It is asking a lot of the labour market to absorb those redundancies and the ones brought about by public spending cuts. The effect of those cuts is cumulative, the more so because the people whose jobs are going have similar skill sets and career aspirations. The Government’s response is that an expanding private sector will take up those employees, but those who advocate that policy must say what private sector and where.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for kindly allowing me to intervene in his debate. Is he aware that since mid-August, newspapers in the region have announced more than 20,800 new private sector jobs and more than £4 billion of private sector investment? I appreciate that, like any region in these difficult times, we face tough challenges, but there is a good news story to tell as well. As the region’s MPs, we all have an obligation to talk up the north-east, not just to concentrate and focus on the challenges that we face.

[Mr Brown]

Nobody has talked up the private sector economy of the north-east more than I have, not just now but when I was the Minister for the region. My strategy was to broaden and deepen the region’s employment base by broadening and deepening private sector employment opportunities. I have never said that we are over-reliant on the public sector, but the correct way forward for our region is the development of private sector employment opportunities. That is why I said at the outset that there was not much disagreement about questions within the region. There was a consensus about what we were trying to do and how best to proceed. The region’s Members of Parliament, regardless of party politics, found it easy to discuss those issues among ourselves and make common cause on specific projects.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Is not the reality that we have learned from a long history of being cast adrift, when nobody had any plan for the north-east? In the past 10 years, we learned to work together, ably led by my right hon. Friend. The private sector, the public sector—everybody—pulled together. There was no difference between us, and we experienced a renaissance in the north-east, which none of us ever thought possible. It was tremendous, but it is being set back by the Government who have come to office in the past year.

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend is right. The theme of my speech is that we had got the structures and the working relationships right between us. There was a real feeling that we were getting somewhere.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Is it not a matter of regret to the right hon. Gentleman that Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Redcar and Cleveland were recently rated as being in the bottom 10 in economic strength out of 324 areas in the country? Does not that give weight to the Government’s policy of creating Teesside local enterprise partnership?

[Mr Brown]

We all understand how difficult things are on Teesside, and I have lent my shoulder to tackling those problems, just as other hon. Members across the region have done. However, it is my strong view that we need a single, regional approach rather than allowing our efforts to become fragmented. In particular, it is a terrible mistake to say to those with the most difficult problems—I will say something about the specifics shortly—“You have to sort your own problems out without the help of the rest of us.” The great strength of our region is that we have all stood together, geographically and across party politics, public sector and private sector, including the public sector agencies that are not directly politically led. We have all stood together with the same focus, in an earnest endeavour to work together to give a coherent single voice to government for the good of the region. That is the correct approach.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who, in his time as Minister for the North East was a real friend of Teesside, not just of Tyneside. Following on from the interventions of the hon. Members for Stockton South (James Wharton) and for Redcar (Ian Swales), we have enormous potential in Teesside and Hartlepool, with process industries, the nuclear industry and the potential of renewable energy, but that needs help and support. My constituency has 4,000 unemployed people but only 76 vacancies at the local jobcentre. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more marrying up of that enormous potential in the private sector and central Government support, which the current Government are not providing?

[Mr Brown]

I agree, but, above all, we need to strengthen the employment base in the Tees valley, and that means focusing on the potential of the key employers—Corus, if the transition takes place, the chemical sector, the process sector, the potential in the under-utilised land at the east end of the Tees valley, the exciting opportunities in Teesport and the new distribution agreements with Tesco and Walmart. Those are exciting and significant developments, providing a whole new range of activity for the port. I wish them well, but they must be supported by the region speaking with one voice. The new job opportunities are for the whole of the north-east of England. Indeed, they are for the whole north of England, going right down to the midlands, and covering all points north, including Scotland.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Is not one of the best ways of securing economic growth in the area, and of helping Teesside and Teesport, to ensure that the Government go ahead with the Hitachi project, which will create 800 direct jobs in my constituency? It will create thousands of jobs, not only in the region but throughout the country, and be a great export market for us. It will also ensure that we have growth and an ability to rebalance the economy in the north-east of England. We have waited months for a decision from the Government. Does my right hon. Friend see a new trend developing in the coalition Government of an inability to make decisions?

[Mr Brown]

It is true that the new Government seem to find difficulty in making decisions and giving clear-cut answers. As Minister for the North East, I met representatives of Hitachi in Downing street and worked closely with my hon. Friend to ensure that the programme was understood right at the heart of the Government. We engaged as fully as we could with the Government office of the region, the development agency and the Department involved, and did everything we could to bring those private sector arrangements to fruition on Hitachi’s preferred site—it was of the company’s choosing, not the Government’s. Getting that programme would be a tremendous win for his constituency, and I urge Ministers to do everything they can to bring this to a conclusion and to bring the Hitachi programme to the north-east. The company has chosen the site, not the politicians, although if my hon. Friend and I were choosing, we would have chosen the same one.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are reliant on their supply chains. When those are public sector supply chains, SMEs will be hit by public expenditure constraints. SMEs are particularly significant to the north-east labour market. The arrangements for the public sector to work with them are being reduced dramatically, and their chances of making successful bids to the regional growth fund are practically non-existent, because the fund will not entertain bids of less than £1 million.

There is now no coherent interface with the private sector in the region. The Government closed its regional office, and the subsequent announcement that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will open six new departmental offices for the 10 English planning regions to deal with administration is truly pathetic. No doubt the office covering the north-east will be somewhere in Yorkshire.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way in which the Government are dealing with European structural funds is an absolute scandal? Some £160 million is sitting there, ready for investment in the north-east, but because of the withdrawal from the region of match funding, it looks as though we might lose it?

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend is right that we cannot get the match funding, but, worse than that, we cannot start any new projects because of the constraints that the coalition Government have placed on what is left of the development agency. The RDA still has an unallocated sum—I think about £80 million or £90 million—but it is not allowed to spend it on anything new. As time goes on, that is something of a constraint.

My contention is that private sector economic development should be private sector led. It is ironic that I, as a former Labour Minister, advocate the structures that the CBI believes have served the north-east well, and that a Conservative-led Government are arguing that what is left of those functions should be led by local authorities.

Economic development in the north-east now has the wrong departmental lead. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should lead, but in fact the Department for Communities and Local Government is leading. The local enterprise partnerships look as if they will be staffed by the wrong people—the correct skill set is professional economic development officers, as employed by One North East, not local government officers. Local enterprise partnership boards have the wrong executive lead. What is needed is representatives of private sector business, not local councillors. The geographical areas covered by LEPs are wrong: there should be one agency for the region, not multiple agencies duplicating effort and overlapping. Multiple agencies could also be too small to be effective.

[James Wharton]

I do not wish to depart too much from the largely consensual nature of this debate, but I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on LEPs. There was great demand in Teesside for the LEP that we have secured, as is evidenced by the fact that Teesside moved to create the LEP before a regional agreement on the LEP approach was reached. I do not like the term “Tees valley” and prefer to say “Teesside”, and we could argue about the exact boundaries of it, but the Tees valley LEP is a welcome development that will help to grow the economy on Teesside.

[Mr Brown]

I am not going to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about nomenclature. I understand that the local representatives of communities in Teesside want to do their best for their local communities, and I have no quarrel with that at all. Anytime they need my help or the help of other Members of Parliament for the north-east of England, it will be willingly given. They are our friends, neighbours and colleagues, and we want to help them get through what we understand are some of the most difficult and intractable of problems.

These are not local problems. The whole point of my address is that the big strategic issues that stand to be dealt with are best done so at the regional level, with the region acting as an advocate to national Government, and with national Government taking a direct interest, preferably through a dedicated Minister who has responsibility for standing up for the whole region. I think that that is the best structure. I know that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is advocating the LEP proposition, but even he must see that it is ironic that the approach that I am advocating is the private sector-led regional approach endorsed by the CBI, while the one that he is advocating is led primarily by locally elected Labour councillors. There is a rich irony in that. I hope that he can at least appreciate that point.

[James Wharton]

I will keep it brief. My understanding of LEPs is that their boards will be business-led—they will have a 50:50 ratio of representatives of local authorities and business, with a business chair—so I do not agree with the supposition that they will be local authority-led. LEPs will be business-led, which is one of the reasons I believe that the Tees valley LEP will be such a success.

[Mr Brown]

But the representative business organisations in the north-east are organised on a regional basis. I have no quarrel with local business people and local councillors wanting to do their best for the local communities, but I simply say, on the basis of considerable experience, that it is unfair to ask local representatives to deal on their own with a problem of such scale. They have no money and very little in the way of powers. It is not clear where their advocacy, which is the principal thing they will be doing, will be directed. Who is the responsible Minister? Will it be at Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State level or Minister of State level? Will it go to the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or both when this regional office is opened somewhere in Yorkshire—for the paper to rattle around in? There will be a lot of talking, but the ability to do something seems to be receding. That is a very dangerous thing for our region.

Engagement with the private sector in the region by Government is now very weak. This is part of a national problem. Even very large private sector businesses are finding it difficult to know where and how to speak to Government, and I would urge the Minister to take that point back and reflect on it. There must be better ways of dealing with these things than those currently in place. I also think that it is a mistake by the Government to have ended the pre-legislative scrutiny arrangements that we had in place under the previous Labour Government. That was a relatively open process which was widely welcomed, particularly by business, as was the opportunity to express a view before proposals were firmed up as legislation.

The Government have a poor strategy for disposing of One North East’s residual responsibilities. Of course, everyone wants the assets, but there are liabilities and continuing investments that have not yet come to fruition. Default responsibility seems to be ending up in the Department. There is now no integration of economic development with transport strategy, and no forum for discussing port strategy, although, as I mentioned, we have some very exciting developments at Tees port, with a relatively new distribution business, with Tesco and Walmart. There is real potential in the region.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of transport. He knows as well as I do that one of the ways to unlock the economic potential of the eastern part of the region is to upgrade the A19 around the Cobalt business park and to allow the development north of the Tyne. Was he surprised to read in The Journal that the Government’s answer to securing the funding is that half of it should come from local businesses? Is he aware of any businesses in our region that have the £74 million—in small change—that the Government would like them to chip in to allow the upgrade to happen?

[Mr Brown]

Not immediately. I am more than happy to ask around on behalf of my hon. Friend and the Government, but I suspect that the response that I will get from local businesses is: they pay their taxes and they are entitled to road improvements from those tax payments in just the same way as other parts of the country expect these things. The local authorities and representatives of regional organisations were particularly strong on the importance of the A19 corridor, and they were aware of the potential for a bottleneck in the dualled tunnel under the Tyne and its effects at the Silverlink roundabout, as well as at the roundabout further north. I was able, in the last Labour Government, to secure an agreement with the Secretary of State for Transport that any underspend in what was then our little regional pot could be carried over and spent on the improvements that my hon. Friend has just advocated—perfectly correctly, because they are important to the flow of traffic. All that—local discretion and end-of-year flexibility—has been taken away. The idea that local business men should put their hands in their pockets and pay for that themselves will be met with outrage, if the Government ever get round to asking them.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brown]

Of course—if it is about the A1 north of Newcastle.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I recognise the personal efforts that he made as the regional Minister. However, as well as being the regional Minister, he was a senior Minister in a Government who found by the end of their time in office that they had engaged in a massive overspend and had to make severe reductions in capital spending, as well as cuts on a scale comparable to that on which the coalition is now implementing its cuts, albeit on a slightly different time scale. He cannot really talk as if we are in the same financial situation now as we were five years ago.

[Mr Brown]

I accept that, and I am making two points—perhaps I have not made them very well. I accept that we are in a different economic climate: times have changed and things have moved on. Although I believe that what we put in place—particularly the administrative structures—was cost-effective, efficient and focused, and delivered well for the region, it would be more rational, even for the Conservative-led coalition Government, to do more to preserve the consensus that we used to have in the region. They could do that by appointing a regional Minister to keep the core functions of a perhaps scaled-down One North East; it could then handle its own residual functions, apart from anything else. We could keep a presence from the major Departments in the region, not embark on the LEPs and keep the private sector engagement that is so important to getting the private sector-led job creation that we all seek for the region, rather than the structures now being put in place.

Therefore, as well as defending what we were able to do when we were the Government, I am also—and separately—making a plea for a much more rational use of what few resources are available under the current regime. I do not agree with scaling them back as far as they have been, but even if I did accept that—I did not intend to embark on the broader quarrel that the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to pursue—I would say that whatever resources are available could be spent in a better, more focused way and bring about better outcomes. That is my key point.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I, too, commend my right hon. Friend for securing this debate on such an important issue to all us MPs from the north-east. Does he share my concern that, with the swift and fairly draconian—or should that be Maoist?—manner in which the regional development agency has been dismantled, we run the risk of causing a huge dispersal from the north-east of the talent and expertise that has built up there over the years? He gave the example of European regional development funding and the complexities of how such funding is drawn down. We run the risk of losing €139 million that could be invested in the north-east because we have simply dismantled the procedures for drawing down that structural funding without putting anything in their place.

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but it is worse than that: we also risk losing the talents and the accumulated wisdom of some 245 employees. They have not yet been made redundant, but it is declared that they will be made redundant. All the evidence is that they are not being picked up by the local economic partnerships, which I think is a terrible mistake, but that is the way that things seem to be going. Their talents will be lost within the region as they seek alternative employment as best they can, competing with other people with similar skill sets, or they will be drawn to other parts of the country where there are jobs in the economy and a stronger labour market. That will be a real loss to our region and a real tragedy, and I regret it very much.

I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion now, because, fortunately, there is still time for other Members to take part in the debate, the previous business having come to a conclusion slightly earlier than usual—

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Brown]

Of course I will first give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Campbell]

I am sick of hearing the argument that there is no money. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, if all the multinational companies, including the banks, paid the tax on their profits instead of avoiding doing so by hiding their money in tax havens such as the Cayman islands, we would not have this problem? We would have bags of money—billions of pounds.

[Mr Brown]

It is true that the liquidity crisis is largely the fault of Tory bankers rather than Labour politicians, but I am making a more modest argument focusing on economic development in our region.

[Mr Alan Campbell]

On the issue of the alleged overspend, does my right hon. Friend recall ever being lobbied, in his time as a very good regional Minister, by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for more money to be spent to upgrade the A1?

[Mr Brown]

I do; I recall our regional debate in Middlesbrough town hall, at which the right hon. Gentleman spoke long and persuasively about the importance of upgrading the A1 north of Newcastle. Indeed, I have a press release from the Conservative Government in 1994 announcing that it was going to take place, so perhaps there is just a delay between the announcement of the policy and its undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman would have been slightly more credible in his request had his party not been committed even before the election to cancelling all our motorway infrastructure plans—and, indeed, all our major highway investments. Such a cancellation would present a bit of an obstacle if he wanted to advocate the greater connectivity of the great constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed with the rest of the northern region and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom.

I thought that we had a way forward, which would have been to try to meet the Department for Transport halfway by taking money from the discretionary regional transport fund and trying to upgrade the A1 incrementally, starting with the accident black spots, and by cutting a deal with the Department that if we paid our half, it would pay its half. That would have taken longer, but the sums of money involved would have been relatively small, year on year, and we would have got the work done. We could then have built on that, and met the right hon. Gentleman in his constituency—indeed, we would have been able to drive up there—in a timely way. So I did have a plan for taking that forward. I accept that it was not ideal, but most people thought that it was the best way to set about dealing with the problem. In less constrained times, it might be the way forward.

I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion now, because I know that other hon. Members have a few points to make. It is my view that the direct involvement of a regional Minister worked well for our region. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to appoint area-based Ministers from among his team, and I urge him to get on and do that. The structure that would work best for our region would involve a regional Minister, a single private sector-led development agency, some regional presence by large UK Government Departments, strong private sector engagement and collaborative working across the agencies. This would preserve what we had before the general election. The focus should be on private sector priorities. I urge the Government to look again at the poor use they are making of scarce resources in the north-east, and even at this late stage to consider different structures more appropriate to the particular economic development needs of the north-east of England.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A few Members still wish to speak, and I would ask them to help me to help them to accommodate as many of them as possible in the remaining time.

21:44

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) has done the House a service by having this debate and by mysteriously working out in advance that we would finish our other business early tonight, leaving more time for other Members to participate in an Adjournment debate. He put forward a number of constructive points. In that spirit, I shall not dwell on the things that I think the previous Government should have done in their time of office, although we need serious recognition that we face a very difficult financial situation in which the money is simply not there to operate on a basis that seemed feasible just a few years ago.

Those who tried hard to get the region to adopt the idea that it should make its own decisions and, indeed, have a democratic mechanism with which to do so found that the voters in the region were not persuaded, so our attempt to have a regional assembly was firmly rejected by them. We have to take proper account of that, along with the rejection of the unitary authorities that the Labour Government went ahead and created. We have to recognise that in straitened financial circumstances the scale of the apparatus in the form of the regional development agencies and the Government office for the north-east is just not suited to the time. We cannot afford to use resources in that way. When we have much more limited resources, we have to focus more, so let me put some quick points to the Minister about what I believe the Government should do.

First, they should ensure that the important development sites that One North East had in its possession remain available for development purposes, using the resources of the local authorities and the economic partnerships. Not all the sites or all the buildings owned by One North East fall into that category—it owned all sorts of properties—but key development sites purchased and assembled for that purpose must remain with organisations that can develop them in partnership with the private sector.

Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out and others have said, bidding for European funding remains crucial. We need some facility to do that, so it is vital that an appropriate small team of people is retained within the public sector to lead the bidding process. Whether my hon. Friend the Minister can yet say whether discussions on that have been completed, I do not know, but I think it vital, as I have said, to have a team located within the public sector structure to lead that bidding process and to use some of the people who were employed by One North East and developed the relevant expertise. I look to my hon. Friend to find a way of doing that.

Given the removal of One North East’s tourist responsibilities, we need to encourage new, more locally based tourist organisations to work on behalf of the region. I remember just how controversial it was when One North East took over tourist responsibilities, as many small businesses in my area did not want that to happen. We have suffered from the fact that One North East did everything in-house, so the ban on Government advertising hit our region immediately, whereas other regions had contracted out the work so that advertising continued.

I welcome some of what the Government are doing. I welcome the regional growth fund, for example, but I do not believe that it will be able to stick with a £1 million threshold for all projects—that is, I am sure, just an initial stage. I also welcome the national insurance holiday.

Our region has great potential in its work force and great potential in that it is an area of relatively reasonable housing costs in comparison with other parts of the country. It is a beautiful region in which to live and to which to attract people, whether they be business men or future employees. We have a region with tremendous prospect, but one that desperately needs to shift the balance to a much larger private sector element, with less dependence on the public sector. There is consensus across the House that we need private sector-led growth. I look to Ministers to ensure that they direct the necessary support—in more economical ways than were possible or that, perhaps, were rather wastefully possible in earlier times—to enable that to happen.

21:48

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing this debate. I would like to concentrate on one private sector that is vital to the north-east economy, namely the tourism sector. It is worth £4 billion annually to the region and it accounts for some 5% of regional employment with 64,000 jobs.

I would like to congratulate One North East on its work on tourism, which provided a significant regional focus. I am sorry but the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) was wrong, as the delivery of tourism was devolved to local areas of Northumberland, Durham, Teesside and Tyneside, which worked very effectively. It galvanised the north-east’s ability to promote its image not just regionally, but nationally and internationally.

The Passionate People, Passionate Places campaign was pioneered by One North East. I want to record my thanks to Stacy Hall, director of tourism at One North East, and also to someone who is very much a private sector individual—Geoff Hodgson, who chaired the North East Tourism Advisory Board and who has been one of the biggest critics of what the Government are doing to tourism in the region.

Over the past few years there has been growth in the tourism sector, which has become confident and able to promote the north-east to potential visitors not just internally but externally. All that, however, has been cast aside by the simple fact that One North East can no longer spend any money on promotion and marketing. The fantastic support given by the Passionate People, Passionate Places campaign to businesses both large and small, such as the Beamish museum in my constituency and even small bed-and-breakfast establishments in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, has been removed and has not been replaced. That has placed our region at a disadvantage in comparison with other regions which can continue to promote themselves at our expense.

I do not accept the suggestion that the north-east did not promote itself well, and nor do most people in the tourism sector to whom I have spoken. I also see no hope in what has replaced it. There is no money there. The local enterprise partnership will prove to be a mere talking shop with no real money to conduct the regional marketing campaigns that we need. I am not talking merely about competing for tourism with other parts of the United Kingdom; I am talking about international opportunities. For example, when the Emirates airline launched its successful flights from Newcastle to Dubai, One North East was able to work with it and other partners throughout the world to promote the north-east. No single LEP will be able to do that, and the opportunity will not be replaced. Businesses in the north-east and the tourism sector are already suffering as a result of the short-sighted decision to stop One North East promoting the region as a whole.

The ability of local government to become involved in tourism has also been affected. In August last year, the Prime Minister made a speech in which he promoted the tourism industry and spoke of its importance to the economy of the United Kingdom. He said,

“Tourism is a local industry.”

He said that it counted on the support of local people and could not be directed from Whitehall, and I entirely agree with him. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East pointed out, the north-east is a good example of a region in which elements have come together to promote it effectively.

Tourism is not a sector that we can dismiss. It provides jobs in not just large but small enterprises. The Prime Minister said that it was a “vital part” of rebalancing the economy of the north-east, but he also said something very ironic. He said that

“Local authorities must be allowed to invest”

in

“their own communities.”

Meanwhile, his Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was changing the formula funding for local authorities so that it was based on foreign occupancy per night, which lost the north-east some £5.9 million in local authority grant—and guess who gained? London boroughs gained £60 million. Now Durham county council, which is so proud of its great attractions—such as the Beamish museum in my constituency, Durham cathedral and the beautiful countryside in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), to name but a few—is being asked to accept a 40% cut over the next four years. The idea that local authorities will step in to meet the shortfall is absolute nonsense.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the severity of the cuts in the council’s budget are threatening even important facilities such as our tourist information centre, which, like those in other cities, is critical to increasing tourism?

[Mr Jones]

Well, it is a double whammy for those areas because not only has the money gone that was devolved to them from One North East, and which was spent very effectively in Northumberland, County Durham, Teesside and Tyne and Wear, but local authorities are now also struggling to afford to fund important things like tourist information centres. It is an absolute scandal for the tourism offer for a world heritage site such as Durham not to be well packaged.

It seems that this Government just do not get it. The Minister has never been to the north-east, for example, even though the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and I asked him to visit a few months ago. They just do not get it. By way of example, I cite the idea that regionalism is bad, whether it be the regional office or One North East, and that other sectors will somehow meet the funding challenge, when in fact they will not.

I ask the Minister and the Government to listen not only to politicians, but to the people in the region who know. They are not necessarily elected officials. They might be people like Geoff Hodgson, who has a highly successful business career in the publican sector, and who knows something about what the private sector in the region needs. The Minister should listen to people like him.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the coalition Government’s decision to suspend grants for business investment, which I understand brought £112 million into our region and supported 25,000 private sector jobs?

[Mr Jones]

Exactly, and a lot of those grants, which a lot of businesses in the tourism sector need, are actually quite small. The idea that they will benefit from any of the money from the regional growth fund is absolute nonsense. The advantage of One North East devolving money to the regional tourism boards was that they could react locally by giving small amounts of money that those types of businesses needed.

The Minister recently told me and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that we should leave it all to VisitBritain and VisitEngland. I am sorry, but my response to that is, “Forget it.” I used to serve on the north-east tourism board, and my mystery shopper activity every month when I was down in London was to go to VisitBritain’s tourist information office on the Strand to see what promotional material it had on areas other than London and the south-east. It had absolutely nothing. Its approach is London-centric and south-east-centric, and if anyone thinks the north-east of England gets a fair deal in promotional terms out of VisitBritain, they can forget it.

The Government must rethink their strategy. They must listen to the people in the know, who have done a very good job, and pay tribute to them for their work over a number of years in promoting both the north-east and jobs in what is a vital sector.

21:58

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for securing this debate, which is very important for those of us in the north-east. I also pay tribute to him for the tremendous work he did in the region as regional Minister. It was a great pleasure to work alongside him as the deputy Minister, and I can certainly confirm that he put great effort into securing investment for the north-east and trying to improve our economy even in very straitened circumstances.

All of us know the huge impact deindustrialisation had on the region’s economy in the 1980s, resulting in very high levels of unemployment for many years. However, the situation had begun to change by 2005. During 2005-06, the north-east had one of the fastest growing regional economies in the UK. Its economy doubled in size over that decade, adding almost £13 billion to overall output. In the mid-2000s, the region was also experiencing very high rates of business registrations, bringing it somewhere near the UK average, and unemployment rates compared with the rest of the UK were narrowing. That is a very important statement to make, because it shows what can be achieved in the north-east with everyone pulling together and with investment being made in the right areas. That improvement was also built on upskilling our population and, in particular, ensuring that we invested in our young people.

22:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

We saw very early on that there was a need to invest in the future work force and that a great many future jobs in the north-east were likely to come from the development of the green economy. The north-east was the first region in the UK to be designated a low-carbon economic area and that brought with it developments in the universities and the industrial sectors. That confirmed the region’s huge potential to be a leader in the development of green energy, including green cars.

[Mr Iain Wright]

My hon. Friend has a particular passion for education and for upskilling our region so that it fulfils its potential. What impact does she think the abolition of the education maintenance allowance will have, particularly in our region?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it demonstrates how this Government simply do not understand the needs of regions such as ours and the needs of young people in regions such as ours. Some 67% of the young people who attend my local further education college rely on EMA and they are telling me that they do not know how they will be able to continue their courses.

The previous Government recognised that money had to be put into developing the green economy. Some good examples of that include: the £20 million invested in a printable electronics technology centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson); the £12 million invested in biotechnology at Wilton on Teesside; and Clipper’s development in Newcastle. I name but a few, and investment also came from the private sector, mostly through Nissan. So our Government were doing their bit and they were also putting money into universities to enable them to undertake further research. Narec, a centre of excellence, and the Durham Energy Institute also do really important work on coal gasification in our region.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend was talking about green jobs and industry. Does she agree that when we lost One North East, we also lost £1 million of funding that was going into the eco-village in Weardale, in my constituency? That would have created many green jobs in an area where jobs are scarce.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We know that County Durham’s economy has suffered through the recession and we see few plans coming from this Government to correct the situation.

It is possible to argue that our region is well placed to become a centre of green energy production and green manufacturing, but for that to happen we need to continue to develop our skills base and there are worrying signs that that is faltering. I wrote to the Business Secretary asking what was going to happen to regional skills strategies, because they have been crucial for the north-east in developing the areas where we needed to reskill the population. The letter I received from the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning said:

“The Government no longer…expects Regional Skills Partnerships to produce skills strategies”

or even to meet. He said that instead the work should be undertaken by local enterprise partnerships, which represent the correct “geographies”. A number of us would query whether LEPs are the right level for discussing the skills needs of the region and for being able to identify opportunities for upskilling the population. This is extremely worrying, because we need to continue to invest in basic scientific research skills and in how to apply them to manufacturing.

[Ian Swales]

Can the hon. Lady give an example of how a regional skills strategy would deliver something new? She has just expressed what the strategy needs to be, but what else do we need to know?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman has to realise that within the umbrella of green energy and manufacturing, many different skills are needed. The regional skills strategy was able to bring together universities, employers and the further education sector. They could then decide between them who was best placed to deliver those skills, but the structure that enabled that to happen has simply been removed. The Government are telling us that there is no need for those strategies, but I dispute that.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The North East Process Industry Cluster was set up by One North East and was an exact expression of devolution to industrialists and local authorities. In the past two years, NEPIC has engaged with large industries, as well as with small and medium-sized enterprises, to get them to take on board apprentices—something which, at the end of this week, is very important.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend gives an excellent reason why we need to continue with regional skills strategies.

I want to raise a few other issues relating to the skills agenda. The Government have also got rid of the 14-to-19 commission for skills, which is absolutely devastating. That body brought together all the deliverers of vocational education and made sure that apprenticeships were promoted in the region and in the correct areas. Again, there is absolutely nothing to replace that body and it is unclear how we are to ensure that apprenticeships are delivered in the region and that enough placements are available.

Lastly, I want to discuss the abolition of RDAs. We have to recognise that even in straitened times, the RDA could have delivered funding in the key areas that have been identified, particularly green energy and manufacturing. The money that is available—£61 million in 2011-12—has to be spent on existing projects, so there will be no new investment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East has said, all 320 employees are to be made redundant, with all that skills base going to waste. We do not know whether those people are going to get jobs in the region or will be able to pass on their expertise. That is a dreadful loss to the region and we do not think that LEPs will have the money to give employment opportunities to those people. We are all asking the Government to reconsider whether the structures they are putting in place will deliver the economic regeneration we want in the region, whether the structures are at the right level and whether too much of the infrastructure that will bring about the improvement that we all want has been removed.

22:08

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing the debate, and on having been such an excellent regional Minister, defending the interests of all our constituents when he had that responsibility. I want to reinforce his central point about regional economic development being operated through consensus in our region, and how valuable that consensus and those partnerships have been.

When the global recession hit our region, manufacturing suffered in particular, and it seemed deeply unfair that our constituents in engineering, for example, were losing jobs because of the foolishness of bankers in London—but thanks to the action that the Labour Government took at both macro and micro level, we saw a number of improvements in 2010. For example, the future jobs fund produced 500 jobs in Durham. There was also the investment and support for Nissan, which other Members have mentioned. That had a knock-on effect throughout the automotive sector supply chain in the region.

There was also the work of the regional development agency, and I press the Minister to take to heart its important role in securing inward investment. That is not a power that local enterprise partnerships have; it has been taken back to Victoria street. I urge him to ask his officials to have a proper presence in the north-east on inward investment, because we are not confident that when sitting in Victoria street they have a clear picture of the nature of the region and its differences.

Thanks to the previous Government’s work, a brand-new Thorn electric light bulb factory has opened in my constituency, which has secured 700 jobs. It works in partnership with Durham university and other private sector partners, and makes a huge difference. Things improved throughout 2010, to the extent that a £45 million retail development site was opened in the constituency, and manufacturing is clearly past the bottom of the recession, now that customers have stopped de-stocking and things seem to be improving. I visited the Berco factory in my constituency, for example, which opened only last Friday.

However, just as things seem to have turned around thanks to all the efforts of the Labour Government, our region is facing deep spending cuts. I want to draw to the Minister’s attention the impact that the cuts will have not only on the public sector, but on the private sector. In my constituency alone, Building Schools for the Future cuts amount to £100 million, which would have been £100 million-worth of business for the local construction industry. The same is true with cuts in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice capital programmes. All that will have a knock-on effect on firms in my constituency, and I could take him to those firms to show him the jobs that are likely to be lost as a result. In addition, cuts in benefits and working tax credits will have an impact on the retail sector. Cuts in tax credits will have an impact on small businesses such as those involved in child care. Those will all have knock-on effects that Ministers must take into account.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Goodman]

In a moment.

The pathetic little tweak to national insurance contributions owed far more to politics than it did to economics. Everyone knows that the big barrier to small businesses is securing equity. That is what they need, not a little reduction in their national insurance contributions. It is not surprising that that initiative did not succeed, and I support wholeheartedly the Federation of Small Businesses, which wants it to apply to all new jobs and not just to wholly new businesses.

Ultimately, this is really a question of values. In my constituency, the Decent Homes programme has another 1,000 homes to complete, and for that it needs only £5 million—as much as one banker’s bonus. We know that the Government have failed to tackle the banks and bankers’ bonuses properly, which has an impact in our constituencies. In the week when Barclays announced yet again massive billion-pound profits, it has closed a branch in Shildon in my constituency.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does the Government’s flagship policy of reducing corporation tax not actually aid financiers in London far more than it will any self-employed business in the north-east, as the majority of those businesses do not pay corporation tax?

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is right. Moreover, to cut corporation tax while cutting investment allowances is to bias the tax system against manufacturing, and I thought that everybody agreed that we needed to strengthen our manufacturing base.

One of the most important elements in economic development is for people outside the region to have confidence in us, and I have two examples of organisations that do have confidence in us. The first is GlaxoSmithKline, which wants to build a new plant. One of the shortlisted sites is at Barnard Castle in my constituency, and that would produce 1,000 jobs.

The second example is in tourism development, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) mentioned. Only this week, the director of the National Gallery said that if we could keep the Zurbarans at Auckland castle, he would be able to lend more paintings, develop a centre of artistic excellence and build our tourism industry. How much better it would be if, in addition to such support, we had the wholehearted support of the Government.

22:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing the debate and on his work when he was a Minister. From his comments, he has shown his detailed knowledge of the region where his constituency lies, and in truth Members from all parts of the House will agree that he did an awful lot of work, with some success, for the region. It is right to pay tribute to that, but I think that his skills as a former Chief Whip enabled him to ensure that his debate took place this evening, so that a larger number of Members could join in. The fact that we have had so many Members in the debate has enriched it, and I have found many contributions insightful and interesting.

I make this observation to the right hon. Gentleman, however. Sometimes, in his initial remarks, he appeared rather over-rosy about what happened under the Labour Government—as if everything was just perfect in the north-east as a result of their policies. That is certainly not how I view the economic statistics. Equally, he was rather over-pessimistic about the future. In general, he, like many of his hon. Friends, failed to admit that this country has a huge problem with a massive deficit.

I am afraid that the deficit deniers were out in force tonight, but, when we in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had to grapple with the Budget by making our contribution to deficit reduction, we noticed and learned from some of the previous Government’s plans. This has not been mentioned during tonight’s remarks, but they planned to make similar reductions in the Department’s spending—albeit over a slightly longer time scale, I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that. The reductions would have been significant, however, and whenever we have debates about the Department, we never hear which programmes the Opposition would have cut if they had been returned to government. That whole issue clouds the debate, and the failure to address it undermines the case that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends make.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister explain the issue of choices in connection with a point that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made about the coalition Government choosing to fund the upgrading of the A11 in Cambridge, but not the dualling of the A1 north of Newcastle?

[Mr Davey]

All Governments have to make choices, and my right hon. Friend was saying that the Labour Government failed to choose to upgrade the road that serves his constituency, so again I am afraid that they do not have as good a record as some Opposition Members would like us to believe.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

On choices, can the Minister say how many Liberal Democrat local authority group leaders agree with the Government’s current policies?

[Mr Davey]

I believe that they all do, and I will explain why. They know that this coalition Government are improving the public finances, which is vital for the stability of our economy and for investment in the north -east and other regions, and are prepared to take the tough decisions which, if one were to believe what Labour Members have said, their party would have ducked.

I share the desire of the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East to ensure that the north-east can share in sustainable, long-term economic growth. He made that case with passion, and the Government agree that we need to make such growth our overriding priority. We want to forge a new model for growth—one that is based on rebalancing the economy, both geographically and in terms of sectors, and which promotes innovation and boosts exports, not merely relying on consumption that is, in many cases, fuelled by public debt. That is why we have set up the growth review, which is a root-and-branch analysis of the barriers that impede business growth, and the structural reforms that we believe are needed to boost economic growth across the country. The initial phase is focusing on immediate priorities for business by improving the competition regime—on which I am leading—increasing exports, reforming the planning system, and cutting red tape and regulation. That will underpin this year’s Budget. A huge amount of work is going on in that context.

When my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary recently made a statement to the House about the trade and investment White Paper, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said that she was worried about where inward investment would come from. I refer her to that White Paper, which talks a great deal about the importance of inward investment for all regions of our country. Many excellent firms in the north-east contribute to this country’s manufacturing exports, and I believe that they will strongly welcome the policies and framework that the White Paper sets out.

In the meantime, we are introducing a range of policies intended to support enterprise so that companies can grow and create new jobs. Let me highlight just a few of those. We are cutting the main rate of corporation tax from 28p to 24p by 2014. We are reducing the small companies rate from 21p to 20p—not increasing it as the previous Administration had intended. We are cutting the unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy that hinders, rather than helps, UK firms. We are boosting adult apprenticeships funding by up to £250 million by the end of the spending review period to create up to 75,000 more places a year. We heard nothing about the apprenticeship scheme from Labour Members. It is a huge success. I do not know whether any of them took part in national apprenticeship week, as I did in my constituency. At many of those events, we noticed the enthusiasm of employers and their potential apprentices, with large numbers of people getting really excited about this new opportunity that the Government have provided.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

The Minister’s attention was obviously diverted when I spoke about apprenticeships and the need not only to have apprenticeships but to be able to move people on into employment.

[Mr Davey]

I apologise to the hon. Lady if I did not listen when she was talking about apprenticeships, but I did notice her reliance on strategies for skills. What I found rather odd in several policy areas under the previous Government is that they spent a huge amount of money on forming strategies, and then, a year or two later, they were looking at another strategy. In my view, if we have a strategy, we should stick to it and implement it rather than keep changing it, as happened so often under the previous Government.

We are also striving hard to bring about a renaissance in the UK’s industrial base, which has had some serious problems in recent years. Sectors such as advanced manufacturing are critical in creating a more diverse, resilient economy in future. That sector, among several others, is very much part of the growth review that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will talk about in the Budget.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The current GDP figures in Britain are incredibly worrying, although admittedly there has been an increase in manufacturing. However, that increase is down to inventory and raw material spending. At many manufacturing sites, short-time working agreements have been taken away, bringing the work force back to their previous contractual hours, which had been reduced.

[Mr Davey]

We are seeing the creation of new manufacturing jobs in the north-east. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that. I am glad that he has noted that manufacturing and manufacturing exports appear to be picking up. We cannot be complacent about that, which is why we are determined to do the things that I am outlining.

[Phil Wilson]

rose—

[Mr Davey]

I will give way, but I do then want to make some progress.

[Phil Wilson]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does what he said about manufacturing mean that the Government will give the go-ahead for the Hitachi factory at Newton Aycliffe?

[Mr Davey]

That was a good try, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I am not the Minister responsible for that decision. I congratulate him on his attempt. I would have thought that he would welcome much of what the Government are doing on matters such as apprenticeships, which I believe give businesses in the north-east a lot of the backing that they need.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Davey]

No, I am going to make some progress.

The area has a proud industrial heritage, and today its firms are establishing a competitive lead in a number of 21st-century industries, as the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East said. The north-east has a strong reputation in areas from health care to life sciences, and from micro-electronics to cutting-edge low-carbon technologies. It accounts for more than 50% of the UK’s petrochemical industry and about 35% of the country’s pharmaceutical output. It benefits from a number of other economic assets: world-class universities, good transport links, and entrepreneurial citizens who are launching new businesses in growing numbers.

This Government recognise that Britain cannot rely on one sector in one part of the country for its national prosperity and the resulting policies that we are implementing to rebalance the economy will free the north-east to unleash its full economic potential at last. This Government also understand that if balanced economic growth is to be achieved across the country, policies cannot be dictated from Whitehall. That is why we are encouraging the formation of local enterprise partnerships across the country, which will work with the grain of functioning local economies.

Local enterprise partnerships will bring together local business and civic leaders to power the economic regeneration of their communities by focusing on creating the right local conditions for private sector jobs and growth. That is real power shifting away from central Government and quangos, and towards local communities and local businesses that understand the barriers to growth in their areas. The partnerships are free to focus on infrastructure investment, transport, skills and a host of other issues. I think it is good news that the north-east has two local enterprise partnerships, one covering the Tyne and Wear area and the other the Tees valley. They are busy identifying the economic priorities for their areas. I pay tribute to all business leaders who have risen to this challenge. We have also set up a £1.4 billion regional growth fund, which is open to public-private partnerships such as LEPs, to kick-start economic expansion, especially in areas where private enterprise has not previously flourished.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points, and obviously he was particularly concerned about the abolition of One North East. I pay tribute to much of the work that was achieved by One North East. Anyone who analyses its record can see that it did good things in many areas. However, time moves on and we now have a huge budget deficit. We have to cut our cloth according to what we can afford—a fact that seems to be denied by Opposition Members.

Members not just of this Government, but of this whole coalition have been active in working hard with business to ensure that there are jobs in the future. I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) for his work, with the Secretary of State, on the problems of the Corus plant in Redcar. I hope that in due course we will have good news about the work to ensure that that plant continues and that jobs are not only saved, but extended. Much of that will be down to the work of my hon. Friend.

The Government share the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to see the north-east flourish, along with the rest of the country. That is why we are going all out to create a business environment that gives companies the confidence to invest and grow, and why local communities are being freed from central control to determine their own economic future. That is the key to achieving economic regeneration and sustainable growth, both in the north-east and elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.

22:29

House adjourned.