House of Commons

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

Thursday 3 March 2011

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to promote jobs and growth in the creative and leisure industries.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

The creative and leisure industries are vital to our economic growth. For the creative industries we have announced plans to give Britain the best superfast broadband network in Europe by 2015, and for the leisure industry we have announced a plan to attract 2 million more tourists to the United Kingdom over the coming years.

[Stella Creasy]

This week we have seen the benefits of investment in the UK film industry, and the presentation of the Oscar awards. I am sure that we all wish to congratulate the winners. We have also observed this week that many people are concerned about the future of the British television industry following decisions about the future of monopolies in the industry. Will Ministers learn from the experience of the film industry, and consider what could be done through tax breaks to encourage television production in this country?

[Mr Hunt]

I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about the Oscars. I know that the whole House will wish to send warm congratulations to Colin Firth, Tom Hooper and all those involved in “The King’s Speech” on their four Oscars, to the visual effects team who worked on “Inception”, and to Christian Bale on his role in “The Fighter”.

I agree with the hon. Lady that the British film industry is a great success story, but the British independent television sector is a huge success story in its own right without the aid of tax breaks. It is the biggest independent television sector in Europe and north America, and possibly in the world. I think that it is doing really well. There are always ways in which we can do better, but this is the first time that I have heard anyone say that such a successful industry needs additional tax breaks.

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

Local television offers an exciting opportunity to all parts of the United Kingdom, both socially and economically. What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that that becomes a reality, especially given that the interleaved licence has already been sold off in Manchester and in Wales?

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend not just for his question, but for his sustained interest in the importance of local television, particularly in Wales. I was especially pleased to learn that Tinopolis, a Welsh independent production company, had expressed interest in running a new local television network channel.

The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that we must look at the spectrum that is available, and see whether we can find a way of attracting bids for it from a new generation of local television companies. I believe that the local television industry could become a brand-new successful, profitable, dynamic creative industry, creating thousands of jobs for this country.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I think that the Secretary of State is aware that “The King’s Speech” was funded by the Film Council, which he has just abolished.

As the Secretary of State has said, the creative industries are a great British success story: apart from financial services, they are the biggest driver of United Kingdom jobs and growth. He was bullish in serving up cuts to the Treasury. What leadership will he provide to produce a jobs and growth strategy for our creative industries?

[Mr Hunt]

First, let me correct something that the hon. Gentleman said. “The King’s Speech” was funded with lottery money. Thanks to the coalition Government’s lottery reforms, lottery money for the film industry will increase by 60% over the period of this Parliament. What we are questioning is whether that money should be distributed by a quango which pays eight people more than £100,000 and three people more than the Prime Minister.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about a few things that we have done. We have secured an additional £530 million to give Britain the best superfast broadband network in Europe. We have announced plans to make the Olympic park into a new east London tech hub. We have reduced corporation tax, and we have got rid of Labour’s jobs tax. All those things are vital to the creative and digital industries, many of which are small companies.

[Mr Lewis]

The Government have increased VAT, which is destroying our tourist industry. The Secretary of State is clearly living on a different planet. Broadband roll-out has been delayed. There has been no progress on the Digital Economy Act 2010. We have a broken promise on tax breaks for the video games industry. BBC cuts will have an impact on original content. All that is happening at a time when other countries are increasing their support for creative industries.

Will the Secretary of State show some leadership in two specific ways? We are willing to work with him if he will bring forward the new communications Act from 2015 to 2012 or 2013 at the latest; and will he establish a cross-Government taskforce, chaired at Cabinet level, to produce a jobs and growth plan in partnership with creative industries over the next 12 months?

[Mr Hunt]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the leadership I have been showing. His Government safeguarded £200 million for superfast broadband; we have increased that to £830 million. His Government had no strategy for the tourism industry; we persuaded the industry to contribute £50 million of match funding to draw an additional 2 million visitors to the UK. We are also working hard to implement the Digital Economy Act, as we think the principles behind it are important, but it is very difficult to implement because many of its measures did not get proper parliamentary scrutiny as the hon. Gentleman’s discredited Labour Government rushed it through Parliament in their final dying days.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the role of tourism in stimulating economic growth.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the role of tourism in stimulating economic growth.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the role of tourism in stimulating economic growth.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the role of tourism in stimulating economic growth.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

We have made an assessment, and we believe the picture is particularly good. We believe the tourism industry can achieve projected growth of 150,000 new jobs and £34.5 billion extra gross value added by 2020. I intend imminently to publish a statement of Government policy, which will set out how we will work with the industry to support our economic growth objectives.

[Esther McVey]

Last year, tourism was worth £2.8 billion to the Liverpool city region. It is crucial to our region, and it is also a growing sector of our industry. Literature is part of the tourism offer, and as today is world book day and, as I speak, Frank Cottrell Boyce and a team of kids from Merseyside are on their way down to Euston with a local charity, the Reader Organisation, will the Minister extend his gratitude to the charity for the dynamic work that it is doing?

[John Penrose]

I am delighted and happy to praise both world book day and the Reader Organisation. The role of the creative arts in Liverpool’s regeneration and recent economic growth is undoubted, and the city got off to a brilliant start in 2008, when it was the capital of culture.

[Mr Burley]

One of the greatest tourist attractions in my constituency is the historic woodland of Cannock Chase, which The Times recently ranked as the best forest in the country for mountain biking. The newly created independent panel set up to consider the future of forests can give Cannock Chase the status of “heritage”. Does my hon. Friend agree that such labels are important in encouraging tourists to visit destinations and spend their pounds there?

[John Penrose]

I do agree. Britain’s heritage of all kinds—including both natural and built environment—is a tremendously important reason why people visit destinations in our country, both from abroad and as internal tourism, and it will only be to our strength and advantage if we can increase that offer still further.

[Amber Rudd]

The first annual May day bank holiday is very important to my town of Hastings, as we attract more than 20,000 visitors and £5 million in revenue. We are therefore very concerned about the consultation on moving this bank holiday. Will the Minister accept a petition to consider abandoning the proposal—which already has over 1,000 signatures—from me, together with a few morris men and our Mad Jack from Hastings?

[John Penrose]

I particularly look forward to meeting the morris men from Hastings, and I will, of course, be delighted to accept the petition. I should just reassure my hon. Friend that any proposals that are produced are not preferred Government outcomes; they are genuinely options for consultation, and the Government have no preconceptions about any potential solution.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Every year at Stafford castle in my constituency there is an excellent outdoor Shakespeare production, which also makes a fair contribution to the local economy. Will the Minister encourage both the national and the new local television stations to make it a priority to bring such productions to a wider audience so that people may be persuaded to come and enjoy live productions?

[John Penrose]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that, rightly, Ministers cannot direct broadcasters to broadcast particular programmes, although I understand that they are under a duty to include both arts and regional programming. However, I should have thought that it would obviously be a good thing for all concerned, including local performers and the local tourism industry, for such events to be showcased. We have already mentioned some of the benefits enjoyed by places such as Liverpool, and I am sure others will want to share in that success.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

If we want tourists to come to Britain, can we give them a slightly better welcome? Arriving at terminals 1 or 3 at Heathrow is like arriving in a third-world slum—it is easier to get into Pakistan or North Korea. There are very surly, disagreeable officials and horrible 1970s collectivist architecture. Can we brighten up this gateway to Britain? Will the Minister talk to the Transport Minister about that?

[John Penrose]

I will leave aside the Foreign Office’s doubtless immediate response to try to repair relations with the countries that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. I agree, however, that we as a country need to do more to make our entry ports more welcoming to foreign visitors, and to British people returning from abroad, and we are currently actively considering a number of measures.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Young people in Merseyside tell me that they are keen to take up jobs in the tourism, culture and creative sectors. Will the Minister tell me what measures he has asked the Chancellor to include in the Budget to help young people take up apprenticeships and other such opportunities in this fast-growing sector?

[John Penrose]

I am sure that everybody here will understand that if I did reveal what I have asked to be in the Budget, I would be summarily flayed by people in the Treasury, for rather understandable reasons. What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we regard the building of skills in the tourism industry as of paramount importance. There is an acknowledged shortcoming in some parts of our tourism industry, but there is a huge opportunity to demonstrate to people—if we get it right—what a great career path the industry can offer.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

York’s museums and mediaeval buildings draw thousands of tourists to the city. Sadly, last year, York Minster and the national railway museum lost £6 million of Government grants. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) is coming to York tomorrow to encourage private sponsorship of our built heritage. I welcome him and wish him well, and I would like to know what plans the Government have to get more private sponsorship of our built heritage.

[John Penrose]

I understand that we have plans for £80 million of match funding to encourage just the kind of donations that the hon. Gentleman describes.

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

The £100 million Titanic signature project is nearing completion in Belfast. What conversations has the Minister had with Executive Ministers in Northern Ireland about how best the 2012 anniversary of the Titanic’s sinking can be exploited for tourism when people come to Britain for the Olympics?

[John Penrose]

It is tremendously important that we use the Olympics as an opportunity to showcase the whole of Britain, rather than just to showcase London for a couple of weeks in the middle of the year, so I completely share the right hon. Gentleman’s aims and ambitions. The main thing that we are doing is to create this £100 million of match funding that the Secretary of State mentioned. That is aimed at marketing the whole of the UK to everybody abroad to showcase what the UK can offer, and not just during the fortnight of the Olympics and during the Paralympics thereafter. We want to create a step-change increase in the number of people visiting in 2013 and the years after.

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

3. What information his Department holds on the effects of tourism on the economy; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

As I just mentioned, the tourism industry is a tremendously important part of our economy. It accounts for £90 billion of spend—more than £115 billion if we include the companies that supply the tourism industry and the leisure economy—and for 4.4% of our jobs.

[Miss McIntosh]

I hope that I can entice you, Mr Speaker, as well as many right hon. and hon. colleagues, to North Yorkshire to sample some of the delights of the market towns, the seaside at Filey, and Castle Howard and other places of historical interest. Will the Minister accept a representation from me today as part of the Government’s consultation on tourism? I can tell him that North Yorkshire will not be helped by being submerged in the dark and the cold during even longer and darker mornings, so I hope that the Government will put an end to the consultation, which will not do anything for tourism in North Yorkshire.

[John Penrose]

I am sure that my hon. Friend would accept that any change in daylight saving time is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. However, I take her point that the tourism industry has campaigned quite loudly on that. At this point, I can only repeat the Prime Minister’s assurance that no progress will be made without the agreement of all parts of the UK; we do not want to impose anything over the heads of, for example, the Scots or the Northern Irish.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

5. How much Arts Council England spent in (a) London and (b) Croydon in 2010-11.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Arts Council England is able to supply figures for only the first three quarters of 2010-11, as the financial year is not yet complete. From 1 April 2010 to 1 December 2010, London received total funding, including lottery and grant in aid, of £191.4 million. Croydon received total funding of just over £210,000.

[Gavin Barwell]

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a pitiful share of the total London budget for London’s largest borough. Neither the Fairfield Halls arts complex, nor the London Mozart Players, one of our best chamber orchestras, gets any funding. Will he talk to Arts Council England about why it is pursuing a zone 1 policy so beloved of the former Mayor of London?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what my hon. Friend says and I commend him on his work, particularly with the Croydon Art Society. I know that the London director of the Arts Council met the director of culture in Croydon in January, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that the arms-length principle means that Ministers cannot interfere in the Arts Council’s funding decisions.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I went to an event that was sponsored by a number of organisations funded by the Arts Council in London, where I saw the work of a group of young people who, through the future jobs fund, were apprenticing themselves to organisations such as the Royal Opera House and other cultural bodies in London. They are coming to present what they have learned through their experience to the House of Commons in a couple of weeks and I wondered whether the Minister would come and listen to them along with the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who has already accepted my invitation.

[Mr Vaizey]

If I am free, I will certainly do that.

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

6. What recent steps he has taken to increase inbound tourism.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

We have already mentioned the £100 million match funding marketing pot that we have created with key firms in the tourism industry. That will be aimed at promoting and marketing the UK abroad to potential inbound visitors.

[Greg Hands]

Returning to the issue of tourists at our airports, for many non-EU nationals the condition of London’s airports and the length of immigration queues in particular can be depressing. What reassurance can the Minister give that action could be taken, particularly for travellers from countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand who do not need a visa to enter the UK?

[John Penrose]

I am delighted to confirm that we are in close discussions with the Home Office and the UK Border Agency about trying to move forward further and faster with measures to improve the queue management for anyone with a chipped passport, which is a relatively new piece of technology that allows us to process people in queues much faster and verify their identity much more quickly, thereby getting them through in a much more timely and welcoming fashion.

[Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Next month, the Turner Contemporary, which is set to become one of Europe’s finest art galleries, is due to open in Margate and we hope that it will attract visitors from all over the world. On the opening weekend, Network Rail is to carry out major engineering works on the line between London and Margate. Could my hon. Friend have a word with the Department for Transport to ensure that it understands the importance of keeping roads and railways open so that visitors can get to the attractions that we wish them to see?

[John Penrose]

Until my hon. Friend rose to his feet, I was not aware of that problem. I will take it very seriously and I look forward to discussing it with him immediately after Question Time.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

9. What plans he has for the future use of the Olympic stadium after the London 2012 Olympics.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

The Olympic Park Legacy Company is responsible for determining the legacy of the Olympic stadium. We have now approved the OPLC board’s recommendation for the preferred bidder, the consortium comprising West Ham United and the London borough of Newham, and contractual negotiations will now proceed to agree acceptable terms of lease.

[Mr Lammy]

Now that the decision has been determined, will the Minister meet me, Haringey council and Daniel Levy from Tottenham Hotspur club to ensure that Tottenham Hotspur is able to move forward with its plans for the Northumberland Park development? The Minister will appreciate that there remain real economic concerns in what is the poorest area of London to ensure that the club can maintain its presence in Tottenham as it wants.

[Hugh Robertson]

The short answer is yes, of course I will. I have met the right hon. Gentleman a number of times during the bidding process and I have also made an offer through the Tottenham board to see whether I can do anything to help. I suspect that my powers in this area will be limited, because I think that the arguments and issues are to do with planning, but if there is anything I can do to help, I will do it.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Will the Minister also take into account the concerns of Barry Hearn, the chairman of Leyton Orient—the finest football club in the country, may I add—about how the redevelopment of the Olympic stadium after the Olympics will affect Leyton Orient football club?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes. I should say at the outset that I am absolutely confident that the process carried through by the Olympic Park Legacy Company, in accordance with the criteria laid out, was absolutely fair and transparent and that it was done in absolutely the correct way. I reject any insinuation that the process was in any way corrupt or badly handled. That said, if there is anything I can do to help Leyton Orient, I will do it, in the same way that if there is anything I can do to help Tottenham Hotspur, I will do it.

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

I welcome the Minister’s announcement and congratulate the Olympic Park Legacy Company on the manner in which this difficult process was handled. May I ask him to ensure that the key elements of the promise on which we won the Olympics in Singapore—a multi-purpose stadium, with a legacy for the community and athletics at its core—are honoured throughout the negotiations about the detailed implementation of the Newham-West Ham bid?

[Hugh Robertson]

In a word, the answer is yes. The West Ham-Newham offer was clear and backed by UK Athletics. The negotiations about the detailed terms of the lease are now being held, and I will absolutely ensure—as, I am sure, will the OPLC—that the offer that West Ham and Newham made is honoured in that lease.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

11. What plans he has for the long-term future of the public library service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The Government are a champion of public libraries as vital hubs of local communities. We drive library improvement, and shortly after coming to office, we set up the future libraries programme, which more than 30 local authorities—[Interruption.] The Film Council was Labour Government policy. The programme supports innovative and efficient models of service delivery. In addition, my Department and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council continue to monitor and work with local authorities on their proposals for their library services.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for those words, but in Cambridge the Conservative county council is reviewing library provision, resulting in service reductions and the possible closure of such great facilities as Milton road, Arbury Court and Rock road libraries. The Liberal Democrat opposition on the county council proposed a small amount of money to save all those services. What comment does the Minister have in view of his earlier remarks about what the county council ought to be doing?

[Mr Vaizey]

The county council is, I understand, not only part of the SPINE project, but works with Lincolnshire council under the future libraries programme. I will not comment on the specific proposals that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I understand that Cambridgeshire county council is considering turning many of its libraries into community hubs and consulting extensively on its proposals.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

What assessment have the Government made about the impact of library closures and reduced library services on efforts to improve adult literacy?

[Mr Vaizey]

The improvement of adult literacy is incredibly important, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has secured substantial funding for adult learning. Many library closures are simply proposals, and many local authorities are continuing to consult on them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Labour-run Bradford council proposes to close Wrose, Denholme and Wilsden libraries in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that if a Conservative-led Bradford council could afford to keep those libraries open a few years ago, with the same grant as Bradford receives now from the Government, Labour-run Bradford council should be able to afford to do so, too?

[Mr Vaizey]

As I said, it would be wrong of me to comment on specific proposals, but I am sure that Bradford city council will want to consult extensively with local people.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

The DCMS website says:

“We would be concerned if libraries were closed, or their services disproportionately reduced, just to save money.”

If the policy is not intended to save money, why does the Minister think that councils are proposing to close libraries?

[Mr Vaizey]

The Labour Government said in March last year:

“The Government recognises that library closures may sometimes be necessary but closures must form part of a strategic approach to service provision”.

I agree with that statement.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Northamptonshire county council, which happens to be Conservative-led, has reconsidered its proposals to close libraries and is keeping them open. In particular, in my constituency, Councillor Terry Perkins led the campaign to save Irchester library. Does that not show that Conservatives are listening?

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. A lot of councils are listening. Local people have reacted to many councils’ initial proposals; there has been consultation; and many councils are changing their plans—and that is a good thing.

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

12. If he will require the British Film Institute to continue the UK Film Council’s work on promoting diversity in the film sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The British Film Institute has a long and proud track record of commitment to diversity, both in the workplace and in its cultural programme, including such pioneering work as the London lesbian and gay film festival, the breadth of programming in the BFI London film festival and at BFI Southbank and in its DVD catalogue. It remains committed to ensuring access for all to everything that it does and to reflecting the full diversity of experience in its work.

[Simon Hughes]

As we celebrate the BAFTAs and the Oscars, I am sure that the Minister will have noticed that there are very few black and minority ethnic faces in front of the screen, and the work force behind the screen are similarly unrepresentative. Will he use his influence to ensure that when the British Film Institute, which is based on the south bank in my part of the world, takes over responsibilities, it understands the importance of diversity for the whole of the work force, and will he work with me to ensure that that is achieved?

[Mr Vaizey]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am certainly happy to work with him and the British Film Institute to ensure that that happens and that we make significant progress.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Returning to the Secretary of State’s comments on the funding of “The King’s Speech”, funding did come from the lottery, but the decision to invest it was actually made by the UK Film Council, and that institution has been working very well. Iain Canning, one of the film’s producers, has said that it would not have been made were it not for the UK Film Council. Colin Firth, after receiving his award, said that he thought that the decision to abolish the UK Film Council was short-sighted. Why does the Secretary of State believe that Colin Firth is wrong and he is right on that?

[Mr Vaizey]

The

“Plans to merge the UK Film Council… and the British Film Institute… into a single body to support film could benefit both the filmgoing public and the industry… A new, streamlined single body that represents the whole of the film sector will offer a better service for both film makers and film lovers.”

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It says here.

[Mr Vaizey]

It says here that that is from a statement made in August 2009 by Siôn Simon, the previous Labour Minister responsible for the creative industries. [Interruption.]

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to encourage young people to participate in competitive sport.

[The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)]

It feels a little like the aftermath of the lord mayor’s show, Mr Speaker.

The Government are committed to encouraging young people to participate in competitive sport, principally through the introduction of the new school games tournament. The school games will roll out this September and give pupils of all abilities the chance to compete regularly against each other in a wide range of sports at local, county and national level. The first national finals will take place in the Olympic park in 2012.

[Graham Evans]

I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome plans for the school games, which should help to provide a lasting sporting legacy for London 2012. Such a lasting legacy was under threat from the previous Government’s constant diversion of national lottery funding away from sport to other pet projects. What have this Government done to prevent that from happening in future?

[Hugh Robertson]

The simple answer is that we have increased the amount of money that sport gets though the lottery back up to the 20% originally envisaged in the mid-1990s.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that opportunities for competitive sport will be cut, because the Government are slashing funding for school sport by 80%, forcing local councils to go too far and too fast with public spending cuts, closing facilities, sacking sports coaches and increasing fees and charges for local community and amateur sports clubs?

[Hugh Robertson]

That question seems to ignore the economic backdrop that we have inherited. This decision is necessary precisely because the previous Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was a part, left a financial crisis that sees us paying £120 million in interest charges each and every day. It is against that backdrop that we have increased the amount of money going into sport and made the changes that I outlined in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). We will continue to do everything we can to drive up participation in sport.

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

15. What plans he has for the future of community radio; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

My Department is a strong supporter of community radio and has secured around £450,000 a year to support it. We intend to examine the regulatory regime for community radio as part of the forthcoming communications review.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Given the merging and closure of so many commercial local radio stations, what specific measures will the Government take to encourage community radio to offer an alternative in competition with local BBC radio stations?

[Mr Vaizey]

As I have said, we have secured the funding for this spending round. There are now 185 community radio stations on air, and I know that Hermitage FM is extremely popular in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Ofcom will shortly report on a third round of licensing for community radio.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the effect on small businesses of the revision of the timetable for the introduction of universal broadband.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

My Department believes that all businesses will benefit from the enhanced availability of superfast broadband. Work carried out by Broadband Delivery UK last summer underpinned the decision to bring together efforts to drive superfast broadband out as far as possible at the same time as delivering universal broadband.

[Gregg McClymont]

Does the Minister still believe that duct access is the solution for the roll-out of next-generation superfast broadband to rural populations?

[Mr Vaizey]

I certainly believe that duct access is part of the solution. Not only are we investing £530 million in the lifetime of this Parliament, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, deregulation—in the sense of removing barriers to investment—is a very important part of the strategy as well.

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

Removing barriers in the way that the Minister describes is important, but, with the roll-out of superfast broadband, does he not agree that, although urban, city and suburban areas will be fine, the real risk is that really remote rural areas, such as those throughout Wiltshire, will take an awfully long time to be connected? Will he give us his assurance today that he will pay particular attention to rural areas such as mine in the roll-out of superfast broadband?

[Mr Vaizey]

I certainly will. In fact, I bumped into the chief executive of Wiltshire county council only this week and heard some of its exciting proposals to ensure that superfast broadband goes to all rural areas of Wiltshire.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

17. What assessment he has made of the contribution of arts and culture to the regeneration of deprived seaside towns.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Culture makes a fantastic contribution to regeneration throughout the country. Earlier this week, I was privileged to attend a reception in the House for the launch of the Turner Contemporary gallery, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in praising Roger de Haan’s work in revitalising Folkestone, even though it is not in her constituency.

[Laura Sandys]

I most certainly will, and I know that Tracey Emin was most taken by the Minister on Monday evening. Seaside towns have always been marketed as summer locations. Now we have that internationally renowned gallery in Margate, I hope that he might make representations to the tourism Minister to ensure that seaside towns are marketed all year round. That is how we will secure the most effective regeneration for places such as Margate, Ramsgate, Hastings and, yes, Folkestone as well.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ensuring that I appear in tomorrow’s parliamentary sketch, and the minute I sit down, I will turn to my right and lobby the tourism Minister.

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

In January I published our local media action plan. I am pleased to announce that, by the deadline of 1 March, we had 30 expressions of interest from people who wanted to run local media services, 21 expressions of interest from people interested in running a new local TV network and five expressions of interest from people interested in running local TV services in the devolved nations.

[Karl Turner]

Is the decision to remove funding for Creative Partnerships not further evidence of a deliberate strategy by this Tory-led Government to remove funding from the poorest and most disadvantaged children in our society?

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely not. I recognise that Creative Partnerships has done some excellent work, and I commend in particular the leadership of Paul Collard, but the decision to remove its funding was directly caused by the enormous budget deficit that we inherited—the economic crisis from which we and the whole country now have to pick up the pieces.

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

T2. I know that the Minister is aware of the importance of high-speed broadband to predominantly rural counties, such as Suffolk, and in particular to the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. Is he encouraged by the fact that in Suffolk we are developing a public-private partnership that will see local authorities committing almost £500,000 to the revenue funding of any future successful broadband bid?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am certainly encouraged by what my hon. Friend tells me, and I am further encouraged, having met Suffolk county council with local Conservative MPs, who are taking a strong leadership position on that important issue.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

T4. In my relatively short time in the House, what has struck me as being extremely helpful has been the time given to statements. Can the Minister explain why a statement on BSkyB, which has been widely trailed in the press this morning and all over the radio, appears to have been postponed until such a late time in the day? Will he also comment on the statement that placing independent directors on The Times newspaper in the past has proved wholly ineffective?

[Mr Hunt]

You, Mr Speaker, very kindly gave me permission to make my statement to the House at 3 o’clock. I did not have any control over the time. I actually have the statement with me, and I would be happy to deliver it right away, but Mr Speaker has generously given me a slot at 3 o’clock, and that is when I intend to address the issues that the hon. Lady raises.

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

T3. Is my right hon. Friend as pleased as I am that that great symbol of Cornish culture, the Cornish pasty, has been awarded protected geographical indication status? Will he join me and my Cornish colleagues in wishing my constituents in South East Cornwall, and indeed all the people of Cornwall, a happy St Piran’s day for Saturday?

[Mr Hunt]

I have great pleasure in wishing my hon. Friend and her constituents a happy St Piran’s day. I was in South East Cornwall on holiday the weekend before last, and the highlight of that weekend was an absolutely delicious Cornish pasty.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Is the real reason the Secretary of State is not delivering the statement on BSkyB until the unusually late hour of 3 o’clock that Rupert Murdoch has not written it yet?

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my earlier response, he would have heard me say that I have the statement here and am happy to deliver it at any time, but Mr Speaker has generously given me a slot at 3 o’clock, when I will address all the issues that he and other hon. Members wish to raise.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

T5. May I add my congratulations to everyone involved in the success of “The King’s Speech”? It has also been a major commercial success, and it was funded partly by lottery funding. Can the Secretary of State give us an idea of how much revenue that will bring in to the UK taxpayer?

[Mr Hunt]

As I understand it, the commercial deal around “The King’s Speech”, which could gross up to £200 million worldwide, means that 34% of the money that it may generate that came from financiers will come back to the UK to invest in future film production, which is an excellent thing.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

At the recent Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, many exciting new mobile applications and devices were unveiled. However, consumers and businesses across the country are being left behind because of this Government’s delay in making mobile spectrum available. What is the Minister doing to speed up the availability of spectrum for innovative applications?

[Mr Vaizey]

We expect Ofcom to publish its auction rules towards the end of this month. Any delay was caused by the fact that the previous Government did not bring forward the statutory instrument in time. By the time that they did, substantial changes had taken place in the mobile telecoms landscape that necessitated a review.

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

T6. My right hon. Friend will be aware of BBC Worldwide’s bid for the remaining stake in “Lonely Planet” travel guides. Will he undertake to have a word with BBC Worldwide about the history sections in some of these travel guides? The one for England, for example, has a rather partial view of the 1980s. It says:“Trade unions archaic? She”—Margaret Thatcher—“smashed them. British industry inefficient? She shut it down. Nationalised companies a mistake? She sold them off”.Can he make sure that there is a slightly more nuanced and balanced section in these travel guides? Having said that, the section ends by saying that“her repeated electoral victories were helped considerably by the Labour Party’s total incompetence”.

[Mr Hunt]

I am a huge fan of the “Lonely Planet” travel guides, but I am not a great fan of its guides to the UK. The most important thing that it needs to update is the fact that there is an outstanding new tourism Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has taken charge of the British tourism industry and is ringing the changes to make Britain a better tourism destination.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Britain is rightly renowned for the creativity of its independent music sector, but musicians seeking to go and tour in the US face huge bureaucracy and costs when they try to get visas, whereas it is far easier for musicians from the US to come and tour here. May I urge the Minister to take action on this?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is the first time that that issue has been raised with me, and I would be delighted to sit down with the hon. Lady and discuss it further.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

As currently drafted, the Localism Bill would allow local development plans to circumvent the existing rules on listed buildings. Does the Minister agree that this could play havoc with our current built heritage? What discussions is he having with the Department for Communities and Local Government to avoid that problem?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that at no stage has any DCLG Minister come to me and said that they wish to drive a coach and horses through the listed buildings regulations; I am sure that he was not implying that anyway. I am happy to reassure him that, as we speak, officials from DCMS are in close consultation on this very issue with the authors of the Localism Bill.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that question, two weekends ago, I spent a very cold evening trying to protect the former EMD cinema in Walthamstow from an illegal rave, during the course of which I discovered that that beautiful listed building had been flooded with water. Similarly, whenever I pass the Walthamstow dog track and see the derelict state it is now in, I fear for its future. Will the Minister agree to an urgent meeting with me to discuss what more can be done to protect such heritage buildings from unscrupulous landlords such as the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God and London & Quadrant, given their listed status?

[John Penrose]

I would of course be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to discuss those issues. I assure her that, by and large, individual structures spend between two and four years on the buildings at risk register. In most cases, solutions are found but there is a small but real nub of cases that have longer-term problems. If the two cases that she describes are part of that nub, I would be delighted to talk them through with her.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Heart radio has more than halved the number of local stations for which it was granted licences. Those lost include the one in Colchester. If Heart is not prepared to reopen that station, surely the frequency should be offered to the local community to run its own radio station—Radio Big Society Colchester.

[Mr Vaizey]

If Radio Big Society Colchester does get off the ground, we all know who the breakfast presenter should be.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I welcome the decision by colleagues in the Department for Education to award £82 million to music education. In the past, the cultural sector has worked closely with music education. Will Ministers ensure that that progress continues?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. In the spirit in which he asked it, I pay tribute to the work of the previous Government in establishing the music standards fund and taking music education so seriously. The Henley review has enabled the close co-operation between the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to continue.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

The Liverpool city region is a cultural hub, and that was cemented when it won the capital of culture. It is imperative that the area has a local television station. Will the Secretary of State work with the city region to ensure that a bid is taken up in this area?

[Mr Hunt]

I would be delighted to do so. Liverpool presents a fantastic opportunity and would benefit hugely from having its own TV station. It has a fantastic cultural heritage, an amazing sporting tradition and tremendous civic pride. Not least, I am sure that such a station would be an excellent platform for my hon. Friend to say what a brilliant job she is doing for her constituents.

The Leader of the House was asked—

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee on means for that Committee to receive representations from hon. Members.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House meets regularly with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee to discuss a range of issues relating to Back-Bench business. My right hon. Friend and I have attended meetings of what he calls the Backbench Business Committee’s weekly salon. We have been impressed by the work of the Committee and the quality of presentations by hon. Members.

[Julie Hilling]

With all the non-legislative debates being transferred to the Backbench Business Committee, does the Deputy Leader of the House recognise that hon. Members will want to make representations for more parliamentary time to be allocated to Back-Bench business, particularly given its popularity since its introduction?

[Mr Heath]

It is important that we get the right balance in the House between legislative business, which is the proper business of the House, and the debates that the Backbench Business Committee organises on behalf of the House. The Wright Committee made clear proposals on how we should allocate time to the Backbench Business Committee, which the Government have followed. The days have been transferred and I think that it is working extremely well.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the House on attending Tuesday’s Backbench Business Committee meeting. Will he make it clear to the House that the Committee can allocate only the time given to it by Her Majesty’s Government, and that the days on which Back-Bench business takes place are decided on entirely by him and the Leader of the House?

[Mr Heath]

It is the business managers who allocate the days that are made available, but that is done within a framework by which the number of days is allocated according to a formula, as the hon. Gentleman knows and the House understands.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Further to that answer, the Deputy Leader of the House is aware that the 35 days allocated to Backbench Business Committee debates at the moment is a minimum number, so given the popularity of those debates, will he increase that number from 35 to many more?

[Mr Heath]

At the moment, the hon. Lady’s Committee has 15 days of the allotted 35 days left, so we have not yet reached the allocation. There would not be a need for a change to Standing Orders to allocate more if it seemed appropriate to do so, but I stress again that for the system to work—I think it is working very well—we have to get the right balance between legislative time and time for other debates. We often hear calls for more time for Committee and Report stages of Bills, and we have to be aware that that takes time as well. If we restrict the number of days available for scrutiny of Bills, it restricts the opportunity for Back-Bench Members to have their say on legislation that is passing through the House.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Given the level of interest in Back-Bench business, does the Deputy Leader of the House think that the time has now come to allow Members to make representations in public by having questions to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee on the Floor of the House? Does he agree that that would have two advantages? It would raise the Committee’s profile with the public, who may well have issues that they would like to see debated, and it would allow the Leader of the House to concentrate on requests for the use of Government time instead of having to refer many bids to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), as he does at present.

[Mr Heath]

As I said earlier, the public sessions that the Committee holds are extremely effective. As I heard on Tuesday, when the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) was unfortunately not chairing the session—it was elegantly chaired by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—they give people the opportunity to expand on the case that they wish to put. We are going to move to having a Committee for all business of the House, and we will then need to consider seriously the arrangements for the business statement and how we deal with business sessions, to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to bid for time in an effective way.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Chair of the Committee of Selection on the operation of that Committee.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I have occasional discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on the work of his Committee. The House’s arrangements for the appointment of Select Committee members and Chairs have been significantly strengthened by changes introduced at the beginning of this Parliament.

[Heidi Alexander]

Having spent the last month doing my best to scrutinise the Localism Bill, I find it quite remarkable that hon. Members with specific expertise or knowledge can be prevented from serving on particular Bill Committees by the Committee of Selection. In May 2009, the Prime Minister said:

“There are far too many laws being pushed through, with far too little genuine scrutiny from MPs.”

Does the Leader of the House agree with those comments, and will he explore ways to make the Committee stage of Bills more open and effective?

[Sir George Young]

I welcome the important work that the hon. Lady is doing on the Localism Bill. It quite often happens that there are more people wishing to serve on a Public Bill Committee than there are places available, and the Committee of Selection then has to make difficult choices. In light of the exchange that took place at business questions a few weeks ago, it has revisited its procedure and believes that it was correctly followed in the case in question. I believe that the Committee and its Chairman will always be open to discussing how it works with Members of all parties.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

As somebody who is currently serving on the Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, may I just—I apologise, Mr Speaker, I will have to sit down.

[Sir George Young]

If my hon. Friend was going to say that there is not enough medical expertise on that Public Bill Committee, I say to him that I have looked at its membership and seen that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is on it, who is a specialist registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) is a public health expert and a former chair of Rochdale primary care trust, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) served as a major in the Royal Army Medical Corps, so it seems to me that there is adequate medical expertise on that Public Bill Committee. Indeed, if anyone on the Committee were feeling unwell, they would be in very good hands.

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

Given how the Committee of Selection was used in recent Parliaments by the previous Labour Government as a means for keeping Select Committees in what is euphemistically known as “a safe pair of hands”, has the Leader of the House made an assessment of the functioning of those Committees under this Government, when members and Chairs are elected and not selected?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I was a member of the Committee of Selection when the Labour Whips tried to deselect Gwyneth Dunwoody and Donald Anderson from the Select Committees that they had chaired with magnificent independence. It was partly because of that outrageous performance that this Government moved towards the Wright Committee recommendations. I am delighted to say that the new procedure is working very well, and that Chairs of Select Committees have an independence that they did not have before.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

3. What recent representations he has received on the consequences of the timing of Question Time in the House for the conduct of Committee business; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has received no specific representations on this issue, but he and I are happy to receive such representations from Members. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Procedure Committee is looking at the issue of sitting hours, and he may wish to contribute to that inquiry in due course.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am a firm believer that Question Time and statements should be in prime time, and that Committees should not meet at the same time. We have a classic example of that not happening today. We will have a statement at 3 o’clock despite the fact that the Order Paper states that “Ministerial Statements (if any)” will take place after 11.30 am. Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why people such as me—I am serving on the Education Bill Committee today at 3 o’clock, on a three-line Whip—will be unable to come here to participate? Why has that happened?

[Mr Heath]

First, Committees as a rule do not meet during Question Time in the Chamber, but obviously, it is not always possible to avoid a clash with statements. However, the same applies to consideration of Bills and all other business. Hon. Members sometimes have to make difficult choices on their priorities.

On the timing of business today, it is very important that, on one of the rare occasions when one of the minority parties has an Opposition day, we do not take up all the time available to it with a statement. That is why you, Mr Speaker, chose 3 o’clock today as an opportunity for that statement.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

4. If he will bring forward proposals to provide for the publication in the Official Report of advice given by Government business managers on voting by hon. Members.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

I am devastated to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the Government have no plans to do so.

[Mr Bone]

In virtually every Division in the House of Commons, Members of Parliament do not make up their own minds how to vote, but are instructed by dark forces. The Deputy Leader of the House is a great parliamentarian who believes in transparency. I urge him—no: I beg him—not to go over to the dark side. Let us throw light on that advice and publish it.

[Mr Heath]

I know that the business managers sometimes give advice on voting, and that they sometimes express a degree of eagerness that hon. Members might attend on a particular day and vote in a particular way. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has never felt desperately constrained by that, although I am impressed that on no fewer than eight out of 10 occasions during this Parliament, he has supported the Government, which may come as some surprise to those on the Treasury Bench. He obviously takes very seriously the advice he receives, but I am not sure that placing such matters on the Order Paper adds value to it.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

5. How many questions for oral answer printed in the Questions Book Departments have subsequently transferred during the present Session of Parliament.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Information extracted from the House’s Parliamentary Information Management Services database indicates that a total of 46 oral questions have been transferred this Session.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House look at a particular oral question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) for answer by the Minister for Women and Equality? He asked about the equality impact of pensions policy and how men and women are treated differently in that respect. The question was selected for oral answer and was transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. However, the equalities impact element of the question has, as far as I can see, never been answered.

[Mr Heath]

I am obviously concerned if the hon. Lady feels that a question has not been answered. It is for Ministers and Departments to determine which Department has responsibility for a particular question. As she knows, the transfer of questions has happened for a very long time. It is important that when a question is transferred, it is done promptly—an oral question should be transferred within 24 hours of it appearing in the notice paper, not of the day for answer, and it is a discourtesy to the House and hon. Members if they are not notified of that transfer. However, if she would like to give me further details of a question that she feels has simply not been answered, I will happily look into it.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

6. What recent representations he has received on the practice of the House of holding daily Prayers in the Chamber.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The holding of daily Prayers is primarily a matter for the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House responded to a question for written answer from the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on 10 February, and the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) raised the matter during a debate in Westminster Hall on parliamentary reform on 3 February.

[Mr Leigh]

It has been suggested in debate that Prayers should either be abolished or moved from the main Chamber on the grounds that they take up a valuable three minutes of our time. Will the Deputy Leader of the House reject this notion, and say that, whatever one’s religious views—or lack thereof—apart from the fact that they are beautiful poetry, what is wrong with meditating on things other than politics for three minutes a day? Anyway, our wonderful Chaplain does them very beautifully.

[Mr Heath]

I know that many right hon. and hon. Members value the few moments that the House spends in prayer at the beginning of each daily sitting. I repeat that I do not think that it is a matter for the Government; it is for the House. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you will have heard the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the House of Commons nursery; and if he will make a statement.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The nursery opened on 1 September last year and was inspected by Ofsted on 1 February, and achieved an overall assessment of “good”. Ofsted rated it as “outstanding” for the effectiveness of the setting’s engagement with parents and carers. The nursery has 40 places and is planned to reach its break-even point of 28 places within three years. Currently, 12 places are filled, and a further eight children are registered to start within six months, making a total of 20.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Will he tell us the average taxpayer subsidy per place at present for the day nursery?

[John Thurso]

This year the cost of the nursery will be approximately £50,000, but it is on track to break even ahead of schedule, and thereafter, as was planned by the Commission in bringing forward the nursery project, it will have no impact on the public purse—indeed, it will be a very modest net contributor to the House’s funds.

Rail Services (Melksham, Wiltshire)

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I present a petition begun by Melksham Oak community school and supported by pupils at the school. The petition has now been signed by more than 300 of my constituents. Melksham deserves a better train service, and vast improvements could be made at minimal cost through the allocation of a small number of carriages to the TransWilts line.

The petition states:

The Petition of Melksham Oak community school and the people of Melksham in Wiltshire,

Declares that Melksham has one of the poorest train services in the country for a town of its size with only two services a day each way at times which are impractical for commuters; notes that travelling to work, school, or even visiting friends could be made easier with more trains on Wiltshire's railway; and further notes that the Government will be reallocating a number of trains no longer needed in London and the South East to other parts of the rail network.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to allocate additional carriages for use on the TransWilts service between Swindon and Salisbury, calling at Melksham.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000892]

Business of the House

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

11:33

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House gives us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 7 March will be:

Monday 7 March—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 8 March—Remaining stages of the European Union Bill.

Wednesday 9 March—Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Thursday 10 March—There will be a general debate on the future of the coastguard service, followed by a debate on a motion relating to UN women. Both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

The provisional business for the week commencing 14 March will include:

Monday 14 March—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Day 2).



Tuesday 15 March—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Day 3).

Wednesday 16 March—Opposition Day [13th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a document relating to section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.

Thursday 17 March—General debate on north Africa and the middle east.

Friday 18 March—Private Members’ Bills.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. Given that the Government must have known that they wished to make a statement today, can he explain why a motion was not tabled yesterday to protect the time for today’s Opposition day debate, so as to allow the statement to be made at the normal moment?

I welcome the Back-Bench debate—I asked the right hon. Gentleman for one before the recess—on the momentous changes that we are seeing in the wider middle east and the hopes that we all have for the people of Libya at this difficult time. We look forward to the participation of the Foreign Secretary and the Development Secretary. We acknowledge the efforts now being made to help those affected in Libya, but can we have a commitment that there will be an oral statement following the inquiry that is under way into what went wrong at the beginning with the rescue of British citizens from Libya? There is a great deal to learn.

When the Deputy Prime Minister was asked whether he was in charge while the Prime Minister was away in the middle east last week, he replied:

“Yeah, I suppose I am. I forgot about that.”

Although we would love to forget that too, perhaps that explains why British oil workers in the desert were also forgotten about, until one of them managed to phone the “Today” programme last Wednesday morning to describe their plight. What is the point in the Deputy Prime Minister being in charge if he does not know it, and if neither he nor the Prime Minister could manage the simple task of convening a timely meeting of Cobra given that British citizens were at risk?

Will the statement also cover the Prime Minister’s strange excuse on Monday that if the UK had sent in planes earlier, the scheduled airlines might have stopped flying? In case he did not notice, they stopped flying anyway. While the Turks, the French, the Germans and the Belgians—and Belgium does not even have a Government—managed to fly their citizens out, the UK Government’s aircraft was still stuck on the runway at Gatwick in a no-fly zone all of its own. Will the statement also deal with why the Prime Minister decided yesterday to confirm that facilitation payments were made to help the evacuation? I make no criticism of those payments if that is what it took to get our people out, but I am surprised that the Prime Minister should say this publicly, because all he has done is advertise to others that in future they can demand money of us.

There is a pattern when it comes to handling crises: a Security Minister who did not tell the Prime Minister for six whole hours that a bomb had been found on a plane at East Midlands airport; a Defence Secretary who sacks RAF personnel days after the daring rescue in the Libyan desert; a Deputy Prime Minister who does not even know what his job is; and a Prime Minister who was caught napping and who could not bring himself to repeat to the House the apology that he made to the press about this mess. There is one word that sums this up: incompetence.

Can we have a statement on what has happened on compensation for the relatives of British citizens killed or injured in terrorist attacks abroad? As the Leader of the House knows, the Labour Government put that on to the statute book and the coalition promised to implement it, but as the months pass, people are asking: when will the Government keep their word?

Can we have urgent clarification from the Health Secretary that family doctors will not be able to make profits from GP commissioning, and that GP practices will not be partially floated on the stock exchange? The latest poll shows that 89% of doctors think that competition will lead to services being fragmented, while two thirds fear that competition between providers will reduce the quality of patient care. Government Members should be very worried as more is revealed about what the Health Secretary has in store for the NHS. They will know the feeling—whispered conversations in the corridors: “Why are we doing this?”, “Doesn’t sound right to me. It’s pretty unpopular”—only this time it is not trees; it is people needing medical care.

Finally, has the Leader of the House seen the Minimum Wage (Amendment) Bill being proposed by five of his Conservative colleagues, which is down for debate this Friday? Its purpose is to allow the protection of the national minimum wage to be removed in certain parts of the country. Remembering that under the last Conservative Government there was no law to prevent jobs from being advertised at £1.50 an hour, we are reminded by this Bill what the Conservatives really stand for. They will not repeat the bankers’ bonus tax on people getting millions, but some of their Members seem determined to cut the wages of people who earn £5.93 an hour. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning this outrageous proposal?

[Sir George Young]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, and congratulate him on his new appointment as Labour’s new regional champion for the east midlands. Perhaps he can deploy the eloquence that he has just displayed in the House to persuade Nottingham city council to do what every other local authority has done—namely, to open up its finances to public scrutiny. I hope that he will be a champion for openness and taxpayers, and not for secrecy and waste.

On BSkyB, this was a market-sensitive announcement taken by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. We could have made an announcement after business questions, but that would have done injury to the Democratic Unionist party and, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons explained, we want to respect the rights of minority parties. The statement is therefore being made at 3 o’clock, which is not an unusual time for statements to be made during the week.

On the question of Libya, our first priority was to get British nationals out. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that HMS Cumberland and the Hercules aircraft took out not only British nationals but nationals of other countries, after we had been told by Opposition Members that we were lagging behind other countries in evacuating our personnel. Significant numbers of other nationals were still left behind, and they were taken out by British ships and planes. We want to step up the international pressure on the regime and deal with the worsening humanitarian situation, as well as planning for every eventuality. I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s accusations about the performance of either the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, both of whom answered questions at the Dispatch Box, on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively. Of course we will want to keep the House informed, and the Government felt it right—as I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged—that we should debate north Africa and the middle east in Government time.

I will make inquiries into the question of compensation for terrorist attacks, and I will update the right hon. Gentleman on where we are on that.

On the NHS reforms, I do not know whether he listened to the “Today” programme and heard the Secretary of State for Health rebut the allegation that GPs would be able to transfer into their own pockets any surpluses that they might make on the commissioning side. He will also be aware that the building blocks for our health reforms were in place under his Administration. They included GP-based commissioning, foundation trusts and patient choice, and we are developing many of the reforms that were already under way.

Finally, on the Minimum Wage (Amendment) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the Government will be opposing it.

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

May we have a debate on the mislabelling of food? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent survey by local government regulation inspectors discovered that a fifth of all food on sale labelled as “local” was no such thing at all? Does he not agree that such dishonesty in food labelling is not only misleading consumers but undermining the viability of many genuine local food producers?

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend raises a key point. Many British consumers want to support British farmers, but they can do so only if the food in the supermarkets and other shops is correctly labelled. I will raise his concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ask her to write to him outlining the steps that we are taking to provide for honest labelling of British products.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House think that, at a time of major international crisis, it is appropriate for Ministers to indulge in petty political point scoring rather than focusing on their faltering response to events in Libya?

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure to what the hon. Lady is referring. If there has been any petty party political point scoring about Libya, I think it came from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) a few moments ago.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

UK manufacturing is vital to the rebalancing of our economy, and that is important to my constituents and the wider west midlands in particular. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Government strategies to support manufacturing?

[Sir George Young]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for manufacturing. Earlier this week, he might have seen some important information about increased manufacturing output and investment, which I know he will welcome. Later this month we shall have the Budget, which we shall debate for a number of days afterwards. That will provide an opportunity for us to discuss further the steps that the Government are taking to promote a recovery in manufacturing.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May we have an early debate on the relationship between democracy and the media? Is the Leader of the House not worried that the ambition of the Murdoch empire to expand its monopoly and run down the BBC is on course and doing very well? Is that good for democracy?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity later to ask questions about the Secretary of State’s decision, but I reject his accusation that democracy is in any way undermined by the decision taken today.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I concur with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) when he said that many MPs cherish the three minutes of prayer and reflection at the start of each parliamentary day. Given that MPs come from many different Christian denominations, different religions and, indeed, none, is it time to reconsider the House practice whereby the only way to reserve a seat in the Chamber makes it mandatory to attend Church of England prayers?

[Sir George Young]

That is primarily a matter for the House rather than the Government, and you, Mr Speaker, will have heard the hon. Lady’s request. One can also put in a pink card in certain circumstances and reserve a seat if one serves on a Committee, so there are other ways of reserving a place in the Chamber.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Given that hospital waiting lists are increasing as a result of the abolition of a maximum waiting time target for hospitals, may we have an urgent debate so that the Secretary of State for Health can apologise to the sick people who now have to wait longer for treatment?

[Sir George Young]

A debate on the Health Bill will take place in due course on Report, but the Conservative party and this coalition Government are committed to investing more in the NHS than the outgoing Labour Government invested, so there is no reason at all why waiting lists should be higher under this Government than they would have been if the hon. Gentleman’s party had been returned.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

On the subject of Prayers, since we have a coalition Government, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will remember that Mr Gladstone said that Prayers were by far the most important business that the House ever conducted.

[Sir George Young]

I do not remember that, although my hon. Friend may do. It is important to put our proceedings in context by a short period of reflection and prayer before we commence the parliamentary day, during which we are sometimes less than courteous to each other.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please have a word with the millionaire Transport Secretary about his decision earlier this week on the extension of the electrification of the Great Western line to Swansea? There is still a great deal of controversy about the business case on which that decision was ostensibly predicated, so we would be grateful to know more about that business case by having an early debate on the extension of the line through to Swansea, which is so needed for the west Wales economy.

[Sir George Young]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a very welcome statement on Tuesday announcing the electrification of the Great Western railway to Bristol, Cardiff and, indeed, the south Wales valleys, and at the same time he announced new rolling stock. He made it absolutely clear that even if electrification were carried through to Swansea, it would not affect the time already saved in travelling from London and the hon. Gentleman will already get a 20-minute saving anyway. I therefore very much hope that he will be slightly more enthusiastic about the Government’s announcement and about the reduction of the time it will take him to get home on a Thursday evening.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

May we have a statement in which a Minister can condemn the outrageous targeting of vulnerable elderly people in Keighley and Ilkley by the Bradford Labour mayor-elect, who last Thursday increased the cost of meals on wheels for my elderly constituents by 88%?

[Sir George Young]

I hope that any local authority or mayor who has to balance the books will look very hard at the options available before pursuing the sort of decision that my hon. Friend has outlined. He will have heard during Monday’s questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the steps taken by many local authorities to protect front-line services by pooling chief executives, pooling services and joint procurement. I very much hope that, even at this late stage, some of those options might be looked at in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

We are now in March, yet we have had no clarity about how the enhanced discretionary learner support award that is replacing the educational maintenance allowance will operate. That is totally unfair on young people in years 11 and 12, while also being unfair on the schools and colleges that are trying to provide information, advice and guidance to allow young people to plan their futures. Can we have an urgent statement next week on the replacement of EMA so that we can find out how these young people are going to be supported?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point: those who are continuing their education will want to know how they will be supported. We are committed to ensuring that young people from low-income households can enter learning. We are considering the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is advising us on access to education for the poorest young people. The Department for Education plans to allocate the new funds in early spring.

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

In view of a report this morning that many vocational training courses are not fit for purpose, and media reports that nearly half a million teenagers are involved in academic courses that will not help them secure a job, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate about how we can equip our young people with the skills and the technology necessary to compete in the global economy in the 21st century?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He may have seen our response, in a written ministerial statement out today, to the Wolf review of vocational education, and we will immediately accept four recommendations of that key report. I would welcome a debate, and he might like to approach the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on vocational education or apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

On 7 February, the Department for Education refused to put up a Minister on the “Today” programme to discuss capital expenditure on free schools. On the same day, I submitted a written question to the Department for Education asking how much it would allocate to capital expenditure on free schools. The reply I received on 10 February stated:

“I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.”

Is the Department for Education trying to hide something? When will we get clarity on this important issue and whether it will have an impact on the Building Schools for the Future programme? May we have an urgent statement on the matter?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady is entitled to an answer to her written parliamentary question, and I will pursue that today with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to see whether she can get a response to her question early next week.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

This week I learned that Ashiana, a charitable voluntary organisation in my constituency, is having its grant completely withdrawn. Harrow Carers’ grant is also being slashed by 30%, and every other voluntary organisation is being decimated by the Labour-run council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has gone on record suggesting that he will take reserve powers to force councils to release money to voluntary organisations. May we have an urgent statement on what powers he is taking to protect such voluntary organisations from Labour-run councils?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concerns of voluntary organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency about the decisions taken. At Monday’s questions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local government outlined a number of local authorities that had coped with the settlement without reducing grants to voluntary organisations. Indeed, I think he mentioned one that had increased its grants to voluntary organisations, so it can be done. I will raise with him the reserved powers to which my hon. Friend refers, and find out in what circumstances he might be invited to use them.

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

On the ongoing discussions about the Government’s proposals on disability living allowance, may I invite the Leader of the House to consider the view expressed by the statutory body funded by the Department for Work and Pensions:

“We consider that the proposal to remove the mobility component from people in residential care should not go ahead. This measure will substantially reduce the independence of disabled people who are being cared for in residential accommodation, which goes against the stated aim of the reform of DLA to support disabled people to lead independent and active lives”.

That is a crucial intervention. May we have a debate as soon as possible?

[Sir George Young]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the consultation has just ended on the reform of DLA, and the Government propose gradually to replace DLA from 2013 with a personal independence payment. Work is continuing on the exact structure of that payment, but our intention is to maintain mobility for those who genuinely need it, and to ensure that people do not miss out on the change from one regime to another.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Micro-businesses, which employ up to five people and have a turnover of less than £250,000, constitute the largest number of business units in the UK, but often their owners are not motivated to increase the size of their business. If each micro-business in my constituency took on just one extra employee, however, there would be nobody looking for work in the constituency. Will the Leader of the House make time to consider the role of such businesses in the economy and in stimulating growth?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will take as a bid for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to take on board as he prepares his Budget.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

May we have a debate on the future of the Forensic Science Service? I recently the visited the northern firearms unit in Manchester to see the work of one of my constituents and his colleague. Significant concerns exist that the impartiality, quality and round-the-clock coverage provided by that unit will be lost under the Government’s hasty closure plans.

[Sir George Young]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern. As we run down the service to which he refers and look to alternative providers to replace it, I will raise his concerns with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask her to write to him on the matter.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the situation in Parliament square? Does he expect the measures taken by the Government to be sufficient to make the square a clear, free space for all people by the middle of April?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. He may have seen that a case ended, I think, on Monday, and the judge has reserved judgment on action being taken by Westminster city council. I welcome what the council is doing to remove individuals on obstruction grounds. On his specific question, we are talking to the police, the council and the Greater London authority to ensure that the square is in a fit and proper state for the royal wedding.

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

I very much welcome, as I am sure the whole House does, the fact we now have a timetable for the Scotland Bill for the coming weeks. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that no fewer than 12 new clauses have already been tabled, with, I suspect, many more to come. Will the Leader of the House see whether it is possible to get an extra day in this Session so that all new clauses are adequately debated?

[Sir George Young]

The Government are anxious to ensure that there is adequate time to debate important constitutional Bills. We have allocated, I think, three days for Committee and one day for Report and Third Reading, starting next week. I would like to see how we get on. At the moment, our view is that we have allowed adequate time to debate the important measures in the Bill, as well as new clauses. However, we will keep the matter under review.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Chancellor were both part of the Treasury team that decided to sell off the nation’s gold. That decision, back then, in that economic time, has cost the country to date about £9 billion, the equivalent of 18p off a litre of fuel for an entire year. Given that, and given that the shadow Chancellor has called for a reversal of the VAT increase, may we have an early debate on fuel taxation?

[Sir George Young]

There will be an opportunity later this month to debate matters relating to taxation when we consider the Budget. My hon. Friend’s point reinforces the case never to allow the Labour party to have the keys to the economy again.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Leader of the House on being an attentive reader of The House magazine and the argument from a right hon. Member for a foreign affairs debate, now granted on 17 March, three months to the day after the self-immolation of the young man in Tunisia that sparked the crisis. Better later than never. Will the Leader of the House assure the House that we might have another international affairs debate before the year is out?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, our response was partly because of the question that he put some time ago, asking for a debate in Government time on the middle east. The Government have reserved the right to have debates on general subjects, notwithstanding the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has access to much of the time. We have used that freedom, as we had a debate on the strategic defence review back in October, and I would not rule out using it again if the need arose.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 1518 about the terrible murder in Pakistan of Shahbaz Bhatti.

[That this House condemns the assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti, the Pakistani Minister for Minorities, who was the only Christian in the cabinet; notes that this comes only days after the government of Pakistan's retention of a minorities representative in the new cabinet and the Ministry for Minorities Affairs as an independent ministry; recognises the significant advances made in the interests of minority rights and interfaith dialogue by the Federal Minister Shahbaz Bhatti through this ministry; expresses concern at the ongoing misuse of the provisions of section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, known as the blasphemy laws, and the threats posed to all who challenge this legislation; and urges the government of Pakistan to reconsider reviewing the blasphemy laws as a matter of urgency.]

As this is the mother of Parliaments, may we take the matter one step further? May we consider having, somewhere in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, a memorial on which, by resolution of the House, we could put the names of those parliamentarians and politicians who are murdered simply for seeking to uphold democratic principles and democratic values elsewhere in the world?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend refers to a callous murder of a democratically elected Government Minister, and the Foreign Secretary made a statement condemning the action of the extremists involved. I am interested in my hon. Friend’s proposal, which, in the first instance, he might like to put to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Essentially, however, the matter would be one for the House rather than the Government.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give a specific answer to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about the timetabled motion on today’s Order Paper and the timing of the statement on BSkyB? As some Members, including me, will be in Committees at the time, the statement will receive less scrutiny than it would have otherwise. Why did the Leader of the House not table a motion allowing the Opposition day debate to continue beyond 3 pm, which it was in his power to do?

[Sir George Young]

The statement relates to a commercially sensitive announcement made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport this morning.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend read my early-day motion 1515?

That this House expresses grave concerns about the extent of funding from Middle Eastern dictatorships for UK universities, including the donations to the London School of Economics (LSE) by the Libyan regime; notes that an estimated 75 million was given to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies by 12 Middle Eastern rulers, including King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; further notes that 8 million was given to the University of Cambridge by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, to finance a new research centre for Islamic studies in 2008, and that he gave a further 8 million to Edinburgh University for the same purpose; further notes that 9 million was given to the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the LSE by the United Arab Emirates Foundation, and that 5.7 million was given to the LSE by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences, to establish the Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States in 2007; and therefore calls on the Government to establish much stricter guidelines around donations to UK universities, and to put a stop immediately to donations from oppressive Middle Eastern dictatorships with a terrible record on human rights.]

My right hon. Friend may also have seen early-day motion 1486, which I tabled.

The motions condemn the extensive financial links between Colonel Gaddafi and at least two British universities, the London School of Economics and Liverpool John Moores, and the links between the progressive left and Gaddafi. Does he not agree that this scandal is akin to that of the aristocrats who appeased and sympathised with fascism in the 1930s, and will he arrange for an urgent statement on, and an independent inquiry into, the funding of British universities by middle eastern despots?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, although I am not sure I would go quite as far as he did in drawing that parallel. Universities, however, are autonomous institutions. As a charity, a university must set its own standards for the acceptance of donations, subject to guidance from the Charity Commission. The LSE has expressed regret at the reputational damage caused by its association with the Gaddafi name, and has announced that the sum received will be used to finance a scholarship fund supporting students from north Africa.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

What has happened since last Thursday to cause the order of next Thursday’s two debates to be reversed, so that the traditional debate on international women’s day will be the last item of business rather than the first?

[Sir George Young]

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, who is responsible for arranging the sequence of debates, will have heard the hon. Lady’s question. I think that it is still open to the Committee, if it so wishes, to reverse the order again between now and next Thursday so that it is as originally proposed.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

My constituency contains a large number of road haulage companies, all of which are interested in some form of fuel stabiliser mechanism or, better still from their point of view, an essential users allowance. May I put that interest on the record, notwithstanding the obvious need for fiscal measures to control the economic deficit?

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. He will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday at the Dispatch Box. We are examining the position to establish whether we can share the benefit of higher oil prices between the motorist and the Treasury. It is difficult to say any more than that in advance of the Budget statement.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the welfare benefits system? Ordinary decent people in Dudley and elsewhere will have been shocked to discover this morning that while they are having to work harder, pay more tax, receive poorer services and, in some cases, lose child benefit and tax credits, hundreds of thousands of east European migrants will be able to claim hundreds of pounds a week—millions in total—because the Government are not going to renew safeguards introduced by the previous Government.

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has got that absolutely right. There were safeguards, and they expire today under an agreement signed by the previous Government. We are bound by the decisions of the outgoing Government. None the less, we are anxious to ensure that the hospitality of this country is not abused. The Welfare Reform Bill, which is currently going through its stages in the House, contains safeguards to ensure that benefits go only to those who need them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I return my right hon. Friend to the question of who is in charge? Obviously, the response to the point made by the Opposition about last week is that the Prime Minister is in charge, but if the Prime Minister had been incapacitated, who would have been in charge? In a written reply that I received from the Deputy Prime Minister, he fudged the issue. It was not clear that he would become acting Prime Minister. May we have a statement next week clarifying who would take over if the Prime Minister were incapacitated?

[Sir George Young]

I am anxious that my hon. Friend should not lose any sleep over this issue. I do not want to give an off-the-cuff answer to his question—I should prefer to reflect on it—but I will say that it is for the Prime Minister to decide what should happen if he could no longer perform his duties.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Given this week’s welcome news that £1.5 million is to be made available to introduce ex-military personnel to the teaching profession, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on that innovative proposal so that we can discuss the ways in which it will enhance teaching and discipline in our schools?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the £1.5 million that has been donated to SkillForce to encourage those who are leaving the armed forces to take up a career in education and bring the necessary skills of leadership and discipline to schools. I should welcome such a debate. I cannot arrange one in Government time, but either the Backbench Business Committee or Westminster Hall might provide an opportunity. The troops to teachers programme is designed to bring the skills of service leavers quickly to our schools, and I think that many would benefit from those skills.

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

Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the bank levy before the Budget statement? Current projections suggest that it could raise £800 million a year, and the debate would give us an opportunity to establish how the Labour party can squeeze £27 billion-worth of spending promises from that £800 million.

[Sir George Young]

I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to the Budget debate. He makes a good point. The bank levy is a permanent levy that will produce in one year more than the one-off net amount raised in tax by the Labour party, which has been overspent many times and will pay for the reduction in VAT, the cancellation of the increase in petrol duty, and a number of other reforms. I hope that we shall be able to have an open debate on how the Opposition’s mathematics add up.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

On Tuesday we heard a welcome statement from the Secretary of State for International Development about his tough value-for-money review of international aid spending. May we have a debate in Government time on the transparency of international aid? Letters in my mailbag certainly suggest that people are still concerned about the fact that international aid money is being used to fund, for example, the limousines of dictators.

[Sir George Young]

The Select Committee on International Development might wish to consider the well-received statement of which my hon. Friend has reminded the House, and, in particular, the arrangements that we are making for transparency. What we have outlined, however, is a more focused and effective regime that will not only provide better value for the taxpayer but enhance confidence by being much more transparent and open about where the money goes, so that people can see that they are receiving value for money for the contributions that are made.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

This afternoon I shall meet a group of pig farmers from the great county of Essex. They are concerned about the fact that a combination of higher wheat prices and increased supermarket imports of pigmeat from countries with lower animal welfare standards than ours are forcing British pig farmers out of business. May we have a debate on the British pig industry? The sustainability of high food standards is under threat, along with many rural jobs in our constituencies.

[Sir George Young]

The constituencies of many Members on both sides of the House contain pig farmers—certainly there are many in my constituency of North West Hampshire, and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was himself a pig breeder. The interests of the pig industry are not lost in the office of the Leader of the House.

I believe that people want to know where their food comes from. This takes us back to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). It is right for industry to take the lead. The pork industry has set a standard by creating a voluntary code of practice recommending that labels show the origin of pork and pork products, and that is good for British pork producers. However, I will raise my hon. Friend’s concern with the Secretary of State.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

My local authority, Croydon council, has published a wealth of information about its spending and services—in sharp contrast to Nottingham city council, which, as the Leader of the House said, has refused to do so, reportedly backed by the shadow Leader of the House. May we have a debate on the right of people throughout the country to know exactly how government spend their hard-earned money?

[Sir George Young]

I repeat my earlier plea to the shadow Leader of the House to persuade Nottingham city council to be more transparent. I understand that it hired a cherry picker and labour to have conkers removed from a chestnut tree owing to a supposed health and safety risk on a school route. I think that people are entitled to know how local authorities spend their money, so that they can reach sensible decisions in the run-up to local elections.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

We all know that women are better drivers than men. Is not the recent decision by the European court for injustice to ban gender-based pricing of insurance premiums yet another example of an unaccountable European institution’s striking a blow against good old-fashioned common sense, and may we have an urgent debate about it?

[Sir George Young]

The Government share my hon. Friend’s disappointment at the recent decision. We have made absolutely clear that we think it right to take account of gender in assessing risk and reaching a decision on premiums. We now plan to hold discussions with the Financial Services Authority and the Association of British Insurers to establish how we can minimise the damage done by the decision to British consumers, both men and women.

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

This has been a very bad week indeed for Labour-run councils, as their excesses and spending habits have been exposed the length and breadth of our country, from Newham council, which has just spent £111 million on new council buildings, to Barnsley council, which has just cut free swimming at the same time as it is spending £1 million on union posts in the council. Please may we have an urgent debate on local government waste, which would be of particular interest before the district council elections in May?

[Sir George Young]

I announced in the business statement that there is to be an Opposition day the week after next, and as the subject for debate has not yet been chosen I hope the Opposition will use that day to debate local government, so that we can hear a little more from my hon. Friend and others about the extravagance in Labour-controlled local authorities.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Leader of the House and other colleagues for their succinctness, which has enabled everybody to contribute.

Speaker’s Statement

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

12:11

[Mr Speaker]

I have to inform the House that this will be Graham Dear’s last day in the Chamber as Principal Doorkeeper. He completed a distinguished military career, ending as regimental sergeant major of 42 Commando Royal Marines, and he joined the House of Commons as a Doorkeeper in 1988. He was promoted to Principal Doorkeeper in 2002 and has served the House with exceptional loyalty and diplomacy. He is highly respected and professional. He has upheld the finest traditions of Parliament with an unshakeable combination of gravitas and style. I thank him for his outstanding service to the House, and, on behalf of the House, I wish him a long and happy retirement.

Points of Order

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

12:12

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

First, let me say that I am sure the whole House will want to wish Graham a happy retirement and many more hours on the golf course.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that even if a matter on which there is to be a statement is market-sensitive, the Government could, on the previous day, reserve time for the statement after questions without revealing the nature of the statement? It would have been perfectly possible for us to have had a statement now, during what might be referred to as prime time, rather than later today. The Government could also have tabled a motion to allow the Opposition day to go beyond 3 o’clock.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman raises what, in the circumstances, is a hypothetical question. However, I can say that, yes, that would have been possible, but in the circumstances we have encountered it was not. I hope that he and the House will understand that there is a balance of considerations in these matters. In the situation we faced this morning, it was felt to be important, including by me, to protect the time for the half-day Opposition day debate in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. It is also important that the House should hear the statement from the Secretary of State, and have the opportunity to question him on it, at the earliest practicable opportunity without doing violence to that minority party entitlement. I do not say that the situation is ideal, but what I do say is that a pragmatic approach has been taken in the circumstances the Leader of the House and I encountered.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With reference to the question from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) about the order of business on the Backbench Business Committee day on Thursday 10 March, it might help the House to learn that, in deciding which debate should go first and which should follow, the Committee takes into account the question of whether motions can be voted on, as votes would eat into the following debate time. That might have been one of the major points that the Committee took into account.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is in the Chamber at present, but I have a sense that before very long she is likely to hear of the pearl of wisdom the hon. Gentleman offers to the Chamber, for which we are grateful to him.

Opposition Day

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[12th Allotted Day first part]

Support for UK Armed Forces and Veterans

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

12:15

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

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the valiant service and sacrifice given by the members of UK armed forces in the defence and security of the UK; notes concerns about the current level of support provided to veterans and the families of service personnel; and calls on the Government adequately to fund aftercare services for veterans, including those who have physical disabilities or mental illness, to provide the best support to the families of those who have died as a result of their service, and to honour in full its commitments in relation to the Military Covenant.

My colleagues and I welcome this opportunity to debate a subject that is very dear to our hearts and, I know, to many Members on both sides of the House. I hope the tone of the debate will allow us to engage with the issues, as we do not see this as a party political matter at all. Rather, it presents the House with an opportunity to demonstrate that it wants to do all it can to ensure that the men and women who serve our country in our armed forces are provided with the support and care they need, when they need it.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our armed forces, including those currently serving in Afghanistan and other theatres of conflict. DUP Members are very proud of our armed forces and of the contribution that our men and women from Northern Ireland make to them. I recently went to Afghanistan, where I had the privilege of meeting some of the service personnel in Helmand, including members of the 1st Battalion the Irish Guards, which is based at Camp Bastion and is working with the Afghan national army, and the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment, which is supported by the 2nd Battalion, the reserve battalion, in doing excellent work on the front line by driving back the Taliban. They bring their experience of Northern Ireland, and their wider experience, to that task.

The reserves play an important role. As part of the review of the reserves, I had the opportunity at the weekend to visit a number of units in Northern Ireland, including the Royal Naval Reserve unit in my constituency at HMS Hibernia, based in Thiepval barracks, and the 2nd Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment and other Territorial Army units.

Northern Ireland has a very small proportion of the UK population, yet it currently provides 20% of reserve forces deployed on operations, and has done so consistently in recent years. That is a remarkable testament to the work of the reserve forces in Northern Ireland, and I pay particular tribute to the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, which plays a very important role in developing our reserve forces. That 20% statistic demonstrates the commitment to our armed forces in our region of the United Kingdom.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The last time I visited Afghanistan, I was struck by the number of reservists from the medical profession serving there who came from Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that, and will he also join me in thanking employers who make it possible for their work force to be reservists?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know he takes a very keen interest in our armed forces, especially in those in his Colchester constituency. He is absolutely right about the role of the reserves from the medical profession. As a result of the troubles, members of the medical profession from Northern Ireland have over the years gained expertise in dealing with casualties in conflict situations, and especially in the consequences of explosive devices. One thinks of the medical staff at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast city hospital and other medical establishments in Northern Ireland. Encouragingly, as well as working in the medical profession, some of those people give up their time in the reserves, not only at weekends to provide training for other reservists, but to go to places such as Afghanistan to provide their expertise to help those who are, sadly, injured, many of them seriously. The first time I visited Camp Bastion I met some of the medical reservists working at its excellent hospital facility. They are treating not only service personnel but Afghan civilians injured by improvised explosive devices and gunshot wounds. I commend, as the hon. Gentleman did, the work of our reservists from the medical profession, who give their time and commitment, and are worthy of continuing support. I know that the review of the reserves will touch on this area and I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to examine that aspect carefully.

On behalf of my colleagues, may I also pay tribute to all the members of the armed forces who have served over the years in Northern Ireland? We recognise the huge sacrifice that was made by the armed forces in seeking to protect the entire community in Northern Ireland from terrorism—the cost was very high indeed. One thinks of atrocities such as the Narrow Water bomb at Warrenpoint, and the Droppin’ Well bomb. I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is very familiar with the latter atrocity as he was the commanding officer at the time and lost some of his soldiers in it. Indeed, he told me rather movingly, as we served together on the Defence Committee, about how one of the young women killed in that explosion died in his arms as he sought to comfort her in her final moments. We do not forget that sacrifice and we do well to honour those who did so much to help bring the relative degree of peace that we enjoy in Northern Ireland today. But for their commitment, their service and their sacrifice, the people of Northern Ireland would not be enjoying the progress that has been made, and that should never be forgotten.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As one whose father was killed in the last war—I am one of the few Members of this House in that position—may I say that I thoroughly endorse every word of the motion and, if there is any need to do so, I shall emphatically vote for it?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He has always been a Member of this House who has maintained a close interest in Northern Ireland. He has been very supportive, over many years, of the work of our armed forces in helping to secure peace in the part of the United Kingdom represented by my party.

My party recognises the pressures that the current operational commitments in Afghanistan put our armed forces under and the accompanying pressures on the welfare system; the more casualties there are, the more difficult it is to meet the demands and the needs arising from them. In addition, the social dynamic is changing; military families and their way of life are changing. They desire home ownership, educational stability for children, and employment opportunities for spouses and partners. Those factors all need to be taken into account in designing the welfare and support mechanisms put in place for our armed forces. Just because things were done in a certain way in the past, that does not mean that they cannot be adapted to suit the circumstances of the 21st century, and that is important.

The need to care for and support people who have been bereaved through the loss of a loved one remains an absolute priority. Just before the general election, I brought one of my constituents, Mrs Brenda Hale, to meet the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth). Brenda lost her husband, Captain Mark Hale, who was serving in the 2nd Battalion, The Rifles, based in Ballykinler in County Down. A very courageous man, Captain Hale had been out on patrol with his soldiers and three of them had been injured by an improvised explosive device. He went back from the helicopter pick-up point to collect the third soldier and as he did so a fellow soldier, Rifleman Daniel Wild, accidentally stepped on another IED and, sadly, that resulted in the loss of the lives of Captain Mark Hale and Rifleman Wild.

Brenda wanted to discuss with the then Secretary of State the manner in which key elements of the support mechanisms put in place to help her as a widow had absolutely failed and, indeed, had added to her difficulty at a time of grief. I commend the right hon. Member for Coventry North East for his approach to Mrs Hale and the offer he made to review the support mechanisms in place for those who lose a loved one on active service. I am sure that the current Secretary of State will carry through that commitment as part of the writing of the military covenant. It is essential that families who lose a loved one in combat are given appropriate care and support when they need it and that the level of support is consistent with the commitments offered through the military covenant.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I recently met two sisters of Captain Daniel Read, who recently died in Afghanistan. They were incredibly supportive of the family liaison unit that was given the difficult task of letting the next of kin—in this case, his wife—know of his passing. They made the proactive and sensible suggestion that the next of kin should extend to the parents, particularly when the soldier is incredibly young. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman commented on whether we could extend the duty of the family liaison officer to informing the parents too.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, which raises an interesting and relevant point. In the context of Northern Ireland, I did some work with the parents of soldiers and police officers whose sons and daughters had been killed on active service during the troubles. We examined this very issue of how they were treated as parents in circumstances where the next of kin was a spouse or a partner. One recognises the need to give a clear place in law and in other ways to the next of kin, but I agree with the hon. Lady that there is a need to respect the position of the parents of a soldier or another member of the armed forces killed in action. Perhaps the Secretary of State might examine the matter in the context of the military covenant. Undoubtedly, the pain caused by the loss of a husband, wife or partner is beyond comprehension, but we should not underestimate the loss felt by a mother or father who loses a son or daughter, so I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

I commend the previous Government—I note that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is in his place—on some of the work they undertook in laying the foundations for the care and support that our armed forces personnel receive today. I think particularly of the personnel recovery centres that have been established, which I believe include seven regional centres, and the institution of the Elizabeth cross and scroll. I have met some of the widows who have received the Elizabeth cross and scroll and noted how important it was for them to receive that recognition. We want to put on the record the hon. Gentleman’s work in that regard.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I thank him and his colleagues for signing the early-day motion I tabled on behalf of the national Gulf Veterans and families association. An awful lot has been done in recent years to support those people but one group who are still struggling are those suffering from Gulf war syndrome. He will be aware of the evidence coming from the United States. Does he agree that it is time for us to look at this issue again to see how we can better support those who are struggling, particularly this year, which is the 20th anniversary of the end of the war?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I will come to the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder and what is known as Gulf war syndrome. I am aware of and have previously commended in the House the work of the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is in his place, and the report that he produced, which I know the Secretary of State has committed to implementing in full. We welcome that commitment and look forward to its being honoured, but we are also supportive of the key points that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made in his early-day motion. Some of the soldiers who suffer from Gulf war syndrome reside in Northern Ireland; I have met some of them and am aware of their concerns, and more needs to be done to assist those suffering from that condition.

A harrowing statistic that has been given in the House before, going back to the Falklands conflict, is that more of our armed services personnel who served there took their own lives as a result of the trauma of their involvement in that conflict than died in the conflict itself.

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

That statistic keeps being repeated, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the evidence and find out where it comes from, because I do not think it is right.

[Mr Donaldson]

I am open to being corrected on the statistics. Undoubtedly, a significant number of service personnel find themselves unable to cope, through mental illness as a result of trauma, and take their lives. The hon. Gentleman is right that the point is not about the numbers but about the need that must be addressed. We estimate that there are about 11,000 people with post-traumatic stress disorder in Northern Ireland as a result of the troubles, and the current system is incapable of coping with that. We are having major problems with former police officers feeling the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder several years later. It is important to ensure that they get support and are provided with the care they need—and the same goes for our armed forces personnel. I take the correction that the hon. Member for North Durham has offered. Perhaps I am guilty of repeating something that has been said wrongly in the past, but the point can still be made that significant numbers of people suffer from conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and mental illnesses that are directly linked to their service, and we need to prioritise that issue and ensure that those veterans are provided with the support they undoubtedly need.

That brings me to the military covenant. In the motion, we call on the Government to honour the commitments they have made publicly about the military covenant, and I seek the Secretary of State’s clarification on this point. Following the general election, the Prime Minister, on a visit to HMS Ark Royal, said:

“Whether it’s the schools you send your children to, whether it’s the healthcare that you expect, whether it’s the fact that there should be a decent military ward for anyone who gets injured. I want all these things refreshed and renewed and written down in a new military covenant that’s written into the law of the land.”

I know that there is some concern about what is meant by enshrining the military covenant in law. We welcome that commitment and I know that it is widely welcomed, particularly among the veteran community.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what is actually important to the veteran community is what they get rather than having the military covenant written into law? Would he prefer to see a no-disadvantage model of the military covenant, in which veterans get the same level of service as the rest of the population, or a citizen-plus model of the sort that endures in the United States, under which people are given more to reflect their service? That is the important point that the veteran community would like discussed.

[Mr Donaldson]

I merely seek clarification of what is meant by enshrining this in law. Yesterday, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), the Prime Minister said:

“we are writing out the military covenant and properly referencing it in law.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 296.]

We are anxious to ascertain what is meant by “properly referencing” the military covenant in law and what the Prime Minister meant by “enshrining” it. I accept the point that the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire has made, but I draw his attention to a letter, which has been circulated to Members of Parliament, from the director general of the Royal British Legion to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who is here. The letter expresses concern about what is meant by the commitment to enshrine the military covenant in law, so there are some in the veteran community, represented by the Royal British Legion, who want clarification. I seek that clarification this afternoon on behalf of my colleagues and I hope that the Secretary of State will shed some light on this.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

While we are involved in Afghanistan, the armed forces are at the forefront of people’s minds, but that will not be the case when things are quieter. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one point of enshrining the military covenant in law is to make sure that the armed forces are always looked after, so that we would not need to have this type of debate?

[Mr Donaldson]

Indeed; I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Our purpose in putting the motion before the House today even though there have already been debates on these issues, including one on the military covenant a few weeks ago, is to show that we think those debates should continue and that the House should not tire of discussing these issues until we get them right.

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

Surely the point is that all we are asking the Government and the Prime Minister to do is to honour the promise that the Prime Minister made at the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and I accept the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire’s point that what we want in the end is delivery. We want to ensure that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are provided with the care and support they need, but as there is already debate out there about what is meant by enshrining the military covenant in law, or by referencing it in law, we would like some clarity so we can put the issue to bed and get on with the job of writing the covenant and delivering the commitments that have been given by the Government to those who require that help and support.

[Bob Russell]

I hope I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I served on the Select Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill and there was certainly some debate, which continues, on exactly what is meant by the terminology “armed forces covenant” and “enshrined in law”. The Royal British Legion has got this right. The Government have now enshrined it in the Bill and there is discussion about what that actually means. That is what this is all about.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say on behalf of the Government.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is continuing the way he acted in Committee by supporting everything the Government do. The Opposition tabled an amendment in Committee to enshrine the covenant in law, but he and the Government voted against it.

[Mr Donaldson]

Certainly, we and other hon. Members on both sides of the House want the military covenant to have a firm legal basis, so that all service personnel, their families and veterans are clear about their entitlement and so that it is protected by the law of the land. That is what we are seeking to achieve.

In addition, the resourcing of the covenant and putting in place the support services needed to deliver the commitments set out in the covenant are equally important. That should include adequate support for bereaved families, adequate treatment and care for injured service personnel, adequate welfare provision for the families of service personnel and, crucially, continuing care and support for veterans—those who have served this country so well in the past. I also include the need to ensure that personnel who are transitioning to civilian life at the end of their service are properly supported. That is a key element. Indeed, in the current context of redundancies, it is important that those matters are handled properly and sensitively. I welcome the commitments that the Secretary of State for Defence has given previously in the House to achieving those objectives.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

We must emphasise the fact that we welcome what the Minister said in the House yesterday, as reported at column 309 of the Official Report, when he indicated that he would allow discussions between us and the chiefs of staff to ensure that the regional representatives can make a good case for those soldiers who will face redundancy and for those who will not. We welcome the opportunity to have those discussions at some length.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and endorse what he says.

We hear much about the big society. I warmly applaud the work of the military-linked charities, such as the Royal British Legion, which we have already mentioned, Help for Heroes, the Army Benevolent Fund, or the Soldiers Charity as it is known now, and Combat Stress—to name just a few of those that do some excellent work—and it is important that the military covenant seeks to bridge the gap between what the Government can provide and what the third sector can provide. There is an opportunity to show the big society at work, helping our armed forces and our veterans, and I hope that the Government will continue their discussions with those charities and others who work with services personnel and veterans, to ensure that a joined-up approach is taken.

Innovative thinking is also needed. I want to refer to a project that has considerable merit: the proposal that HMS Ark Royal should be brought to the Thames, close to London City airport, across from the dome and close to where the Olympics will take place next year, to provide accommodation for those who have served, perhaps through Homes 4 Heroes, and work for veterans. That is about the third sector joining up with the Government and using part of our military heritage to deliver something that is of benefit not just to the military community, but to the wider community in that part of London.

We must close the gap between the third sector, represented by the military charities, and what the Government can do, especially given the increasing numbers of wounded personnel returning to society. That figure will undoubtedly be compounded by a large number of redundant military personnel who will need to resettle in the community. Projects such as the Army recovery centres and the proposal to bring the Ark Royal to London are examples of the initiatives that we would like the Ministry of Defence to develop with the service charities. I am sure that the Secretary of State will look with interest at the proposal for the Ark Royal.

[Mr Cash]

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to recall also the War Widows Association, which does such good work in relation to the activities of the British Legion and others?

[Mr Donaldson]

Indeed; I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right to highlight the work of that association, which goes back a long time and is much valued.

Working with the charities, building on the concept of the big society, is important. I talked about the joined-up approach, and I want to mention an example that is not joined up at the moment. At the moment, the Treasury requires military bands to charge the full rate to charities that seek to raise money to help our armed forces personnel. I have a recent example of that happening in Northern Ireland. We have one military band in Northern Ireland—the Territorial Army band of the Royal Irish Regiment—and it is made up of reservists. That is the only option that we have available in Northern Ireland if we want to use the services of a military band.

A number of charitable events organised by the Royal British Legion and the Soldiers Charity in Northern Ireland have been cancelled recently, because they would be charged £3,000 for the use of the Royal Irish Regiment band. Those events are therefore no longer viable, so there is a loss of revenue and income to the very charities that we want to encourage to work with the Government to do more to help our service personnel and veterans. The Government could address that lack of a joined-up approach. I hope that we can revert to the situation where a reduced charge is made to use military bands for the purpose of raising money for charities that directly benefit our armed forces personnel and veterans. That was the position that prevailed before, and I hope that it will prevail again in the future.

Not only do charities need to be assisted to raise money by using military bands, but the Royal Irish band, which is popular in Northern Ireland, is an excellent recruitment tool and helps to promote the Army in the community. We have had difficulties in the past with community engagement because of the sensitivities in Northern Ireland, and the band is getting to places that it has not been able to get to before. What do we do when we are making that progress? We up the charge, and the number of events in which the band can participate is reduced. Its ability to assist military charities to raise much-needed funds is reduced. If the big society is to work, we need to address such issues.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As a previous band president, I absolutely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says. It would be good if the separate charges for bands were removed, so that we could get more money for charity events.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I am sure that the Secretary of State is listening carefully to what has been said on the subject. If he has never benefited from the music of the Royal Irish Regiment band, I suggest that he find an opportunity to do so; “Killaloe”, in particular, is a very popular choice back home.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I want to touch on just one other subject: pensions for our armed forces personnel. My hon. Friends and I are concerned about the proposal to link pensions to the consumer prices index, rather than the retail prices index. That proposal will have an enormous impact on the former service personnel who rely on their armed forces pensions in retirement. It will result in their pension entitlement being reduced significantly during their years in retirement. We ask the Government to look again at what they are doing on the issue.

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

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Changing the inflation link by using the CPI will reduce pensions over the long term. It could cost people tens of thousands of pounds in income. It is particularly invidious given that the CPI does not take proper account of housing costs, which are a vital element for veterans and ex-service personnel, so I entirely endorse what he says and hope that the Secretary of State will take that on board.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment.

I would like to make another point that has been raised before in the House and is the subject of early-day motion 484: the question of the rank that a soldier holds at the time of his death and the impact on the pension paid to his family and surviving spouse. There is a rule that pensions on promotion are payable only after a new rank has been held for a year, which means that the families of some of our armed forces personnel who have been killed on active service have received a pension below the level that is consistent with the rank held at the time of death. I am thinking, in particular, of the case of Sergeant Matthew Telford from Grimsby, who was promoted to the rank of sergeant in June 2009 and killed that November. His family were paid a pension below the level that would have been payable to that rank.

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

In such cases, we have instructed that compensation should be paid to increase the pension to the same financial level. The Government intend to change the law so that in future it will be much clearer that pensions should be paid at the level of the acting rank at the time any member of the armed forces is unfortunately killed. I think that that is what the country would expect us to do in order to be fair.

[Mr Donaldson]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and the fact that the Government are committed to dealing with the problem, in the short term through the payment of compensation and in the longer term by changing legislation. That will be widely welcomed within the armed forces community.

I want to mention briefly the pensions payable to Gurkhas. The Secretary of State will be aware of the campaign that the Gurkhas have been pursuing on the level of pension they are paid. I recently met some of their representatives, who told me that there are 10,000 former Gurkhas in Nepal living in poverty—their figures, not mine—and that although those Gurkhas who live in the UK qualify for pension credit, that costs more than would a proper pension. If we are subsidising their pensions with pension credit, why not just pay them an equal pension? I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will look at that. The Gurkhas have made an enormous and valiant contribution to our armed forced over the years. I know that improvements have been made in the level of welfare and support that they receive, but I hope that the Government will seek to address this issue.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. We stand ready to support the Government in taking forward the military covenant and want to see them honour all the commitments they have made. I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say.

12:53

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

The Government support the terms of the motion on the Order Paper and will support it in the Lobby if necessary, which should give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). The debate gives us another opportunity to express our support for those who have given, and continue to give, so much to this nation in service and sacrifice.

I would like to pay tribute to Lance Corporal Liam Tasker from 104 Military Working Dog Support Unit, the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, who was killed in action on Tuesday 1 March while on patrol attached to 1st Battalion the Irish Guards. He and his working dog, Theo, who also died, undoubtedly saved the lives of many—military and civilian—by their tireless efforts to find improvised explosive devices.

As the motion has been tabled by the Democratic Unionist party, I also want to pay particular tribute to those men and women from the Province who have served their country around the world with great distinction. As we hold this debate, the Royal Irish are making an enormous contribution to our efforts in Afghanistan, and paying a high price.

The men and women of our armed forces are volunteers. That is what makes their bravery and selfless service so special. They choose to serve, but they do not choose where that service will take them. Whether in Afghanistan, north Africa, as in recent days, or on other current operations around the world, they apply their considerable skills in the national interest to keep the citizens of this country safe. They do not serve for an easy life; they risk life and limb on our behalf, and they sacrifice some of the freedoms that many of us take for granted.

Their families also play a vital role in supporting their loved ones and must deal with some of the hardships of service life. The whole nation, not just the Government, has a moral obligation to those who serve in our armed forces, past and present, and their families. We owe them our gratitude and respect. But we owe them more than kind words; we owe it to them to make sure that they are treated fairly and receive the support they need.

There is no doubt about the general desire in this country to improve and develop the military covenant, the timeless bond between the whole nation and the armed forces. It encompasses those of all ages and social groups in all parts of the UK, those with different politics and those with none at all. On behalf of the Government, we placed at the heart of our programme for government our commitment to rebuild the military covenant. For the first time, a tri-service armed forces covenant is being drafted after wide consultation and is being recognised as existing in the law of the land. We are taking steps to ensure that we will make a real difference to the lives of serving personnel, their families and veterans by putting in place the practical help, which is how that covenant will be judged. In the nine months that we have been in office, we are well on the way to delivering on our commitment, and I will set out some of that progress today.

But let me also be clear about the challenge we face, because we must be balanced and realistic in our aspirations. In the difficult economic circumstances that the coalition inherited, with all parts of society having to make sacrifices, repairing the covenant will not be easy or straightforward. The previous Government left us not only a record national debt that is increasing day in, day out because of the deficit, but a hole in the defence budget itself. However, because of the priority we place on security, the defence budget is making a more modest contribution to deficit reduction than almost all other Departments.

We have still had to take difficult decisions in the comprehensive spending review and the strategic defence and security review that will have repercussions for some members of the armed forces and their families. These include, for instance, decisions on pay and allowances and, as we discussed in the House yesterday, the decisions to reduce the size of the armed forces establishment. I regret that we have had to take some of these measures, just as I regret the need to cut the defence budget as a whole and some of the measures that we are having to take across Government to pull the nation back from the brink of bankruptcy.

The previous Government’s disastrous economic legacy means that there is simply not the money and flexibility to do all that we would like to do as quickly as we would like to do it, but where we can act early to repair the covenant we are doing so. In our nine months in office we have already made great strides in improving the conditions for those who serve on the front line. One of the first actions taken by the new Government was the doubling of the operational allowance that had been paid under the previous Government to over £5,000 for a typical six-month tour. We have changed the rules on rest and recuperation so that any days of leave lost due to delays in the air bridge or any other operational requirements will be added to post-tour leave.

We will provide university and further education scholarships, from the academic year that began in September 2010, to the children of members of the armed forces who have been killed since 1990. We have included 36,000 service children as part of the pupil premium, recognising the uniqueness of service life and its effect on service children and service communities. Because the unseen mental wounds of war have too often gone undiagnosed and untreated, and because the pace and nature of operations over the last decade mean that more could be suffering in silence, we have made mental health care a key priority. We have committed an extra £20 million in the SDSR for health care and are pressing ahead with implementing the recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

The Department of Health is commissioning 30 whole-time equivalent veterans mental health professionals to deliver improved NHS mental health services to veterans, including introducing structured mental health surveillance inquiries to routine service medical examinations and to all discharge medicals. They will work under the direction of the armed forces networks and forge links with health and other statutory agencies and with the voluntary sector.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the subject of those returning from Afghanistan and Iraq with emotional problems and trauma, it is all very well to have a system in place, but is there a monitoring system so that someone can follow up on a person who is at home on their own and who sometimes faces all that trauma and horror on their own?

[Dr Fox]

Indeed. As I say, those professionals will work under the direction of the armed forces networks and forge links with health and other statutory agencies and with the voluntary sector. I was going on to say that they will also undertake outreach work to identify cases and refer individuals to veterans organisations and to other professionals. In addition, a new 24-hour veterans mental health helpline is now being switched on and will be formally launched later this month.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, because the safety net will not be of full value unless people know how to access it. That means advertising what is available, ensuring that there are joined-up networks throughout government and that, at the point of discharge from the armed forces and later on through outreach work, we are able to look at those who are most at risk.

The previous Government and the American Government have done a great deal of work on how to identify individuals who are at risk, and that is an ongoing scientific project. Western Governments in general are trying to grasp the issue to see whether they can clearly find those who might be at higher risk and put in place additional checks to follow them through the system. As that information becomes available, the Government will take it forward.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments, and for his action on mental health support. Organisations such as the one I mentioned, the national Gulf Veterans and families association, which is based in east Yorkshire, will welcome that news, but will he confirm what I think he is saying, which is that that service will be provided not just for recent veterans but for veterans of older conflicts, and that the Department will work as hard as possible to identify such people, many of whom are difficult to identify?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that is the exact aim behind what the Government are doing. As more evidence comes to light about how we can follow up on people who might be at higher risk, we might stop people falling through the net that is meant to be there to protect them. When we look at the issues of homelessness, the prison population and so on, we need to ensure that we make available the appropriate care at the time that it is needed in the cycle, so that we can obtain the best outcomes for service veterans.

[Mr David Hamilton]

I agree wholeheartedly that the after-care service needs to be upped; that is important. The health service in Scotland is devolved, however, so will the right hon. Gentleman take care to ensure that there is no disconnect between the MOD, the devolved Parliaments and the health service?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The armed forces represent the whole United Kingdom, and it would be a dereliction of duty if we did not ensure that the same service were available throughout the United Kingdom. It is therefore incumbent on the devolved Administrations to work with the Government to ensure that those mechanisms are put in place. My colleagues and I will certainly take opportunities to talk to the devolved Governments, as we do, and on that issue we will want to be as close to uniformity as possible, given of course their freedoms to put different mechanisms in place. He makes a very good point, however, and I shall ensure that I reinforce it when I next meet the devolved bodies.

As I said, we are about to launch formally the new 24-hour veterans mental health helpline, which will be operated by the Rethink charity on behalf of Combat Stress and funded by the Department of Health. We believe that it will help to tackle one of the most difficult aspects of mental health care by creating an environment where those who fear that they are suffering from mental problems can get in touch with someone who understands not only the problems themselves, but the stigma that some veterans still feel is attached to coming forward. This goes back to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made. We have to ensure that there are services, and that those who need them are willing and able to access them, because that is what ultimately determines the outcome. Such initiatives show how we are working effectively with other agencies—whether Government or charities—to provide the services that people need.

The role of service personnel families is not always so visible, but it too is crucial to our defence effort. Service families bear a lot of the pressure. From the five years that I worked as a doctor with service families, I know the pressure that they can be under, and it is often invisible to those outside the armed forces. They share the burden of frequent moves, sometimes at short notice, with disruption to careers and to children’s education. They often share the experience of service accommodation, and when their loved one is away on operational service, sometimes in dangerous circumstances, they in particular deserve our understanding and support, given their vital role in ensuring that our operations are a success.

[Bob Russell]

Families not only need our understanding and support, but decent houses in which to live. Does the Secretary of State agree that the quality of some family housing is not acceptable, and that it is one area in which the Government have to find the money? If we are to send soldiers to put their lives on the line in Afghanistan, the least we can do is ensure that their families back home have decent accommodation.

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend makes a useful point, which I shall come to in a moment.

The wide range of welfare support for families is being expanded. As set out in the defence and security review, the Ministry of Defence is starting work on developing options for a new employment model. Its aim is to provide an overall package, including career structure, pay, allowances and accommodation policies, that offers greater domestic stability, helping spouses to pursue their own careers and supporting children’s education, while still allowing for mobility when it is essential to defence requirements.

We would dearly like to do more, for example on improving service family accommodation, which my hon. Friend mentions and we know to be one of the greatest concerns to service families. About £61.6 million has been allocated in the current financial year for the upgrade of, and the improvement programmes for, service accommodation. That will include upgrading some 800 service family homes to the top standard, with a further 4,000 properties benefiting from other improvements such as new kitchens, bathrooms, double glazing and so on.

It would be dishonest of me, however, if I were not to say that we must recognise that we cannot go as far or as fast as we would like to, given the economic situation that we have inherited, but we can and will do what we can, when we can.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way on the important issue of housing. On a related issue, service personnel ultimately could be made redundant and return to the private sector, putting pressure on the private sector housing market. People might then want to get on to the Housing Executive’s list in Northern Ireland. Could some effort be made to ensure that former Army personnel are entitled to additional points, so that they can obtain public housing? It is crucial to ensure that our military personnel are not turned down or moved down the list when they should be entitled to public housing.

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very compelling point, with which I have some strong personal sympathy. I shall take the issue back and have it looked at on a cross-government basis to see whether it is indeed possible to make the general change that he mentions. If there is a specific problem relating to Northern Ireland, I am very willing to talk to Members about it to see whether there needs to be anything specific to Northern Ireland in any changes that might be made. He makes a good, valid and reasonable point that will probably get fairly widespread support across the country as a whole.

Another part of the UK’s defence capability, and thus the armed forces community, is our reserve forces. The Ministry of Defence is responsible for ensuring that reservists are treated fairly and with respect, and that they are valued. In the drafting of the armed forces covenant, reserves have been considered equally alongside regulars. That will set the tone for Government policy aimed at improving the support available for serving and former members of the armed forces, and the families who carry so much of the burden, especially, as we remember today, in the event of injury or death.

Rebuilding the military covenant is not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence. Supporting the men and women of our armed forces, during and after their service, is very much the business of the whole Government—and indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, of the whole of our society. The measures that I have described show how my colleagues the Secretaries of State for Health, for Education and for Business, Innovation and Skills—to name but three—are fully engaged in this wider endeavour. The devolved Administrations, local authorities, and even individual GPs all have an important role to play. The public sector does not do all the work; the service and ex-service charities are, rightly, also part of that network of support that the former service person has a right to expect.

We need to ensure that progress is made year on year. That is why we have brought forward measures in the Armed Forces Bill requiring the Defence Secretary to present an armed forces covenant report to Parliament every year. I hope to deliver the first of those reports in the autumn. It will not simply be about the relationship between the Government and the armed forces but, as I have set out, a wider picture of how the covenant is being respected across the whole of our society, including, as has been pointed out in this debate already, the charitable sector, which has a role to play. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) asked about that specific element. We have decided that a tri-service covenant should be developed along with the armed forces, the charitable sector and interested parties, including veterans, and that the Secretary of State will be answerable for how that is put into practice.

There is a genuine debate to be had about other ways of doing this, and it is fair that we consider those today. Some believe that we should have definable rights, enshrined in law; if so, they should make that clear. However, when rights are defined in law, they become justiciable. There are potentially complex and expensive legal implications for that, right up to interpretations by the European Court; Members would not expect me to go into private grief on that particular subject. If one were to apply rights in law, one would need to consider, given that the military covenant is not delivered only by Government, the implications for the charitable sector in terms of its legal obligations for delivery.

It is a complex argument, and there are perfectly reasonable points of view to be expressed on either side. The Government have decided that the best way to ensure that this is recognised in law is to develop the tri-service covenant and for the Secretary of State to make a statement so that Parliament as a whole can assess how it is being delivered. Ultimately, although we in this House will have a lot of debate about process, what matters is outcome and whether service personnel and veterans are getting an improvement in what society as a whole has promised to deliver, and wants to deliver, to them.

I welcome the support in this House for members of the armed forces community. That is why the Government support this motion, just as I hope the House supports the positive measures we are taking. The coalition Government will continue to rebuild the armed forces covenant. I wish we could go faster, but we will go as fast as we can.

13:14

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

May I begin by associating myself and my party with the remarks of the Secretary of State about Liam Tasker? The work that he was doing was vital not only in securing and supporting his colleagues and comrades but in bringing peace to Afghanistan. We should think today of his bravery and the sacrifice that he has made, and also think of his family and his comrades who have been left behind.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on securing this debate. As the Secretary of State said, when I was at the Ministry of Defence, I had the honour of visiting Northern Ireland on a number of occasions. I concur with his view about the contribution that people from Northern Ireland make—not only servicemen and women but their families— in supporting our armed forces and making the valiant contribution that they are making today in Afghanistan.

Our commitment to the men and women of our armed forces is non-negotiable. As Veterans Minister, I was always very proud of the support that the British people gave to our servicemen and women and their families, recognising their courage, skill and dedication. We must do our best not only to honour them when they make the ultimate sacrifice but to support them while they are in service and throughout life.

I should like briefly to touch on what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said about the previous Government’s commitment to this issue and the contribution that we made to supporting not only our servicemen and women but their families. The Command Paper to which he rightly referred was a groundbreaking piece of work initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence. For the first time, it looked across Government and got different Departments working together. The Command Paper had two fundamental principles: first, to recognise and end the disadvantages created by military-style life—for example, where being moved meant losing one’s place on waiting or housing lists—and secondly, to recognise that at all times it is right and necessary to provide special treatment, whether in removing disadvantage or in recognising the sacrifice made by those who have been seriously injured in the service of their country.

That piece of work was a landmark document. It did not just gather dust; it was implemented through working across Government and, for the first time, getting other Government Departments thinking about veterans and servicemen and women and their families when they were developing policies. I hope that it has left a good foundation for the coalition Government to build on. I put on record my thanks to the Royal British Legion for its campaign and the work that it continues to do not only in highlighting our debt to our servicemen and women and their families but in ensuring that all politicians recognise that debt.

When we published the Command Paper, we were criticised in certain quarters for trying to ensure that we honoured the covenant. Unlike some Conservative politicians who were happy to take pot shots at us when we were in government, I never believed that the covenant was broken; rather, it was something that we were able to build on through the Command Paper. We did much to be proud of, in which I was directly involved, in improving the lot of servicemen and women and veterans.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned service accommodation. When I was a Minister, he was always knocking on my door to advocate and lobby for improved accommodation in Colchester. We made some great strides in improving accommodation, although that was made very difficult by the decision taken in 1996 by the previous Conservative Government to sell off Army housing to a Japanese bank.

[Bob Russell]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer the House to the disgraceful privatisation involving Annington Homes. Does he agree that every pound of public money that is spent on improving the housing stock increases the value of that property to Annington Homes?

[Mr Jones]

It is on the record that that was a lousy deal for taxpayers, our servicemen and women, and their families. The important point is that we invested in new housing. In some cases, it was difficult to negotiate around the Annington Homes deal because of how it was structured.

The new single living accommodation that has been put in place through SLAM—the single living accommodation modernisation project—is some of the best anywhere in the world in terms of quality. The millions of pounds that we spent to improve service accommodation were recognised in 2009 by the National Audit Office, which stated that 90% of service families’ accommodation were in the top two of four standards for condition and met the Government’s decent homes standard. I accept that there is still accommodation that is not acceptable, and that sometimes the way in which service families were treated was wrong. Sometimes they were treated as though they were in the Army as well. On occasions, we did not get that right and did not recognise that the families should be looked at as customers, rather than as simply part of their partner’s employment conditions.

Health care is another area that the previous Government can be proud of. The new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham has dedicated military wards, and we put money into Headley Court to provide first-rate and world-beating rehabilitation for those who are severely injured in the service of their country. One of the things that I am most proud of from my time as a Minister is the Army recovery capability project, and I am pleased that the Government are following through on that. We owe a debt to the severely injured. We must not forget them when the headlines go away, but must have a long-term commitment to them.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentioned our debt and said that we must not forget. Will he recognise an area of support for the armed forces that has not been mentioned, which is remembering those who have fallen? Will he join me in welcoming the recent decision of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) to recommend to the Sentencing Guidelines Council that the desecration of war memorials should be considered as an aggravating factor, to reflect the seriousness of such offences?

[Mr Jones]

I do welcome that announcement. As a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, I think that it is very important that anybody who desecrates such monuments, whether or not they are Commonwealth War Graves Commission monuments, should be dealt with severely. The disgraceful scenes that we have seen of people desecrating war memorials are totally unacceptable and should be condemned.

[Dr Murrison]

In the “National Recognition of our Armed Forces” study, Lord Davies of Stamford, the former Member for Grantham and Stamford, stated that if those who wear the Queen’s uniform are insulted, that crime should be subject to special sentencing. Does the hon. Gentleman still hold to that?

[Mr Jones]

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to be disrespectful to anybody in uniform, whether they are a member of our armed forces or of any other service that works on our behalf, such as the police or fire services. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put forward that policy now that his party is in government, I am sure that it will be supported by Opposition Members.

Another aspect of health that we must refer to is mental health, and I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in that area. In government, we made great strides with the mental health pilots and the medical assessment programme at St Thomas’s hospital under Ian Palmer, which was there to provide support to all veterans, including Gulf war veterans, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) who is no longer in his place. I support anything that improves mental health services. The Command Paper did that by allowing us to work with the health service to ensure that mainstream mental health services reflect the needs of veterans.

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

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that veterans, particularly those who have served in recent conflicts and particularly those who suffer from mental health problems, are not well served in northern England and frequently have to travel some distance. I hope that we can have an all-party approach to reaching a better conclusion on those treatments.

[Mr Jones]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady says that, because one of the mental health pilots was in the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, which covers my constituency in Durham and hers. That pilot was specifically about ensuring that local services such as mental health nursing recognised the needs of veterans. I am not sure where the Government have got to in that work, but anything that can be done to roll it out should be done. I agree with her that services need to be local. If possible, people should not have to travel long distance to access them.

I know that the new veterans Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), agrees that when we are debating mental health issues relating to veterans, we should not lose sight of the fact that although post-traumatic stress disorder is a personal tragedy for every individual who suffers from it and for their families, it affects a small proportion of the population—something like 4%. Other areas, such as depression and alcohol abuse, need the same concentration and support. We need to focus the media portrayal of this issue back on to those other areas, and not just label everything as PTSD.

The previous Government can also be proud of doubling the compensation paid to injured servicemen and women. No amount of monetary compensation can repay the sacrifice of the veterans with horrific wounds whom I have met. However, we helped by doubling the amount and by ensuring that, for the first time, such people received lump-sum payments. Before the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004, they did not get lump-sum payments, although if one read the newspapers of the time, one would have thought that they had always existed. I put on the record my thanks to Lord Boyce, who did a valuable job in fine-tuning the compensation scheme and bringing it up to date. I know that the Government are committed to implementing his recommendations.

Service charities are also important, as has been recognised by the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. The Royal British Legion has been mentioned, as have the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and the Army Benevolent Fund. Those organisations are not just about fundraising, but contain a vital network of unpaid volunteers who, week in, week out, go into veterans’ homes to support them. I thank those volunteers for the work that they do. Combat Stress does a vital job in ensuring that individuals who suffer from mental illness access the support that they require. We need to ensure that there is better co-ordination in the charities sector. That is happening through some of the initiatives that I implemented, and it is being followed through to ensure that there is no duplication. I stress from the Dispatch Box that what we need is not new service charities, but for existing charities to work closer together, which they are, to ensure that the support is there.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in allowing interventions. May I counsel caution? Many micro-charities are spontaneous and very British, if I may put it in that way. They reflect the public’s desire to do something immediately. Often, they are part of the grieving process. I therefore urge caution about laying into such small charities.

[Mr Jones]

I take that point on board, but the best thing to do would be to focus fundraising efforts on the existing charities. The Royal Navy is rationalising its smaller charities. That is not being done to denigrate their work, because some of them do key specific work, but it is important that there is better co-ordination between them.

[Ian Paisley]

I believe that there are something like 2,000 such charities, many of which are doing an excellent job, and that they are issue-specific and will fade out. There is a strong case to be made for co-ordinating and consolidating their work.

[Mr Jones]

I believe the Confederation of British Service and Ex-service Organisations is working with the Veterans Minister to consider how we can get better co-ordination between those charities, which will be very important, especially when the clientele of some of the smaller charities pass away over the next few years. I am thinking, for example, of the Association of Wrens, which I believe has an end-date by which it will wind itself up and merge with other naval service charities. I put on record again my thanks to the individuals involved in such charities.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned the covenant, which it is important to consider. The previous Government were quite clear in our Command Paper about where our work on that would go next, and the Green Paper that I produced in 2008 considered ways of embedding in law the covenant and other matters covered in the Command Paper. I am sad that the Government are not following through on that work, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister’s commitment on the deck of the Ark Royal is in sharp contrast with what has happened in practice.

The opportunity provided by the Armed Forces Bill is being missed, because the covenant is not being enshrined in law. Members have mentioned the Royal British Legion, which clearly feels let down. It saddened me that when I tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee a few weeks ago, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted against it. That was a missed opportunity, and we need to revisit the matter.

[Dr Fox]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

If the Secretary of State is rethinking the matter, I will very much welcome it.

[Dr Fox]

This has been a very open debate so far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain to me whether, in his eyes, putting the military covenant into law means creating specific, definable rights for certain members of society. Will he give us an example of what sort of rights those might be, and what legal advice the Opposition have been given about the justiciability of such rights?

[Mr Jones]

If the Secretary of State has looked at our Green Paper, he will have seen what I was proposing. I agree that we should not create a feast for lawyers, but we wanted to ensure, for example, priority access in the health service, which we believed could be legally enforceable. My recent amendment suggested that the local government ombudsman should be responsible, as was suggested in the Green Paper. I accept that there is resistance to that, not from the Ministry of Defence but from other Departments. However, people ask whether veterans should get special treatment, and, in my opinion, they should.

[Mr David Hamilton]

It might help if I say that in my local authority area veterans get priority in housing. We have the Glencorse barracks in my area, and people coming out of the armed forces have always gone to the top of the list. That is enshrined in the rules. Such a provision in law could make every local authority comply with that arrangement. They do not all do it at the moment.

[Mr Jones]

I am aware of that, and I know that other local authorities including Wigan have changed their housing policies to do exactly the same thing. The Prime Minister made a clear commitment to enshrining that in law, as the quotation that we have heard this afternoon shows. The Armed Forces Bill does not do that, and if the Government are rethinking ways of doing it, they will certainly have the Opposition’s support and assistance.

[Ian Paisley]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for it. There is a strong case to be made that it is a national issue. When a soldier comes out of the Army, they should be able to settle in public housing somewhere with their family and expect something in return for the service that they have given this nation. It is a very small ask, and we should insist on it.

[Mr Jones]

I totally agree. The danger with the system outlined in the Bill is that the Secretary of State will produce a report without any independent input. As I said in Committee, I do not question for one minute the Secretary of State’s integrity or his intention to ensure that everything that should be in the report is in it, but a future Secretary of State could decide that certain matters should not be. That is a missed opportunity, and I hope that when the Bill goes to the other place it will be amended to ensure that the covenant is enshrined in law.

[Bob Russell]

It is.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman chunters on about that, and I know he is doing his best to support the Conservatives now—I believe he is known locally as Tory Bob these days. I found it remarkable that he was the only member of the Public Bill Committee who was doing the Government’s heavy lifting. It is important that we enshrine the covenant in law, and if the Government reconsider the matter they will certainly have our support.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned Gurkha pensions. As Members know, I have form on that matter. I wish to dispel some of the myths that continue to be portrayed in the newspapers and media about the equalisation of pensions. A Gurkha can retire after 15 years of service, so in some cases they retire on a full pension at about 35 years of age, or even younger. If pensions were equalised, most Gurkhas would not gain anything at all, because their UK counterparts cannot access their pension until they are 60. Backdating would mean their getting not just equalised pensions but actually better terms and conditions than other servicemen and women in some cases. Before 1975, service people got no pension whatever unless they had 22 years’ service. It is important that the facts are examined in detail.

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

Perhaps it might be of interest to my hon. Friend to hear that recently some Gurkha campaigners have been writing to the Defence Committee complaining that although the Government parties used a lot of rhetoric in opposition, the great promises that they made have been abandoned since the formation of the Government. The campaigners feel let down.

[Mr Jones]

I have friends on the Government Benches, and I know that even when they were in opposition some of them privately agreed with my position and that of the Government at the time. Clearly, in the hubris of the campaign, opportunistic Liberal Democrats got carried away. Unfortunately, Gurkhas and their families are now feeling the consequences. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), will have to answer questions about that.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that 10,000 Gurkhas are living in poverty. There are two separate types of Gurkha pensioner—welfare pensioners, who do not accept pensions, and service pensioners. When I visited Nepal, I saw that service pensioners are some of the wealthiest individuals in their local communities. Although they have a pension of only about £170 a month, that is equivalent to the income of an engineer or a junior doctor, so people need to examine the facts. Welfare pensioners are supported very ably by the Gurkha Welfare Trust and the Ministry of Defence, both financially and through logistical support on health and education.

Once again, I welcome the debate. Our brave servicemen and women are serving around the world, and we have a debt to them not just now but for years to come. It is right that they have had a lot of attention and recognition while they have been serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) said earlier, it is important that in future years, when the spotlight has perhaps moved elsewhere, we do not forget our debt to them. I will work with anybody who wants to ensure that servicemen and women, particularly those who have suffered mental injury or serious injury, are not forgotten when they are in their 60s, 70s and 80s. We cannot shy away from our debt to them, no matter what happens economically or in any other way.

13:39

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to talk about what the military covenant really means. Obviously, it is a contract between the state and individuals who put on uniform in its service, but what does the state require of our servicemen and women? Let us be quite clear. When required, the state directs those who are in the armed forces to obey orders and advance against the enemy, even when there is a high chance of their being killed. They are not allowed to debate the matter, and they are under compulsion. If they refuse, they may be court-martialled—in the past, they may even have been shot or ended up on a gibbet.

May I remind hon. Members of my hero, Wing Commander Guy Gibson? On the night of 16 May 1943, 19 specially modified Lancasters from 617 Squadron, led by Guy Gibson, attacked the three dams in the Ruhr on Operation Chastise. They did so from 60 feet, at 220 mph, in darkness and against considerable Nazi opposition. Of those 19 Lancasters, eight were lost, and 56 RAF personnel were killed. Along with Gibson, who won the Victoria cross, 32 airmen received decorations.

Not one of those 56 men wanted to die, and I suspect that very few—if any—wanted to get into the aircraft that night in May 1943. Any man or woman who has been in combat would be the very last person to say that they were not frightened sick when it happened, but the state required Guy Gibson and his gallant men to overcome their natural instincts, move their feet, which must have felt like lead, and get into those aircraft and fly. They knew that their chances of survival were not great—42% of them lost their lives—but they did what was required by the state.

My old battalion, 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, which is now called 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, returned from Afghanistan last autumn. Its casualty rate was pretty horrific: 12 dead and nearly 100 wounded, and seven triple amputees now have two legs between them. In the front sections of an infantry battalion in Afghanistan, the chances of being killed or wounded are 25% to 30%—I am talking about the people who do the business of our military in Afghanistan at the front.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) might not be allowed technically to be my friend in this Chamber, but he is certainly my friend when we are outside. He reminded the House of the Ballykelly bomb on 6 December 1982, when I was a company commander, but may I remind the House that 35 soldiers under my command were wounded, as well as civilians? They too remain our responsibility—I feel that acutely.

[Dr Fox]

Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I am extremely impressed and moved by what my hon. Friend is saying. However, it is not the state alone—meaning the governors of the state—that required sacrifices either in the second world war or in Afghanistan; it is the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why the military covenant exists not only between the state and the armed forces, but between the whole nation and the armed forces.

[Bob Stewart]

I certainly accept my right hon. Friend’s endorsement. Our nation requires our armed forces to do things that they would not normally do as civilians.

Sometimes, our front-line soldiers in Afghanistan chuck up as they load their weapons. I understand that, having been semi-paralysed with fear myself on occasions, and most certainly on front lines in Bosnia. I suspect that that feeling of paralysis and hopelessness was also felt by the dambuster squadron as they climbed into their Lancasters. However, that is the nation’s requirement of our servicemen and servicewomen. To me, it is pretty stark—it is the ultimate uncompromising requirement—but what should our service personnel get back? The state has always had a clear duty to look after service personnel or personnel who are killed or wounded in its service. That duty may not have been fulfilled in the past, and sometimes, even if it was, it was not done very well, but the requirement has always existed.

Early formal recognition of that duty was the establishment by Charles II of the Royal hospital in Chelsea in 1681. Today, we think of Chelsea pensioners as magnificent old soldiers in red coats—the boys of the old brigade—but that hospital was established specifically to look after wounded soldiers regardless of their age. By March 1692, the 476 so-called in-pensioners were mainly the wounded, not necessarily the old. The state—or the nation, if the Secretary of State will forgive me—has recognised its side of the bargain for a long time, which obviously continues to this day.

The military covenant is now widely recognised as a term that refers to the mutual obligation between the people—I am being careful now—and its armed forces. It was possibly first officially coined in an MOD pamphlet entitled, “Soldiering: the Military Covenant”, which I first saw in April 2000.

The covenant covers a lot of ground, some of which we have debated today, but in essence it fundamentally means that service personnel should be treated fairly and properly. I want to concentrate on what happens if a serviceman or servicewoman is killed or hurt, rather than on the softer aspects of the covenant. I know I speak for the House when I say that we want nothing but the best for those personnel, but let me emphasise what I consider to be our nation’s duty to those who are killed or wounded in its service.

First, on those who make the ultimate sacrifice, the mortal remains of our service personnel who are killed must be treated with the greatest dignity and respect, which I think they are. Our system is now fully supportive of grieving relatives, which includes helping, if required, with funerals as sensitively as possible.

We are also getting better at looking after families when the funeral is over. Service widows and families must have proper financial provision and guidance for as long as they need it thereafter. That also extends to the children. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has emphasised the setting up of an educational scheme and the attempt to look carefully at how families are looked after, but we have to keep on top of this, because as time goes by we tend to forget.

Secondly, I want to talk about the wounded. The ratio of killed to wounded on service in Afghanistan—this is based on my old battalion—was about one dead to nearly 10 wounded. I am told that the Americans’ figure is higher. That is an incredible improvement since the days when I first put on the uniform in 1967. When I was at the Royal Military Academy, I was taught that when planning a military operation, we should expect about one person to be killed for every three wounded—survival rates were not great. That was the case right the way through the early years in Northern Ireland, but now we have a much better survival rate. The ratio of dead to wounded now is—let us not be exact—one in 10 or 11. The precise figure does not matter; what matters is that we are recovering people from near-death experiences and getting them off the battlefield properly.

Tremendous advances have been made in keeping our wounded alive. That was a great achievement of the previous Government, some of whose members who helped to engineer it are here. We can blame the previous Government for many things, but on the medical front I take my hat off to them. The way in which we deal with our casualties is terribly important. It is also important when they take their uniforms off. That is something else we have to keep an eye on—they have to be looked after for the rest of their lives.

I am especially interested in the long-term care of the disabled. I accept that the NHS has responsibility and does its best, but that system still requires attention and help. I understand and accept now—with some emotional reluctance, I have to say—that the days of exclusive service hospitals are over. Our war disabled require the very best care until the end of their days, and I, for one, will spend all my time in the House doing my best to improve the long-term care of our wounded.

I will stop there. I am very grateful to the House authorities and the Democratic Unionist party for continuing to bring the matter of the military covenant before the House. It is a matter very dear to my heart. However, looking around the Chamber, I can see that I am certainly not alone; I know that there is tremendous support for it on both sides. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak.

13:53

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I will be very brief. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who made a very emotional speech. I pay tribute to him for his service to his country, especially for his time in Northern Ireland. He has a great reputation, and we appreciate all his help. In commenting on my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), he said that technically he was not allowed to be our friend. May I enlighten the hon. Gentleman? Contrary to rumour, we have a lot of friends on both sides of the House. It might not seem like it at times, but we do have quite a number of friends. In any event, it is a privilege to follow him.

I believe that the United Kingdom’s armed forces are the best in the world. They have served this nation well at times of crisis and conflict, from the battlefields of Europe, Africa and the far east, including in the two world wars, the Falklands and the Balkans. From Iraq to Afghanistan, their bravery and sacrifice have been demonstrated daily. I can speak of the key role played by our armed services in defending the Province of Northern Ireland against terrorism. Some of us on this side of the House and on these Benches have lost family who served in the Crown forces in Northern Ireland during the serious times of the troubles. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members of the House will acknowledge that, when it comes to the donning of the uniform of the Crown forces, the young men and women of Northern Ireland have never been found wanting. They have served their country as members and a part of the United Kingdom, and many of them, like many here on the mainland, have made the supreme sacrifice.

[Bob Stewart]

I want to pay tribute to them. Someone told me that Irishmen have won more Victoria crosses than Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen put together.

[David Simpson]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. I think that the history books have outlined that fact very well. As members and a part of the United Kingdom, and as British citizens, many of our young people have made that sacrifice. There are young men and women from my constituency currently on duty in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, one brave Gurkha officer from my constituency, Mr Neal Turkington, lost his life in the middle of last year. We pay tribute to families who have lost loved ones. Our armed services have served this nation well. Although they have served us well, unfortunately they have not always been served well by Governments.

There are a number of issues that we need to tackle. Veterans need help when they return to civilian life. A number of the points I am going to make have already been mentioned, but they are important and I will be very brief in making them. As I have said, I believe that veterans and people who have served their country need help when they return to civilian life. On 16 February, the Secretary of State said:

“It takes time to turn a civilian into a soldier, so we should take time to turn a soldier into a civilian. Our resettlement programme helps service leavers to navigate civilian life; everything from finding a job, to benefits, education and retraining.”—[Official Report, 16 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1044.]

Those are fine intentions, but there are concerns that ought to be addressed. Hon. Members will be aware of the recent report in the Yorkshire Post dealing with domestic violence issues involving ex-military personnel who have left the service but have no prospect of employment. It is good that the Secretary of State announced today the 24-hour helpline. That is commendable. There is also the education scheme, and the British Legion in my constituency has invited me to Scotland to see some of the medical facilities and the care provided in that part of the United Kingdom. I am looking forward to that.

The report also says that the MOD’s full resettlement programme is not open to all personnel, so perhaps when the Minister responds he could give some more information on that. The report also points out that the type of work that people are trained in is often not the type of work available. We need to look at the assistance that can be given to veterans who have problems readjusting, or who find themselves out of work or in financial hardship. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made about housing is a case in point. It is a valid point that should be taken a lot further. The idea that people can put their lives on the line on our behalf only to find that there is no work to turn to when they are in trouble, is totally unacceptable.

However—we come now to the thorny issue—we also need the Prime Minister to follow through on the pledge to enshrine the military covenant in law. I know he did not make that pledge lightly, but he made it on the decks of HMS Ark Royal. He could not have chosen a more symbolic place. If ever there was a pledge that should be kept, it is that one. Regrettably, however, the perception is that there now seems to be a drawing back from the pledge given by the Prime Minister. We were promised that the covenant would be enshrined in law, but what we got was merely an annual report on it, so we need to be careful.

I have listened carefully to the debate thus far. As I have said, we owe a debt of gratitude to all members of our armed forces. We need to get this right. If there are issues to do with enshrining the covenant in law, or other issues that need to be addressed, we need an open discussion and we need to get it right, because there would be nothing worse than an argument in this House among all the parties about a pledge that had been given, or about what will or will not be in the covenant, when our men and women are dying on the streets of Afghanistan and other countries. It is soul destroying for them to listen to the Government or Opposition, or whoever, discussing this issue. We are dealing with men and women’s lives and their treatment when they come home.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something incongruous about giving such protections in law to, for example, the civil service and other parts of the public sector, such as the police, along with many other areas of professional life and public service of the kind that he describes, but not to the military?

[David Simpson]

Yes, I do agree. All should be treated equally, including those who are in other countries putting their lives on the line. I am not saying that others do not do that—police officers and others on the streets of London and elsewhere across Europe have laid down their lives—but there needs to be equality and fairness right across the board.

I will finish now, because I know that quite a few Members want to speak. The Royal British Legion has written to me about the covenant—my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley also raised this issue—and has expressed major concerns. I would encourage the Government to co-ordinate their work on the covenant, so that we can deal with our young men and women who are serving this country and putting their lives on the line. We understand that there are issues with the economy and perhaps legal issues with the covenant that need to be dealt with, but we owe those young men and women a great debt of gratitude. We need to get it right for them.

14:04

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

It is a great honour to represent the garrison town of Colchester. Some 3,500 troops from 16 Air Assault Brigade are currently deployed in Afghanistan. Yesterday, as the urgent question on armed forces redundancies was being debated in this Chamber, a military funeral was taking place at St Peter’s church in Colchester for Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall of 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. He was 23 and engaged to be married on his return from Helmand province. We are very proud in Colchester of what we term our Colcestrians in khaki. There was civic representation both at the church and outside the town hall, as the centre of Colchester came to a halt. As the cortège stopped outside the town hall, there was a moment of silence and appreciation.

We are talking about today’s Army, and about those who will return and be tomorrow’s veterans. However, I would like briefly to share with the House a reference to Monty’s driver at El Alamein, Jim Fraser, a holder of the military medal and resident of Colchester, now in his 90s. An article on him appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times only last Saturday, saying:

“Jim Fraser was recognised for his courage in helping a seriously-wounded officer, and many times cheated death himself out in the deserts of Africa.”

He then became Monty’s driver. Indeed, Jim’s proud claim is that he was the man who persuaded Monty to wear the black beret. So we have veterans stretching right from the second world war to the present day. Jim joined the Army aged 17, on 5 November 1937 in what was then the Royal Tank Corps, and served for 22 years. He still makes it to Remembrance day in Colchester—he now has to be ferried in a world war two vehicle, which he quite enjoys—appearing with all his medals quite rightly displayed.

I served on the Armed Forces Bill Committee. The best thing that I can say is that there is a misunderstanding of emphasis. Everybody is agreed on what is required from the armed forces covenant, as it has been described. My view is that the covenant is best served by not being prescriptive or writing everything down, because events evolve. The way that we have presented the covenant is the best way. We should pay tribute to the Royal British Legion for putting the issue on the agenda and keeping it there. I am pretty confident that no Government or Secretary of State would dare come to the House with the annual report on the military covenant and try to hide something or gloss over it, because Members of Parliament in all parts of the House representing military constituencies would seize on anything untoward.

However, there are issues on which we need to keep pressing, one of which, as has been mentioned, is pensions. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on moving the motion and his party on tabling it for today’s Opposition day debate. It is important that we keep mentioning our brave military personnel, who, as the Secretary of State pointed out, are all volunteers. I want to pay tribute not only to the Royal British Legion, but to the network of other military charities, big and small, which is a strength, not a weakness. When each regiment, battalion, naval unit or whatever has its own charity or welfare organisation, that gives them personal pride, while the big players such as the Royal British Legion can, in a way, provide an umbrella. Alongside them, we have the Soldiers Charity—the Army Benevolent Fund, as was—the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and Help for Heroes, as well as others that are more specialist in nature, such as Veterans Aid, Combat Stress and the War Widows Association.

I should like to pause to reflect on war widows, because it was only when I was approached by a young war widow in my constituency whose husband had been killed on deployment in the summer of 2008 that I realised that war widows had no specific documentation to explain that they were war widows. To that young lady, that was important. We all imagine war widows to be old people, but they are not. There are lots of young war widows. We have only to look at the festival of remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall to realise that. If she needs to approach a local government agency, for example, she has no documentary proof of her status other than a pension document, which I am told does not describe precisely what the pension payment is for. This is a small point, but I hope that the Government will be able to address it, so that today’s young war widows can have something to confirm that they are indeed war widows. I also understand that, under the new scheme, the new war widows pay tax on their pension. That is one area of pensions that should be completely excluded from any form of taxation.

I am sure that members of the Armed Forces Bill Committee will agree when I tell the House how impressed we were by the representatives of the service families associations from each of the three main services. The independence of each association and their ability to work collectively together were incredible.

I shall conclude by mentioning Army family housing and education. I would like someone to write down and send me an explanation of precisely how the pupil premium will be allocated to children of serving members of Her Majesty’s armed forces. Not every such child attends the local Army, Navy or RAF school. I have three schools in my constituency in which the majority of children have a mother, father or both serving in the armed forces, and that explanation needs to be spelled out.

The sale of Army housing to Annington Homes in 1995 was an utter disgrace, but we are where we are. Because of changing circumstances, almost half an estate of Army housing in Colchester will have been sold off since that date. The most recent lot has gone to a housing association. I welcome that in so far as those houses are going to be made available to people on the local waiting list. However, a small fortune is being spent on upgrading and modernising them, while, on the other side of the road, substandard family houses are being occupied by military families whose husbands and fathers are currently serving in Helmand province. Those families will be living in lower quality housing than the modernised social housing opposite. If the Government can find money for social housing, they should be able to find money for the housing of Army personnel as well.

14:14

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). He mentioned Field Marshal Montgomery’s batman, who hails from my constituency, which makes me very pleased to associate myself with Colchester.

I am proud to stand here today beside my fellow British men and women and speak in support of our troops. This is a big issue for me and my constituency. Over the years as a councillor and an Assembly Member, I have had the opportunity on many occasions to speak in support of our troops in both Chambers, and sometimes that was in relation to equipment. Over the years, there were problems with the equipment issued to those who were out in the field in Afghanistan and elsewhere. We have dealt with those issues, and tried at every stage to support our troops.

I have also practically and physically supported the various charitable organisations, including the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, and, along with the good people of Ards and Strangford, raised thousands of pounds through coffee mornings to support them. That is what volunteers do on behalf of those people. That particular association helps those who serve, those who have served, and their families by providing a reliable, caring and trusted service to more than 50,000 people right across the United Kingdom, and I am proud to be associated with it in Northern Ireland.

Members on both sides of the House have recognised the service that those in uniform provide. I should like to put on record that Northern Ireland never had to have conscription. Volunteers lined up to sign on and join up. Such is the history of Northern Ireland. I come from an area where service in the armed forces is not the exception to the rule; it is very much a part of everyday life. Among my staff in my office in Ards, which is one of the three offices that I have as an MP, my secretary’s nephew and my researcher’s friend and her husband are serving Queen and country. Among a staff of three in my office, three people are connected with those who are serving at the moment. This shows clearly the efforts that everyone makes. I have every confidence, in standing here today supporting the motion, that I am speaking for my constituents of Strangford, who are proud of their service personnel all over the world.

Along with other hon. Members, I have joined the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which gives MPs an opportunity to support and better understand the armed forces, as well as giving the armed forces an opportunity to call on us to support them in the House. This is one such opportunity. Following a presentation last week, we have realised just how young some of the people are who serve. One presentation was given by a very young officer; those Members who were present will remember him clearly. He was so young, so brave and so wise. That is how I remember him, and I suspect that the others who were there will have seen him in the same way.

I have also been an avid supporter of the Honour the Covenant campaign, which is the British Legion’s campaign calling on the Government to honour their lifelong duty of care to those making a unique commitment to their country. The military covenant does not have the force of law, but it has been enshrined through convention, custom and contemporary application, and it represents the nation’s moral commitment to its armed forces. The campaign reinforces the necessity of remembering not only those who have died but those who fell in injury and whose lives will never be the same again. Changes have been made to the way in which the Ministry of Defence and the Government treat our returning soldiers, but still more must be done.

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State. I judge people by how I find them, and I believe that he has a clear commitment to the armed services. We might sometimes disagree on exactly how things should be done, but I acknowledge his real commitment nevertheless. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but my comments will be in Hansard for him to read.

There must be an extension of NHS priority treatment to all veterans who are physically and emotionally damaged or injured as a result of what has happened out there. Such care must become a way of life in the NHS, and it must include better access to the veterans’ mental health services that are necessary due to the unbelievable things that those men and women see and experience in the line of service.

I have also met many ex-Royal Ulster Constabulary men and women who relive every day of their lives the atrocities that they have seen, and will probably do so until the day they die. I have met soldiers who remember in vivid detail how they saw friends and, however much the innate British stiff upper lip might kick in, those people need help to process what they have seen and what they are still living with. This is not an easy job, and their service should never be forgotten or overlooked. When speaking to those brave men and woman, we see amid the grief and sorrow a determination that what they are doing is not in vain; they take pride in the sacrifice that has been made.

A young soldier in my constituency and her husband lost a dear friend just before Christmas through an improvised explosive device—we know how horrific they are. They had a few hours counselling and were back on patrol in Afghanistan the next day. They handled the situation well and did their duty, but the long-term issues associated with this problem cannot be handled by just a few hours’ counselling. I put that to the Secretary of State, because more has to be done than provide a net or service; there must be a follow-through as well. Measures must be in place to provide someone to talk to when the time comes, which is what we are seeking today.

I received a card from a constituent whose family had told her of my endeavours to ensure that mail was sent. I have raised this issue in the past and I know that the previous Government responded clearly to it. Some out in the field in Afghanistan or indeed Iraq found that their mail from home was not getting through. As I say, Governments responded to the problem at the time. It humbled me to see that a serving member of our armed forces had taken the time to write to me to say thank you, so that I could thank the Government for their help. It also made me realise just how much, as I always knew, soldiers relied on their team and their families back home to support them. I believe that they rely on each and every one of us simply to thank them and tell them they are doing a good job. Sometimes a small word is enough to show support and a long speech or a card are not necessary. Thanking them very much for what they are doing means a whole lot to many people in the armed forces. My constituent never mentioned in her card how awful things were or asked whether it was right or wrong for them to be there: she just thanked me for my and everyone else’s support.

We always recognise the bravery of our personnel and over the years we have had the opportunity to meet some of those awarded medals for gallantry. Sometimes hearing these stories makes me stand back and think about the boy’s own stories I read as a kid. All of a sudden, we can realise that all these things that we had thought of as fiction were actually happening out in the field. Sometimes the sheer bravery is incredible.

With growing numbers of injured personnel coming home from Afghanistan, there is an immediate need for a dedicated strategy on care for themselves and their families. Shortly after Christmas, one of my constituents in the Irish Guards—he was 18, the same age as my son—was shot in the wrist. Fortunately, the bullet that went through his wrist and out of his elbow did not damage any bones, blood vessels or muscles. I had a cup of coffee with him and his dad when he returned and it was important to let him know that people in my constituency were very supportive of him. He told me that the Irish Guards and other Army personnel followed up afterwards, providing support for him and his mum and dad. That shows how good the aftercare service from the regiments is, and it is also good that the parents are supported. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) mentioned the importance of involving parents in the process.

So far, we have not had a chance to comment on homecoming parades, which I believe are very important. People across Britain should have the opportunity to be involved with them. I support the recent calls for parades to honour those coming home and I also support those who are injured and need a little help. That is also why I, along with many other Members, remember our service personnel in my prayers every day. To all our soldiers and personnel past or currently serving and to their families left at home, I take this opportunity to say thank you. Their sacrifice is seen and appreciated, which is why I wholeheartedly and unreservedly support the motion.

14:23

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on securing this debate, which is apt, given the announcements earlier this week about redundancies in the armed forces, as the coalition Government try to close the £38 billion shortfall in the Ministry of Defence budget.

Veterans’ issues are very important in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency, which is not only one of the homes of the Royal Navy—of which it is very proud—but a home for the Royal Marines and for 3 Commando Brigade, which will go to Afghanistan in just a few weeks. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all going there, to wish them the best of luck and to wish them Godspeed in their safe return—without any loss of life and hopefully without injuries.

I know that no Conservative Members were elected in the hope that we would cut our armed forces or make people redundant. I am sure that applies to Opposition Members as well. I was horrified by the recent announcement about the sacking of service personnel by e-mail, but I am delighted by and greatly welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment that nobody in 3 Commando Brigade will be made redundant while away.

We must recognise that today’s servicemen and women are tomorrow’s veterans. They put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and we need to ensure that we look after them afterwards. Many people of my age—I had a father who served and gained a distinguished service cross in the Narvik campaign in the 1940s—see veterans as people who either served in the second world war or in Korea or, for that matter, in the Falklands. It is interesting to note that next year we will commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Falklands conflict. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what we are going to do to remember that anniversary—next year as well—because many people from Plymouth were certainly affected by the conflict. I add a strong plea that the Minister has heard before—I am going to repeat it—for Plymouth to be the centre for the national commemoration for veterans weekend in 2012. We should remember that Plymouth is not Portsmouth and that we are not 20 minutes away from Bristol.

This picture of white-haired veterans is not exactly appropriate for today. Today, a lot of young people in their late 20s and early 30s are going to be our veterans. Their time saving our country and putting their lives on the line is just one part of a series of careers that they might have during the course of their time on this earth.

I welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to recruit some veterans into the education system to help with teaching. I remember being at prep school as a child of eight. One of my masters was regularly carted off to hospital because of the gas he had inhaled in the first world war. We had nothing but total support for him, and his authority in the classroom ensured that we were brought up in a very disciplined way. If I may say so, I certainly hope that our service personnel who become teachers will act in the same way to put some authority and discipline back into the classroom—especially in some of our inner-city schools. I am delighted that Plymouth university is in the process of sponsoring a marine academy in the city. I hope it will look at ways of recruiting some of the ex-service personnel to teach there, which would be most helpful. Will the Minister spell out how this plan might work?

The other big issues faced by our veterans relate to mental health. Last autumn, the Prime Minister gave a commitment that the Government would implement the “Fighting Fit” report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). That has been welcomed by several charities, including Combat Stress and Plymouth Mind. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister update us on progress on ensuring that the actions recommended in the report are delivered? Will he confirm whether those actions will be fully funded by the national health service? When my right hon. Friend the Minister is next in Plymouth, perhaps he will join me in visiting the Hasler company in HMS Drake, as they do great work to deal with complex issues, including issues of mental health.

We have talked a great deal about veterans who have been full-time soldiers, sailors and airmen, but reservists are occasionally overlooked. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti)—he will look horrified that I am referring to him again—who was a reservist with 29 Commando before he entered the House, regularly reminds me that reservists sometimes have to go back to homes and communities where no one has any idea what they have been up to.

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

My hon. Friend is kind to mention my service, but I want to put it on record that it was very modest. May I echo his comments about 3 Commando Brigade, and especially about the men from 29 Commando who are now going back out to Helmand? I hope that they have a great tour and come back safely, and I wish I was going with them.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend. We should ensure that the mechanisms and infrastructure are in place to look after reservists once they come back.

Last week, on a course, I was approached by the Royal British Legion, which told me that it would be enormously helpful if the Government made reservists’ details available to charities. To overcome data protection restrictions, perhaps reservists should be asked to tick a box that would allow their details to be shared with such excellent charities. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be willing to take that on board. Will he ensure that, as they say in the Navy, it is “Anchors aweigh”, and that we see action on this matter?

14:31

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

It is an honour and privilege to join right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the courage and bravery of our servicemen and women.

When the Democratic Unionist party was allotted this debate, I was delighted that we had the honour of being able to choose the motion on support for UK armed forces and veterans. The motion speaks for itself, and those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken find that this matter touches the nerve of the community. I am delighted that there has been such support for the motion across the House.

Those who join our armed forces realise that they are not joining a boy scout club—they are joining the armed services. It is an occupation, and some join because they come from military families, some join for the excitement, and others join because they have no other means of employment. Whatever their reason for joining, however, it is right to point out that they have given valiant service and great sacrifice, and the House is proud of what they have done, and are doing at present, in the field of conflict. Let me mention the gallant service of the Royal Irish who are serving in Afghanistan.

I will never forget my visit to Camp Bastion in Afghanistan, and I salute every one of our soldiers, and the international team of soldiers—whether from the United States or other countries—who are working together to try to bring stability to that area and safety to the world. I was greatly taken by the bravery not only of the soldiers, as I pay tribute to the doctors and nurses serving there, especially in the brilliant hospital, which is an example of how to stabilise critically injured soldiers. I remember that the aircraft in which I had arrived was immediately turned into a hospital to transfer soldiers to Birmingham for additional treatment.

We think today of the families who have lost their loved ones because of the conflict in Afghanistan and the earlier conflict in Iraq, but we should also bear it in mind that many young men and women are returning from theatre with not only horrific bodily injuries, but horrific mental injuries. I remember the tragedy of Northern Ireland. I remember the night when a number of my then constituents—I represented a different constituency then—were murdered in Teebane. I remember walking among the dead, and having to lift up some of the living to get them to hospital as quickly as possible. I will never forget that scene. I remember, in a personal capacity, standing in a mortuary looking down at the face of a young woman and at a young lad. I did not see the young lad’s face, because there was not enough to view. Just a few bones were left. I will never forget that scene.

I am sure that many of these young men and women are returning from the field of conflict with horrific memories, and are trying to deal with the trauma of that. Let us never forget that the fact that they have come back and their bodies are intact does not mean that they have not been touched by the field of conflict. We must ensure that they are given the best possible treatment, and that their trauma and mental scars are properly treated.

I was very encouraged by what the Secretary of State said today. I genuinely believe that he has given a serious commitment, and continues to do so. I pay tribute to the Secretaries of State in the previous Government as well, because I believe that they did much for our armed forces. However, because this is a moving situation, we must continue to give them they best that we can. Let us also remember that when they return and, in many cases, have to move from the field of conflict to civilian life, great care must be taken with them. Many face unemployment, and in these times there is increasing unemployment. Let us therefore be sensitive. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and will think carefully about the provision of housing for returning soldiers and their families.

It has been a privilege to take part in the debate. I trust that we will pass the motion unanimously, and ensure that our soldiers—servicemen and women—know that we are standing wholeheartedly behind them and that we thank them for what they are doing for us.

14:38

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

I shall be as brief as possible, because I know that we are short of time.

I believe that when the most important and prominent duty of a Government is the defence of the realm, it is equally important that all Governments value the contributions and sacrifices that our servicemen and women make in carrying out this most vital task. When our armed forces personnel on operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere face paying the ultimate price in the protection of our country, its people and our freedoms and way of life, we should ask them to do so only in the knowledge that they are properly equipped for the task and will be trained to the highest level, and that when they retire—or should they be wounded or, indeed, killed—they or their families will be provided for in recognition of, and admiration for, the sacrifices that they make. That is the minimum that we must do to support our armed forces and veterans, and to me those sentiments are the basis of the military covenant.

The idea, or basic principle, behind support for service personnel and veterans is not new, but a long-standing and time-honoured tradition in this country and elsewhere. In ancient Rome, for example, veterans were given land and a farm to provide a living in recognition of and thanks for their service to their country. Here, in 1593, a statute of Elizabeth I provided for a weekly tax on parishes so that disabled Army veterans

“should at their return be relieved and rewarded, to the end that they may reap the fruit of their good deservings, and others may be encouraged to perform the like endeavours.”

Our commitment to the welfare and aftercare of our armed service personnel must be unwavering, and I believe all parties share that goal. We can best honour that commitment through the steps the Government are taking to restore the military covenant. The status quo is probably best described in the relevant House of Commons Library research paper, which states:

“The Military Covenant is an unwritten social and moral commitment between the State and Service personnel in the Armed Forces that has developed through long-standing convention and customs. Although it currently has no legal basis it implies that in return for the sacrifices that Service personnel make, the State has an obligation to recognise that contribution and retains a long term duty of care toward Service personnel and their families.”

The previous Administration reneged on this covenant. It gives me no pleasure to say that, as I acknowledge that they did some good work—especially the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) when he was a Minister. They did not adequately equip our troops for the most hostile of conflicts, they neglected the welfare of our service families, injured personnel and veterans, and they left a £38 billion black hole in the Ministry of Defence budget at a time of war.

Some Opposition Members look back at the previous Government’s time in office through rose-tinted spectacles and view it as a period of utopian plenty. Whenever the shocking neglect of the huge Budget deficit is mentioned they are in complete denial. The previous Administration have an appalling record in respect of honouring the covenant and failing to supply enough helicopters, vehicles and kit that are fit for purpose in the most hostile of environments. I saw that for myself in Afghanistan, and I firmly believe the coalition Government are trying to correct the balance through the current Armed Forces Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill does more to honour the armed forces covenant and to support our troops and veterans than the last Administration achieved in 13 years. The text of the tri-service military covenant will be published in the spring, and legislation could be used to facilitate it if that is necessary.

Let us examine the Bill’s measures and what it will achieve in restoring the military covenant. If we accept that the military covenant is a moral commitment and a statement of principles rather than a list of rules and regulations and a job-creation scheme for lawyers, then the Bill goes a long way towards enshrining the notion of the covenant in law. The Bill provides a statutory recognition of the covenant for the first time. It ensures that Parliament and the Government of the day are forced to continue to address this most important issue. It demands in law that every year the Secretary of State of the day must present to Parliament an armed forces covenant report on the effect of membership of the armed forces on service personnel, their dependants and veterans in the UK. Furthermore, the effects in respect of health care, education and housing are specifically listed, as is the examination of others fields that the Secretary of State may determine.

It is right for the military covenant to be broadly defined. The Opposition fail to understand that the clause provides this Government and future Administrations with the flexibility to be able not to lose focus on the real issues. It allows us to achieve real welfare improvements for our service personnel and veterans. I have heard from military charities and serving men and women that there is no desire for a bureaucratic and over-prescriptive definition of the covenant. Warfare, conflicts and conditions can change rapidly, as events in the past couple of weeks demonstrate. This Bill will allow the military covenant to evolve in this and future Parliaments as our services change and adapt to meet the demands they are asked to face.

This House is in full agreement that we must provide for our servicemen and women and our veterans. I believe the current Armed Forces Bill puts us back on the right path towards honouring the sacrifices that our armed forces make in the protection of our freedoms and way of life, and upholding the moral covenant that exists between the state and those who do so much to defend it.

14:43

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

May I begin, as others have, by paying tribute to our armed forces and servicemen and women, particularly those from our part of the world, the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment and the 1st Battalion the Irish Guards, who are currently serving in Afghanistan, but also to everyone who has given valiant service both in Afghanistan and in previous theatres of operation? Those of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies perhaps have more reason than most to value the armed forces, and to put on record our admiration for them, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) pointed out, we owe them so much in for the current peace process. Although some people may go around claiming the political credit for that, I think the greatest credit goes to our security forces in the Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the police and the reserves, who have held the line and protected innocent men and women. Although there is so much temptation now to revise history, the truth should be clearly told: they were the ones who defended democracy and brought about the conditions for the current political progress and peace in Northern Ireland.

I wish to thank everyone who has participated in this very good debate, especially those who have been here throughout the proceedings. In moving the motion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley said that this was not a party political issue and mentioned the tone of the debate, and that has been reflected in today’s contributions. I welcome the fact that the motion is supported by the Government, as well as by other hon. Members and other parties in the House. I, too, pay tribute to the sincerity and integrity of the Secretary of State and his Ministers, and of the previous occupants of their offices. We all recognise that they are doing their very best in difficult circumstances for our armed forces, and that needs to be recognised.

As has been said, our purpose in tabling this motion was simply to continue to highlight and put on the record our support first and foremost for our armed forces. We should not underestimate how important it is to our servicemen and women, particularly those in theatre battling the enemy, to know that Parliament and Members of Parliament are spending time not only recognising their service, some of the difficulties they face and the challenges we all face, but putting on the record our deepest gratitude for and appreciation of what they are doing. We sometimes say that things have already been debated—this issue was debated on 16 February—but it is well worth spending as much time as possible on this issue. What is more important than issues of life and death and war to our servicemen and women?

In my first contribution at Prime Minister’s questions in this Parliament, I raised the issue of the military covenant. I asked the Prime Minister right at the outset of a new Parliament and a new Administration

“to give a categorical assurance to our troops that they will always get the equipment and resources that they need on operational duty, to our servicemen and women returning home that they will always get the help and advice that they need to return to civilian life, and to our maimed and wounded that, despite all the budgetary pressures, they will always get the care and compassion that they need and deserve, for however long it takes”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 433.]

My party, like many right hon. and hon. Members from all parties, takes that very seriously indeed.

We have heard many excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley moved the motion extremely eloquently. He mentioned that 20% of the reserve forces currently serving come from Northern Ireland. That illustrates the contribution that Northern Ireland men and women are making to the war effort and it should be borne in mind. People have rightly mentioned the voluntary nature of service and it needs to be pointed out, again, that there has never had to be conscription in Northern Ireland, even during the second world war. That is a measure of the support there for the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made an excellent speech in which he talked about the close association of people in Ulster with the armed forces. That is illustrated by the service of people in his constituency office and it comes across day in, day out, not only in an appreciation of the work that the Army and the armed services did on the streets in Northern Ireland to maintain the peace and to defend democracy and life and limb, but in the number of people in Northern Ireland with relatives who served or are serving in the armed forces.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley also said that we need to meet the needs of veterans—not only those who served many years ago, but those who have served in current conflicts. We have heard about the big society, and my right hon. Friend mentioned the issue in relation to the Royal Irish Regiment band. It may seem relatively trivial, but it is an important aspect in recruiting and raising money for charitable purposes for servicemen and women.

The Secretary of State talked about the measures that the Government have introduced since taking office: the doubling of the operational allowance; the rest and recuperation rules; the university and further education scholarships for children of those killed; the pupil premium; and the action taken on mental health. I welcome what he said about the 24-hour helpline and the extra money, but we need to ensure that there is continued monitoring of mental health and that servicemen and women are kept in touch with over the years so that they do not drop out of the system and are not forgotten or left behind. I also welcome his commitment to look into the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about housing and the weighting that servicemen and women should be given in that regard.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who spoke for the Opposition, highlighted the previous Government’s actions. I commend the previous Government, as did some hon. Members on the Government side, for what they did in, for example, producing their Command Paper. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there were deficiencies, especially with housing, but progress was made during the previous Parliament in recognising that those who have served deserve special treatment, particularly in the area of mental health.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke very passionately. He has great experience in this field having served, as we were reminded, in Northern Ireland and as a company commander. He knows at first hand what it is to comfort and care for his troops and he reminds us of the dedicated service of so many in the armed forces in Northern Ireland over the years. He rightly asked what the nation requires of our troops, and talked about the courage that they display going into battle and the physical sickness that they sometimes feel as they anticipate what might come. His point about what the nation requires of our troops is pertinent, as is the return question: “What do they expect from our nation?”

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) has a very good track record of supporting our servicemen and women. He recently took part in raising significant amounts of money for Help for Heroes, as he has for a number of years, through personally doing sponsored walks and organising other charitable activities. I pay tribute to him for that. He mentioned that the UK armed forces are the best in the world and we all subscribe to that. He, too, dwelt on the military covenant in his comments.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who speaks so often, so eloquently and strongly in defence of our armed forces, talked about the covenant and said we should not be too prescriptive. He also paid tribute to the Royal British Legion for keeping this matter on the agenda. He made a very good point about war widows and the need for identification, as well as making good points about housing and education.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about prescriptiveness, which was a theme of the Opposition’s. We agree with the deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, the Adjutant-General, the deputy Chief of the Air Staff, the Second Sea Lord, the chairman of the RAF Families Federation and the Forces Pension Society that prescription and justiciable enforcement of a military covenant are not appropriate.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On the military covenant, we all agree that the help that is delivered is what really matters. That is the crucial point, as has been emphasised by Members across the House. We note what the Prime Minister has said, and I know that the Royal British Legion’s letter on this point has been mentioned, but I think clarification is needed of what is meant by “properly referencing” the covenant in law. I take the Secretary of State’s point about definable rights and justiciability, but I think that the way forward is to get the Royal British Legion and others who are interested together with the Government to hammer out a way forward that all parties can agree. That is the key point and I urge the Government to take that step.

I acknowledge the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti).

In closing, I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of volunteers who take part in raising so much money for charitable organisations and charities across the UK, including the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the Not Forgotten Association, the Army Benevolent Fund and regimental benevolent funds, which do tremendous work. We should never forget their contribution. Again, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate, which has been excellent, and I end by paying tribute once more to the excellent service of so many men and women in our services.

14:53

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I thank the Democratic Unionist party for raising this important subject. We have had a useful debate, which I have enjoyed. I can honestly say that I do not always enjoy every debate that we have in this place. I thank the Democratic Unionist Members for their contributions. I have great affection for Northern Ireland. I spent the best part of a year of my life walking its streets. We will not go too far into the politics, but I spent most of my life then in a part of West Belfast that does not currently have a Member of Parliament and used to be represented by a man for whom I fear that I do not have a great deal of time, particularly following his service on the provisional army council—something on which the DUP and I would rather agree.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) is absolutely right: this issue should not be a party political football. I think that every hon. Member agrees that we wish our service personnel to receive good treatment while they are serving and, latterly, when they leave. Of course that includes their families and reservists.

I should like to touch on a couple of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke about mental health, which is very important to us, as shown by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has produced his report, “Fighting Fit”. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that service charities play a huge part in how we hope to deliver the covenant and, indeed, are part of the big society. He mentioned Treasury rules relating to service charities, and I am looking at that and, indeed, have a paper with me at the moment that I wish to progress. Finally, he mentioned suicides and the Falklands. I would love to have some evidence about such suicides, but I am afraid that I know of none.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has apologised to me for not being in his place now, was much more emollient than the shadow Secretary of State has been recently, and I agree with a great deal that he said. It is a pity that he then got into party politics, with a rather incoherent position on the justiciable rights that he might want to put into law.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has a long record on such things, for speaking movingly about care for the disabled. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) spoke with genuine feeling. I, too, should like to congratulate him. I did not realise that he is a great fundraiser for service charities, so I should particularly like to thank him for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) paid tribute to Monty’s driver—his constituent—and spoke very well about service charities. He was followed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who quite rightly reminded us that Montgomery came from the Province and about the many contributions by Northern Ireland personnel in our services, particularly in the first world war and subsequently. I agree absolutely with what he said about the moral obligations of the covenant.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) that we should commemorate what happened in the Falkland Islands. I lost many friends in the Falkland Islands some 29 years ago. Our major commemorations in this country tend to take place on the 25th anniversary, as happened a few years ago, and on the 50th, but that does not stop people commemorating every anniversary. He will be pleased to hear that I got the message about his wanting Plymouth to be the centre for armed forces day in the near future. He might wish to know that the Combat Stress helpline for mental health went live on Monday. That was one of the recommendations in my hon. Friend’s “Fighting Fit” report.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) spoke with passion about service, especially in the Royal Irish, and about the excellent health care that personnel receive in Afghanistan. The trauma care that people have learned about in Afghanistan is going forward into the national health service. That is not dissimilar to what happened with gunshot wounds and the Royal Victoria hospital, which became a repository of unbelievable knowledge in the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) quoted the Library document from 2007 about the unspoken moral commitment that is the covenant—

[Mr Donaldson]

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

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the valiant service and sacrifice given by the members of UK armed forces in the defence and security of the UK; notes concerns about the current level of support provided to veterans and the families of service personnel; and calls on the Government adequately to fund aftercare services for veterans, including those who have physical disabilities or mental illness, to provide the best support to the families of those who have died as a result of their service, and to honour in full its commitments in relation to the Military Covenant.

Business without Debate

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

Consolidated fund (Appropriation) (NO.2) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BSkyB

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

15:00

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about News Corporation’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB. I start by thanking both the Office of Fair Trading and Ofcom for their detailed, thorough and independent analysis, which has been produced to a challenging time scale. My decision today relates to the plurality of news provision, not competition or market power issues, which were ruled on by the European Commission on 21 December 2010.

Earlier this morning, I announced that the independent media regulator, Ofcom, had advised me that undertakings in lieu offered by News Corporation would address the plurality concerns that Ofcom had identified in its report to me of 31 December 2010. I also announced that the OFT considered the undertakings to be practically and financially viable for up to 10 years. In the light of this independent advice, I propose to accept such undertakings instead of referring the matter to the Competition Commission.

As the Enterprise Act 2002 requires, I have today published these undertakings for public consultation. For the sake of transparency, I have also published all the advice that I have received from Ofcom and the OFT, together with correspondence between myself and News Corporation and a time line for the process I have followed, including details of all meetings I have held. I hope that hon. Members will have time to study these undertakings during the formal consultation that will start today. However, it may help if I outline the main points.

The undertakings would ensure that Sky News is spun off as an independent public limited company. The shares in that company would be distributed among the existing shareholders of BSkyB in line with their existing shareholdings. News Corp would therefore retain a 39.1% stake in the new company, although it will not be allowed to increase this shareholding for 10 years without the Secretary of State’s permission. In other words, even if the proposed News Corp/Sky merger goes ahead, News Corp’s shareholding in Sky News will remain the same as at present.

The new company would have a 10-year carriage agreement and a seven-year renewable brand licensing agreement with the newly merged News Corp/Sky so as to ensure its financial viability. Unlike the board to which Sky News currently reports, the chairman would be required to be an independent director. Unlike at present, the board would have a corporate governance and editorial committee to ensure compliance with the principles of editorial independence and integrity in news reporting. For the first time, the requirement for the company to adhere to Ofcom’s broadcasting code would be enshrined in the new company’s articles of association.

In short, the editorial independence of Sky News will be better protected not only than it would have been had Sky News formed part of the buy-out of Sky shares, but even than it is right now. The principles of the arrangements are clear and set out in the proposed undertakings. There are still some detailed provisions of carriage, brand licensing and certain operational agreements that need to be finalised, and the terms ensure that such agreements need to be approved by me. In deciding whether or not to approve them, I will again take the advice of Ofcom and the OFT as appropriate. The merger cannot, of course, go ahead until I have been satisfied on all these matters.

I also want to draw the House’s attention to the long-term sustainability of these undertakings. The OFT has said that the undertakings are likely to be practically and financially viable in the short and medium term, but expressed concerns about whether they would be viable over the longer term. It stated, however, that the appropriate time frame in this market was for me to decide, with Ofcom’s advice.

Ofcom has considered the impact of a 10-year carriage agreement in the context of the media industry, and it has expressed the view that, in a rapidly changing media and technological environment, a carriage agreement of 10 years is a long-term measure. I agree with its independent view about the difficulties of predicting with any certainty how the plurality issues will develop over a longer time frame. However, I will of course reach a final conclusion on that and other aspects of the undertakings only after the consultation is complete.

Consequently, on the basis of the independent advice I have received, I have concluded that a referral to the Competition Commission would not be merited at this stage, and instead I propose to consult on the undertakings in lieu, the final version of which has also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on my Department's website.

In line with the legislation, I am opening a consultation period, during which time all interested parties will be able to express their views on the undertakings. Once I have considered representations, I will reach a decision on whether I still believe that the undertakings should be accepted in lieu of a referral. If, after consultation, I am still of the view that the undertakings address the concerns about media plurality, I will accept them and not refer the merger to the Competition Commission.

I should add that, quite separately to my consideration of the merger, I have carefully noted Ofcom’s point that there is a potential weakness in the current public interest test with respect to media plurality—namely, that it can be applied only when there is a commercial transaction to consider. That wider question is one that I intend to consider in the context of the forthcoming review of communications regulation which I announced earlier this year.

Throughout the process, I have been very aware of the potential controversy surrounding the merger. Nothing is more precious to me than the free and independent press for which this country is famous the world over. In order to reassure the public about the way in which the decision has been taken, I have sought and published independent advice at every step of the way, even when not required to by law. After careful consideration, I have followed that independent advice. The result is that, if the deal goes ahead, Sky News will be able to continue its high-quality output with greater protections for its operational and editorial independence than those that exist today. For those people who have concerns about the plurality of news provision, I hope that that will be a welcome step forward. As such, I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

Four weeks ago, the Secretary of State said he was minded to refer News Corp’s acquisition of BSkyB to the Competition Commission. Today, it is clear that he has changed his mind. Hon. Members and many people outside the House will want reassurance that the right hon. Gentleman has not put the perceived interests of his party and career ahead of the public interest. Imagine what they would have said if we had made that decision, in that way, in the same week as we had put a former Labour party chairman in charge of the BBC.

Until we get some straight answers to straight questions, doubts will persist. The process has exposed an arrogant Government, cavalier about their responsibility to be impartial and contemptuous of the importance of transparency in circumstances where there is already a high level of public cynicism.

On 21 December, the Business Secretary was stripped of his responsibility for the media and digital economy, because of poor judgment and a lack of impartiality following his boast that he would declare war on Mr Murdoch. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was given responsibility for this quasi-judicial process, despite being on the record as saying that he did not see a problem with News Corp purchasing BSkyB.

Two days later, on 23 December, the Prime Minister attended a private dinner with James Murdoch in the middle of a quasi-judicial process. That, from a Prime Minister who wrote in the foreword to his own ministerial code:

“In everything we do—the policies we develop and how we implement them, the speeches we give, the meetings we hold—we must remember that we are not masters but servants. Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct….We must be…Transparent about what we do and how we do it. Determined to act in the national interest”.

Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has had any discussions about the acquisition with the Prime Minister since 23 December—to be clear, not whether he has consulted him, but whether he has had any discussions? If yes, were officials present at these discussions? Does he think that it was right for the Prime Minister to attend that dinner in the middle of this process?

With regard to News Corp’s proposals to float off Sky News as a listed company, I have a number of initial questions. Who will appoint the new Sky News board chair and the board? Will the chair be independent? What proportion of board members will be News Corp representatives? What steps would News Corp have to take if it wanted to change the Sky News governance arrangements or News Corp’s shareholding? Will Sky News be solely dependent on News Corp for finance over the next decade? Who will hire and fire Sky News editorial staff? Will the Sky News board be expected to prevent the bundling of information from News Corp’s newspapers and Sky News? Who will be responsible for monitoring the independence of Sky News over the next decade? What assessment has the Secretary of State undertaken of News Corp’s approach to undertakings given in the past following the purchase of The Times and The Sunday Times in 1981 and The Wall Street Journal in 2007? Can the Secretary of State confirm that broadcasting news impartiality rules will remain in place? Why has he not consulted UK media organisations opposed to this acquisition during the past month?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to examining the public interest test in the context of a new communications Act, but the rapidly changing digital age means that our media organisations need a modern regulatory framework sooner rather than later. Will he work with me to bring the legislation forward from 2015, as the Government propose, to 2012 or 2013 at the latest?

Media ownership and control is integral to our democracy. The integrity of our democracy depends on news being provided from a variety of sources with no one voice being dominant. As we have said all along, the decisions about this acquisition must be determined in the public interest via the due process laid down by Parliament, not through political deals. In the days ahead, I will engage with interested parties before deciding whether we believe that referral to the Competition Commission remains the most appropriate course of action. My party will apply the public interest test without fear or prejudice.

[Mr Hunt]

I am afraid that what we heard from the shadow Culture Secretary displays absolutely blind ignorance of a process that his own Government, when they were in power, set up under the Enterprise Act 2002. He talked about putting the interests of party first. Apart from asking him why the former News International-employed Labour party director of communications sent an e-mail round to all Labour Front Benchers asking them to back off from criticisms of this deal, let me just say this. I have been absolutely scrupulous in making sure that independent views were commissioned, expressed and published at every stage of this process, precisely because I wanted to reassure the public that this decision was not being taken on the basis of party interest. Those documents have been published today so that people can see for themselves that not only did I ask for that independent advice, and not only did I publish that independent advice, but, after careful consideration, I accepted that independent advice.

Let me go through some of the other things that the hon. Gentleman said. He partially quoted something that I said about this deal before I was even part of the process, but he did not read out the end of that quote, which he will have known full well, where I said that I would not second-guess the regulators. I have not second-guessed the regulators. I have listened to the independent regulators and I have accepted their advice.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the chair of the new company that is proposed to be set up will be independent. It is written in undertaking 3.13 that the chairman will be completely independent. There will be a board with majority independent directors. He asked what proportion of the new company’s revenue will be dependent on Sky. As things stand at the moment, it would be about 65%, but I think that any independent board of directors would be likely to want to reduce that dependence over a period of time, and they will have a 10-year carriage agreement with guaranteed income over that period in which to address that issue.

The hon. Gentleman asked who will be responsible for hiring and firing those who are responsible for the operation of Sky News. Again, it is clearly written in the undertakings that have been published today, in undertaking 3.16, that that decision will be the responsibility of the independent board. He talked about The Times and The Sunday Times, but I gently point out to him that this case is different because we will have an independent company that will be floated independently on the stock market with an independent board and an independent chairman—that is a huge difference.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm whether the impartiality rules will remain in place. It is the Government’s policy that they should. On top of that, for the first time in this country, the new company will have in its articles of association that it must respect the broadcasting code, which includes the impartiality requirements. That is set out in undertaking 3.12.

The hon. Gentleman asked when I would consult other media organisations. What I am launching today is a 17-day consultation in which those media organisations will be consulted. This is a consultation and I will listen to what they say. The extraordinary thing in what he said today was the utter cowardice of a party that listens to a statement, criticises a process that it set up, and then refuses to get off the fence and say whether it agrees with what I have done. Last time, he criticised me for not following Ofcom’s advice. In fact, I did follow Ofcom’s advice then, and I am following it now. Does he agree with what Ofcom has said? If he is not prepared to say whether he agrees, no one will take any of his criticisms the remotest bit seriously.

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

Many members of the public are concerned about the potential for growing influence and control over news and current affairs in this country. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if this deal goes ahead, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and News Corporation will have less influence and control over news and current affairs in this country?

[Mr Hunt]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The detail that has been published today shows that News Corporation and James Murdoch have had to surrender a significant degree of control over Sky News to purchase the rest of the Sky shares. That involves the things that we discussed earlier, such as the independent chairman. At the moment, James Murdoch is non-executive chairman of Sky. That will change, with Sky News having an independent chairman. The detail includes the broadcasting code being written into the articles of association and that there must be a majority of independent directors. There is a whole range of safeguards that were negotiated not by me, but by Ofcom, which is the expert regulator in the field, precisely because it wants to ensure that there is not an over-concentration of media ownership in this country. That is fundamental in a free society.

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

The Secretary of State said that he used the procedures of the Enterprise Act 2002, but he has also told us that he looked at the decision based on plurality. He will know that had he used the Enterprise Act—I speak as a former competition Minister—there would have been concern, which I am sure he will hear about in his consultation period, that Sky’s retention of 39% of the ownership of Sky News negates all the guarantees that he has given. Will he look again at the detail of the Enterprise Act? If he considers it on that basis, as I am sure the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills would have done, he will see that this is clearly a competition issue.

[Mr Hunt]

The Enterprise Act 2002 has a public interest test that can be invoked not on issues of competition, but on issues of media plurality, national security and, as it happens, the security of the banking system. What we are talking about is media plurality. It does not allow Ministers to intervene on competition grounds. Competition grounds were looked at extensively by the European Commission, which reported on 21 December that in its view the deal would not lead to a decrease in competition.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind the House that right hon. and hon. Members who came into the Chamber after the start of the statement should not expect to be called. That is a long-established tradition of the House.

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

May I indicate a family interest, although not a personal one?

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent statement. It is tremendously important that business is allowed to get decisions quickly, so that it can carry on. He has ensured that the pace of government has run at the pace of business, which is hugely to be welcomed.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree that it is important for Government to act as fast as possible. However, in this particular case I made it very clear to Ofcom and the OFT that they should take as long as they needed to come to the right recommendation for me to consider. I gave them as long as they needed, but they have worked to a very tight deadline and been able to ensure a much quicker turnaround than is normally the case.

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

The Government could have asked Ofcom to report on News International’s commitment to broadcasting standards. I now believe that evidence exists showing that journalists currently employed on The Times and The Sunday Times were involved in phone hacking, and that damaging revelations were printed in The Sun from information possibly collected by illegal hacking. We are told that the BBC has been bullied into delaying the broadcast of an edition of “Panorama” showing more sinister forms of illegal surveillance. If the Metropolitan police show the Secretary of State that evidence, will he change his mind?

[Mr Hunt]

First, the issue of phone hacking is extremely serious and very important, and someone has been sent to prison for it, but there is a judicial process and it is not appropriate for me to involve myself in it. As to whether I can ask Ofcom to examine those issues, my understanding is that legally, I am not able to do that at this stage.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Many constituents have expressed concerns to me about the deal. Can the Secretary of State inform the House as to how the corporate governance arrangements of the new company compare with those of other media organisations in the UK?

[Mr Hunt]

First, there are provisions with respect to corporate governance in undertaking 3.18. The board is required to set up a corporate governance and editorial sub-committee, which will be run by someone who has expert experience of what editorial independence is all about. To my knowledge, this is the first time that a media company in this country has had such corporate governance requirements enshrined in its articles of association. There will be a tougher requirement on it to adhere to those requirements than there is on other companies, because other companies are required to comply with the corporate governance code or explain why they are not complying, whereas this company will simply be required to comply with it.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that the most likely, probably inevitable, outcome of his statement is that within 10 years, and perhaps in a much shorter period, News International will own 100% of both BSkyB and Sky News? Is he aware that the only way in which he could avoid that, and give his statement some shred of credibility, would be to have a clear, cast-iron undertaking by News International, in the articles of association or elsewhere, that it will not be allowed to regain 100% control of Sky News?

[Mr Hunt]

Undertaking 6.1 states that News Corporation is not allowed to buy additional shares in Sky News without the consent of the Secretary of State. Even after 10 years, when that agreement expires, were it to wish to acquire new shares in Sky News, it would have to go through potentially exactly the same process that it has gone through this time. The Secretary of State would have the option of asking Ofcom to examine the matter and referring it to the Competition Commission. All those safeguards will remain in place.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his assurance that the new company will have to adhere to a stricter governance regime than any other UK media company, but given the distinct lack of public confidence in the process, what assurances can he give the House that that governance system will actually be adhered to?

[Mr Hunt]

First, there are provisions in the undertakings that give the Secretary of State powers to ensure that compliance happens, so I have some sanctions.

With respect to the approach to the decision that has been taken, today I have published 14 documents, including the ones that I am statutorily required to publish and many that I am not. I am not aware that any Minister involved in a similar decision has ever published so many documents. They include a timeline with details of every meeting that has taken place as part of the process. We will publish the minutes of those meetings at the end of the process. I hope that that commitment to transparency, and the fact that I have sought, published and, after consideration, accepted independent advice at every stage of the process, will reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents of the total probity with which we have approached the decision.

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

I have to disappoint the Secretary of State, because many people will think that we have reached a new low in British politics today, as the Conservative party, which was backed by Rupert Murdoch before the election, has delivered this deal within months of being elected. To ignore the 250,000 constituents who signed petitions and e-mailed him to oppose this deal is to ignore the democratic wishes of the population. He could have reassured them by referring the matter to the Competition Commission, and he can still do so. I therefore urge him, in the interests at least of the probity of British politics, to refer the matter, because nobody believes that the undertakings given by Murdoch will be adhered to in the long term.

[Mr Hunt]

We have not ignored the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. They were concerned about an over-concentration of power over the British media in the hands of one or two people. The measures that I have announced today make Sky News more independent than it is.

On referral to the Competition Commission, I have sought independent advice from the expert regulator, Ofcom, which had a number of concerns—similar to those expressed by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents—about the risks of the concentration of power of ownership of the media. It has said—this is in writing and I have published it today—that it is satisfied that all those concerns have been addressed.

Finally, I remind the hon. Gentleman that The Sun supported Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005. The Conservatives did not complain then of dodgy deals, so Labour Members should not complain either.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

For those of us who have constituents who are unhappy about this proposed acquisition, can the Secretary of State tell us how members of the public can best take part in this consultation to let their views be known?

[Mr Hunt]

We are happy to hear all views, whether they agree or disagree with the proposals. There is an e-mail address on my departmental website to enable anyone to contribute. I encourage members of the public—whatever their views—to take part in the consultation, and indeed I encourage all hon. Members to do so.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Whatever spin is put on this business today, there is no doubt that this is a disastrous day for democracy. The Murdoch empire—a political organisation—has now decided to gobble up this Government like it has gobbled up Governments before, which means that elected Members of Parliament have to play second fiddle to it. Is it not remarkable that Murdoch also operates the hereditary principle, and hands down power like a middle eastern despot from father to son?

[Mr Hunt]

In which case Mr Murdoch would not agree with my view on reform of the House of Lords. If the hon. Gentleman cares about freedom and democracy and looks at the details of the deal, he will find that if it proceeds—if I accept it after 15 or 17 days’ consultation—it will make Sky News more independent than it is at the moment. That strengthens media plurality, which should reassure the many people who are understandably concerned to ensure that no one person has too much control. If James Murdoch wanted more control over news media in this country, he would not have proceeded with this deal. It is in order to buy the shares in the rest of Sky that he must cede significant control in Sky News.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has been engaged in not a political process but a quasi-judicial process under the Enterprise Act 2002, and that if now, or at the conclusion of the consultation process in 17 days, when he eventually makes a decision, anyone thinks that he has failed in that process, their remedy lies in judicial review?

[Mr Hunt]

My learned hon. Friend is absolutely right. In reality, we have to assume, because there are so many interests at stake, that any side that is disappointed with this decision will attempt judicially to review it. For that reason, at every stage of the process, we have sought to be completely transparent, impartial and fair, which is why today we are publishing all the documents relating to all the meetings—all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation. People can thereby judge for themselves whether the process has been completely fair, impartial and above board.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

How does the Secretary of State respond to the literally hundreds of constituents in Brighton, Pavilion who have contacted me to express their concern about this deal and their belief that the so-called Sky News remedy is no more than window dressing? They also ask how it can be right to support a takeover that will give News Corporation even more power at a time when Rupert Murdoch already exerts such an unhealthy influence on our media landscape.

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Lady’s constituents are concerned to ensure that there is not an over-concentration of power over news media in too few hands in our country, I agree with them. I think that it is fundamentally extremely important. However, I would urge them to look at the outlines of what has been announced today. If they do, they will see that it actually strengthens the editorial independence of Sky News in a way that is completely unprecedented for any media organisation in this country. The second issue she raised, on the market power of News Corporation, is not one that I can consider in this quasi-judicial process, because this is about plurality in the provision of news. The market-dominance and competition issues in this country are decided not by Ministers, but at arm’s length. In this case, the EU had jurisdiction, and it made its ruling on 21 December 2010.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I recognise the Secretary of State’s commitment to transparency. In the light of the Government’s experience of this case, however, does he welcome the burdens placed on Secretaries of State in such cases, or does he see merit in the wider application of automatic triggers relating to market share, for example, in order to address issues and concerns about news media plurality?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend asks a very important and pertinent question. The Ofcom report sent to me on 31 December 2010 pointed out that Ministers’ ability to intervene in the public interest on grounds of news plurality can be triggered only when there is a corporate transaction. It cannot be triggered when, for example, a news organisation grows its market share organically. That is different from competition law, under which it is possible, through the Office of Fair Trading, to trigger a Competition Commission inquiry. It is reasonable to ask whether we should look at whether we have the triggers we need for this very important issue. I said in my statement that I will do that as part of our review of communications regulation for potential inclusion in a new communications Act this Parliament.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sorry, but I think that this is a particularly shabby deal, and I think that it has been brought to us by a Secretary of State who made his mind up a long time ago. I say that because he told me so in East Grinstead last September, before this process even started. What would he say to my constituents in the south Wales valleys who suffer from Murdoch’s virtual monopoly in broadcasting, particularly in respect of certain channels in south Wales, and in the provision of many channels and sporting opportunities? They are deeply concerned that the guarantees that have supposedly been given are no stronger than those made in relation to The Sunday Times and The Times, and will not stand the test of time.

[Mr Hunt]

It is not a question of what I think as much as what independent regulators who have been involved in every stage of the process have said, and whose advice I considered before making my decision. I not only considered their independent advice, but, as it happens, followed it. It has been extremely important to do so, because in this decision, of all decisions, people are understandably suspicious of the motives of politicians. That is why I have involved independent people at every stage of the process. I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that it is very important that we have a competitive market in the media. It is very important that we have competition, and we want to ensure that that is the case. We have a competition regime to ensure that it happens, and we will continue to police that regime diligently.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about sanctions. Will he say a little more about the monitoring procedures for the new company?

[Mr Hunt]

In the undertakings published today the Secretary of State has the right to intervene to ensure full compliance with all the undertakings that have been made, and it is important that that should be the case. It is impossible to predict every situation that might arise in a market landscape that is changing as rapidly as the media market. The issue has been looked at carefully by independent experts—they are far more expert than I am—who are confident that, in so far as it is possible to envisage all future situations, those undertakings will secure the independence of Sky News for the 10-year period of the carriage deal.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Since the news broke this morning, I have had a significant number of e-mails from constituents. One says:

“The promises made by Mr Murdoch are not worth the paper they are written on”.

Another says:

“Rupert Murdoch will still have directors on the board of Sky News, he’ll still control the flow of cash to Sky News and the distribution network…It’s smoke and mirrors, and media plurality is still under threat.”

It is clear that they are not reassured by the Secretary of State’s professions that the process has been strictly impartial and fair. What else can he tell me to reassure them, because, to be honest, I do not think he can?

[Mr Hunt]

Let me address the two points that the hon. Lady raises. First, the majority of the directors of the new company will be independent, as will the chairman. That is different from the situation now, where the non-executive chairman of Sky is James Murdoch. The second issue that she raised was the flow of cash from News Corp. That is part of the 10-year carriage agreement that is negotiated at the very start of the process. In a way, it is like the licence fee negotiations with the BBC, in that it secures the new organisation’s cash flow for 10 years. Sky cannot get out of supplying that cash except in extreme conditions, and where there is a dispute about it there is a dispute resolution procedure involving independent arbitration, so the new organisation will be as sure of that cash flow over the 10-year period of the carriage agreement as anyone could be.

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

I should also declare an interest, in that I have a brother, Charles, who is a cricket correspondent for Sky television and, I am told, can be seen nightly presenting the world cup highlights.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that should the deal not go through for some reason, the Murdoch family would not have to dispose of their interest in Sky News to such an extent?

[Mr Hunt]

I am trying to make sure that I have understood that question. If the deal does not go through, we remain with the status quo, which is that Sky will be 39.1% owned by News Corporation. On the other hand, the independent safeguards and guarantees for Sky News envisaged in the deal would not be put in place.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I, too, have received a huge amount of correspondence from constituents on this issue. Independence is clearly key, but in practice it will be extremely difficult to achieve. Does the Secretary of State really think that it will be possible for the board to sit aside, independently of its biggest shareholder and biggest customer? Will he also say whether News Corp-Sky will be permitted to buy advertising air time on the new Sky News channel, and, if so, whether that revenue stream is included in the 65% figure he gave earlier?

[Mr Hunt]

The 65% figure is based on the carriage agreement, which is the fee that Sky would pay to Sky News for providing the news service that would be broadcast on the Sky platform. It does not involve any advertising to my knowledge. That is the first point. The second point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—

[Mr Umunna]

But is it actually possible in practice?

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for kindly reminding me of the first part of his question. There is no doubt that someone with a 39% shareholding in a company has significant influence in the way it is run. For example, ITV has a 40% shareholding in ITN. However, the independence that the new board will have is unprecedented. It is enshrined in the articles of association of the company in a way that the independence of ITN, for example, is not. Despite the fears of many people, Sky News has been run with pretty sound editorial independence for the past 20 years while under a much greater degree of potential control by News Corporation than has in fact been exercised. So it is possible to have confidence that Sky News will continue to be run with proper, full editorial independence. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Given that Ofcom initially believed that it would need to refer this case, due to concerns about plurality, will the Secretary of State tell us what elements of these arrangements convinced it that it should not do so?

[Mr Hunt]

Yes, I am happy to do so. There are a number of things, but I shall outline the main thing that has reassured Ofcom since its first report, which was delivered on 31 December. That report stated that, under the original deal proposed by News Corporation, Sky News would cease to exist as an independent media entity. That will not be the case under the new structure that has been proposed and published today. Sky News will be a separate company. It will not be majority owned by News Corp, and it will have an independent chairman. A huge number of safeguards will be put in place to secure the editorial independence that has been a key part of its success to date and that needs to be protected in the future for reasons of news plurality.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I, too, have received a huge volume of correspondence from constituents who are concerned about the plurality of the media following this deal. I should declare an interest: up until the election, I worked for Ofcom. I am therefore very familiar with the real difficulties involved in monitoring and policing behavioural undertakings of this kind. The Secretary of State said that he gave Ofcom the time that it needed to make its recommendation. Will he promise to give the public the time that they need to gain confidence in these undertakings?

[Mr Hunt]

If the hon. Lady used to work at Ofcom, she will understand that there is a big difference between behavioural remedies and structural remedies. We are talking here about structural remedies. They are not a promise of good behaviour; they are remedies concerning the structure, the articles of association and the board of directors of a new company. They involve obligations that are legally enforceable, and they are therefore much stronger. Ofcom has said that it is happy that the requirements are strong enough to satisfy its concerns. Of course we want this to be a full consultation—it is very important that we do that—but I am satisfied that the 17 days will give people enough time to look at the deal and voice their objections. We have already had a number of e-mails on the issue, as I am sure the hon. Lady has. We will consider fully all the opinions that are expressed to us before coming to a final decision.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Having spent 12 years of my life before being elected to the House working in regulatory compliance, I know that the monitoring arrangements are critical in cases such as these. Will my right hon. Friend tell me who will be responsible for the monitoring of these undertakings and, specifically, who will monitor the share dealings for the new Sky News company to ensure that neither Rupert Murdoch nor his nominees purchase shares in the company in order to acquire a monopoly within the 10-year period?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is written in black and white that they are not allowed to purchase any additional shares in the new company without the consent of the Secretary of State. Were they to be in breach of that, they would threaten the entire deal that, if it goes ahead, will allow them to purchase the remaining shares in the rest of Sky. So the sanctions are very considerable indeed, and we will monitor the deal very carefully to ensure that there is compliance. My hon. Friend will see, when he looks at the undertakings, that they contain a number of explicit provisions to ensure compliance. Those provisions have satisfied the Office of Fair Trading and Ofcom, and that is why I have confidence in them as well.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The deal that Mr Murdoch really wants—the buy-out that gives him control of BSkyB—might well have happened by the time that the circumstances described have taken place, so where is the real sanction? Might it not be better from the public point of view if it were not the Secretary of State but an independent person who had any say on further buy-out shares?

[Mr Hunt]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns. When she has a chance to look in detail at the undertakings, she will find that many of them have to be delivered before the purchase of the Sky shares is allowed to go ahead. We have been very strict on the timelines and want to ensure that as much of it as possible is delivered as quickly as possible. As for who should be the final decision maker, all I will say is that because I have been so conscious of the public’s worries about the motivations of politicians in these kinds of decisions, I have sought independent advice at every stage before taking the decisions in this process, and if I am required to make any similar decisions I will continue to seek independent advice in the future.

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

Will the Secretary of State explain what will happen if, at some time in the future, News Corporation wants to cancel the carriage arrangements for the licensing deal after the transaction has taken place?

[Mr Hunt]

If News Corporation were to do anything like that, a dispute resolution procedure is specified in the undertakings, which it would be obliged to follow. In the end, if it is followed through, it leads to independent arbitration, so I am satisfied that it will have to be good for its money and honour the spirit of the carriage and brand licensing agreements as laid out in those undertakings.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members on both sides of the House were disappointed that a statement of such importance was taken in the middle of the afternoon, but out of respect for our Ulster Unionist friends we have tolerated that decision. What I believe is intolerable is the fact that the Secretary of State saw fit to parade around TV studios before making the statement to the House. Has he availed himself of the opportunity to ask whether he can apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House for this discourtesy?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. The timing of the statement is not quite what Members had expected, which was evident during earlier exchanges in the presence of the Leader of the House. The circumstances that led to the timing of this statement were explained: there is a balance of considerations, and it was felt important to protect the Democratic Unionist party’s half-day debate. When I became aware of the situation, it seemed to me that such protection must be guaranteed. I confess, however, that I had rather expected—and had indeed been led to expect—that although announcements to the stock exchange would be made, no media interviews would be undertaken before a statement was made to the House. I was led to expect that and the Secretary of State knows very well that I was led to expect that, so the fact that interviews have taken place is a notable disappointment and it might be regarded by some as a discourtesy to the House. In those circumstances, I feel sure that the Secretary of State will want to be aware of that discourtesy and will take the opportunity to express his regrets to the House.

[Mr Hunt]

I am, of course, prepared to apologise if there is any element of procedure that I have not followed correctly. I would like to explain that I did one clip under embargo and the deal I made with the media organisations was that they should not use it until after the statement had been made. However, because the issue was referred to in oral questions earlier today, some of those media organisations took that to mean that the issue had been addressed in the House and went ahead and broke that embargo. I made the position very clear and I did no media interviews other than that one clip under embargo. I want to make that clear so that the House can understand what happened.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State for the explanation that he has kindly offered to the House. There is no doubt that the situation had not been fully anticipated and has not been the subject of the range of internal exchanges that would ordinarily be expected. I know he is aware of that, and what he has said is courteous. I am happy to leave it at that.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that not show that undertakings made by media organisations are not necessarily all that helpful or reliable?

[Mr Speaker]

Very good point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that I am not responsible for such undertakings, which is probably as well. I think I will leave it at that.

petition

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

15:50

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I present a petition begun by Melksham Oak community school and supported by pupils at the school. The petition has now been signed by more than 300 of my constituents. Melksham deserves a better train service, and vast improvements could be made at minimal cost through the allocation of a small number of carriages to the TransWilts line.

The petition states:

The Petition of Melksham Oak community school and the people of Melksham in Wiltshire,

Declares that Melksham has one of the poorest train services in the country for a town of its size with only two services a day each way at times which are impractical for commuters; notes that travelling to work, school, or even visiting friends could be made easier with more trains on Wiltshire's railway; and further notes that the Government will be reallocating a number of trains no longer needed in London and the South East to other parts of the rail network.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government to allocate additional carriages for use on the TransWilts service between Swindon and Salisbury, calling at Melksham.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000892]

Children's Heart Surgery (Leeds)

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

15:52

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to hold an Adjournment debate to discuss the Leeds children’s heart unit.

Before being elected, I spent a considerable part of my career in the children’s hospice movement. During that time, I built up a great deal of understanding of the issues faced by families who have a child who is very poorly. Leeds MPs are working as a cross-party group to do the best for our city. We have each taken on a role, and mine has been in relation to health. During the Christmas recess, I spent two days at the two hospitals in Leeds. I was particularly interested to see Leeds general infirmary’s children’s services, which have recently been reconfigured and are all in one place. It was my first opportunity to visit the heart surgery unit there. At that point, I learned for the first time about the safe and sustainable review of heart units across the country: at the moment, there are 11 units in the United Kingdom, and the national health service propose to reduce that number to six or seven.

The review has already published four options, and I am surprised and disappointed that Leeds features in only one of those. It is my belief that if the Leeds unit closes, it will leave a huge gap in provision, from Leicester or Birmingham in the south, to Newcastle in the north, and Liverpool to the west. It will mean that children from Yorkshire, north Derbyshire and north Lincolnshire will have to travel long distances, at considerable expense to their families. Indeed, I am aware of families in your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, who have been using the service. People from far and wide are dependent on the service at Leeds, so there is an effect not just on Leeds but across Yorkshire and neighbouring counties.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having secured this timely debate. Like him, I spent some time observing children’s heart services in Leeds a few months ago. Only this week I was contacted by a constituent who expressed concern about the impact of closures. That constituent’s daughter is now five years old. When she was eight days old, she was able to undergo important surgery in Leeds. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Leeds is particularly well placed, and that its expertise and critical mass of children’s services make it very necessary for it to continue its excellent work?

[Stuart Andrew]

I entirely agree. I was about to deal with that point. I believe that there is a very strong case for Leeds. It has the capacity to expand, and is within a two-hour drive for nearly 14 million people. It has one of the highest population coverages among all the units in England, with 5.5 million people in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Leeds is, of course, centrally located in the north of England, and can accommodate patients from outside the current catchment area.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on an issue that is vital to the people of our city. Leeds is not only central, but has been described as the motorway city. It has excellent rail links as well, which makes speedy access to the hospital possible.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am beginning to think that some Members have already seen my speech. I am getting ahead of myself. We have the M1, the A1, the M62 and excellent rail links, which make Leeds very accessible. The Leeds Hospitals NHS Trust has centralised children’s services, which I think meets the requirements of the Department of Health’s critical interdependency report. On 18 February the British Congenital Cardiac Association, which is a leading support organisation of the safe and sustainable review, released a statement saying:

“For these services at each centre to remain sustainable in the long term, co-location of key clinical services on one site is essential.”

Leeds General Infirmary is at the forefront of work on inherited cardiac conditions, and has an excellent record of providing safe, high-quality children’s heart surgery. The Yorkshire region has significantly higher birth rates than other parts of the country, particularly the north-east, and there is no doubt that demand will increase.

The review is informed by the overall opinion that a reduction in the number of centres is the best way in which to secure a safe and sustainable future service. It is guided by four principles, and I believe Leeds more than meets their requirements. The first is quality. The paediatric cardiac service at Leeds General Infirmary extends from pre-natal diagnosis to the treatment of congenital heart disease in adults, with excellent clinical outcomes. It has high standards and a personal service, and, as I have said, is located very centrally.

During the assessment process, Sir Ian Kennedy and his assessment panel visited every children’s heart surgery unit in England. They produced individual assessment reports on each of the units two weeks before the presentation meeting at the joint committee of primary care trusts on 16 February. At the meeting, the four reconfiguration options were presented. They were based on a number of factors contained in the panel’s assessment reports. However, I understand that there are significant factual inaccuracies in Sir Ian Kennedy’s report on the Leeds unit, and that its representatives were given no opportunity during the process to comment or request amendments of the factual inaccuracies before decisions were made about the configuration of the options for consultation.

At a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on heart disease on 9 February, when asked when units would be able to challenge and amend inaccuracies in their reports, Jeremy Glyde, the programme director of the safe and sustainable review, said that that could be done during the consultation process.

The reports that the reconfigurations were based on contain fundamental inaccuracies, but they can be challenged only during the consultation period to decide which option is preferred. For Leeds, these inaccuracies include the following. Sir Ian Kennedy’s report documented that Leeds has no transition nurse and separate paediatric intensive care unit; neither point is factually accurate, to the extent that his assessment panel actually met, and talked to, one of the unit’s three transition nurses. The joint committee of primary care trusts advised at its meeting on 16 February that Leeds had stated that it could not do more than 600 operations. Again, that is factually incorrect— Leeds was never asked—but it was stated as the reason why two of the 14 options that were considered were discounted. The commissioners have acknowledged that this was an assumption and not based on what Leeds had said. In the pre-consultation business case for Leeds, start-up costs were reported as £2 million. That figure was not provided by Leeds, and is not representative of the accurate costs provided to the safe and sustainable review panel.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. A young constituent of mine, Libby Carstairs, was in a poorly state and spent more than six months in the Leeds heart unit. The beauty of her being in Leeds was that her parents, her grandparents, and sometimes even some of her friends, could come over to aid her recovery process. Also, her head teacher from Carr Green school had the privilege of being able to go there with cards from her friends. Does my hon. Friend agree that the value of that to young Libby’s recovery process far outweighs any monetary value?

[Stuart Andrew]

I completely agree. When I worked at Martin house, we found that one of the big problems was the travelling distances—some people lived on the coast in Scarborough, for instance. It is very important that families are able to get to a centre quickly, because when a child is sick they want their mum and dad there—and we want that when we are a bit more than a child too. These facilities must be accessible, therefore.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I too congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate for our region. Many of my constituents in York are very concerned about the potential closure, which would mean that they would go to Newcastle, so my hon. Friend makes a good point when he says this is about the whole region. Because of the lack of transport links on the eastern coast of our region, it could be greatly affected by the closure, and I do not think sufficient account has been taken of that.

[Stuart Andrew]

Given the location of Leeds and the extent of the population all around it, it seems very odd that Leeds is not being considered.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I cannot think of a better colleague to lead this debate than my hon. Friend. Earlier today, I received an e-mail from Lois Brown, whose daughter Amelie was born with half a heart. She and her surgeons believe that her daughter would have died if Leeds had not been geographically close. Does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of LGI is the difference between life and death for many children in North Yorkshire, one of the most rural counties in England?

[Stuart Andrew]

I absolutely agree. For hearts, time is of the essence. We need to be sure that people can get where they need to be quickly. I met my hon. Friend’s constituent the other day, and she spoke very powerfully and emotionally about what that meant in her case. I cannot imagine how families in these situations must feel. It is imperative that there is a facility close by.

Returning to the reviews, there are also inconsistencies in the application of some of the principles. So, for example, Liverpool and Birmingham are in all the options because of density of population and access for patients, but the same does not seem to apply to the Leeds case. That is odd and I do not know why the Liverpool and Birmingham cases are different.

Not enough emphasis has been given to co-location. The facility at Leeds general infirmary is wonderful now—I am given to understand that it is the second largest children’s service in the whole country—so taking away its heart unit and the expertise that has been gathered there over the years is strange. This is not just about children’s heart services, because the process has failed to seek views from adult congenital patients. The doctors who operate on the children also operate on the adults and it appears obvious that wherever the children’s heart services go, so, too, will the services for adults. Will they have had an opportunity to be consulted on what was going to happen to those services? This is about a much wider point than just children’s services.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend may be coming to this issue, but could he comment on the fact, which has been put forward every now and again, that Newcastle is favoured because its facility performs adult heart transplants? We recognise that surgeons have equal skills and just because somewhere does the adult heart transplants, it does not necessarily mean that we should move the children’s heart surgery to that department.

[Stuart Andrew]

That is a very valid point and I shall shortly discuss something that was said the other day because it will comment on that.

I shall conclude now because I know that a couple of other Members have expressed an interest in speaking in this debate. I understand that this process is going to be difficult and that there is a need for a review. Severe problems have been experienced in parts of the country and it is right that a clinically led decision is made, but I want that decision to be made on the basis of facts that matter to local people and that are accurate. As I have mentioned, there are real problems with the assessment and the options that have been mentioned. Emotions will of course run high, because this is a very emotive subject. It is incredibly moving to listen to the families I have been speaking to since this matter first arose. They describe how their children and their babies were so close to death but how, thanks to the expertise that was provided at this location, which they were able to reach, their children are at least here and receiving the wonderful care that is provided, although they may be poorly.

There is a case to be made for the facility at Leeds in terms of geography, population and access. We like to tick boxes in this country and everything is ticked in this case for Leeds. I would be grateful if the process could be examined. Some powerful comments were made and cases were mentioned at a meeting held with parents and clinicians here on Tuesday. They are desperate for this unit to remain open. As someone said at that meeting, the doctors should move where the patients are; it should not be the other way round.

16:08

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing this debate and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have signed early-day motion 1459, which expresses the views that we have just heard in his eloquent speech—he has really made the case.

I simply wish to say a couple of things, the first of which is that I have the honour to represent Leeds general infirmary and I had the opportunity, as the hon. Gentleman did, to visit the heart surgery unit about a month ago. I met the staff, who with care, compassion and enormous skill look after very sick children and their families, and I had a chance to talk to some of the families themselves. It is, as he said, a very stressful and difficult time for the families and children, particularly when the children reach an age at which they become aware of what they are about to go through and see other children who are sick—but they are in very capable and reassuring hands.

The case that has been made by all who are concerned that the unit at Leeds general infirmary should remain open is overwhelming. I wanted to put that directly to the Minister, and it is good to see him here. For all the reasons that have been set out, which I shall not repeat, there is a clear case for keeping Leeds open. Like the hon. Member for Pudsey, I do not for a second argue with the basis of the review and its origins. Clearly, for anyone who has responsibility for ensuring that children’s heart surgery is as safe as it possibly can be, not least the Minister, it is right, given what has happened in certain places, to look at the things that will tell us that we have that safety and security for patients. We from Leeds and the region are not campaigning for anyone else’s unit to close, and I share others’ disappointment that Leeds figures in only one of the options. We are simply saying that the Leeds unit should remain open and that that should happen alongside other decisions that the Minister and others have to take. That is a heavy responsibility to bear.

My final point concerns the meeting that took place earlier this week and I thank the hon. Member for Pudsey for giving us the opportunity to come together. I, too, listened to Amelie’s mother speak and the room was absolutely silent as she described what she had been through. I want to convey to the House the depth of feeling about and the strength of support for the Leeds unit. The determination of the thousands of parents whose children’s lives have been saved by the unit and of the millions of parents who hope that the unit will continue should their children face the same difficulties is very powerful. This debate, which is very timely, is part of the campaign we are waging because we are determined that the Leeds unit should remain open. The Minister will soon get a request to receive a delegation from the large number of Members who represent constituents who have benefited from the unit’s work and who hope to benefit in the years ahead; it is good to see so many of them here. We will not rest until the unit is declared safe for the future in the interests of the people whom we have the honour to serve.

16:12

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing this important debate. It is a strong reflection of hon. Members’ commitment not only to their local health service but to the Leeds hospital and its facilities and services that so many are present. I am particularly pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). I am also pleased to have heard from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and to see the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) here. Their presence reinforces their commitment to their local health service and the facilities in the local hospital.

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated NHS staff who work in children’s heart services in Leeds and across the country. They do a fantastic job for which we are all incredibly grateful.

As I know my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will appreciate, this is a complex and, understandably, highly emotive area, but it is worth reminding ourselves of the genesis of this review. For years, experts in the field, including professionals and national children’s charities, have urged the NHS to review services for children with congenital heart disease.

Although there has been no specific problem, concerns have been raised about the risks posed by the unsustainable and sub-optimal nature of smaller surgical centres. Experts agree that, with small centres, there are issues with the recruitment and retention of surgeons and that there is a risk that those who are recruited find themselves working in isolation in units that are not up to date with modern techniques and clinical practice. Smaller centres struggle to train and mentor junior surgeons, making such units less attractive to the surgeons of tomorrow.

The provision of children’s heart surgery has been a cause of concern since the Bristol inquiry in the late 1980s. Understandably, there has been considerable pressure from national parent groups to ensure that children receive the best treatment. The Monro report in 2003 set out standards of care and pointed to the need for reconfiguration to concentrate expertise. That need has become ever-more pressing with the increasing complexity of treatment.

In the light of clinical concern in June 2006, Roger Boyle, the national clinical director for heart disease and stroke, and Sheila Shribman, the national clinical director for children, young people and maternity, chaired a consensus workshop of service providers, specialised service commissioners and relevant parent groups. The unanimous view was that there should be fewer, larger centres of excellence. The workshop concluded that the current service configuration was not sustainable and that a long-term national view of how services might be reorganised should be developed.

In 2008, the NHS medical director, Sir Bruce Keogh —a heart surgeon—asked the national specialised commissioning group to explore how the reconfiguration of children’s heart surgery services in England could improve the sustainability of the current service and lead to better clinical outcomes for children. The national review, known as “Safe and Sustainable”, aims to ensure that children’s heart services deliver the highest standard of care regardless of where patients live or which hospital provides the care.

I must emphasise that the review is clinically-led and that both it and the case for change are supported by parent and patient groups and by clinicians working in the service and their professional associations, including the Children’s Heart Federation, the British Heart Foundation, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Congenital Cardiac Association and the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain.

[Julian Smith]

Does the Minister agree that, as well as the importance of the clinical need, distance is vital and that the points made in the debate for this most rural and sparsely populated area of our country must be taken into account in the decision?

[Mr Burns]

Distance is one of a number of factors that, of course, will be considered by those people who are involved in the consultation process, although I advise my hon. Friend that some of the organisations involved in such medicine have certainly told me—I have met some of them personally—that many parents think not so much about the distance that must be travelled as about getting the best treatment for their children. They are prepared to travel further to secure that fine treatment for their children than we may think from what our constituents who want to have district general hospital treatments tell us. The question of distance must be put into perspective, and it is not an overriding factor that secures any decision one way or another solely on that basis.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I recognise what the Minister says about distance. Parents want good outcomes for their children—that is why parents in Scunthorpe travel to Leeds—but distance can have an impact on clinical outcomes. Certainly, when the weather was terribly bad around Christmas time, the distance to travel to get good clinical outcomes made a difference. Distance and clinical outcomes are related.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which in many ways reflects that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. I was making a simple, factual point about the view of many parents at present. As a Minister, it is certainly not for me to interpret and give a view on that, because, as will become apparent later in my remarks, the consultation is being done by others. It would be totally inappropriate for me, as a Minister, to seek to interfere, prejudge or prejudice any outcome of the consultation process. I hope that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the position that I am in in, that respect.

The review wants to ensure that as much non-surgical care is delivered as close to the child’s home as possible through the development of local congenital heart networks. The joint committee of primary care trusts agreed the shortlist of four options for the future of children’s heart surgery on 16 February 2011. The committee was set up as the formal consulting body for the review and to take decisions on the issues arising from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey will know that Leeds general infirmary is included in one of the shortlisted options that went out to consultation on 1 March, and the consultation will continue right through until 1 July. There are also public events taking place during the four-month consultation, and there is one in Leeds on 10 May at the Royal Armouries museum. I urge all hon. Members and as many individuals, not only in the local community, but those interested in the services that Leeds provides for patients, to attend.

I want to pick up on the point that my hon. Friend made about inaccuracies in Sir Ian Kennedy’s report. In response to the safe and sustainable interim report last summer, the report’s team received correspondence from the trust about concerns on inaccuracies. The team thought that they had addressed those in the final report in December, and I can only assume that that information is correct, because the trust has made no further approach to the team on the concerns about the information in the final report. I hope that that clears up the problems identified between the interim report and the final report in December.

I also want to emphasise that no decision has been made on which centres should continue to undertake surgery. That will be decided only after the responses to the consultation have been properly and fully considered. I give that assurance to hon. Members today. It is also important to recognise that the safe and sustainable review is only one element of a larger NHS review of congenital cardiac services in England. The NHS is also reviewing the provision of services for adults with congenital heart disease, and I understand that the designation process to determine where the adult services will take place will start later this year.

There are powerful clinical reasons driving the review. The trend in children’s heart care is towards increasingly complex surgery on ever smaller babies. This requires working in surgical teams large enough to provide sufficient exposure to complex cases so that surgeons and their teams can maintain and develop their specialised skills. Larger teams also provide the capacity to train and mentor the next generation of surgeons and other staff.

[Hilary Benn]

Does that not strengthen the argument for looking at centres where there is co-location of services, because, as the Minister will recognise, a sick child with a cardiac condition might have a bowel obstruction, for example, and the ability to call on a skilled surgical colleague straight away to deal with that on the same site is a powerful argument for retaining the unit at Leeds, where co-location of services is found?

[Mr Burns]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. He puts me in a slightly difficult position, because I genuinely do not want to be unhelpful. A consultation is ongoing through the joint committee of primary care trusts, however, and it would be totally inappropriate to start debating the rights and wrongs, the pluses and the minuses, of any one individual hospital or centre. It would be inappropriate—it might be construed as trying to influence, pre-judge or prejudice the consultation process—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees wholeheartedly that it would be totally unacceptable for Ministers to start getting involved in that way. I hope he will accept that, for the best of intentions, it would be inappropriate for me to start debating that issue with him, however right or wrong he might be. I can tell him, none the less, that he has ample opportunity during the consultation process to make those very points to the JCPCT.

[Stuart Andrew]

I understand that, before the consultation document came out, one member of the steering committee gave her personal view of which unit should stay open. Does the Minister not agree that that might give some cause for concern?

[Mr Burns]

My hon. Friend is pushing me and tempting me, but I shall be up front and straightforward: I am unaware of that situation, and it would be unwise of me to start commenting on something that I do not know the background to or—if the conversation was had or the statement made—the circumstances of it. I hope he will forgive me if I do not go down that path.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, because I know that he wants to make progress.

As part of the process, may I ask that the support facilities for families will be considered, because, at a time when one is dealing with sick children, families are under very great pressure? There is a new facility at LGI, Eckersley house, which has been in existence for a while, but it has moved to a new location and opened only last year. It provides 22 rooms for families to stay in while visiting sick children, it is a key part of the broader provision of support that is necessary and I know that it will be a very welcome development for families.

[Mr Burns]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that facility, which I have no doubt is not only welcome but extremely helpful to families, particularly at a very difficult time in their lives. Again, it would be inappropriate for a Minister, in a top-down way, to start decreeing what should or should not happen; I believe that decisions about such services and facilities must be taken locally. I am sure, however, that the relevant authorities will not only learn of my hon. Friend’s contribution, but no doubt benefit from his expertise in lobbying them to ensure that the service continues.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister take a very quick view from the Opposition Benches? We are old friends.

[Mr Burns]

Yes.

[Mr Sheerman]

Some of us were rather caught short, because we did not realise that the debate would start so early. For someone who lives in Huddersfield with a child who needs specialist care, the common sense consideration seems to be accessibility. Why do we not get more specialists in Leeds, so that we can access the vast population in our parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire?

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian, and I do not say this in any rude way, but he was not present when his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central spoke. That is not a criticism, but I shall make to the hon. Gentleman the same point that I made to his right hon. Friend: the consultation process and review is being carried out not by Ministers and politicians, but by the JCPCT. As we are engaged in the consultation process, it would be inappropriate and wrong of me to pontificate from this Dispatch Box on the merits or demerits of one case or another. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is meant to be a helpful reply, even if it is not the answer that he was seeking. [Interruption.] Fair enough. I am not criticising; I just want him to understand the position that I am in, because I do not want—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We cannot have chit-chat across the Chamber in this way.

[Mr Burns]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is indeed being nice to me, and I appreciate it.

As I was saying, smaller surgical units often struggle to recruit and retain new surgeons. They also find it difficult to provide a safe service around the clock.

Under the auspices of the review, an expert group has developed a comprehensive set of service standards, taking into account the contributions of parents and professionals. The standards cover the whole of children’s heart services. They also reference other relevant professional standards and guidance, including the co-location of other clinical services that are interdependent with children's heart surgical services, the need for larger surgical teams to be able to provide a 24/7 emergency service, and the development of clinical networks of providers to ensure a coherent service for children and their families. I think that in some ways that picks up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. The current centres have been visited and assessed against these standards by an independent expert panel.

I would like to go into a little more detail on a few of these standards to clarify areas which cause particular concern. On the standard on the number of procedures and surgeons, I can assure my hon. Friends and Opposition Members that there is convincing evidence from this country and overseas that larger centres, seeing more cases, are better able to consolidate their expertise and deliver better clinical outcomes. The recommendation on the number of procedures—between 400 and 500 a year—is based on the level of activity needed to provide good-quality care around the clock while enabling ongoing training and mentoring of new surgeons. This recommendation is based on the outcome of international research on minimum numbers of procedures in surgical centres. It has strong professional support in this country, including from the steering group of professional experts that was convened under the auspices of this review. In addition, there is a consensus among professional associations on minimum staffing levels that four surgeons in each centre should avoid the risk of surgeons not being able to maintain and develop their skills.

At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the commitment and dedication by talented NHS staff delivering congenital cardiac services. We have a responsibility to ensure they are supported as well as possible, and that includes ensuring that they do not risk burn-out if left to practise alone. Transforming a service from one that is “adequate” to one that is “optimal” requires sufficient volume, expertise and experience to develop what Sir Bruce Keogh calls “accomplished teams”.

Co-location, which I mentioned earlier, refers to the proximity of other critical services to the children’s heart surgery service. In this context, these services include specialised paediatric surgery; paediatric critical care; paediatric ear, nose and throat; and paediatric anaesthesia. The accepted definition of “co-location”—services either on the same hospital site or on a neighbouring hospital site—and which services should be co-located was set out in the 2008 publication, “Commissioning safe and sustainable specialised paediatric services: a framework of critical inter-dependencies”. This guidance is endorsed by the relevant professional associations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians. I can assure hon. Members that the safe and sustainable review has correctly applied the accepted definition of “co-location”, as set out in the guidance, as meaning either on the same hospital site or on a neighbouring hospital site.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. It would be very helpful for the Members present who care about Leeds if he could clarify whether it is the case that to figure in any of the options—obviously Leeds figures in one—the units that are listed must have met the test that he has just very helpfully described to the House. If that is the position—he cannot say this, but we will—it further strengthens the case that we have been making this afternoon.

[Mr Burns]

I am just giving a moment’s thought to that, partly because I do not want to interfere. Probably the most helpful thing that I can do so that I do not mislead the right hon. Gentleman is to write to him shortly with a definitive response to that important question.

On the question of travel times, which has been raised in this debate, I recognise that there may be concerns that with fewer centres, people will have to travel greater distances. However, the review has consulted parents around the country, and they have said repeatedly, as I mentioned to the House earlier, that issues of quality and good clinical outcomes are paramount in the treatment of their children. The review team recognises that this is a significant issue, and I have sought and received assurances that it has been looked at extensively as part of the review process. We need to recognise that although some families will have to travel further for elective surgery, the review proposes to reduce journey times for non-surgical care by bringing assessment and follow-on care closer to home through the development of congenital heart networks. I have also been assured that all the options comply with the Paediatric Intensive Care Society standards, which have been developed by experts in the field and stipulate maximum journey times for children who require emergency retrieval by ambulance.

The review has taken account of other criteria such as a centre’s physical location in relation to others and the impact of reconfiguration on other important services, such as paediatric intensive care services and heart transplant services.

For the information of hon. Members, who I think will be interested, I will briefly answer the question of who will take the final decision. Once the public consultation has been concluded, the decision on the future number and location of surgical centres in England will be made by the joint committee of primary care trusts on behalf of local NHS commissioners. There are circumstances in which the Secretary of State for Health may be called upon for a decision. However, as we are currently in the consultation period, it would be premature to consider that further at this point.

[Julian Smith]

rose—

[Mr Sheerman]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

I knew that it was probably a slight mistake to be quite so helpful. I will first take my hon. Friend’s intervention and then the hon. Gentleman’s.

[Julian Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way yet again. Given that PCTs are in the last phase of their lives, does he agree that it is concerning that PCTs, whose eyes may not totally be on the ball, are making this critical decision?

[Mr Burns]

I can see where my hon. Friend is coming from and I appreciate that he may have concerns. I hope that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. I do not think that PCTs are in a situation where they have not got their eyes completely on the ball. First, from all the evidence that I see, day in, day out, of the work of PCTs up and down the country, they continue to be highly professional and to do a first-class job. Secondly, the date when PCTs will cease to exist because of the modernisation of the NHS is not so close that they will not be able to fulfil their functions properly. I have every confidence in the JCPCT doing a first-class job of carrying out the consultation and reaching its conclusions in a highly professional and acceptable way. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

[Mr Sheerman]

I understand entirely where the Minister is coming from and that he must leave the matter to those with expertise. We had a similar situation in relation to maternity services in Huddersfield and the number of cases there had to be for people to be fully trained up. At the end of the day, it will always be a political decision. What if all the experts said that there could be only one unit—in London or somewhere else? Surely that would be politically unacceptable to the Minister and he would have to intervene.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me to go places where I should not stray. I believe that the premise of his intervention is incorrect, and that the situation he describes will not happen, because the outcome will not be the recommendation of just one site in the whole of England.

I hope my remarks over the past few minutes have reassured the hon. Gentleman that in the lead-up to the consultation process, the drawing up of the final report and the options has been carried out by people who are very familiar with this specialised and sensitive area of medical care and with clinicians. They have come up with recommendations in which I have confidence, to be considered and consulted on. What we have to do now is use the consultation process so that everyone who has an interest, whether they are clinically qualified people in the NHS or members of the public, patients or Members of Parliament, can get across their views and arguments. In that way, the right decisions can be made at the end of the process, within the framework that I have outlined in the debate.

I reinforce the point that the review is being undertaken in response to the concerns of parents and professionals about the future capacity and capability of children’s heart services. I can give the assurance that it is a genuinely open process and the outcomes are not predetermined. The options have been arrived at by a thorough and comprehensive process that has the support and endorsement of the professional associations and national children’s charities. I thank all those involved for their time and their input into the review so far. Children deserve the best possible care, and we are determined to provide it.

Finally, I make the plea again that in this crucial matter, we have to get the finest quality care for a vulnerable group of patients—very young children. We have to ensure the best outcomes because, frankly, that is all that matters to parents when their children are suffering. I urge everyone who has an interest, a view and a contribution to make to take part in the consultation and help ensure that the right decisions are taken to achieve the aims and ambitions on which we are all united.

Question put and agreed to.

16:43

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

Thursday 3 March 2011

[Katy Clark in the Chair]

Life Expectancy (Inequalities)

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Public Accounts Committee Session 2010-11 HC 470, and the Government response, Cm 8014.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Newmark.)

14:30

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity, despite the sparsity of Members in the Chamber today, to debate one of the many reports that we have published since July, when we were established as the new Public Accounts Committee for this Parliament. I take the opportunity to thank the members of my Committee who, although many have not stayed for the debate this Thursday afternoon, do a fantastic job in coming to grips with all the issues on our hugely busy and diverse agenda and in holding the Executive to account over a vast range of areas. I thank the staff of the House, particularly our Committee Clerk and his staff, for working incredibly hard to keep up with the volume of work, and the National Audit Office, which always provides us with excellent material as a basis for our investigations into this vast range of Government business.

Health inequality is the most awful and terrible thing. People who live in poorer wards can expect to die seven years earlier than people who live in the most affluent wards in this country. Furthermore, they spend, on average, 17 years of their lives with a disability. That is unacceptable in a free, democratic, fair and compassionate society. Let me give some reality to those statistics. Some 3,000 more individuals die than otherwise might have done as a result of the dreadful inequalities between the richest and poorest areas. My own personal passion for tackling inequality comes, in part, from the knowledge that I have of how it impacts on my own constituency. The estimates say that, if someone lived most of their life in Barking and Dagenham, they are likely to die eight years earlier than a person who lived most of their life in Kensington and Chelsea.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are twice as many doctors in Wandsworth as there are in Barking and Dagenham, and that for every stop further that a person lives on the Jubilee line between Westminster and Canning Town, their life expectancy goes down by at least a year?

[Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point, and I want to spend quite a lot of my contribution talking about the distribution of general practitioners, and the relationship between that and health inequalities.

As a Committee, we believe that addressing health inequality should be at the heart of every Government. All MPs from all political parties share the desire and commitment to work towards eradicating those inequalities. It is because it is a shared ambition that our report makes particularly depressing reading. The previous Government came into power publicly committed to reducing health inequalities, so there was a strong political commitment to achieve progress in the area. During the 13 years of that Government, there was a huge injection of money into the health service, which resulted in welcome improvements for everybody, including increases in life expectancy among the whole population. We now have life expectancy for men of 78 years and for women of 82 years. In our session on pensions yesterday, we received evidence from the King’s Fund that showed a massive improvement in life expectancy over the past decade or so, whereas in the last century there was hardly any improvement.

Given the general positive trend, it is horribly depressing to see that, while the health of the nation as a whole has improved, the gap between the richest and poorest, as measured by life expectancy, has widened. If we compare the life expectancy of men in the spearhead authorities—the most deprived authorities, in which a quarter of the population live, that were selected by the previous Government—the absolute gap and the relative gap increased between 1998 and 2007-09. In absolute terms, the increase was 8.6% and in relative terms it was 4.6%. If we look at the same statistics for women, the absolute gap increased by 9.3% for women and the relative gap by 6.5%.

What is so worrying about those statistics is that the gap between the richest and poorest women is growing at a faster rate than the same gap between the richest and poorest men. As yet, we do not have any good answers for why that is—unless the Minister can help us—except that women are smoking more today than they were a generation ago and are, therefore, more prone to diseases such as lung cancer that then kill them. I urge the Government to do some better evidence collecting so that we can understand what is happening and see whether we can take appropriate action to improve the figures.

Given our real determination to tackle health inequalities, why have we failed so far, and what should this Government do to improve performance and therefore close those unacceptable inequalities? We all understand that this is a hugely difficult area, and it is not just an issue for the health service; inequalities arise from socio-economic factors. If we consider the evidence, most of the inequalities—between 80% and 85%—come from socio-economic factors, such as income, education and housing, and probably between 15% and 20% arise from poor access to good-quality health services. It is important, therefore, that the health service does what it can. If it performed better, we would reduce that gap, but on its own it cannot tackle the problems of life expectancy that arise from whether someone is rich or poor or where they tend to live.

If we accept the importance of those wide socio-economic factors, it is vital that we have a comprehensive and coherent approach across Government. Integrating health inequalities into the wider agenda of tackling poverty inequality becomes hugely important. Without wanting to be politically partisan, I have to strike a warning note about the proposed cuts in public expenditure, which look as though they will hit the poorest hardest. If that is the case, I have not yet seen anything that provides me with the comfort that the direction of travel will reduce inequalities. In fact, quite the contrary, inequalities could be intensified. Will the Minister address that issue in her response to the debate?

I urge the Government to keep a focus on health inequalities as part of their agenda of tackling poverty and general inequality, and to judge all the actions that they take by how they will impact on health inequalities. That focus is hugely important.

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

I agree with the right hon. Lady that the Government need to maintain focus. I noted that our Committee’s report says that the Department of Health itself acknowledged that it was slow to put in place key mechanisms to deliver its target and that it had used such mechanisms in other areas such as treatment of cancer, diabetes and stroke, where national clinical directors have proved quite successful. Does she think that there is scope for doing more in that regard in relation to health inequalities?

[Margaret Hodge]

Absolutely. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who took through our recent inquiry into cancer. That inquiry demonstrated that, if there is that focus, outcomes will improve, although we can always do better. Having set the context in my opening remarks, I was going to make that point: access to and the responsiveness of the health service are hugely important. We need to do a lot of work to improve those things.

Tackling health inequality must be a real priority for everybody involved, which is the first lesson that we learned from our inquiry. It is not just about the politicians, for whom it has always been a priority. It must be a priority for the Department of Health, the new NHS commissioning board, GPs and all health service providers, local authorities, pharmacists and all others who have an interest in ensuring that we are healthy and live longer.

There is a criticism to be made of the previous Government. They were good at writing policy papers, but less good at following through those policies with specific actions. There were plenty of papers. We had the commitment in 1997, when the Government came in. We had the Acheson report in 1998. We had a target in the comprehensive spending review in 2000, which was pretty general but was about reducing inequalities. We had a refined target in 2002, which was more specific but perhaps a little less ambitious, and was aimed at reducing inequalities by 10% in the 20% of health authorities where there was the lowest life expectancy. We had a plan of action in 2003. That is an interesting point to pause at, because that plan of action had 82 so- called commitments. I do not think that our Committee looked at the plan in detail. I certainly have not done so. By December 2006, the then Government claimed to have met 75 of those 82 commitments, but we know from the statistics that the outcomes grew worse in terms of inequality. So there is something to be learned from the focus of that plan of action.

In the 2004 comprehensive spending review, the then Government revised and revisited the target. Again, we focused on it. We made it slightly less ambitious but more specific by focusing on 70 spearhead areas of the country. However, there is a danger with that approach, because more than half of the people who have an unequal life expectancy outcome at present do not live in those 70 spearhead areas. Inevitably, therefore, by concentrating action on those areas, we were leaving out far too many people.

Finally, in 2006—nine years after the previous Government came into office—reducing inequalities became one of the top NHS priorities. I think that it was at that point that we started to get things right. One of the lessons to learn from that is that, if we are not specific and focused, and tackling health inequality is not a high priority, we will not deliver, despite having the best intentions. In 2007, we got the primary care trusts to report on the progress that they had made on health inequalities.

Therefore, the view of the Committee is that reducing health inequality must be an explicit priority throughout the system and that it must be measured. I hope that the Minister will agree with that comment and I look forward to hearing her response to learn how she will ensure that the agenda on reducing health inequality is taken forward by this Government.

[Ms Abbott]

I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend, who has had the opportunity to study these matters in detail. Does she agree that one of the problems in tackling health inequalities is that it does turn on good public health, which has never had the glamour or the immediacy of acute care in hospitals?

[Margaret Hodge]

I agree and I will develop that point a little later. However, the previous Government almost doubled the expenditure on public health, from an incredibly low base: it was 1.9% and it increased to 3.6% of NHS spending. I hope that the present Government will do even better in that regard. However, spending on public health is still a minute part of NHS resources, especially when it is an area that would prevent a lot of the health inequalities from emerging. Having conducted a study on cancer, both my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) would agree that the earlier that one can diagnose a condition the better the outcome. That was a key finding of the report that our Committee published this week on cancer.

I move to the issue of resources and I will talk about it in three contexts. First, I will talk about the resources—the actual money—that are distributed between geographical areas. Secondly, I will talk about the distribution of general practitioners. Thirdly, I will talk about the expenditure on prevention.

On resources, our study made it clear that at present there is an inequitable distribution of resources. The report showed that, in 2010-11, 68%—more than two out of three—of the spearhead PCTs were still not receiving the money that they should have been receiving on a needs-based allocation formula. That meant that more than £400 million of NHS money was diverted from those neediest areas to other parts of the country.

From the response of the Government in the Treasury minute, I know that they will continue to try to redistribute resources, but I would be grateful if the Minister gave us some indication of a time frame within which she would hope that there would be a much fairer distribution of resources to reflect need and therefore at least to give our neediest areas the capability and capacity to tackle health inequality.

I also note from the response of the Government in the Treasury minute that responsibility for the distribution of resources will go to the NHS commissioning board. What comfort can the Minister give my Committee about the instructions that the Department will give to the commissioning board regarding the action that it needs to take to ensure that there is genuine equity in the distribution of funding? Again, I know from my own borough that there is a real need for political commitment and drive to achieve that redistribution of resources. Obviously, there is a limited cake, we are in difficult financial circumstances and we are trying to see how we can cut that cake differently.

I and some of my colleagues in our local PCT area had to work extremely hard with Ministers in the previous Government to achieve a fair distribution of resources for Barking and Dagenham. That was the one area where we did okay. Obviously, that work was very local and it is not a pattern that we observed when we carried out the study across Government. So that is the first issue—a proper distribution of resources to poorer areas.

On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), we must spend money on prevention. The issue of public health investment is crucial, because we know that other key causes of health inequality are what are known as “the risk factors”: obesity, smoking, drinking, diet and lack of exercise.

In that regard, the previous Government did well. They increased the spending on public health, doubling it from an extremely low base to a pretty low level of 3.6% of NHS spending in 2006-07. I think that the members of my Committee would say that we need further progress in that sector to ensure that we prevent people from developing the illnesses that limit their life expectancy.

Under the present Government’s reforms, we will have the new health and well-being boards, and they will receive resources. However, there are huge pressures on local authority budgets. Local authorities are probably having to absorb more cuts than any other part of the public sector. I have particular concerns about what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that local authorities spend the money they have, and prioritise expenditure on public health facilities and policies.

The commissioning board will have the responsibility to ensure proper expenditure on prevention, but the evidence given to the Committee showed that the problem with expenditure being devolved to GPs, who one would think were best placed in the health economy to think about investing in prevention rather than cure, is that their record in pursuing such investment is poor. GPs who have already been commissioning, and who control their budgets, do not have a good record of ensuring that they properly spend on prevention.

Finally on this point, the national health service has to find between £15 billion and £20 billion of expenditure savings, and while I accept that that money will be redirected within health, it is easiest to cut that which is most difficult to measure, which is investment in the prevention of poor health outcomes. In a climate in which the health service is trying to identify the very challenging savings that the Government have asked it to find—I accept that the savings were initiated by the previous Government—I fear that investment in preventive health measures will fall to the bottom of the agenda. How will the Minister and the Government ensure that money is properly spent on prevention?

[Ms Abbott]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that even now local authorities and primary care trusts are cutting public health expenditure, for example on community midwives and smoking cessation? Such expenditure is non-statutory, and it is going. Although one appreciates the intentions of Ministers in giving local authorities ring-fenced moneys, the danger is that those authorities will, under force majeure, use the money to backfill expenditure on environmental health and social care, and I have even heard of authorities believing they can spend their public health money on leisure services.

[Margaret Hodge]

I have a rather depressing example from my own area. We have had an effective smoking cessation service, but the regional health body looked at the expenditure both there and in Waltham Forest, which is spending far less, and instead of considering the impact and effectiveness of that expenditure, asked, “If Waltham Forest can do it for less, why can’t Barking and Dagenham?” That very effective intervention is now being cut because the comparison made by the regional health body was on the basis of inputs rather than outcomes, and that is a depressing trend that we will see mirrored elsewhere in the country.

Thirdly on resources, we need to ensure that there are the right GPs in the right areas. All the statistics that were provided to the Committee on that make for extremely depressing reading. The least deprived areas of the country have on average 64 GPs per 100,000 people, and the most deprived have 57. In Barking and Dagenham we have only 40 GPs per 100,000 people. I hope those statistics are right—I got them only the other day—because it is shocking if they are. The previous Government tried to tackle that issue locally, and the Committee was given evidence about what they did nationally. For example, in 2007 we had the £250 million programme to establish 112 new practices and 150 GP-led health centres in areas with the fewest primary care clinicians. I assume that that programme is coming to an end and that most of those facilities have now opened, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that.

In my borough, we have had a paucity of GPs, and a concentration of single-person practices and very poor environments and, try as we might, we still have this very challenging problem. Over the past 10 to 12 years I have been engaged in encouraging innovation, including having salaried GPs, and linking our GPs to universities as an incentive, and we were the first borough to try to encourage private providers to come in. One of them was successful, but the health authority has, I think, closed the other one’s contract. We have new health centres and practices, but the problem is that GPs are essentially independent providers and can choose to work wherever they wish. That is a hugely important point, and not just in tackling health inequalities, because if the Government cannot make the situation better, there will be much greater pressure on accident and emergency units and hospitals, and resources will be driven into the acute sector at the expense of community services.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

When we discussed the role of GPs in public health, I was disappointed to discover that they were not incentivised by GP contracts to treat public health issues seriously and put resources into them. If they had been, that would have made a difference.

[Margaret Hodge]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I understand that the Government have said in their Treasury minute that they intend to try to renegotiate the GP contract, and to increase the focus of the quality and outcomes framework on prevention, with 15% of the outcomes centred on it. I am really interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about that. We have to provide incentives in the system, but we also need to ensure that GPs do not cherry-pick. There must be incentives to ensure that GPs focus on the hardest-to-reach groups—on those people who do not automatically go to their doctor when they feel ill.

Finally, what will the Government do to support the health service to do what works? One of the most depressing findings in our report was in this area. We know that most health inequalities arise because of issues that are outside the control of the NHS, but 15% to 20% of them come about because of the quality of the health service that people experience, and their access to it. We also know that two thirds of the difference in life expectancy is due to people dying from respiratory and circulatory illnesses, and from cancer. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for South Norfolk will want to draw attention to the report on cancer that we published this week, which talks a lot about the fact that if we got better at early identification of cancer, particularly in poorer areas, we would be more successful in reducing health inequalities. We also know, from the Marmot review, that if we do not get better at reducing people’s propensity to develop such illnesses, the additional associated treatment cost to the NHS, and therefore the cost of dealing with health inequalities, will be £5.5 billion. There is a fantastic financial incentive as well as an ethical incentive to spread practice that we know works in a much better, more structured and more defined way.

Our inquiry found three cost-effective interventions. They are so simple that we were all slightly gobsmacked that they are not more widely used. The first is giving anti-hypertensive drugs to lower blood pressure, the second is giving statins to lower cholesterol levels and the third is dealing properly with smoking cessation. There is probably a class bias involved. I cannot think of middle-class people who are not aware of those preventive interventions for respiratory and circulatory illnesses and who do not take them almost before they need them. However, poorer communities lack the same understanding and self-advocacy, which would support a reduction in health inequalities. Our inquiry also found that it would cost a mere £24 million—I say “mere,” but it is relatively small in NHS expenditure terms—to ensure that those three interventions were properly implemented in the spearhead areas. At present, those spearhead authorities spend £3.9 billion each year on treating people who develop the illnesses that arise through lack of preventive action.

We also found that our record on reducing health inequalities varied across the country. London, for a change, did relatively well, whereas Yorkshire and Humberside did particularly badly. However, the Department of Health had not developed any proper understanding of why such differences existed, and therefore had not decided how to use the data to lever action.

Probably the most shocking graph in our report involved smoking cessation. There is a lot of evidence that one-to-one sessions do not particularly help people to stop smoking, whereas putting them into groups where they are influenced and encouraged by their peers tends to have a better impact, yet PCTs were putting nearly all their money into one-to-one sessions and very little into group sessions. That seemed an absurd waste of investment and a failure of those empowered to take decisions to do the right thing with their money, which could have had much more impact.

What are the good and bad things that we know so far about how the country will perform on health inequality under the reforms? The Government have said that reducing health inequality remains a key priority, and I welcome that, as we all should. I welcome the fact that the NHS commissioning board will have a duty to reduce inequality, but that in itself is not enough; we must understand how the board will focus on it. I welcome the fact that central Government will make information about good practice available, but I worry that the implementation of that good practice will not be directed more from the centre, if not mandatory. What does the Minister have to say about that?

I worry that there will be no central benchmarking of cost-effectiveness in reducing health inequalities. I welcome the commitment to move towards fairer funding between areas, but I worry about the rate of change. Will the Minister comment on that? I welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to renegotiate the GP contract and are minded to give greater weight to local health needs in that regard. I welcome the fact that they wish to change the quality and outcomes framework, and that health premiums will be available to local authorities that reduce inequalities.

However, there are risks, to which my hon. Friends have alluded, in relation to the public health proposals and local authorities’ capacity properly to meet their requirements for reducing inequalities. I worry that the health premium will reward disadvantaged areas only if they make progress, and will disadvantage such areas further in the distribution of resources if they fail to do so. That would mean that people living in poor areas, who are likely not to live as long as people elsewhere, will be disadvantaged by a failure of the institutions that we have established.

How do the Government intend to ensure that local bodies work cost-effectively to reduce inequalities and provide value for money in their work? What powers, if any, will the Department, the NHS commissioning board or local health and well-being boards have to direct local GPs and providers who are not reducing health inequalities or are doing so in a way that gives bad value for money? What measures, if any, will be taken to ensure that the £20 billion in savings will not lead to short-sighted cuts to prevention budgets?

If the Minister can answer some of those questions, hopefully the good report that we as a Committee have put together can support the shared national endeavour to tackle this hugely difficult problem, which is so important in the life of our society.

15:07

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

It is a pleasure, Miss Clark, to join under your chairmanship this debate on my favourite subject, the Select Committee on Public Accounts, along with the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and other Committee members, as well as one of my favourite Ministers, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton). This three-hour debate is sparsely attended. I was a little worried that we might not fill the time, but then I reflected on the old maxim by Fidel Castro that a speech less than three hours long cannot possibly do anyone any good. Although I will not take off my jacket, I am prepared to be expansive should the need arise.

To be serious, although I do not plan to take up too much time, I think that the report is valuable. It points to something much broader than the single issue of health inequality, although that is an interesting and important issue. We begin our report by pointing out that in 1997, the new Labour Government announced that they would put reducing health inequalities at the heart of tackling the root causes of ill health. That was stated as a clear policy—it is not particularly politically controversial; most people would support it—yet many years later, here we are.

When my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary was in opposition and doing a lot of work with his think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, he drew attention to health inequalities in Scotland. They are, strictly speaking, outside the terms of our report, but many people were shocked to learn—Scottish MPs probably knew this, but I did not—that the life expectancy in parts of Glasgow is lower than in the Gaza strip. My right hon. Friend did a lot of work on that issue in opposition, and he is now in a position in the Department for Work and Pensions to help others, including my hon. Friend the Minister, do something about it.

The issues are difficult and vexing, but they are not massively politically controversial, although the report shows that the gap between asserting the intention to do something and actually delivering it is often huge. That is the experience I have had many times in many different areas during the 10 years I have served on the Committee. Often, when Ministers are expanding on any number of subjects, my hon. Friends talk as if everything will be okay, just because it is our political party that is now discussing these things. When the Government make announcements of any kind, I think that, in a few years, we will be getting a National Audit Office report about all the things they forgot to do, all the things that went wrong and the eight common causes of project failure that they failed to observe.

My attention was drawn to a comment by the new hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who is a new member of the Committee. She brings a lot of extra intellectual firepower to the Committee; indeed, she has a PhD from the London School of Economics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking—I will call her my right hon. Friend in this case—and I are also alumni of that fine institution. I believe, however, that the hon. Lady did not pay a large management consultancy to do her fieldwork for her, in the way that this morning’s newspapers say Saif al-Islam did. That aside, she said in a recent debate:

“Governments should not just start projects or policies—the public expect them to be able to finish them too. Essentially, implementation is as important as ideology in politics.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 1134.]

The interesting thing is that we are not even talking about an area where ideology is that important. There is general agreement that changes would be a good thing, but it has still proved extraordinarily difficult to make the progress that we would all like.

The report is divided into three sections. We started by looking at the weaknesses in the approach taken by the previous Government. One of the most shocking things for me was that, in a period when life expectancy overall has improved, the gap between the national average and what we term the spearhead areas has actually widened, as the right hon. Lady said. Under the previous Government’s approach, more than half the local authority wards in the bottom fifth for life expectancy were outside the spearheads, so there was not the slightest chance they would be covered, even though they had some of the worst figures. In fairness, the Department has recognised that its targeting and leadership were not adequate and that it was slow to put in place the right priorities.

There is considerable scope for the Department to take further the model of a national clinical director, which has been applied with considerable—I will not say unqualified—success to areas such as the cancer reform strategy. As the right hon. Lady said, we took evidence on that strategy and published a report on it this week, and it showed, in addition to some success and improvements, that there were still quite shocking variations. For example, there was an eightfold variation in the preparedness of GPs—I nearly said MPs, as well—to refer patients to cancer specialists, and that variation cannot be explained by socio-economic factors. In that respect, we had a fascinating hearing earlier this week with, among others, the King’s Fund, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners and a general practitioner running a consortium covering 180,000 patients in Essex. The fact that they took quite different views of the Government’s proposed reforms and GP consortia led to a fruitful dialogue, and the process of creative tension and debate meant that we got quite a lot of extra information that we might not have got if all the witnesses had believed and said the same thing.

It is clear that there were weaknesses in the approach that was taken, and I would like to hear more from the Minister about what proposals the Government have to make specific improvements and whether the idea of a clinical director should be taken further. I say that especially in the context of pushing public health budgets out to local authorities, because there will potentially be more stools for things to fall between. The Department of Health will presumably drive any national clinical director programme, but the influencing will be done with people in local authorities.

The second issue that the report looked at was the role of general practitioners. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is right that, according to the Department, the GP contract does not give GPs enough of an incentive to focus on the neediest groups, although part of me wonders why there should need to be an incentive. I know from my experience of talking to GPs that people who go into medicine and general practice take a very holistic approach to their patient group. They will ask some patients to come in once every three or four weeks for no other reason than to keep an eye on them. They are fearful for such patients because they come from certain socio-economic groups and probably need an extra eye kept on them. However, let us take it at face value that the Department believes that the GP contract in its present form is not adequate.

[Nick Smith]

I am struck by the hon. Gentleman’s point about GPs. Every GP I have met absolutely throws themselves into their job, and, with very few exceptions, usually does a fantastic job. However, after the evidence session, I could not help thinking that people will do what we pay them to do. If we get the incentives right and we are clear about the targets and the benefits of the activity that the Department, health board or primary care trust has emphasised, we will get better results. We need GPs absolutely to focus on the important topic before us.

[Mr Bacon]

That is right: people will do what they are paid to do. One criticism I have also heard is that the more we treat people like employees, the more they will behave like employees. In recent years, a lot of GPs have felt more bossed around, so they act like employees, rather than people who are running their own organisations.

[Ms Abbott]

Is it not also the case that in inner-city areas, such as the east end of London, large numbers of people who are reservoirs of disease are simply not on GPs’ lists? As we move to GP commissioning, it will be important that GPs commission for the population, not just for the people who happen to be on their lists.

[Mr Bacon]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. One issue is the number of GPs in deprived areas, and a chart in the report shows the variation in those numbers. At one extreme, we have about 110 or 115 GPs per 100,000 of population, although that figure is an outlier, and the rest of the figures start at about 80 GPs and go down to an average of about 59 or 60. At the other extreme, in Redcar and Cleveland, the number of GPs per 100,000 of population is only 25. In other words, there is a fivefold differential between the best and the worst. Even if we cut out the extreme outliers, the figures still go from just over 40 to about 80, which is double. If there are not enough GPs in a given area, it will be that much more difficult to identify and get on to the GP list all the people we should—those whom the hon. Lady calls reservoirs of disease. That is an important public health problem, as well as a policy problem in terms of where GPs sit.

If the Minister does not mind, I would like her to comment on single-practice GPs. Although the proportion of such GPs has dropped from 34% to 22% in the most deprived areas, there are still 371 single-handed practices. All other things being equal, a single-handed practice is almost certainly not a good idea. There may be good reasons why one exists in a particular locality, and it is certainly likely to be better to have a single-handed practice than no practice, although Dr Harold Shipman comes to mind. There is also the fact that a GP is much more likely to work well if they are with a group of people than if they are by themselves; most of us work better in groups than we do wholly by ourselves. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on policy on single-handed practices and where the Government think we are heading on that. As I mentioned, I should also like to hear her comments on the proposed outcomes framework, and how she thinks the changes in the GP contract will make the kind of difference that is needed, both in getting GPs into the right areas, and in making sure that they focus enough on health inequalities.

The third part of our report applied the lessons to the wider NHS. There is of course considerable discussion and controversy about the Government’s health reforms. We are not a policy Committee, so our report does not address whether the GP consortia reforms are a good idea. People have different views on that. I have my own, and instinctively I have always been in favour of giving more authority and power to GPs, for one simple reason, which is to do with what happens whenever, in the 10 years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have sat down with a group of GPs. I accept that what happens may be because, although South Norfolk is not economically very prosperous, it is not massively deprived either, and it is a pleasant place to live. Some might even call it leafy, but we have plenty of socio-economic problems, and employment problems. I do not want to gild the lily, but it is not in most respects a deprived area compared with many others, so perhaps the GPs I meet are a biased sample. None the less, every time I sit down with general practitioners, from whichever practice in my constituency they come, I always walk away thinking, “My, what a sensible bunch of people. If only they were given more control and power in the running of the health service. Things would almost certainly work better.” Of course, the Government’s proposals are in that direction, so my instincts are to support what they are doing.

My experience of 10 years on the Committee, however, is that whenever the Government try to change anything of any kind, anywhere, they always underestimate the risk and over-egg the benefits. There are considerable risks to the change, including the fact that it is a change. All change, particularly when it involves big management change, raises risks. It is likely, I think, that the best of the people working in the primary care trusts, if they are good at managing health consortia, will be hired to do the job. If things works out as well as we all hope, we shall probably end up with better management, and fewer and better-paid people doing a sharper, leaner job than has happened with primary care trusts. In addition to lots of meetings with GPs over 10 years, I have had plenty of meetings with the primary care trusts in my constituency. When I was first elected, there were six PCTs just for my constituency, which was then one of eight in Norfolk, with a total population of 800,000. Each had its own finance director on a six-figure salary, and not all were particularly well qualified, which may be one reason why the PCTs began to get into serious financial trouble a few years ago, despite the fact that the NHS was receiving record funding increases.

I have probably dwelt on the issue a bit too long, and I am not trying to make a political point. I merely say that I instinctively have a degree of support for what the Government are trying to do in the context, but it still gives rise to a series of questions. I was quite surprised when I heard that public health would be moving away from the health service towards local authorities, because, on the basis of my experience of my local hospital, which is a good and fairly new acute hospital built in the past 10 years, and based on my experience of general practitioners, I would sooner that those responsibilities were left with clinicians than that they were given to the council.

When I see the proposal for health and well-being boards, I think “What if?” Let us think back to 1997, as the sun came up over the Thames and the then new Prime Minister Tony Blair said, among other things, that the Government were going to put reducing health inequalities at the heart of tackling the root causes of ill health. What if he had said after a couple of years, “I know; here’s another thing we’re going to do. We’re going to have something we will call health and well-being boards, and because we are in favour of democracy we’re going to give them to local councils”? What if we had then watched as not a lot happened for the next 10 years? I am just making this up, because it never happened, but say those bodies had been established, and had not achieved quite as much as we hoped: I can see that we might have gone into the general election saying, “As for those health and well-being boards run by the council, well you’ve all read about them in the Daily Mail and we’ll be getting rid of them on day one.” I am sure it will not work out in that way, and that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the risks and has them under control.

I was interested that the Department told us that the money for the public health budgets would be ring-fenced. Paragraph 22—the final paragraph of our report—said:

“The Department told us that action for improving population-wide health and reducing health inequalities would be funded from a ring-fenced public health budget.”

One of the questions I have for my hon. Friend is, “When is a ring fence not a ring fence?” I have had meetings with my local council, which is rather eager to get hold of the £11.7 million coming its way for its public health budget. It is not its impression that it will be spending it all on public health. Some of us think that it may have other priorities in different areas, which have nothing to do with public health, but which it seems to believe have merit, and for which it can make a strong case—and, indeed, many of my constituents would make a similarly strong case. I want to understand exactly what the health and well-being boards will do, and what leverage they will have over the GP consortia, to ensure that they deliver the priorities they are supposed to—or what other methods there will be to make sure that the consortia deliver those priorities.

That all comes back to what I was saying earlier to my hon. Friend about the need for greater clarity about ensuring that the outcomes framework and the new GP contract deliver what they are supposed to. I do not care whether it is health and well-being boards who do it, or whether they exist. I care that it should happen, and it is not abundantly clear to me that there is yet a picture with all the dots joined up, so that we can be sure that if health and well-being boards are carrying out that task either they will have the correct leverage over GP consortia or there will be other mechanisms in place, through the outcomes framework or the new contract, to achieve what the Government, like the previous Government, say they want to do about health inequalities.

[Ms Abbott]

It has been my experience in my present Front-Bench role that local authorities throughout the country believe, broadly speaking, that what they call public health is public health, and that they can spend the money on that. As I said earlier, they can spend it on environmental health, social care or leisure services. I am concerned precisely with the point he made: when is ring-fencing ring-fencing? Because I do not believe that the money can be effectively ring-fenced for what we would recognise as public health expense.

[Mr Bacon]

I am interested in the hon. Lady’s comments. Of course, if we made sure that every schoolchild got a tangerine every day as part of their five a day, it would not be difficult to make a strong case for that being in the interests of public health. It would not be necessary to be a member of the tangerine growers association to make that argument.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

I hesitate to intervene at this stage, because I will have an opportunity to speak later, but I must say, as it is such an important point, that the fact that the child gets the tangerine is not the point. The point is, does the child eat it?

[Mr Bacon]

I am pleased to say that my son would eat it, if given a chance, but he has been indoctrinated by my wife to think that fruit is the best thing going. However, to go back to what the right hon. Member for Barking said earlier, that is what happens in middle-class households, where children have lots of fruit and vegetables. My son is three and one of the things he loves the most is cucumber; he adores it. I am sure it is full of the right nutrients, although I think it is 99% water. The point is that we must make sure that those messages are getting across.

When I think about a cross-section of the population of my constituency, and ask whom I would most trust to persuade a little boy to eat tangerines—the local councillors or the general practitioners—I am not sure that I would immediately plump for the councillors, particularly given the fact, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has said, that councillors have a lot of other pressures on them and have other priorities. I asked when a ring fence is not a ring fence, but of course there is another question about whether there should be one. One thing that we apparently feel unable to admit is that if we take off the ring fences and tell people, “We mean it when we say that you at the local authority will decide what happens,” the natural concomitant will be variation between different parts of the country. The rhetoric and the argument is that it is down to local people and if they do not like it, they can choose a different councillor.

I attended a meeting with a senior Minister in the Cabinet Office. It was just after the general election and he had been to a meeting with local councillors from across the country. He relayed a story about how a group of Conservative councillors had asked him, “Right, Francis”—that gives away who I am talking about—“we have won the election, or partially won it, at least. What do you want us to do?” He replied, “I want you to stop asking that question.” In other words, the Government seriously want to give local authorities the power to make these decisions. The obvious concomitant, however, is that there will be differences in different parts of the country. If that is the case—and in the light of the fact that, even when we have tried to have a co-ordinated strategy to get the same outcomes and reduce health inequalities, we have managed simultaneously to improve life expectancy and to widen the gap between the best and the worst—how much more likely is it to go wrong when we have this degree of local autonomy?

These things always come in waves—localism and centralisation have gone backwards and forwards. Some may remember Tony Crosland saying in 1974, “The party’s over,” and I am sure that we will come to a “party’s over” moment, although it is probably a few years away yet. I am interested in what happens on the ground to achieve change, and it sounds like my hon. Friend the Minister is as well. I shall not speak for much longer, because I am keen to hear her response.

I shall conclude with one further point to make my hon. Friend’s job a little easier, although no one pretends that this is easy. Indeed, we say in conclusion 7 of our report:

“Addressing health inequalities is a complex challenge requiring sustained and targeted action. The Department’s experience to date shows that greater focus and persistence will be needed to drive the right interventions.”

That is about strong leadership, as we go on to say in that paragraph. That is why the examples from other areas, such as Professor Sir Mike Richards’s cancer strategy, may have something to tell us about what we ought to do about reducing health inequalities. We all agree on the ends, but there still seems to be a lot of confusion about which means will work best. It is important for the whole country that we sort out that confusion and start seeing improved results.

15:32

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I am pleased that you have called me to speak in this debate, Miss Clark, following the terrific contributions of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and my fellow PAC member, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). As a new Member, I feel privileged to serve on the PAC, given its powers to review all areas of Government spending and to assess whether individual programmes are good value for money.

In the report, we looked at how the Department of Health delivers action to reduce the inequalities in life expectancy that we find in each of the nations of the UK, not just England, although the report looked at England specifically. On the day that we took evidence for the report, I went away with a very heavy heart. I was hugely disappointed that the Government and public policy had failed to make a real dent in this crucial area. I am sorry to say that I was convinced of the failure of senior politicians to drive the issue harder over 10 years, and of senior national health service managers to implement good practice and policies. That is just not good enough.

It is with a mixture of sadness and anger that I must report that adults in my constituency of Blaenau Gwent have life expectancy rates of just 75.6 years for males and 79.1 years for women. Blaenau Gwent has the 10th lowest life expectancy at age 65 in the whole of the United Kingdom. Worryingly, figures released recently by Save the Children revealed that 20% of the children in my constituency—2,000 youngsters—could be living without basic necessities. It is the highest rate in Wales. We are talking about children whose parents skimp on food so that their home can be heated and the youngsters can be fed, and children who are more prone to infections, colds and accidents. That deprivation is likely to have an impact on their health and their life expectancy. These young children are our responsibility and we must do better.

It is because I see the consequences of deprivation in my own constituency that I was absolutely incensed to learn how the Department of Health has been failing families living with poor health in similar constituencies in England. After all, it is more than 30 years since the Black report set out the scale of health inequality in the UK. I do not want to be partisan—this has been a good debate—but that report was buried by Margaret Thatcher, so in 1997 the new Labour Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), asked Sir Donald Acheson to update it. Subsequently, the Labour Government set a target of narrowing the health inequality gap by 10%.

Colleagues have already said that tackling health inequality is complex. Acheson flagged up a number of initiatives, such as better housing, higher child benefit, and pre-school investment, which he urged the Government to adopt. A number of those things have been done and have made a difference. The 2008 World Health Organisation inquiry by Professor Marmot was equally radical. It identified low incomes, bad housing and a failure to curb junk food as some of the factors that contributed to poorer life expectancy. He also advocated a higher minimum wage, which we will be pushing for in the future, difficult though it may be.

It is important to set the context of the PAC inquiry, because action by the Department of Health is by no means the only action needed to tackle health inequalities. I am sympathetic to a degree with the idea of involving local authorities in the task. We all remember gas and water socialism, whereby local authorities played a big part in ensuring that we had a cleaner environment and gas to heat our homes. Having said that, I am keen for health authorities and GP practices to keep an eye on the issues that make a big difference in public health.

The wealth of reports, information and good practice on public health that were already in the public domain should have galvanised the Department into early action on matters upon which it could deliver. Tackling health inequalities was, after all, one of its key objectives in 1997. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has said, in 2004 the Department set the task of reducing the gap in life expectancy between 70 spearhead areas and the population as a whole. However, although national life expectancy has improved, the gap between the spearhead authorities and the national average has widened. What a depressing fact that is. By looking at why the Department of Health failed in its objective, the PAC was keen to identify pointers, and they will, I hope, enable us to make progress on reducing life expectancy differentials, particularly because no target has been set at present.

The PAC is keen to promote best value, which is very important at all times, but particularly so in the straitened economic circumstances in which we now find ourselves. As NICE has said:

“Public Health interventions are extremely good value when compared with the costs of clinical interventions.”

In our investigation, the PAC found that the Department was slow to get off the starting block and to utilise NHS resources effectively. I stress that this was a priority for the Labour Government in 1997, but it took nearly 10 years for it to be implemented on the ground by PCTs. It should have been a fantastic opportunity to make a difference in a key area for Labour that is representative of our core values. Targets were adopted in 2004, but reducing health inequalities did not make the Department’s top six until 2006, and it took another year for PCTs to be fully involved, which is way too long.

As early as 2002, three key cost-effective policies were identified to help to meet the objectives. My right hon. Friend has pointed them out, but I think they are worth repeating. They should be part of national initiatives, despite the Government’s localism agenda, and should be given emphasis in the future. The first was medication to control high blood pressure, the second was medication to reduce cholesterol, and the third was help for people to stop smoking. Those three things alone would have a marked effect on the agenda.

However, it still took five years for the Department to advise on the best way to implement those policies and to monitor what PCTs were going to do in their patch. Some extra funds were transferred to the spearhead areas on the basis of higher need, but they only trickled through. The spearhead authorities did not reach their target funding levels. If we set public health objectives, we have to deliver the funding. Hon. Members’ comments this afternoon on the need to be clear about what money will go forward and precisely how it will be spent are really important for this agenda.

Like other hon. Members, I shall turn to the role of GPs in tackling health inequalities. We all know that GPs are a fantastic and unique asset but, unsurprisingly, the spearhead areas did not have enough of them. It is as blunt as that. There just were not enough GPs. The reality is that the Department has failed to secure sufficient GPs for poorer areas, despite some good initiatives, which my right hon. Friend has mentioned. The Department has failed to make a difference and to negotiate a GP contract that gives an adequate incentive to focus on patients with the greatest need. I am absolutely clear that people will do that if they are paid to do it. That needs to be promoted and pushed as simply and as hard as possible.

The record also shows that few preventive services have been commissioned by GPs under the practice-based commissioning system introduced in England in 2004. That is a fact. Unfortunately, that does not inspire confidence in the Government’s plans to move to an NHS in England where services are predominantly GP commissioned. If there are not enough GPs in the first place, it is just not going to happen in a lot of areas. The new health and well-being boards, which will be set up by local authorities in 2013, will scrutinise how local commissioners are reducing health inequalities. However, what teeth—or sanctions—will they have? What budget will there be for public health and what exactly will that include? We must get to the bottom of that, otherwise more wasted years lie ahead of us. I hope that the Minister will address those points this afternoon.

A recent review and study of the impact of the economic downturn on health in Wales considered my constituency and concluded:

“In Blaenau Gwent, the recession has hit hard and was felt to have exacerbated the existing long term problems of the area.”

Things were bad already and, with unemployment, they will get worse. The study found that young people are the age group most likely to suffer in the long run

“as the transition from education to employment, further education or training is pivotal for long term secure employment and health”.

Given the current high levels of youth unemployment—we read about that in this week’s papers—I am afraid that the Government are storing up a large health inequalities problem for the future. The study recommends the development of leisure services to help those distressed by job loss, extra resources for debt counselling and access to affordable loans to help to reduce the anxieties associated with loss of income and low incomes. We need to look at the wider agenda and be mindful of that, as public health discussions go forward. In a nutshell, public health outcomes have to be addressed by all levels of government.

Finally, as the Minister responsible for public health is here, I cannot pass up the opportunity to comment on the Department’s plans to help people to stop smoking. Certainly, the NHS must assist individuals to give up smoking using local resources such as nurses, pharmacists and GPs. All of that is terrific. However, the Government must also implement the ban on tobacco displays in newsagents. Such actions may deter young people from smoking in the first place. I commend the Welsh Assembly’s tobacco control action plan, which continues to deliver smoking prevention programmes in our schools in Wales. In terms of the economic picture, that should be rolled out across the UK—certainly in areas such as mine.

Another of my public health priorities is alcohol pricing. Some commentators have predicted that the continued squeeze on family incomes will lead to a reduction in alcohol consumption. However, the Government could be much bolder on minimum pricing. VAT plus duty is not enough and if the NHS spent less on treating the consequences of alcohol misuse, we would have more money to invest in public health and improving life expectancy for the poorest in our society.

Thank you, Miss Clark, for calling me to speak. I am grateful to the National Audit Office for producing a fantastic report and to my fellow PAC members for adding value to it. I hope that the Department of Health and others will act on it soon.

15:44

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee and the NAO on an important report that sheds light on a lot of health policy issues. I read with care the Government’s response to the report and it seemed that although it was well-meaning, it was sketchy. I hope that we will get some more detail on the points of concern to everyone who has spoken in the debate.

I cannot address the issue without repeating what the PAC has said: under my Government, inequality widened. I would not want to resile from that. I hope that the new Government can build on our achievements in fighting health inequality—there were substantial achievements—and learn from our mistakes. That is what the PAC is trying to point towards in its report. In its report summary, the PAC states:

“It is important that tackling health inequalities does not slip down the Department’s agenda.”

I will try to refrain from commenting on the drama and excitement surrounding the Government’s health reforms. However, in that drama, excitement and Sturm and Drang—as the Germans say—it would be very sad indeed if the progress made was lost sight of and the need to deal with health inequalities in practice and in a targeted fashion slipped down the agenda. One of the most important points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the PAC, was that we can have all the good will in the world but unless we are focused on the issue and there is a targeted policy approach, the outcomes that we all want to see will slip away.

Health inequalities are an international issue. In the United States, research shows that if black Americans had the same mortality rates as white Americans, there would be 800,000 fewer deaths over a decade. Even in one of the richest countries in the world, they have not been able to tackle the blight of health inequality. If we consider other countries, we will see that life expectancy for women in Zimbabwe is 42 and in Afghanistan it is 44. In contrast, that figure is 86 in Japan.

Probably the greatest single contribution to tackling health inequalities was made by Clem Attlee’s Government under the leadership of Aneurin Bevan in establishing a national health service. We were given a health service that is comprehensive, universal and free at the point of access. There is no question but that the nation’s health has improved massively since the introduction of the NHS. Yet since the 1930s, despite the creation of the NHS, vast social reforms and colossal scientific advances, the gap in mortality between professional and unskilled men has more than doubled. We need to pause and reflect on that because it shows the difficulty of engaging with inequalities.

I think it was more than 30 years ago that Julian Tudor Hart wrote about the inverse care law and pointed out that the availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the needs of the population that is being served. That accounts for the very low numbers of doctors in some parts of the east end of London and so on. As we touched on earlier, people in the poorest areas of London, Manchester or Glasgow will die seven, 11 and, in Glasgow, 28 years earlier than people living in the same urban conurbation.

We have heard in the debate about what a Labour Government tried to do on health inequality. From the glittering eminence of my right hon. Friend’s position as Chair of the PAC, she said on the issue that the previous Labour Government were good at policy papers but not so good at implementation. As a humble Opposition Front Bencher, I would not dream of saying that, but I repeat what she said because it might be of interest to people who are following the debate. Of course, there is a lesson there for the Government and all of us concerned with public health. I would like to make this point about Labour’s time in government. The decline in public health outcomes did not begin with a Labour Government—or certainly not the last Labour Government. In the early 1970s, the mortality rate among men from the lower socio-economic groups was twice as high as those in the top professional groups. By the early 1990s, that was three times higher.

The then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), commissioned the Black report and we instituted a programme for action, which, as we heard, in some ways fell short. Let us not forget the advances that were made, however: shorter waiting times, many more operations, greatly improved infection control, and better survival rates for cancer and heart disease. Those advances were not just about figures. The most recent Ipsos MORI poll on voter satisfaction with the NHS showed that it had risen from when the Labour Government came in from 55% to 71%—the highest ever reported.

We did make some advances, and some of them specifically related to health inequalities: on cardiovascular disease, the gap closed by almost a third; on cancer, it closed by an eighth, and the trend should be for it to close even faster; life expectancy and infant mortality rates have improved; and last year, statistics showed that the rate of teenage pregnancies was at its lowest for a decade. We put £21 billion into early years education and child care and we have gone from having no Sure Start children’s centres in 1997 to more than 3,000. Overall, we raised total health expenditure on public health, as hon. Members said earlier. By the time we left office, we were spending 4% on public health. None the less, the gap remains.

On this side of the House, we accept the PAC report, but there are specifics in the Government’s response on which I would like to hear more information. The Government partially agree with the report’s first conclusion, which is that the gap in life expectancy is continuing to widen. However, it is not clear what the Government will do to narrow the gap more quickly than the previous Government. The second conclusion relates to cost-effective recommendations. As has been said, there are three specific recommendations: medicine for blood pressure, medicine for cholesterol, and smoking cessation. It is not clear from the Government’s response how they will embed those specific targets and strategies into the system that they are building. They talk about the Department embedding health inequalities in the emerging system, but they do not say how. The Government’s response states:

“Duties will be placed on the NHS Commissioning Board to reduce inequalities in access to outcomes from healthcare.”

That does not state how. That does not say what the targets will be. That does not say what the penalties will be if those duties are not met.

One of the most important points, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking spoke about, relates to GP shortages and the existence, still, of some single-handed GP practices, which are not the best. All the Government have to say on that is:

“The Government is committed to addressing these issues…following discussions with the BMA General Practitioners Committee.”

For anyone who knows Government and who knows the BMA General Practitioners Committee, that does not say very much at all. Again, I would like a little bit more detail on how the Government are going to battle with the BMA on that one.

No. 4 in the conclusions and recommendations section of the report states that

“GPs fail to focus their attention sufficiently on the more deprived people registered with their practices”—

and I would add, as an east end MP, those people who are not registered at all. Tuberculosis and malaria are big issues in the east end for populations who are largely not registered. I am not against more GP involvement in commissioning in principle, but one of my fears is that it would be all too easy for GPs to commission for the list. It would be disastrous for public health and health inequality to do that in the east end of London. For all sorts of reasons, we have large populations of people who are not on the list, not least because historically people in the east end would just rock up at Guy’s, Tommy’s or Bart’s and get treated—they did not bother to register. We therefore have to understand how, under the new system, the GP commissioners will be able—will be forced, actually—to commission for the population, and not the list.

I read what the Government have to say about making GPs focus more attention on deprived people. I have read it several times and I still do not understand, because if the GPs can make a decent living while not focusing on the most deprived people on their lists, which is what they have done hitherto, what is to make them change their habits?

Another concern is the numbers of PCTs. That will change with the reorganisation, but the fact is that areas with the highest deprivation still do not get the money due to them under the Department’s funding formula. We hear about the health premium, which sounds reassuring, but I know, from examining how the education premium will work in Hackney, that it will not leave us a penny better off. I would like to know how a health premium will help to get extra money to areas of high deprivation.

One issue of most concern is that when the PAC report states:

“The NHS spends 4% of its funding on prevention, although individual commissioners’ spending on prevention is not readily identifiable”,

the Government respond by stating:

“The Department does not believe it is for central Government to require Directors of Public Health to benchmark the costs and effectiveness of their public health activity—this will be a local responsibility.”

All that is well and good—in Hackney there some activist and committed GPs who came to Hackney because they are committed to fighting health inequality. I worry, however, that it will leave some of the most vulnerable members of our society entirely at the mercy of what their local authority thinks it is able to deliver in public health. I am very concerned about the unwillingness of the Government to benchmark costs and effectiveness and to find a way to promote the simple activities on blood pressure medication, cholesterol medication and smoking cessation.

In conclusion, the Government have said some encouraging things about public health in a general sense, but if there is one lesson to learn from the PAC report it is that having good intentions in a general sense, and even having wonderful policies in a general sense, is not the same as having targeted mechanisms to deliver improved public health outcomes for the very poorest. The Government set a lot of store by a more informed population going online, comparing statistics and choosing—the market, really. In the part of London that I come from, it is not reasonable to expect the poor, the elderly and the very young to universally have access to computers and, at a time of crisis and illness, to be comparing figures and doing sums on their laptop computers.

If the Government are serious about public health, they must first learn from the mistakes of the previous Government. Secondly, they simply cannot leave it to the vagaries of local authorities and the interests of local GP consortia to deliver the overall consistency in public health that will give us the narrowing of health inequalities that we want to see. I can stand on the top floor of my house in Hackney and see the towers of the City of London, but I might as well be in another country. It would be a tragedy if, despite the challenges that the Minister will no doubt tell us about, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world we cannot deliver the mechanisms to narrow that gap. That would be very sad indeed and I await with interest the Minister’s response to the debate.

15:59

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)]

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon serving under your chairmanship, Miss Clark, for what I think is the second time.

I will endeavour to answer all the issues that have been raised in the debate. I welcome the report from the Public Accounts Committee. There is no doubt that health inequalities belong to another age and certainly have no place in modern society. Anything that brings this issue to the fore is entirely welcome. As the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said, health inequalities are terrible, and it is shocking that they exist to such a great extent. I shall deal later in my remarks with the questions that have been raised. If Members wish to intervene, I will be happy to take interventions, but if they hang on, I will get to all their questions in time.

The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was absolutely right to say that lessons should be learned. The problem with government generally, at every level and irrespective of political party, is that people tend to turn up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed but do not take any notice of what has gone before. In fact, the Government and politicians should have the humility to recognise that if things were not achieved earlier, it was not necessarily because of the incompetence of the previous incumbents but because sometimes it is difficult to do something, and this is one area where that applies. As was said earlier, this is not a partisan issue. It is something that we need to act on across the board. The important thing is truly to understand what we are talking about when we talk about public health.

I do not think that, strictly speaking, I have to register an interest, but I should mention that my husband is a public health physician, although not working as a director of public health. It is extraordinary that we have had this discussion this afternoon without yet mentioning the public health profession or directors of public health—members of the public health profession will be somewhat disappointed, because they are pivotal to many of the changes that we want to introduce.

My Government want to improve the health of the poorest most quickly. If we are to achieve better health outcomes, particularly compared with other countries, that must be more than a pipe-dream. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who is, indeed, my favourite member of the Public Accounts Committee— [Interruption.] This is a love-in. He mentioned that it is extremely easy to assert things, but we do not want assertions but real action. That must be a fundamental part of our strategy in health care and in other areas such as housing, education and social care. We believe that the more devolved health system that we are developing will enable a sharper focus on disadvantaged areas across the country.

The Government want to provide far more opportunities for local people and organisations, including statutory organisations, to plan and run health initiatives specifically tailored to their communities. We have set out proposals to reform the delivery of health services in England. They are contained in two White Papers, which I am sure Members are familiar with: one is for NHS services, and the other is for public health. Reducing health inequalities must, and will, be embedded in the reformed architecture that we propose.

[Margaret Hodge]

I believe that, in principle, all of us would support devolution of power, but I draw to the Minister’s attention constituencies such as mine—this is more a constituency point than a general point. My constituency, which is a working-class area, is quite uniform in class structure. The whole public service infrastructure is weak, whether one looks at education, health, public health, GPs or the voluntary sector. If there is devolution to the poorest areas with poor infrastructure, it will be extremely difficult for them to grow from within themselves the necessary capabilities to tackle some of these deeply entrenched problems. There is a role for the centre, through Government, to intervene and try to build capability so that we can achieve an impact. I am concerned that if the whole mantra is about devolution, we will leave large areas of the country with concentrations of poverty and need struggling to achieve the kind of outcomes that she and we would want.

[Anne Milton]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. She is absolutely right to mention capacity building. There are areas where there is weakness across the board, and that is certainly something that we need to address. However, it is quite interesting what local areas can do with good leadership and the right levers and safeguards in place. I believe that it was out her way that I visited a scheme in an area with a high incidence of domestic violence. The local authority connected the council’s noise nuisance helpline and the domestic violence team, on the basis that where there is noise from neighbours there will probably be violence in the home. After a certain number of calls about a certain address, the domestic violence team is alerted and then goes in—a simple intervention, and a kind of capacity. Some of that is down to the confidence of the people working in the area, some of it is to do with expertise, and some of it—general practice has been mentioned quite a lot—involves putting in incentives to ensure that we get people with the skills that are needed to build that capacity.

I was not going to mention this, but we have made, for instance, a commitment to increasing radically the health visitor work force. One of the modules in health visitor training that we are looking at is about teaching new health visitors how to build capacity in communities. It is a nebulous thing, but it is important that we understand it. There is no doubt that communities, Governments and even empires have struggled for donkeys’ years with the question of how to improve public health. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington mentioned that in 1948, the NHS itself was a major public health advance. It secured health services for all, regardless of ability to pay. I make no apology for giving a history lesson. I am not a history scholar, but it is important to take on board the history of public health. At the same time, local authorities were given responsibilities for the health of children and mothers, and for the control of infections. At the same time, they retained their role in planning, sanitation and overseeing the health of their local population through medical officers of health.

In the NHS reforms of 1974, further unification of health services resulted in the transfer of some of those health functions from local government to the NHS, including many that we would recognise as public health functions. I draw Members back to the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington about the status of public health. One of the reasons why the medical profession at that time pulled public health out of local authorities was to do with status, and the clout that they felt they had. Clearly, if one looks at what we are doing now, that was probably a mistake, but there were issues to deal with. The Government have to be clear about how we want the public health profession to look.

That period coincided with advancing knowledge that allowed us to identify the causes of chronic disease and health inequalities. All of those things needed to be tackled as they became apparent. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) mentioned the Black report, which was published in 1980. It showed that although there had been a significant improvement in health across society, there was still a relationship between class and infant mortality, life expectancy and access to medical services. It is shocking that one could write the same thing today, 31 years on.

That report was followed by the first public health White Paper, “The Health of the Nation”, which recognised that there were considerable variations in health by area, ethnic group and occupation. A new public health agenda was set, and it provided a foundation for action over the past 30 years. There has been a great deal of work, with the best of intentions. I do not doubt the previous Government’s intentions. As I said in my opening remarks, it is important to have some humility and understand that the intent was there. However, we did not get the results that everyone wanted.

We need a new approach, and that is backed up by recent data from the London Health Observatory and from the Marmot review team, which show that although life expectancy is increasing in all socio-economic groups, it also reinforces inequalities. The data also show the variation in life expectancy at birth between men and women and between local authorities, and the pronounced inequalities even within local authority areas including, for example, Westminster, which has the widest within-area inequality gap, at just under 17 years for men: a man born in one part of the borough can conceivably expect to live almost two decades longer than his friend born a short distance away.

I do not apologise for using figures, because when we talk about health inequalities, people glaze over and are not terribly sure what it is about. They think it is something to do with obesity, smoking or something like that, but the figures tell the real story. The smallest inequality gap for men is in Wokingham in Berkshire, at less than three years, and for women the smallest gap is in Telford and Wrekin, at slightly less than two years—so we all know where to move. It is worth repeating that those are the smallest differences in the entire country, so even in the areas with the best outcomes, we are still talking about differences in years.

It stands to reason that a community in Lancashire, for example, might face different health problems from one in Hackney, where I used to work. The public health White Paper therefore sets out a new way of working. It gives a different flavour to how we view public health, looking at our lifecycles and highlighting the points where we can intervene to make a difference. It is a way of working that shifts power away from central Government and into the hands of communities.

We had a short discussion about devolving power, and it is a brave Government who devolve authority for something for which they will be held responsible in the end. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, who said there has been a yo-yo between local devolution and centralised power; there has not. All Governments like to centralise things and keep control, because at the end of the day at a general election they will be blamed or otherwise for what has happened. It is quite brave to devolve power, but sometimes it is the right thing to do.

The new way of working will enable local areas to improve health throughout people’s lives, reduce inequalities and focus on the needs of the local population. The White Paper also underlines the priority we have given to tackling inequalities in supporting the principles of the Marmot review, which is important. The White Paper recognises the value of an approach that sees the importance of starting well, even before a child is born. Life chances are set well before someone pokes their head out into the world.

The new body, Public Health England, will have an important role. It will bring together what I suggest is a rather fragmented system and will span public health; it will improve the well-being of the population, targeting the poor in particular; and it will protect the public from health threats, which have not been mentioned, but they are an issue. There are inequalities in public health threats and, without a doubt, there are inequalities worldwide. Public Health England will need to work closely with the NHS, to ensure that health services continue to play a strong role and that NHS services play an increasingly large part in that mission. There has been a tendency for NHS services to see themselves simply as services to cure an immediate problem, rather than as part of a wider, more holistic approach to improving individuals’ health.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister spoke about enabling communities, which is one of those things that sound very nice. How could one disagree with it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking made a point about how social infrastructure in some communities has never been robust, but there is also a point about the social capital of some of those communities. Many of them are simply not socially homogenous. Representing Hackney, my fear is that enabling communities is all well and good, but it will enable the parts of the community with more social capital and confidence, who are generally noisier, at the expense of socially excluded groups.

[Anne Milton]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue. That is what has happened. On a more general point, cherry-picking is a problem. It is very easy to get certain people to lose a couple of stone—[Interruption.] Actually, sometimes it is quite hard to get them to lose a couple of stone and go down the gym. To be rather crass and non-specific, it is easier to get the middle classes to go to the gym and to eat a better diet.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the fact that some areas are very disparate and disconnected. I am an optimist, and I believe that there is social capital. Central Government are very poor at delivering in local areas. I have worked in the most deprived part of the country and lived in the most affluent, and there is a world of difference. It is extraordinary to see—they could be different planets. Central Government is a clumsy tool to deliver something that is very difficult to bring about on the ground, so we must ensure that we have levers and build social capital.

I mentioned health visitors as an example, and a universal health visiting service is extremely important. When we think about hard-to-reach communities, we forget just how hard to reach they are. For some people, the only interaction they have with any health or social service is when they have their baby. Their kids might not go to nursery school or might frequently play truant from school, and they are extremely difficult to get hold of. To be honest, a universal health visiting service is probably the single most important measure we have announced, because it will get hold of those families who are so difficult to reach.

There has been talk of increased health funding. I will not deny that the previous Government put a significant amount of money into health, and I welcome the rather cross-party approach in this debate to acknowledging that that did not always produce returns, certainly not in public health. One problem was that the budget was not ring-fenced, but it will be ring-fenced now. I will return to some points made on ring-fencing and localism and the tension between them. It is important that local government be given the responsibility and freedoms to make a major impact on improving health, backed by ring-fenced budgets.

The right hon. Member for Barking gave an interesting example about the ineffectiveness of one-to-one smoking cessation programmes. More generally, she said that it is extraordinary that we do not drive or back up with evidence what we do in health, which to most people is a science-based discipline with science-based professions. I may have a higher opinion of local government than my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. I think that local government knows a lot about its local area and is often better at dealing with evidence than health services are.

The size of the ring-fenced grant will be important, because when the money was not ring-fenced it was an easy pot from which to pinch. The trouble is that the tabloid newspapers—I hesitate to mention one in particular—do not come out screaming about the poverty of the public’s health, although they come out screaming when services go. It was too easy to pinch the money, which is why it needs to be ring-fenced. It must also be based on relative population health need and weighted for inequalities, so that the areas with the greatest need will get the most.

Directors of public health will lead on action to address health inequalities. Public health physicians have done tremendous work. The public health observatories have done fantastic work, but they have tended to work in a cupboard and do not feel that they are getting their message across. Locating them in local authorities will bring together the threads that influence health, not only health care itself, but other determinants such as housing, transport, employment—the causes of the causes of poor public health, if you like.

There will be financial rewards for progress, and greater transparency so that people can see the results achieved. The new health premium will provide an incentive to reduce health inequalities and reward progress. That does not necessarily mean cherry-picking the easy cases. The programme will be designed to reward instances where progress has been made, and those places that have seen the greatest impact in areas with a poverty of outcomes in reducing inequalities. Almost by definition, those will be the areas where health inequalities are greatest.

[Margaret Hodge]

I understand the thinking behind the incentives and rewards, but my point was about the other side of that coin. Will there be penalties for those high-need areas with huge health inequalities that fail to perform? Although it is good to reward the good performers, that does not help people living in communities where there are bad performers. What are the Government’s intentions on that point?

[Anne Milton]

The right hon. Lady is right to raise that point. I was trying to stress that the healthiest areas will not necessarily be those that receive the most money. In theory, those areas that start from the lowest base should have the greatest opportunity to get those rewards.

Perhaps I can connect the right hon. Lady’s point with that made by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. This debate is slightly premature because a consultation on the outcomes is currently under way, and we are also looking at the finances, at how much each local authority will have and at the size of the health premium. We are acutely aware—as I am sure are all Opposition Members—of the problem of unintended consequences.

Let us take an obvious example of A and E waiting times. It is right to want people not to wait in A and E for very long, and indeed they did not. If that is given as a target, the health service is good—as are most professionals—and it will fulfil that target. It will get people out of A and E. However, what was never measured was whether people got the care they needed. Did they get better or were they just transferred up to a ward sooner than they should have been? It is important to look at that. To some extent, this matter is a work in progress and we are keen to learn and listen to what people have to say. It is important not to have perverse incentives but to put in place the levers that we need to produce the right results in areas where there is possibly poor capacity, or areas that need building up or contain inequalities.

In some areas there are difficult cultural issues. To return to the issue of domestic violence, sometimes those working in the health service will collude with some of the men who perpetrate that violence. It gets very complicated and we need a system that takes account of all those issues.

[Nick Smith]

I commend the Minister’s emphasis on the directors of public health. The director of the Aneurin Bevan health board in south Wales is terrific and I will meet with her in a few weeks’ time. She has a good action plan together with her comparable officer in the local authority, and I hope that they will build a good partnership working together on public health. Will the Minister let us know how negotiations are going with the British Medical Association, and whether as part of the contract with GPs, public health will be given enough attention and emphasis?

[Anne Milton]

I will give a politician’s answer and say that we are currently having a constructive dialogue with the BMA. I cannot give the details of that and I am not personally involved. However, it is important to get that matter right, and I am sure that details will emerge. The Health and Social Care Bill is currently in Committee, and some of the details about how the mechanisms will work have been considered during that process. The negotiations are ongoing, and we will let hon. Members know.

[Ms Abbott]

Everybody always has a constructive relationship with the BMA.

[Anne Milton]

I was not being ironic.

[Ms Abbott]

Neither am I. My point is that some parts of the GP profession may be resistant to hearing anything from a local authority director of public health because they might see that as local authority bureaucrats telling them what to do. There may be some parts of the GP profession that think they know what public health is. They think that it is about injecting people and about cash money per hundred. It must be clear in the contract negotiation that GPs are signed up to public health in the sense that we in this debate understand it, rather than in the way that some of them have historically understood it.

[Anne Milton]

I am sure that those GPs are few and far between, but it is important to acknowledge that point. I say to the hon. Lady that the world just changed. The NHS has a key role to play in helping to reduce inequalities that affect disadvantaged people, and GPs are part of that. I know that there has been a lot of debate and discussion about the issue, and bringing decision making closer to home for GPs will be an extremely important part of levering-in better commissioning and focus on public health. Services are often commissioned because people’s health is poor. GPs will be faced with the consequences of poor public health every day, and they will commission services to deal with those consequences.

The White Paper set the proposals for the establishment of the independent national health service commissioning board and the new NHS outcomes. The proposed outcome frameworks for the NHS and public health will have the promotion and protection of equality at their heart. That aim underpinned everything when the frameworks were developed and it is no less relevant now.

As the hon. Lady said, the Health and Social Care Bill introduces specific duties on health inequalities that are enshrined in law for the first time. I share her cynicism a little. Governments often enshrine duties in law, but what matters is who holds them to account. The Secretary of State will be held to account, but Parliament has a role. Although this debate is not attended by many people, it is part of that process of holding the Government to account.

[Mr Bacon]

I was interested in that exchange and the intervention by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I draw her attention to the evidence taken by the Committee on Tuesday morning from the GP running the consortium in Essex. Together with the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, we were exploring the fact that there is great variation among GPs that cannot all be explained by the health variations and socio-economic conditions one would expect.

It was acknowledged that there are serious and challenging questions that need to be put to GPs. The GP from Essex is involved with teaching and improving the capacities of the consortia, and he has conversations with other GPs as he goes around his patch to look at the variations. I asked him how important it is during those conversations that he is also a GP and a clinician. He said, “It is essential. I would not be able to have the conversation otherwise.” I listened to the intervention by hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington with some interest. When that conversation between the director of public health and the GP takes place, the question will be whether the GP is listening.

[Anne Milton]

There is a question of whether the GP is listening and of whether the levers exist to make the GP listen.

This is a nebulous point to make, but I have to make it. Improving public health is about changing a mindset. We always underplay the importance of not only ministerial but parliamentary leadership on issues such as this. I am talking about a shift of focus on to public health, ensuring that the professions involved in health service delivery and the professions involved in the delivery of other services that affect people’s health receive a clear message that that is now a priority for the Government. When we talk to people who work on the ground, particularly at senior management levels, we see that that message is heard very clearly by them; it does filter down. Ministerial leadership is required, as is leadership from all of us on our individual patches.

[Nick Smith]

Does the Minister anticipate growth in the number of GPs in areas of multiple deprivation, which therefore have high levels of health inequalities? That has emerged from this afternoon’s debate as one of the big issues that need to be addressed. How easy will it be for practice-based commissioning to allow for growth in GP numbers in those areas, which are suffering the greatest health inequalities?

[Anne Milton]

As many people have pointed out—the Public Accounts Committee report focused on this—access to GPs is a major issue, and not just in urban areas such as Redcar but in rural and isolated communities. I will come on to that.

Subject to parliamentary approval, because the Health and Social Care Bill is in Committee at the moment, the NHS commissioning board and GP commissioning consortia will be duty bound to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to and the outcomes from health care. That does not make it happen, but the duty is in the Bill and will be important. GP commissioning consortia will have to keep on improving the quality of their services, reducing geographical variations in standards. To increase the democratic legitimacy of health services, health and well-being boards will have elected councillors to represent the views of local communities.

To be truly successful, we need to be sure that the most vulnerable groups experience the most pronounced benefits. That is an obvious thing to say, but it is important. We are therefore driving ahead with the “Inclusion Health” programme, to focus on improving access and outcomes for the most vulnerable groups. Those are often the groups of people who are not registered with GPs or who are homeless. It is important that the really hard-to-reach groups get that additional focus, because they are not necessarily swept up by the other things that we are doing. We need to keep an eye on that.

I apologise if I am incorrect, but I believe that the life expectancy of the average Traveller is 59 years. The figures for the most excluded groups are truly shocking. Therefore, I fully welcome the Public Accounts Committee report and its recommendations. They were formally responded to in the “Treasury Minutes” dated 16 February. I know that many questions remain, but those minutes give a flavour of how we propose to embed the recommendations in the reformed health care system.

We need to ensure that the GP-patient relationship is as effective as possible. If we are not talking about a family who perhaps have contact with health care services only when they have a baby, the GP is the most important point of contact. On average, families with children under the age of two will visit their GP eight times a year. That is a massive opportunity to put additional emphasis on information and action to improve the health of families. We want to renegotiate the GP contract. The idea is to ensure that disadvantaged areas get the right level of access to GPs. The way to do that, as has always been the case, is to provide incentives to make it happen.

GPs need to improve the health of vulnerable people, not cherry-pick the easiest ones at the top of the pile. They need to encourage the uptake of good-practice preventive treatments. Changes to the quality and outcomes framework prevalence adjustment reward practices in a fairer way, particularly because deprived communities often have a higher prevalence of many of the QOF conditions.

I urge my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk to exercise some caution when talking about single-handed GP practices. His point was well made, in that practitioners who practise independently—single-handed—do not necessarily have the best outcomes, but in saying that, we should not exclude the very good single-handed practices. I saw one such practice recently. The GP there has recently been accredited for training and was serving his community absolutely brilliantly.

We have also proposed that at least 15% of the current value of the QOF should be devoted to evidence-based public health and primary prevention indicators from 2013. That answers a point raised by the right hon. Member for Barking. The funding for that element of the QOF will be within the public health England budget.

As the Public Accounts Committee report says, the most cost-effective interventions to improve life expectancy have been developed. Now we need to ensure that they are rolled out as far and as effectively as possible. The report of the review by Professor Marmot has helped us to understand the steps that we need to take, and we shall take them. The public health White Paper adopts the review’s framework of lifelong attention, which will mean a truly cradle-to-grave approach.

In thinking about public health, we must not forget that that is not just about physical health. It is also about people’s mental health and well-being. We need only consider some of the difficult issues that surround young people when they are growing up. We can consider the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. In the last year for which there were figures, there was a rise of 3%. There has been good progress on unwanted pregnancies and abortions. There has been some progress on unintended conceptions among under-18s, but there are still 36,000. There are still 189,000 abortions every year, of which one third are repeat abortions. We can consider the figures for drinking and young people and the fact that 320,000 young people take up smoking every year. We have a lot to do with regard to young people’s health.

We can split health services into NHS services and public health. We can split public health further, into preventive work and curative work. What do we do when people have started to smoke or drink or have had sex when they should not have done? Then we can consider how to prevent that. There is no doubt that we need to do a great deal to ensure that young people have the skills, the self-confidence and the self-esteem that mean that they are equipped to make decisions about the difficult issues that they face.

[Mr Bacon]

Before the Minister finishes speaking, will she give way?

[Anne Milton]

I have not quite finished yet, but I will happily give way. I will not keep my hon. Friend long!

[Mr Bacon]

I mistook what the Minister was saying for her peroration; it was the dulcet way in which she was speaking. On single-handed practices and particularly because she mentioned mental health, I want to say for the record that I do not doubt for one minute that there are some superb single-handed practices. The point that we made in our report, at paragraph 13, was this:

“A contributory factor to low levels of GP coverage has been the presence of single-handed GP practices.”

I was also making the point that people generally work better together, and it is better for someone’s mental health as a worker if they are working with people rather than alone. I speak from experience, having worked in a large agency in London with 200 employees and then having set up my own business and worked solus. What surprised me most—apart from my clients, of course—was the amount of contact that I had in the workplace, which was much lower. That was quite an unexpected aspect of it. All other things being equal, surely it must be better for GPs to work in groups than to work alone. That is in addition to the effect that it would have on overall levels of coverage.

[Anne Milton]

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is better to work together. Peer support is important, as is peer review. The identification of children at risk in A and E is important, but it is often junior paediatricians who see such children when what is actually needed is access—it can be by phone—to someone who has been doing the job a lot longer so that they can run through with them the signs and symptoms that they have seen at A and E. That sort of support is invaluable. A single- handed GP might well miss out on that. Where there are good single-handed GPs, we should encourage them to work together—not necessarily in the same practice, but perhaps in the same building. What matters to me, and my hon. Friend mentioned it earlier, is not how things happen, but doing what works.

The right hon. Member for Barking spoke about evidence, which is crucial. She rightly highlighted the issue of cancer, which was the subject of a recent Committee report, and the need for early diagnosis and early intervention. I accept what the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said about not everyone having access to computers or other fancy communications equipment, although most people can text these days, so there other ways of communicating. However much the Government do and whatever is done locally by GPs on early diagnosis, at the end of the day, we rely on people going to the doctor with their symptoms.

For instance, when it comes to bowel cancer, we are not very good at talking about what is in our knickers or underpants, and men are particularly bad at it. The problem with bowel cancer is that men do not go to their doctor when they have symptoms. We need to get the information out there, but improving the public’s health is largely about giving people the information, levering them into settings and giving them lots of opportunities to do so.

The right hon. Lady said that some things are much easier to do than others. For instance, it is easier to do things on which figures can be collected. However, smoking is still difficult to deal with. We and, I think, Canada perform better than almost any other country. We have made huge progress on that front, but there is a great deal more to do.

I have probably touched on most of the matters raised during our debate, but I wish to say a final word about public health. Public health goes back a lot further than people might think. The first report into the health of the working man was the Chadwick report of the 1840s. Many remember John Snow and the Broad street pump in 1854, and the outbreak of cholera that killed 500 in the first 10 days. Then we had the London sewers in 1858 and the Royal Sanitary Commission of 1871. Interventions in public health go back a long way, but it is important to remember that most of them derived from local authority action. Public health is not just about the health service.

I sit on many committees, including two Cabinet sub-committees—one on social justice and one on public health. The one on public health is particularly successful. It brings all Departments together because it recognises that public health is everybody’s business. It is a transport issue, an environment issue, a local government issue, and an education issue. It spans all the Whitehall Departments. It therefore has to span all the ministries. One of the challenges for the Department of Health is to ensure that every Department is taking whatever action it can to improve people’s health.

I know that the matter is well suited to local government. Everyone loves to hate the local council, particularly at this time of year, but they are complex organisations, dealing with a multitude of things and they know the local community well. I want to get to the day when, instead of seeing local councillors in the council chamber arguing about whether Mrs Smith at 17 Acacia avenue puts an extension on the back of her kitchen, they are saying things such as, “It’s a disgrace that the people who live in your ward live 17 years longer than those in my ward.” That would be a real success. I look to local councillors to take up the baton and to fight for public health in their areas.

We know what we need to do in the short and long terms, and we know that it can be done. Indeed, some disadvantaged areas are already narrowing some of the gaps in health outcomes. I know that our proposed reforms will put incentives in place to drive delivery at a local level, allowing local authorities and the NHS to work together.

There are health imperatives and there are financial imperatives, but there is also a moral imperative. We in Government can spend a lot of time legislating and making regulations. A lot of things are going on at the moment; we have a very difficult economic climate, and foreign affairs are now exercising us. We have to remember sometimes that there are strong and ever-present moral imperatives to take action and to improve public health.

16:46

[Margaret Hodge]

I thank both Front Benchers—the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—for their contributions, and I thank you Miss Clark for chairing our debate so well. It is the first time that I have heard the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) speak as Minister. I am sorry that it is always so difficult to keep other Members in this place on Thursday afternoons. None the less, it has been a quality debate, and I am grateful for the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. We will return to the subject because, as the Minister said, it unites parties and is of huge importance to the people. I look forward to being able to say, “And we are making progress.”

Question put and agreed to.

16:47

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

Thursday 3 March 2011

Pensions Consultation

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The Independent Public Service Pensions Commission interim report, led by Lord Hutton of Furness, recommended that the Government undertake a review of the fair deal policy. The Government confirmed their plans to take forward this recommendation at the spending review and have today launched a public consultation.

The Government welcome contributions from all interested groups.

The consultation document has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and can be found on the HM Treasury website at:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_fair_deal _policy_publicsector.htm

and will close on 15 June 2011.

Office of Tax Simplification

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government created the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) in July 2010 to provide independent advice on simplifying the tax system.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the OTS to review a list of all reliefs, allowances and exemptions, applying to both businesses and individuals, within the taxes and duties administered by HM Revenue and Customs, and to identify those reliefs that should be repealed or simplified to support the Government’s objective for a simpler tax system.

In November 2010 the OTS published a list of all reliefs in the tax system—1,042 in total. Further work narrowed this to 155 reliefs that they have now reviewed in detail.

Today the OTS has published its final report into its review of tax reliefs. It recommends that 45 reliefs be abolished, 17 be simplified and 54 retained in their current form.

The Government will respond to this report at the Budget on 23 March 2011. A copy of the report has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Pension Tax Relief

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

As announced in October, from April 2011 the annual allowance (AA) for tax-privileged pension saving will be reduced from £255,000 to £50,000 and from April 2012 the lifetime allowance will be reduced from £1.8 million to £1.5 million. This is a simpler and fairer approach to making a more sustainable and affordable system of pensions tax relief than the previous Government’s complex and damaging proposals. The reduction of these allowances will generate around £4 billion annual revenue in the steady state while preserving incentives to save, and lessening the impact on the ability of UK business to attract and retain talent. This approach has been welcomed by pension and employer groups and the Government have continued to work in consultation with them to finalise the design of the new pensions tax regime.

The Government expect most individuals and employers to adapt their pension saving behaviour to avoid incurring a charge by exceeding the AA, and has put in place measures such as the carry forward of unused allowances to protect individuals further. However, recognising that in some circumstances individuals could still see high charges reflecting significant uplift in pension value in a given year, the Government have consulted on options to enable individuals to meet these charges from their pension benefits.

In line with the strong preference expressed by most respondents, the Government have decided that where AA charges are met from pension benefits, the tax should be paid at the point the charge arises. In effect, schemes will have a considerable amount of time to complete the payment process, with additional flexibility being granted in the first year. Individuals with AA charges above £2,000 will be able to elect for the full liability to be met from their pension benefit. Schemes will be required to operate this facility only where an individual has exceeded the AA outright within that scheme in the relevant year. The Government have given schemes flexibility in how they operate, but is clear that any adjustment to an individual’s pension benefit should be fair to all scheme members.

The detailed policy specification has been set out in a summary of responses document and draft clauses on which the Government welcome comment by 17 March. An update to the tax information and impact note has also been made. All documents are available on the Treasury website, and have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Disabled Facilities Grant

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)]

Today the Department for Communities and Local Government is announcing the local authority allocations for the disabled facilities grant programme in England, making available £180 million, an increase of 11 million the amount allocated for 2010-11. Local authorities are being informed of their individual allocations. Details of the amount awarded to each authority will be available on the Department for Communities and Local Government website and a table detailing the funds provided to individual authorities has been placed in the Library of the House.

The disabled facilities grant programme has been protected within the spending review. The programme helps disabled people to live as comfortably and independently as possible in their own homes through the provision of adaptations. Entitlement to a disabled facilities grant is mandatory for eligible disabled people and the grant provides financial assistance for the provision of a wide-range of housing adaptations ranging from stair lifts and level access showers to home extensions. The programme is therefore key in delivering the Government’s objective of providing increased levels of care and support to people in their own homes.

The Department for Communities and Local Government wrote to all local authorities in January 2011 to announce a small change to the allocation methodology for the disabled facilities grant for the financial year 2011-12. In 2011-12 there is £180 million available to be distributed as disabled facilities grant to local authorities—an extra £11 million more than was available in 2010-11. All local authorities will, as a minimum, receive what they were allocated in 2010-11. The extra £11 million will then be shared between the local authorities using a relative needs weighted index.

The disabled facilities grant programme has improved the lives of many disabled people including disabled children and helped them avoid the need to leave family homes for specialist housing alternatives.

Olympic Stadium

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

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

My colleague the Minister for Sport and the Olympics and I have today given our approval to the recommendation of the Olympic Park Legacy Company to select the joint bid from West Ham United football club and the London borough of Newham as the preferred bidder for the legacy use of the Olympic stadium. We are therefore writing to the company informing it of our decisions as its joint Government founder members. The Mayor of London, as the other founder member of the company, will also write separately.

This completes the first stage of this process and means that the Olympic Park Legacy Company is now able to enter into negotiations with the consortium comprising West Ham United football club and the London borough of Newham to agree a lease for the Olympic stadium site on terms that are acceptable to Government and the Mayor of London and provide value for money to the public sector. We are delighted with the progress that has been made and very pleased we have reached this very significant milestone in determining the long-term legacy for the Olympic park following the games.

Vocational Education (Wolf Review)

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

High-quality vocational education is crucial to enabling social mobility, generating growth and making opportunity more equal for all young people.

Sadly, the system we have inherited means that too many existing vocational qualifications are of poor quality or are offered inappropriately to young people. Too many young people are studying courses that do not enable them to progress.

It is essential, therefore, that we ensure the vocational routes offered to young people are high quality and are recognised by employers and further and higher education.

Professor Wolf’s recommendations will help us to do just that. They have set a clear direction of travel that will lead to a real and sustained improvement in the vocational education on offer to young people in this country.

She highlights how the system is failing hundreds of thousands of young people and says:

350,000 students aged 16 to 19 are on programmes which score well in league tables but do not lead to higher education or stable paid employment;

high-quality apprenticeships are too rare and a decreasing proportion are being offered to teenagers;

examples of good quality, innovation and success in vocational education today are achieved in spite of the current funding and regulatory system and not because of it.

Professor Wolf’s recommendations shift 14 to19 vocational education away from the

“expensive, centralised and over-detailed approach that has been the hallmark of the last two decades”.

Instead she says England should move towards the systems favoured by the best providers of vocational education—Denmark, France and Germany, which delegate a large amount of decision-making and design to a local level.

Professor Wolf says society has

“no business placing 14-year-olds in tracks which they cannot leave”,

and says options for all young people must be kept open. She suggests that 14 to16-year-olds should spend at least 80% of their learning time on a broad academic “core”. This is in line with the best models of vocational education in Europe, which delay specialisation until post-16.

We will immediately accept four recommendations:

to allow further education lecturers to teach in school classrooms on the same basis as qualified teachers;

to clarify the rules on allowing industry professionals to teach in schools;

to allow any vocational qualification offered by a regulated awarding body to be taken by 14 to 19-year-olds;

slash the red tape to temporarily allow high-quality, established vocational qualifications, which are valued by employers, to be offered in schools and colleges from September.

We will now consider how best to implement Professor Wolf’s remaining recommendations. These include:

anyone who fails to achieve a good pass in GCSE English or maths must continue to study those subjects post-16. Currently less than half of all students fail to get an A* to C pass at GCSE;

the Government should increase continuing professional development (CPD) for mathematics teachers, especially post-16;

the removal of the perverse incentives, created by both the funding system and performance tables, to enter students for numerous low-quality qualifications. Higher quality courses should have higher scores in performance tables than “dead-end” ones, and funding should be per pupil not per qualification;

employers should be subsidised if they offer 16 to 18-year-old apprentices high-quality, off-the-job training, and an education with broad transferable elements;

scrapping the duty on colleges and schools to provide every 14 to 16-year-old with work-related learning. Longer internships for older students should be prioritised instead;

employers should be more involved in local colleges to ensure vocational qualifications valued by business are offered to students and are taught to industry standards;

promote the right of under 16s to be enrolled in colleges so they can benefit from high-quality vocational training available there, in creative arts, commerce or catering.

We will publish a full Government response to Professor Wolf’s report shortly.

Copies of the Wolf review of vocational education will be placed in the House Library.

Libya: Consular Response

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I wish to update the House on the efforts the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made to help British nationals depart Libya.

As the Prime Minister reported to this House on Monday 28 February 2011, more than 600 British nationals have been evacuated from Libya on UK-provided flights and ships. Many others have been able to leave Libya through a variety of other means. I am pleased to report that since then 11 British nationals were able to leave Benghazi on board HMS York on 2 March. We have also assisted in the evacuation of 43 different nationalities, including French, US, Canadian and New Zealand citizens.

Evacuation

Six chartered aircraft, organised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and an RAF C130 Hercules flight have brought out from Tripoli airport around 400 British nationals and 360 EU and other nationals.

HMS Cumberland made two voyages to Benghazi and evacuated 119 UK citizens and 303 EU and other citizens. HMS York has made one voyage to Benghazi and has evacuated another 11 UK and 32 EU and other citizens.

On Saturday 26 and Sunday 27 February RAF C130s were deployed in order to evacuate UK oil workers from the desert, and 95 British nationals and around 270 foreign nationals were evacuated.

Only a very few UK citizens remain in Libya who have asked to be evacuated. We are helping them to access the various evacuation options which remain. There are a number of other UK citizens who currently have chosen to stay in Libya. A significant number of these are dual nationals. Clearly these figures can change. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that those who wish to leave can do so.

For those who are evacuated to Valletta, in Malta, the FCO has arranged, for those who want it, onward transfer to the UK by charter flight or using existing commercial means.

All of these evacuations have been supported by staff reinforcements from within the region, as well as five rapid deployment teams.

The operations of the UK embassy were temporarily suspended on Saturday 26 February and since then our representation has been undertaken by the Turkish embassy in Tripoli. A locally employed UK vice-consul is currently working with them.

I would like to put on record the UK’s appreciation for all the support provided by our allies and partners during this difficult time and in particular the Turkish Government and the Government and people of Malta.

Consular Operation

This has been a consular crisis effort on an unprecedented scale. We have worked tirelessly to overcome the physical and logistical difficulties of co-ordinating the evacuation of hundreds of British nationals from a vast country and after the breakdown of law and order. Working with colleagues from across Government, most notably the Ministry of Defence and the United Kingdom Border Agency, FCO staff have been working round the clock to help bring home British nationals in Libya.

In total, since 21 February, more than 350 FCO staff have joined the consular and political efforts, including over 50 who were deployed to Libya or Valletta to work alongside our embassy teams. Of these, the majority have stepped forward as volunteers to ramp up our overall capacity and support their colleagues. They have done so above and beyond their normal day jobs.

As events in the middle east continue to develop, I wish to pay tribute to the determination and commitment of FCO staff to assist British citizens wherever they are in the world.

So long as British nationals remain in Libya, Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff stand ready to assist them.

Age Discrimination

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

The Government are today publishing a consultation document containing a draft order setting out proposed exceptions to a ban on age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, the exercise of public functions and the activities of private clubs and other associations.

The Government are committed to tackling harmful age discrimination. Our society is changing as people live longer, and it is important to ensure that people of all ages are treated fairly when, for example, receiving healthcare or trying to buy insurance.

The Equality Act 2010 contains a ban on age discrimination in the provision of services, the exercise of public functions and by associations. Before we implement the ban, we want to make sure that the new law:

does not prevent service providers treating people of various ages differently when there are beneficial or justifiable reasons for doing so: for example, through the offering of age-based concessions, such as free bus passes or cheaper rates at leisure centres to the over-65’s and students;

takes into account how people of different ages live and their different needs; and

takes into account how businesses and other organisations operate in order to avoid disproportionate burdens and unintended consequences.

The consultation published today, “Equality Act 2010: Banning age discrimination in services, public functions and associations—A consultation on proposed exceptions to the ban”, sets out those areas where we believe that different treatment of people of various ages is justified, and proposes how the legislation will be drafted to take account of these.

One area where age-based decisions can be justified is financial services—providers will still be permitted to make decisions and set charges based on an individual’s age, if such a policy is reasonable and based on reliable evidence about risk.

The consultation is also very clear that there will be no specific exceptions to the ban on age discrimination for the health and social care sectors. Any use of age in decision-making within the NHS and in social care will, if challenged, need to be objectively justified. This approach has been informed by extensive work with health and social care organisations and professionals, user groups and others with an interest in this issue. Our aim is to eradicate harmful discrimination, while at the same time allowing service providers to continue to treat people of different ages differently where this is beneficial or justifiable. When services deal with individuals, they should therefore continue to focus on the individual, taking account of his or her age where it is appropriate to do so.

The consultation runs from 3 March 2011 to 25 May 2011.

I will place copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office. It has also been published on the Government Equalities Office website at: www.equalities.gov.uk.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 24 and 25 February in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Justice, Lord McNally, and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following issues were discussed at the Council:

The interior day began with the Council adopting the ‘A’ points list. This included the adoption of the draft Council conclusions on the effective implementation of the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. The conclusions set out how the Council will ensure that the charter is reflected accurately in future EU legislation.

The Council also adopted Council conclusions on the Commission’s communication on a comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the European Union. The conclusions set out the Council’s views on the general principles arising from the communication and do not prejudice the need for careful and detailed consideration of any legislative proposals.

After the adoption of the ‘A’ points list, the Council, in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states), received an update from the Commission on the go-live date for the Visa Information System (VIS) regulation. The Commission said preparations at border crossings and consular posts in the first-phase region (north Africa) appeared on track. VIS would only go live once all consular staff there had been trained but current developments in the region could adversely influence this. They expected the April JHA Council would decide on a start date. The UK does not participate in VIS.

The Commission provided its regular update on the delivery of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) central system and stressed the importance of member state participation through the testing phases.

Frontex presented its annual work programme (AWP) for 2011 to the Council. The Frontex executive director said core objectives for 2011 were to enhance flexibility to respond to emerging situations, earlier detection of crime at external borders, and enhancing inter-agency co-operation and interoperability. The main challenge would be increasing effectiveness with decreasing resources. He mentioned that pledges so far had only met 50% of requirements for the post rapid border intervention team operation on the Greece-Turkey border. Frontex warned that progress could be put at risk. The Commission agreed and called for swift adoption of the new regulation.

The presidency gave an overview of Romanian and Bulgarian accession to Schengen and introduced its proposal for conclusions. While the technical evaluation process for Romania had been completed, Bulgaria required a further visit to its land border. The presidency acknowledged wider concerns expressed by some member states, but sought to avoid political discussion concluding that there was support for the conclusions.

The Commission gave an update on visa liberalisation road maps for the western Balkan countries, noting that abuses did have to be addressed and confirming they were looking into the possibility of a suspension mechanism that would not target specific counties or regions. Proposals would be brought forward in June.

Under Mixed Committee AOB, the Council received an update on the EU-Canada visa situation and noted an information-gathering visit had taken place at the end of January. Preliminary findings suggested no problems with the way Roma communities were treated. The report will be published in April.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Antonio Guterres, used his presentation to urge member states to ratify the convention relating to the status of refugees and to increase their support for capacity building in the developing world. On the current situation in north Africa, he highlighted that the majority of arrivals to the EU were mainly economic migrants, but he warned member states to be prepared for a potentially massive flow from Libya. He asked member states to consider using the temporary protection directive but advised that the present situation should not distract attention from the significant structural problems with the EU asylum system, and particularly with Greece. The EU’s next financial perspective had to rise to the challenges of protection both outside and inside the EU. The UK welcomed the UNHCR’s work to help member states improve their asylum systems, and highlighted the close UK co-operation on resettlement and the quality initiative. The UK stated that although it did not always agree with the UNHCR on legislative solutions, it was essential to work together to ensure that real practical action happened on the ground, and to reinforce levels of protection in the region. The Commission said we were at a crucial moment and had a duty of solidarity to member states facing particular burdens. Protection in developing countries through regional protection programmes was important, and they urged the presidency to make progress on the EU resettlement programme.

There was also a presentation by Rob Visser, the newly appointed executive director of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), who explained that the support office was already operational (before the 19 June deadline mentioned in the regulation). Providing support to Greece for the action plan was the top priority. Member states urged Greece to speed up its asylum reforms and called on the Commission to improve co-ordination of member state offers of assistance. The Commission was already providing co-ordination and would soon hand this over to EASO. On Dublin, the emergency mechanism would not apply in this situation; it was only proposed for member states fully implementing the asylum acquis.

The draft text of the EU-Turkey readmission agreement was presented alongside Council conclusions on visa liberalisation. The UK welcomed the text and called for its swift conclusion and implementation. Given the high level of transit migration through Turkey and into the EU, co-operation with Turkey was important to all member states. Although there were sensitive issues at stake, it made sense for member states to agree the text; further delay could result in no agreement being signed. Thanking the Commission for its declaration on territorial application, the UK submitted declarations relating to the application of the Title V opt-in protocol to future measures and stated that the Commission should act within its competence when undertaking, a dialogue on visas, mobility and migration with Turkey. The Council discussed the substance of the conclusions and a declaration was inserted at the end of the conclusions stating

“The Commission acknowledges that the last indent of the Council Conclusions does not legally constitute a negotiating mandate”.

The Commission concluded that it now approach Turkey to initial the readmission agreement.

During lunch Interior Ministers discussed the developments in the north African region (migratory flows and internal security). The UK pushed for a focus on practical responses. In the press conference after the Council, the Commission and presidency were careful to emphasise the difference between the existing situation (5,000 Tunisians who had arrived in Italy were largely economic migrants who should be returned) and the potential threat from instability in Libya. The Commission emphasised the need to strengthen protection in Tunisia and Egypt, for those already crossing the borders. Ministers had not considered invoking the temporary protection directive, but the Commission said it did form part of the toolbox. Article 78(3) of the treaty also enabled them to propose emergency measures including exceptional financial support to help member states receiving a mass influx. The next steps will depend on how the situation develops. The next planned discussion will be at the March European Council.

The Internal Security Council conclusions were adopted without amendment.

The Council did not discuss the Commission evaluation into EU readmission agreements, the new directive on passenger name records or remaining AOB items due to time constraints. The communication on EU readmission agreements will be discussed at working party level in March and depending on the outcome of these discussions the presidency will present draft Council conclusions to the April JHA Council. Passenger name records will be discussed by working groups in March and a substantive discussion will be held at the April JHA Council.

The justice day commenced with a discussion on the directive on attacks against information systems which demonstrated differences of view on whether to include use of false identity as an aggravating circumstance and the value of increasing sanctions. The presidency said they wanted the Council of Europe’s 2001 cybercrime convention to become the international benchmark and encouraged those who had not ratified to do so, noting there would be a conference on the 10th anniversary of the convention for signatories, including the USA, on 10-13 April. The UK thanked the presidency for leadership on this issue and highlighted concerns about the handling of identity theft in the text; the UK sought more discussion of the issue at expert level. It also noted the firm commitment of the Government to ratify the cybercrime convention this year. The Commission indicated openness to solutions to deal with concerns expressed and noted they would bring forward a communication on critical infrastructure protection in 2012.

Next, the Commission presented its proposal to revise the regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (known as Brussels I). The regulation lays down rules governing the jurisdiction of courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the member states of the European Union (EU). The objective of the revision of Brussels I is to update and improve the operation of the regulation by addressing certain problems that have arisen with the current measure since its implementation. The Government generally support this objective and are currently considering the detail of the proposal and the results of the Government’s consultation in order to determine whether or not to opt in to the negotiations.

The presidency gave a state-of-play report on the directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. This proposal is the second measure in the road map to strengthen procedural rights in criminal proceedings and it aims to set common minimum standards and improve the rights of suspects and accused persons by ensuring that they receive information about their rights and about the accusation and evidence against them. Although a date has yet to be identified for the trilogue discussions, the Hungarians hope to reach a first reading deal before the end of their presidency. The Government noted the presidency’s report.

Next, the Council adopted Council conclusions on the inclusion of the website of the European judicial network in civil and commercial matters (civil EJN) in the e-justice portal. The website of the civil EJN has existed since 2001 providing information on the laws and procedures on a number of topics in each member state. The presidency and Commission highlighted the migration was an important step forward in securing a single online access point for justice issues for citizens.

Under any other business, the Council took note of a report by the Commission on the memory of the crimes committed by totalitarian regimes in Europe. The report presents, among other things, how the EU can play a meaningful role in the process of preserving the memory of totalitarian regimes and that there are a number of ways of maintaining that including through funding mechanisms. It also underlines that there are different national measures in place and therefore, the Commission currently has no plans to introduce EU-wide legislation on the subject. The Government agreed the importance of recalling the crimes committed by totalitarian states and welcomed the Commission’s report.

Ministers also received an update from the Commission on the subject of collective redress. The Commission informed Ministers that it had launched a public consultation on the issue and that by the end of 2011, a communication would be published. The Government welcome this consultation and have yet to make their response to it.

Finally, at the request of Slovakia, Ministers considered the rights of EU citizens as regards the enforcement of court decisions in third countries concerning custody laws, in particular, in cases of mixed marriages and parental child abduction. Slovakia stated that the EU should explore ways of improving co-operation with third countries on international custody disputes. The Government supported the Slovakian proposal.

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the Government’s intention to commence section 53 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 with effect from 1 October 2011. Section 53 enables judicial review applications in “fresh claim” asylum and immigration human rights cases to be heard in the Upper Tribunal.

Currently, judicial review applications cannot be transferred from the High Court or Court of Session to the Upper Tribunal if they call into question decisions made under the Immigration Acts. The commencement of section 53 will allow the transfer of judicial review applications relating to a refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to treat representations as a “fresh claim” in asylum and immigration human rights cases.

One of the conditions to enable the High Court in England and Wales to transfer a case to the Upper Tribunal is that the application falls within a class specified by the Lord Chief Justice under section 18 (6) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. I understand that, following the commencement of section 53, the Lord Chief Justice is minded to make such a direction in respect of this class of judicial review application.

I also understand that while there are no immediate plans to transfer these cases to the Upper Tribunal in respect of Scotland or Northern Ireland, commencement of section 53 would allow that to happen at some point in the future should the Lord President and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland deem this to be appropriate. I understand that the Lord President has indicated that further consultation will be required in Scotland in relation to this matter.

The transfer of these judicial reviews will enable fresh claim asylum and immigration human rights applications to be dealt with by judicial members of the Upper Tribunal who have specialist skills and experience in asylum and immigration cases and will also relieve workload pressure on the High Court, freeing up judicial time to address the high volumes of other types of cases heard in the High Court.

I understand that the Tribunals Procedure Committee is currently considering whether any amendments will be required to the Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules to reflect this change and that it may decide to undertake public consultation on this matter in due course.

Airport Economic Regulation

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

In the Queen’s speech the Government announced their intention to reform the framework for the economic regulation of airports. Today I am announcing that legislation to implement these reforms will be introduced early in the next session.

Reforming the framework for airport economic regulation will help improve the quality of service that passengers receive at designated airports and contribute positively to economic growth.

As I set out in my statement to the House on 21 July 2010, Official Report, columns 20-22WS, we plan to replace the existing statutory framework for regulation at designated airports with a more flexible licence-based system. This will give the CAA the powers it needs to become a more responsive regulator, for example to deal with events such as the severe weather this winter. The reforms will also strip out unnecessary regulation and support passenger-focused investment in existing airport infrastructure.

I am keen to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new regime and we will work with the CAA and industry to achieve this. In particular, the Government will not be making changes to the basis on which the current price caps at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are set.

Cheque Replacement and Financial Inclusion

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

Since taking office the coalition Government have been working to reform the welfare system, providing a fairer deal for customers and taxpayers alike.

Well over 98% of all benefit customers are now paid directly into an account. But there is a relatively small number who cannot be paid into an account of any kind or who choose not to be. These customers currently receive their welfare payments by cheque and in total this amounts to fewer than 250,000 people in the UK.

Welfare cheques have become outdated, costly and too open to fraud. As a result, and in light of wider changes in the financial world, the previous Government set the terms of and invited bids on a procurement for a product to replace this payment method.

Following a competitive bidding process I can announce today that Citibank, working in partnership with PayPoint, will be awarded a seven-year contract to provide the new service that will replace the current girocheque service. The contract value is estimated to be a total of £20 million per year, shared between the two providers.

This new service will be free of charge to customers and accessible over the counter at PayPoint outlets. PayPoint outlets are already serving many of our customers and can be found in newsagents, community stores, and other local outlets.

DWP will ensure customers are moved across to the new payment method as seamlessly as possible. Information and advice will be made available so that customers know what will happen and when the change will take place.

Customers will still be able to collect their cash from the Post Office if this is important to them, either by switching to the Post Office card account or by using one of the many commercial bank accounts that are accessible at Post Office branches.

This Department values its relationship with the Post Office and we are working closely with them as we design the delivery of our future services. In particular we are setting up three pilots in partnership with the Post Office: verifying identity as part of the national insurance application process; support for those jobseekers who live in more rural areas, and verification of supporting documents such as birth and marriage certificates for customers of the pension service.

In addition, this Department will continue to work with the Post Office to explore further opportunities for them to support new ways of delivering welfare, including playing an important role in supporting the delivery of universal credit—building on the work on pilots already underway.

We also see real opportunities for the Post Office network in building closer links with credit unions. Credit unions have made great progress in recent years in bringing affordable financial services to people who would not otherwise be able to access them. I want to see credit unions—in partnership with the Post Office—providing more services, more efficiently, to more people.

I am therefore pleased to announce this Department’s continuing support for credit unions, building on the existing growth fund, and providing the new funding required for further expansion. This modernisation fund, worth up to £73 million over the next four years, will support those credit unions who are ready and prepared to step up to the plate—to expand their service to benefit more customers.

My Department will work with the credit unions to look at ways in which the future progress of this sector can best be supported. This includes the possible development of a shared banking platform, for which funding has already been set aside. Subject to successful feasibility studies, this will open up opportunities for many more people to access credit union services, including through the Post Office network.

Making credit union services available to more people who could benefit from them is an important part of our welfare reforms: making work pay; reforming crisis loans; making people better off for every pound they earn through universal credit; and simplifying the benefits system.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will be held on 7 March 2011 in Brussels. I will represent the United Kingdom on all agenda items.

There will be two policy debates at this meeting. The first discussion will focus on the EPSCO contribution to the European Council on issues relating to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, the European semester and the annual growth survey. The presidency will present for adoption the first joint employment report under the new European semester process together with Council conclusions that draw on the main messages from the report and the employment guidelines. The UK will stress the importance that employment policies have been given within the context of the annual growth survey and in particular the emphasis on activation policies for the unemployed and inactive. The Council will also adopt the opinion of the Social Protection Committee on the flagship initiative and its report on the assessment of the social dimension of Europe 2020. Finally the presidency will present information on the preparations for the tripartite social summit, due to take place before the spring European Council.

The second discussion will be on the pensions Green Paper. The Commission will present a progress note on the analysis of the Green Paper responses. The UK will emphasise the importance of this issue but highlight the need to avoid imposition of insolvency requirements for pensions, particularly on grounds of costs and regulatory burden.

The Commission will present its annual report on “progress on equality between women and men during 2010”. The report acknowledges areas where progress has been made, both at national and European level.

Ministers will consider a number of other Council conclusions. These cover a European framework for social and territorial cohesion, the further development of an electronic exchange system facilitating the administrative co-operation in the framework of the posting of workers directive, and the European pact for gender equality (2011-2020).

Under any other business, the presidency will report on the informal meeting of the Ministers for employment, and will also provide an update on two legislative areas, “seasonal workers” and “intra-corporate transferees”. The Employment Committee and Social Protection Committee chairs will provide information on their work programmes for 2011, and there will also be a presentation from the French delegation on plans for their G20 Labour and Employment Ministers’ meeting, which will take place in September 2011.

Social Fund Crisis Loans

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

To meet genuine need, and in addition to continually recycling from the £1.3 billion fund, this Government are committed to maintaining core funding of £178 million a year for the discretionary social fund scheme over the spending review period.

However, since the introduction of remote telephone applications in 2006, there has been an unjustifiable growth in the use of crisis loans. The number of awards made has increased from around 1 million to 2.7 million while spending has almost tripled, reaching £233 million in 2009-10. In the last 12 months alone, over 17,000 people received 10 or more crisis loans.

On current forecasts, the resources for 2011-12 will only satisfy two-thirds of expected demand. Without corrective action to bring spending back under control the shortfall would need to be met from the budgeting loan scheme.

The situation is unsustainable, so I am announcing the introduction of three changes to the crisis loan system, to rebalance supply with affordable resources, to ensure funding for community care grants is protected, and to ensure we can continue to make budgeting loans throughout the year.

From 4 April 2011:

we will no longer pay crisis loans for items such as cookers and beds. There will be residual support for people following a disaster such as flooding;

we will reduce the rate paid for living expenses from 75% down to 60% of benefit rate. This will align with the position for jobseekers allowance cases paid at the hardship rate; and

we will implement a cap of three crisis loan awards for general living expenses in a rolling 12-month period.

Without these measures budgeting loans would need to be withdrawn before Christmas. This would leave significant numbers of people on low incomes with little alternative but to turn to high cost or illegal lending.