House of Commons

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 23 May 2012

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of aid provided to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

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

Both the Minister of State, who is today attending the Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh, and I keep a close eye on the effectiveness of our programme in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the Minister for his response. On a trip to Israel and the west bank earlier this year, I saw education materials that incited violence and the use of Palestinian Authority broadcast media to glorify conflict, not least relating to a group of children singing about the aim to saturate their land with blood. Will the Secretary of State provide assurances that our aid donations do not contribute towards such incitement? Will he highlight what steps the Government are taking to deter the Palestinian Authority from supporting such publications and broadcasts?

[Mr Mitchell]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I would be very interested to see the material he describes. I can tell him that numerous credible studies show no evidence of incitement or anti-Semitism in Palestinian Authority textbooks, so if he ensures that we get a copy of what he has seen, we will take the appropriate action.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Has the International Development Secretary joined the Foreign Secretary and, curiously, the Education Secretary in meeting Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman during his visit to the UK? Irrespective of whether he meets him, will the right hon. Gentleman transmit to the Israeli Foreign Minister the concerns of the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, who visited the west bank last week and said:

“I am extremely concerned about the humanitarian impact of demolitions and displacement on Palestinian families. Such actions cause great human suffering, run counter to international law and must be brought to a halt”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not have any current plans to meet the Foreign Minister from Israel, although I met a series of Israeli Foreign Ministers when I was there just before Christmas. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are passed on to the Foreign Secretary.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I also visited the west bank and East Jerusalem last year and I saw the consequences of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Will the Secretary of State assure us that Church groups will be urged to get the Government of Israel to follow the parable of the Good Samaritan?

[Mr Mitchell]

I raised the issue of religious tolerance when I visited the west bank and Israel at the end of last year. The hon. Gentleman’s comments will have been heard by the Foreign Office, which I have no doubt will pursue them.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We need to focus on the real issue of aid, not on red herrings about its misuse by the Palestinians. The fact is that Israel has blockaded Gaza and the checkpoints in the west bank are stifling any attempt by the British Government to bring aid to the Palestinians. What is the Secretary of State doing to make the Israelis co-operate in respect of the aid that Britain and the EU gives to the Palestinians?

[Mr Mitchell]

Britain has an extremely well-targeted aid and development programme in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It focuses on building the capacity of the Palestinian Authority to provide good government and support for the two-state solution. It focuses, too, on wealth creation and economic growth, which are important. The third strand principally supports the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and ensures that we fulfil our humanitarian responsibilities. The programme is very well placed, and we make certain that it achieves all three of those things effectively.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The next generation of Palestinian peacemakers and state builders are too frequently exposed to messages of hate and violence rather than of peaceful co-existence. What measures are in place to ensure that aid is used to teach mutual understanding and reconciliation?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A recent study was set up by the Americans to look at the content of textbooks and teaching both in Israel and in the west bank for precisely the reason that he sets out. We take this issue very seriously. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy of that report when it is published.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Control of international arms transfers is essential to the effectiveness of aid-related conflict resolution measures in the occupied territories and other places. The UK has a key role to play at the UN arms trade treaty negotiations next month. Will the Secretary of State—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am trying to be generous, but I think allowing latitude would be excessive in this case. I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s comments do not relate sufficiently closely to the question on the Order Paper.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

2. What support his Department provides for clean water and sanitation in developing countries.

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

The British Government consider that access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene is among the most basic of human needs. At the recent summit in Washington, I announced this Government’s intention to double the commitment on water and sanitation that we made last year.

[Chris Kelly]

I welcome the Department’s commitment to doubling the provision of water and sanitation so that it reaches 60 million people, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that sufficient priority is now being given to sanitation? Too often in the past, priority has been given solely to the provision of clean water.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the importance of sanitation. That is why the International Development Committee called its report on these matters “Sanitation and Clean Water” rather than referring to WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene. As he says, for every UK citizen we will provide clean water or sanitation for someone in the poor world who does not have it today. That is an important priority for Members on both sides of the House, and Britain is honouring it.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware of the tremendous work done by charities such as Excellent Development which supply clean water to many regions in Kenya and Uganda at a fraction of the normal cost. Will he ensure that the Government do what they can to assist such tremendous and cost-effective work?

[Mr Mitchell]

We make it an absolute priority to ensure that British taxpayers’ money goes as far as it possibly can, and that we secure 100p of delivery on the ground for every pound that we spend. We continue to ensure that we deliver clean water and sanitation at the lowest possible price.

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

3. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in the Sahel.

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

The situation is extremely grave. Eighteen million people across the Sahel are at risk of food shortages, and 8 million of them are now in need of immediate assistance. The British people, through the UK Government, have responded swiftly to the crisis, providing aid for over 400,000 people who have been caught up in this disaster.

[Amber Rudd]

The United Kingdom has been admirable in its support for the region, but with 18 million people vulnerable to the impact of the crisis, which is due to peak in about six weeks’ time, and with further delays to the donor conference, what can the UK Government do now to invest in the region and help those people?

[Mr O'Brien]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Like her, I fear that the worst is yet to come. The hunger season in July and August is imminent. The United Nations, with which we are working extremely closely and consistently, is revising its appeals from about £452 million to about £1 billion as a matter of urgency in response to the growing need in the Sahel, and the final appeal for Mali is due to be released at the end of this month. The Department has a special team in place, and we are monitoring the situation closely. That includes assessing the appeals. My ministerial colleagues and I are keeping an extremely close eye on the position.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. Given recent reports that the African Union has delayed the pledging conference to deal with the crisis until June, what assurances can the Minister give that the UK Government are doing all that they can to establish a date, and who will represent the UK at the conference?

[Mr O'Brien]

I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we are sparing no effort whatever in seeking to persuade all the various parties and stakeholders who can provide assistance to meet the emerging humanitarian crisis. The amount that the UK people have already provided through our humanitarian support has staved off some of the worst, but the trouble is that the crisis continues to escalate.

The question of attendance at the various meetings is being decided, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that we are well represented.

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

The deteriorating security situation in northern Mali around Timbuktu has caused the European Union to reduce severely the amount of aid that it feels able to give. Given that the UK donates a great deal of its aid through the European Union, will the Minister say what continuing aid we will be able to provide for the people of Mali?

[Mr O'Brien]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Because of the conflict, the situation in northern Mali is extremely grave, especially around Timbuktu. That is in addition to intense pressures in areas across the Sahel such as Niger and northern Nigeria. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that work is being done both through our bilateral humanitarian system and, in particular, through European support which has already contributed some £106 million to help with the Sahel crisis. We will continue to work very closely with those involved, not least because of the attribution of the contribution that we make.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

In view of the widespread recognition that there is an urgent food and security crisis in the Sahel, will the Minister tell me what criteria were used to determine that UK aid to the region should be halved between 2010 and 2012?

[Mr O'Brien]

As I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a difference between the humanitarian response and programme issues. I think that he was referring to Niger, where we supported a programme led by the French which served the purpose for which it was intended. As for the humanitarian process, we continue to work with a range of international partners in trying to ensure that the donor burden is spread fairly and equitably, while also ensuring that we in the UK step up to our responsibilities.

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

4. Whether the Government plan to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance by 2013.

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

Yes.

[Gregg McClymont]

The Minister’s answer is welcome, but given the Government’s failure, in what is a rather thin legislative programme, to embed that 0.7% investment in law, can he give a guarantee that there will be the same level of investment in those less fortunate than ourselves in 2014 and 2015?

[Mr Mitchell]

The Government have been very clear, as have all Members of the House, about our commitment to the poorest in the world and not to balance the books on the backs of the least fortunate. We are the first Government ever to set out clearly how we will meet our 0.7% commitment. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about the law, the Bill in question has been drafted, the Prime Minister and I have said that it will proceed, and it rests with the business managers to decide the date for that.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that in response to those who, rather facilely, argue that charity should begin at home and that we should not be spending this money, it should be pointed out that not only do we have a moral obligation to people around the world who are less fortunate than ourselves, but we are spending the money firmly in Britain’s best strategic interests?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. For a spend of less than 1% of gross national income, we are investing in our future prosperity and our security, as well as doing the right thing by the least fortunate in the world.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

5. What programmes his Department has put in place to improve women’s health in Egypt.

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

I am mindful of the fact that the first round of presidential elections in Egypt is taking place as we speak. My Department is focused on economic and political transition in Egypt through the Arab Partnership. We do not have a health programme there, but the Department is committed to improving women’s health across the world, with particular focus on the poorest countries and the most vulnerable women. Over the next five years, our support will help to save the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth.

[Helen Goodman]

The rate of female genital mutilation in Egypt is now 70%. Some in the country’s political parties want to change the constitution to end all legal restrictions on the practice. I am sure that if the proposal was to chop off part of men’s genitalia, the Minister would put this issue at the top of his agenda. Will he prioritise ending this barbaric human rights abuse?

[Mr O'Brien]

I absolutely agree that it is a wholly unacceptable and barbaric practice. It is a custom that has survived for millennia, and I assure the hon. Lady that I have taken up this issue on many occasions, and that I seek to ensure it is highlighted. It is genuinely one of the issues that we have put at the top of our agenda, and I discuss it whenever I get the chance to do so in the many countries of Africa where it is prevalent. I assure her that we are committed to this very important project.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The best guarantee of making women’s health a priority, and ending the barbaric practices to which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) alludes, is making sure women are actively involved, and listened to, in the political process. In what ways is the Department working with women’s organisations and democracy-building organisations to support Egyptian women in making sure their voices are heard?

[Mr O'Brien]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I hope she recognises that the Department has put girls and women front and centre of everything we do. We want to ensure that girl’s and women’s voices are heard, particularly as we develop our various future programmes, not least post-2015.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

6. What support the Arab Partnership Participation Fund has provided to projects on political reform and free and fair elections in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

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

The Arab Partnership Participation Fund has supported political participation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It has funded a variety of civil society projects.

[Karen Lumley]

Democracy is something that we in this country take for granted. Will the Minister assure me that, as part of our future campaign, we will promote democracy and the rule of law in the occupied territories?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on a key ingredient of development. Promoting democracy and the rule of law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is central to our engagement in the region, as I described in answer to an earlier question.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Secretary of State’s hope for free and fair elections to the Palestinian Authority extend to Palestinians in East Jerusalem?

[Mr Mitchell]

The British Government’s position is clear and unequivocal on this, as the Foreign Secretary has assured the House on many occasions. Our commitment to promoting the two-state solution and to promoting democracy in this troubled area is absolute.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the recommendations by the Copenhagen Consensus 2012 expert panel on setting priorities for development aid.

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

The Copenhagen Consensus 2012 is a valuable contribution to the development debate, particularly given its focus on getting the best value for money and greatest impact from aid. This is of course also a major priority for the coalition Government, and DFID’s programme priorities are closely aligned with the recommendations from the Copenhagen Consensus. I find the analysis compelling, and I have been working with the Consensus since 2004.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The economists and Nobel laureates of the Copenhagen Consensus have found that spending on tackling malnutrition provides the most value for money in terms of economic development. How much of the Department’s budget is spent on bundled micronutrient interventions?

[Mr O'Brien]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and she is right to say that the Copenhagen Consensus puts bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education at the very top of its list of the most desirable activities to achieve maximum impact. Right across our programmes, we have been increasing the delivery of nutrient supplements and fighting hunger. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in Washington last week that we will be supporting the new alliance for food security and nutrition in order to improve food supply and farming across Africa and help to pull 50 million people out of chronic poverty over the next 10 years.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

How will these excellent priorities help the people of Yemen, almost half of whom are starving?[Official Report, 12 June 2012, Vol. 546, c. 1-2MC.]

[Mr O'Brien]

In Yemen, many of the current challenges are humanitarian. Today, we have announced £26 million of humanitarian support and aid to ensure that some of the needs of the population—nearly half of whom, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly observes, are starving—are met. While we are in the humanitarian phase, that is patently the most important response, but we also need to look at the future of governance and resilience in order to improve the lot of the population.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

8. What steps he has taken to ensure that women and girls are central to any consultation on a post-millennium development goals framework.

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

We are very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been asked by the United Nations Secretary-General to co-chair the high-level panel on a framework to replace the millennium development goals. That process will of course need to be open and consultative, and I am confident that the voice of girls and women, who are often among the world’s poorest people, will be heard. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

There are a lot of noisy private conversations taking place. Let us have a bit of order for Mrs Sharon Hodgson.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I thank the Minister for his response and welcome the UK’s customary leadership on this issue. He mentioned the voice of the poorest, among whom the hardest to hear are often women and girls. I am sure he agrees that their voice is the most important one that needs to be heard in order to develop the framework following the millennium development goals. What plans has he in place to ensure that their voice is heard, and what is his timeline for such a framework?

[Mr O'Brien]

The hon. Lady will be aware that this is work in progress and that a series of meetings and consultations is being initiated. I can give her an absolute assurance that we are building on the success of the current MDG framework, but we also need to learn from its gaps and weaknesses. Part of doing so is making sure that, in addition to providing simple and clear aims, we consult widely and ensure that we reflect the fact that the world has changed, rather than the past. That includes the importance of the views of girls and women in the future.

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

As the Minister knows, I have welcomed the Prime Minister’s appointment to co-chair the UN panel on the new millennium development goals framework. However, unlike his predecessors—Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—this Prime Minister has shown no inclination at the G8, G20 or EU summits to champion the importance of development. Will the Minister explain the core values that will underpin the UK’s approach to a new global development framework, and can he bring himself to utter the words “social justice and human rights”?

[Mr O'Brien]

In an area where normally there is a degree of consensus across the House, I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should choose to suggest that there is any diminution in our effort. I would argue that the opposite is the case; at the first G8 meeting, there was a clear focus on development by the Prime Minister, and only last week we had the whole focus on food and nutrition. It does not serve the hon. Gentleman well to seek to make a political point out of something that simply has no legs.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

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

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

My Department is very focused on delivering the results of the family planning summit that will take place in London on 11 July, chaired by our Prime Minister and Melinda Gates. We have been very focused on the food agenda at the G8 Development Ministers meeting last week, and I will shortly be visiting Malawi.

[Ian Lucas]

Two weeks ago, I visited a charitably funded Bedouin school in the west bank that was threatened with demolition by the Israeli Government. This is not the way to make progress, so will the Secretary of State make urgent representations to the Israeli Government to prevent the demolition of places of learning?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that almost all these demolitions are illegal, and that is a point that the Foreign Secretary has made regularly in his meetings with the Israeli Government.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

T6. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that the taxpayer benefits from the sale of our remaining stake in Actis. Is that not in sharp contrast with the shameful way in which the previous Government allowed Actis to be spun out of CDC in such a way that the British taxpayer did not receive a single penny?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is entirely correct; the shameful way in which the previous Government sought to privatise Actis has meant that the taxpayer has received nothing at all from this management company. Thanks to the changes that the coalition Government have made, it is estimated that the taxpayer will receive between $100 million and $200 million.

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

The forthcoming Rio+20 conference is an important opportunity for this Government to show international leadership on climate change, green jobs and sustainable development. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many meetings have taken place between his Department and other relevant Departments to ensure a joined-up British approach to the Rio conference? Will he write to me with more details?

[Mr Mitchell]

I can tell the hon. Lady that meetings are taking place every week and every day, most recently yesterday. The delegation will be led by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and I have discussed this with him within the past 24 hours.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Bob Blackman.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T7. I warmly welcome the dramatic increase in aid to our Commonwealth partners, including the funding for the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust. Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the type of projects we are funding that are much-needed by our Commonwealth allies?

[Mr Mitchell]

The whole House will be grateful to Sir John Major for chairing the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust. The British Government have put in £50 million to the match fund for these projects. Under the previous Government, support for the Commonwealth declined from some 45% of our development budget to 35%, whereas under this Government, over five years, it will increase to 55%.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

T2. The situation in Syria continues to take lives, as well as to produce instability in the region. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what action the British Government are taking to help with the humanitarian crisis in that country?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Foreign Secretary has been doing at the United Nations. On humanitarian support, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are supporting the United Nations, its Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and a number of international non-governmental organisations on dealing with the consequences both outside Syria—on the borders and in the surrounding countries—and internally, within that country.

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

T8. In the context of the NATO summit and the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the provision for women’s rights after our departure?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the role of women in Afghanistan. On my recent visit to Afghanistan, I launched a new civil society fund that will directly address her point. Additionally, the fact that the international community has helped to secure places for 6 million children in school in Afghanistan in recent years will have a transformational effect on the role of women in Afghanistan.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

T3. South Sudan is slipping towards war. Recently leaked documents from the World Bank have highlighted the fact that the south could be completely bankrupt by July as a result of the oil dispute. With countries such as China moving to fill the democratic gap, there should be concern that good democratic governance could slip off the agenda in South Sudan. What is his Department doing to ensure that that does not happen?

[Mr Mitchell]

Ministers in my Department have had robust meetings with the Government of South Sudan and that of Sudan. The message we give is that it is important that oil should be brought back into commission and exported from Sudan and it is very important that the African Union road map should be adhered to by both sides.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 May.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

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

[Karen Bradley]

People in Staffordshire Moorlands recognise that the Government need to take difficult decisions to deal with the deficit, but does the Prime Minister shiver when he thinks about what would have happened had he not put a credible fiscal plan in place?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth while listening to what the managing director of the International Monetary Fund said yesterday. She said:

“when I think back myself to May 2010, when the UK deficit was at 11% and I try to imagine what the situation would be like today if no such fiscal consolidation programme had been decided...I shiver.”

That is what she said and we should remember who is responsible for leaving that situation, doubling the national debt and leaving a record debt and a catastrophic inheritance—one for which we still have not had an apology.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Adrian Beecroft, the Prime Minister’s adviser, says that the law should be changed to allow employers to fire people at will. The Business Secretary says that that is the last thing the Government should do. Who does the Prime Minister agree with?

[The Prime Minister]

We need to make it easier for businesses to grow, for businesses to take people on and for businesses to expand. The Beecroft report, which I commissioned, had a number of excellent ideas that we are taking forward. We are doubling the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, exempting businesses with fewer than 10 people from new EU regulations and exempting 1 million self-employed people from health and safety. We are consulting on no-fault dismissal, but only for micro-businesses. It was a good report and it is right that we should take forward its best measures.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister did not answer the question about the proposal—[Interruption.] No, he did not answer the question. Mr Beecroft made a proposal that employers should be able to fire their employees at will. The people sitting behind the Prime Minister think that the Beecroft proposal is a great report—that it is the bee’s knees—and they support the proposal. The people over there on the Liberal Democrat Benches think it is a bonkers proposal and the Business Secretary has been going around saying that. We just want to know where the Prime Minister stands. Who does he agree with?

[The Prime Minister]

It is rather sad; the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. We have a call for evidence on no-fault dismissal for micro-businesses and we are not proceeding with it for other businesses. That is the position. I am not surprised at the question, as I know he worries about being fired at will for being incompetent.

[Edward Miliband]

I wonder how long it took him to think that one up. The Prime Minister says that he is consulting on the proposal. The author of the proposal, Mr Beecroft, said that

“some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them. While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying”.

That is what they used to say about unemployment. Is he really telling us that with record numbers out of work, sacking people for no good reason is a price worth paying?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman might, while he is on his feet, welcome the fact that unemployment is falling, inflation is falling, and that this Government have cut the deficit by 25%. Let me explain to him what the Government and the Business Secretary are doing. We are cutting regulation by £3 billion, we are scrapping 1,500 regulations, we are looking at introducing fees for employment tribunals. We are taking all these steps, which led last year to the greatest number of small business start-ups in the country’s history. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman cannot support any changes to employment regulation because he is in the pocket of the trade unions.

[Edward Miliband]

In case the Prime Minister has not noticed, his Business Secretary does not support his proposal. What double standards. When it comes to ordinary—[Interruption.] Oh yes. When it comes to ordinary workers, the Prime Minister wants to make it easier for employers to sack them. When it comes to Andy Coulson and the Culture Secretary, it is all about second chances. Can the Prime Minister tell us what impression he thinks it gives about his Government that he commissions advice from a multi-millionaire who recommends making it easier to sack people on low pay, at the same time as giving people like him tens of thousands of pounds in a millionaires’ tax cut?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell you what we do on the Government Benches. We commission a report, we accept the bits that we agree with and we reject the bits that we do not agree with. What the right hon. Gentleman does is take instructions from his trade union paymasters and he cannot accept any changes. He asks what we are doing for the poorest people in our country. It is this Government who are taking 2 million people out of income tax, who have increased tax credits for the poorest, who have got more people in work with 600,000 new private sector jobs, and who have frozen the council tax. His record was completely the opposite.

[Edward Miliband]

This is not about the trade unions. It is about millions of people up and down the country in fear for their jobs, and the only answer that this Prime Minister has is, “Make it easier to sack them.” This proposal is a symbol of the Government’s failure on growth. We are in a double-dip recession, unemployment is high, businesses are going bust, there are bad retail sales figures today. Does not the Prime Minister understand how out of touch he sounds to families when he says, as he did last week, that things are moving in the right direction?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this is about the trade unions. Let me tell him why. He is getting £900,000 from Unite, and that union is threatening a bus strike during the Olympics. What have we heard from him? Silence. He is getting £400,000 from the GMB. That union is holding a baggage handlers strike over the diamond jubilee weekend. Absolute silence from him. People need to know that there are two parties on the Government Benches acting in the national interest, and an Opposition party acting in the trade union interest.

[Edward Miliband]

Let us talk about donations. On 21 March the Chancellor cut the top rate of income tax. Then the money comes flooding in from the Tory millionaire donors. It tells us all we need to know about this Government. They stand up for the wrong people. The Prime Minister may have changed the image of the Tory party, but the reality has not changed: tax cuts for millionaires; making it easier to sack people—the nasty party is back.

[The Prime Minister]

It is this Government who cut corporation tax, who set up the enterprise zones, who are reforming the planning law, who boosted the apprenticeships, who scrapped Labour’s jobs tax and who cut taxes for 24 million working people, and it is only Labour that thinks the answer is more borrowing, more spending, more debt—exactly the problems that got us into this mess in the first place.

[Hon. Members]

More, more.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will have more, but it will be from Mr David Mowat.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

In 1993 the IRA bombed Warrington, killing two small boys and injuring more than 50 other people. Last week a memorial plaque with a scrap value of about £40 was stolen. The Government have already legislated to prevent the sale of scrap metal for cash. Will the Prime Minister consider further legislation making the theft of such memorials an aggravating factor?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I know that the whole country was shocked by the theft of that memorial; everyone remembers the Warrington bomb and the people who died in it. He is right to say that we have already legislated and made this an offence. We are also doing everything we can to sort out the problems of the scrap metal trade. I will look at his suggestion of an aggravated offence, but clearly any court can hand out exemplary sentences in these sorts of circumstances because public justice is important, and the public are absolutely appalled by what has happened.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Q2. What assessment he has made of the level of youth unemployment.

[The Prime Minister]

There are two ways of measuring youth unemployment: first, the International Labour Organisation definition, which includes both full and part-time students and gives a figure of just over 1 million; and secondly, the claimant count, which currently stands at 466,000. Clearly youth unemployment is too high on either measure, although I note that it rose by 40% under the previous Government. Recently it fell by 17,000 in the last quarter. If we look at the claimant count and include people on out-of-work schemes, we see that the number of young unemployed people has actually fallen since the election.

[John Mann]

The number of young people in my constituency who are unemployed, underemployed and have fewer opportunities has greatly increased in the past year. Therefore, today we are setting up a taskforce specifically to deal with this increasing scourge. Will the Prime Minister commit to the active participation of every relevant Government Department in our taskforce’s work?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly will do that, because there is vital work to be done to help young unemployed people. What we are finding with all the schemes we have, whether the Work programme or the youth contract, is that the most useful thing is actually the work experience scheme, because it gives young people a real leg-up and experience of the workplace and, therefore, removes some of the disadvantages they face as against older workers. We are finding that it has a much better record than other schemes, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to push that and pioneer it in his constituency with the help of all the agencies, as he has said.

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

Q3. Did my right hon. Friend see the figures released last week showing that since May 2010 the number of people waiting for an operation on the national health service has fallen by over 50,000? Does that not demonstrate that our commitment to increased health funding and our health reforms are beginning to bear fruit?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We made an important and difficult decision that, while other budgets were being cut, we would protect the NHS budget. That was not supported by the Labour party, but the fact is that we now have the best ever performance for patients waiting over 18 weeks, the numbers for those waiting more than 26 weeks and 52 weeks have also reached record lows, and average waiting times for both in-patients and out-patients are lower than they were in May 2010. The Labour party often asked whether the test should be the number of people waiting over 18 weeks. Well, if that was the test, we have passed it with flying colours.

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

Q4. Just over a year ago the Prime Minister launched his flagship export enterprise finance guarantee scheme. We now learn that only five companies have benefited from the scheme. Hard-working businesses in Birmingham that would like to export but cite lack of export finance guarantee as a problem are keen to know who those five lucky companies are and why the scheme has been such a dismal failure.

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly write to the hon. Lady, because the truth is that that export scheme has been rolled into the export guarantee scheme more generally and the amount of export support is massively up on the last election, with billions of pounds in extra money being spent. The other point I would make is that exports, compared with 2010, were up by over 12% last year.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Q5. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Northamptonshire Parent-Infant Partnership on its sell-out conference on early years intervention last week, where 27 local authorities were represented? Does he agree that, if we are serious about strengthening our society, providing psychotherapeutic support for families struggling to bond with their new babies is absolutely key?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend speaks with a lot of personal experience, having set up a project in Oxfordshire, the county I represent, that has had a major impact. I think that her work does her huge credit. The truth is that all the studies show that real disadvantage for children kicks in right from the moment they are born if they do not get the love, support and help they need. That is why the projects she is talking about, along with the expansion of the health visitors scheme—4,200 extra health visitors—which can make a real difference, are so important. I will also point out the measure we took last week to make sure that new parents get proper contact with and information from their midwife both before and after their child is born so that we do everything to remove that disadvantage in the early months and years.

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

Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that he will not succumb to the diktat from the European Court of Human Rights in relation to prisoners voting, that he will stand up for the resolution that was agreed in this House by an overwhelming majority and that he will stand up for the sovereignty of this House and the British people?

[The Prime Minister]

The short answer to that is yes. I have always believed that when someone is sent to prison they lose certain rights, and one of those rights is the right to vote. Crucially, I believe that it should be a matter for Parliament to decide, not a foreign court. Parliament has made its decision, and I completely agree with it.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Q6. Today, Alstom is opening in my constituency a new facility for the engineering, manufacturing and export of power electronics, in which Stafford is a world leader. Following the news of the first trade surplus in motor vehicles for more than 30 years, what measures does my right hon. Friend consider to be essential to continue and to increase investment in manufacturing?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much remember visiting GEC Alstom when I contested my hon. Friend’s constituency rather unsuccessfully in 1997, but what is absolutely essential for such manufacturing, engineering and technology-based businesses are the support that we are giving to apprenticeships, whereby we achieved more than 450,000 apprenticeship starts last year; the lower rate of corporation tax; and the links between our universities and the new catapult centres in order to ensure that technology goes into our businesses and makes them world-beating. If we look not just at our exports overall, which were up 12% last year, but at exports to India, China and fast-growing markets, we find that they are up 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%.

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

The Prime Minister pledged to give England’s great cities a seat at the heart of government. Yesterday, Labour took control of Birmingham city council, and the first thing that the new council did was agree to ask the Prime Minister to receive a delegation from the council and Birmingham’s MPs on a fair deal for Birmingham. Will the Prime Minister make good on his pledge and agree to meet that delegation?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, I am happy to meet leaders of Birmingham city council, as I meet leaders of councils up and down the country. What is important is focusing on what needs to be done in Birmingham to drive economic growth and to make sure that we provide good services, but I very much hope that the new council will match the record of the old council in providing value for money.

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

Q7. Child neglect is a sad fact in all our constituencies, and in Blackpool we await the sentencing of two parents who pleaded guilty this week to keeping their 10-year-old son in demeaning circumstances in a coal bunker. At the same time, the charity Action for Children has highlighted the fact that the law on child neglect dates from 1933 and no longer corresponds to the demands of modern parenting. Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is time to ask the Law Commission to look at this law once again?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that completely shocking case, and for anyone trying to understand how a parent could treat that child that way, it is just completely unfathomable. I will obviously look at what he says about the Law Commission and modernising the law, but in dealing with such appalling cases of child neglect and with families that have completely broken down, we have so many agencies currently working on this, including, crucially, social workers, and the most important thing is to have a real system of passing on information and passing on concerns rapidly—and then acting on them. Just passing another law will not make up for the common sense and action that we require our agencies to deliver.

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

I thank the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for joining so many of their colleagues yesterday in abstaining from the vote against my “Save Bianca” amendment. Given that 65% of the public want to see caps on the cost of credit, when does the Prime Minister think his Ministers will finally give in and do something about ending legal loan sharking in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have a new power for the Financial Conduct Authority, which has been established, and the Office of Fair Trading has powers as well, so it is very important to talk to those agencies and to make sure that they can act.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Q8. The local council tax frozen for two years, the lowest inflation rate in three years and the biggest monthly fall in local unemployment in five years is great news for jobseekers, pensioners and savers in Tamworth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although times are tough and much still needs to be done, this Government and this country are on the right track?

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly, we face difficult economic times. We will go on in a minute to talk about the growth plans that are required in Europe, but what we have to do in this country is rebalance our economy, which had become over-reliant on the public sector, over-reliant on financial services and not fairly spread around the country. We need a growth of the private sector and of manufacturing and technology, and we need it to be more fairly spread across the country, including in the area that my hon. Friend represents. What we see from the employment figures is, yes, a decline in public sector employment, which would frankly be inevitable whoever was in power right now, but the 600,000 net new jobs in the private sector show that some firms are expanding and growing, and we must be on their side.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q9. Unemployment in Hartlepool and the north-east is higher now than in May 2010. How much of that increase is down to the Prime Minister’s Government’s policies?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that I made to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is that the last Government excluded from the unemployment numbers people who were on temporary employment schemes. We include those people. People on the Work programme are included in the unemployment numbers. We measure these things accurately, and comparing like for like, youth unemployment has fallen since the election.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Britain has an excellent track record in scientific research and development, despite historically low levels of funding. For this to continue, and to continue to drive so much economic growth, sustained funding is required. Can the Prime Minister assure me that this will be delivered in this Parliament and the next comprehensive spending review?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, I cannot bind the hands of the next comprehensive spending review, but in this spending review we made an important decision to protect the science budget. It would have been an easy target for reductions, and perhaps we could have spent the money on politically more attractive things, but we decided to take the long-term view and to save the science budget because it is a key part of Britain’s future.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q10. The Home Office recently announced that 800 front-line police officers would be cut in Wales, while Jeff Mapps, the chair of the Welsh Police Federation, says that the figure will be closer to 1,600, which would be the equivalent of the entire Gwent police force. Who is right?

[The Prime Minister]

The truth is that whoever was in government right now would be having to make cuts to police budgets. The Labour party is committed to a £1 billion cut in the police budget; we have made reductions in police budgets. The key to having police officers on the streets is to cut the paperwork, reform the pensions, and deal with the pay issues. We have the courage to do that, and the hon. Gentleman’s party should support it as well.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Last weekend, the Squatters Network of Brighton and Hove invited its anarchist friends from around Europe to campaign against what they call Weatherley’s law. Will the Prime Minister condemn, with me, the Green party’s support for squatters and welcome, as I do, the criminalisation of squatting?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly support what my hon. Friend says. This law was long overdue. It is very important that home owners have proper protection from people, in effect, stealing their property, which is what squatting is. It is a criminal act and it is now a criminal offence.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Q11. Last week, it was revealed that officials at the UK Border Agency received bonuses of £3.5 million. Given the horrendous queues at our airports, the fact that 100,000 files have now been archived by the UKBA, and the fact that in the past six months 185 people have absconded having been given limited leave to remain, does the Prime Minister agree that in future we should reward success, not failure?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely no place in the modern civil service for a presumption of good performance. I believe in paying people bonuses if they perform well and meet their targets, but if they do not perform well and do not meet their targets, they should not get a bonus.

In terms of Heathrow and our airports, it is vitally important that we continue to make progress. This is an urgent issue for Britain. It is vital for our trade and vital for inward investment that people have a decent experience when they arrive at our airports. A new control room is opening at Heathrow this month, there are an extra 80 staff for peak times at Heathrow, and an extra 480 people will come on stream during the Olympic period, but I am still not satisfied as to whether we need to do more, including this week and next week, to really get on top of this problem.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Q12. My constituents in Bromsgrove are relieved to learn that the Government have already cleared one quarter of the record, irresponsible deficit left by the Labour party. They understand that you cannot keep spending what you do not earn, but what they would also like to know is: has the Prime Minister received just one quarter of an apology from the Labour party?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I notice that the Labour party did not want to go anywhere near the International Monetary Fund today. Perhaps that is because of something else that its director said yesterday: “You have to compare” the British deficit situation

“against other countries which experienced severe deficit numbers, did not take action right away and are now facing very, very stressful financing terms that is putting their situation in jeopardy”.

We would have been in jeopardy if we had not taken the brave steps that we took and very necessary they were too.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Q13. Electoral Commission figures show that the Conservatives have received more than half a million pounds already this year from people who have attended secret soirees at Downing street or Chequers. Is the reason why the Prime Minister is out of touch that he listens to those cliques, rather than to decent, hard-working people such as those in Scunthorpe?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a very big difference between the money that the Conservative party raises from business and individuals, and the money that Labour gets from unions, which determines its policies, sponsors its Members of Parliament and elects its leaders. They own you lock, stock and block vote.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am quite certain that Conservative Back Benchers wish to hear Mr Stephen Williams.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

The coalition Government have restored order and stability to the public finances, and have therefore won us international confidence. Is not now the right time to put renewed effort and vigour into returning growth to the economy, by the Government facilitating and guaranteeing investment in housing and infrastructure?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I am sure that he welcomes the enterprise zone in Bristol and the support for the animation and television industries. What we need to do, both in Britain and in Europe, is to combine the fiscal deficit reduction that has given us the low interest rates with an active monetary policy, structural reforms to make us competitive, and innovative ways of using our hard-won credibility—[Interruption.] Which we would not have if we listened to the muttering idiot sitting opposite me—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am very worried about the health of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who is so overexcited that he might suffer a relapse. I am a compassionate chap, so I do not want that to happen.

The Prime Minister will please withdraw the word “idiot”. It is unparliamentary. A simple withdrawal will suffice. We are grateful.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course; I will replace it with, “The man who left us this enormous deficit and this financial crisis.”

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Q14. After six months in government, the Prime Minister announced that his Government had created 500,000 private sector jobs. After two years, he is giving us the figure of 600,000 jobs since the election. Why has the rate of growth slowed down so much?

[The Prime Minister]

There were 100,000 extra people in employment over the last quarter, and in the last two months we have seen repeated falls in unemployment and increases in employment. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome that.

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

Q15. With unemployment down in Lancaster last week, I visited A & G Precision and Sons in Preesall in my constituency. It is a family-run company of only 40 employees that supplies components for the Hawk. It does high-precision work that is required nationally and internationally. I was told that it had turned two work experience places into full-time company-paid apprenticeships. Does that not show that things are moving in the right direction in Lancashire?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I am sure he will be pleased, as well, with the order that BAE Systems had today from Saudi Arabia for Hawk aircraft, which is more good news for British jobs, British investment and British aerospace.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Some of our constituents would be hungry today if it were not for the work of Foodbank and similar organisations in our constituencies. If current trends continue, Foodbank reckons that by the next election it will be feeding half a million of our constituents. Might I therefore ask the Prime Minister, before he completes his engagements today, to plan what the Government might do to counter that terrible trend and report back to the House?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the work that Foodbank does. I have visited one of its sites myself to see what it does. What is absolutely vital in these difficult economic times is that we do what we can to protect the poorest people in our country. That is why we have frozen the council tax, increased the basic state pension and uprated benefits in line with inflation, which has protected the people who need protection the most. Yes, we have had to cut tax credits for those people on £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000, but we have actually increased the tax credits that the poorest people receive.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Prime Minister and I might not agree about everything, but we do agree about certain things. For example, we agree that I should never be promoted. [Laughter.] Another thing that we agree about is the need to put public sector pensions on a sustainable and affordable footing. In that context, judges are being asked to pay just 2% of their salary towards their pension, whereas the taxpayer pays 33%. That is neither affordable nor sustainable. Given the increases in pension contributions that we are expecting from other, lower-paid public sector workers, will the Prime Minister ensure that we apply the same tests and requirements to judges, too?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Judicial pensions have always been treated separately, because of what judges do for our country, but on public sector pensions more generally we have managed to—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister is making a reply to a serious question. Let us hear it with a degree of respect and restraint.

[The Prime Minister]

There was going to be a separate judicial pensions Bill under the last Government.

On public sector pensions more generally, we have reduced the future cost by half while maintaining a public sector pension system that is more generous than what people are able to access in the private sector.

As for my hon. Friend’s earlier remarks, I have got plans for him.

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

Prison officer—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into any of that, but I do want to hear Mr McCann.

[Mr McCann]

Prison officer Neville Husband abused young men in the Medomsley detention centre for decades before he was prosecuted and sentenced for some of his crimes. A constituent who was abused by Husband has given me information that suggests that senior figures in the establishment knew what was going on. The Crown Prosecution Service refuses to pursue these matters, and instead the Home Office has sought to issue compensation payments. Young men were detained by the state and then abused by the state. Does the Prime Minister agree that a full inquiry is necessary, to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done?

[The Prime Minister]

The first thing that the hon. Gentleman should do—I am sure he already has—is make sure that any evidence that he has of abuse, cover-ups of abuse or compliance with abuse is given to the Crown Prosecution Service and the authorities so that it can be properly investigated. The Home Affairs Committee, on which I sat, looked into the issue in years past and made a number of recommendations. I will look carefully at what he says and see whether there is more advice that I can provide.

VAT on Static Caravans

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I present a petition on behalf of Suffolk Coastal residents. People have also sent me letters on this matter.

The petition states that

levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs

in the UK holiday industry, including on caravan parks, and for caravan manufacturing and its suppliers,

and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy will

reduce investment in these businesses and

lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of Residents of Suffolk Coastal,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001059]

Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I, too, wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Thirsk and Malton in similar terms to the aforementioned petition. In addition to the petition, I have received a vast number of letters. Normally, when such a radical tax change is proposed, one year is allowed from the date of its proposed introduction before its coming into force, if at all.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001094]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

12:33

[Mr Speaker]

I have a short statement to make. Colleagues will be aware that the Prime Minister has extended a formal invitation to Nobel prize winner and newly elected parliamentarian Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to visit the United Kingdom next month. At my request and that of the Lord Speaker, she has kindly agreed to address Members of both Houses in Westminster Hall on Thursday 21 June at 3 pm. Further details about applications to attend will be sent to Members in due course.

G8 and NATO Summits

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

12:34

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I welcome your announcement, Mr Speaker. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a remarkable woman, who for so many years has been effectively imprisoned in her own country. It is an incredible testament to change in that country that she is now able to travel and speak freely, including in this Parliament.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 and NATO summits, which I attended in America last weekend. The common theme across both summits was economic stability and international security.

At the G8, we reached important conclusions on dealing with our debts, growing our economies and dealing with the risks in the eurozone. Let me take each in turn.

Deficit reduction and growth are not alternatives. We need the first to deliver the second. There was absolutely no debate about this: it was my view, Chancellor Merkel’s view, President Obama’s view and President Hollande’s view. Indeed, France will balance its budget at a faster rate than Britain.

In Britain, in two years, we have cut the deficit we inherited from the last Government by more than a quarter. Our approach has been endorsed again by the International Monetary Fund this week, and by the OECD. At a time of tight budgets, a proper growth plan requires not just a credible fiscal policy, which secures the low interest rates about which I was speaking just a moment ago, but structural reforms to make our economies more competitive, active monetary policy, and innovative use of our hard-won credibility to ensure investment in long-term infrastructure. We are taking all those steps in the UK and promoting them in Europe as well. In every area, we need to do more.

Prime Minister Monti and I have gathered 10 other EU leaders to call for the completion of the single market in digital and services—classic structural reform to our economies. President Hollande is coming forward with creative proposals, such as project bonds, and, as the House knows, in recent months the European Central Bank has helped supply liquidity to European banks. I will pursue all those elements at the informal European Council tonight, and at the formal Council in June, after which I will of course make a statement to the House.

Growing our economies also means doing everything we can to get trade moving. At the end of the G8 meeting, there was a serious and substantive discussion about the potential for an EU-US trade deal. The EU and US together make up half the world’s GDP. There is a huge amount of work to be done—and a further effort will be made and a report will be produced at the G20 next month—but that could have a positive impact on both sides of the Atlantic.

The greatest risk facing the eurozone and, indeed, the world economy, is clearly the situation in Greece. The future of Greece is for the Greek people to determine. It is for them to decide what is best for their country. However, we cannot afford to allow that issue to be endlessly fudged and put off. The Greek election should in effect be a straightforward choice between staying in the eurozone—with the responsibilities that that entails—or taking a different path. The eurozone—and Europe as a whole—needs to have contingency plans in place for both eventualities. That should involve strengthening banks, protecting financial systems and ensuring decisive action by European institutions to prevent contagion. Whatever the outcome, this Government will do whatever is necessary to protect this country and secure our economy and financial system.

Alongside the discussion on the economy, I had two further priorities at the G8: to continue the good work of the G8 on development, and to support the Arab spring and the promotion of democracy and reform.

On development, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition is an important initiative that aims to help 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty over the next 10 years. For countries to receive help, they need to show a real commitment to transparency and good governance. In return, they get substantial support to generate private sector investment in food production. I believe that that is a great combination of promoting good governance and helping Africa feed its people. I will be building on this with a major event on hunger during the Olympic games in the UK.

Encouraging the private sector to create jobs is one of the best routes to sustainable, equitable growth in poorer countries. However, aid still has a vital role to play. For the first time in a decade the amount of aid given by the world’s richest countries to the world’s poorest countries has fallen back. Promises are being broken, and that is wrong. Britain continues to honour its commitments. Other nations should do likewise, and in the G8 that we will chair next year, we will once again produce the report that shows who has and who has not kept their promises.

The G8 also reached important conclusions on Libya, Iran and Syria. Specifically on Syria, there was backing for the Annan plan, and for further UN measures if Assad does not change course. It was significant that the Russians agreed to that text.

I raised Burma and the need to support the foundations of a lasting and irreversible transition to democracy. I want to make that a feature of our G8 next year. I am sure the whole House looks forward to welcoming Aung San Suu Kyi when she addresses Parliament next month.

Let me turn briefly to the NATO summit. Some people write off NATO as a relic of the past, but I believe it is vital to our future security. The threats NATO countries face largely come from beyond our borders—from failed states, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Because of that, it makes sense for NATO to be prepared, to link up with partners around the world, to act out of area, and to spend less on the weapons of past conflicts such as battle tanks and more on the technology needed for tomorrow’s conflicts. All those things were agreed at the summit.

That is not to say that NATO should not take steps to defend Europe and north America—it should, and we declared at the summit that the interim ballistic missile defence capability to protect Europe is operational. It was particularly good to have a special session with the partners who work with NATO around the world, and in particular the 50 countries that make up the NATO-led alliance in Afghanistan.

NATO’s military commanders set out the progress in the campaign. Attacks by insurgents are down and transition to Afghan control is on track. Over the next few weeks, we will reach the point at which 75% of the population will be living in areas where Afghan forces are in the lead for security. The vital next steps are to deliver the final stages of transition, and to continue the build-up of the Afghan national security forces and ensure they are properly funded for the future. Britain is pledging £70 million—$100 million—a year, but it is right that other countries should step up and contribute to the future of Afghanistan, irrespective of the role they have played so far. The summit marked a turning point in those contributions, with almost $1 billion being pledged to support the Afghan national security forces.

Britain has played a leading role in the alliance for reasons of our own security. Three years ago, some three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots against Britain had links to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am now advised that that figure has fallen to around a half. Our aim is an Afghanistan that is able to take care of its own security without the need for foreign troops, and an Afghanistan that can prevent al-Qaeda returning and posing a threat to us and to our allies around the world.

The tremendous hard work of our courageous servicemen and women is making that possible. After 10 long years, they will finally be coming home. I pay tribute to them. Their service and their sacrifice is beyond measure. We remember in particular all those who have given their lives in this vital task to keep our country safe, and I commend this statement to the House.

12:41

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start with the NATO summit. On Afghanistan, the Opposition welcome the summit’s confirmation that the transition of full security responsibility from the international security assistance force to the Afghan national security forces is set for completion by mid-2013, and that British combat operations are set to end by the end of 2014.

Let me echo the Prime Minister’s words about our troops. They have served heroically in Afghanistan for more than a decade now, and we owe them enormous gratitude. I am sure I speak for the whole House and the Prime Minister when I say that we want to see them home with their families in the right way—one that respects the professionalism they have shown and the sacrifices they have made. To that end, will the Prime Minister give the House a clear indication of the timetable for the expected draw-down of British combat troops between now and 2014? Will he tell us how many British service personnel he expects to remain in Afghanistan after 2014 and which services they are likely to be drawn from, and will he confirm that they will remain under a NATO command and control structure? Will he also tell the House whether he has had discussions with President Zardari on the important issue of land access across Pakistan, which is so vital for British military and ISAF supplies?

On the political situation in Afghanistan, does the Prime Minister agree that honouring the sacrifices and bravery of our troops means taking the political challenge there as seriously as we take the military challenge? Given that the final stage of the military campaign is under way, what concrete steps will now be taken that were not already in place before the Chicago summit to secure an inclusive political settlement within Afghanistan and between Afghanistan’s regional partners? Does he agree that the international community has talked for a long time about talks about talks on the political settlement we need, and that we need far greater urgency in seeking that settlement for when our troops come home?

On the G8 summit, we join the Government in calling for an immediate end to violence to stop the continuing bloodshed in Syria, and I join the Prime Minister in his remarks on Burma.

On the global economy, we desperately needed a plan for growth, for both Europe and the international community. The Prime Minister entertained Opposition Members with his description of President Hollande as his new best buddy, given that he endorsed the President’s opponent in the most fulsome terms. The Prime Minister told Le Figaro:

“Nicolas Sarkozy has my support. I say it clearly.”

The Foreign Office was a bit perturbed and started briefing about that, saying:

“We put all the chips on one card and it turned out not to be the ace...It was an error of judgment and not what was advised”.

Perhaps he will tell us whether he was advised to see President Hollande but twice refused to do so? The Foreign Office also said something that, after today, I think we can all concur with:

“The Prime Minister has a habit of shooting from the hip.”

That is certainly true.

In reality, we did not get the conclusions and action we needed from the summit because the international community is divided—not united, as the Prime Minister said—between those who believe we must have a decisive shift towards growth, such as President Obama, now joined by President Hollande, and those who believe that the answer lies in more of the same, such as the German Chancellor and this Prime Minister. For two years he has been the high priest of austerity, telling the world that austerity alone is the answer, but now the recognition has dawned that it is not working, and he finds himself on the wrong side of the argument. That is why he is desperately scrabbling around to say that President Hollande is his great friend.

What has the Prime Minister delivered at home? The recovery has turned to recession, there has been no growth for 18 months and 1 million young people are out of work. He was fond of quoting yesterday’s IMF report, but he did not quote this from Christine Lagarde:

“Growth is too slow and unemployment—including youth unemployment—is too high.”—

[Interruption.] Hang on a sec. I am getting to it. She continued:

“Policies to bolster demand before low growth becomes entrenched are needed”.

That is not his position. His position is: more of the same. So we have the ultimate irony of a Prime Minister who has delivered a double-dip recession lecturing other people on how to get growth.

What did the Prime Minister actually achieve at the summit? We know some of the things he did. He watched the football—nice pictures! He went to the gym. He even squeezed in some sight-seeing. The only thing there is not a photo of is of him making a difference to the world economy—in other words, doing his job. At the G20 last November, he signed a communiqué stating that if “global conditions materially worsen”, countries will take action “to support domestic demand.” Well, global conditions have worsened, so where is the action for growth? Where is the decisive shift we need across the global economy? Why has he not delivered it? He has not delivered it because he does not believe in it.

The Prime Minister is actually making things worse, not better. Last Sunday, the Chancellor went on television and said that speculation about the break-up of the euro was damaging Britain’s economy. He said that

“it’s open speculation…about the future of some countries in the eurozone which I think is doing real damage”.

Will the Prime Minister explain, then, why he decided to do just that last Wednesday and say, “Make up or break up”? It might have rhymed, but does he not understand that it did nothing to help our economy or anyone else’s?

Given the seriousness of the position in Greece, does the Prime Minister really believe that for him to deliver an ultimatum to Greek voters over the weekend about their election was such a good idea? I would have thought that after his experience of the French election, he might have realised it was not such a good idea to get involved.

Finally, on tonight’s European summit, euro bonds are important and a stronger firewall would make a difference, but the crucial thing is demand. Does he not accept that without a plan for growth and demand in Europe, we cannot get a solution on deficits across Europe that is either politically or economically sustainable? The problem with this Prime Minister is that he can only offer more of the same. He cannot be part of the solution because he is part of the problem. All he offers is more austerity. It is not working in Britain, and it is not working in Europe. It is a failed plan from a failing Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Five minutes and absolutely no plan! The Leader of the Opposition had nothing positive to say. It was a good joke about Sarkozy, but let me say this: we all have our faults, but I would rather have a reputation for being loyal to my friends than for knifing my brother.

The right hon. Gentleman started with NATO and asked some serious questions, so let me give him some serious answers. He asked for a clear indication about the draw-down. We will go down to 9,000 troops by the end of this year. Clearly, we need to set out a pathway between now and the end of 2014. I want it to be based on the conditions on the ground and on how well the transition is going in the three provinces for which we are responsible. Obviously, I will keep the House updated on that. We do not want a great cliff edge at the end.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be left at the end of 2014. We have made a clear decision on this. President Karzai asked us to provide an officer training college in Afghanistan and we will be doing that. We have the assistance of the Australians and the New Zealanders on that, and we hope that others will be joining in. That is the baseline of our commitment, but clearly we will listen to any other requests. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be a NATO-led operation in terms of training: yes it will, but there will not be NATO combat operations after 2014.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the relationship with Pakistan and about the vital issue of the ground lines of communication—the so-called GLOCs. It is essential that they are reopened. I spoke to Prime Minister Gilani about this when he visited the UK a week or so ago, and I spoke to President Zardari at the conference. I am confident that progress will be made but, frankly, it needs to be made more rapidly than is currently the case.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the political challenge, and he is right about that. I have said all along that, alongside the military surge, we need a political surge. We are working very hard with the Afghans and the Pakistanis to deliver that. We have made a very clear offer to the Taliban that if they lay down their weapons and join a political process, that process will be open to them. But we have to be prepared for the political process not advancing as far as we would like, and that is why we must ensure that the build-up of the Afghan national security forces goes according to plan so that we can hand over in good order, as I believe we will.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about Syria and Burma. On President Hollande, let me make this point. President Hollande said something that I think the right hon. Gentleman should perhaps adapt slightly, then repeat. He said:

“The national debt is the enemy of the left and of France.”

We have never heard the right hon. Gentleman say anything as clear as that before. Let us look at what President Hollande is doing. When he was asked how he would stimulate growth, he said:

“The means cannot be extra public spending, since we want to rein it in”.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about our approach on growth. We agree with the Italian Prime Minister that we need structural reform in Europe. We agree with the French President that we need a more active monetary policy in Europe. We agree with the German Chancellor that deficit reduction is vital in getting interest rates down. The problem is that Europe has not had all three, but we support all three of those things.

Finally, I would just say to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody I can find in Europe, not even the left-wing party in Greece, backs his idea of putting an extra £200 billion of borrowing into the British economy. That is the Labour policy. It would put up interest rates, it would wreck our economy and it would wreck our prospects—which is exactly what Labour did in office.

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

Did anyone at the G8 summit emphasise that the basic cause of the economic and political crisis in Europe was not the Greek debt but the single European currency and its lack of a lender of last resort, which is now a threat to the global stability of the banks? May I put it to the Prime Minister that, until the leaders of the great nations grasp that fact and act upon it, the turmoil in Europe will continue?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that a single currency requires an active, interventionist central bank behind it. That is something that we have been saying for a very long time, and it is one of the reasons I have always been sceptical about the single currency. There is a growing realisation that, alongside plans to deal with deficits to provide fiscal credibility, there is a need for a more active monetary policy. That is what we have in the UK, with our single currency across our nations, and if Europe is to have a working single currency, it needs that sort of monetary policy too.

[Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

While I welcome the change of rhetoric over the weekend, particularly from the Prime Minister, in recognising that austerity alone will not work—at least, from his point of view, in Europe; he might apply that here, too—will he tell us whether the German position has changed at all? It does not seem to have done so, but until it does, I shall find it hard to believe that the eurozone can come up with anything convincing or credible before the Greek elections on 17 June.

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and he raises absolutely the right point. I would say that the German approach is changing, to an extent, because the Germans know that alongside deficit reduction plans, in a single currency, there needs to be greater co-ordination of that single currency. Their concern is that they do not want to take their foot off the deficit reduction until they have more of a political system around the single currency. I understand their concern. This is one of the reasons that I never wanted to join a single currency; I have always believed that a single currency involved a sort of single economic government. The struggle is to try to convince countries in Europe that, alongside deficit reduction, they need a more active monetary policy, a European Central Bank that stands behind the currency, and the structural reforms, such as completing the single market, that we have always argued for.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome the emphasis on growth. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Bank of England and the banking regulators in the UK need to amend their method of operation to ensure that sufficient money and credit are available to fuel a private sector-led recovery, rather than simply providing more cheap money for the state? Could they not learn from America, which is doing that very well, in order to avoid the problems that Europe is being plunged into by doing it far worse than we are?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When I say “active monetary policy”, I do not simply mean a central bank that engages in quantitative easing, or whatever. We need to ensure that all the monetary institutions of a country, including its banks, are properly capitalised and properly working. Around Europe, there is a lot of work that needs to be done on that.

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

With regard to the Prime Minister’s discussion with the President of Pakistan, does he deplore Barack Obama’s offensive discourtesy towards the President, the sovereignty of whose country the United States has violated with deadly effect? Will he confirm that Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with our Commonwealth partner in defying American colonialism?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say that I would not put it like that. We need to work very closely with our American allies, within our special relationship, to try to deal with the terrorism that has come out of Afghanistan and is still coming out of parts of Pakistan. It is in our national interest to do that, but I always urge all international friends and partners to show patience and understanding with Pakistan because it is the biggest victim of terror of all. It has complex politics, and it needs to be given the space to resolve some of those issues. It also needs to know that its friends, such as Britain, will not leave it after the Afghan conflict is over, and that we are there for long-term partnership, friendship and support.

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

Of course I associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes to our serving forces, particularly in Afghanistan, and to those who have given their lives. On the global economy, will the Prime Minister continue to make it clear that, although we are not in the eurozone and should not wish to join the eurozone, it is in our interests that we support the other countries in Europe that are in it—including, as the Father of the House said, by supporting their structural reform? Does he also agree that an increase in the internal market across Europe is in their interest and ours, and that construction at home is the best way of creating the growth that we need in this country as an immediate priority?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It is in Britain’s interests that the problems in the eurozone are dealt with. We have consistently made a whole series of suggestions about firewalls, about strengthening banks and about consistent and strong contingency plans. The point that I was making at the weekend is that it has become ever more urgent to make those contingency plans because, frankly, it is not in our power to determine whether Greece decides to stay in the eurozone. We have to prepare for every eventuality, however difficult that might be.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

This morning, the European Parliament passed, by a very large majority, a call for a financial transactions tax. Can the Prime Minister foresee what his stance, and that of other leaders, will be on that matter this evening?

[The Prime Minister]

My view is very simple: I am against a financial transactions tax, for the simple reason that the European Commission did a piece of research into such a tax and found that it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. While it might sound as though it would tax the bankers and all the rest of it, it would actually put up the cost of people’s insurance policies and pension policies and drive all that activity offshore. I am not surprised that some other European countries support it, because they see it as a good way of taking a lot of tax out of the UK and spending it in Europe. Well, I am not falling for it.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

There is increasing pressure for political union between certain member states. Whether this is achieved by enhanced co-operation, by separate intergovernmental treaty or by other stealth measures, does my right hon. Friend accept that, irrespective of the European Union Act 2011, such a fundamental change in the relationship between such member states of the European Union and the United Kingdom would necessitate a referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with that position. I think the right position for the UK is to say that we should hold a referendum only if power were to pass from Westminster to Brussels or if we were to join some new treaty or political construction that involved the passing of that power. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that the single currency clearly has within it the seeds of greater political union, so we have to work out—in this country, in our coalition and in the Conservative party—how to respond to that and how to get the best deal for Britain as the situation develops.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister talks about the continued importance of NATO and about some of the things that have been agreed, but the agreed changes are largely peripheral and the need for reform is profound. Is there not a danger that the understandable focus on the economic crisis is sucking the life out of the need for reform in NATO? Will he focus on that? Notwithstanding the understandable needs of the economy, will the Prime Minister make sure that the change programme that is so badly needed to get decent interoperability within NATO does not lose its momentum?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of this subject. I would be a little more optimistic: one NATO reform, which I know he would welcome, aimed to cut the bureaucratic and headquarters posts around Europe. To be fair to Secretary-General Rasmussen, he has done an excellent job in delivering that. We have also delivered the ballistic missile defence in interim capability, which is another important step forward for NATO. Where I am perhaps more optimistic than the right hon. Gentleman is that I think the reality of the situation will drive us towards reform. Everyone faces tough budgets, and the fact that America is now providing almost three quarters of NATO’s funding and assets is unsustainable, so other countries are, frankly, going to have to step up to the plate, look at their arrangements and co-operate more, as we are with the French, to deliver more of the teeth and less of the tail.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

May I warmly endorse the Prime Minister’s view that NATO is vital to our security and congratulate him on the very positive role he played at the summit as the leader of one of NATO’s most important countries? Does he agree that the Secretary-General’s programme for smart defence is key to the future reform of NATO and that the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) spoke a great deal of sense?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. The truth is that there is duplicated defence capacity all over Europe, much of which is not deployable. We need all countries to undergo the difficult and painful things we have done in strategic defence reviews to work out what weapons and systems are needed for the conflicts of the future, recognising that NATO is less likely to fight land invasions and much more likely to have to deal with failed states and terrorism, so the needed capacities are different. Even that will not be enough, as we then need a lot more co-operation—particularly, I think, between the leading members of NATO, which is why we are working so closely with the French—so that we can deliver complementary capabilities and get more done as a result.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

With the aim of achieving growth, the IMF specifically recommended yesterday that UK banks slow their acquisition of capital buffers, thereby making more money available to British businesses and small businesses. Do the Government agree with that recommendation, and will they work with the Bank of England to implement it as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This is a difficult issue to get right. We are rightly discussing two problems: the need for growth, and the need for financial stability and ensuring we are safe, with the headwinds of a potential eurozone storm approaching. I think the best approach is to work hand in glove with the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority to get that balance right. That is what the Government will do.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stamina, as I calculate that by this evening he will have done three summits in two continents in five days. I reiterate the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth). We have to impress on NATO members that the conclusion of the Afghanistan campaign is no justification for cutting defence budgets. It is essential to have a full-blooded review of NATO strategy, with a full-blooded commitment from all its members.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about my summitry. By the end of tonight, that will be enough summits for quite some time, although the G20 will soon catch up on us. What he says about NATO is right. We need reviews from all NATO countries, which need to go through their budgets and work out what is necessary for national defence. We need to ask what more we can all do to make sure that NATO has the capacities it needs for the future.

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

I endorse what the Prime Minister said about the importance of NATO to our national security and the need to spend more on the technology of tomorrow. Cyber-terrorism poses an ever-greater threat. Will the Prime Minister assure us that within NATO intense focus will be devoted and resources given to that big and growing problem across the world?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the things the UK did in the strategic defence review was to invest some of the savings made—from memory, I think it was £900 million—in a cyber-defence programme. That is being co-ordinated with GCHQ, but also involves the private sector. We hope to work with other NATO members on that capability to make sure that we share best experience and endeavours, and that should lead to savings for us and for others.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The euro is as dead as Monty Python’s parrot: it is no more, it has ceased to be, it has expired. So why do the euro elite continue to claim that it is alive and well? Is it not essential that Europe implements an orderly break-up of the eurozone before the markets force an economic tsunami?

[The Prime Minister]

Like my hon. Friend, I have always been a genuine euro-sceptic—sceptical about the euro—which is why I did not want to join it. We have to recognise, however, what is in this country’s interest, which is for the eurozone to sort out its issues and difficulties. I believe that will involve greater fiscal transfers and it must involve eurobonds over time. As I have said, it involves a more active monetary policy in Europe. We should encourage our European partners to go down this road to make sure that their system works properly. There are real dangers from disorganised exits from the euro. It is not just that countries would devalue, which would have an impact on us, as we have to think about the impact on financial institutions and banks around Europe, including on British banks. It is very important that the eurozone takes the necessary steps to put in place the contingency plans to keep it safe.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Now that the Prime Minister is lecturing Greece about the need for growth and that we need a little bit in Spain and the eurozone, so he says, for the sake of clarity can we get to the bottom of growth here? Will he repeat these words after me: “I’m going to drop the austerity plan and go for growth in Britain”? Now’s your chance.

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I deeply regret that my last encounter with him was perhaps a bit sharper than it should have been, and I hope he will accept my apology. He is a tremendous ornament to this House, and that will always remain the case. I do not agree with him because I think a deficit reduction plan is necessary to deliver the low interest rates we need, which are essential for growth. I make the point again that when this Government came to power, our interest rates were the same as those in Spain. Today, ours are less than 2% and Spain’s are over 6%. One reason for that is that we have a credible fiscal policy.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an absolute cast-iron assurance that while he is Prime Minister this country will never, ever join the euro—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who seems very open to the idea?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to give that pledge. I note that the Leader of the Opposition said that whether we joined the euro would depend on how long he was Prime Minister; I am not sure which prospect is the more terrifying.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Young people in Merseyside see their friends suffering from a lack of opportunities, and they feel distressed when they see huge unemployment rates among young people in Greece and Spain. Will the Prime Minister say specifically what discussions he had with G8 colleagues about infrastructure development as part of a global plan for growth?

[The Prime Minister]

We did discuss the issue of infrastructure development, because I think that it can be part of what needs to be done. The rise of unemployment is tragic in any country, but the figures in Greece, Spain and elsewhere in southern Europe are eye-watering: 50% of young people are unable to find work.

As I have said, I think that the elements of the plan that we need are the fiscal credibility that provides low interest rates and the active monetary policy that supports demand in the economy, as it has in the UK, but combined with structural reforms. There is a need for proper structural reforms in Greece and other countries so that they can have competitive economies. The extra element is using the credibility that we have earned, and the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, to try to deliver innovative finance to infrastructure and credit. That is obviously an option that is open in Europe as well, and I think that it is what President Hollande is referring to when he talks about project bonds. Those are the elements of a growth plan. We have them all in the UK, and we need them in Europe as well.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we look at the scale, and the time scale, of the burden that fell on what was then West Germany at the time of German reunification, we have a sense of the awesome challenge that would face any German Chancellor trying to achieve fiscal union in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is entirely right. Some people imply—it was implied in the question from the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—that German stubbornness is unreasonable. It is understandable. Obviously, for the success of the eurozone we need everyone to adopt approaches such as those I have described in terms of monetary policy, eurobonds and the rest of it, but it is important to understand people’s motivations and difficulties, because they are what lie behind the current impasse.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is good that the Russians shared in the motion on Syria, but even if we leave aside the rigged elections in the Russian Federation, there are still major human rights abuses in Russia. For instance, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s second trial has been universally condemned by every international organisation in the world and, indeed, by many organisations in Russia. He tried to secure an appeal, but it was turned down only last week by Judge Alexander Voronov, who is not an ordinary judge but a military judge in the military chamber of the Supreme Court. When the decision was handed down that there could be no appeal, it was done on the Russian armed forces website. Does that not show that Russia has a great distance to go before it can really embrace being part of the humanity of nations?

[The Prime Minister]

We discuss the importance of freedom, human rights and democracy regularly with Russian colleagues. When I visited Russia, I met civil society organisations to discuss precisely those issues. However, I think that it is very worthwhile to have Russia in the G8. When we are discussing issues such as Iran and Syria, in which Russia has an interest—and, frankly, we want it to join in the efforts we are pursuing—I think that it is helpful to have the Russians there.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

In the absence of progress towards a global trade deal through the Doha round, an EU-US deal could be a decent second-best if it meaningfully reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Can the Prime Minister give an indication of a plausible time frame for the conclusion of such a deal, and perhaps also an indication of how much the UK economy in particular might benefit from it?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that there is still something salvageable from the Doha round—all the elements of trade facilitation, such as helping to reduce customs times and charges, rather than the bigger Doha package—and I think that we should pursue that. We had a conversation at the end of the G8 in which we agreed to go away and look at our “issues paper” for the G20, and to establish whether there was a small enough distance to be closed between the EU and the US to make a deal worthwhile. I am very hopeful. Britain is one of the most open trading nations. There are real concerns on both sides—obviously there is a French position on agriculture, and an American position on many services and other issues—but I think that we will have a good look at this at the G20 and see whether we can fast-track it.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that Greece spends 50% more on defence than ourselves, France or Turkey, and is the biggest arms importer in Europe? Is he aware that the Greek shipping industry, which accounts for 7% of Greek GDP, and the Greek Orthodox Church, which is the biggest land and property owner, do not pay a penny in tax? When he talks to the Greek Prime Minister, will he ask him to scale down defence spending and get the oligarchs and the Orthodox Church to pay a little bit to solve the Greek crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However much one can look at the Greek situation and feel for the people who are suffering as a result of unemployment and living standards, there is a crying need for genuine reform in Greece, and for more straightforward and honest politics when it comes to dealing with those problems. That means making sure that people do pay their taxes, and making sure that industries are competitive.

The issue of defence spending is obviously more complex because of the relationship between Greece and Turkey, but as we are now both NATO members and Turkey is an aspirant EU nation, there should be an opportunity to decrease Greek spending on national defence, while of course encouraging it to be a good NATO member at the same time.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

At the G8 summit, did any of the leaders advance the argument that dealing with the deficit and supporting growth were alternatives, or did they argue that it was necessary to bring about growth through monetary policy, by supporting the banks and by getting trade going? Did anyone advance the argument that it was necessary to borrow one’s way out of debt?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Absolutely no one suggested that dealing with deficits and securing growth were alternatives. They are complementary: we need both. That is the view of everyone around the G8 table. There is only group of people who have their heads in the sand and are complete deficit deniers, and they are the people who gave us the deficit in the first place.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly drew attention to the level of youth unemployment in Greece, which is more than 50%. More than a quarter of adults are unemployed, and the economy is set to contract by a further 6% in the current financial year. The Prime Minister has preached austerity in this country and all around the world. That is exactly what has been done in Greece, and that is exactly what the result has been. Is the Prime Minister prepared to put pressure on the European Central Bank, in so far as he can, to stop the austerity oppression in Greece and start supporting the needs of ordinary people who have worked very hard and do not deserve this misery?

[The Prime Minister]

This is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman. In this country, we have consistently said “You need to have deficit reduction, which delivers low interest rates and enables your central bank to pursue an active and expansionary monetary policy”—which is what we have had in this country—“and at the same time you need the structural reforms to ensure that your businesses are competitive and can take on more people and grow.” That is what we are seeing in Britain, with 600,000 more private sector jobs. It is a world away from what is happening in Greece or in many other parts of the eurozone, which do not have the monetary policy accompanying the fiscal policy and which have not undertaken the structural reforms we are undertaking.

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

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the biggest threat to our country at present is indeed the crisis in the eurozone, but almost parallel with that is the possible pending crisis in the middle east. Given that a very important conference begins today in Baghdad, did my right hon. Friend manage to find time at the weekend to emphasise to the Russian and Chinese leaders the importance of their role in trying to ensure a peaceful outcome of the Iranian situation?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. A good portion of the G8 was spent discussing the situation in Iran, and specifically discussing the talks that are under way in Baghdad today. It was heartening that the Russians signed up to a pretty tough text on Iran, and I think that the path is very clear. Europe has rightly adopted the oil sanctions, and the pressure is beginning to tell on the Iranian economy. This is the moment at which to maximise the pressure, to encourage other countries around the world to join in with the sanctions, and to say to the Iranians “There is a different pathway. You can have civil nuclear power; you can have a more decent relationship with other countries of the world; but you must give up the ambition of enriching uranium to such an extent that it could deliver a nuclear weapon to you.”

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Whatever the structural deficiencies and other problems that exist in Greece and have existed there for a number of years, this problem was not caused by that; it was caused by the banking and economic crisis in the world, and the way in which the eurozone has dealt with it. The suffering and austerity in Greece is on a completely different scale from what we have even envisaged in this country, and it is untenable for it to continue. Will the Prime Minister go back and ask the euro partners—not least, of course, the Germans—to think again about what we can do to bring about a different plan there? I remind him that Greece is a very proud nation. It is a very important ally of ours, it stood by us alone in 1941 against the Nazis, and we should do what we can to help it.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I agree that Greece is an important ally. Relations between Britain and Greece are very strong, and the historical analogy the hon. Gentleman draws is absolutely right. I do not agree, however, that the problems in Greece are caused only by the euro or by the banking crisis. There are deep and profound problems in the Greek economy that need to be dealt with. There must be the right combination: there need to be deficit reduction plans; there needs to be an active monetary policy; there need to be reforms to the eurozone; and there need to be structural reforms. In the end, however, it will be for the Greek people to decide whether they want to do these things inside the eurozone our outside the eurozone. Clearly, a disorderly exit would be very bad for Britain, and we should do everything we can to avoid that, but we need to plan for every eventuality and have proper contingencies in place.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

In the absence of much-needed supply-side reforms in the eurozone, I suggest a day of reckoning is fast approaching. Given that since the second world war there have been 80-plus cases of countries leaving a currency bloc and the vast majority of them have benefited from that, does the Prime Minister think that we are fast approaching a time when we should stop talking about the need to save the euro, because it can create uncertainty and hit confidence and investment in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I am not entirely sure I agree. There are, of course, examples of countries that have left currency pegs, and suffered in the short term but then recovered. There have also been countries that split their currency in two; Czechoslovakia managed that process well. There is a substantial difference, however, between such cases and situations where there is a potential breakaway from a currency zone with a single currency. That is a different situation because the banks are so intertwined. That is why we must think very carefully about the contingency plans for such situations.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister paid tribute to the troops who have come home from Afghanistan. Recently, my wife, Norma, and I welcomed a Black Watch battalion home to Dundee. Can the Prime Minister assure me, current serving personnel in the Black Watch, Black Watch veterans, my family and my constituents that on his watch there will always be a Black Watch?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much want us to keep the regimental structure; that is very important. At the same time, however, we need to deliver this big change in our armed forces—which, actually, will deliver a larger Army, but also a better balance between a professional Army and a territorial Army. We are looking at exactly how that can be done, while saving the important regiments about which people rightly feel so strongly.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

At the G8 summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed development, with the aim of lifting 50 million people out of poverty in the next 10 years. May I therefore urge him to do even more in respect of microfinance as a way of creating sustainable economies over the long term, and to use charities such as the MicroLoan Foundation in Chiswick, which gets a 99% return on the money it gives to women in Africa to create businesses for themselves and their families?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are, of course, committed to aid and development, and to expanding the new alliance for food security and nutrition programme that Barack Obama launched. Microfinance is important because it not only helps to grow small businesses, but it empowers women, which can make an enormous difference to the success of development.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Was there any discussion about the situation in Yemen? The Prime Minister will know that on Monday a bomb exploded in the middle of the unity day celebrations, killing 96, and this morning aid agencies have said that half the population is going to starve to death. I appreciate what the Prime Minister and his Government—and successive Governments—have done. However, while the Prime Minister has made Burma a priority for his chairmanship of the G8—I also acknowledge your role, Mr Speaker, in championing the cause of Burma—can he not also find a little space for Yemen, because a stable Yemen is in our interests? If we do not support that country, al-Qaeda will take it over and it will bleed to death.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I absolutely agree with him on this. At the G8 summit, I talked about the next G8 and said it was very important that we address the security and development priorities of the future. I think both Yemen and Somalia fall squarely into that bracket. The recent hideous bomb attack and loss of life in Yemen was extremely distressing. We must focus a huge amount of effort on the country. A development effort is going in: I think the Department for International Development will today announce an investment of £26 million in that country. We must also give an enormous amount of national security assistance to the country, and I discussed that in my bilateral with President Obama.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

May I echo what the Prime Minister said about our brave servicemen and women, who continue to strive to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan? Sadly, agreement was not reached on reopening the supply routes through Pakistan. Will the Prime Minister comment further on that, and on the role of Pakistan as a key ally in our efforts to leave Afghanistan on a stable footing at the end of 2014?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a key point. We need to ensure we have northern routes as well, of course, and I had a good meeting with the President of Azerbaijan to discuss that issue. On Pakistan, Members are absolutely entitled to feel frustrated. We are enormous aid donors to Pakistan, and we have a very strong relationship with the country. It is frustrating that the lines of control are still closed, but there are ongoing discussions and I am confident they will be reopened. We have to show an understanding about how this country has suffered from terrorism, about the complexities of its politics and about the need to show real respect for its sovereignty and its democracy. The message we must give to both Afghanistan and Pakistan is that long after this war is over, we will be there supporting both of them as strong independent countries, diplomatically, politically, through trade, through aid—through all the means we have—and we will not desert them.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In a recent visit to Nigeria, I saw at first hand the great opportunity for agri-investment in that amazing country. However, the all-party group that I chair has heard a lot from British businesses about the logistical challenges and security concerns of investment in Nigeria. While the new alliance for food security and nutrition is a good step, what support will the Prime Minister pledge to British companies looking to invest there, so we get the win-win of both growth in British business and food and jobs for Nigerians?

[The Prime Minister]

When I went to Nigeria and met the UK Trade & Investment team in Lagos, I was hugely impressed by its work and its dedication, and also by the incredible links between British Nigerians and Nigerian British, as it were, working between the two countries. We work very closely with the Nigerian Government on security, because there are considerable security challenges, particularly in the north of the country. Security training and counter-terrorism co-operation between the UK and Nigeria can help produce major dividends both for that country and for trade and investment.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Given that increasing exports to emerging economies needs to be a key part of the growth strategy of many of the G8 nations, will the Prime Minister update us on any discussions he has had with other European leaders on progress on the pending free trade agreement between the EU and India?

[The Prime Minister]

We had a number of discussions about the free trade agreements. There is a series of such agreements: the Indian one; the Canadian one; the chance of getting one going with Japan. My view is that all of them are good news. The Korean one has been a success, and we need to drive them all forward—and we are certainly in the vanguard of doing that.

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

May I echo the comments of those colleagues who expressed concern at the scale of the cuts and the retrenchment being forced on Greece—the ordinary people of Greece, not the Greek Government? While I agree with the Prime Minister that there need to be structural reforms and the changes he has suggested, would it not be better to have a bit more flexibility—a bit more European solidarity—rather than end up forcing Greece into a situation that leads not only to the collapse of that country, but immense consequences for the eurozone and the entire world economy?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we are not a participant in the eurozone bail-out of Greece. We are supporting Greece through the IMF, however. The hon. Gentleman must consider this point: other European and eurozone countries, some of which are not particularly rich themselves, have had a series of agreements with Greece about what needs to be done and what money will be put in, and effectively he is asking them to go back repeatedly to their own Parliaments and say, “Well, I promised I wouldn’t ask for any more for Greece, but here I am again asking for more.” That is very challenging for them. As I have said, in the end it will be for the Greek people to decide, in their election, whether they want to stay in the euro and keep to the undertakings they have given, or whether they want to choose a different path. We in this country must be clear that we should support all and any contingency plans to make sure that either scenario can be safely delivered.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

The Prime Minister cited in his statement the extraordinary statistic that the EU and the US together make up more than half the world’s gross domestic product. Does he accept that this may well be the last generation for whom that is the case, and that it is therefore more vital than ever that we reach out further and faster into developing markets to support our exporters and build on our strengths as a country?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that the share of world trade and the share of the world economy taken by the EU and America together is likely to decline as that of China and India rise, but I was always taught in business that going back to one’s best and biggest customer to get that extra deal is often a very good strategy, so we should be thinking exactly about that in terms of EU-US trade.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

At a time when defence budgets are constrained right the way across the alliance, is it not important for NATO itself to demonstrate, in the same way as its member states, that every pound it spends is well spent? Will the UK therefore support proposals being considered by the NATO secretariat to ensure that the external audit service for NATO is entirely independent of NATO, that accounts are published in a timely fashion—say, within six months of the year- end—and that they are available for parliamentarians in this and other Parliaments in NATO states to scrutinise, in the same way that we scrutinise our own defence expenditures?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman, who has great knowledge of these things, makes a series of sensible suggestions and we should look carefully at them. Let me again commend Secretary-General Rasmussen for what he has done in reforming the huge number of command posts and headquarters posts in NATO. I suspect that there is more to be done on that front, as well.

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

Currently, Britain has only some 3% of the European market in services. Can the Prime Minister confirm just how important completing the services market is for British services?

[The Prime Minister]

On completing the single markets in digital, in services and in energy, each of them can add, I believe, more than a percentage point on European GDP. The services market is particularly important because it is an area that Britain excels at—not just financial services but everything, including construction and architecture. On opening up services in other countries, a number of countries are currently in breach of their undertakings, so the pressure for this, particularly in countries such as Germany, should be very great.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all know the expression, “Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day; give him a rod and he can eat for life.” Therefore, why is some of the money being used to pay down the debt in Greece and not instead being invested in solar forests across Greece so that they can provide Europe with energy; being invested in rail links, so that people can travel between Greece and other European countries and thereby boost tourism; and being invested in universal broadband, so that we can connect Greece to the world? We have a politically acceptable and economically sustainable solution, instead of putting half a fish on the table, leaving the Greeks hungry and angry by lunch time.

[The Prime Minister]

The Greeks have had a very special deal—an enormous private sector haircut on their debt, through which creditors have been asked to take a share of the burden. The money that Greece has received in the last decade from the European Union could have gone into many of the projects that the hon. Gentleman points out. Part of the problem in parts of the eurozone is that the early years of the euro saw wage rates and unit costs of labour rise, rather than their being fundamental changes to make these countries more competitive.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

It seems that there is a strong possibility that Greece will be forced out of the eurozone, and we are obviously concerned about the impact on the economy that a disorderly exit may have. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to hold discussions with our European partners and develop contingency plans to ensure that such an exit has the minimum possible impact on the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Obviously, this is not something we want to see happen, and it is in our interests that the eurozone deals with its issues, strengthens its firewalls and strengthens its banks, and that we start to see the high interest rates in parts of Europe come down. But it would be irresponsible not to prepare proper contingency plans, and that is what the Treasury and others have been doing. As I say, whether Greece stays in the euro or not is not within our power, and we must prepare for all eventualities; but obviously, a disorganised exit would cause real difficulties.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Our country has invested a lot in Afghanistan—a lot of sacrifice and a lot of resource. So, along with many others, I am increasingly concerned at the lack of progress in the critical issues of politics and governance in Afghanistan, which, by nearly all accounts, are getting worse, not better. Will the Prime Minister therefore pledge to re-energise this process in order to give Afghanistan the best chance of surviving as an entity post-2014, ensuring that our efforts and sacrifice are not wasted?

[The Prime Minister]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, not least because he served in the military and knows about what he speaks. Regarding the political surge in Afghanistan, he is perhaps being a little too pessimistic. In Helmand province, the area for which we have been responsible, we have seen the excellent Governor Mangal make some real steps forward in governance. There are district governors in almost all the province now, and we have seen a huge amount of progress in wheat seed distribution, building schools and hospitals and providing basic levels of service. But clearly we need to do more, and what happens politically and in terms of reconciliation will determine the nature of the outcome we achieve in Afghanistan.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I welcome the declaration at the NATO summit on the interim ballistic missile defence system. Russia, however, remains hostile to the scheme. Has progress been made in persuading Russia that the scheme’s primary point is to protect Europe from ballistic missile threats from rogue nations, not from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, it is still a difficult discussion between NATO and Russia, but I think there is a level of understanding that the point of having a ballistic missile defence shield is to protect Europe from potential threats, including, for instance, Iran. It is important to remember that this is not instead of nuclear deterrence—it sits along side nuclear deterrence, which remains a key part of our defence posture.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The International Monetary Fund confirms in its article IV report published yesterday—if we needed it confirmed—that plan A is not delivering growth. It has also made a number of suggestions and recommendations, many of which have been discussed in the Chamber today, and some of them will be implemented in the coming months. The report goes on to suggest—recommend, even—a plan B to boost growth and temporarily cut taxes. Is the Prime Minister listening?

[The Prime Minister]

I listen very carefully to what the IMF says, and to me, two things stand out. First, it says that reducing the high structural deficit over the medium term remains essential and that the UK has made substantial progress towards achieving a more sustainable budgetary position—alongside saying that the situation we inherited made the IMF shiver. Secondly, and importantly, it forecasts that the UK will grow faster this year than France, Germany or the eurozone, so it is predicting that things will improve, not get worse.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

As our brave troops come home from Afghanistan, one of the key issues is the long-term sustainability of the Afghan economy. In the past, its biggest export has been the poppy crop, which has fuelled the illegal drugs trade worldwide. However, that self same product could be used to alleviate medical suffering worldwide. What consideration has been given to purchasing the poppy crop, so that we can use it for beneficial medical aims and sustain the Afghan economy as well?

[The Prime Minister]

I have looked at this issue in some detail. The key thing is that if proper governance, proper rule of law and proper transport networks can be delivered in a country, then what might be done with its ability to grow poppy might be considered; that is what happened in Turkey. But I have a feeling that if a poppy-purchasing project were suddenly introduced now, rather like in “Blue Peter”, you would buy one and they would produce another one they had made earlier, so I do not think it would work. But I do believe that the Afghan economy can develop, and that is one of the reasons that we are spending a serious amount of money not just on supporting the Afghan national security forces but on economic development in Afghanistan, and clearly, that will be key to its future.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Recently, I had a meeting with Afghan Sikhs in my constituency. Under the Taliban, they were forced to wear yellow ribbons and were prohibited from cremating their deceased loved ones. They have raised with me grave concerns about their freedom in the future and women’s freedom in Afghanistan. Can the Prime Minister update the House on any discussions that took place in Chicago on minority rights and women’s rights, so that we do not see a rolling back of social progress?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I had a good meeting with President Karzai in Chicago, and one of the points I made to him was that the quality of Afghan democracy, Afghan rights and Afghan justice will be absolutely key in delivering success. The Afghan constitution does guarantee some basic rights. That is why we say that, of course, if the Taliban put down their arms and stop fighting, they can discuss a future political role, rather as IRA-Sinn Fein have done in Northern Ireland, but they have to accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution.

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

I am immensely proud of the commitment to international aid made by this country, but I am concerned about the levels of some of the other members of the G8. May I urge the Prime Minister to use next year’s presidency to remind some of the other members of their Gleneagles commitment?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be delighted to do that. One of the strengths of the G8 is that it produces this accountability report, and I will make sure that a copy is put in the Library of the House of Commons because it is very compelling. It really holds countries to the promises they made about aid, about spending and about the different bits of that spending. People can see it there, in black and white: who has met their promises and who has not. We will continue to do that next year.

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

There are nearly 25 million people unemployed across the EU at the moment, and economic demand is continuing to fall in the eurozone and in this country, whereas in America it is rising this year. Will the Prime Minister therefore follow the lead of the US and Japanese Governments, and the advice of the IMF yesterday, and bring forward much-needed capital spending to boost infrastructure and get the construction sector off its knees?

[The Prime Minister]

We have said that we want to use the hard-won credibility we have, the low interest rates we have and the strong national balance sheet we have to encourage that private sector investment. We have made a series of important announcements about housing, including backing mortgages of up to 90% loan to value to try to get the housing market working again, because the housing market is not functioning. I would just say that if we look at America’s deficit reduction plans, we find that it actually has plans to reduce its deficit faster than we do.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the G8 decision to create the capital markets access initiative will help Arab spring countries to tap into international capital markets, bringing them both stability and prosperity?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think it is still a net bonus to the world that there has been the Arab spring, and we need the wealthy countries of the world and the European Union to get behind it. One of the problems we face is that those north African and Arab countries that have set themselves free were told in the past that they had experienced a free enterprise economy, whereas in fact they had really been having a sort of crony capitalism economy. We need to work very hard with them to encourage them to take a path that will make sure that their economies grow for the future.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s alert on the levels of aid going from the richest to the poorest countries. In following through on the commitment to sustainable hunger reduction, will he promote more support for smallholder farmers, who number more than half the world’s 1 billion hungry people, so that they and their families can grow and eat more and better food, can trade produce and can employ others, thus helping communities to thrive?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; part of the presentation given to the G8 by the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition was that through the proper use of fertilisers and of things such as exchanges, we can actually make sure that smaller farmers become more sustainable, grow their yields and can not only feed their families, but build a small business.

[Mr Speaker]

Last, but not least, we must hear from the voice of West Worcestershire, Harriett Baldwin.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I was so pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce a day for discussing global hunger during the Olympics. Does he agree that the agenda should cover not just food security and food production, but the hidden crisis of malnutrition, which literally stunts the growth of so many children around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It just seems to me that while we have the eyes of the world on Britain for the Olympics—and many African leaders will be coming to support their Olympic teams—we have a good opportunity to bring people together to say, “Here we have a great initiative in the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. Let’s take it to the next level. Let’s encourage more countries to join. Let’s make sure that we lift more people out of hunger and out of poverty.” But the point she makes about nutrition is absolutely crucial for the future of the planet.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues.

Public Appointees (Tax Arrangements)

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

13:44

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

As hon. Members are aware, in February I announced a review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees. I said that I would report back to the House on the results of that review, which is what I would like to do in this statement today. As I said at the time to the House, there is absolutely no place for tax avoidance in government. That is especially so at a time when money is tight and we all have to pay our fair share to help tackle the deficit.

As I told the House in February, senior civil servant appointments are audited against the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. That document states that

“public sector organisations should avoid using tax advisers or tax avoidance schemes as any apparent savings can only be made at the expense of other taxpayers or other parts of the public sector.”

That is why when questions were raised about the tax arrangements for senior public service appointees, I immediately put this review in place, and I would like to thank the investigative journalists at ExaroNews for bringing the issue to our attention.

The review looked at the extent of off-payroll engagements in Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies. With respect to the NHS, the review was limited to the boards of NHS organisations. None the less, the “Managing Public Money” guidance, and the new principles that I will set out today, apply in full to the NHS. The review could not include either local government or the BBC, which are not under direct control from central Government—it will be for those organisations to justify their own off-payroll arrangements, in the light of the unprecedented transparency we are showing today. Nor does it include devolved Administrations, and I hope they will now also follow the example we are setting.

Let me be clear to the House: the review published today did not seek to identify evidence of tax avoidance—that is the role of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The review looked at off-payroll engagements, because the opaque nature of those engagements has created the conditions where tax avoidance could be taking place. Let me also make it clear there are circumstances where it may be necessary and appropriate for an employer to appoint an individual off payroll—for instance, where Departments need to employ specialists to carry out short-term roles when there is no available civil service expertise. That practice will continue. However, the review has revealed the extensive and long-standing nature of off-payroll engagements in government. I can tell the House that the review has identified more than 2,400 off-payroll engagements in central Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies that were live on 31 January this year. That is an unacceptable number, given the lack of transparency on the tax arrangements of these contracts.

That lack of transparency cannot continue, so today each Department involved is publishing on its website a list of off-payroll appointees who, as of 31 January, were engaged at an annual cost to the Department of more than £58,200. The majority of cases relate to technical specialists; in fact, more than 40% relate specifically to IT specialists. The data also show that 70% of cases relate to arm’s length bodies. About 10% of the cases relate to payments made directly to a personal services company. More than 85% relate to intermediaries such as employment agencies, where it is not possible to know whether the individual is or is not using a personal service company. The other 5% relate to the self-employed, who are therefore subject to self-assessment in the normal way. About 70% of all those in the identified cases are paid more than £400 a day, and more than 70 cases cost Departments more than £1,000 a day. About 900 of the cases—approximately 40%—date back longer than two years. In fact, more than 20 cases date back more than 10 years, which some might consider an astonishing length of time to be on a contract. It is also worth noting that since January this year, more than 350 off-payroll contracts identified by this review have since ended. In about 10% of those cases the individual remained with the Department but is now on the payroll.

It is clear that off-payroll engagement without sufficient tax transparency has been endemic in the public sector for too many years. It is a problem that built up and was presided over by the previous Government. Indeed, it is likely that under their watch many more thousands of cases of off-payroll payment have come and gone, yet no one said a word.

The solution to the problem is not to turn a blind eye or brush it under the carpet. We must bring an end to the “don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to the issue and it is clear that the tax arrangements for off-payroll employees in the public sector are not as transparent to the employer as they should be. At the moment, contracts with off-payroll employees do not give Departments the right to request detailed tax assurance from individuals; nor can HMRC provide that information due to taxpayer confidentiality. Even when off-payroll employees are in fact paying the correct amount of income tax and national insurance, the employer has no means of reassuring themselves that that is the case. It is right that we should tackle that lack of transparency.

Today I can announce new tighter rules on off-payroll appointments. First, the presumption is that in the future the most senior staff must be put on the payroll. Secondly, all Departments must put in place provisions that allow them to seek formal assurance that anyone paid a senior rate and employed off-payroll for more than six months is meeting their income tax and national insurance obligations in full. If that reassurance is not provided when requested, Departments should terminate the contract.

Finally, these new tighter rules will be monitored carefully and any Department that does not comply will be fined up to five times the cost of the salary by the Treasury. In addition to those changes, we have shared all the detailed information from the review with HMRC, which will be able to take any further action it decides is necessary in individual cases. There will be no lengthy transition period for the new rules, either. They will be implemented by September this year and will be applied to existing contracts too, subject to value for money. Departments will report to Parliament on the outcome as part of the 2012-13 annual report and accounts process.

There is one further measure I want to announce today. Working through an intermediary provides an opportunity to minimise, or in some cases avoid completely, paying income tax and national insurance that would otherwise be payable. We already have anti-avoidance legislation, commonly known as IR35. That rule ensures that where there is in effect an employment relationship, if it was not for the interposition of a personal service company, the person concerned pays the appropriate amount of tax and national insurance. The rule is a vital tool in tackling tax avoidance and helps to ensure that people pay the right amount of tax.

Let us take as an example an individual earning £120,000 a year. In that instance, there could be as much as a £23,000 difference between the amount of tax and national insurance paid compared with that paid by somebody on the payroll. When IR35 was introduced 10 years ago, it was comparatively rare for controlling persons of an organisation to work through a personal service company. In the past few years, however, there have been high-profile reports of that happening, so today the Government are also consulting on the Budget proposal that all so-called “controlling persons” must by law be on the payroll of their organisation. This proposed tightening of the rules will apply to any organisation, be it public or private. It is right that when an individual is in a position to control the major activities of an organisation, they should be on the payroll of that organisation.

At a time of tight public finances, it is vital that everyone pays their fair share. The changes I have outlined today help to ensure that senior public staff pay, and are seen to pay, their full and fair share of income tax, and they demonstrate yet again the Government’s determination to clamp down on all forms of tax avoidance. I commend the statement to the House.

13:53

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and for providing advance notice of it. We welcome this review of the pay and tax arrangements of senior public servants.

At a time when ordinary families and businesses are bearing the brunt of the recession that this Government have created and at a time when more than 700,000 jobs in the public sector are being cut while ordinary public service workers who keep our NHS, schools and police services running have had their pay frozen and their pension contributions increased, people will be shocked that more than 2,000 senior public servants, many earning several times the average public sector wage, have been paid in a way that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of tax, and that 1,200 of these deals have been done by the present Government in the past two years.

The vast majority of working people in this country have no choice over how or whether to pay the tax that they owe and they will feel that those who benefit from the highest public sector salaries have a special responsibility to make their proper contribution to the funding of the public services on which we all rely and to which they owe their generous salaries. We should all be clear that if the taxpayer is paying someone a living, particularly a better living than the vast majority of taxpayers enjoy, that person has a duty to pay their fair share of tax and the Government have a duty to ensure that they do so.

The statement is a valuable step towards greater transparency and accountability and we welcome that, but I have a number of questions that I hope the Chief Secretary can answer today. First, on the question of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company, we now know that he was appointed at a salary significantly higher than that of his predecessor and that he potentially avoided paying around £42,000 annually in tax, an amount almost twice the average public sector salary. Will the Chief Secretary tell us which members of the Government agreed to the arrangement made with the chief executive of the Student Loans Company and which members of the Government were aware of the arrangements before the matter came to the public attention in February? Have changes been made to his payment arrangements since then and can we be assured that he is now paying his full share of income tax and national insurance? If not, when can we have that assurance? If his contract has been altered, has there been any cost to the taxpayer in doing so?

The Government committed to publishing details of all public servants paid more than £150,000, yet the chief executive of the Student Loans Company was not on the list published in 2011 despite, as we know, earning £182,000 and despite the fact that his predecessor was listed. Will the Chief Secretary explain why the chief executive’s name was not on that list and can he tell us if any other public servants paid more than £150,000 have not been listed so far and whether they will be listed in the 2012 publication?

Secondly, on the subject of the extent of the problem and the scope of the review, will the Chief Secretary confirm how many such deals were signed off since February, when the affairs of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company came to light? Will he confirm that those individuals paid more than the Prime Minister will have been personally approved by the Chief Secretary? How many has he personally approved? If any did not come to him for approval, can he explain why?

The review’s findings cover only people who earn more than £58,000, which is more than twice the average annual salary in this country. Will the Chief Secretary tell us why his review excluded anyone on less than £58,000 a year, and if he will return to the House with findings that include all such cases? In those cases where a public servant was not being paid on payroll, were the individuals concerned paying their proper share of income tax or national insurance? What was the cost to the Exchequer of those arrangements?

Despite the emphasis on transparency, the findings presented today do not include local authorities, non-maintained schools, public broadcasting authorities or other publicly owned companies. Those areas account for a substantial portion of the public sector pay bill. When will the Chief Secretary come to the House with figures that cover those areas? It is not enough for him merely to encourage the publication of that information by others.

The findings also do not cover publicly owned banks. I think that taxpayers who have paid to rescue those banks would expect those employed by the banks to be paying their tax at the appropriate rate. Will the Chief Secretary conduct a review of the extent of such arrangements in the publicly owned banks?

The findings also do not cover privatised or contracted-out services. Does the Chief Secretary think that those earning large incomes from taxpayer-funded contracts should be expected to pay their proper share of tax, and what steps will he take to ensure that that is happening?

Thirdly, as regards what the Government will do next, the Chief Secretary has told us that there will be a new presumption that the most senior staff must be on the payroll. How does he define “the most senior staff” for those purposes? Will he give a clearer definition of the exceptional circumstances in which he will allow some public servants to continue receiving their salaries off the public sector payroll? Will he give an undertaking that those cases for which those exceptions have been made will be made public and that the exceptional reasons for them will be given?

In future cases, will Departments be allowed to seek assurances about the tax affairs of public appointees with off-payroll arrangements, or will they be required to do so, as this morning’s news reports imply? If they will not be required to do so, why not? Why not have that duty to seek such assurances?

Where these arrangements are disallowed for current or future appointees, can the Chief Secretary give us his assurance that their salaries will not rise to compensate them for the loss of net income that may result? Can the Chief Secretary confirm that in accordance with previous commitments given on transparency and accountability, all those covered by the review whose earnings exceed £150,000 will be included in the Government’s annual list of people earning more than this figure?

On the wider issue that the Chief Secretary mentioned—how IR35 laws are used to avoid tax beyond the public sector, which clearly needs to be addressed—can he guarantee that HMRC will have sufficient resources to monitor, manage and enforce the full payment of taxes at a time when it is being asked to absorb £2 billion-worth of cuts to its budget?

In conclusion, the Government need to ensure value for money for every pound of taxpayer money spent, especially at a time of wage restraint for nurses, teachers and police, and huge cuts in the number of people working in the public sector, so the Opposition welcome the Chief Secretary’s commitment to rein in the avoidance of tax, but I hope this will apply to all those who are paid by the taxpayer, and that there will be genuine transparency in pay and in any exceptions to the rules set out today.

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for the shadow Chief Secretary’s welcome for the steps that I announced today, though it was striking that in her response there was no reference at all to the fact that many of these arrangements date back to the time of the previous Government. About 40% of the cases identified began work under the previous Government.

If the hon. Lady wants to know more about why those arrangements came into place, she could ask her Front-Bench colleagues if they were here. She could ask the Leader of the Opposition, for example, as two cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. She could ask the shadow Home Secretary, as nine cases date back to her time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She could ask the shadow Health Secretary, as 45 cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Health. She could ask her colleague the shadow Chancellor, because at least 24 cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Education. Yes, it is once again their mess and we are cleaning it up.

The hon. Lady asked a few questions. With reference to the chief executive of the Student Loans Company, as I said in answer to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) in February, the individual concerned went on the payroll straight away—that day. I announced that at the time of that statement, which I think the hon. Lady responded to. Of course, going on the payroll was the appropriate thing to do. As I made clear then, I had no knowledge of any tax benefit to an individual. As is the practice with cases where those involved are earning more than the Prime Minister’s salary, the approval is given within the Department. My role as Chief Secretary is to examine the salary level to make sure that it is consistent with the pay restraint that we are properly putting in place across the public sector.

This review looked at the salary level above £58,200 because that is the minimum salary level in the senior civil service, and it focused on senior public service appointments. These rules will be available for Departments to apply more generally, should they wish to do so. As I said in my statement, the review was not looking for evidence of tax avoidance because individual tax arrangements are a matter of taxpayer confidentiality, but all the results of the review from across Government have been passed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so that they can investigate if they choose to do so.

I referred in my statement to organisations that are not within the control of central Government, such as local authorities, the BBC and so on, but I am sure the many Labour councils around the country will have heard the shadow Chief Secretary’s remarks and will be bringing forward as a matter of urgency transparent publication of all the arrangements in their local authorities. I look forward very much to seeing that.

In relation to IR35, I should remind the House that in the spending review we provided an additional £900 million to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs specifically to focus on their work tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance. That will include resources to investigate cases caught out by the review or cases under IR35. The hon. Lady will know that the Office of Tax Simplification looked at the operation of IR35 last year and we are carrying forward some of its recommendations, but the proposal on which we are launching a consultation today—that controlling persons in organisations should, as a matter of course, be on the payroll—will strengthen the IR35 regime, which I hope Members on both sides of the House will welcome.

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

I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s statement, taking note of his comments regarding the BBC. A great number of my constituents pull their hair out at the huge salaries paid to people at the BBC, only to see them invest them in companies outside to try to avoid tax. Will the IR35 regime go some way towards trying to address the situation?

[Danny Alexander]

The arrangements at the BBC are a matter for the BBC. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has drawn the review to the BBC’s attention, so it is aware of the focus that the Government are placing on the issue. IR35 potentially applies to any taxpayer in the relevant set of circumstances, whether that individual works for the BBC or for any other organisation.

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and I join him in congratulating David Hencke on the work that he did in uncovering the situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his officials will co-operate with the investigation that my Committee will now undertake on his review?

Will the Chief Secretary comment on the fact that HMRC authorised the payment to the Student Loan Company’s chief executive under this arrangement? What instructions has he given to HMRC to deal differently with exceptions, which he is still allowing? Scope matters. Although his review has looked at the senior civil service, it matters how people are paid, whether they work in NHS trusts or for private companies delivering public service funded through the taxpayer’s pound—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The right hon. Lady is not asking a series of questions. This is a statement. I have given her considerable latitude, given her seniority, but I think she has asked enough questions now. Perhaps she should leave some for other Members who are rising.

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) for her questions. Certainly, Treasury officials will co-operate with the investigation which I gather her Committee will undertake into these matters. I welcome that because, as I said in my statement, it is important that the light of transparency is shed on the issue as much as possible. I am sure that her Committee can play an incredibly valuable role in that, as it always does. I gather that the role of HMRC may be the subject of a soon-to-be-forthcoming report from her Committee. No doubt that will speak for itself, but of course the rules that I am putting in place today and the rules that exist for managing public money should be applied by all Departments in relation to public service appointments, and I made clear my view about the particular case that she referred to when I responded to the question from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).

I agree that scope matters. I should say in relation to the NHS that although the review looked at board members in NHS organisations, because I wanted it to be done quickly so that we could bring forward recommendations and change the practices across the public sector, its recommendations will apply across the NHS and will need to be applied there in the same way as in any other part of the public sector.

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

Will my right hon. Friend stress an important assurance which I think he made, that HMRC will continue to be blind as to whether they are dealing with somebody who works for the public sector or the private sector, that all people will be treated equally by HMRC, and that for the most part in his statement he was speaking as an employer? In his review of IR35, will he take great care not to catch up with musicians, artists and others who are traditionally regarded as self-employed but may have controlling roles in organisations? It would be a great mistake if we made the cost of employing those people, particularly international people, much more expensive, to the detriment of the arts in this country.

[Danny Alexander]

I can assure my hon. Friend that HMRC is completely blind as to whom any individual works for. Taxpayer confidentiality is an essential part of the way in which HMRC works and we are making no changes whatever to that. We have passed the information that we discovered through the review to HMRC. It will be for it to decide whether it wishes to make any further inquiries. That will be a confidential matter for it to pursue in its own right. This is not an overall review of IR35; it is a particular consultation in relation to controlling persons of organisations. I am certain that the point that he raised will be noted and perhaps brought forward by him or others in responding to the consultation, which opens today.

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

The Chief Secretary deserves credit for his handling of the issue since it came into the public domain. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), I pay tribute to him and to the investigative journalists, David Hencke and others, who first drew it to our attention. It makes no difference whether those arrangements were agreed by Labour Ministers or Ministers in the coalition; they are wrong and he is proceeding in the right way to put a stop to things. Can he tell the House roughly the cost of unwinding the arrangements and whether that cost will fall on the individual Departments from within their existing allocations, or whether some supplemental allocations will be needed? Can he also say when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills first knew about the arrangements for the head of the Student Loans Company and what he did to bring them to an end?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and for his role in bringing these matters to the House’s attention. I wholeheartedly agree that it makes no difference when the arrangements started and which Minister was responsible; frankly, the situation has grown up over a number of years and under Governments of different hues. It is right that we are taking action to bring the situation under control and ensure proper transparency so that there is no perception of the potential for tax avoidance. He and I agree 100% on that.

It is impossible to say at the moment what the costs, if any, of unwinding the existing arrangements will be. Of course, as I said in my statement, senior people must be brought on to the payroll, unless there are exceptional short-term circumstances. For others, we need arrangements in place that allow assurances to be given that the proper and full amount of tax is being paid, and that will depend on the outcome of those processes with individual members of staff. Of course, if there are costs to be borne, they will have to be borne from within existing departmental allocations. If Departments do not comply with those rules, there will be a fine of up to five times the salary involved, levied by the Treasury on departmental allocations, which I hope will give Departments a strong incentive to comply with the rules as quickly as possible.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have done some very important work in bringing these arrangements to light, but is it not the case that someone should be engaged in this way only in circumstances where there is a genuine short-term shortage in government of a particular expertise or if the individual genuinely has a wide portfolio of private sector clients unrelated to other public sector work? Is not what is needed an emphatic statement from him that these arrangements should be not commonplace, but truly exceptional?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and his welcome. He is right that the arrangements should be exceptional and unusual, and should apply only in particular cases, such as when there is a short-term shortage, as he says, or a particular specialism is needed to deliver a project. That is why so many of these cases relate to IT professionals delivering individual projects. There is an employee test under the IR35 rules, which I am told is simple and straightforward, and that should be sufficient for determining on which side of the line someone sits.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

It is now clear that some of the worst cases take place in local authorities such as North Tyneside. Can the Chief Secretary not do more to direct HMRC not only to deal with these abuses, but to seek redress?

[Danny Alexander]

I am interested to hear that there are particularly egregious offenders in North Tyneside and am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to the House’s attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has of course drawn this process to the attention of all local authorities precisely to get them to show a transparency similar to that which we have shown with the review today, and I very much hope that they will all follow that example. It is for HMRC to decide whether it wishes to investigate an individual case and whether there is a case to answer. As I have said, the existence of these arrangements does not in itself demonstrate that tax avoidance is taking place, because it is perfectly possible for the arrangements to be in place and for the proper amount of tax to be paid. The problem is a lack of transparency, so getting people to publish the information so that HMRC can decide whether it wishes to investigate must be the right process to go through.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Everyone wants to see public servants paying their right and fair share of tax. I respect the fact that he cannot investigate the tax affairs of all the individuals concerned, given the scale of this activity and the length of time it has been going on for, but what estimate has he made of the total loss that would be caused to the Exchequer if all these people used this legal means to avoid paying tax?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome for this work. I am sure that he would not wish Ministers to investigate the tax affairs of individuals, as that way would lie ruin for the country. I cannot make such an estimate for the reason behind my previous comment: taxpayer affairs are confidential and it is for HMRC to deal with particular cases when it finds that avoidance is taking place. What I can say is that there is a very large number of cases and that this relates to the wider question of consultancy and contingent labour in government. He might be interested to know that in 2009-10 the previous Government spent £2.4 billion on contingent labour of various sorts. In 2010-11, thanks to the additional controls on consultancy that we put in place, we reduced that to £1 billion, and I expect the bill to be reduced further in 2011-12. There are things that central Government can do to reduce dramatically those costs across government, and that is precisely what the coalition Government are seeking to do.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and commend him for the action he has taken since the scandal became apparent. If we are to believe that Revenue and Customs is now boarding this Good Ship Lollipop, how will we know whether someone receiving amounts of money from the public purse over £58,200 in future will not exempt themselves simply by ensuring that they accumulate it from a number of Departments rather than one? The measures he has announced today relate to Departments reporting amounts over £58,200 that they are paying to individuals, but they do not seem to address the issue of people pocketing money from a number of contracts with different Departments.

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, and he is right that someone might be earning small amounts of money from a number of different Departments. Of course, in that case it is likely to be a contractor, of the sort my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) referred to, who has multiple clients. It is not clear on the face of it that these rules should apply in those cases, but I will certainly consider the sort of case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

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

As someone who is not involved in a vendetta against the BBC, unlike some Tory Back Benchers, I can tell the Chief Secretary that, as a result of correspondence with the director-general of that organisation, I have been informed that there are just two full-time employees left at the BBC, both very high-earners, on personal service contracts and that that will end in July, which is certainly welcome. Why is it so difficult for the Treasury to close the loophole, whether in the public or private sectors, so that unless it is a genuine company there can be no way in which individuals pay less tax than they should be paying?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the BBC, which is useful information for the House to have before it. I say to him in all seriousness that the rules relating to this sort of case—the IR35 rules—were put in place by the previous Government, and we are seeking to strengthen them through the consultation we have today. The coalition Government have done more than many previous Governments to take action on dealing with tax avoidance and evasion across the board, because it is vital in a time of austerity that everyone pays their fair share, and that is what we are doing. Frankly, it is what the Government of whom he was a part did not do.

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

I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement, but should we not apply the rules to all individuals receiving money from the public purse, rather than allowing the BBC, local authorities and others off the hook? I fear that, unless they are forced to take this action on transparency, all sorts of obstacles will be put up. I know from correspondence with the BBC in Northern Ireland that it has not been as transparent there as it has been elsewhere. In fact, it has stonewalled and refused completely to give information to me as a Member of Parliament, so I urge him to go further and force organisations such as the BBC into transparency.

[Danny Alexander]

The new Treasury rules that I have announced today apply only to organisations under central Government control. That is how the rules work, but I encourage the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have made the point about local authorities to continue their campaigning in order to ensure that those organisations do reveal such information. He did not refer to the Northern Ireland Assembly Government, but he may very well want to take steps to ensure that that organisation also brings forward the appropriate degree of transparency about its arrangements, too.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is right to admit that without the work of Exaro and “Newsnight” he would not have a clue what is going on across Departments, but the action that he has announced today will affect no more than a tiny percentage of the abuse taking place throughout the public sector. He needs to do more than write letters to the NHS and to local government. One so-called consultant, Mr Nick Johnson, has received £1 million from Hammersmith and Fulham council in the five years since he retired on an ill-health pension of £60,000 a year from another local authority. On the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s figures, Mr Johnson would have avoided £200,000 in tax, so when is the right hon. Gentleman going to act on such abuse?

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the national health service, and I was very clear in my statement and in my response to the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that the rules apply throughout the national health service and, indeed, to academy schools. I do not control the finances of local authorities, but I can make it very clear that I want to see them go through a similar process, and I am sure that campaigning local MPs such as the hon. Gentleman will not rest until their local authorities do so.

Point of Order

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

14:21

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It became public over the weekend that the Prime Minister and several Cabinet members are to be coached by lawyers at a cost of £1 million before they give evidence to the Leveson inquiry. Given that some of us thought the whole point of the inquiry was to get at the unvarnished truth about the unhealthy relationship between some politicians and the media, should not a Minister come forward to explain who is training whom, why it is necessary and who on earth is paying for that excess?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair with regard to the conduct of business, but the right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and I am sure that he will go to the Table Office and explain the information that he seeks. Perhaps the office will advise him on how he might pursue it, but it is not for today in the Chamber.

Bill Presented

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Vince Cable, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May and Norman Lamb presented a Bill to make provision about the UK Green Investment Bank; to make provision about employment law; to establish and make provision about the Competition and Markets Authority and to abolish the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading; to amend the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002; to make provision for the reduction of legislative burdens; to make provision about copyright and rights in performances; to make provision about payments to company directors; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 7) with explanatory notes (Bill 7-EN).

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: The Tenth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2010-12, on Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration, HC 1463, and the Government’s response, Cm 8245.]

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr Speaker has selected for today’s debate the amendment, which will be moved in accordance with normal procedure.

14:23

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

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

The Electoral Registration and Administration Bill will tackle electoral fraud by speeding up the introduction of individual electoral registration—that is, requiring electors to register individually rather than by households. In doing so, we will move towards a system in which individuals have to provide information to enable their application to be verified. That will modernise our electoral registration system, facilitate the move to online registration and make it more convenient for people to register to vote. We want to tackle electoral fraud, increase the number of people registered to vote and improve the integrity of the electoral register.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

This is a very early intervention, but 23,388 of our fellow citizens living abroad are entitled to vote, while 1,147,401 French citizens will be voting in the French parliamentary elections next month. Why do we deny that core citizenship right to so many of our fellow citizens simply because they do not live within the UK? I am not sure that the situation is within the purview of the Bill, but it represents a shameful denial when other countries are so much better than we are.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. There are about 5 million British citizens overseas, and there is a debate to be had about the length of time—currently 15 years—that one should remain entitled to vote. Of the 5 million citizens overseas, only 30,000 or so are registered to vote, and for those who have been overseas for less than 15 years there is no bar at all on voting.

There are questions to be asked of all of us about why those people do not feel the urge to register and to cast their vote in our elections, but in part 2 of the Bill, which I shall come on to later, we are going to lengthen the period of a general election campaign, making it more practical for overseas voters to receive and to cast a postal vote so that it counts in an election. I hope that that will be helpful.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in our deliberations. The point about overseas electors bears a great deal of exploration. If they are not going to participate, alongside citizens who are still resident, in the democratic process and in our constituency-based system, will more information be provided to political parties and to independent candidates about how to contact overseas electors? The information that has been on the electoral register up until now would not allow for much discussion or interaction with them.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—to which we might return in Committee, given that I have not got very far with my speech and want to make a little progress before I take any more interventions.

As I was saying to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), part 2 also contains provisions to improve the administration and conduct of elections, thereby serving to increase voter participation and to make a number of improvements to the running of elections.

Before I explain the rationale behind our proposals, I shall deal briefly with the Opposition’s reasoned amendment and approach.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Before the Minister turns to the burden of his argument, may I congratulate him on how he has involved the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform and the House in the deliberations on the Bill? It is an exemplar of good practice, but he will see from the reasoned amendment that there is still some way to go. May I also put on his agenda the question of fines for people who do not register? They will be introduced under secondary legislation, so at the moment we have no idea whether an effective and proportionate fine will be available. Will he address that in his remarks?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the Committee’s Chairman for what he says, and I hope that by the time I finish my remarks the House will see that I have addressed satisfactorily all the points in the reasoned amendment, at which stage I will of course urge Members on both sides of the House to support the Bill’s Second Reading.

We debated this subject on an Opposition day in January during which I welcomed the tone that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) adopted. He said, for example, that he welcomed the process that the Government had adopted and how we were acting; he noted that we had had a draft Bill and a White Paper with pre-legislative scrutiny; and he noted that the Deputy Prime Minister and I had said that we would not just listen to concerns, but act on them and make changes accordingly.

At the time I noted that that was a shift from last autumn, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party leader said, in response to our making registration individual rather than household, that the Labour party was going to go out and fight against the change, and when the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said that our proposals were

“a shameful assault on people’s democratic rights.”

I thought that that was nonsense when she said it. In January, the right hon. Member for Tooting appeared to think so, too, and he adopted a sensible tone that was welcomed not just by me, but by Members on both sides of the House, so I am disappointed that in tabling this reasoned amendment he appears to have reverted to the Labour party’s original approach.

One of the main points in the reasoned amendment that I will not cover later in my speech is the assertion that there was cross-party support for the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. As I said in January’s Opposition day debate, it is true that we supported the proposals in the Act for individual registration, but it is worth reminding the House that the previous Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to include them. They were not in the Bill when it was introduced in this House, and that is why we voted for a reasoned amendment. In fact, they were not in the Bill when it left the House of Commons, although by that stage the Labour Government had made a commitment to include them. They were, however, introduced in the other place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), now Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who led for us on the issue, ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), said:

“I am glad that at the eleventh hour the Government have, at last, agreed to move ahead with individual voter registration, albeit in what still seems to be a lamentably leisurely time scale. They committed to the principle of individual voter registration many years ago, but a bit like St. Augustine, they seem to be saying, ‘Make me chaste, but not yet.’”—[Official Report, 2 March 2009; Vol. 488, c. 695.]

My right hon. Friend made it clear that we approved of the decision to proceed with individual registration, which we thought could be accomplished earlier. We said that it would be our intention to do so, and on page 47 of our 2010 manifesto we made a commitment to

“swiftly implement individual voter registration”.

It is not fair and right, or at least it leaves out something quite important, to say that there was complete cross-party consensus on that measure.

Before I set out the Bill’s provisions in detail, let me explain the rationale on how we got to this stage following the draft proposals and the significant amount of pre-legislative scrutiny that has taken place. The move to individual registration was supported by all three main parties in the previous Parliament and was in each of their manifestos. It is supported by the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators and has been called for by a wide range of international observers. We remain one of the few countries in the world to rely on a system of household registration. I believe, as I am sure many Members do, that a system that relies on the rather old-fashioned notion of the head of household, whereby just one person in the house is given the responsibility of dealing with everyone else’s registration to vote, is out of date. It does not engender any personal responsibility for being registered or promote a person’s ownership of their own vote, and it could give that one person the ability to disfranchise others. That is not the approach that we adopt in other areas where people engage with the state.

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

I welcome what my hon. Friend is endeavouring to do in this Bill, particularly his determination to modernise our system and to get more people registered to vote. Does he share my concern that many people are on the register who should not be, and, in particular, that people who do not have leave to remain in the country are participating in voting? Will that also change under his system?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. There are two aspects to what we are doing. We want to make sure that the register is more complete and that people who are eligible to vote are on it, but it is equally important to make sure that those who are not eligible to vote are not on it. I hope that he will be reassured about that as I set out some of the details. On his specific point, there will be changes to make it clearer for people to identify when they are a Commonwealth citizen and what their immigration status is. We will be piloting some work with the UK Border Agency to see whether we can create a systemic process to check people’s leave to remain so that only those who are entitled to be here are able to vote here. That will be a welcome step forward.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Oh, I have a choice. I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Dodds]

The Minister said that the United Kingdom is one of the few countries that does not have individual registration. Of course, we have had that in Northern Ireland for some 10 years. I think it has been a success, and I therefore warmly welcome his proposals. However, it has led to a drop in the number of people registered, partly for the reasons that he outlined—for example, because some people should not be on the register in the first place. Will he take on board the lesson that we learned in Northern Ireland, which was that resources needed to be put into the Electoral Office to ensure that young people, in particular, got signed up to the register?

[Mr Harper]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I should have said that the Bill implements these measures in Great Britain rather than in the United Kingdom. We have learned a great deal in Northern Ireland, for example on implementing a carry-forward provision to reduce the risk of a significant drop-off. Interestingly, the research that we commissioned from the Electoral Commission, which was published last year, demonstrated that although we in this country have had the rather complacent attitude that we did not really have a problem, under the individual registration system in Northern Ireland, the proportion of eligible voters registered to vote is about the same as it is in the rest of Great Britain. We therefore have a lot to learn.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

May I first finish responding to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)?

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point about young people, I had an opportunity to visit Grosvenor grammar school in Belfast to see an example of what, in engaging with people individually, the Electoral Office does with young people in schools. The interesting thing, and another lesson for us, is that a larger proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds are registered to vote in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. As well as making sure that we deal with the potential risks, we have an opportunity to do a better job in getting younger people and disabled people, for example, registered to vote.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Ms Buck]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will take one more intervention before I make some progress. Ladies first.

[Ms Buck]

Does the Minister agree that this is an issue of proportionality? At the moment, approximately 6 million people are not on the electoral register. Does he recognise that the main issue of concern is not spread across the country as a whole but targeted in particular areas and on particular communities, particularly frequent movers? We already know that only one in six of the population who moves frequently is likely to be on the electoral register. Does that not reinforce the need for targeted investment to support individual registration, because otherwise it will be people in inner cities and in the private rented sector who lose out in not finding themselves on the electoral register?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. As she says, the single piece of information that suggests whether someone is on the electoral register is frequency of movement. We recognise that, and several of the steps that we are taking with stakeholders are intended to work out how we can better deal with it. I will set out later how we propose to fund this and ensure that the money reaches local authorities, and if the hon. Lady thinks that I still have not dealt with the issue, I will take another intervention from her.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to make some progress, and will perhaps take an intervention from him later. Otherwise I will not get through my speech, and many other Members wish to contribute to the debate.

It is clear that the current system of registration is unacceptably open to electoral fraud. There is widespread concern about that; indeed, a survey carried out at the end of last year found that 36% of people believe that it is a problem. If citizens do not have confidence in the integrity of our electoral register, they will not have confidence in the integrity of the outcome of elections. We need to tackle that. When we came into office, we did not think that the plans for which Labour had legislated, which involved a voluntary process initially running in parallel, were the best way to tackle the problem. We thought that it would lead to confusion and have a very significant cost. That is why we want to speed up the introduction of individual registration so that the register published after the 2015 annual canvass will consist entirely of entries that have been individually verified, with the sole exception of some of those in the armed forces.

The Electoral Commission supports that position. At the beginning of the month, Jenny Watson, chair of the commission, said, when commenting on alleged fraud in the recent London mayoral elections:

“The Electoral Commission wants to see our registration system tightened up and it’s good that the Government plans to introduce new laws to do this which will apply to any of us who want to vote by post before the 2015 General Election.”

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Did the Electoral Commission find any fraudulent activity in the London mayoral election?

[Mr Harper]

There have been a number of cases of fraud, although admittedly not many proven cases. An international observer body, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which is part of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, described the voter registration system in Great Britain as

“the weakest link of the electoral process due to the absence of safeguards against fictitious registrations.”

It recommended:

“Consideration should be given to introducing an identification requirement for voters when applying for registration as a safeguard against fraudulent registration.”

That is very important. As I said, 36% of the public think that our electoral registration system is vulnerable to fraud, and that is clearly a problem.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I welcome this proposal, because during the recent elections in Burnley there were reports of wholesale fraud taking place on an industrial scale through personation and fake postal votes. Is the Minister considering proposals to require photo identification when people turn up to vote to cut out the appalling growth in personation that is taking place in some polling stations? [Interruption.]

[Mr Harper]

That point has been raised with me. At the moment, I do not think that striking the balance between making sure that people who are eligible to vote can vote and preventing those who are not eligible from doing so requires voter ID at polling stations. I heard several Labour Members shout out that that was an illiberal proposition, which is rich coming from people who thought that having compulsory ID cards was a good idea. This Government legislated to get rid of ID cards, and we do not mean to bring them in via the back door.

Last June, we published a White Paper and draft legislation setting out our proposals. We proposed that in 2014, every elector on the register would be invited to make a new application providing personal information that would be verified by comparing it to data held by the Department for Work and Pensions, to ensure that the applicant was a genuine person. Every elector would have to make a new application and anyone who did not, or whose application was unsuccessful, would be removed from the register published after the 2015 annual canvass.

We held an extensive public consultation on those proposals, which had more than 900 responses. As its Chairman said, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny, and there have been a number of debates and questions on the matter in both Houses.

Members may have noted that earlier today, to assist the House in its consideration of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced in a written ministerial statement that the Bill will be part of a pilot for explanatory statements on amendments. I hope that all hon. Members who plan to table amendments will participate in that pilot, as will the Government.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

What percentage of the eligible UK population does the Minister believe will be registered after 2015 under his plans?

[Mr Harper]

I sincerely hope that it will be no lower than the population that is registered today, and indeed that it will be higher. One of the interesting things that we learned from the information that was published last year was that the number of people who were registered was not as high as we had hoped. That research, which the Electoral Commission carried out last year, will act as a baseline for the process. I have made a commitment to get the Electoral Commission to carry out the same research after the process, so that people can see how successful it has been. We want the process to be transparent and we have nothing to hide.

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

I take the Minister’s point about two thirds being the anticipated carry-over to the new register. However, I understand from reading the information from the Electoral Commission that voters who are on the register and who do not reply to the request for individual electoral registration will still be able to vote in the general election of 2015. Is that correct?

[Mr Harper]

Yes, that is correct. I referred to that point in response to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, when I spoke about the carry-forward. There is the important safeguard that if people fail to register to vote individually and there is no reason to think that they are not eligible to vote, there is a carry-forward process to stop the drop-off that we saw in Northern Ireland when it moved to a new system.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

If hon. Members will forgive me, if I am to take interventions, I need at least to answer the questions that people have asked before I take another one. I need to balance taking interventions with making some progress, or I will be chastised by Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Hon. Members]

There are six hours.

[Mr Harper]

There are, but I do not think that Members would be very pleased if I took all of them to speak from the Front Bench. Other Members want to participate in the debate.

I will finish answering the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). If the check with the DWP database, the data matching or other information suggests to the electoral registration officers that a person is not eligible to vote, because they are not a real person or because they do not live at the given address, of course they will remove them from the register. This is about carrying forward people when there is no information to suggest that they are not eligible, and they simply have not registered. We thought, on balance, that it was better to do the carry-forward to avoid the problem that occurred when individual registration was implemented in Northern Ireland. The consultation suggests that we have got that balance right.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me make a little more progress, then I will take more interventions.

Although there was widespread support for the principle of individual registration, concerns were raised about how our initial proposals might affect the completeness of the register. We have listened to those points and have made four significant changes to the initial proposals. Those changes are included in the Bill and we are confident that they will safeguard the completeness of the register as we move to the new system.

The first major change is that the Bill enables us to delay the timing of an annual canvass. There were concerns that in the initial proposals the gap between the last canvass under the old system and the start of the transition to individual registration was too long. It was thought to be preferable to carry out a full canvass in 2014, before sending electors individual invitations to register. We do not want to have an extra canvass, as that would be costly and confusing, but we intend to use this power to move the last canvass under the current system from autumn 2013 to spring 2014, so that the register is as up to date as possible before the transition to the new system.

[Ms Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

I have already allowed one intervention from the hon. Lady. Let me make some progress and I will take more interventions in a moment.

The second major change in the Bill will enable us to require electoral registration officers, instead of inviting everyone on their register to make a new application, to begin the transition by matching the names and addresses of every elector already on the register against the DWP’s customer information system. Where the name and address match, and the ERO therefore has confidence that a genuine person lives at the address that they say they live at, that person will be confirmed on the register and retained. They will be informed that they do not have to make an individual application to register. That means that we can balance the integrity of the register with not insisting that every voter takes action in the first transition.

Evidence from the data-matching pilots that we carried out last year suggests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West mentioned, that the details of about two thirds of electors can be verified in that way. Today, I will place in the House of Commons Library the evaluations of the data-matching pilot by the Electoral Commission and my Department. Subject to parliamentary approval, we plan to run further data-matching pilots later this year to refine that method.

When an individual’s information cannot be verified, the electoral registration officer will invite them to register individually. They will be asked to make a new application and to provide their national insurance number and date of birth. As we set out last year, there will be reminders and the extensive use of door-to-door canvassing, as there is now, to encourage applications. If a person does not make a successful individual application, they will still be able to vote in the 2015 general election, as my hon. Friend said. However, any individual who wants to use an absent vote, where the risk is higher, will have to make a successful new application or to have been confirmed and retained on the register. That will ensure that people have greater confidence in the integrity of that election.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. In the further pilots, will the Department use credit reference agencies such as Experian to see whether that boosts electoral registration?

[Mr Harper]

We will carry out two sets of data-matching pilots. The first set, for which the orders have been laid before the House, although not yet debated and approved, involves the DWP specifically because it will pilot the pre-confirmation process. The second set, for which we have not yet laid the orders, will use other Departments. We have had conversations with private sector agencies. One problem is that there is some circularity in the process, because one way in which they construct their databases is by using the electoral register. It is therefore arguable how much information we would learn from them. However, we have had conversations with them and we will continue to do so.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Go on then; I give way to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)

[Chris Ruane]

I thank the Minister very much for giving way.

On the private sector’s knowledge of electoral registration, two and a half years ago I was informed by Experian that 6.5 million people were missing from the register. When I raised that with the Electoral Commission, it said that the figure was 3.5 million. Six months ago, the Electoral Commission said that, having done its research, the figure was 6 million. The private sector has excellent databases, which we should be utilising to maximise registration.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman has made that point before. As I said to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), we are not closing off that option and we will continue to have conversations with those organisations.

Following the 2015 general election, there will be another full household canvass and all potential electors who appear—

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Lady lets me make the point on the canvass, I will then take her intervention.

All potential electors who appear on the returned canvass form but have not been verified individually will be invited by electoral registration officers to register. That canvass will include reminders and the extensive use of door-to-door canvassers. At the end of the canvass, the EROs will—

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

No; let me finish this point, then I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who got her bid in first.

At the end of the canvass, the EROs will send personally addressed individual electoral registration application forms to individuals who appeared on the electoral register produced at the end of the old-style canvass, who have not been verified individually and whom electoral registration officers do not believe to have moved. That will act as a final check to ensure that individuals who are to be removed from the register understand what will happen if they do not make an individual application. That will be a robust process, because people will have to go out of their way to avoid being registered. The register that will be used for the 2015 boundary review will therefore be robust, complete and accurate. The relevant part of the Opposition’s reasoned amendment does not hold up at all.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Under clause 4, the procedure for the canvass will change. At the moment, if the ERO or their canvasser knocks on a door and finds somebody who is not registered, they fill in the form there and then. Clause 4 states that that can no longer happen, and that the canvasser can only take people’s names and addresses and then send a form to them. Surely the point is that canvassers knock on doors because people have not filled in their forms without assistance.

[Mr Harper]

Canvassers will be able to identify that there are voters at an address, but each voter will have to register individually and provide their information to the local authority so that it can be verified. We will examine the canvass process when we develop the secondary legislation. Because of the nature of the information being collected on the doorstep—not just people’s names and addresses but their national insurance numbers—we need to take data security carefully, as we have at every step of the way. We will continue to have discussions with local authorities and the Information Commissioner about how best we can do that, but we have a robust set of processes in place to ensure that everyone is registered.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Mark Tami]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me make a bit more progress, then I will give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who has been bidding to get in for some time.

The use of data matching to confirm existing electors will simplify the transition process for most people in the country. It will create a floor below which registration rates cannot fall, and importantly it will allow registration officers to focus their efforts and resources on electors whose details cannot be confirmed and eligible people who are not on the register.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister said that there would not be transitional arrangements for people who have a postal vote. Does he understand that people who have applied for a postal vote in the past now assume that they are going to get one at every election? There could be a real problem with the Government’s proposals, because, in 2015, people who assume that they are going to get a postal vote will not get one as the lists will have been scrapped. That could have an adverse affect on turnout, because postal voters are more likely to vote, and it could effectively discriminate against the elderly and people with disabilities, who are proportionately more likely to have a postal vote.

[Mr Harper]

The two thirds of voters whose details are confirmed automatically will be moved over to the new register once their information has been verified. If they are absent voters, their absent vote will automatically be carried forward as well. [Interruption.] That is what will happen. Absent voters whose details are confirmed and who are moved on to the register will be able to use their absent vote. However, people whose information has not been verified and who do not make an individual application will not be able to have an absent vote. Of course, local authorities know who those people are, and we are working with them and with the Electoral Commission to ensure that everyone with an absent vote is contacted so that they know that if they want to continue having an absent vote they need to register individually. We are confident that local authorities will do that. In a moment, I will set out how we will ensure that local authorities get the funding needed to ensure that that takes place.

The third major change that we have made is removing the opt-out provision from the Bill. The original intention was very simple: to enable EROs to focus their resources on people who wanted to register to vote, rather than having to keep chasing individuals who had no intention of registering. However, we have listened to the arguments made by Members of the House, the Electoral Commission and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. We want the maximum number of eligible people to be registered to vote, so we have decided to remove that provision.

The final major change we have made to our proposals is that we will enable electoral registration officers to issue a civil penalty when an individual who has been required to make an application fails to do so. Over the past few months, there have been discussions about whether an offence should be attached to an individual form. At the moment, it is not an offence not to be registered, which will not change, but there is a criminal offence of not returning the household canvass form. That, too, will remain, because by not doing so somebody can disfranchise other people.

We were faced with the question whether we should create a new criminal offence to be applied to the individual application form. We did not think it appropriate to criminalise people who simply did not register to vote. After careful consideration with key stakeholders, and after listening to Members, we believe it is appropriate to create a civil penalty—akin to a parking fine—for individuals who, after being required to make an application by a certain date, fail to do so.

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

The Minister will know that I am very pleased by that announcement, for which I have lobbied. I am grateful for the Bill and the changes the Government have made to it.

To maximise the number of people registered and get people to understand the penalty if they do not respond, will the Minister ensure that local authorities, social landlords, schools, colleges, sixth forms, the high commissions of Commonwealth countries and the Irish embassy play their full part in getting the system known among those with whom they regularly deal?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and he has indeed been greatly involved in making points on the matter in the House, for which I am grateful. In his constituency there is significant voter turnover each year, which presents challenges to his local registration officer. We are already working with groups that represent some of the categories that he mentions, but he also mentions a couple that we had not previously considered, such as high commissions. We will certainly bear them in mind, and I will discuss the matter with my officials.

[Mark Tami]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Harper]

I will finish my point about the civil penalty, then I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson).

The Bill provides that after a registration officer has followed any specified steps and an individual has not made an application, he can require them to do so. If at that stage they fail to do so, he can impose a civil penalty. The intention is that only those who refuse repeatedly can be fined. We do not think it would be particularly helpful to democracy if we fined hundreds of thousands of people, so we expect the number of fines levied to be similar to the number of prosecutions at present. Nor do we want to create a financial incentive for local authorities to use fines as a revenue-raising measure, so any moneys collected—[Interruption.] I hear one of my hon. Friends chuckling, but one or two local authorities have been known to do such things, so any moneys collected will be paid back to the Exchequer through the Consolidated Fund.

[Mr Jackson]

I agree with the compromises that my hon. Friend has made on the opt-out and the civil penalty. I am sure he agrees that people’s propensity to register for elections is a function of societal change as much as anything else. The Electoral Commission has stated:

“Recent social, economic and political changes appear to have resulted in a declining motivation to register to vote among specific social groups.”

That is associated with

“changes in the approach to the annual canvass…as well as matters of individual choice and circumstances (such as a decline in interest in politics).”

Surely we need to concede that some people do not want to register because they are not interested in the process.

[Mr Harper]

We do. The main impact on an individual who does not register to vote is the rather obvious one that they lose their opportunity to vote and have their say in how their country is governed, but there are also some public policy reasons why we want people to register to vote. One reason is to ensure that there is a complete register for the purpose of boundary changes, and another is that the electoral register is used as the pool for jury service. We therefore want to ensure that it is as accurate as possible.

My hon. Friend is right that is up to Members and to people involved in politics of all descriptions to motivate people to register to vote and then use their vote. The use of the vote will, of course, remain sanction-free. It will be entirely up to people whether they use their vote.

[Mark Tami]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Not at this point.

I shall set out how we intend to fund the transition to individual registration. We have allocated £108 million over the spending review period to do so, including by meeting local authorities’ costs over and above the current cost of electoral registration. I can confirm today—this is new information—that we will fund local authorities in England and Wales directly through grants under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. Those will be allocated grants for the purpose of paying for the transition, not just money buried in the revenue support grant. In Scotland, electoral registration is carried out for the most part by EROs who, barring two exceptions, in the city of Dundee and in Fife, are independent of each local authority. There, the additional costs of implementing the new system will be paid directly to them.

[Mark Tami]

The Parliamentary Secretary talked a lot about the canvass. Does he accept that the quality of the canvass is important, and that some local authorities are much better than others? I welcome his comments on the extra money, but will he ensure that it will be spent on that and not just ferreted away somewhere else?

[Mr Harper]

Local authorities will have legal obligations to deliver those measures, and I will consult them over the summer about the precise details of the timing of and approach to grant allocations so that they get the money to pay for transition when they need it, and ensure that there is clear accountability, showing that they are taking the steps required by law to prepare for the transition to the new system.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Parliamentary Secretary makes an important point, but will he give a commitment to the House now that the money will be ring-fenced?

[Mr Harper]

Section 31 grants are specific grants, and the hon. Gentleman needs to be aware of an interesting point: local authorities already fund about one third of the cost of electoral reform, so if we insisted on a specific amount being spent on electoral registration, it would be easy for local authorities that wanted to do so to evade that. They could use the money that we gave them to pay for their business-as-usual electoral registration and not do any of the things that we want them to do. We will give them money directly; we will consult about the mechanism so that we have some accountability; we will recognise that some local authorities have bigger challenges than others so that all the money is not dished out in the first place—we want local authorities that face the biggest challenges to be able to bid for extra funding—and we will try to ensure that we have a workable system that is not too bureaucratic. I am confident that local authorities and electoral registration officers will welcome our announcement about not allowing the money to be swallowed up in the overall revenue support grant by paying direct grants under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. They will have the confidence that they have the money to deliver the programme.

We consulted widely on our proposals for individual registration, which have undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and groups of front-line staff on our plans. We will begin publishing draft secondary legislation for IER in June, and we will continue to add to the package as the summer progresses, aiming to conclude publication before Parliament returns in the autumn. We will talk to those key groups about the detail of the proposals as we go along.

There will be some matters for which we do not intend to publish draft legislation—for example, those for which we have no current plans to use the powers. There will be other matters on which we want to seek stakeholders’ views about the approach. In the amendment, Labour Members deplore our not publishing secondary legislation and it is therefore worth saying that, for two similar measures—the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, both of which contain significant powers to be made by regulation—no secondary legislation of any description was published at any stage during their passage. It was all made and published after the Bills had received Royal Assent. On that issue, therefore, the Labour party is very much in the mode of “Do as we say, not as we do.”

The Government’s approach is to treat the House much more seriously, to publish Bills in draft, to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, and to publish draft legislation while the measure is still going through the House. May I pick up the point that the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee made? Members can see what is proposed while the Bill is undergoing its parliamentary passage. I will take no lectures on that from anyone on the Labour Benches.

So far, I have discussed the measures that we are taking to mitigate the risk of the transition to the new system. There are also several opportunities to do better. The Bill will facilitate online registration, whereby an individual will complete the end-to-end process without having to fill in a paper form. That will make it more convenient for individuals to register to vote, more accessible for, for example, people with visual impairments, and more accessible for young people. It is our intention that the online system will be fully operational when the transition to individual registration begins. As I said yesterday during Deputy Prime Minister’s questions, that is a genuine opportunity, certainly for disabled people.

For example, Scope said that it

“supports the change to a system of IER, and warmly welcomes the Government’s commitment to ensure that disabled people’s needs are taken into account”.

It agrees with our assessment that

“the introduction of IER should improve access for voters with disabilities. The current arrangements do not adequately allow for disabled people’s access needs to be taken into account”,

and that the introduction of IER offers an ideal opportunity to put in place a more accessible system. We intend to do that.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing the information about the online system with some of us last week. He will know that one of the concerns that some of us have is about access to national insurance numbers as a means of taking part in that system. There is some difficulty in that people do not readily have access to their national insurance numbers. What suggestions has he for improving that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to be extremely helpful to the House, and he has taken lots of interventions. However, perhaps he will bear it in mind that he has been speaking for more than 40 minutes, that many Members wish to participate in the debate, and that there will be winding-up speeches.

[Mr Harper]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I predicted when I was being perhaps excessively generous that I would be taken to task at some point, and that has happened.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. In that case, it is a shame that the Parliamentary Secretary did not take his own advice.

[Mr Harper]

I know that one of my faults is that I am generous to a fault, and I will do my best to rein in that generosity. I will respond to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and then I will finish my speech without taking further interventions. I am grateful for your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that other hon. Members will realise that I am simply following wise advice rather than being ungenerous.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point about national insurance numbers. We have done quite a lot of work on that. The vast majority of members of the public have ready access to their national insurance numbers. When polled, 95% of people did not feel that it would be a problem. Of course, we will ensure that, on the online system, as on the paper-based system, we give people advice if they do not have a national insurance number about the process that they have to follow to get one. There will be an alternative mechanism for the small number of people who do not have a national insurance number to demonstrate their identity to the ERO. However, we do not want to allow that to be a get-out for everybody else. If the hon. Gentleman has anything further to say on the matter, I am obviously happy to discuss that with him.

I believe that the changes that I have outlined on individual registration will ensure the completeness of the register. I think that the Government have listened, learned and improved the Bill.

Let me consider briefly the clauses in part 2 about the administration and conduct of elections, which are intended to improve the way in which elections are run. They address issues that parliamentarians and electoral stakeholders have raised, and make several practical and sensible changes. I will not go through them all, just the most significant.

First, let me consider the provision that extends the electoral timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 to 25 days. That will benefit voters, particularly overseas voters and service voters based abroad, enabling them to have more time to receive and return a postal vote. It also makes it easier to combine general elections with other polls.

The Bill also provides for assisting postal voters—I hope that that is of assistance to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East—whose votes are rejected at elections because their postal vote identifiers do not match those stored on records. For example, someone’s signature may have changed or they put down the wrong date—for instance, not their date of birth but the date of the election. Around 150,000 postal votes are rejected at elections. Regulations will make EROs have a duty, after the elections, to inform voters that their identifiers have not matched. [Laughter.] I do not know why the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) is laughing. The provision is included so that the identifiers can be updated and that, instead of those voters losing their votes at every subsequent election, they can ensure that their votes count in future. At the moment, there is no duty to inform them. While the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, hundreds of thousands of postal votes were rejected at elections and nothing was done. Rather than laughing at the sensible provisions, I would hope that he supported them.

Alongside that provision, the Government plan to introduce secondary legislation to make it a requirement that 100% of postal vote identifiers are checked at elections. At the moment, legislation provides for only 20% of postal votes to be checked. Ensuring that 100% have to be checked will strengthen the integrity of the process.

There are also provisions to allow the Secretary of State to withhold or reduce a returning officer’s fee for poor performance, but with the important check that there must be a recommendation by the independent Electoral Commission. That is to ensure that returning officers are more accountable. That provision was implemented on a test basis in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011—it was a power that the chief counting officer had. It worked well and we are therefore taking it forward.

The final shape of the proposals demonstrates the value that pre-legislative scrutiny adds to the development of legislation. I hope most hon. Members will see that the Government have taken a careful, thoughtful and measured approach in developing our policy. The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), is not sitting in his usual place as he has been upgraded to the Opposition Front Bench, but he said in January that

“the House is in severe danger of doing the job that members of the public elected it to do. The Government have submitted a pre-legislative proposal to the Select Committee, which is how things should happen. The Select Committee responded with non-partisan efforts to determine a better Bill and to make better proposals, some of which have already been heard by the Government.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 508.]

The Government have since accepted more such proposals. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

15:10

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, whilst affirming its support for a complete and accurate electoral register and a move to a system of individual electoral registration (IER), declines to give a Second Reading to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill because whilst the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 received cross-party support, establishing an orderly move to IER with a strong independent role for the Electoral Commission in guarding against a sharp fall in registration numbers, the Bill speeds up the introduction of IER, and downgrades the Electoral Commission’s role, with the result that there will be no independent arbitrator with the power to halt the process if it is deemed to have resulted in a sharp drop in registration levels; notes that the 2015 parliamentary boundary changes will be based on the new electoral register which will potentially be inaccurate, risking illegitimate new constituency boundaries; believes the proposals would mean the young, the poor, ethnic minorities and disabled people would face an increased risk of being unregistered and thus excluded from a range of social and civic functions; further regards the proposals as flawed as they risk making the list from which juries are drawn less representative; concludes that because the evaluation of the second round of data-matching pilots will not be published until early 2013 an assessment of the likely completeness of the register is in effect prevented; and deplores the fact that the Government has not published secondary legislation and an implementation plan for the introduction of IER.”

As the Minister has said, the Bill is essentially in two parts, the second of which concerns the minutiae of the administration and conduct of elections. Much of it contains relatively uncontentious proposals, but other matters ought to be addressed, particularly the need to ensure that there are no more queues at polling stations. One proposal might well raise a few eyebrows—to allow a candidate who is supported by two or more political parties to use the emblem of one of them. The Minister has said previously that the measure addresses an anomaly and permits Labour and Co-operative candidates to use those emblems. It is kind of him to be helpful to the Labour party, but I must tell Conservative Back Benchers to be afraid—be very afraid. It could well be the thin end of the wedge. Who knows what it could lead to?

The first part of the Bill demands far greater attention because it focuses on electoral registration. The Opposition’s view is that individual electoral registration is a sound principle. It places an appropriate responsibility on individuals to register to vote and is in tune with modern society. It can no longer be sensible for voter registration to be in the hands of the head of household. Individual elector registration is also an effective way in which to ensure the completeness and accuracy of voter registration. That is why the Labour Government secured legislation for individual elector registration in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Last autumn, the Government introduced their draft Bill and White Paper on IER. Understandably, their proposals at the time created consternation among a wide range of opinion. Much attention focused on their suggestion that there should be a virtual opt-out for individuals who do not wish to be reminded about registration by an electoral registration officer. The second proposal that understandably left many aghast was the suggestion in the White Paper that voter registration ought to be a lifestyle choice, and that no fines should be imposed for non-registration. I welcome the fact that the Government have reconsidered both those proposals and others, but we should be clear that a draft Bill and prior consultation are relatively innovative for this Government—there was no draft Bill or prior consultation on two previous pieces of important constitutional legislation, namely the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. I am glad that they are changing their ways. The opt-out has been dropped and civil penalties will be introduced, as suggested by the Opposition. I am also pleased that the Government have listened and that many electors on the old registers will be carried over. Similarly, the annual canvass planned in 2013 will now occur in 2014. As far as that is concerned, so far, so good.

[Ms Buck]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the population and electoral registration turnover in parts of the country, particularly London and the inner cities, is 30%? Having a canvass a full year before an election means that we risk going into the election with a third of the population unregistered. The Minister said that there will be a national expectation that the total number of people not on the register will fall, which is fine, but if we do not recognise the variance between communities and the pressures on cities, that national expectation will not be much comfort to people such as me.

[Mr David]

That is a good point, and I shall refer to it later in my speech.

As I was saying, the Government have made positive concessions, but they have not listened on other matters—indeed, they have refused to listen to those who have expressed legitimate concerns about the Bill. Foremost among the Opposition’s concerns and those of many outside the House is the Government’s intention to press ahead with individual elector registration at a breakneck speed. The concern that there will be no carry-over for many postal and proxy votes in the move to a new register has been expressed by a range of disability charities, including Mencap, Sense, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Scope.

[Mr Mark Williams]

I have read the Scope briefing and share that concern, but is the hon. Gentleman not reassured by what the Minister has said? He said that a very small group of people will not be carried over and that there will be a carry-over of existing absent voters to the new list.

[Mr David]

I am not entirely reassured by what the Minister has said. In fact, I found his comments contradictory and confusing. It is a straightforward matter, and I hope that he provides in his winding-up speech the clarification that the Opposition and organisations such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People want.

There is also a worry that moneys for EROs to support transition have not been adequately ring-fenced. I listened carefully to the Minister. He provided more clarity, but has specifically not stated that the money will be ring-fenced so that it is spent on the purpose for which it is intended, which was a key Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recommendation; I pay warm tribute to the Committee’s work.

Many other concerns are referred to in the reasoned amendment, one of which is the power that the Bill gives to Ministers to cancel annual canvasses. The Government’s argument is that we might at some point no longer need annual canvasses, when registers are complete. The Opposition argue that an annual canvass is needed even if we eventually have high registration levels, because we must always guard against, and be diligent about, any deterioration of the electoral roll.

The Government have made much of their U-turn on civil penalties. I do not want to belittle their volte face, but before the House can make an assessment of the civil penalty that the Government propose, it needs to know exactly how much the penalty will be. The Minister has said in other exchanges that the penalty will be like a parking fine, but the size of parking fines varies enormously across the country. Here in Westminster, they can be as high as £130, but in Rhondda Cynon Taff in south Wales, they can be as low as £25. Nobody wishes large numbers of fines to be issued, but if fines are to be an incentive for people to register, they need to be fixed at a reasonable level, and yet we do not know what that will be.

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

When I was a Conservative party agent way back in the 1980s—[Interruption.]—people were forced to pay a fixed fine of £50 for non-registration, but does the hon. Gentleman know how many people were forced to pay it?

[Mr David]

That is not much of an argument. We need an indication from the Government, which they have failed to provide, of the level at which the fixed fine will be set. There is no question of varying the fixed fine, of course; it will be a uniform fixed fine. We simply want to know what it should be. The Observer suggested that it might be £100. There have been other suggestions, too. I am simply saying that given that the Government are making a big thing of having listened to the opinions of many people outside the House and are committed to a civil penalty in principle, we need to know what they judge an effective figure to be.

[Gavin Shuker]

Is not the point that the threat of a fine is proportionate to how much money it would take off people? If it is a small fine, people will be less likely to register, but if it is a larger fine, they will be more likely to do so.

[Mr David]

My hon. Friend puts it very well.

The Minister told us that details of the civil penalty would be set out in secondary legislation, which brings me to a broader point. With this legislation, perhaps more than any other, the devil is in the detail, but the detail is tucked away in secondary legislation and we cannot see it. Last November, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, from the Dispatch Box, whether the Government would publish their secondary legislation at the same time as the primary legislation. That was six months ago. Additional information has been forthcoming, including today, but six months later we still cannot properly assess these proposals, simply because we do not know—we have not been told—the detail.

One of the main reasons we have continuing concerns about the Bill relates to the Government’s timetable for implementation. Under the last Labour Government, the Electoral Commission was to play a key role in monitoring and assessing the progress towards a new register. Sadly, that role has been diminished and downgraded. Instead, the Government are rushing pell-mell into a new system of electoral registration that ought to provide the cornerstone of our democratic process. We understand from the Government that they are undertaking a second round of data matching. That is to be welcomed and will show how complete the new register is at the end of 2015. The pilots will indicate whether the new register will be depleted. In all reasonableness, I think that the House should be aware of the conclusion of the pilots before it decides on the Government’s implementation timetable, yet the results of the data-matching pilots will not be available until early next year.

Why are the Government hell-bent on introducing this radical change at breakneck speed? It has been suggested that they are determined to end the carry-over arrangements before 1 December 2015 for reasons of Conservative party self-interest.

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

I recall that we first discussed individual electoral registration in the House seven years ago, since when it has been implemented in Northern Ireland—effectively a pilot scheme for the rest of the UK—and it has been looked at over the past two or more years in great detail. How can that possibly be described as breakneck speed?

[Mr David]

It is breakneck speed. This is the first piece of legislation in the Queen’s Speech to be introduced. The Electoral Commission and many others have said that we must first complete the data-matching exercises. The Government have deliberately introduced this legislation as quickly as possible in their legislative programme to circumvent the evidence coming forward that might highlight weaknesses in the process.

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman has a problem. He is a good guy and, like me, wants a good Bill. The Government came up with proposals, have hugely improved on them having listened to him, me and many others, including people outside, and they now want to implement a system that his Government never implemented, despite saying that they would—and this Government will do it as quickly as possible, and they are building in the safeguards. On this occasion, then, he ought to accept that the Government have done a good job. Why does he not simply thank the Government for having listened?

[Mr David]

With all due respect, I say to the Liberal Democrats that, yes, concessions have been made, but there is still a long, long way to go. As I hope the Liberal Democrats come to realise before the end of the passage of the Bill, some measures in it might well work against their interests. The advantage will be with the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats might pay a very high price for acquiescing in the policies of their Conservative masters.

What is the significance of 1 December 2015? It is when the next parliamentary boundary review takes place. As we should all be aware, under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, if, for whatever reasons, there is a decline in the number of electors in certain constituencies, the parliamentary boundaries must be redrawn. It would be most unfortunate for the Government to give the impression that they were seeking political advantage by introducing IER at the end of the transitional period, when the size of the electorate could be temporarily diminished. It could be that the new data-matching pilots will indicate that December 2015 is precisely the time when electoral numbers are likely to be at their lowest.

[Chris Ruane]

What reason have the Tory Government given for bringing forward IER by one year and putting back the next election to the latest possible date, which is May 2015? Is it happenstance or could it be for political advantage?

[Mr David]

I do not think it is mere coincidence. It is possible to look at the dates and come to certain conclusions. I only wish that the Liberal Democrats would do the same and recognise that there is a lot in what I say.

That concern has been identified by many others. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has raised it, as has the Electoral Reform Society, which pointed out that a depleted register could lead to the reduction of inner-city constituencies, while leaving

“thousands of…citizens who will not be accounted for or considered in many key decisions that affect their lives, yet will still look to MPs to serve them as local constituents.”

I ask the Government, therefore, to dispel any impression that their agenda is partisan. To do that, all they need to do is adopt a more reasonable time scale for the introduction of IER that goes beyond December 2015.

It is because the Government have so far been unable to acknowledge our concerns or act on our proposals that we have tabled our reasoned amendment. If the amendment is unsuccessful, we will oppose the Bill’s Second Reading. That is not a course of action that we want to take, but we feel it absolutely necessary to uphold the integrity of the electoral system while ensuring that our democratic system is built on firm foundations.

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Mr David]

We believe that there is no firmer foundation than an accurate and complete electoral register.

15:29

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I like the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), but I fear that spending too many evenings in parliamentary Labour party meetings has made him quite paranoid, given that the previous Government advanced the same substantive proposals for individual electoral registration in Northern Ireland and that the consultation document that was published in 2005 was followed by the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which gave rise to individual electoral registration in Northern Ireland. Neither we nor anyone else accused those measures of being rushed through. The hon. Gentleman must be the first Front Bencher to argue against the substantive proposals of the previous Government. The bigger question is why the integrity, autonomy and authority of the electoral register should be more important in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales and Scotland.

[Mr Harper]

I would have made this point to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), had he shown the generosity of spirit that I did. Given his complaints about the diminishing register and the risks involved, would my hon. Friend like to consider why the Electoral Commission’s research showed that in 2000, under the previous Government, 3 million people were missing from the electoral register and that by 2010, just after they had left office, the figure had risen to 6 million? If there is a party in the House that has shown itself to be a past master at driving people off the electoral register, it is not the party on the Government Benches; it is the party opposite.

[Mr Jackson]

The Minister makes an astute point. In 2001, the year in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly entered the House, the English electorate numbered 37.3 million. By the end of Labour’s second term, in 2005, the figure was 37.1 million. So Labour did not push up registration rates in an increasing population either.

I take with a pinch of salt Labour’s protestations and faux outrage. We have argued for many years that overseas voters should also have the right to be registered, and that active steps should be taken to achieve that. That point has also been made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly’s erstwhile right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). However, that did not happen during the 13 years of the previous Government. Indeed, they more or less ignored services voters, despite many people from military constituencies saying that that was an outrageous and egregious oversight.

[Mr Evennett]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Does he agree that the modernisation of our system is essential, and that it should be brought in as soon as possible?

[Mr Jackson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who has great experience in the House.

The Bill is absolutely right, in that its central aims are to tackle electoral fraud, improve the integrity of our electoral system, particularly the electoral register, and modernise the electoral registration system, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) says, is most important. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) was gracious in paying tribute to the Minister and the Department for engaging in an open and wide-ranging debate during the pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation, and for producing the White Paper and a detailed, comprehensive Government response in February 2012. It is far from the truth that this is some kind of rushed, gerrymandering Bill. It has attracted a lot of support, including from organisations such as the Electoral Commission. There is consensus around the Bill.

The proposals in the Bill featured not only in the Conservative manifesto of May 2010 but in the coalition agreement, so we certainly have a mandate for carrying out this policy. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly were more generous of spirit, he would perhaps admit that the previous Government wanted to proceed in a similar way when they were in power. Reference has been made to the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 in that regard.

[Chris Ruane]

Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question that has so far remained unanswered? The 2009 Act was passed as a result of consensus across the Chamber, and its provisions were to start in 2015. Why is it so important to bring them back by one year? Why could we not have retained all-party consensus by keeping the date at 2015?

[Mr Jackson]

Because we see this as in the best interest of the body politic generally. There is a plethora of evidence to show that cumulative cases of electoral fraud—I will come on to discuss this issue later both for my own constituency and across the country—have grievously damaged the faith and trust people have in the electoral process. The Minister is quite right that we have all been complacent in assuming that we live in a society where transparency, openness and fairness exist above all in the electoral process. I did not think I would ever encounter a case in which a judge would describe a British electoral result—in this case, for Birmingham city council—as comparable to one of a banana republic, yet that happened in 2004 under the watch of the Government whom the hon. Member for Caerphilly supported.

Important parts of the Bill are uncontentious, but I will bring some concerns to the House’s attention later. Of course individual electoral registration has been broadly supported across the House over a number of years. Some elements, such as the review of polling places, are innocuous and will not be contentious, as I said.

On civil penalties, I mentioned earlier that we must be cognisant of the fact that some people are not interested in the political process. We cannot force people to register on the basis of a criminal sanction—it is not right to do so—if they genuinely do not feel part of the process. That is a function not of a political process, but of societal change over many years. International comparisons are important for understanding how to get people to register. Australia is an interesting example. The level of civic engagement in schools and colleges there and the amount of publicity given to financial education, for example, has led to school children and young people understanding the importance of being involved in the system. I think that is a much better way of proceeding than having criminal sanctions and a penalty. Our society is much changed.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I am certainly no expert on the Australian system and I am sure that school education there is good. Nevertheless, Australia has compulsory voting and has far more frequent and stronger fining than we do.

[Mr Jackson]

We will not meander down the path of compulsory voting, which is a completely separate issue, and even the benign Deputy Speaker might rule me out of order if I did that. I think it is better to persuade than to threaten and cajole people. That is why I am not particularly concerned one way or the other about the opt-out proposals. Had they remained in the Bill and not been amended, I would still have been happy to support it. We can argue about civil penalties, but I think amounts of £60, £80 or £100 send out a powerful enough message. After all, no one wants to get a parking ticket and be fined £60. We are talking about civic engagement with something that is important for the future of our country, and people understand that they should be part of it.

An important corollary of the changes is the reduction in the potential for financial fraud. Essentially, the capacity to commit fraud is often given via a place on the electoral register. Figures produced over the last year or so in the Cabinet Office impact assessment by the Metropolitan Police Service and the National Fraud Initiative under the auspices of Operation Amberhill showed that of 29,000 information strands collated, 13,214—almost 46%—showed data matches with the electoral register that were fraudulent or counterfeit. In other words, the documents were often generated as a result of someone’s being on the electoral register, but were nevertheless fraudulent or counterfeit.

The Minister made the simple point that ours is one of the few countries in the world that still operates a household registration system. The system is backward-looking, and it disfranchises people, particularly women, in communities in which the heads of households take full responsibility for women’s registration and postal vote. We should do something about that. We have a duty to ensure that those women’s votes are not being stolen by people who should not have access to them, because we have a universal franchise based on free and fair access to democracy for every man and every woman, which is what has put us here today.

At present, only a person’s name, address and nationality need to be supplied for that person to appear on the electoral register. As the Minister made clear, this is one of the least robust systems in the world. Let me share with the House our experience in Peterborough. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who I know has been in the House for a long time, was very relaxed and insouciant, perhaps even complacent, about postal votes and the transfer to the individual electoral registration system. However, on 27 April the Peterborough Evening Telegraph reported that 16% of postal votes applied for in the central ward of Peterborough had been thrown out because they were fraudulent or forged.

That is happening now, and it can be extrapolated to different communities and different wards in urban areas throughout the country, including Greater London. However, Members need not rely on me for speculation, because there have already been serious cases of electoral fraud involving postal votes in Slough, Pendle, Birmingham, West Yorkshire and, in particular, Peterborough. I shall say more about that later.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I certainly would not tolerate the fraudulent registration of even one postal vote, but how can it be right to reduce access to postal votes for the many because of a few examples of fraud? No investigation, including those by the Electoral Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers, has discovered extensive fraud. We know that it happens, and we know that it happens in particular places, but surely the job of the police is to find out where it happens and make specific proposals to deal with it, not to disfranchise the many.

[Mr Jackson]

We are making specific proposals. I think that the hon. Lady is tarrying with the wrong person. I saw the huge resources that were devoted to investigation of postal vote fraud by the Cambridgeshire constabulary—who, as far as I know, received little if any help from the Government of whom the hon. Lady was a member—between 2004 and 2008. It took four years for Operation Hooper to complete its investigation, which resulted in the imprisonment of, I believe, five individuals—two of them Conservative and three Labour, as it happens—following the European and city council elections in the central ward of Peterborough in June 2004.

We cannot say that we should not bother about this because we have no proof that it happens. It does happen, it is costly, it undermines the very basis of democracy in this country, and we should ensure—as I believe the Bill does—that the correct procedures operate to ensure that it does not happen in the future. The hon. Lady may wish to reconsider her rather lackadaisical approach to the integrity of our electoral system.

One proposal with which I strongly agree, although I do not think that the Government have gone far enough, is the proposal in clause 19 to allow police community support officers into polling stations. I think that if there is a missed opportunity in the Bill, it is our failure to consider the serious problem of personation and intimidation at polling stations. We saw that in Tower Hamlets earlier this month, and we have seen it too often in Peterborough. I must not major on Peterborough’s central ward, but it is the one that I know best. In that ward we have four polling stations. About half a dozen members of the Cambridgeshire constabulary and mobile CCTV are required at each of them because of the issue of personation, of which there have been cases in Peterborough.

We are not going far enough in looking again at the Representation of the People Act 1983, because the power of the presiding officer inside the polling station remains extremely limited. If the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden were to go into a polling station in Mitcham and Morden and say she was Elvis Presley and that name was on the electoral register, the polling clerk would have very little power to say, “Actually, you’re not Elvis Presley. You’re our esteemed local Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden.” That is not satisfactory. The legal test for proving that the hon. Lady is her good self, rather than Elvis Presley, is very difficult. We have missed an opportunity to look again at that issue.

In closing—which is what the Whips are imploring me to do—may I make two quick points? I have concerns about the removal of the co-ordinated online record of electors—CORE—database. I have no interest in promoting national ID databases—I voted against identity cards—but the Minister must tell us how successful he has been in removing the difficulties of duplication, which have frequently arisen. CORE ameliorated that, but it is no longer in place.

On a slightly mischievous note, this morning on the ConservativeHome website my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) made a point about clause 18 and allowing a parliamentary candidate standing on behalf of two or more parties to use a registered emblem of one or more parties. Can the Minister assure me that there is no hidden agenda in that, and that it is just a helpful way to assist Labour and Co-operative party representatives to get elected in their seats?

[Mr Harper]

I am happy to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. There will not be coalition candidates at the next election; there will be separate Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates. I must say, too, that the attitude of Labour Members is a bit depressing. The only reason why we are making this change is that when the Labour party was in office it could not draft legislation properly and inadvertently “cocked it up”, to quote the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Because of that, and because we are fixing what is largely a problem for Labour and Co-operative Members, one would think they could be slightly less churlish.

[Mr Jackson]

Finally, let me say that the data-matching projects are very useful, but in Peterborough’s case they resulted in merely a 54.7% matching rate. More work needs to be done in the second tranche, and sufficient resources must be allocated, as this will be the bedrock of individual electoral registration.

I thank the Minister for his detailed and comprehensive remarks. The Bill is excellent. It restores integrity, honesty and transparency to the electoral system. That is long overdue. The previous Government should have done this, but it has been our new Government who have taken this courageous step, in order to make sure we can all have faith and trust in the system that puts us here and puts councillors in their seats. That adds to British democracy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Many Members wish to speak, so I am imposing a 12-minute time limit on contributions.

15:48

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

First, let me say that the principle of individual registration is unarguably right; indeed, I have supported it for some time. Excellent work has been done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in this Parliament, but I have read again the recommendations of 2004-05, when a Joint Committee of the Committees of Constitutional Affairs and the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister looked at this issue. We supported the principle of individual registration, and looked at a number of ways in which that could have been done. However, neither of the main political parties chose to look at a proposal I thought might be appropriate: a common household form that individuals signed, so that people registered individually on a single form.

At that time, we discussed the possible consequences of individual registration not being done properly, and that issue has been part of the general argument ever since. As the introduction of these new measures is now being speeded up, I ask the Minister what will happen if our worst fears are realised and there is a significant fall in the number of people on the register. What will the Government’s answer be at that point? Is there a plan B? Are measures in place to address that eventuality, or will Ministers simply wring their hands and say, “Oh dear, we didn’t really intend that. It shouldn’t have happened, but it has happened and there’s nothing we can do about it”? It is reasonable and right that we raise those concerns at this point and ask Ministers to respond to them.

Back in 2004-05, we looked at data matching, which is key if we are to get this process right. It is an integral part of the system, and it is absolutely right that electoral registration officers have access to a whole range of data from private and public bodies—the utilities, postal services, universities and colleges, local authority housing associations, local authority schools, academies and universities. I congratulate the Government on going ahead with their pilots, which is the correct way to proceed. The problem is that, as we know—the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) just mentioned it—the pilots were not terribly informative. They did not convince anyone that the process was in place for data matching to deliver significant improvements to the register at this stage. The Electoral Commission said that the analysis lacked a common methodological framework—in other words, there was no common assessment of the benefits of the different pilots.

I welcome the Government saying that there should be a second round of pilots, but we have not reached the point where we can conclude that there will be significant benefits to the register. Pushing ahead with the new regime of individual registration when we do not really know what the best forms of data matching are and how they will work is a major concern. It is not that I am against the principle of individual registration; however, we are not yet certain that we have the schemes in place really to improve registration through the data-matching process.

The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) finally got there, did he not? If we had an ID card system in place, we would have everything we need—we would not need to worry about data matching because we would have the basis for a comprehensive electoral registration system with individual registration. We would not have to duplicate it or provide lots of information to different local organisations. This issue is often missed out in these discussions, but the hon. Gentleman got there in the end—two years late. Perhaps some of his colleagues might do so as well.

I am in favour of complete reform of the electoral registration process. Before the Select Committee produced its report, it went to Australia to see what happens there. They described their system to us, and we described ours to them, and they looked at us with a slight degree of amazement when we explained that the main part of our process was to write each year to every household to try to get a response. The people who responded were those who normally respond, and they were often the households that stay the same year in, year out. In other words, we concentrated all our resources on writing at the same time of year to people whose circumstances had not changed. That is a very inefficient and ineffective system, because it does not target the groups who do not respond or the people whose circumstances have changed.

In Australia, they adopt the data-matching approach. They have an existing register, and they make changes when they get information about a change in circumstances—for example, that new people have moved in and others have moved out, or that someone has become eligible to vote because they are now older. They get such information from schools, universities and so on. Their system is based on targeting resources on people who move or whose circumstances in some way change, making sure that they are followed up so that the register can be altered accordingly.

At the time of the report, we recommended that when the system is comprehensively reformed, the annual canvass be dropped and replaced with a three-year audit to check that the register is accurate as a result of the data matching. That is an ideal ultimate position to reach; the problem is that we do not know which data-matching systems will work, and until we do, it is very dangerous to take away other parts of the system that are currently important in ensuring that we get as comprehensive a register as possible. We all know from the excellent work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that our register is not very accurate, so we must be very concerned about anything that might worsen it.

On the Government’s approach to people who do not register, I welcome their decision to introduce a civil penalty, as it is the right approach. People have a responsibility to register, and the Government’s change in position on that is welcome. They have clearly listened to the evidence, information and views put to them, and responded appropriately. However, I would go further on the requirements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised this next matter in a meeting I was at a few weeks ago. If people are going to need services or benefits from the state that require them to give an address—this is in addition to data being obtained from various parts of government to inform electoral registration officers of the state of play on their register and individuals’ addresses—I do not see any reason why they should not be required to show that they are registered at that address. If someone is going to claim benefits or services from the state, they also have a responsibility to act as a citizen. As a citizen, they should be required to do jury duty and not pass that requirement on to others. Why should they not be required to be eligible for jury duty and therefore to have to register?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for supporting my ten-minute rule Bill in the last Session. I hope to bring it back, and I hope that it will have all-party support.

[Mr Betts]

I am certainly prepared to support that Bill.

This is not just about jury service; it is also about the fact that the registers are used to draw up boundaries. If some people decide that they want to opt out of registration, they are, in effect, undermining and reducing the level of electoral representation in their area, by making the constituency they live in have a larger number of residents. That is because the boundaries will be made on the basis not of the number of residents, but the number of people registered to vote in areas. Again, it is a matter of civic responsibility that people should be registering. If they take services and benefits from the state, they should give something back in return.

The other issue I briefly wish to address is how we go about forming a national regime for improving registration. We have to examine the powers that the Electoral Commission has and those it is asking for. As a localist, I think we are currently too prescriptive about the means of getting a comprehensive register. I have mentioned that we may not require the annual canvass in future. The Electoral Commission should give electoral registration officers a general requirement to ensure that as high a percentage of people in an area register as possible. The Electoral Commission should give guidelines and examples of good practice as to how that should be achieved. If EROs then do not carry out their functions—if we clearly see that in some areas the process is failing, whereas in others it is succeeding—the Electoral Commission should have powers not merely to monitor and shame those officers who are not performing in their duties, but to intervene. Those powers are lacking in this Bill. The commission has asked for them—people from the commission mention them every time we meet—and we ought to examine them. We need less prescription about how this is done; a clear requirement for EROs to maximise registration; a clear requirement for the commission to give guidelines and examples of good practice; and powers for the commission then to intervene if there is a failure in particular areas.

I say to the Minister that I have been partly reassured on postal votes. It is very important that people who have long-term postal votes, not for any fraudulent reason, but because they simply need them—perhaps because they are elderly, they are disabled or they work away from home a lot—should not be disadvantaged in any way. As we saw, turnouts in the recent local elections were not high, but turnouts among postal voters, certainly in my constituency, where there have been no allegations of electoral fraud that I am aware of, were much higher. If we do anything to discourage legitimate postal voting, we will reduce turnout, and it is important that we keep that in mind.

I shall conclude now, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to contribute. I just say to the Minister that the reasoned amendment is just that—it is a reasoned amendment. Many—perhaps all—Labour Members are not against the principle of individual registration; we are merely concerned about an undue rush to implement it, which could damage the number of people registering. Such damage would not be intended by Ministers but, if it were to occur, it would be very damaging to the whole democratic process in this country.

15:59

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and I broadly welcome the content of the Bill. There is much to commend it, especially individual electoral registration, which is long overdue. Regardless of what official statistics say, the simple fact is that in parts of Britain electoral fraud is widespread and has led to fraudulent election results. That is a disgrace and should be tackled immediately or at least as soon as is practicably possible, not in 2014 or 2015—or even later, as the Opposition suggest.

[Frank Dobson]

The law provides for people who commit electoral fraud to be prosecuted, fined or imprisoned. If the problem is as widespread as people suggest, why are there not more prosecutions, more people paying fines and more electoral swindlers in jail?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I shall come on to that exact point. There are a range of reasons why electoral fraud is not reported, the police do not have the resources to follow it up and the culprits are not brought to justice. Dozens of MPs have majorities in two or three figures and I have real concerns about the integrity of the ballot and its impact on recent elections as well as future ones.

My Labour predecessor in this House, Gordon Prentice, was a vocal supporter of individual voter registration, particularly in April 2008 when he found out that our Lib Dem opponent for the last general election had 27 registered voters living in his house and a household of 44 people. I know that some Members will raise their eyebrows at that, and it was indeed an exceptional case, but I can assure them that in parts of my constituency it is not uncommon for seven, eight or more voters to be registered as living in a terraced house and no one makes any checks on that.

We have also seen a sharp rise in the number of eastern European names appearing on the electoral roll, including those of Polish, Lithuanian or Czech citizens, but few are correctly marked as being unable to vote in UK parliamentary elections or referendums. During my time in Parliament, the names of virtually every illegal immigrant or illegal overstayer with whom I have dealt has appeared on the electoral roll. We know from Operation Amberhill, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), that almost half of all forged or counterfeit documents were positive matches on the electoral register.

Surely all that would lead anyone to support individual electoral registration—and I do—but we need to ensure that it is properly scrutinised for fraud and that the returns are accurate. Scrutiny costs money and it will take a significant amount of time and effort to check people’s citizenship or residency status, in particular, so I welcome the Minister’s comments about extra money for the project.

The nub of the issue of electoral fraud is on-demand postal voting, on which I believe, sadly, that the Bill should go further. It was introduced by the previous Government and my concerns are widely shared by a number of Members and by many of my constituents. In a letter to the Electoral Commission’s Jenny Watson last summer, Pendle borough council’s chief executive, Stephen Barnes, described how

“allegations and perceptions of malpractice around”

postal voting

“are seriously undermining public confidence in the whole electoral process”,

and expressed his own view that those concerns were fully justified, citing examples of probable malpractice and difficulties for the council in taking action.

In a motion last year, Pendle borough council resolved that practices related to postal votes

“affected the result of the election in some wards”.

Just last week, five councillors in Pendle from the three main parties came together to form a taskforce on tackling postal vote fraud. One of those five, Conservative Councillor Linda Crossley, said:

“People used to have to be really ill, virtually bed-ridden, to get a proxy or postal vote, now anybody can get a postal vote”.

To put that into context and explain how it happens, I shall refer to one ward, Reedley, where the scale and impact of postal voting has been dramatic. I should declare an interest. Reedley was for many years a safe Conservative ward and perhaps it still is, without on-demand postal voting. Until last year all three councillors were Conservative; now there is only one. In 2010, 800 postal votes were issued in Reedley in an election in which 3,049 people voted. The Conservative candidate secured 49% of the vote and was easily elected. In 2011, Reedley saw a 25% increase in postal votes, and this year a further increase of almost 25%. In two years an extra 479 voters felt the need to vote by post. Virtually all were from the British Pakistani community and virtually all were signed up for postal votes by the Labour party. Not coincidentally, Labour was elected on both occasions. The Conservative vote did not collapse. The Labour victory was not on trend across the constituency. Nevertheless, in this ward its support rocketed.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

In 2004 in Sheffield we had an all-postal vote election. Labour won that election against the trend. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in such instances there is wide-scale fraud on the part of Labour voters?

[Andrew Stephenson]

Certainly not. I am suggesting that certain parties can abuse the system of on-demand postal voting, and all parties have a vested interest in signing up their voters for postal votes in order to increase the turnout of their voters. I believe that that can skew election results. A return to the old system, where voters had to have a reason to have a postal vote, is the way that we should go.

I accept that in the Reedley ward it is theoretically possible that local support for Labour did sky-rocket. However, I have no doubt that the 45% increase in the Labour vote in 2011, against the backdrop of an 18% drop in turnout, was down to the huge increase in postal votes that year, as well as individual reports of party activists walking into polling stations with piles of up to 50 postal votes at a time. It is not so much that the numbers do not add up; rather, that they do. As the new council leader of Pendle, Councillor Joe Cooney, recently said:

“If we lose an election we want to lose it fairly, we don’t want to see councillors losing seats where it is not a level playing field.”

I accept, as I said, that while the rules remain as they are, all political parties will compete to sign up as many people as possible on to postal votes. Everyone in the Chamber knows that electors with postal votes are more likely to use their vote, so all political parties have a vested interest in doing that. However, as we all know, the temptation for some political activists to create fictitious voters and sign them up for postal votes has proved irresistible in places such as Slough, Birmingham and east London.

It is also clear, yes, that there is a cultural element. That has been endorsed by independent organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Trust. Even if the electoral roll is accurate, as the Bill hopes to ensure, the current on-demand postal voting regime actively disfranchises women and young people by allowing family voting to occur. By family voting, I mean the head of a household pledging the entire family’s votes to a particular political party. He can then ensure that all those votes go to that political party by watching family members complete their postal ballots, completing the ballots himself, or indeed completing them with an activist from the said political party.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend’s comments. What we have found in Peterborough from time to time is that the head of the household will fill in both the signature and the date of birth of predominantly women members of the family. It is time-consuming and resource-intensive for the local authority and the electoral registration officer to cross-reference and match those. It is only in that way that the practice is found out, but often it is not. That is uncomfortable and unpalatable, but nevertheless true.

[Andrew Stephenson]

This is a particular issue in the south Asian community. I have met Asian women in my constituency who have told me they have no idea who they voted for because their husband did it. Needless to say, because of the close family ties and bonds of loyalty, this is not going to be reported to the police or investigated by anyone. I imagine Emmeline Pankhurst will be turning in her grave.

Apart from electoral fraud taking place and women and young people in some households losing their right to vote, such goings-on play into a narrative that gives impetus to groups such as the British National party and the English Defence League. As someone who played an active role in helping an excellent Conservative candidate unseat a BNP councillor in Pendle this year, I say that we cannot allow electoral fraud, or the suspicion of it, to continue to be used as a reason for undermining community cohesion.

In my view, the only sensible conclusion is to suspend postal voting by demand and revert to a system in which postal and proxy votes are available only to people who genuinely need them and can provide a compelling reason why they cannot vote on the day. That would save a significant amount of money, which could be invested in better scrutiny of individual voter registration, as outlined in the Bill, and would address the biggest area of fraud in our electoral system. We would disfranchise nobody and could restore confidence in our democracy. Alongside individual registration, an immediate end to postal voting on demand would lead to electoral fraud, and allegations of it, once again becoming exceptional.

I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading but urge the Government to go much further by ending postal voting on demand. That would end almost all electoral fraud, re-empower women and young people, remove a hobby-horse issue from the far right, bring our democracy in line with international standards and restore true confidence in our electoral system.

16:11

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

If I may issue a challenge or wager to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), it is that there will be proportionately fewer young people on the electoral register in December 2015 than there are today. I support household registration because I believe that the most effective electoral registration officer in my constituency is mum. It is mum who fills in the form and includes her young sons—it is principally young sons, but also young daughters. It is not about people being excluded because of a bullying dad or other figures in the household. The young men I saw queuing up at the polling station at the last general election were there and able to vote because their mums assisted them in that. My concern about individual registration is not about party preference or who wins and loses, but about the disfranchisement of those groups who, for the good of us all and the protection of our society, must be included in the system.

Those listening to the debate would be forgiven for thinking that all sorts of fraud goes on all the time and that there is plenty of evidence for it, but actually the contrary is true. The report produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Electoral Commission in March 2012 identified remarkably low levels of offences relating to voter registration, stating that the offences usually concern financial benefit or identity fraud, which can be investigated separately, rather than electoral fraud. Surely we have all met mums in our constituency advice surgeries whose single person discount has been removed from their council tax bill because the council found that the electoral register recorded adult sons or daughters as living with them, even though they had moved out. That is the problem. It is not about people wanting to go on to the electoral register.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Is the hon. Lady really telling the intelligent and articulate Pakistani women in my constituency that they are not intelligent enough or cannot be trusted to fill in their own individual electoral registration forms and that they have to trust their mums, aunties, dads or uncles to do so, because I do not think that that is about women’s empowerment? It is patronising, backward-looking and potentially extremely fraudulent.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I think that that intervention is the result of the hon. Gentleman’s embarrassment at some of his earlier contributions on people who should not be on the electoral register—that gets to the nub of it.

I accept that I am out of step and that individual registration is going to happen. Given that it is, what can we do to make sure that as many people as possible are on the register?

Our democracy depends on the fullest electoral register, and that is why I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) referred, and which suggests that anybody who receives a service from the state, gets a library ticket and a driving licence or claims a benefit should have to be on the register. It would be a social contract, whereby the state—the Government—had a connection with people, who were able to vote if they chose to do so. In that way, we would also bring about a connection that people understood—that there was not something called Government money, but an individual’s money, which they gave to the Government or the state to spend.

The police are not against a comprehensive electoral register, because it is one of the country’s most effective crime databases, so their job will be made much harder if the register becomes less complete. Banks and credit companies will find it harder to tackle fraud, and councils will also find it harder to investigate benefit fraud.

If millions drop off the register because individual registration is introduced too rapidly and with too few safeguards, there will be trouble ahead. The Government have made some concessions, but, as the Bill stands, the number of people on the electoral roll and electoral participation will decline.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady may be aware that people gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on this topic, but not a single one of the organisations that she mentions raised the concerns that she mentions, so will she explain the basis of the evidence on which she makes her point?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police are concerned about the problems of under-registration because they use the electoral register, and many people are concerned about what is going to happen. If he looks throughout the world, and at America, where about one in six under-25-year-olds is not registered and one in six people who earn less than $20,000 a year is not registered, he will find plenty of evidence, quite apart from that provided by those who I am sure gave very good evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

I am worried about the position of those individually registered people who would still be allowed to vote by post or by proxy in 2015, but I am not concerned for my own electoral benefit, because in the London borough of Merton far more postal voters vote Tory than vote Labour. I am defending the opposition’s vote, rather than my own, but it is the right of people who are unwell, disabled, work away or find it easier to vote by post to have the chance to do so.

If anybody here went to sign a postal vote today, they would be asked to tick a box, and they would be able to choose to have a postal vote indefinitely—not until December 2015, but indefinitely. That is the contract which, at the moment, the Bill is going to break. According to ACPO and the Electoral Commission, no electoral result has ever been affected by over-registration, but if postal voters lose their vote en masse that will be a very different matter.

I am concerned that people will not register. The detail of the measure—the fact that we are asking every person in a household to fill in their own form and to put in their own NI number and date of birth—is, practically, an extraordinarily difficult process to go through. As I said when I intervened on the Minister, I am concerned that when the person from the council canvasses they will not be able to fill in the form there and then, even if the individual is able to provide their NI number and date of birth. If the canvasser could do so, that would cut out a lot of bureaucracy.

I hope that my party will allow me to sit on the Public Bill Committee, because I am interested in allowing people to participate and to become involved. If 20% of the electorate can fall off the register in Northern Ireland when individual registration is introduced, then in a constituency such as mine, where a third of voters move every year and there are highly disadvantaged and disfranchised groups, the number who may fall off the register is absolutely huge, and that is in no party’s interest.

16:19

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a thoughtful speech, although I disagree with some of what she said. Unlike her, I think that we are going in the right direction with individual voter registration, and most Members’ comments seem to reflect that view. When we last debated this matter in January, in Opposition time, I covered two issues, and because I always strive for consistency in what I do in this House, I will do so again.

The first issue is people who are fortunate enough to own multiple properties and therefore find themselves able to register to vote in two or more places. The council in Cornwall has started to take action that the former district councils did not in challenging some of the registrations by second home owners in Cornwall. I have supported that publicly and have therefore been in receipt of letters from all parts of the United Kingdom from people who have property in north Cornwall; many choose to do so. Second home ownership is a serious issue in terms of property prices, the property market, and so on. I have been at pains to say that I do not believe that all second home owners are a drain on the local area’s services or that they do not contribute to local charities and other organisations.

Voter registration, however, is a different issue. As I said in the previous debate, I have heard that several people have come across political campaigning in certain elections that targets the second home vote, which is unhealthy. As I said, I have received letters from other parts of the country from people whom Cornwall council has decided to remove from the register on the grounds that they are not resident in Cornwall, and I see trotted out phrases such as “No taxation without representation”. However, I view their property ownership in a similar vein to that of those who operate a business in a constituency but do not live there. Business rate payers have not had the vote for some time. It is the same with other forms of land ownership.

The accuracy of the register is important, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) pointed out, although he worries that people should be on it but are not, whereas I worry that people are on it but should not be.

The Government have stated their intention to offer further opportunities for local people to influence decisions in their local area through referendums about, for example, council tax setting or development and neighbourhood plans. A referendum could be held to see whether people want to endorse or to think again about a development framework for a local community. My concern on that score is about places where there is a dire need for affordable housing. It will undoubtedly be in the interests of the people who live in the area for that affordable housing to be built—they might have relatives who are in desperate need of it—but it will probably not be in the interests of those who have second homes there. I therefore suspect—call me cynical if you will, Mr Deputy Speaker—that those who own property in the area, but do not have an interest in whether the community is a living, thriving one, will take a different view on whether a new affordable housing development should be built, particularly in a coastal or village community. Those are crucial questions that we need to get right.

As I said, the first issue is whether people who have multiple properties should be on the register in multiple locations. If we are moving towards an individual electoral registration system, it ought to be just that: each individual should be on the register in one place and should state where that place is. We could have a discussion about what options there are for determining where somebody should register. I would be happy for a person to opt for which place they use. Another school of thought says that it should be based on the amount of time they spend in each area. There are data, such as those that have been used in the data-matching pilots, that show where a person spends most of their time. That information would be useful for a local authority in determining whether a person is resident in its area.

We could go further than the data that were authorised for use in the pilots. Many of the cases will relate to the ownership of property. Although pay-as-you-earn information was on the list, registration for capital gains tax purposes was not. In the past, we have heard celebrated examples of people changing the designation of their properties for capital gains tax purposes, depending on which property they were about to sell. If somebody opts to say that a place is their main residence for tax purposes, should they not also say that it is their main residence for electoral registration purposes? That is another form of data that could be useful, but it was not used in the data matching pilots.

Earlier this week, we discussed the council tax discount. There is still a 10% discount for second homes even in councils that have chosen to make second home owners pay as much council tax as possible. Although my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) was reflecting the opinion of the electorate in Cornwall and other parts of the country in supporting the abolition of the discount, it will present a problem. At the moment, there is an incentive to register a property as a second home, because to get the 10% discount one has to notify the council. That is useful for data mapping and for resolving the registration issues to which I am referring. If the 10% discount goes, we will lose that option. Other methods will therefore have to be used to ensure that the register is accurate.

Putting the new systems in place presents a huge opportunity, whether paper forms or computer systems are used. I appreciate that the Government do not want to be in the business of deciding what system a local authority should use and exactly how the forms should look. There will inevitably be differences. Having lived in different parts of the country, I know that different councils have different ways of doing things, but we could specify in regulations certain items of data that must be captured. I would welcome a view from the Minister on this point.

I would like people who are completing the form to be asked whether they have another property that they might consider registering at and, if so, where that property is. We could discuss those sorts of questions in Committee. The form will provide an opportunity for such cross-referencing. At the moment, it would be incredibly difficult for an electoral registration officer to check whether somebody who was registered in two places had voted in both places in a general election. They would have to know where the other property was, get access to the marked register and compare it with their own marked register. For areas such as north Cornwall that have a large number of second homes, that would be very time consuming. If we could capture that information at the point of registration, it would be hugely reassuring.

I will move on briefly to the second point that I want to cover. The Bill does not include the issue of the edited register. I know that there is a range of views on this matter. I am pleased that the Government do not propose to change the status quo and abolish the edited register. I hope that they will cling to that position, because many organisations rely on the edited register, including charities, those who seek to unite family members who have been separated, credit referencing organisations and those who are seeking to catch up with people who are trying to avoid their responsibilities—for instance, by not paying their bills. The edited register is a useful and valuable resource. I am pleased that the Government have not included its abolition in the Bill, despite the view of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I hope that the Government will stick to that view and that we will not have to revisit the issue.

16:29

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The first time I heard of the proposal for individual registration, I expressed my opposition to the idea. I remain of that opinion, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).

The Bill is unique in the history of all changes to electoral law over the past 180 years. All the others added citizens to the electoral register; this one, as we all know, will do the reverse. Individual registration will reduce the number of people on the electoral roll. Those who support the Bill say that its object is to reduce the scope for electoral fraud, but whatever the intentions behind it, its main effect will be to reduce the number of people entitled to vote. That number will be reduced not by keeping swindlers off the electoral roll but because it will become more inconvenient, complicated and difficult for the law-abiding majority to get on to it.

The right to vote is the birthright of every British citizen and the most important right granted to those who become British citizens. It is a symbol of our democracy. Over the centuries, British people have struggled, fought and in some cases died for the right to vote. In the last century, women had to battle for it. This afternoon, we are being asked to vote to make it harder for many of our fellow citizens to exercise that democratic right.

[Mr Harper]

Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that our fellow United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland are perfectly capable of registering individually—just as many of them are on the register—but people in Great Britain are not?

[Frank Dobson]

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman gives the example of Northern Ireland, because he cannot deny that there was a massive drop in registration immediately after individual registration was introduced. I see no reason to believe that the people of Northern Ireland are inferior to any other people.

No one can deny that there have been examples of electoral fraud, which are deplorable. We know that, because people have been successfully prosecuted. However, the number of fraudsters is small, otherwise there would be more prosecutions. The most glaring scandal of our electoral system is not that some have swindled their way on to the electoral roll but that as many as 9 million of our fellow citizens have been left off it. That is the scandal that we should be addressing. Instead, the Government want to add to the number of their fellow citizens who will be denied their birthright.

We are being asked to pass a law to make life more inconvenient and difficult for the law-abiding many, in response to the law-breaking of the wrongdoing few. Instead, we should be targeting more effort, and much more effective effort, at whenever and wherever electoral fraud is suspected.

[Mrs Laing]

I am thinking about the figure of 9 million that the right hon. Gentleman gave. Is it not the case that at present, those 9 million people, if there are 9 million—I think there are 3 million—have to go through their “head of household”, whatever that might mean, to register to vote? When the Bill becomes law, they will be able to register individually in their own right, which will give them a power that they do not have at the moment.

[Frank Dobson]

I do not think that is what will happen in practice. I admit that it may happen in some cases, but in a very large number of cases, particularly in inner-city areas such as my constituency where people live in houses in multiple occupation, it will be more difficult for people to get on the register. Virtually everyone in the Chamber accepts that that is likely to happen, but apparently regards that reduction as a bit of collateral damage in the headlong pursuit of individual registration.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken about houses in multiple occupation. At the moment, people in houses in multiple occupation get one form and depend on someone to whom they are not even related to put them on the electoral register. Under our proposals, they will all be written to and all get the chance to register individually. That is a step forward, not backwards.

[Frank Dobson]

The measures are proposed for areas where there is about a 30% to a 33% turnover of population each year. To whom will the electoral lot write if people have moved on? The proposals do not reflect the practicalities, problems and inconveniences that arise.

The Bill reminds me of when the police tried to counter football hooliganism by inconveniencing the majority of law-abiding football fans by treating all football fans as hooligans. It did not stop hooliganism. It was only when the police started to identify and target the trouble-making few that widespread hooliganism was stopped and the law-abiding many felt safe again. If we want to deal with the fraud, we need to target the potential fraudsters much better.

By all means we should ensure that no one votes who should not vote, but surely a far more important task is ensuring that everyone who is entitled to do so can cast their vote. The whole approach is simply back to front. Our first priority should be to get on the register the 6 million people who are not on it—I do not know whether by a slip of the tongue I said 9 million. Even the benighted Electoral Commission admits that the figure is about 6 million. The Bill proposes all sorts of cross-checking of official records, but largely with the object of getting people off the electoral roll. We should cross-check official records and private databases with the object of adding people to the register. The Bill’s object is wrong. Getting more people on the roll should be the main task of all involved in the electoral system: registration officers, the Electoral Commission, the Boundary Commission, civil servants, Ministers, holders of private sector data and political parties.

The Bill is back to front, dealing with a minor problem compared with the glaring scandal that 6 million of our fellow citizens are not on the electoral roll. Even if there are 10,000 fraudsters—I do not accept that there are—we are paying far more attention to them than to the absence of 6 million people who should be on the electoral register. The whole damn thing is back to front and it is about time we took our duties seriously and discharged our obligations in the way in which my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Mitcham and Morden suggest. We should go out there, day in, day out, using every possible method we can devise to get on the register people who could legitimately be on the electoral register. The Bill has a cock-eyed priority.

16:38

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

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), because I totally disagree with everything that he has just said, so perhaps we can have a real debate about the amendment and the party political difference on the matter.

The Bill will improve the electoral register’s comprehensiveness and accuracy. It is long overdue. It is absurd that, in the 21st century, a person’s right to vote depends on the head of household filling in a form. Each individual member of our society should be responsible for registering themselves to vote and should have the vote that they deserve. I have never understood why the Labour party—it is in opposition now, but the situation was the same when it was in government—has been so reluctant for the last two Parliaments to go ahead with that obvious modernisation of our electoral administration system.

Labour Members now want that modernisation to be delayed. I understand their objection a little better having listened to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, but the arguments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) simply do not hold water. The Government are not, as he said, rushing pell-mell. The proposals have been discussed in the Chamber and other places for seven years, and this Government have taken two years and two weeks to introduce the Bill. That is not “breakneck speed”.

The Opposition amendment is ridiculous. They state that

“the proposals would mean the young, the poor, ethnic minorities and disabled people would face an increased risk of being unregistered and thus excluded from a range of social and civic functions”.

I entirely take the point that measures must be in place to help people who are disabled or elderly, and there is a duty on local authorities to provide such help. The Government are as concerned as the previous one, and Government Back Benchers are as concerned as Opposition Back Benchers to ensure that people who are elderly or disabled get help to register to vote if they need it.

How many hon. Members as candidates in elections or as election managers knock on somebody’s door, find that they are not registered, get them a form and ensure that they register? How many of us knock on a door and find an elderly person who might find it difficult to get to the polling station and offer to arrange them a lift? All Members on both sides of the House do that. We sometimes help if we think the person might vote for our candidate rather than someone else’s, which is fair enough, but there is every likelihood that someone from all political parties will knock on that door. Somebody will help that person to get to the polling station or have a form sent to someone by the local authority to ensure they are registered to vote. We all do it because it is in our interests.

However, I am amazed that the Opposition say ethnic minorities will be less likely to register to vote under the Bill, because the opposite is the case. I am thinking particularly about women in certain ethnic minorities who have their right to vote, or indeed to participate in wider public life, restricted by a head of household who exercises the power of a head of household. In this Bill we are giving greater rights to women in those ethnic minorities.

My greatest concern is the idea that young people will not register to vote if their mother or father does not fill in the form for them. What absolute nonsense! I shall go further: if a young person cannot organise the filling in of a form that registers them to vote, they do not deserve the right to vote—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I thought that might be controversial, but I do not mind.

[Chris Ruane]

That argument smacks of the Conservative’s attitude towards the poor in general—the undeserving poor and the deserving poor, the undeserving voters and the deserving voters. In whose political interest is it? It is in the Tory party’s political interest to keep those poor voters off the register.

[Mrs Laing]

Not in my constituency, it is not, where a large majority of them vote Tory. I want them on the register. This is simply not a reasonable argument. If someone is responsible enough to exercise their right to vote to decide the Government of this country, or at any level of local government, they should be responsible enough to register to vote.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should have learnt its lesson from the Bradford West by-election result? It relied on community voting and this kind of backward-looking, pernicious and frankly slightly sleazy and corrupt approach to registration and campaigning. It bit Labour on the backside and it lost by 10,000 votes. It is over.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think there was a question in there somewhere.

[Mrs Laing]

Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. His example is a very good one.

We are getting to the bottom of this, because the Opposition, not I, raised the issue of party political advantage.

[Mr Harper]

Members who do not think that young people will register are being overly pessimistic. When I visited Northern Ireland, I noted that, with IER, electoral registration officers could interact directly with young people. They go to schools and get more young people registered to vote than we do in Great Britain. Members have a huge opportunity to engage with young people in our schools. We know that often young people are more engaged in politics than their parents.

[Mrs Laing]

I agree entirely with the Minister. Of course, it is relatively easy for electoral registration officers to find young people, because up until 16 they are at school or college, and at that point can be approached, educated, given a form and encouraged to register to vote when they reach their 18th birthday.

The Opposition’s argument simply does not hold water. The Bill will give more individual power to every person in this country, particularly the 3 million—I am glad the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras agreed the figure was not 9 million—who should be on the register but are not. It will be far, far easier for them to register on their own behalf, rather than having to do so through a head of household.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Laing]

Sadly, I do not have time. I am sorry.

Government Members are pleased that the Minister has listened to the consultation. Speaking on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I am particularly pleased that he has taken account of some of the points raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny. Once again, the Bill is a good example of how pre-legislative scrutiny works to the advantage of Parliament and the democratic system. In particular, I think of the data matching with the Department for Work and Pensions, keeping people on the register during the transition, and recognising that registering is a civic duty and maintaining a penalty for not doing so. In those areas, the Government deserve to be congratulated on having amended the draft Bill. I also welcome the funding formula for local authorities under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, and I am glad that the Minister will be consulting on accountability.

That brings me to the second half of the Bill, which we have not really debated yet, concerning the powers of electoral registration officers and returning officers. At present, returning officers are accountable to no one. We need a structure whereby they can be ordered to carry out instructions, possibly by the Electoral Commission. We saw during the 2010 general election that the Electoral Commission had no power to direct. On the matter of counting votes at the close of poll, I tabled an amendment, which was supported by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and subsequently became law. Returning officers had to be directed by an amendment to primary legislation to count the votes at the close of poll. That is not the right way to do it; there should be a much better structure, and I therefore welcome clause 17.

I suggest, however, that the Minister might wish to go further. Something else happened in 2010 that has not been addressed in the Bill. It involved people who were waiting to vote at the close of poll. Eligible electors who are present at a polling station at that time should be allowed to vote if they are within the precincts of the polling station. I appreciate that this matter needs to be carefully defined, but I suggest that the Bill gives the Government an opportunity to introduce rules that would give the presiding officer at a polling station the authority to designate the end of a queue, for example, or the area—not necessarily in the polling station itself—in which people must be present before 10 o’clock in order to vote at 10 o’clock. On the night of the 2010 general election, there was unfair criticism of the Electoral Commission, which did not have the power that the media thought it had to tell electoral registration officers what to do. I hope that the Minister will consider amending the Bill in this respect.

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Lady’s argument seems to be that young people who cannot be bothered to fill in the form should lose the right to vote, but that people who cannot get to the polling station by 10 pm should gain that opportunity—

[Mrs Laing]

No—that is completely wrong. My point is that if someone is just outside the polling station—in the school playground, perhaps, or the car park of the village hall—but there is not sufficient space for them to get in through the door, the presiding officer should have the power to designate the end of the queue, so that those people can move forward and vote.

[Mr Harper]

The Government did listen, and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee agreed with our view that

“careful planning and allocation of resources are likely to be more effective in ensuring all those who are eligible can access their vote without resorting to legislation.”

That was our view, the Committee agreed with us, and that is the position at which I think we will remain.

[Mrs Laing]

I appreciate the Minister’s position, but perhaps that is something we can look at as the Bill passes through the House.

There is nothing in the Bill that will give party political advantage to any political party. It is a simple, straightforward modernisation of electoral administration. It is vastly overdue, and it will give more rights, not fewer, to the electors of this country. The amendment before us is based on nonsense, and it should be rejected. The House should support the Bill.

16:53

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I should like to speak in support of the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but before I make my points, I should like to comment on some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. I do not recognise the picture of electoral fraud being painted by some Members on the Government Benches. I have worked on elections for 30 years or more, and that is a world that I do not know. That is not to say that electoral fraud does not happen, and when it does, it should be tackled aggressively by the police and the authorities. The number of prosecutions is small, however, and it is perhaps stretching the truth to suggest it constitutes the general behaviour during elections.

I have sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said about heads of households, and about mums signing up for their families. We will lose that practice, which happens in a lot of places. Also, people already have the right to register individually; they do not have to register on a form filled in by the head of the household.

My final introductory comment relates to what the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) said. Thank goodness postal voting on a specific issue is not going to return. The first time I applied for a postal vote was when I was expecting my second child. Although my baby was due in the week of an election, because I was active politically, I still wanted to vote. What a palaver it was getting that postal vote, so thank goodness the Bill does not include postal vote provisions.

Let me proceed to my main arguments. I speak from my personal experience of elections and on the basis of talking to the people who run elections in Sunderland—my local authority, the electoral registration officer and the elections officers. To put Sunderland in context, it has a fairly static population, not one that churns very quickly. We also have a high percentage of postal votes, partly as a result of the postal vote experiment of 2004, I think, when we had all-out postal vote elections. Many people have retained the right to their postal votes because they like voting that way; they find it convenient. The key to any election is not just having an accurate electoral register, but making it as easy as possible for people to cast the vote to which they are entitled.

Sunderland delivers its counts very quickly—something of which I am proud—and this is based on organisation relating to the whole electoral process. Bill Crawford and Lindsay Dixon, who run our elections office, take great pride in the finest detail of their work. Efficient counts and efficient election days come from the compiling of the electoral register and the planning that goes into running elections.

I have moved to support individual voter registration in principle, albeit with some reservations, as I have outlined that there have been problems with accuracy and the completeness of the register in the past. That is why, when in government, Labour introduced the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. I welcome the Government’s moving of the annual canvass to 2014, which I think will be a help, but I still have some very serious concerns.

First, on the data-matching exercise, the accuracy of Department for Work and Pensions records is a problem. As an MP, I regularly get casework relating to that inaccuracy. Numbers are flagged to the wrong people. People are usually made aware that their national insurance records are flagged to the wrong person only when they apply for something like a maternity benefit or whatever. The first time they apply for something, the problem arises. Although we can easily get those problems sorted out as MPs, it does highlight the inaccuracy of DWP records. I have also experienced problems surrounding the recording of multiple births. The DWP is not that good, in my experience, at issuing the correct national insurance numbers. Sometimes people simply do not know their national insurance number. Issues about accuracy are evident.

One of the Department’s pilot schemes involved a ward in my constituency. Having discussed this with the people running the elections in Sunderland and compiling the electoral register, I found that only about half the people data-matched to DWP records. Given that I mentioned that Sunderland has a fairly static population, that is quite a worrying statistic. If we are talking only about half the people in my constituency, I suggest that the proportion might be significantly higher in a constituency with a higher churn. Another problem is that electoral registration records tend to be property-based, whereas DWP records tend to be name-based. Overall, the data-matching process is going to be time consuming and costly to administer. The Department needs to take note of that.

My second concern relates to postal and proxy votes during the transitional arrangements. The annual canvass will happen in 2014, when the data-matching exercise will be going on. My main concern relates to households in which people remain on the register. People who remain on the register because they are on the household and DWP records will automatically retain their postal votes if they have applied for indefinite ones. However, if authorities are satisfied that they live at those addresses because they have checked their own housing benefit or council tax records, those people will remain on the register but their indefinite postal votes will fall, and they will have to reapply. I think that some confusion will be caused when one member of a household retains a postal vote and another does not. Some of the charities that represent people with disabilities fear that such people may be disfranchised.

In my constituency, there is currently a mini-canvass in February. People are sent a letter telling them either that they are on the register or that they are not, and that they do or do not have postal votes. They are asked to respond to the letter for the purpose of accuracy, and very few do not do so; it receives a massive response. I think that that is a good model to follow and that adopting it would mop up some of the problems with postal votes, particularly in the early years of the transition. I hope that the Government will consider providing funds for it. The mini-canvass ensures that there are very few problems on election day, because if time has been taken to get the register and the postal vote records right, not many people turn up wanting to vote and finding that they are unable to do so.

My third concern relates to online registration. I have already mentioned problems involving national insurance numbers. Not everyone knows their national insurance number. We saw a demonstration last week, and it was clear that if people did not have their national insurance numbers, the system would stop. We raised the issue, and it is possible that it will be investigated.

[Chris Ruane]

I asked an outside computer expert at the demonstration what would happen when people did not have their national insurance numbers. I was told “We are working on that.” We know what has been said and what has happened in the past. Computer programs costing hundreds of millions of pounds have been put in place, and they have not worked. We need to get this one right.

[Julie Elliott]

I could not agree more. It is not that I am opposed to online registration—we must move with the times, and people do more and more things online—but getting it right is very important. I have read about secondary ID involving passports and driving licences, but we should bear in mind that not everyone has a passport or a driving licence.

The Government need to listen to the experts who have been involved in the pilots and who run elections and compile registers, because they are the people who really understand the details. The Government also need to ring-fence enough money. I welcomed what the Minister said about section 31 funding, but the provision of enough money is the key, particularly in the early years. The way in which the money will be distributed or bid for is not yet clear; that needs to be considered carefully and spelt out to us before the next stage of the process.

A serious look should be taken at the rules governing postal voting. As we all know, in the world of cuts upon cuts in which we are currently living, local authorities’ finances are very tight. My own authority has experienced and is still experiencing massive cuts. However, I think that the Government should put money into ensuring that the system works, because otherwise the results could be disastrous.

I think that the proposal to use the 2014 canvass for the next round of boundary reviews is a dangerous one with massive implications. It is possible that we will not end up with the best register that we have ever had at the first attempt: as everyone knows, when something is done for the first time there are teething problems. It is not the best way of ensuring democracy in this country, and I think that it is a very negative step.

We get things right in Sunderland because we are organised, and because we provide proper resources for elections and electoral registers. If we get the register right to start with, we can get the postal and proxy votes right, and if there are enough people doing the job on the ground, the elections themselves will be run properly.

I hope the Government listen to the concerns I have raised. I have been as un-party political as possible, because this is too important to get wrong. Members on both sides of the House have concerns, and this needs to be done properly.

17:05

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). She approached this subject in a constructive manner, and I hope to do the same while offering some suggestions as to how the process could be improved.

It would be churlish not to celebrate the differences between the current proposals and the Government’s original announcements in the White Paper and the documents that went to the Select Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. That demonstrates that the Government have taken account of the consultation and have listened to what representatives from a range of organisations have said. They have made a lot of significant changes to the Bill as a result. Among the most welcome are the changes to ensure that we get as full an electoral register as possible. The negativity of Opposition Members astounds me. This should be an opportunity to enhance the electoral list, and build a bigger list. I am shocked by some of the comments I have heard.

Many of the issues raised in Labour’s Opposition day debate have been addressed. The opt-out provision has been removed from the form. There was a great deal of controversy about that, but the Government listened and responded. The Government have also yielded on the civil penalty issue, and there has been action on the question of the canvass in 2014. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, the new individual voter registration scheme enables individuals to register and be responsible for their own vote, rightly taking responsibility away from the head of the household for registering everybody in the household, which was an outdated notion. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the importance and significance of mothers, but we must all reach a point in our lives when we can make a judgment on these matters ourselves.

Registering to vote is a civic duty, and having a penalty for those who fail to do so serves to reflect that. That has been in place for almost 100 years, since 1918, when the last Liberal-Conservative coalition introduced a £20 fine, a sum that is equivalent to about £3,500 in today’s money. Since then, with all-party agreement, the House has agreed to maximum fines of £50 in 1969, £100 in 1983, £400 in 1986 and £1,000 in 2001. I welcome the fact that the Government are moving along those lines in respect of civil penalties for individuals. Having no offence would also have meant there was no incentive for local authorities to follow up on hard-to-reach voters, who have as much right to be enfranchised as anyone else.

The Government have also listened to the concerns about the boundary changes, and concessions have been made. The Government are as keen as anyone that we should have a complete and responsive electoral list.

[Mr David]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be a good idea if the Government listened to all the informed opinion, and delayed the implementation of a full new register until after the boundary changes?

[Mr Williams]

The Opposition have been wallowing in conspiracy theories in this regard. The Government have made a huge number of concessions in order to ensure we have a complete electoral list on which to base the new boundaries. The Government have responded to the concerns expressed about the use of the register for the jury service pool, and about credit check companies and mortgage providers using it to check an individual’s background. Again, those considerations have been reflected in the changes made by the Government.

I look forward to hearing more from the Government about the level of the penalties that will be set. I share the impatience of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) in that regard, but the Government have assured us that during the Bill’s passage, we will have the relevant draft secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right: we need to hear what penalties the Government have in mind and what discussions have taken place on this issue. I will welcome the speedy emergence of that draft secondary legislation.

I am also pleased that the Bill states that the money raised will go to the Treasury, so that local authorities cannot be accused of using the failure to register as a money-making venture. I wonder whether the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), can say whether the fine will be on the scale of a parking fine, for example. Will it operate in a similar way—I hesitate to use that example; there are many disreputable car-parking companies in our constituencies—and will the fine increase if payment is not received within two weeks, as happens with some parking fines? If, after one month, the person fined still has not taken any action to register, will the fine be repeated? These are legitimate questions, and we look forward to the speediest possible emergence of that information.

I am very glad that the Government have decided to move the annual canvass from 2013 to 2014, so that the gap between it and mass mailing is shorter. Hopefully, there will therefore be fewer significant changes. I remain a little concerned, however—in the spirit of consensus, this is perhaps another area of agreement between me and the hon. Member for Caerphilly—that clause 6 allows the relevant Minister to abolish the annual canvass. I have heard the rationale behind this provision—that future data matching will be sufficiently developed to ensure that an annual canvass is not necessary—and in that regard the example of Northern Ireland is often cited. I would like clarification of that rationale, but I do note that clause 6 also gives the Minister the power to reinstate the annual canvass.

I am pleased that there will be the opportunity to register online, a positive step that will appeal to a lot of young people. Like the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, I saw the presentation, which was impressive; however, there is a great deal of work to be done. The point has been made—I made it myself in an intervention—about the ease or otherwise with which people can access their own national insurance number. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that only 5% of people could not readily access their NI number. A quick survey of my office in this place revealed that I was the only one out of four people who knew their NI number. I doubt whether most of our constituents study their NI number on their payslips; perhaps they are more inclined to look at the other numbers. We need clarity here, and to develop seamless ways in which people can access their NI number.

As I have said before in this House, it is all very well talking about accessing Government services on the internet in parts of the country where it is easy to do so: for those in west Wales—Ceredigion, for example—the situation is very different. I am afraid that at the moment, 20% of my constituents cannot access anything on the internet—the Government do have the worthy aspiration to roll out broadband across the country—so there are limitations. That is why the traditional method of the annual canvass is so significant in the registration of voters.

I was pleased to learn from the Government that funding will be set aside for each local authority to implement the changes associated with IVR, and that extra money will be available through bidding. We can all envisage places in our constituencies where that extra money would be put to good use.

Ceredigion may not be characterised in the same way that inner-city constituencies have been, but I represent two universities. Students are traditionally hard-to-get-at voters at election time and before. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) speaks from a sedentary position; I have no difficulty in speaking to my student voters, but registering these people is challenging. I am well used to seeing the piles of electoral registration forms heaped up in student pigeonholes in halls of residence and in houses in multiple occupation, of which there are a huge number in my constituency. Huge numbers of forms sit there untended as the months go by. They will require extra resources but, again, the Government have made those resources available and intimated that they will be available.

I reinforce what the Minister said about the value of education. I used to be a teacher, and I believe there is great merit in using the education system, as we have heard has happened in Northern Ireland, to promote the registration of voters from sixth forms. That is a practical way of engaging people in citizenship and assisting local authorities in registering new voters.

I would also like to hear a little more about the dissemination of best practice and the standardisation of electoral registration forms across the country. As the Minister knows, some very good examples are available. We have heard about Sunderland Central’s good record in these matters. In order to please the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), I wish to mention the example of Denbighshire, which has sent out some extremely effective forms and follow-up forms. We need to disseminate the practice from Denbighshire across other areas of the country. Crucially, such forms need to be bilingual in Wales.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is concerned about the issue of second homes and the prominence of items on electoral registration forms for people who own two residences. I want the civil penalty and the possible penalties that may be levied to have real prominence on those forms.

I also wish to highlight the concerns voiced by Scope, and I await the response from our Front-Bench team on the issue of the carry-over of voters from 2014 to 2015, and on whether all postal and proxy voters have to re-register. I was heartened by what the Minister said about this applying only to those people who have not yet been dealt with through the data-matching pilots. If that is not the case, the prospect of so many people who have been used to having a postal or proxy vote for so many years, election after election, not being included is very alarming. That needs to be addressed.

I sum up by saying that this Government have made huge progress on this Bill. There are still matters that need to be ironed out and that we need to reflect on in Committee, but compared with where we were at the time of the Labour Opposition motion before, the Bill is vastly improved. That is why Government Members will be supporting it tonight.

17:18

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who has been a staunch campaigner on these issues for many years, ever since I informed him that his Bronglais ward had the worst registration rate in the whole of Wales, at just 56%.

I wish to touch on a number of issues. I have had a big interest in this subject for 10 years, and I have tabled about 300 parliamentary questions and spoken many times in Parliament on it. We all thought that there were 3 million to 3.5 million people missing off the register. Two or two and a half years ago, I had a meeting with people from Experian, who told me that the real figure was nearer 6 million to 6.5 million. I took that figure to the Electoral Commission, which said that it was not true. It then undertook its own research and, lo and behold, it said last November that 6 million to 6.5 million people were missing off the register—but they were not the same as Experian’s missing 6 million, so even more people may be missing off the register. I mentioned in an intervention that I think that the private sector has a role to play in helping us to improve the registers. It has the detail already and we should be listening to it.

The profiles of the missing 6 million people include, in the main, the poor, those living in social or council housing, those on the minimum wage, the unemployed, black and ethnic minority people and young people. At the moment, 6 million people fitting those profiles are off the register and had the changes gone ahead as originally proposed, the Electoral Commission—not Chris Ruane, Labour MP—said that that figure would have gone up to 16 million. We would have been left without a properly functioning democracy. I give credit to the Government for listening to many calls from Members on both sides of the House and from civic society, but the Electoral Commission has stated that the registration rates could go down as low as 65%.

I want to contrast the previous Labour Government’s attitude to constitutional issues with that of the Conservative and Liberal Government over the past two years right up until very recently. We never treated the issues as party political, but pursued them in the interests of democracy. In 2001, Labour instituted a rule that took people—often quite poor people—off the register if they failed to sign their electoral registration form for two years on the trot, as we wanted an accurate register. Millions disappeared, mainly Labour voters. We did not do that for party political reasons, as it worked against us.

In 1998, we proposed proportional representation for European elections. We did not have to do that, but we did because it was the right thing to do, and Labour suffered in Wales, going from four MEPs to one. We had a Scottish consensus on Scottish devolution that lasted for three or four years, and we introduced PR knowing that Labour would not get full control.

[Mr Harper]

Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the European election system. He said that the previous Government always operated by consensus, so why did they feel the urge to ram that legislation through using the Parliament Acts?

[Chris Ruane]

It was the right thing to do. I personally did not think that that was the right thing to do, but my Government did and they overrode my voice from the Back Benches.

When PR for local government was introduced in Scotland, it worked against the Labour Government. Labour delivered individual electoral registration in 2009. Throughout our period in office, we operated consensually and for a better functioning democracy.

What happened under the previous Conservative Government? The poll tax was pursued as a means of pushing people off the register and Dame Shirley Porter undertook social cleansing in Westminster to secure party political advantage. This Government’s original proposals sent a shiver down my spine, much like that recently experienced by Ms Lagarde. The agreed date for individual electoral registration, on which there was consensus, was brought back from 2015 to 2014 and the date of the next election was put back to the last possible date of 2015. Either the Deputy Leader of the House or the Parliamentary Secretary can intervene at this point, as we still have not had a satisfactory answer on the reason for the decisions. Was it happenstance or accident, or was there a political agenda?

[Mr Harper]

It is very simple. We put through the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 because we thought that it was sensible and that the Prime Minister’s right to pick an election date at a time of his choosing to suit his party political convenience was wrong. We took that power away and that was a step forward.

[Chris Ruane]

The Minister has given me half the answer, but why did the Government bring the agreed date of 2015 for IER forward to 2014?

The Tories have mainly acted on such issues with a party political advantage as the main thing that they want to pursue. The equalisation of seats should not have gone ahead with 6 million people missing from the register. I do not want to be too curmudgeonly, however.

[Mrs Laing]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument on party political advantage, but is he actually suggesting that someone who is likely to vote Labour is more likely to fail in their civic duty to register to vote than someone who is likely to vote Conservative?

[Chris Ruane]

I am saying that the Electoral Commission’s research into who has been left off the register shows that in the main they are unemployed or low paid; live in social or council housing; are black or ethnic minority people; or are young students. The hon. Lady can draw her own conclusions about which way they would vote, but I do not think they would vote Tory.

I want to get on to a more positive agenda and give those on the Front Bench some praise for what they have done. That have listened, to some degree, and there are four aspects that I shall highlight. I want also to praise the Labour Front-Bench team, the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), who has pursued the issue like a dog with a bone. We would not have had the concessions from the Government without his doggedness; I use that word guardedly.

Civic society has rallied on the issue. Two groups in particular answered the clarion call two years ago, when the proposals were announced—the Electoral Reform Society and Unlock Democracy. They have helped take the issue out to wider society, to civic society, and made people aware of it—the judiciary, the police, Operation Black Vote, Scope and other organisations. I pay tribute to all those and to the academics who provided us with research. The progress that has been made is good, as far as it goes. From being a lifestyle choice, which in my view was obscene, the right to register has become a civic duty. I thank Ministers for that.

The annual canvass, which was not in place previously, will be in place for 2014. That is progress. The fixed penalty notice is probably the biggest progress that we have had. Again, I thank the Front-Bench team for that. I hate to say it, but threats and fines work. The hon. Member for Ceredigion referred to Denbighshire county council’s electoral registration form. In the middle of that form, in big bold letters, is a message: “If you do not fill in this form, you are liable to a £1,000 fine.” People will be visited and told three times that they are liable to this fine. The local chief executive, Mohammed Mehmet, will write to the individual—I have the letters and the forms, if anybody wants a copy—saying, “My electoral registration officers have been to your household three times. You have refused to return the form. We are now turning this over to our legal department.” If standardisation is to come about—another aspect that I welcome—I urge the Front-Bench team to look at best practice in Denbighshire.

I am pleased with the carry-over from the old register to the general election in May 2015, but why could it not be carried over to 1 December, the freeze date for the next boundary review? It is only six months further down the line. Opposition Members feel that it is a boundary review stitch-up, done in the knowledge that the electoral registration rates will go down by 10% in that critical period. That will leave 10% of probably the poorest people in the country off the register. That could be avoided. The Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and say, “Right, we will carry it over an extra six months,” and he would have cross-party consensus on taking these matters forward.

I am concerned about downgrading the role of the Electoral Commission. I have been a fierce critic of the Electoral Commission over the years. The changes that Labour introduced in 2005-06 took too long to implement. We did not insist on electoral registration officers doing the job that they were being paid to do, but in the past year or so the Electoral Commission has been a star turn. It has highlighted what the impact would be if the original proposals had gone ahead, again saying that electoral registration rates would have gone down to 65%. The commission may have been punished for its effectiveness over the past year.

As the secondary legislation unfolds, a lot more political flack may be coming. We need an independent arbiter who can give a straight-down-the-line view. If we downgrade the role of the Electoral Commission, we are taking away a valuable element providing that independent view.

I understand the Government’s predicament on fixed penalty notices. They do not want to create a system whereby local authorities can go out and fire those notices left, right and centre and get lots of money for themselves, which would be wrong, but the local authorities that will spend the most money will often be the poorest in the country. There will be cuts to social services and education. They will be forced to decide whether to prioritise electoral registration, and canvassing is something they are required to do by law, knocking on the doors of non-responders three times, which is costly. Those local authorities need financing for that work. I ask for that to be considered so that some of the money from the Treasury can be given back to the authorities with the biggest work load.

We need the details of the secondary legislation to be published concurrently so that we can judge exactly what the impact will be. I am afraid that trust will not do on this one; we tried trust two years ago and got only an element of it back in the past couple of weeks.

I mentioned online registration in an intervention. I went to see a demonstration of it in the Jubilee Room, and when I asked what happens for those who do not have their number, it was like throwing a spanner in the works. I was told that no one had yet got on top of it. The Minister said that 5% of people will be unable to find their registration number or their national insurance number. What happens to the ethnic minorities who do not have a good understanding of the English language? What happens to people who are functionally illiterate? We will send them letters telling them to go here or there, apply for a form, then fill it in and put it online, but that will not happen. Again, it will tend to be the poorest in society who will be punished as a result.

We need precise details on how the £108 million of funding will be ring-fenced and spent. If it is allocated for registration, it should be spent on registration. We saw in the emergency Budget in June 2010 that the first thing the Government slashed was the participation fund for increasing registration, which was £2 million over three years. It was not a priority then, but I hope it will be in future.

The Government point to Labour and say that we did nothing for 13 years and had 6 million people off the register. There is a golden opportunity to change that, but the Minister said at the outset that after all is done and dusted and all these changes have been implemented they hope to have 6 million people—perhaps a different 6 million—still off the register. I do not think that that is good enough.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This debate has to finish at 7 o’clock. In order to fit in everybody who has been in the Chamber waiting patiently to speak, I regret that it is necessary for me to reduce the time limit to nine minutes, from the next speaker. Interventions should occur only if they are absolutely necessary and truly interventions, because otherwise we will not even get those Members in.

17:33

[Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and, indeed, to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). The electoral process is something that we all have experience of, but it is clear from the contribution we have heard today that we have encountered it in a number of different forms. If it varies between the good, the bad and the ugly, I am afraid that I have seen at first hand its downright ugly form. The central purpose of the Bill is to ensure that individual voters retain ownership and control of their vote right up to the moment when, either by post or in person, their vote is cast, which is absolutely crucial.

I realise that to many that is simply a statement of the very obvious. The idea that the voter retains control of their vote until it is cast is anticipated almost with certainty at every election, but unfortunately, owing to the actions of a relatively small number of individuals in one part of my constituency, it represents a change that is essential and, sadly, long overdue.

For some years in the Savile Town area of my constituency, annual elections have gone hand in hand with annual allegations of voter fraud and intimidation. In 2010, I saw the intimidation for myself. I witnessed groups of young men outside a polling station, whispering, spitting, gesturing, milling around and pushing in front of me. Having to leave a group of people to guard cars should not be a part of polling day, nor should warnings to stay away or to leave.

I have spoken to the police officers who have to deal with the situation, and I have heard the accounts of those manning the polling stations. When I saw that the Bill contained provisions for police community support officers to enter polling stations, my first reaction was that it was to allow reinforcements to be called, not that they would operate as an alternative to police constables.

I have no doubt that the enthusiasm of a small number of people to try to ensure victory for their side continues to result in behaviour that is not only inappropriate, but unlawful. Persistent rumours and allegations of postal vote fraud accompany that intimidatory behaviour. This year, the local authority raised concerns with the police about the similarity of the handwriting on a large number of postal votes; and some people turned up to vote only to be told that, according to the register, they already had done so by post, when they clearly had not or, at least, had not done so themselves. I do not know whether the result of the election was affected, but that really is the point: I do not know.

You may wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, why that behaviour has been going on for so long. Why have the police not investigated it? Why has no one got to the bottom of the repeated allegations of postal fraud which, if untrue, represent a dreadful slur on the community concerned? According to local people, including those affected, the answer is said to involve that word: community.

When asked to take this year’s allegations seriously, the police, so the complaint goes, referred to “community sensitivities” and showed a reluctance to engage which has defined their response in previous years. Why is that? It is because all those who are said to be involved are from Savile Town’s Asian community, a minority of individuals who appear to insist that they know best and who take it upon themselves to ensure that someone else’s vote is cast however they think fit.

It is hugely insulting to the vast majority of Savile Town’s community that the police appear reluctant to act. That is so, whether the police are prepared to regard sensitivities as more important than the democratic process, or whether the police think it appropriate to make an allowance due, as they put it, to a

“lack of understanding of the process.”

The former is to ignore the legitimate sensitivities of the vast majority, who must resent this issue being the local headline every time there is a ballot, and who no doubt want it resolved once and for all. The latter is to make condescending allowances that excuse deliberate criminal activity—and is offensive in the assumption that, somehow for some people in Savile Town, it is all too difficult.

I thought it appropriate to raise with the chief constable of West Yorkshire my intention to refer to this topic and my observations regarding the attitude of the police. I did so not least because he might seek to challenge the assertion that the issue is being held at arm’s length, or is regarded as too difficult, because of the matter of race. I know that the chief constable of West Yorkshire is a busy man—to be fair, so is the Member for Dewsbury—but the message left on my telephone by his assistant, informing me that the chief constable had been busy on Monday, was travelling on Tuesday to Manchester for a conference and, therefore, could not speak to me, might seem to confirm the reticence repeatedly complained of by the vast majority, who are the decent citizens of Savile Town and who have rightly bemoaned the lack of proactive investigation. It also does little to silence those who would try to incite hatred in Dewsbury by saying that people in Savile Town are somehow treated differently by the police. The lesson of the recent trial arising from the dreadful abuse in Rochdale is that all communities must be treated equally where there is evidence to suggest that police investigation is required.

Perhaps the most important right is the right to vote. Perhaps the most important responsibility is to exercise that right in accordance with the law. If the Bill encourages and facilitates that right and assists in the exercise of that responsibility, it will be a step in the right direction.

17:40

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) made guarded and thoughtful remarks, but I am concerned about the undertones of some Government Members’ speeches. To my knowledge, in the city of Sheffield, which is a large and multicultural city, only one person has ever been convicted of electoral fraud—fairly widespread electoral fraud—and he was a member of our white community and, indeed, a member of one of the coalition parties.

[Chris Ruane]

Which one?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will tell you later.

I want to express my concern about how this Bill will profoundly undermine our democracy by reference to two groups in my constituency, the first of which is those in urban areas. Let me compare my constituency with that of my political neighbour, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). My constituency is at the heart of Sheffield. It is an inner-city, multicultural area with large council estates, two universities, and a high level of electoral turnover. As a result, 17% of households already have nobody on the electoral register. The Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency consists of our leafy suburbs; it is monocultural with large areas of comfortable owner-occupation, a stable population, and only 4% of households with nobody on the register. There is therefore already a huge disparity between the number of people we represent and the number of registered voters. Assuming, on the basis of current boundaries, that we both have an average of 74,000 registered voters, the Deputy Prime Minister is representing an adult population of about 77,000 while I am representing about 89,000 people.

That situation will be exacerbated in 2020 if the 2015 boundary review is based on the register that many people fear. If we do have 60% registration levels, a redrawn Sheffield Central after the 2015 boundary review will have an adult population of up to 123,000—some 50% more than in Sheffield, Hallam. I recognise that the level may not be 60%, but we should consider seriously that significant imbalance in a depleted inner-city constituency. It is certainly not democratic and certainly not right.

Many of the people who will be excluded from the register are precisely those who form a huge proportion of our casework, and their voice in this Parliament will be reduced. Together with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, the Bill is leading us towards a US-style democracy that excludes the disadvantaged and disengaged at election times and instead focuses on the needs of the more privileged, thereby poisoning our politics. The Deputy Prime Minister has rather grandly compared his ambitions for our democracy with those of the Great Reform Act of 1832. [Interruption.] I understand the reason for the laughter. The Great Reform Act increased representation for our cities, whereas this measure, together with the boundary review and the other reforms, will reduce the voice of our cities.

The other issue I want to talk about is young people, particularly students. Not all students are young, but the vast majority are, and will increasingly be so as a result of this Government’s policies, with reports this week revealing a drop in the number of mature students. Many of those young people are worryingly disillusioned with democratic politics. The Liberal Democrats’ broken pledge on tuition fees has not only damaged their party but damaged the trust in politics of a whole generation of young people. When I talk to students on the doorstep, they are clear that that experience of raised expectations and broken hope has led them to not want to participate in the system.

Both Sheffield’s great universities are in my constituency and 31,800 students live in it. Some of them live there for 31 weeks a year and many for 52. It is their main place of residence and they contribute to the economy and life of the city. They have a right to have their voice heard in elections.

The university of Sheffield, in common with many universities across the country, has a system of block registration for all eligible students in university accommodation. That will end with this Bill. I assume that the Government do not think that our universities are guilty of electoral fraud, so why is there a need to outlaw block registration?

The students union finance officer, Harry Horton, explained the impact to me:

“When students first arrive at University and live in halls, amongst all the other things that are going on, registering to vote often isn’t a priority and it is comforting to know that it’s often done automatically. If this is changed then it would become another form to fill in during the whirlwind first few weeks away from home and some students, particularly those not engaged in democracy, will not be registered”.

Crucially, students will be particularly under-registered in the first term of each academic year. The students unions of both the universities in my constituency run vigorous electoral registration campaigns in the run-up to elections—in February, March and April—and those campaigns work.

The Bill will effectively exclude tens of thousands of students—my constituents—from the electoral roll in December 2015, and therefore from consideration when the boundaries are redrawn, denying them an effective voice.

[Mrs Laing]

Surely the hon. Gentleman is vastly underestimating the ability of the average student to fill in a form. We are talking about people who have three A-levels and who, in most cases, are going to get a difficult degree. They can fill in a form to allow themselves to vote.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am simply reflecting the views that have been expressed to me by the elected representatives of the students, and I take their concerns seriously.

The students at the university of Sheffield have tried hard, but unsuccessfully, to meet their other constituency MP, the Deputy Prime Minister, who represents a smaller number of them, albeit still several thousand. I understand why he is less keen to meet students now than he was during the general election campaign, when he worked the two campuses relentlessly with his party’s unequivocal promise on tuition fees. I challenge him today—I ask the Minister to convey this to him—to agree, finally, to meet the representatives of students in his constituency to discuss their concerns.

There is no good reason to accelerate the timetable for introducing individual electoral registration, other than to have the system in place for the 2015 boundary review in the knowledge of what impact that will have on the 2020 general election. The Minister rightly talked in his opening remarks about the importance of the integrity of the electoral system and of people’s confidence in its integrity. However, the Government’s plans, taken with the 2011 Act, will understandably be seen to be some of the most outrageous gerrymandering seen in this country. That will undermine confidence in the system. The Government are riding roughshod over democracy in the interests of party advantage. I urge them to think again.

17:48

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I have taken a degree of interest in the Bill, but unlike the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) I cannot say that I have had a 10-year interest in the matter, as I am a new Member of Parliament.

This debate has thrown up a wide range of issues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), because he highlighted some important issues. That is why I support the Bill and the commitment of the Government to reduce electoral fraud, to restore confidence in the electoral register and to rebuild trust in politics. I say that as a newish MP. It is clear that over the past decade trust in the political process and political parties has seriously declined. Let us face it, no party has been immune from scandals or sleaze allegations. The Bill is a welcome step in the right direction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and other Members highlighted some appalling incidents of electoral fraud. Large numbers of voters have appeared in a single property, or political activists have harvested postal votes. The Bill is vital because it will uphold the integrity of the electoral system and reinforce the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. It will make it more difficult for people to attempt to manipulate elections by abusing the electoral register.

A lot of Members who have come to the House since 2010 have had various experiences of elections, such as local elections, European elections and their own general election campaigns. They bring to the House fresh, live examples of what they have seen in their constituencies.

The Electoral Commission has since 2003 advocated the introduction of individual electoral registration. We had a startling reminder of the need for the change in the build-up to this year’s London elections. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will recall that during the mayoral election campaign, one newspaper—I wish I had brought it with me—had front-page stories week after week about reports and allegations of the electoral system being abused in Tower Hamlets. Appallingly, we heard of ghost voting in a by-election in that borough, with some flats containing eight people who were registered to vote and political activists going around the homes of vulnerable voters harvesting their blank postal vote ballot papers. There was apparently also a huge proliferation in the number of people applying for postal votes. Thankfully, a police investigation is now taking place, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury highlighted the fact that he had a difficult time in getting the police engaged with some of the problems in his constituency.

The failure of election officials to pick up on problems such as a large number of people in a small dwelling being registered to vote reflects badly on our democracy. That is why this is absolutely the right Bill. It will support individuals’ right to secure their place on the electoral register, and it will reduce the chance of people being able to abuse the electoral process in such a way.

It is essential that robust action is taken against election officials and authorities that fail to take reasonable and proactive steps to stamp out illegal practice. My hon. Friend the Minister highlighted the good deal of thought that has gone into the Bill. Many constructive steps are being taken, such as resources going to local authorities and data-matching pilots. I hope that all local authorities will embrace those measures and be proactive in resolving problems and considering electoral registration.

I also welcome the extension of the election timetable to 25 working days, particularly because it will help British citizens overseas and members of our armed forces deployed abroad. Our forces are stationed in some of the most dangerous places in the world, and they risk their lives every day. In the general election, they were effectively disfranchised. The changes in the Bill will give them more time to receive and return their ballot paper.

Up the road from my constituency is the neighbouring constituency of Colchester. My constituents are immensely proud of the courage and bravery that those at Colchester garrison show, and of what they do in peacekeeping operations and in battle. Everything possible should be done to guarantee that they can vote, and the measures in the Bill will help them to do so.

I wish briefly to touch on voting as a civic duty. As a relatively new Member of Parliament, as I go around my constituency, I am impressed and feel optimistic about young people when I visit schools. When I talk to them about elections, the electoral process and democracy, they look at the system with a great deal of hope, and they want to participate. School elections go on all the time—for school councils, for example. A great deal of positive work can be done, and the Bill is a welcome step forward.

I will raise one highly topical issue, with which the Parliamentary Secretary is familiar. I seek reassurance from him that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle to enable prisoners to receive the right to vote. We have heard the latest position, and the Prime Minister spoke about the matter today. It is a serious issue, and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance in his winding-up speech that the Bill will not be used in that way.

I welcome the Bill, which is a good step in the right direction. It should not be considered through a party political lens.

17:55

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I want to use the opportunity this afternoon to repeat the concerns that I first raised in January in an Opposition day debate on the subject.

First, I am concerned that, although the proposals have a worthy goal, we are ignoring the difficulties posed by the dual aims of ensuring the highest number of registrations on the electoral roll, while at the same time solving the problem of electoral fraud. Secondly, and especially given the experience of an 11% drop in electoral registration in Northern Ireland in the immediate aftermath of the introduction of IER, I am concerned that the proposals are being introduced at the same time as other major changes, such as the equalisation of constituency sizes, based on the electoral roll. There is surely consensus that the preferred outcome is that all adults who should be registered on the electoral roll are registered, and that they participate in elections. Everybody should be on the electoral roll and have the opportunity to cast their vote.

The principle of individual electoral registration is positive, in that electors should take upon themselves the responsibility to register to vote in their own right, rather than its being done under the aegis of a household. All relevant people should be willing and able to register, and have the same opportunity to do so. However, there may be a disconnect between the equality of opportunity to register, where all relevant people may do so, and the equality of outcome, where all relevant people do so.

The Electoral Commission reported in December 2010 that 6 million people were not registered across the UK, with register completion rates of between 85% to 87%. It is unclear to me how IER, which creates a greater barrier to registration, will ensure that as many people as possible are on the electoral roll. While accepting that it is always a worry, the number of cases of electoral fraud that have been uncovered are minimal compared with the need to get those 6 million people on to the electoral register. We therefore welcome the decision to drop the idea of voluntary registration, which was raised in the White Paper, and to maintain the civic duty.

Electoral registration has a greater relevance than ever following the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which will create constituencies that are designed to have a number of voters within 5% of a UK constituency mean, predicated on the number of electors on the electoral roll, rather than the actual adult population.

Many people are particularly concerned about registration among certain socio-economic and age groups, including more transient populations, such as young people, who move house frequently, and those who are already disconnected from civic society, and may not make the effort to register.

When IER was first introduced in the north of Ireland, the number on the roll dropped initially by 11% and has only gradually been rebuilt over time, in part, one might say, because of the strong community links that exist in the Six Counties. We must avoid that drop in registration occurring in the first place.

The Government have already announced a process of data-matching pilots and we shall watch their progress keenly. We welcome the moving of the autumn 2013 canvass back to spring 2014 to prevent significant deterioration of the registers before the introduction of IER, although that will presumably mean an 18-month gap and deterioration in the registers from this year’s canvass until spring 2014. How will that affect EROs and preparation of registers for the European elections of June 2014, and the Scottish independence referendum, which is due to be held later that year?

The effects of the Bill moved a little closer to home for me this week, with the publication of a Green Paper on future electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales by the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not intend to discuss that very interesting Green Paper in detail during the debate, but in short the Secretary of State highlighted options for constituency size in Wales, based on the same principle as that for equalisation of numbers on the electoral roll for Westminster constituencies: whether we have 30 or 40 Assembly constituency seats. That means that the concerns I have raised about the effect of electoral registration matter regardless. Members will know that during the progress of that 2011 Act, I consistently criticised the principle of ignoring community, historical and geographical links in the formation of new constituencies. Non-registration therefore becomes crucial in both Assembly and Westminster elections. Not only is a non-registered person unable to vote and disfranchised, but the population of the constituency decreases, because those “non-people” are not counted.

Of similar importance is the length of time for which registration is carried forward under IER as we move to the new system. The Minister can correct me if I have misunderstood this, but it is generally considered that most people who are moved forward will be registered in 2015 for the Westminster elections, but will not be carried forward for a second year, which would take us up to the National Assembly for Wales elections in 2016. The Electoral Commission makes specific reference to those with postal or proxy votes and the possibility of adverse impacts on participation after the introduction of IER. It will be a tragedy if, owing to administrative changes, electors in Wales find themselves unable to vote in their national elections. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister outlines how he will prevent that nightmare scenario.

Clause 14 repeals section 16 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which is on holding community council elections in Wales. Will the Minister confirm the process by which that decision was reached in respect of Wales, and whether the power to determine election dates for such elections lies with the UK Government or the Welsh Government?

I conclude by repeating my key argument. The main aim of electoral registration is to ensure the completion and accuracy of the register. With so much change taking place in electoral administration as a result of the 2011 Act, I am concerned that we might inadvertently end up disfranchising electors and skewing the electoral system.

18:02

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

I have been involved in this issue for the past 30 years, having trained to be a Conservative party agent in Wanstead and Woodford, which was next door to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). That was a most interesting time. If the gentlemen who trained me were alive today, he would be somewhat horrified that I am involved in the debate, because he had been Winston Churchill’s agent for the last year of his parliamentary career.

It is interesting to be involved in this debate with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who was in the Chamber recently, for the simple reason that, for 10 years, I was the Tory party agent in that constituency, where I worked for Angela Rumbold, who was a very distinguished politician—she was not only an Education Minister but a Home Office Minister.

I am keen to support the Bill because it is about ensuring that individuals take responsibility for their own lives and decide whether or not they want to be on the electoral register. We must do everything we can to encourage those people to ensure that they are registered. My hon. Friend the Minister has included a number of measures in the Bill that will help in that respect.

Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is—surprise, surprise—the home of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, 3 Commando Brigade and 29 Commando. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned the university in his city. Plymouth is also a university city; it has the third largest university in the country. It is also a dispersal centre for asylum seekers.

I am curious as to why Labour Members have been critical of the individual registration measures in the Bill, because the previous Labour Government decided that it was no longer possible for the commanding officers at 29 Commando, the Royal Navy base or Stonehouse barracks to hand over a list of people serving in their units. The then Government decided that everyone had to make a service declaration, and that has had a devastating effect on the number of service personnel registering. We must do everything possible to encourage them. It would be unfortunate were we to say that service personnel were lesser people who did not need the opportunity to register and vote. It is vital that electoral registration officers in Plymouth and other garrison towns should be forced to hold registration surgeries, speak to the commanding officers and ensure that those people register.

The story is similar for universities. Whenever I go knocking on doors in my constituency, I find that the previous occupants—students who gave up a year or two before—have moved on and that the new occupants have not registered. Many houses in my constituency are multi-occupancy. We need to address that issue. Electoral registration officers should also have stands at freshers’ fairs to ensure that people are registered.

As mentioned, there is also an issue with bad registration. Some people who should not be here are on the electoral register. That is a key issue. It would be helpful were the Government willing to share information on asylum seekers with local authorities to ensure that those people are not included on the register. The risk is that they get lost in the whole thing. As hon. Members might know, candidates can ask the police to ask two questions of any voter. The first is: are they the person on the electoral register? The second is: are they the person residing at this address? I think there should be a third question: are they qualified to vote? It is important that we crack down on people voting in this country who are not entitled to do so.

18:07

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) explain why Sunderland nearly always gets its count done first, whereas in Edinburgh we tend to be propping our eyelids open at 5 am, waiting for our results. It is about having the resources—in that case, the resources to get the count done, but in this case the resources to get registration done and so on. Those resources will be important when we implement the proposal.

Unlike a couple of my hon. Friends, I am not saying that individual voter registration should not be happening, and, to be fair, that is not Labour’s position either. After all, Labour introduced legislation on this in the previous Parliament. We are asking, however, why it is necessary, in effect, to re-legislate. There was already a proposal and timetable for individual voter registration. Having heard the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), my colleague on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I have to ask why she has apparently changed her mind about the timetable. When the original legislation was going through, she supported that timetable and said how important it was that it be done carefully and step by step. She now expresses her concern, however, that a further two years have elapsed to get to this point. That was partly because her Government have chosen to re-legislate. If the original timetable had been adhered to, we would have been making the step-by-step progress she appeared to think would be good.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to answer her question. I have not changed my mind. During the last Parliament, I said that it was equally important to ensure that we improved the accuracy and the comprehensiveness of the register, but that we wished to do it more quickly than the then Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is shaking her head, but I know what I said. I said that those provisions could be brought in more quickly, if it was done carefully and in a measured way, and I have always adhered to that view, because that would bring benefits to the voting people of this country.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying the position, although I still think, given the comments that she made previously, that she had been prepared to support the previous timetable.

The process of pre-legislative scrutiny has been helpful, and the Government have clearly listened to the issues that were raised by the Select Committee, the Electoral Commission and others. That has been an important part of the process. It is an important part of the process for any legislation, and the Select Committee takes it very seriously. We make this comment frequently, and we made it quite vociferously when the opportunity was not given to scrutinise some of the early constitutional legislation in this Parliament. I believe that my fellow Select Committee members agree that that was detrimental to that legislation. The process has been valuable in this case. Even if some of the issues remain unresolved, we nevertheless got a response to the process. I hope that we will see much more of this kind of scrutiny for other legislation. The more debate, discussion and detailed scrutiny we have, the better. That kind of scrutiny is not always possible in Committee, whether on the Floor of the House or upstairs, as time is often limited. The Select Committee process has therefore been helpful.

We all go out and about, and we know just how variable registration can be. That is one of my major concerns about the Bill. When I walk down a street of bungalows and villas in my constituency, I can be sure that I will knock on every door in that street, because all the people living there are on the electoral register. Equally, in other parts of the constituency, the number of registered households can be as low as two or three of the 10 or 12 on a stair in a tenement. Edinburgh is a city of tenements. There are modern flats and also traditional tenements, and many people living in them are not registered.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) seemed to suggest that the fall in the numbers of people registered during the past year was somehow to be placed at the door of the previous Government because they wanted registration to fall. What has actually happened is a substantial change in certain types of housing tenure.

In Edinburgh, the proportion of people living in the private sector was between 6% and 7% in the late 1990s, but it is now 20%-plus and, in some areas, between 30% and 40%. That is important, because the time spent by people living in that form of tenure is shorter. Most private lets are shorter; people have to move on. In that situation, perhaps they do not form the same commitment to their community, and sometimes they have no sooner registered themselves than they are moving on. Not all the tenements have lifts, especially the old-style ones. I think that the highest such building in my constituency is five storeys high—or six, if we are using the British naming of floors. Having puffed my way up to the top, I often find that the people who were registered as living there have moved on, and that the new tenants have not yet registered. It is a particular issue in certain areas.

It is important that the additional money promised by the Government is spent on the process of ensuring that registration happens properly. Even the data matching will be quite differential. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central touched on that, explaining that in some areas the data-matching pilots had shown only a 55% match—not the two thirds that the Government have mentioned.

Why is that important for the size of the register? If the aim is to move people over as a result of data matching—that was not its original purpose, although I accept that it has considerable benefit, helping to ensure that people do not find themselves off the register—areas such as Edinburgh, which has many varied styles of description for tenement flats, help to explain why data-matching will not work. For example, the way in which flats are referred to within tenements is often quite variable. Some flats are referred to in some records as “stair 9/1, stair 9/2, stair 9/3” and so forth, whereas they are called something quite different in other registers for the same address—perhaps strange things like “1F1, 1F2, 2F2” or something rather peculiar like “PF1”, which puzzled me for a long time, as I thought it might refer to a platform, but it refers, in fact, to the ground floor.

[Gavin Shuker]

It strikes me that my hon. Friend is advancing the point that individual electoral registration officers and returning officers are well placed to understand their local communities, if given the appropriate level of resources for the challenging set of circumstances in which they have to do their job.

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is exactly my point. It is not just about the levels of population within an area, as variability is also important. Far more work will have to be done in areas with such difficulties, as the data matching will simply not happen in the circumstances I was describing. It is not because people do not exist or are in any way phantoms on the register, but simply because there are two sets of data identifying the same property in a very different way. That difficulty will be thrown up in the process. In those circumstances, certain areas will require more resources to ensure that people are registered.

The decline in registration is worrying, and it is worrying that in some parts of our communities so few people are taking even the first step towards registration to vote. Being registered to vote is, of course, no guarantee that people will vote, but if they are not registered, they certainly cannot vote.

Finally, I would like to hear more from the Minister about the extent to which the Government want to encourage somewhat more innovative ways of getting people to register—not just through the canvass and other traditional ways. Would it be possible, as happens in some countries and as some commentators have suggested, to offer people the opportunity to register when they are involved in other transactions with the state? If, for example, people were applying for a driving licence—that is particularly appropriate for young people—could they not be offered the opportunity to register? We cannot make them register, but that would provide the opportunity to do so.

Perhaps even more valuable for the future, would it not be possible, given all the systems we have, to allow people both to register and to vote at the same time? Most people are of course most interested in voting when an election campaign is going on. We have all encountered people suddenly realising that they are not able to vote at the point when they want to do so. Allowing people to register and to vote at the same time might be difficult, but it certainly happens in many states in America. I urge the Government to look at as many different ways of getting people to register as possible.

18:19

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

I apologise to the House for having been absent for some 90 minutes. I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker.

I entirely support the direction and aims of the Bill, but as the Minister will know from some of our earlier conversations, I want to press him on one or two matters and ask him for his thoughts. I should like him perhaps to go a little bit further.

Let us start from the premise that in many boroughs and districts throughout the country it is harder to obtain a library card than to exercise one’s franchise, which is a state of affairs that has left us open to the possibility of fraudulent use of that franchise by people who are on the electoral register when they are not entitled to be. Indeed, people are sometimes encouraged to act in that way. A council employee may simply knock on people’s doors between certain months of the year and take their details without requiring them to prove their qualification or identification.

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

A major problem at present is that the previous occupants of the home may be on the electoral register along with the current occupants—and, if they themselves have moved again, a third set of occupants. That problem has never been dealt with, but the Bill will remedy it.

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has anticipated a point that I shall be making later if time permits.

There has been a suggestion that there is limited evidence of fraud, and some Opposition Members have suggested that there is no such evidence. I remind the House that last year I took a random sample of 100 people who had been to my constituency seeking leave to remain, and who had absolutely no right to vote in this country. Of those people, 21 were on the electoral roll. I repeated the exercise this year, and it produced a similar result.

[Oliver Colvile]

Might not this be one of the reasons: a piece of paper comes through the door, it looks official and people feel that they should reply? They think that they are being incredibly good and behaving themselves, but in reality they are filling in a form when they should not be doing so in the first place.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend has far more experience of these matters than I have. I believe that there are a multitude of reasons, including that one. I do not believe that it is all about fraudulent intent, but it can lead to the exercise of a franchise by someone who has absolutely no right to do so. It is clear—and it has been raised—that some people deliberately seek to get on to the electoral register when they have no right to do so, perhaps to improve their chances of obtaining credit. The fact is, however, that the door is open for them to do so, and we must slam it shut.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Does he recognise an experience that I had recently? I asked a female voter whether I could speak to the other two females in the house, only to be told that they were aged six and four.

[Nick de Bois]

I have not had such an experience myself. I am shocked to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s experience, but not surprised. I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention.

Our system currently depends on trust, and unsurprisingly that trust can and will be broken. The proposals for the use of national insurance numbers and individual registration are therefore a massive step forward, and I hope that they will be implemented as soon as possible. I shall deal shortly with the question of timing, but I should like first to raise four points with the Minister. I would be grateful if he responded to them, or at least considered them and then responded at some future date.

First, the co-ordinated online record of electors presents the possibility that people can move and remain on a multitude of registers. As we have heard, the population is increasingly transient, so there will be ever more such instances. I am not a great fan of the “database state”, but I would like to know how the Minister proposes do deal with this problem, because without a record, there will be no central mechanism.

Under the current electoral system, signing up for a postal vote, and therefore being able to exercise the vote without going to the polling station, is easier, and there is potential for the use of false names. There will be some improvement in that regard, but we must consider the timetabling of the Bill, and the fact that many key elements, such as individual registration, will not be put in place until 2014, given the two years it will take for individuals to drop off the register. Therefore, the 2014 general election will be fought using fundamentally the same register as before, but with an increased possibility that it will not be as clean a register as we would like. I fail to understand why we are not trying to focus on the 2015 election. I realise that Ministers have been criticised for introducing these measures too swiftly, but I am trying to understand what trade-off has been agreed so that we are not seeking to put the changes in place for the next general election.

Like many other Members, I welcome the extension of the election period to 25 days. However, if I have read the proposals correctly, it will be possible to apply for a postal vote up to six days before the general election. Does that not present some demanding challenges for electoral returning officers—I am happy to be able to say that we in Enfield have one of the best—in verifying those records, and if there were some organised fraud in postal voting, would that not present an even tougher challenge?

The Bill’s provisions deal with fraudulent entries on the electoral register, but very little is being done to deal with the growing problem of personation—the act of turning up at the polling station and using someone else’s details to get a ballot paper. We have already heard that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) could appear as Elvis Presley. That scenario was entertainingly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). The reality is that, however implausible that might be, it is highly possible if the name “Elvis Presley” is on the register.

I therefore ask the Minister to expand further on the reasons for not requiring some form of voter identification at the polling station. Predictably, Opposition Members said the answer to the problem was to introduce their identity card scheme. As we know, that is not necessary, as illustrated in Northern Ireland, where perfectly acceptable methods of identification are available.

I was delighted that the chair of the Electoral Commission, Jenny Watson, who has been calling for voter identification at polling stations since 2010, has urged for such a change in the law to be considered, to

“help us all be sure our voting system is safe.”

I am confused as to why the Government will not pursue this matter further. I understand that one objection might be that such a change is a step change too far, and may threaten voter turnout. However, within two years of its being introduced in Northern Ireland, the turnout was up to 62.9%, which was slightly higher than the average for a UK general election. I ask the Minister to share his thoughts with us.

Let me be clear, however, that I consider this Bill to be long overdue and extremely welcome. It has my full support, but I will be very grateful if I am able to offer it even greater support, with consideration being given to some of these proposed changes, so we can have full confidence in the register of voters.

00:00

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am extremely grateful for being given the opportunity to speak in this debate. On Second Reading, we have the opportunity to debate the principle behind the Bill, and Opposition Front Benchers were right to point out that although we can support the underlying principle, there are areas that give cause for concern, and I am sure those will determine how we divide the House this evening.

Some of the comments made today in discussing the principle behind the Bill have concerned me. We have thrown around terms such as “the integrity of the register” as though that were a one-sided issue. The root of integrity is the absence of flaws. I completely support the efforts we made when in government to introduce individual voter registration, and which we have continued to support under the current Administration. However, my concern is that a register that excludes people who otherwise may wish to vote and who are perfectly entitled to do so, and that seeks to reduce the number of voters from certain key groups—those who are less likely to be able to register in this way—is fundamentally flawed. Many Opposition Members and, if we are being honest, Members across the House, would identify those key groups as young people, people from ethnic minority and poorer backgrounds, and those who live in inner cities.

Two issues have come to light during the debate that will govern how we will debate the Bill as it proceeds through Parliament. The first is the number of anecdotal examples of alleged voter fraud, and of convictions for such fraud. I detected an underlying tone in many Members’ contributions; it suggested that, even where convictions were not secured, the fact that questions were raised was evidence of a problem that must be solved. However, we should be better than that, especially when the underlying assumption about the background of the people involved in such activity—it is an assumption made by a number of Members during today’s debate—relates to their ethnicity, religion or faith. If we want to make assertions based on anecdotal evidence, we should be extremely careful about the type of groups we characterise in that way. The onus of proof is clearly on us, as Members.

My second concern is the underlying assumption, which we heard from Government Members, that if people cannot complete a more complex and demanding process in order to register and are unable to return the form—the issue that is at the heart of the Bill—they should, quite rightly, lose their right to vote. No one should lose their right to vote. There are questions to be asked about what the most efficient process is to ensure the integrity of the register. As I said at the start of my speech, if we truly want a register with integrity, we need to consider not just those who should not be on the register, but those who are not on it. There is this idea that we have an undeserving group of people. The example was rightly given—perhaps in jest, but there is some truth in it—of younger voters, such as students. It may surprise Members to hear that, not so long ago, I was a student. Even though I am a disciplined, efficient and “together” Member of Parliament now—[Interruption.] Thank you. I think Hansard may record that as “interruption”. However, there were perhaps times when a form or essay sat on my desk that I fully intended to hand in, but my approach was not as efficient as the one I would adopt now that I am in my fourth decade. It is important not to put hurdles in the way before we have seen the evidence on the effects; only then should we undergo the transition to a whole new process.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech, as well as a self-congratulatory one. He is congratulatory about himself, but he is dismissive of the qualities of our young people. One of the transitions that they have to make is from childhood to adulthood. Students in this country are perfectly capable of recognising their duty and the requirements to register to vote. The suggestion that they or people in ethnic minorities somehow have a likelihood of being incapable of doing that is one that I find offensive to them, and I ask him to retract any such suggestion.

[Gavin Shuker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has entirely misread my comments, and I wonder whether he has chosen to do so. About one in four young people under 24 vote, whereas about three quarters of people over 60 do so, and that should not be dismissed.

[Mrs Laing]

We have debated this matter for the past five hours, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if a person cannot exercise the personal responsibility of filling in a simple form online in order to register to vote, it is upon their own head that they lose their right to vote?

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Lady has moderated her language since she made her speech earlier, in which she clearly said that those people did not “deserve” to vote. She can look at Hansard to see that. I appreciate that she has moved her position, but her substantive point remains that there are those people who deserve to vote and those who do not. I, for one, do not want to see a system where we start talking about the electorate in that way.

[Mr Stuart]

They won’t be the electorate.

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that they will not be the electorate then, but in this place we should be better than that.

When we consider foreign policy, for example, we often examine how we set a timetable. There are two ways of setting a timetable for change. The first is by way of a conditions-based response, where we say that there are certain milestones to be hit—certain points at which we consider that the integrity of the process has been governed and understood by all, and the progress that has been made has been secured. The other route is by way of a purely date-led timetable. In the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, the previous Government set out a position where two parallel processes would happen at the same time: the existing register would continue in the way that it had, while we looked at and tried to understand how individual electoral registration affected the details of those people on the register. That strikes me as a wholly appropriate approach, and many Government Members, as they are now, supported those moves. Why for the sake of a year’s change or difference are we now going to cause ourselves trouble and store it up for the future?

We have heard a lot from the Minister about the data-matching trials, which are obviously important in order for us to see whether this shift has a measurable and discernible effect on how the register is produced. He has placed details in the Library today, and I am looking forward to seeing them. However, he said that he anticipates that only two thirds of the people currently on the register will be moved across.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

At best.

[Gavin Shuker]

At best. The key issue is that we will not know, even from the pilots, whether that is an appropriate level until early 2013, by which point this legislation will have gone from this place. We will not be able to pull back from the brink if demonstrably lower levels of data matching are shown. The Minister was clear about the onus put on those trials in the first place; it was a key reason why this was an appropriate route to go down. In answer to my intervention, he said that he hoped the number on the electoral register will not decrease, and will instead increase, as a result of these changes. What safeguards are in place if the data-matching trials come back not with a figure of 66% or 55%, which is the sort of figure others have spoken about, but a significantly lower one? Answer comes there none.

Secondly, on the 2015 review of boundaries for the 2020 elections, to which this process is integral, we have very little in the way of answers about how the register will change constituency boundaries, which have already been changed to a great extent. I draw the House’s attention to the quotes from the Electoral Reform Society, which said:

“A substantial fall off in registered voters, weighted towards urban areas, would require the Boundary Commission to reduce the number of inner city seats. This will create thousands of “invisible” citizens who will not be accounted for or considered in many key decisions that affect their lives”.

I believe that that is the situation we are in now, and it might well extend further. That does a disservice to many of the groups that I mentioned.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the issue of young people. Students who are registered in their halls of residence are empowered to vote at a time of significant change and transition in their lives. I hope that they will not be disfranchised, because their voices must be heard if we are to maintain the credibility of the process and draw in new voters, too.

18:40

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

We have enjoyed an excellent debate, with contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). My right hon. and hon. Friends all drew attention to the risks of disfranchisement carried in the Bill and talked in detail about the risks to those parts of the population that are perhaps more transient.

My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East, for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Edinburgh East also stressed the importance of the pilots on data matching and the need to evaluate their effectiveness before moving ahead to full individual registration. The provisions on individual registration concern us. As the Electoral Commission put it:

“It requires careful planning and implementation and needs to be done in a way that puts the voter first.”

That is crucial because voter registration is at the heart of our democracy.

It is always worth reiterating that democracy is deeply embedded in our society and culture. It has developed slowly over the centuries and was, of course, a rallying cry in the English civil war and in the ongoing struggle waged by movements such as the Chartists, the Reform League and the Suffragettes. Many died for the cause, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. We should therefore not take risks with our hard-earned rights and should do everything we can to strengthen our most precious asset, our democracy. An accurate and complete electoral register is fundamental to achieving that, but we must be cautious and remember the words of the 18th century poet, Alexander Pope, who said:

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.

We clearly need to tread carefully, and that is why Labour, when we were in government, legislated for a phased approach to the introduction of individual registration.

Let us be clear that there is no backsliding from the Opposition on the overall principle. We are of the view that we are one of the few countries in the world to practise registration on a household basis and the system has outlived its usefulness, but our legislation was based on important safeguards that insisted that the new system should be phased in and that that should be combined with an annual monitoring of progress by the Electoral Commission and a final assessment in 2014 by the commission of whether to move to a fully fledged individual registration system at that point. The key question is why the coalition Government decided to accelerate the process and demote the role of the commission in assessing progress. When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East asked that question, the Minister replied from a sedentary position that it was because it was too slow.

Whatever the reasons are, the Opposition are saddened and mystified by how the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition Government have approached the issue. First, the White Paper set out measures which, if they had been retained, would have seriously threatened registration levels. We saw in the White Paper the proposed opt-out from the process, and there was a proposal that there should be no civil penalty for failing or refusing to register, alongside a proposal that there should be no annual canvass in 2014. That these ideas have all been abandoned, thanks to sustained and rigorous campaigning by Labour MPs and democrats everywhere, is at least a signal that the party which brought in the Reform Act 1867 has not entirely lost its democratic roots.

However, the Bill is still far from perfect and it is clear that the Government are not listening to the legitimate concerns of democrats everywhere. Specifically, although the Government have conceded the use of carry-over data for the register for the general election in 2015, this will not be allowed for the boundary review due to start in December that year. This leads to the possibility of a boundary change taking place in the context of wide-scale disfranchisement, particularly in intensely urban areas with higher levels of voter turbulence. The Government must listen to the concerns expressed about this by the Electoral Reform Society and by academics such as Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg.

Secondly, the role of the Electoral Commission in assessing progress in implementation of the new system should be restored. It is critical to the independence of our democratic process that this should be so. Moreover, we believe that both the secondary legislation and the implementation plan should be published before the House considers the detail of the Bill, so that we have the most rigorous debate possible on how individual registration should move forward.

We need to see, too, a proper commitment to ring-fencing the funding set aside by Government for the implementation of the legislation. At a time of swingeing cuts to local government funding, we need safeguards to ensure properly resourced approaches to electoral registration, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East. Alongside this we need to see the Government row back from their intention not to carry forward to the 2015 general election the postal and proxy votes held by many currently on the register who fail to register individually in time for that election. The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central about the importance of making it easier, not harder, for people to cast their votes were relevant in this context. Furthermore, we need the Government to agree to drop the power to cancel annual canvasses. These will remain a critical tool in the constant drive that is necessary to maximize registration of the eligible voting population.

These concerns are not just Labour concerns. They have been raised by a wide range of organisations, including the Electoral Reform Society, and by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to whose work I pay tribute. It is in sadness more than in anger that the Opposition feel it necessary to vote against Second Reading, because we remain unconvinced that the coalition Government’s unpicking of the Labour legislation is anything other than a partisan attempt to manipulate the concept of individual voter registration on what one can only assume are political grounds. But we will work at representing our demands in Committee and on Report, and hope that the Government will see sense and modify the Bill accordingly, thereby re-establishing the consensual approach to this topic, which we believe is important if our electoral system is to retain its credibility and its integrity.

The great electoral reforms of the past were steered through Parliament by names that stand tall in the annals of our democratic history: Lord Grey, Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone and Lloyd George. We remember, too, Stanley Baldwin, Clem Attlee and Harold Wilson, who all in their own way strengthened the franchise and its integrity, and in so doing strengthened our democracy.

I put it to the House that the Deputy Prime Minister, even at this late stage, should consider whether he wants to be remembered as the politician who upheld the principles of our democracy or the one who disowned and damaged the radical legacy of our political forefathers for the sake of a mean political advantage in the 2015 boundary review. The choice is his: he can either walk with the giants or adopt the stance of a democratic pygmy. We on the Opposition Benches have made our choice and will vote against Second Reading.

18:50

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

Oh deary, deary me! It is a rare privilege for the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform and me to present a Bill that seems to have the wholehearted support of all colleagues on the Government Benches, and I want to put that on the record. I think that is because the reform is based on the important principle that the electoral register should include all those who are eligible to vote and none of those who are ineligible to vote.

It is clear that there are risks inherent in our current system. Over the years I have often taken part in international electoral monitoring missions, both in eastern Europe and in central Asia, and occasionally I have led such missions. It always seemed an embarrassment that I could not defend the integrity of our electoral system in the way I would demand of the systems in other countries. I must say, in passing, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who said that presiding officers should have more powers, that in at least one polling station I visited the presiding officer had an AK47 on the desk in front of him, but I think that is something we would draw back from.

I had thought that across the House we shared the principle that individual voter registration was necessary and desirable. I know that there are some refuseniks. I know that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for example, will never believe that individual voter registration is the right course. Incidentally, I can give her at least one bit of reassurance. She asked if she could be on the Committee. It will be a Committee of the whole House, so I think she may sneak in. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) does not want to see any change at all, and he has colleagues who share that view.

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

Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Bill is the subject of a pilot whereby Members can table explanatory statements for any amendments or new clauses that they wish to bring forward?

[Mr Heath]

Indeed I will, as the Parliamentary Secretary did when he moved the motion earlier. I think that is an important innovation.

Many colleagues on the Government Benches stressed the dangers of electoral fraud, which are clearly there. We heard reminders of that from the hon. Members for Peterborough, for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and, by intervention, from my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). I simply cannot understand the point made by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who suggested that there was some defect in the process of bringing forward the Bill, because I cannot remember a single Bill that has gone through so many processes of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is actually held up as an exemplar of good process, so I am sad that she does not recognise that.

I do not have time to go through all the details of the contributions from hon. Members, but I will refer to a few. I thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made a reasoned and well-argued case. He does know a little about this because he has supported the principle for many years, as he said. He read out the report from eight years ago.

[Mr Betts]

In raising that issue, I asked what the Government would do if the Bill, when an Act, leads to a substantial fall in registration.

[Mr Heath]

We are confident that it will not do so—[Interruption.] But let me say that I can point to the fact that we had a substantial fall in registration during the period of the previous Government, so I ask myself, “What did that Government do about the disgrace of 3 million people falling off the register?” The answer is nothing. We are putting forward concrete measures to ensure that we not only have a register with integrity, but recruit as many additional people as possible to it, and online registration, for example, will be a major boost to young people’s registration, because it will make the process easier for them.

As I have said, I will have to rush through my response to several contributions. I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Pendle in one respect, because we do not intend to remove what he described as postal votes on demand. A great many people benefit from postal votes, and we need to maintain that.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) talked about second home owners and will know the distinction between someone who owns a second home and someone who is resident in more than one home. His local councils have been taking action on that, and, as I know he will be glad to hear, we are still considering the matter of the edited register.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest raised the question of queuing, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has already answered that point, when he mentioned the changes in administration locally which ought to cure that problem.

I was very taken by the speech from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). She made a number of very important points about how the system will work, and we will carefully consider them, but may I give her one piece of reassurance? She mentioned the electoral arrangements in her own city of Sunderland, which are very good, and one reason why is Mr Dave Smith, the city council’s chief executive, who is on the programme board, so we will benefit directly from his advice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) welcomed these changes, and may I reassure him again on the important point about the carry-over of postal votes? If people’s details do not change, the carry-over will happen automatically and we will not lose them from the register. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) asked again about publishing the secondary legislation during the progress of the Bill, and I reassure him again that we will do so—unlike our predecessors, who did not do so with previous Bills. The hon. Member for Witham asked for an assurance, which I can give her. The Government will not use this Bill to amend prisoner voting rights, whatever may be said in the courts.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) was for the principle of the Bill and asked how it will affect European parliamentary election preparations. The simple answer is that it will improve the accuracy of the register by moving the canvass date, and I think that that will be helpful. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) mentioned the service personnel issue, which is a very important principle, and we need to consider a mechanism to facilitate registration and registration updates as part of the arrivals process for personnel at new postings.

I will not be able to answer all the points that have been made, but I felt that the contribution of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) was very sad indeed because he was desperately casting about for a reason to oppose a Bill that he supports in principle, and for some reason to say that, despite the Government having made concessions in a range of areas where we have listened to what people have said, it was still not enough. He was desperate to find good reasons to vote against the Bill, but he did not persuade me, I doubt if he has persuaded the House, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:59

Division 11

Ayes: 223

---

Labour: 213
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 283

---

Conservative: 243
Liberal Democrat: 37
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Alliance: 1

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

19:13

Division 12

Ayes: 283

---

Conservative: 241
Liberal Democrat: 38
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Alliance: 1

Noes: 219

---

Labour: 211
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1

Bill read a Second time.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (Programme)

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and Third Reading

2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in three days.

3. The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First and second days
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 and 4, Clauses 6 to 9, Clause 5, Schedules 3 and 5.	The moment of interruption on the second day.
Third day
Clauses 10 to 12, Schedule 4, new Clauses relating to Part 1, new Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 13 to 21, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, Clauses 22 to 26, remaining proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration.	Two hours before the moment of interruption on the third day.
Proceedings on Third Reading.	The moment of interruption on the third day.

5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee, to any proceedings on consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr Heath.)

Question agreed to.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided,

(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of that Fund, and

(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr Heath.)

Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 27 March, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Heath.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Criminal Justice and Detention

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11658/11, relating to the European Commission’s Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention; and supports the conclusions of the Government’s response to the Green Paper, including the recommendation that the European Commission should focus on the development and extension of best practice amongst Member States before making any new legislative proposals in this area.—(Mr McLoughlin.)

Question agreed to.

welsh Grand committee

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That—

(1) the matter of the Government’s Legislative programme as outlined in the Queen’s Speech and the Budget Statement as they relate to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 20 June at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm to consider–

(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), except that questions shall be addressed to, and answered by, Ministers in Her Majesty’s Treasury, until 9.45 am;

(b) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), until 10.00 am;

(c) a Ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for Wales, proceeded with under Standing Order No. 105 (Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements));

(d) the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

(3) the Chair shall interrupt proceedings at the afternoon sitting not later than two hours after their commencement at that sitting.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Peittions

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

19:27

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I present a petition on behalf of Suffolk Coastal residents. People have also sent me letters on this matter.

The petition states that

levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs

in the UK holiday industry, including on caravan parks, and for caravan manufacturing and its suppliers,

and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy will

reduce investment in these businesses and

lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of Residents of Suffolk Coastal,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001059]

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

I, too, wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Thirsk and Malton in similar terms to the aforementioned petition. In addition to the petition, I have received a vast number of letters. Normally, when such a radical tax change is proposed, one year is allowed from the date of its proposed introduction before its coming into force, if at all.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001094]

Yacht and Boat Delivery Companies (Safety Regulations)

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

19:29

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

The reason for my seeking to secure this Adjournment debate is the death of five men in circumstances that will, I hope, attract the indignation of every right-thinking man and woman listening to my narrative.

The sea conditions in the north-west Pacific in the months of November and December are notoriously dangerous. The navigational directions of the Admiralty speak of frequent gales, huge seas and swells rising to over 4 metres. These mountainous and confused seas are raised by violent winds and driven by tropical storms and hurricanes. Into the teeth of those conditions sailed the fragile, 40-feet catamaran, the Cat Shot. She was skippered by a constituent of mine, John Anstess, a man born in Plymouth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), whose family reside in the village of Beer Alston in west Devon. He was an experienced skipper and a decent family man. He had set sail in August 2006, en route to Seattle on the north-west coast of the United States of America.

The Cat Shot had crossed the south Atlantic and, after making several stops and negotiating the Panama canal, put in to Puerto Vallarta in Mexico to shelter from Hurricane Sergio. Hurricane Sergio weakened and died off on 18 November and, on 24 November, the Cat Shot arrived at San Diego. There, the crew refused to continue because they thought that it would be unsafe to do so at that time of year in that vessel. On 30 November, the Cat Shot arrived in Los Angeles, where she took on a replacement crew member, Richard Beckman. On 7 December, she made San Francisco, where she took on another crew member, Dave Rodman. On 8 December, she departed from San Francisco for the final run to Seattle. She was skippered, as I have said, by John Anstess.

That was the last time those three men were seen alive. When the catamaran was recovered, the hull door was found open and a line was attached to the propeller bracket. She had capsized. The crew had clearly left the vessel after that happened. The log was recovered. The final entry had been made at 03:00 hours on 11 December 2006—it had been the skipper’s practice to make entries roughly every three hours—from which the US coastguard concluded that the vessel had foundered off the coast of Oregon between 03:00 and 06:00 hours on that day. The log recorded very heavy weather conditions and confused seas. The vessel had run before the wind, bare poled, with no sails and with sea anchors deployed. A storm had developed in the area at the time, and the Admiralty court judge who inquired into the matter stated that it was

“most probable that size and steepness of a combination of waves and swell was sufficient to overturn her.”

How had the vessel come to be in that place at that time? John Anstess had been engaged by a company called Reliance Yacht Management, or Reliance Yacht Deliveries Ltd, as a delivery skipper. It is the conduct of that company and its principal director, Mr Nicholas Irving, that is and should be under scrutiny by my hon. Friend the Minister, as well as the important questions of public policy that this case raises.

The United States coastguard conducted an inquiry, which concluded that

“the master felt pressure from his employers to deliver the yacht against safety standards (no survival suits, radar, heating, proper communications gear, proper life boat for ocean travel)...the master requested to travel a different route via Hawaii because he felt it would be safer and quicker and was denied permission by his employer who stated the owners would not allow it.”

The judge in the Admiralty Court concluded:

“The question is whether it was proper to navigate a vessel with the characteristics of this catamaran into a part of the world where she could or was likely to meet such bad weather conditions…In my judgment it could generally be regarded as intrinsically unsafe and therefore foolhardy to take a 40 foot…multi hull vessel across any piece of water when it was expected to meet hurricane or typhoon conditions…this is particularly true if it was possible to avoid such conditions”.

The judge concluded in the High Court that Reliance should have taken steps to inquire what conditions would face the vessel. If not, it would have had no way of knowing whether it was sensible to commit the skipper and the crew to the delivery of a boat within that time scale.

The judge concluded that Irving had done nothing to check the weather to be expected in the north Pacific at that time of year or to carry out elementary route planning, which is a prerequisite of the responsible operation of sailing vessels. Had he done so, he would have been bound to conclude that the voyage was unsafe. This was the view of the crew who left the boat at San Diego. It was the view of the local skippers. This view was conveyed to Reliance, but it was ignored. The only inference—I repeat, the only inference—is that Mr Irving and his company were more interested in their reputation for delivering boats on time than with the lives of their skippers and crew.

When Mr Anstess urgently and repeatedly raised the sensible suggestion that he should take the Hawaii route because it would have avoided the area of bad weather and was a route that was more off wind than the coastal route and therefore much more appropriate for a catamaran, it was rejected by Irving with the words that the “client will go ballistic”. John Anstess had also e-mailed his sister on 25 November to say that he was getting no help from Reliance and had requested a change of route, but that Nick had laughed at him. Nick did not say, as a responsible operator would have, “Well, John, it is a matter for you; do what you think is best—you’re the captain on the spot.” He directed John Anstess to sea; he directed him to his death.

When John Anstess suggested wintering in San Diego—of all the options, the most sensible—he was told: “John, you have definitely got a tired attitude. I still like you, John, but this trip you have definitely showed a different side to you.” The judge rightly concluded that this was a rejection. He found that there was no competent managerial system in place at Reliance that could evaluate the relevant dangers and make proper decisions. He agreed with the United States coastguard that John Anstess had been put under pressure to complete the voyage. He found Reliance negligent and the loss of the crew directly attributable to its conduct. He also found that when John Anstess had sent a message stating that the weather was not looking good—that there were strong south-easterlies gusting 30 to 40 knots for the next three or four days and a massive low system out over the Pacific—he was told by the company that its forecast shows “light winds” out to the south-west and south-east, and either way not from the north.

Let us pause a moment and reflect upon the wickedness of such an act. The judge concluded there had been no such weather forecast, and that it had been part of Reliance’s approach to put pressure on John Anstess to complete the delivery. He had gone ahead only against his own best judgment, after the company had ignored and overridden his warning and advice. The judge found that John Anstess had probably survived the capsize and had rigged the line around the propeller, no doubt in an attempt to remain attached to the capsized vessel in the swelling seas. So he ordered that Mr Irving and his company should pay £3,000 to his relatives and estate, and should pay the remainder of the $7,500 fee for which John had contracted to supply the boat. A note of a phone call from John Anstess was found at Reliance, saying that he was

“on a boat already suffering stress damages. I am being pushed into taking the boat into even more extreme weather than I have encountered so far and nobody seems to care.”

What has been the reaction of Mr Irving? Has he paid the paltry sum that Reliance was ordered to pay by the High Court? He has not. He has applied to dissolve his company, and with that dissolution to escape the judgment debt. He is in the habit of dissolving companies: he has dissolved no fewer than four so far.

John Anstess is not the only skipper who has been lost at sea while delivering yachts for Reliance, and for Mr Irving. Although it beggars belief, just two months later Steve Hobley, another Devon man—from Newton Abbot—was sailing on the right, safe and prudent route from England to Miami when he was ordered to deviate and sail north of Bermuda to take a 38-feet catamaran to Annapolis in Maryland. He was told by Irving that if he failed to make the diversion, he would never work for the company again. The area is notorious for bad weather at that time of year, and the catamaran capsized. His two crew survived for 11 hours in the Atlantic on its upturned hull, but they watched Mr Hobley die of hypothermia and slip beneath the waves in the darkness.

Alistair Crawford, a young and inexperienced skipper on his first trip, was sent to sea to deliver a yacht to the Caribbean. Irving had lied to the owners about Alistair Crawford’s qualifications, claiming on a falsified CV that he possessed thousands of miles of seagoing experience. Other yacht companies had warned their employees not to put to sea that night, but Alistair Crawford—just like John Anstess and Steve Hobley—was subjected to pressure to do so. The yacht foundered, losing its mast, in storm conditions and 60-knot winds in the Bay of Biscay. It was not equipped to deal with those conditions.

What are the issues raised by this sad and tragic story? Not a single action has been taken by any authority in this country to bring to account Mr Irving and his company for that story of neglect, irresponsibility and reckless endangerment of the lives of human beings. The yacht was registered as a pleasure craft and did not have to meet the rigorous requirement for charter vessels, even though it was being taken by employed crew—many of them British citizens—from this country to the port of destination, for pay.

And what of John Anstess? His Cat Shot was foreign-registered, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency says that it is unable to act for that reason. My office has been in touch with the agency today, and it continues to adopt that stance. This is an outrage. Something must be done to bring the company to account. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to whether action can be taken. I do not accept that this matter is beyond the criminal jurisdiction of the courts of this country merely because the vessel flew a foreign flag. The instructions to go to sea that the judge found were negligent, the lies about the weather conditions, and the pressure put on the captain and the masters by Irving of Reliance were all carried out in this country. If they amount to a criminal wrong, there can be indictments in this country, even though the impact may have been felt 6,000 miles across the seas.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency must be asked to look at this issue again. It has signed a memorandum of understanding with other prosecution agencies—the Health and Safety Executive, the Crown Prosecution Service. My hon. Friend the Minister must prompt those agencies to look again at this matter. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 puts duties on employers—which is what the judge in the High Court found Reliance and Irving were—to ensure the safety of their employees. The instructions, the equipping of the vessel, the lack of navigational planning were all carried out in England, and, I submit, are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.

However, even if I am wrong about that—even if all these agencies, through all their concerted efforts, cannot find a way of affording justice to the families of these five men who have died—there is still an important public policy question. How can we allow companies that hold in their hands the lives of hundreds of men every year—sending them to sea in fragile pleasure craft, apparently unregulated by any authority—to continue to do so if they demonstrate the degree of callousness and neglect that Irving and Reliance demonstrated in the story I have just related?

It is time that the Government seized this nettle. We must have an urgent review to see whether it is possible to regulate the yacht delivery industry, at least by imposing basic standards of integrity and conduct upon it. As the judge in the Admiralty court found, the company had a responsibility to ensure that it was not committing the skipper to a time scale in this area of the world that no reasonable, sensible or prudent ship or yacht operator would agree to. What would happen in any other sphere? In a land-based case, the employer would be guilty of an offence under the 1974 Act for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of his employees.

Watching tonight will be the families: John’s father, Jack Anstess, and his sister, Wendy, as well as Steve Hobley’s daughter and granddaughter, and the families of the crew who perished with John off the Oregon coast on 11 December 2006. My hon. Friend the Minister is a man of integrity, conscience and compassion, and it is essential that our Government render justice to them. They cry out for justice; the families expect justice.

Only very rarely must one bring to the House a story of such tragedy and such outrageous conduct that has not already been policed or brought to account in the courts. In the last resort, it is this House that can render justice to those wronged and aggrieved families, and it is my hon. Friend who can commence that process. I am grateful for his agreeing to see the family with me in a few weeks’ time, but that will not be sufficient if we do not demonstrate that we are determined to ensure that all the families know that this Government and the regulatory authorities have done all they can to satisfy their plea, which I have articulated, for justice and for this man and his company to be brought to account.

11:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

In the short time I have remaining, I will try as best I can to articulate my thoughts on the issue that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) has brought to the House’s attention today, and to me privately before this debate. It would be wrong of me not to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who were lost at sea. Going to sea has always been an enormously dangerous occupation—for anybody—and the bravery of our seafarers has been renowned for centuries.

It is shocking for me to have to stand before this House with not one but both hands tied behind my back. I have questioned my officials at length about the powers that I or other Government agencies have to deal not only with this issue, but with the other serious crimes at sea that I have recently discussed with the International Maritime Organisation—the body with responsibility for such matters—so that we can achieve international recognition of the problems. I will return to that issue, if I can, in moment.

I want to express my particular admiration for the sister of John Anstess, Mrs Wendy Wood, who has pursued her campaign for improvements in safety not just in order to bring to justice those involved in this case, but to protect other seafarers in similar situations who are delivering British yachts and other vessels around the world. We would all like what she is calling for to actually happen—particularly me, as the Minister with responsibility for such matters. However, the difficulty is that, as became clear in discussions with the outgoing and the new secretary-general of the IMO, we cannot act in isolation. The cases that my hon. and learned Friend referred to are on the other side of the Atlantic. We must make sure that we do not simply move this problem to France or Belgium, for instance, so that the same terrible situation occurs there.

In saying that, it is very important that we get the facts right. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the yacht that John was employed to move was not registered in the United Kingdom, and the sad loss occurred outside our territorial waters. That restricts enormously the powers of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. As I have said to him, he has full access to the MCA at any time, and to any information he requires. He is a learned man and perhaps knows more about these matters than I do, but I can only go by the legal advice I am given. We have no powers in this regard. I was very surprised to discover, on looking at the documents, that even though the company in question was registered in the UK, the HSE has no powers. I wondered whether anything could be done under the new UK legislation on corporate manslaughter, or under reciprocal international agreements—we have seen a lot in the press about our reciprocal agreements with America—but it cannot.

My hon. and learned Friend and I will work together with the families concerned, and if we can find a way to prosecute this issue through my Department, my agencies, my Secretary of State or through any other Government Department, we will do so. My fear is that we will not find a way, but we will try, and if we can act, we will. Should we not find suitable avenues, I intend to push within government to shut this down for future situations, which is what John’s sister so desperately wants.

We are signed up to the international convention for the safety of life at sea—or the SOLAS convention—and so are all the red ensigns in the Crown protectorate. I know that my hon. and learned Friend knows the Cayman Islands well, and it flies my flag—the buck stops with me in respect of the red ensign, no matter where it flies in the world. So we are all party to this. The regulations are quite explicit. They put the responsibility for all navigational decisions in the hands of the master or skipper of the vessel. The regulations also make it an offence for anyone to try to pressurise the master into making decisions against his better judgment. That fits perfectly within our territorial waters, but not on the high seas. That is one of the biggest things we can work on with the IMO and address in the work we are doing to tackle crimes at sea. That is because it is the responsibility of the signatory to the regulations and the member states, although on the high seas the situation is completely different.

An investigation did take place, and I have some quotes here from the United States Coast Guard. It investigated the accident, and the quotations that my hon. and learned Friend cited were absolutely right. But—this is the big but—it concluded that no criminal offence had been committed under US law. That was the US Coast Guard’s comment, not mine. I have to, probably understandably, respect its decision.

I find it astonishing that after Mrs Wood secured the civil judgment against the company, the fines were paltry—“loose change” would be the polite term for them. The fact that the owner has not even paid the fines is another matter. If there is any way we can work within government to try to address that, too, we will do so. It was a civil action, so the situation is slightly different from that of a criminal action, as my hon. and learned Friend understands fully.

Nobody in this House would have put the argument across in a more lucid way than my hon. and learned Friend. As the Minister responsible for the agencies involved in this situation, I feel that it cannot be right that we are so restricted within government as to what we can and cannot do, given that we all want to do the right thing internationally, as well as here. From the discussions I have had with the new secretary-general of the IMO, I am aware that there is a keenness within the international community to address the terrible situation of serious crimes at sea, of which this is one, that go, not “uninvestigated”, although I nearly said that, but without reaching the natural justice that we would all be looking for.

This is not the only incident that I have been working on recently. It is right and proper that my hon. and learned Friend has brought these issues to me, but I am dealing with other issues where people have been raped at sea, murdered at sea or have vanished off ships on the high seas. One of the things that I have found really difficult is that one of the defences from some of the smaller flag nations is that they—perhaps—do not see the offence as serious enough or perhaps do not have enough funding within their police authority to investigate it fully. That is no excuse at all, and that is one of the big issues that we are continuing to raise at the moment.

I believe that I am very close to the time when I will have to sit down, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your kind nod. The last thing that I wish to say is that I will certainly meet the families as soon as we possibly can. I will work with my hon. and learned Friend and the families, and with anyone else who wants to work with us, so that we do everything we can to see whether this prosecution is possible and, if it is not, to make sure that we protect other families’ loved ones when they put to sea on the high seas.

Question put and agreed to.

19:58

House adjourned.

Petition

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Petitions

Wednesday 23 May 2012

VAT on Static Caravans

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Tom Clarke.]

[P001057]

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 23 May 2012

[Mr Lee Scott in the Chair]

Hot Takeaway Food (VAT)

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Scott, and to welcome so many hon. Members. I place on the record my personal thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing the debate, which was originally slated for the day of Prorogation and so fell from the order of business. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing it to take place today instead.

There is much to welcome in the Budget announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, particularly the lifting of more than 2 million of the lowest paid out of paying income tax and the additional tax burden placed on those fortunate enough to be among the wealthiest in our society. However, I would not be doing my job as a Member of Parliament if I welcomed only the good news from the coalition Government and turned a blind eye to Government proposals that had a significant negative impact on my constituents and the country. The proposals for the extension of VAT to hot food, and in particular how they relate to baked goods, fall into that category.

I am, however, grateful to the Minister and to other colleagues in Government for the constructive way in which they have handled this issue and the concerns raised by me, my hon. Friends and the industry. I found them willing to listen and receptive to alternative solutions. It is surely in the best tradition of Government to recognise that none of us has a monopoly on wisdom. Their constructive engagement with me and others has been welcome.

I support the overall aims of the Government. It is right to seek to simplify the application of VAT rules on hot food, to close anomalies that have been exploited by supermarkets and others and raise revenue from those flouting the rules, to help tackle the national deficit and create a level playing field as between bakeries and other sellers of hot food, such as fish and chips. However, we have to do so in a way that actually creates simplicity, is enforceable by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, is deliverable by businesses across the country, and, crucially, is understandable for consumers. The effect of the Government’s current proposals on the baking industry fall short in all four of those tests.

I would like to set out the practical problems and concerns with the Government’s proposals, and the likely economic impact on the baking sector if the proposals are not altered, and then present an alternative way forward that I hope will achieve the Government’s aims without any negative impact. I am not proposing, however tempting it is, to stand here and argue for an exemption for the Cornish pasty or the baking industry. I want to set out a framework that delivers the Government’s intention of consistency and simplicity.

I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and that of many other hon. Members from across the House and the country, including an alliance, however unlikely, with Devon.

It is understandable that the Government should seek to move away from the current situation in respect of VAT on hot food, where the basis of the test rests on the intention of the supplier. That is subjective, and has led to considerable inconsistency of application. In recent years, a plethora of case law tribunals have established significant anomalies—for example, two hours for zero-rated food, a position exploited by supermarkets in particular.

In place of that subjective and contestable test of intention, the Government’s proposals attempt to move towards a more precise test that centres on ambient air temperature, but that simply replaces one set of anomalies with another when it comes to baked products—pasties, sausage rolls, meat and potato pies and all the other savoury staples in our high street. There is little doubt that the ambient air temperature test will become the subject of significant dispute between bakeries and HMRC, with the potential for litigation. Why is that? The ambient air temperature is constantly changing. As the temperature of a naturally cooling baked product is also constantly changing, it raises the possibility of a pasty or pie at the same temperature being subject to different VAT rules in different parts of the country at the same moment. That is clearly a nonsensical position that will cause considerable difficulties in establishing a consistent ambient air temperature for every bakery in the country, a duty unlikely to be welcomed by HMRC. It will place an additional difficulty for the businesses concerned in deciding when to charge the customer VAT.

The proposed changes would be open to challenge in terms of legal certainty, and could tie up the industry and the Government in the courts for some time. The changes are contrary to the stated intention of the consultation—to simplify current rules and reduce uncertainty and costs for both businesses and HMRC. The ambient air temperature has already been found wanting by the courts. In the Court of Appeal, during the Pimblett case in 1988, Lord Justice Parker said:

“The test is a precise one. It involves a remarkable result that frozen food would be regarded as hot if the ambient temperature was one degree lower than freezing. A praiseworthy attempt to produce precision does not, in this instance, appear to me to have advanced clarity one whit”.

To an extent, that view seems to be shared by colleagues in the Treasury. In my discussions with them, it seems that the Government’s intention is not even to enforce the letter of the proposed rules, but to make a number of assumptions based on the quantity of each bakery’s products that should be standard-rated. That is untenable.

Any apportionment scheme cannot override the basic rules on supply, consideration and liability. That is even recognised in HMRC’s guidance. Any agreement based on the temperature of cooling products will be impossible, given the size and variation in bakeries and the fact that a reference point for ambient air temperature cannot be established.

There are a number of other practical difficulties for businesses. When do they issue a VAT receipt if requested to do so by customers? They will have to re-write till software systems and determine the price on which VAT would be charged, all set against the unworkable backdrop of legislation that will be prone to confusion and challenge.

Another issue relates to products sold on a seasonal basis—perhaps we can add mince pies to the list. At what point would HMRC agree with bakeries on the apportionment scheme for seasonal products such as mince pies? I doubt whether that would be able to be done in a timely way, and it shows that the Government’s tests are unworkable. If agreement on an apportionment scheme cannot be reached, the industry will have to fall back on legislation, which would be problematic at the very least.

The Government’s current proposals are unenforceable by HMRC and undeliverable by the industry. They will be confusing to customers and open to challenge in the courts.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend has ably demolished the Government’s primary claim that the measure is a means by which they can resolve an anomaly. The Treasury knows that wherever a line is drawn, even a new line, a new anomaly is created. Does my hon. Friend agree that under all Governments the Treasury tends to use sophistry when arguing that it is resolving an anomaly and that that is simply a way of increasing tax income?

[Stephen Gilbert]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the Treasury’s intention, but I will demonstrate that the negative effects of the measure make it unlikely that any net additional revenue would be raised, when the damage to jobs, business rates and so on is taken on board. He is right to say that the Government expect to raise money from this measure—their impact assessment suggested that £50 million would be raised in the first year, rising to £120 million annually in subsequent years—but at what cost would that be to the baking industry in particular? I am afraid that it will cost jobs and investment in an industry that we want to see more of, not less, on our high streets.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Surely there has been unfairness in the takeaway industry, with the fish and chip shop up against the supermarket selling hot chickens, as he has already mentioned. There has to be a clear definition of what constitutes takeaway food, because that is lacking at the moment.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. There needs to be a level playing field. I shall say how I seek to achieve that for the Government, but with a simpler test. He is right to say that there is confusion between different takeaway outlets and types of takeaway food. That is also reflected in planning law, in which takeaways selling fish and chips are in a different category from bakeries.

It has been estimated that some 2,000 jobs throughout the UK are at risk and 300 bakeries on our high streets are at risk of closure. With the impact of the ongoing recession and the significant supply side inflation of recent years, the baking industry is unable to absorb the imposition of the standard rate of VAT, and price increases are inevitable. Research from YouGov shows clearly that this proposal is unpopular with the public—69% of people have said that they do not support it—and that is also demonstrated in a petition signed by more than 50,000 people, which hon. Friends and I gave recently to Downing street. That research also suggests that the measure will change people’s behaviour, with up to one in three people saying that they will stop buying baked savouries. Consumers being able easily to swap to cheaper zero-rated alternatives will impact on the entire supply chain, but with no net additional receipts to the Exchequer.

As I said, the National Association of Master Bakers estimates that some 2,000 jobs will be lost nationally, many hundreds in Cornwall. Bakeries will close on our high streets, creating more empty units at a time when, through the Portas review and other measures, the Government are seeking to boost the high street. The overall economic costs created will undermine any additional tax from the baking industry.

Cornwall Food and Drink estimates that at least 100 businesses in Cornwall contribute to the production of more than 170 million Cornish pasties each year. The total turnover of the industry is thought to be more than £280 million, double the estimates of 2005. It is a growing industry. At least 25% of the turnover is spent in the local economy; the industry is thought to be worth £72 million indirectly, with £15 million going to Cornish farmers.

Pasty production produces other socio-economic benefits as well as purely economic ones—supporting village shops in rural communities, for example. It is a vital part of the Cornish economy, which still languishes on European aid.

In 2011, the university of Exeter showed that keeping retail prices down while suffering strong increases in input costs, particularly fuel and other costs, would seriously affect margins in the Cornish food and drink sector. The industry is clear that it cannot afford to absorb the potential increase in VAT, which will be passed to consumers.

What does that mean for my constituents? The impact will be devastating. The producers, retailers and suppliers will lose more than £100 million a year, an estimated 1,100 jobs will be lost and scores of high street bakeries will close. These proposals come at a time when retailers, including food-to-go shops, have already been hit by an additional £350 million business rate bill this year and when the sector overall already contributes £5 billion a year in VAT—some 9% of the total VAT take—despite accounting for only 5% of gross domestic product. The British Retail Consortium tells us that consumer spending is falling and household incomes are shrinking.

Sadly, there is no evidence that HMRC has considered the impact on the cost of welfare payments resulting from job losses, the reduced amount of corporation tax that the Revenue will receive, the loss of income tax and national insurance revenue as a consequence of the bakery industry’s contracting, and the high street supply chain’s being hit, including the loss of business rate revenue to local authorities.

There is also the socio-economic consideration, pointed out by the Association of Convenience Stores, among others. This change will hit the least well off the most. The poorest households spend almost one fifth of their net household incomes on VAT, but the richest spend only 9%. The measure will compound that, hitting the lunch of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country.

What is the alternative? The Cornish Pasty Association, the National Association of Master Bakers, Greggs, the West Cornwall Pasty Company and others have suggested in their responses to the Government’s consultation that we need to return to the original intention. VAT was first extended to hot takeaway food in 1984 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, who said in his Budget speech:

“Most food is zero rated, but food served in restaurants is taxed, together with a miscellaneous range of items including ice cream, confectionery…Takeaway food clearly competes with other forms of catering, and I therefore intend to bring into tax hot take-away food and drinks”.—[Official Report, 13 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 303.]

That relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) ably made about the need for a level playing field.

The then Chancellor elaborated that statement in a written response to the former Member of Parliament for Leeds South, Merlyn Rees:

“The VAT extension to hot take-away food which I announced in the Budget applies to food and drink which has been deliberately heated so that it can be consumed whilst still hot. It does not apply to food and drink which has cooled to room temperature by the time it is sold, or to things like pies and pasties which are sold warm because they happen to be freshly baked, and not to enable them to be consumed while still hot.”

I could not have put it better myself. That is the fundamental difference between a meal cooked to order in a fish and chip shop—or a curry or a pizza—and a baked product, which is simply hot as a result of its production, but cools naturally over time. The former Chancellor recognised that baked products are hot or warm by virtue of being baked, not because they are made to order and hot for consumption in the same way as curry or fish and chips are. His position has not been challenged by subsequent Governments and it is my view, and that of my hon. Friends, that it should be upheld while we seek to clarify the additional anomalies that have arisen since 1984.

To put it crudely, we can hit the £280 million rotisserie chicken business and provide the level playing field with fish and chips, but we must maintain the additional principle of food being hot at the time it is provided to the customer, recognising the differences that the former Chancellor recognised many years ago. The additional principle should be that baked goods are zero-rated, except where they are kept hot for consumption.

In short, we seek to amend the Government’s proposals to include the provision that VAT on baked goods should be charged only if they are kept in heated cabinets or if other paraphernalia are used to keep them hot for sale, in the same way that battered fish and chips are kept hot for sale in a cabinet in fish and chip shops. That would not interfere with the Government’s proposals to charge VAT on hot food cooked to order and provided hot to the customer for consumption.

I am sure that the Minister will want to consult Treasury counsel on the exact wording of any change and that he has a mountain of responses from the consultation to wade through. However, my view is held not only by me, but my hon. Friends and the industry. In practice, our suggestion would mean that a pasty sold in a fish and chip shop that is currently standard-rated, because it is kept hot for sale alongside some pre-cooked fish or a battered sausage, would be on the level playing field sought by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

The alternative would mean that any pasty kept hot for sale in a bakery would also be standard-rated, achieving the level playing field that the Government want in a way that is enforceable by HMRC. By closing the loopholes exploited by the supermarkets, the measure would raise at least £56 million per annum, which is equivalent to the vast bulk of the Government’s expected revenue from the changes.

The alternative provides a simple test for business: VAT on baked goods that are kept hot artificially, and no VAT on those that are hot simply as a result of their cooling process. It avoids the legal uncertainty and likely challenge to HMRC, it delivers to the customer a clear and understandable difference in pricing—VAT on a product that is kept hot, no VAT for a product that is not—it allows flexibility for businesses to adapt their models accordingly and, crucially, industry suggests, it would have none of the damaging effects that I outlined earlier.

My view and that of my hon. Friends is that the Government’s proposals are unenforceable, are undeliverable by business, replace one set of anomalies with another, are likely to be heavily contested and will do significant damage to the Cornish economy and to high streets throughout the country. By contrast, the alternative proposal put forward by me and my hon. Friends is clear and consistent, is enforceable by the Revenue, closes the loopholes exploited by the supermarkets—therefore raising the vast bulk of the revenue that the Treasury wishes to obtain—and creates the level playing field with the fish and chip shops that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly demands. It is deliverable and would be publicly welcomed by the baking industry. I hope that the Minister will say in his remarks that he is actively considering our alternative as the consultation proceeds.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lee Scott (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that the wind-ups will start at 10.40 am at the latest. I call John Mann.

09:51

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Scott, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on securing the debate and on his accurate description of the problem that the Government have got him into. I appreciate his panic, because with this betrayal of Cornwall one almost expects Mr Sacha Baron Cohen to appear at the door.

For 100 years, the Liberals have been out of power, then the first time that they can get into a real argument and debate it is on the destruction of the core Cornish industry. One could not make that up. Of course we know why it has happened. When I asked my innocent question of the Chancellor in the Treasury Committee, he was somewhat stumped by the fact that there might be a problem. The reason he was stumped is that he is not a man who pays any attention to detail—that has been proven time and time again. Ask him a factual question, he gives a vague answer. That is a problem for someone who is the Chancellor of the Exchequer meddling with detail. There is good reason why no Chancellor has meddled with such details since 1984—because the detail is so complex that whatever rules they come up with, it is possible to find a way round them. I shall explain some likely scenarios in a minute.

What has been the Government’s stock response, fed to their loyal Back Benchers over the past month or so? Fish and chips. Yet, coming from the country’s heartland of fish and chips, I do not recall anyone in my lifetime who eats fish and chips cold. Unless the Government surreptitiously intend to continue to spread VAT to include cold foods, in which case the nation would like to be informed of the plan, they need to reverse the absurd decision that was made.

Let me give some examples, because it is not only Cornwall that has been betrayed—England has been betrayed. I mentioned Bakewell pudding in the Finance Bill Committee yesterday, and Ministers started muttering about almonds. Attention to detail is everything for Treasury Ministers. When I talk about the Bakewell pudding, I am not talking of a processed derivative created by a Mr Kipling, sold in supermarkets with almonds on top and bearing no comparison to the traditional English Bakewell pudding. The Bakewell tart is an entirely different product and, because it is cold, is zero-rated. No, I am talking about the Bakewell pudding, the quintessential English product made as it has been for many centuries, using traditional methods, of which Prince Charles and many others, myself included, would wholly approve—doing things in the traditional way, passing on the skills needed to create the product. Now, solely because Bakewell pudding is made in the traditional way, it will be taxed at 20%. If the manufacturers of the Bakewell pudding were to use processed ingredients, they would be able to concoct a product—vastly inferior, but in some way with the same name; as I pointed out, a major manufacturer has already done so—which would be zero-rated, but we lose the English tradition, we lose the real food. There are other such examples.

By definition, the businesses involved are small businesses. Those traditions, kept in the traditional way, cannot be transported into some mass-produced product sold in supermarkets throughout the country and the world. That is the point and that is what we will lose if those traditional producers are disadvantaged by being charged 20% VAT under this cack-handed measure.

Let me give another example. There has been a rush to eat pasties among senior politicians, including the Chancellor. The Prime Minister allegedly once ate a pasty on Leeds station—a station I know extremely well, coming from Leeds—but from a shop that had closed two years previously, so it was a time-lapsed pasty which, by definition, must have gone cold in the time. But he ate the pasty.

Let us take a railway station such as Knutsford—let us assume that there is a station there, although I have not been to the Chancellor’s constituency—or think of our own stations. We might have a traditional English baker outside the station, baking away, producing Cornish pasties and the rest. Currently, those products are VAT-free, but they will now have the 20% applied, although the Government are still looking at how to define their new criteria. Inside the station we have a café; the baker passes the baked products on to the café, which sells them, and the Government might say, “Ah, hot product, it has got to be VAT-ed.” But how do we do that? It has been passed on and is no longer baked on the premises, so it must be zero-rated. We must make sure that there is no anomaly.

What about seats? If there are seats, we might apply VAT because it is a café. Yet it is in a railway station, and the railway station decides in this beautiful temperature to have some seats outside the café. The Government have their test of ambient temperature, so we have ambient temperatures inside and outside the café—I hope that hon. Members will go to Bakewell and see the on-street seating available for those who wish to purchase Bakewell puddings there. So, inside and outside, there are different ambient temperatures—ah, clever Government! We might therefore ensure that all the chairs are incorporated inside the café, but it is a railway station and Network Rail has put a couple of benches outside. Will we have different temperatures between the railway bench and the café seats, and between the café seats inside and outside? There is also the baker who serves inside and the baker who has a little hatch and serves outside. Such examples show precisely why since 1984 the concept of ambient temperature has been ducked, as Treasury officials have tried to persuade every single Chancellor since then to extend VAT. Of course, now that has happened, although things could get worse.

I know that the Chancellor likes his football, and the nation groaned during the Champions League final. People support their own team, but the Prime Minister, who is allegedly an Aston Villa fan, was cheering Chelsea. That is a contradiction. As the cup was lifted, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics was, rightly, in his place, and who was alongside him? The Chancellor, the new Chelsea supporter. When politicians are having problems, they pretend to support a football team that is winning. If it loses, they disappear into the hospitality room, but if it wins, they are there, beaming. I know what the nation said when it saw him on their telly screens. The Chancellor’s local team is Macclesfield Town, and I happened to be there for a match in January.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the connection between hot baked food and football matches? I would be fascinated to hear it.

[John Mann]

I am about to do that. Macclesfield Town’s stadium, like every football stadium, has a pie shop, but the Chancellor does not know that. When he goes to a football match, he is in the corporate hospitality room, so VAT is not an issue because he does not pay, just as he does not pay for his ticket or his travel, but that is another issue. The Chancellor does not pay for corporate hospitality, so whether something is VAT-ed does not matter to him. But I was stood there, hungry, having gone to Macclesfield to watch a cup match between Macclesfield Town and Bolton. I went to the pie stall, where pies are heated up on the premises. Will they be VAT-ed or not? If I buy a takeaway, will it be VAT-ed or not? If I heat it up in a microwave in the corner, will it be VAT-ed or not? If the shop staff heat it up in the microwave, will it be VAT-ed or not? Will there be a fancy process to avoid the VAT? It is fairly obvious how that can be defined.

The Government could introduce criteria for seating, so that if I sit down in the nice seats—there are not many seats at Macclesfield Town—I might pay VAT, but not if I stand up, as I did. Those anomalies will arise whatever way the Government move. My appeal to this out-of-touch, anti-English, inept-on-detail Treasury team and Government is to do their friends the Liberals a favour. They are up 4% in the north of England, and 2% in recent elections in my area, but the Government should give them a fighting chance in the south-west, and do the decent thing for England: get rid of this nonsense, and introduce a system that the country wants, which is no VAT on pasties, and no VAT on Bakewell puddings. Keep things as they are.

10:02

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Lee. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who made a passionate speech in defence of the Bakewell pudding, which I hate to say I have not sampled, but I will remedy that. Hon. Members may be surprised when looking at me to learn that I enjoy the occasional baked goods from establishments—[Laughter.] I know that that is hard to believe, and that they expect me to go to salad bars, but now and again I like to support the baking industry.

In my maiden speech in the House, I took the opportunity to talk about the campaign for protected geographical indication status for the Cornish pasty, a battle that was fought and won. One can buy pasties with many interesting fillings throughout the country, but Cornish pasties can be bought only if they have been made in Cornwall, no matter where they were baked. That is a serious point, because it protects jobs, and the quality of the traditional recipe. In Cornwall, we are proud of the Cornish pasty, and if someone is eating one, we want them to eat a proper one. “Proper” is an important word in Cornwall, and that campaign successfully delivered the mark of quality.

Businesses in Cornwall that invested in making that hand-made product, which is now sent throughout the country and baked locally, have created a huge number of jobs. They have created permanent jobs, part-time jobs, particularly during peak times in the summer, and even jobs for students. I am aware of that because when I was a student, I spent a summer making proper Cornish pasties in Bodmin. I had the glamorous job of going in at 5 o’clock in the morning to peel onions until about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and the pasties were ready for the next day. I am delighted that, the business having grown, the onions now come already peeled. That saves someone from having yellow hands, but the job provided valuable support for me when I was a student. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) said, the industry now employs a huge number of people in Cornwall, as does the retail side elsewhere in the country.

I followed what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said. I would be delighted to pop to a station in my constituency to talk through the issues he raised but, sadly, I do not have any stations in my constituency. It is a mere 500 square miles, and there is no room for one, but I hope that the Government, who, as the hon. Gentleman said, take a close interest in Cornish affairs, will remedy that situation which, sadly, was not remedied under the previous Government.

The importance of the matter in the Budget has been questioned, and even in Cornwall people have said that many issues need to be dealt with: the state of the economy; sorting out public services to ensure that they are the most efficient and best delivered; and the inequality in funding. Cornwall receives lower school funding, and so on. It is right to raise such matters, and I, with my hon. Friends throughout Cornwall, will do so.

An issue should not be put to one side and allowed to go through unexamined, untested and unreformed just because it affects a specific group of people. Although it might affect a smaller group of people than some broader problems, it is incredibly important to those it does affect in terms of the economic impact and, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, traditional skills. I was only peeling onions, and I was not let loose on crimping pasties, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) is very experienced in that, and could give a demonstration if visual aids were allowed during debates.

The Budget measures that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay welcomed include the increase in the income tax threshold, the biggest pension increase, and the commitment to the pupil premium—on Friday, with the Deputy Prime Minister, I talked to the head teacher at a local school about how that is having an effect. Those are good news stories, and it is good to hear from people how they are benefiting from them. However, we must not ignore the smaller issues that are incredibly important to some people.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay pointed out the wonderful anomaly whereby when the ambient temperature is below freezing, a frozen pasty would have to be sold, with VAT, as hot food. That sums up the huge problem and a further anomaly. I suppose the Treasury could create an arbitrary cut-off point, but we are not going to the heart of the problem, which is a sensible, cogent system. We come, therefore, to the proposal that my hon. Friend and others have advanced: if a hot cabinet is used to keep something warm, it falls into the same category as fish and chips and other foods that are kept warm to the point of sale. That is easily seen, and easily inspectable by the poor employees of HMRC who may have to do spot checks, and there would not be negotiation about the proportion of hot and cold food sold in every shop.

If the Government adopt that sensible position, we might find that those who represent the industry making hot cabinets call for a debate in this Chamber. We had lots of petitions last night on behalf of the caravan industry, and wherever the Government turn, employers will be affected. However, there is a simple cut-off point, and people who want to buy hot food, wherever it is sold, can have that option and accept that they will pay VAT on the takeaway.

Bakeries are different. As my hon. Friend pointed out, if people are asked whether they want another takeaway in their town centre, the answer will probably be no. Many already exist, and we have heard about different use classes, which are appropriate in many locations. Bakeries belong in the heart of town centres. Nearby shops would love to have a bakery there because it increases the footfall and the sense of local provenance of the goods on sale. Bakeries give a very different feel to a town centre or a village—we do still have, clinging on, a few villages that contain bakeries.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the possible loss of 300 shops on our high streets as a result of this tax would be a severe blow, which would greatly affect high-street businesses and jobs across the country?

[Dan Rogerson]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.

In conclusion, I wish to add a little extra plea for the Cornish pasty. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay was generous, and hands have been stretched across the river Tamar between Cornwall and England as people have spoken about their respective products that they value and support. In Cornwall, however, there is a feeling that the Government are taxing something that people might eat instead of a sandwich or some other cold product that they would find elsewhere. There is a cultural element to that. People love a pasty; it is what they grew up with and what their mums, grannies or aunties made at home. Everyone has a favourite shop to go to, and that is part of what it means to grow up in Cornwall. Furthermore, we are a very low-income part of the country.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

rose—

[Dan Rogerson]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman who has experience of this issue.

[Mr Offord]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. Does he agree that the pasty was originally created for miners going to work? Nowadays, people around the country who are not able to have a plated meal often have a pasty or another baked product as a substitute. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that this tax discriminates against those people as it may not allow them to have a proper nourishing meal at midday?

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and having been educated in Cornwall, he knows all about the importance of the pasty. As he said, the pasty was designed for taking down the mine and has a crust that can be left behind after being held with a dirty hand. It would have been baked hot, taken down the mine and consumed cold, as it was unlikely to still be hot by the time the miners got to it. Many other people will buy something hot from a bakery and eat it later in the day, which is different from the cold fish and chips that we have been hearing about.

To return to the Cornish perspective, the feeling is that there is a lack of recognition of a strong sense of identity and of Cornishness. To mention another visual aid, when the last runner with the Olympic flame left Cornwall and set off across the Tamar bridge, he held in his hands a Cornish flag that was sadly confiscated by the police who were running alongside. To many in Cornwall, such things send out a signal that English, Welsh or Scottish identity is fine, but we do not really want to know about Cornish identity. I know, however, that that is not the case in the Treasury, which understands the issue. As a Scot, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury understands that sense of Celtic identity, and I know that the Treasury will listen sympathetically. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, and other hon. Members, I urge all Treasury Ministers to look at the sensible alternative that has been proposed. It has a clear cut-off point and is enforceable, and I hope that the Treasury will respond positively to the consultation.

10:13

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

May I say “Well done” to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who I will call my hon. Friend, for securing this important debate? He has made an exceptionally intelligent contribution to a significant discussion.

I will speak only for a couple of minutes, but I want to register my concerns about the tax under discussion, and touch on the impact that it will have on the high street and hard-working families. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) pointed out, it is possible that 300 shops will close as a result of this proposal. The current rate of retail vacancies in shops across our high streets stands at around 14%, and I cannot help thinking that this proposal will have a further impact.

As has been said, we want more bakeries and a diverse range of shops across the high street, yet this proposal puts at risk retailers such as Greggs and Greenhalgh’s in my constituency, as well as independent shops such as Wells bakery on Oldham road in Rochdale, which is a fantastic bakery that makes the best meat and potato pie that people can get their hands on. We want a retail mix and vibrancy, but this proposal creates a real problem and puts a burden on those businesses. It comes on top of the 5.6% increase in business rates—the largest increase in 20 years—that retailers and other businesses have experienced since it was brought in last September and applied this financial year, and we are adding further taxes to that.

In the context of diversity, one point that has not yet been raised is the impact of this tax on other segments of the retail mix, in particular Asian sweet centres. A number of such places in my constituency, particularly on Milkstone road, sell not only Asian sweets but samosas and pakoras. Will the Minister say whether this tax burden will also apply to those products? I have no doubt that my constituents will be interested to hear whether this is also a samosa tax, as well as a pasty tax.

Finally, let me look at the impact of this tax on hard-working families, because I get the impression that the Government do not understand ordinary working people’s lives. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about snobbery in education, but I believe that snobbery is also attached to pies, pasties and samosas.

Members might be aware of a lady from Rochdale called Gillian Duffy who challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) during the last general election. Gillian is a very good friend of mine, she occasionally bakes me a cheese and onion pie, which I enjoy. For some unknown reason, The Guardian newspaper got hold of that information and ran a story about it, ridiculing me for eating Gillian Duffy’s cheese and onion pies, as though that was in some way inappropriate. People are snobbish about the fact that people, perhaps in northern towns or in Cornwall, like and enjoy pies and pasties.

[John Mann]

They are all sushi eaters.

[Simon Danczuk]

That’s right; absolutely. In reality, pies, pasties and samosas are part of the staple diet of ordinary people, and we should not forget that. The Government are placing an additional burden on hard-working families. People in Rochdale I speak to think that this tax is absolutely absurd. They laugh at the Government and find it peculiar that such a tax would be applied. It feeds the public perception that the Government just do not get it and are on a different planet, and I urge them to drop these proposals.

10:18

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott, and I congratulate my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on securing this debate.

As the granddaughter of a Cornish baker, nobody knows more than I what it is like to make a pasty. Yes, I know the ingredients, and yes, I can crimp a pasty. Today, I speak on behalf of my constituents in South East Cornwall who are all exceptionally concerned about the proposed VAT on hot baked food, although of course that is not restricted to the pasty.

The only time that I lived away from Cornwall was when I spent some years in Stoke-on-Trent, where the meat and potato pie was very popular. However, the pasty in particular is a big part of the famed Cornish heritage and history, of which we are all so proud. I will be discussing my deep concerns about the introduction of VAT on pasties and other hot foods, because this tax will affect many small businesses such as traditional bakeries in my constituency and will no doubt have knock-on effects on the already struggling town centres. In South East Cornwall, there are six very small town centres, which are seeing the life drained from them. If we see the bakeries decline as well, we will be going completely against the principle of what Mary Portas has been trying to do.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the unintended consequences—I believe that they are unintended—is that small bakers will be further hit by this tax applying to freshly baked products such as scones, doughnuts and muffins? They happen to be warm because they have just been baked, but are a whole category of food that clearly is not intended to be eaten hot. The tax will further penalise those bakers as against supermarkets.

[Sheryll Murray]

That was an issue that I intended to come on to, because where is the definition of baked food? Will we find that we are paying VAT on hot bread that comes out of the oven? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider all these implications.

I feel uneasy about how the tax will be implemented with the highly ambiguous term “ambient temperature”. That is variable and therefore very difficult to enforce. Thirteen businesses in my constituency are members of the Cornish Pasty Association. That is just over a quarter of the whole membership. Many of those are small businesses and they are mostly family-run businesses. They have spoken to me and to my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who would have loved to be here today.

I shall point out one particular case. Mr Richard Rice is the director of Dashers Pasties, a pasty shop in my local town of Torpoint. He spoke to me about his concerns. It is a small business, with an annual turnover of about £160,000 a year. Torpoint boasts two supermarkets, and Mr Rice is concerned that the supermarkets may be able to afford not to pass the VAT on to the consumer, whereas local businesses such as Dashers will have to charge 50p or 60p more per pasty, which is a massive increase in the price of the product. Bakers are already having to absorb ever-increasing utility bills and the rising cost of ingredients. They believe that the only winners will be the supermarkets, which have the ability to keep their prices low.

My hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth and for Camborne and Redruth also met people from Rowe’s bakeries, who gave them a similar message. That sentiment was shared by the chairman of the Cornish Pasty Association, who led the demonstration earlier this month

“to raise awareness of the greater implications”

of this tax. A petition has gained 500,000 signatures. That roughly equates to the population of Cornwall. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister can see the knock-on effect that the tax will have and how people will clearly be disadvantaged.

When considering how the Government will implement the changes, we meet a whole series of problems—things that need to be simplified. “Ambient temperature” is a dependent variable and very difficult to enforce against. It would result in products being taxed based on the weather and heat retention, as we have heard from many other hon. Members. That could lead to significant legal action while tax inspectors and local hard-pressed pasty makers argue over the tax due.

I believe in a much simpler distinction—that a baked product is VATable only when an effort has been made by the vendor to keep the product hot. I signed an amendment to the Bill expressing that sentiment after the Budget was announced. The tax code is complicated enough. I hope that the Chancellor will consider that proposal as a serious alternative to deciding whether VAT is chargeable based on the ambient temperature. On 28 March, I wrote to the Chancellor, outlining my views and saying:

“Surely the last thing we need is to employ an army of thermometer wielding tax inspectors poking our pasties to see if they have cooled enough”.

I still believe in that sentiment and I hope that the Chancellor will consider what I have said today.

10:26

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on securing the debate. Those of us with a history in taxation wish that every new tax measure could be the subject of an hour and a half of detailed debate. I suspect that we would make much better law if that were the case.

This is an interesting situation. I think that we all agree that tackling tax avoidance and sorting out anomalies is something that the Government should do, but when they come forward with proposals, there is a huge outcry about them, because trying to sort out some of those anomalies is much harder than people think. The reason why this anomaly has lasted for nearly 30 years is that it is incredibly hard to sort out. I jokingly wonder whether, if the Government had called this a fat tax, it would have received a lot more support, but I am not sure that that is a road I would like to encourage them to go down.

Like many other hon. Members, I am concerned about the impact on high street bakeries, especially the small local ones that are a real attraction on the high street. I am talking about those shops on the high street that drag people in to shop there because they like the better-quality product, the choice and the service that they get, compared with the standard, bland products that they might think they get from a supermarket.

I can list many bakeries in my constituency. There is Luke Evans, which has a factory shop that has been in existence for 200 years. There is the Birds chain of bakeries, which I suspect the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) will know well; it is a big chain in the area. It has just opened a new shop on Heanor high street, and given that Heanor is a high street with some challenges, anyone opening a new or revamped shop there is very welcome.

I have real sympathy for such businesses. Their shops sell a wide range of products. Pasties and sausage rolls are a sizeable part of that range, although nowhere near the majority of their trade. They are one very useful way of getting income and dragging customers in. However, they are clearly craft bakeries, selling freshly baked products. That is how they make their money. They are not trying to be a disguised takeaway or to flout the law. They are trying to run a perfectly sensible, viable and valuable business of long standing that we desperately want to support in our high street.

[Mr Offord]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech. Does he agree with my constituent Jonathan Grodzinski who runs Grodzinski’s bakeries, a business that has been in his family for well over 120 years, who says that the difference between his products and supermarket foods is the quality, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned? Mr Grodzinski’s concern is that customers will decide that they would rather buy cold food and that that will mean that they are buying food that is less than fresh, compared with when it first comes out of the oven.

[Nigel Mills]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. The last thing that we want to do is to encourage people to buy horrible cheap food with only processed ingredients. That is much less healthy for us than buying proper quality stuff. I therefore have some sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister in his predicament. It would be useful if he could set out what has tipped the Treasury over the edge into making the change. Was it a case of having to get the train home and thinking, “I’m a bit hungry. It’s been a long day in the Treasury. I can’t face the Chancellor’s bowl of jelly. I’ll have something from the station on my way. If I go to McDonald’s and buy a burger, I pay VAT, but if I go to that nice-looking pasty stand, which seems to be selling only hot pasties, for some reason there is no VAT”? Is that the contrast that tipped him over the edge or is it the fact that supermarkets are selling things that clearly should be VATable but they are manipulating their way around that? Is that what tipped the Treasury over the edge? It would be interesting to know.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking my intervention, particularly as I missed the first part of the debate. He is very generous. Since I have been an MP, I have been approached several times by fish and chip shop owners. Perhaps unusually for an MP, they are the only approaches I have had—and I have had a lot—complaining bitterly about unfair competition, because people are selling pasties and using a microwave to heat them up after they have been sold. I understand exactly why people are concerned, but if we are challenging the whole concept of VAT on pasties, we need an answer—I certainly need one—on that issue.

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point I was trying to make was about a craft baker on the high street who is not trying to be a takeaway in disguise for VAT planning, which is in contrast to what looks like something trying to be a takeaway, but is in fact something different. That is perhaps one of the things that has tipped the Treasury over the line. It would be interesting to know what mischief it is trying to fix. Which bad guys are we tackling? I honestly suspect that the bad guys are not the high street craft bakers who will be dragged into this. Their staff will be in a horrible situation.

I went to a couple of bakers in my constituency to see what the measure will mean. The sausage rolls are out of the oven and slowly cooling down in the very much non-heated—I was careful to check—displays in the shop. I guess that if they have been there for 20 minutes, they will still be hot, and therefore there might be VAT. If they have been there for 30 minutes, they might be on the border. If they have been there for 40 minutes, perhaps they are cold enough for no VAT. I have a horrible picture of the member of staff having to poke their finger into my sausage roll to check whether the one they are selling me is cool enough not to charge VAT on or still too hot.

There is a practical issue of how the shops will know day to day that the products sat cooling have cooled long enough for me to get a 20% discount, or have not cooled so the customer has to pay VAT. I suspect that such shops will put VAT on everything and put the prices up by 20%, and they will get a nice windfall for the bits that they can convince the Revenue are not VAT-able. In practice, they will not want to charge separate prices depending on whether someone buys a product marginally above or below the ambient temperature. That would be an unfeasible and rather strange situation for everyone to get into.

[Dan Rogerson]

With his expertise in the intricacies of tax law, the hon. Gentleman makes good points. I suspect that the windfall he mentions will be offset by any decline in trade due to the 20% increase in the cost of the product, set against cold products such as sandwiches.

[Nigel Mills]

I suspect that that is probably right. This will put people off buying some products entirely. I was trying to say that I suspect that the customer will end up with a 20% price rise on all products and it will be down to the baker to match that loss of sale with the income that they get to keep on non-VATable stuff.

The Government need to produce coherent, understandable and enforceable rules. The suggestion that a product would definitely be VATable if any effort was made to keep it warm, by putting it in a heat-retaining bag, under a hot lamp or on a heated rack, after it had been baked would lead to an understandable and clear situation. I am not sure that it would tackle all the mischief that the Government seek to tackle, which is why it would be helpful to understand exactly what problem they want to solve. It would not stop something that looks a lot like a takeaway pretending to be a bakery, which I suspect is something that they would like to deal with.

[Ian Swales]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s tax knowledge, from which we are benefiting on the Finance Bill Committee. Does he agree that there is an EU law that requires changes in taxation to be clear and precise? From his knowledge, does he recognise that the Government could be challenged under EU law owing to the complexity of the potential change?

[Nigel Mills]

I spent many years in practice looking at areas where UK tax law could be challenged under EU law. As the years went on, the European Courts became a little more sensibly in favour of the tax authorities rather than the taxpayer, so I never like to predict what a challenge under EU law could achieve. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point; as taxpayers, we are entitled to expect clear tax law that can be sensibly enforced.

Can the Minister think of other ways to tackle the mischief he wants to tackle without putting staff in every high street in a situation where they have to finger all the products they sell? I am not suggesting that they will literally do that; they will have to have some kind of technical probe or something.

Could the Minister find a way to exempt businesses in which the sale of hot baked products accounts for no more than half their turnover? Clearly they are not in the business of selling hot food, but are trying to sell cakes and bread, so such products are but a small part of their trade. That suggestion will not fix the problem for my hon. Friends from Cornwall, who are looking at businesses based entirely on pasties, but it would take away the worst position for high street shops, for which there are definitely unintended consequences. I fear that otherwise we will end up with a measure that will not work, will clobber the innocent, and those who flout it will find a way to redesign their businesses to get out of it. That is the worst situation—innocents caught in the crossfire. Some people have pushed the whole system too far.

We all know that thirty years ago, Lord Lawson tried to exempt bakeries that produced freshly baked goods. We have a picture of bakers putting things in ovens at 5 o’clock in the morning and customers queuing to buy hot bread, and that clearly should not be VATable. That is not really what happens in most high street bakeries, where the goods are baked in a central bakery and appear in the shop early in the morning. It is unlikely that I would get hot bread, unless I was in the shop nearest to the central bakery very early in the morning. We need to get away from that quaint image that probably applies only to a factory outlet bakery of the type that Luke Evans has. I do not think that most of the baked products I buy are hot, except for those that are carefully baked on site, and they tend to be the products that the customer wants to have a chance to eat hot. That is the line we need to work around.

What exactly are we concerned about? What mischief are we trying to fix? What are we trying to protect? The proposals the Government are consulting on will not get them to where we all want them to be and will need some careful revision.

10:29

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I thank the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) for securing the debate. It was intended to take place prior to Prorogation and I am glad that it was rescheduled for this morning.

We have had an extremely interesting debate, with some very intelligent and well thought through contributions and suggestions on which the Government can act. A thing that struck me on this virtual tour of the UK—via train stations, football clubs and various forms of hot snack—is how much unites, rather than divides, the different parts of the United Kingdom. In this instance, most of us, at least, are united in support of the industries based in our communities. In this instance, the bad guys—to quote a term used by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills)—are the Government, but bad guys always have the opportunity to redeem themselves. I am sure that as we go through the Finance Bill, the Government will look at the suggestions made today and try to do so.

I want to cover a few points made by hon. Members. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay highlighted the real issues about the ambient temperature test and the potential problems in identifying what an ambient temperature is in different parts of the country. As those of us in the northern parts of the country know, we have yet to see any form of spring, never mind summer. Not only do we have geographical variations, but we could have different ambient temperatures on different days of the week.

How will the Government devise the system? Will people come round using thermometers, as the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) said, or probe with a finger, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) suggested, to see whether hot snacks are above the ambient temperature? That seems to be nonsense.

During our deliberations on the Finance Bill Committee yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) gave a useful exposition on the difference between a Bakewell pudding and a Bakewell tart, which I confess is something that I had not previously understood. That only goes to show that we learn something new every day. Indeed, I learned today that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall and I have a shared heritage, because I, too, am a baker’s granddaughter, although I am not from Cornwall and could not begin to explain how to crimp a pasty.

The issues raised this morning are similar to those raised when we discussed the matter on the Floor of the House. I sensed a sharp intake of breath when the hon. Lady asked what hot food had to do with football. I am a football supporter and have supported my local team, Kilmarnock, since I was a child. I certainly did not choose to do so on the basis that they were likely to win trophies, given that during my lifetime they have won something on only three occasions: 1965, 1997 and this year, when they won the Scottish communities league cup.

As a vegan, I confess that the delights of some of the pasties that have been mentioned have passed me by, although, as I said during the debate on the Floor of the House, my son is an avid eater of the Greggs steak bake and my husband often chooses, as a vegetarian, to enjoy the Greggs cheese and onion pasty at lunchtime. I do not necessarily partake of such delicacies, but when my local team played at this year’s cup final, a local bakery in my constituency decided that I should not lose out on the experience by not being able to eat a Killie pie—the Kilmarnock football club pie, which is reckoned to be the best in Scotland—and made me a vegan Killie pie.

I have still not received an answer to one of the questions that I asked during the debate in the main Chamber. If I buy two freshly baked Killie pies from my local Brownings the Bakers—should it choose to continue the production of that wonderful vegan pie—and decide to eat one there and then and take the other away so that it will have cooled down later, would one be VATable and the other not? That is an example of one of the dilemmas and anomalies that have been thrown up again by a number of Members during this debate. Members have also identified that any system of taxation and of collecting VAT needs to be understandable, enforceable and workable. As the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay pointed out during his opening speech, the proposals do not meet any of those tests.

I want to address some other points that have been raised. The second time that I sensed a sharp intake of breath and felt a shiver run down my spine—“shiver” seems to be the word of the week in relation to the economy—was when my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) suggested that samosas or pakoras could be taxed. Notwithstanding the popularity of the Scottish bridie, there are parts of Scotland for which samosas or, indeed, pakoras, have become more or less part of the staple diet. Thousands of constituents would be extremely concerned if there was an additional tax.

[Stephen Gilbert]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she agree that one of the interesting things about this debate is the fact that the scope of concerns has widened rather than narrowed? I have mentioned mince pies, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has mentioned Bakewell puddings and the hon. Lady is now talking about samosas. Muffins, doughnuts and other products have also been thrown into the mix.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Indeed. That highlights the powerful case that, initially, the Treasury may have viewed the proposal as something that could be taken off the shelf, dusted down and presented as a way to correct some anomalies. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale has argued, it did not consider the detail and the issue has become a problem. It has become a problem in relation not only to pasties—I am aware that we cannot deviate too far from the issue under discussion—but to the proposals for VAT on work on church buildings, on which there has been some movement.

Moreover, last night, multiple petitions were presented in relation to the caravan tax, and yesterday, I, along with a number of other Members, met representatives from the newly formed—it was formed in response to Government proposals—UK Specialist Sports Nutrition Alliance, which has pointed out that some of its members’ products do not appear to fall under the categories for which VAT was originally intended to be charged.

This series of Government proposals do not seem to have been properly thought through. Their impact on our high street has not been considered. That is important. We want to see people shopping on their high streets and spending what cash they have on local businesses in particular, and to ensure that our high streets continue to thrive. When the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and the whole range of organisations that represent the baking industry, as well as ordinary people, think that the Government have got it wrong, it is time for the Government to think again.

I will not speak for much longer, because I want to allow the Minister as much time as possible to respond to the debate, but I want to return to the widening scope of things affected by the proposals. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay suggested during his opening speech that the Government were prepared to listen, but I am disappointed to say that I have not found that to be the case. We have raised the issue on the Floor of the House and have continued to raise it and a number of other issues in the Finance Bill Committee, but on every occasion—no matter what the subject—when we have asked the Government to go away, make another assessment, come back with a report and consider the implications, they have not done so.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a consultation, so the Government are listening, and that we cannot expect them to respond until they have the results of that consultation?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I understand the importance of consultation, but consulting on something that will happen after the fact—when the Government say that they are going to do something and then ask people about it—is not necessarily the best way to do it. Those representatives of sports nutrition companies whom I met yesterday told me—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong or have misunderstood—that no one from that industry was consulted when the impact assessment was done.

There are issues to address. I am trying not to make this an attack on the Government, but I am disappointed at the lack of movement. I understand that consultations are important and hope that the Government will listen and consider making some of the changes that have been asked of them today. The torrid headlines that the Government had to endure when their proposals were first announced should make them realise that the country wants them to do something and change their plans. My favourite headline read: “Half-baked Tory tax a mistake-and-bake”. It was indeed a mistake—let us try to fix it.

10:48

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on securing this debate and on his thoughtful and constructive speech. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), whom I congratulate in particular on her expertise on the matter. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for providing his expertise on tax, rather than on pasties. I also thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who gave a characteristically passionate and, at times, entertaining speech.

Since the Budget, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been running a consultation on addressing a range of VAT anomalies, including the treatment of hot takeaway food. I am well aware that the changes that we have announced to the VAT treatment of hot food have attracted a considerable amount of attention. Indeed, I have had meetings with my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and representatives of the Cornish pasty industry.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

The definition of hot food has caused much uncertainty, not least for Auntie Anne’s pretzel company in my constituency, which I visited last week. The company has put on hold quite big expansion plans because having to charge VAT would put it in competition with a whole new set of fast food outlets. The pretzels are baked on the premises from a dough mixture, and the company needs some clear guidance from Her Majesty’s Treasury that it will not be liable to VAT so that it can get on with its growth plans and with creating jobs in the local area.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for that intervention. There is a carve-out in this measure that relates to bread. My hon. Friend refers to pretzels made from a dough mixture. HMRC will provide guidance on the definition of bread, so that matter will be covered once final decisions have been made.

Before I turn to some of the arguments against the proposal, I should like to step back and remind hon. Members of why we have proposed this change. As I announced to the House on 18 April, we extended the consultation period until last Friday in the light of the responses received and I have, of course, been listening to the contributions to this debate and will ensure that they are taken into account in the Chancellor’s decisions.

Ensuring that VAT will apply to the sale of all hot food—to the extent that it does not already do so—is one of a series of VAT measures announced in the Budget designed to make the VAT system fairer to all traders, and to make it easier to administer and comply with.

The current rules on the VATability of hot takeaway food have been made particularly complex and unfair by a patchwork of different legal decisions over the decades, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay pointed out. VAT has always applied to food consumed on the supplier’s premises, notably in restaurants and cafes, and was extended to hot takeaway food in 1984. The definition of hot takeaway food in the 1984 legislation is that the food

“has been heated for the purposes of enabling it to be consumed at a temperature above ambient air temperature”

and that it

“is above that temperature at the time it is provided to the customer.”

There have been repeated efforts since the 1980s to chip away at this boundary. A number of businesses have argued in litigation that, although the food they provide to their customers is hot and is taken away, it should not be taxed as “hot takeaway food”, but it should instead be zero rated.

Some have argued that, in heating the food, their intention was not to provide their customers with food to be eaten hot, but to follow rules of hygiene, to finish the cooking process, to provide evidence of freshness, to create an aroma, or to improve appearance, crispiness or texture of the product. Such arguments have not always been successful, but where they have been, they have allowed some businesses to secure VAT-free treatment for a range of hot food products such as hot rotisserie chickens, meat pies, pasties and panini. However, other businesses have continued to apply VAT to the similar hot food products that they sell. They have accepted, or the courts have ruled, that their intention is to heat their food products so that their customer can eat them hot. Under the current rules, the VAT rate applied to hot takeaway food depends on the particular supplier’s purpose in heating the food.

In reference to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), a small independent fish and chip shop will have to charge 20% VAT on its hot chicken, but a major supermarket will argue that its rotisserie chickens are zero rated. One baker who keeps his sausage rolls in a hot cabinet to provide his customers with a hot snack will charge tax, but the baker next door who also keeps them hot and argues that this is to maintain an appealing aroma will claim that they are zero rated.

The current situation is unfair, and it is right that we seek to change it. There was some agreement on that point from at least some hon. Members. That is why we are introducing new rules to ensure a level playing field. We have proposed the removal of the subjective element of the zero-rate definition, which has led to these anomalies, to provide more consistency in the taxation of hot food. As I mentioned earlier, we are adding a simple carve-out that bread, irrespective of its temperature, will not be liable.

[Simon Danczuk]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way, but I am keen to proceed quickly.

[Simon Danczuk]

Will the Minister address the point that I made about the samosa tax issue?

[Mr Gauke]

On that point, our proposal is that if food is sold at above ambient temperature, it is standard-rated, which is the same as takeaway food from Indian restaurants.

We have heard a number of arguments about why businesses will find it difficult to apply the test on ambient temperature. The test to determine whether takeaway food is hot is not new; it has been in place since 1984. However, I accept that, in many cases, suppliers do not need to ask themselves that question because they accept that their takeaway food is meant to be eaten hot and thus they pay tax even if, on a handful of occasions, the food may not actually be hot. They may make use of one of the other arguments about the purpose of the heating, and thus do not pay tax, even if the food is hot. However, the test is reasonably straightforward and will be policed in a pragmatic way.

Some hot food will have been kept hot or provided straight from the oven and will obviously be standard-rated under our proposals. In most other cases, people know when something is hotter than the air around it. A leading high street bakery chain, which has campaigned against these changes, said on its own website that customers who want a hot sausage roll should test whether the sausage roll is hot enough by feeling the temperature through the bag.

It is important to inject some common sense into this potentially trivial debate about food that at one moment is hot and at another is at ambient air temperature. We are not expecting staff to take detailed temperature readings every time they sell a pasty. HMRC will take a pragmatic approach and provide businesses with guidance, taking into account businesses’ responses on how to implement the change.

[Dan Rogerson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as he sets out the Government’s thinking behind this matter. I hope there is room, following the consultation, for that thinking to develop. On the specific point of temperature, we have heard that many pasties are sold outside or through hatches and so on. Will the Minister tell us what would happen if the outside temperature is freezing or below freezing? That is the sort of issue that our constituents are raising with us.

[Mr Gauke]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall not start taxing food as hot if the outside temperature is 40°C and the item is warm only because of the air around it, or hot because the temperature is freezing. Existing simplification schemes are already available that allow businesses to calculate their VAT liability by reference to a fixed percentage of their turnover, without requiring staff to consider the temperature of every product sold. Pragmatic approaches to apportionment are, and have always been, a common feature in VAT.

Let me turn now to the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. I am aware of the strength of opinion on this question, and I hear the proposal that he has made. The consultation was genuine. As it is also complicated, it would be premature of me to make a knee-jerk response to it within a few days of it closing. However, we are considering his and other constructive suggestions closely, and we are aware of the difficulties in operating a test based on ambient temperatures. As I said earlier, such a test has been in place since 1984, and it is no more than a legal definition of “hot food”. At present, it is rarely applied because businesses that accept that their food is heated in order to be eaten hot accept that it is taxable hot food, and those that argue that their food is heated for other reasons can escape VAT, even if the food is hot.

There are problems with my hon. Friend’s proposal, which potentially risks bringing hot pizza into the zero rate—I suspect that is an unintended consequence. However, it is one of many suggestions that we are considering, and we hope to be able to respond in the near future.

It has been suggested that this change could lead to business closures in the baking industry, and would disproportionately affect businesses in Cornwall, and that it should be delayed until there is stronger growth. However, it does ensure that businesses of all sizes and in all locations receive the same tax treatment for similar products and that that preferential tax treatment does not go to those with the most ingenious arguments, or the best lawyers, to support zero rating.

I accept that all taxes have an effect on growth and jobs, but VAT as a whole is less damaging than many other taxes. I hope that my comments today have provided more information on why the Government have made this proposal. The changes are designed to introduce new sensible objective tests that are less open to abuse and provide a level playing field for all businesses supplying their customers with hot food. I also hope that I have explained that we have undertaken a genuine consultation and will respond as soon as possible, and that we are listening closely to all the arguments.

Pancreatic Cancer

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

Thank you, Mr Scott, for calling me to speak; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to have secured this debate, as it is on a subject of huge importance to thousands of families across the UK. It is also a subject that is close to my heart.

This debate was originally scheduled for the last week of the previous parliamentary Session. However, the cause of Prorogation it was cancelled, so I am particularly lucky to have been drawn again so quickly. Whether that was because of pure luck or the Speaker’s Panel taking pity on me, I do not know, but I am grateful none the less.

As it happens, the timing for this rescheduled debate could not have been better, because last week we established the all-party group on pancreatic cancer. It is chaired by Lord Patel, the Cross-Bench peer, who has huge experience of the medical profession, and it has a most fantastic treasurer in the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is here in Westminster Hall today. The all-party group aims to work with Pancreatic Cancer UK, Cancer Research UK and others to increase awareness of pancreatic cancer, and to help campaign for better care and treatments, which will lead to improved outcomes.

The simple fact is that we need better care and treatment. The number of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer is rising. In 2008, around 8,100 cases were diagnosed—about 22 cases a day. Compared with other types of cancer, those numbers are quite low. However, there is a very poor prognosis in pancreatic cancer cases, with only 3% of patients surviving for five years or more. In my own particular case, my partner survived for only seven weeks after being diagnosed.

Despite advances in technology and improvements in survival rates for other forms of cancer, that figure of 3% has remained unchanged for 40 years, which is quite incredible. There are also wide regional variations in UK survival rates, the so-called and much cited problem of “the postcode lottery”. On a national level, that survival rate—only 3% of pancreatic cancer patients in the UK survive for five years or more—is the worst in the developed world. To put it into context, it is half the survival rate of the US, Australia or Canada. Those countries’ survival rates are obviously still low, but they are much better than the British survival rate.

There have also been reports from people with pancreatic cancer that the care provided in the UK has fallen below expectations. The 2010 NHS national cancer patient experience survey found that pancreatic cancer patients fared significantly worse than patients diagnosed with other cancers. That needs to change. Some things will be easier to rectify than others. For instance, improving the patient experience seems an obvious and relatively easy thing. However, we can and should work on improving awareness, diagnosis, treatment, care and—ultimately and most importantly—the survival rate across the board.

One can look at the impact of the advertising to increase awareness of bowel cancer, which is a difficult cancer to deal with. We are looking to achieve a similar impact in terms of increasing awareness of pancreatic cancer. Increasing awareness is vital, because too often pancreatic cancer is diagnosed at far too late a stage. Although symptoms may have manifested themselves for several months, many people do not visit their doctor until it is too late and the disease is quite advanced. In fact, 50% of pancreatic cancer patients are diagnosed only as a result of an emergency hospital admission and more than 80% of pancreatic cancer patients are diagnosed only once the tumour is inoperable. Those are startling, sobering and depressing statistics.

Let me refer again to my personal situation, in which the pancreatic cancer was diagnosed only after a series of what were just stomach aches, and tests were carried out only after those stomach aches and after a number of visits to the GP.

For the record, the symptoms of pancreatic cancer can be quite vague and varied. They can include weight loss and pain in the stomach, which both appeared in my particular experience of the disease, as well as back pain and jaundice. But if someone does not have any knowledge of the disease—neither I nor my partner had any such knowledge at the time—how would they realise that, because one is feeling tired every day there is something particularly wrong, until the stomach aches develop? Even then, in my personal experience the stomach aches were not significant in terms of pain. We had no awareness that that feeling of tiredness was anything to do with cancer.

We need to ensure that doctors are making the right diagnosis. Nearly 30% of pancreatic cancer patients will have visited their GP five times or more before being properly diagnosed; that was true in my situation. So we need to make sure that GPs are provided with the proper tools and training to recognise the symptoms of pancreatic cancer. Moreover, we need to ensure that GPs are able to refer their patients swiftly to hospitals for further tests when they suspect a case of pancreatic cancer.

As part of that process, Pancreatic Cancer UK is holding an early diagnosis workshop next month. Hopefully, that workshop will help to come up with more concrete actions that could be taken. I understand that the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), has agreed to support that workshop, which is an encouraging sign.

Put simply, late diagnosis means that the few treatments available might not be an option, so it is absolutely imperative that we improve awareness and diagnosis.

Let me turn to treatments. The uncomfortable fact is that few options for curative treatments exist. One of the reasons why survival rates for pancreatic cancer are so low, compared with those for other types of cancer, is that pancreatic tumours are relatively highly resistant to chemotherapy. Having said that, I note that Cancer Research UK has said that it believes there is some kind of breakthrough in terms of a new class of drugs, details of which it announced in April; that new class of drugs looks quite promising in terms of being able to improve treatment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a very important issue; every one of us will have constituents who will be affected by it. Does he share my concern—and, I suspect, the concern of many people—that pancreatic cancer is the fifth most deadly cancer in the whole of the UK and yet only about 1% of cancer research is on pancreatic cancer? Also, does he feel that it is now time for the Minister to work with all the regional bodies across the UK—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—to introduce a UK-wide strategy to reduce deaths from pancreatic cancer?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

The hon. Gentleman can obviously read minds, because that point about research is in my next paragraph. His other suggestion about a UK-wide strategy is a really interesting and positive one, because pancreatic cancer obviously does not respect any boundaries, or any devolved Government or national Government. So he makes an interesting point, which the all-party group can perhaps consider.

Effective cures for pancreatic cancer remain stubbornly elusive, but we need to try to find ways to prolong patients’ lives and to ease their pain and suffering, while always remembering that, with cancer, it is not only the patient who is affected but the people around them, including their family. Cancer affects not just one person; its effect spreads to other people. I had not entered the cancer world before my own personal experience—I call it a separate world, because it is like entering a separate universe that has never been experienced before. Patients’ loved ones also experience suffering.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. I know how personal this issue is to him. Linked in with the point that he has just made, does he agree that this issue shows why it is so important that we have a strong hospice movement in our country? That is because hospices have the expertise and are able to treat conditions such as pancreatic cancer with a holistic approach, so that it is not only the patient but the extended family and loved ones who receive support—support that they need, too.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

My hon. Friend represents Pudsey, a Yorkshire constituency, so he says it like it is. I will go on to say something about hospices; what he said about them is true. In a sense, for a lot of families cancer is almost like the end. With pancreatic cancer, proper treatment is vital and nobody should underestimate the work of the hospice movement. As I say, I will go on to say a couple of things about hospices.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important and timely debate. I also pay tribute to his passion for this issue and to the personal experience that he brings to this debate; he brings real understanding. In addition, I pay tribute to Pancreatic Cancer UK, which is doing excellent work, and to campaigners such as Maggie Watts, a campaigner in my constituency. She has direct experience of this issue and is driving an e-petition forward on it.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we need more support from the Government in the area of research into cures? Only 1.6% of research funding is spent on pancreatic cancer, and the Government can move things forward here.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank my colleague from the all-party group for his intervention. Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), he seems to have a copy of my speech—my next paragraph is about research funding. We are all in this together, as it were, particularly on this one.

The point that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe makes so well is that more research into the cancer is absolutely imperative, to find new and more effective treatments. Pancreatic cancer receives just 1% of cancer research funds, despite being the cause of 5% of cancer-related deaths. More research funding will help us discover why this type of cancer is so resistant to treatments that can cure other forms of the disease, and identifying early markers will help to establish screening programmes and lead to earlier diagnosis.

In addition to funding new and expanded research programmes, it is key that we increase patients’ take-up of clinical trials. According to the National Cancer Research Network, fewer pancreatic cancer patients enrol in trials than people with other cancers. I do not know whether that is due to the poor survival rates, but it is fundamental that we encourage more of those patients to take part if we are to get the research we need.

Finally on the subject of treatment, we desperately need to find out why there are such regional variations in survival rates. I am sure that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe will agree that the amazing thing at last week’s inaugural meeting of the all-party group was the personal evidence from three survivors from different parts of the country.

One survivor in particular had had to push doctors and fight to get the treatment, and he ended up—I think he came from the midlands—in Reading or somewhere in the south. That was due to his own perseverance, however, and it should not be like that, because once there has been a diagnosis of cancer everything goes to pieces for the family and friends. That man’s will was the most powerful thing about that meeting; he is living evidence that something can be done. We need to ensure that GPs learn from successful parts of the country and that effective procedures are copied wherever possible. That will need top-down leadership, and I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on how that matter is being addressed.

Treatments, including surgery, for pancreatic cancer are few and difficult, but that is no excuse for poor patient experiences. The 2010 NHS national cancer patient experience survey found that pancreatic cancer patients fared significantly worse than those diagnosed with other cancers. For instance, nearly a third of pancreatic cancer patients said that they felt their diagnosis should have been communicated more sensitively, compared with 18% of all survey respondents. The survey also showed that 41% of pancreatic cancer patients were not given information about their cancer when it was diagnosed, compared with 27% of all respondents.

Although I was given a great deal of support, for which I pay tribute to Homerton hospital in Hackney—I will come on to talk about cancer specialist nurses; we had a brilliant one—when coming back from surgery to relieve some fluid, my partner, who was slightly drugged up from the operation, asked the doctor, “How is it?” and he simply turned around and said, “It’s terminal.” That was the first time that either I or my partner had been so informed.

I do not know why doctors find it harder to explain things to pancreatic cancer patients than to other cancer patients—perhaps it is because of the low survival rates—but although effective treatment might not always be possible, we need to do more to improve the patient experience and, as I keep saying, that of family and friends. Other than by way of better information being more sympathetically delivered at the point of diagnosis, that can be done through the support and care provided by clinical nurse specialists. We were lucky, because there was a cancer specialist nurse in the hospital, who guided us through what was going on. The national cancer patient experience survey, which is proving to be a fundamental part of my speech, also found a link between positive patient experiences and access to a clinical nurse specialist. Is the Minister able to comment on that?

I should state that although there can clearly be improvements in patient care, with such low survival rates much of the care can end up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has said, being provided in hospices. My experience of St Joseph’s hospice in Hackney was for only two days and two nights, but it was unbelievable, and I pay tribute to everything in the hospice movement. The treatment is holistic, with the family and everyone involved.

As some kind of conclusion, I want to place on the record how grateful those of us who have personal experience of this dreadful disease are to charities such as Pancreatic Cancer UK and Cancer Research UK, which drive the case for change and generally help to give people hope that the situation will improve in the future. Also, we should all pay tribute to the doctors and nurses who provide care and treatment for sufferers, especially in their last days, and I again praise the hospice movements. Their efforts and attitude help to make an extremely difficult time for patients and their friends and family a little more bearable—if it is bearable.

With my personal situation, the biggest thing I would underline is my description of going along in life and assuming that everything is okay and then entering this kind of cancer world, with cancer specialists. The support from other people who are going through the same thing as well is unbelievable, but in 2012, with an NHS of which we are all so proud, why is there such variation, and why has there been no improvement over 40 years in dealing with this virulent form of cancer? I would be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say.

11:10

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

It is a first, and a pleasure, for me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing this important debate. It was very moving to listen to his speech. His real knowledge and personal experience made it more powerful than many of the speeches one hears in this House.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as secretary of the newly formed all-party group on pancreatic cancer, and congratulate all the other Members and people from outside this House who have an interest in this particularly nasty and difficult disease and who have recognised the need to set up such a group. I know that my ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), will watch the work of the group with interest, and no doubt the Department of Health will await with eagerness any reports or investigations that the group pursues in the coming years of this Parliament. All contributions, whether from the voluntary or charitable sectors, or from within the Department or the NHS, or at a parliamentary level, are important, because, as my hon. Friend has said, this is a very difficult disease which, sadly, can be extremely swift-moving. Far more needs to be known about it, so that one can address the alleviation of the symptoms and the longer-term management of the condition—if that is possible. Sadly, as my hon. Friend said, during the course of his experiences, time regrettably was not on his side.

We in the Department recognise that we need to do more to bring cancer survival rates up to the standards of the very best. The cancer outcomes strategy sets out our ambition to halve the gap between England’s survival rates and those of the best in Europe, saving an additional 5,000 lives every year by 2014-15. To achieve that, we must tackle common and less common cancers. We know that later diagnosis is a major reason for variation in cancer survival outcomes, and our strategy prioritises early diagnosis. To assist the NHS in achieving earlier cancer diagnosis, the strategy is supported by more than £450 million over four years. That funding is part of more than £750 million in additional funding for cancer over the spending review period.

To improve awareness of rarer cancers such as pancreatic cancer, we are considering piloting a symptom-based awareness campaign covering multiple cancers. Feedback from rarer cancer charities suggests that as a possible approach to improving public awareness. We are considering the results of discussions in order to find the best way forward. I hope that that addresses one of the important points raised by my hon. Friend.

We also need GPs to recognise symptoms and, where appropriate, refer people urgently for specialist care, as my hon. Friend said. A range of support, such as referral guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, is available to help GPs assess when it is appropriate to refer patients for investigation of suspected cancer. However, we can do more to support GPs. Cancer Research UK, Macmillan Cancer Support and the National Cancer Action Team are working together to develop a broader GP engagement programme for the coming years, including by working with the senior leadership of the Royal College of General Practitioners on a strategic initiative.

I commend the pancreatic cancer charities for the work that they do to support patients, raise awareness, promote research and identify how we can improve the survival rates of people affected by pancreatic cancer. They do a tremendous amount of excellent work, and we welcome that work and congratulate them on their commitment. We are determined to work with them and others to help minimise the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend.

As I said, we must tackle rarer or less common cancers alongside common cancers. That is why our cancer outcomes strategy set out a commitment to work with rarer cancer charities. Officials have held meetings with numerous rarer cancer charities, including Pancreatic Cancer UK and Pancreatic Cancer Action, to assess what more can be done to encourage appropriate referrals to secondary care for early diagnosis of rarer cancers. The discussions will inform the Department’s future work in the area.

Pancreatic Cancer UK, as my hon. Friend said, is hosting an early diagnosis workshop in June, which will be attended by national cancer director Sir Mike Richards and my ministerial colleague the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. The workshop will examine practical steps that can be taken to help GPs and secondary care health professionals diagnose pancreatic cancer at the earliest possible stage. We look forward to receiving the workshop’s findings. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the earlier the diagnosis, the better it is for addressing individual patients’ problems. That is the nub of the challenge facing us all.

Pancreatic Cancer UK’s survival study 2011 confirms what we already know about regional variations in survival rates. “Improving outcomes: a strategy for cancer” makes it clear that reducing variations and tackling health inequalities is essential if we are to improve outcomes and save 5,000 additional lives by 2014-15. To support the national health service in tackling regional variations in cancer survival rates, we are supplying data to providers and commissioners that will allow them to benchmark their services and outcomes against one another and identify where improvements need to be made, so that they can move forward on making the improvements that we all desperately require and seek.

In December 2010, we published the report of the 2010 cancer patient experience survey, which recorded the views of more than 67,000 cancer patients treated across 158 trusts. The results enabled providers to assess the experience of cancer patients locally, benchmark performance against other trusts and identify areas for improvement. It also showed that cancer patients supported by a clinical nurse specialist had a better experience of care overall. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of ensuring sufficient numbers of clinical nurse specialists. We expect the NHS to consider that in developing policies to improve patient experience. Field work for the 2011 survey is now complete. We will look closely at the results when they are published in summer to see where improvements have been made and more are needed.

The Department is fully committed to clinical and applied research into treatment and cures for cancer. The percentage of cancer patients in trials in England is now more than twice that in the United States. The UK now has the world’s highest national rate per capita of cancer trial participation. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

In August 2011, the Government announced £6.5 million in funding for the Liverpool biomedical research unit on gastrointestinal disease. About half that investment will support pancreatic cancer research. It forms part of this Government’s total yearly spend of more than £200 million on cancer research. Patients and clinicians can find out about trials in all therapeutic areas, including pancreatic cancer, on the UK clinical trials gateway website.

On the important issue of clinical audits, I reassure my hon. Friend that we are committed to extending national clinical audits across a much wider range of conditions and treatments, and to developing their role as a driver of quality improvement. Following a call in early 2011 for new topics for national clinical audit, the National Advisory Group on Clinical Audit and Enquiries provided advice to the Department on new topics to be included as part of the national clinical audit and patient outcomes programme. A proposal for a pancreatic cancer audit was considered as part of that process, but the advisory group’s view was that elements of the proposal should be taken forward as part of the existing bowel cancer audit when it is retendered during 2012. We will ensure that that option is considered when the Department reviews the existing arrangements for the bowel cancer audit later this year.

I reassure my hon. Friend, other hon. Members and the all-party group that, although the challenge of preventing cancers and improving diagnosis and treatment is huge, we are committed to it. Our cancer outcomes strategy, published in January 2011, set out how we will deliver health-care outcomes as good as those anywhere in the world. That is our commitment. The first annual round of the strategy, published in December 2011, highlighted our priorities for this year, which include providing benchmark data to the NHS as a lever for improvement.

Of equal importance is the commitment of the many charities and campaigning organisations that provide vital support to thousands of people with cancer and—as importantly, but sometimes forgotten—to their families. However terrible it is to suffer from cancer, we must not forget the knock-on effects that it has on the emotions of families and friends, who must do so much to support patients through difficult health conditions at a time when they themselves are in a fragile emotional position. They also advocate on behalf of family members and friends suffering from cancer. That is a crucial role, and one that we must not forget.

The contribution of the charitable and voluntary sector to our recent cancer strategy has been invaluable, and I trust that we can continue to count on its help in delivering our aims and objectives. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing up this important issue. As he made clear in his remarks, because relatively few people suffer from pancreatic cancer, it may not always get as much attention as more common cancers such as breast cancer and lung cancer. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to outline the Government’s position and assure him that we continue to work towards achievement.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Dangerous Dogs

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]

14:30

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

This debate was born out of an incident that probably lasted all of 30 seconds, but sadly such things happen every single day. In November 2010, I was a keen, young MP and decided to go campaigning with my campaign team. I walked down the street with a load of leaflets in my hand, went to a house and did the one thing that people are told not to do when they first join a political party and learn how to leaflet—I put my hand right through the letterbox. Without a word of warning, I felt something clamp on my hand and a low growl made me realise that a dog had me. When I pulled my finger out, I noticed what I thought was a small cut, but it developed into a deep gash that spurted blood out everywhere. I had to go to hospital and the treatment my finger received resulted in five stitches and a one-inch scar on my middle finger, which I will not raise, in case I am called to order by you, Ms Dorries. I had become one of the more than 100 people a week in the UK who suffer injuries so severe from a dog attack that they are admitted to hospital.

Of course, I was one of the lucky ones: my treatment amounted to a trip to A and E and a course of antibiotics. However, many people are not so fortunate. Sadly, some well-publicised cases have seen people severely injured or maimed by a dog. Having been bitten through a letterbox, I have sympathy with the 10,000 postal workers who have been injured by domestic dogs. The most upsetting statistic is that seven guide dogs a month are attacked by out-of-control dogs.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early on in his speech. I have a partially sighted constituent whose guide dog was attacked and who is now afraid to set foot outside his door. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely unacceptable that blind and partially sighted people should feel like prisoners in their own homes? Does he not agree that the Government should heed Guide Dogs’ words about microchipping as soon as possible?

[Chris Evans]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I did a lot of research before this debate and one of the most harrowing things I found was a video on The Sun website, in which some sort of a dog had hold of a guide dog and the owner was kicking him to try to get him off. It was harrowing to see the guide dog’s reins. I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituent will have the confidence to go out in future and enjoy life once again.

I want to make it clear from the very beginning that I am pro-dogs. I would even say that I am a dog lover. I have been lucky enough to own dogs all my life. Anyone who has owned a dog will say how much they enrich life. I have great memories of a border collie cross called Pep that I grew up with. He lived until he was 19 and we all cried when he passed away. Moreover, when I arrive home from this place, I know that my dog will always be there, wagging his tail and happy that I am home—at least somebody at my house is happy when I arrive home.

I pay tribute to a number of animal charities and organisations that work tirelessly to raise awareness of the many problems with our current dangerous dog legislation. Groups such as Battersea dogs home, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Communication Workers Union are all long-standing campaigners on the issue. Each in its own way does a tremendous amount of work promoting responsible dog ownership. In my constituency earlier this year, the Dogs Trust ran a three-day centre in Risca and provided free health checks. It also offered to neuter and chip dogs for just £10. The event was a major success and about 70 dogs were booked in to be neutered and chipped. Across Wales, the Dogs Trust has neutered more than 13,000 dogs and microchipped 46,000. Such work makes a real difference to responsible dog ownership. Speaking to charities and groups on the front line makes me realise how our dangerous dog legislation is just not good enough.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. A local newspaper of mine, News Shopper, is running a shop a dog campaign, which seeks to highlight the fact that we should primarily be targeting irresponsible owners, rather than the dogs themselves. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

[Chris Evans]

That is the main thrust of my debate. This is not a dog-only issue; often it is a social and anti-social issue. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to carry on with my speech, I will develop that point further.

A couple of months ago, I visited Battersea dogs home and as I wandered around and heard about the problems it faced re-housing stray dogs that have been abandoned and often abused by their owners, I realised that our legislation for dangerous dogs must change. It made me realise that one of the biggest failures of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is that it is breed-specific. Despite banning types of dogs such as the pit bull, the law has not reduced their numbers, which have exploded. The Act simply taught us that demonising certain breeds makes them more attractive to the wrong types of people, who will not think twice about flouting the law.

The previous Labour Government’s 2010 consultation revealed that 78% of people wanted new legislation to promote the responsible ownership of dogs. Shockingly, it has taken two years for the current Government to respond and publish their own plans. In that time, I was one of the 5,000 patients admitted to hospital for injuries caused by dog attacks in England and Wales.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He says that it has taken us two years to produce new measures to tackle this scourge, but, while it is true that the previous Government introduced a consultation right at the end of their time in office, nothing was done in the preceding 13 years, so it is ungenerous to suggest that we have taken too long.

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

rose—

[Chris Evans]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to respond to that point.

[Mr Gray]

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about the fact that the Act has not worked because irresponsible people have ignored it, and that those who continue to breed dangerous dogs are outside the law. Why would action by the Government have any effect whatever on those thugs and criminals who are ignoring the law?

[Chris Evans]

I welcome the Government’s guidelines to crack down on such people, who are completely outside the law. To respond to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), yes, we had 13 years, but two years is too long and the Government have a responsibility. We are where we are.

On average, 12 postal workers are attacked by dogs every day. Many do not return to their job because of the physical and psychological effects of the attack. Even Members of this House have been victims of dog attacks. When I came in with a big bandage on my hand, a number of people told me that they knew of party workers who had been chased or bitten by dogs. Everybody I spoke to had some experience on the doorstep of being chased by dogs, although I do not know whether the dogs were Tory or Labour. A recent RSPCA survey underlined that fact and found that more than half of MPs had been bitten or chased by dogs while delivering leaflets over the past five years, while almost 80% of Members have seen one of their constituency team bitten or chased. Perhaps it is unsurprising that, according to the same survey, more than half of MPs believe that the current dog legislation is ineffective.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), we often talk about dangerous dogs in the context of being bitten or chased, but the cost of dangerous dogs cannot be underestimated. Last year, police forces in England and Wales spent £3 million kennelling dogs seized under the 1991 Act. My concern is that, after two years of waiting for worthwhile legislation, the Government’s proposals do not go far enough. Frankly, they are a missed opportunity and we must wonder how much of a priority tackling irresponsible dog ownership really is. However, we have to be careful—it is no good blaming the dogs. In many cases it is often not so much problem dogs, but problem owners. Although it is important that we enforce new, more effective legislation, it will only work if a number of steps are taken to influence owners and better educate the public.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I appreciate and support the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the need to control dogs and want to add another important reason for doing so. I have been a sheep farmer for most of my life and the impact of irresponsible dog owners has been terrifying. Thirty-five of my sheep were killed one night—they were turned over and torn apart. That is a common occurrence. The hon. Gentleman is listing some of the many reasons to control dogs, and the impact on the livestock industry is another one.

[Chris Evans]

I come from the south Wales valleys, where I am surrounded by farms. I know a local farmer, and the hon. Gentleman’s point is a massive issue. Dogs chasing sheep was always a feature of my life when I was growing up. The most important thing I was told when I first had a dog when I was very young was that I needed to keep him under control around livestock. That is very often overlooked. We often think of dangerous dogs as a city or urban problem, but it is also a serious problem in rural areas. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

On my visit to Battersea dogs home, I learned that some 72% of the dogs that it looks after do not have a microchip, which makes it impossible to track down the owner. The Government have recently announced plans to combat that and have proposed the compulsory microchipping of puppies. However, in Battersea dogs home, I saw hundreds of dogs without a microchip who had been abandoned by their owners. It is no good the Government microchipping puppies when stray dogs are roaming the streets abandoned and neglected, with no hope of being reunited with their owners.

Battersea dogs home tells me that only 20% of the 6,000 dogs it homed in 2011 were microchipped and that one third even had the wrong details. Therefore, when the owner went along and asked for their dog, very often the dog had been rehomed. That demonstrates the scale of the problem. Microchipping is a start, which I welcome, but unfortunately that is all it is. It will take years to affect all dogs and will make little difference to the thousands of strays already wandering our streets.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I had an extraordinary case in my constituency that runs parallel to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I would like to highlight the case and am fascinated to hear what he has to say about it. A mother, father and small girl were asked to a tea party at a private residence next door. They went and the child, who was aged five, offered something to a Scottish terrier who jumped over the child’s hand, latched on to her face and tore half her face off. The eyeball had to be surgically put back and God knows what else, but because that happened in a private house, apparently the law cannot intervene. What does the hon. Gentleman feel can be done, if anything, in that sensitive area of the law?

[Chris Evans]

That is an absolutely harrowing case. I cannot think of anything worse happening. The hon. Gentleman says that the dog was a Scottish terrier. That is why we need to look again at the dangerous dogs legislation. We also need to ask a very important question in relation to the complicated issues surrounding dogs. We have a problem there. A number of people buy dogs for guarding purposes. When they take out a burglar, that is good; but when they are attacking a child, that is bad. We need to be very careful when framing such legislation.

I hope that we can have a debate on that matter because there is a grey area. On the one hand, if a person walks in and trespasses on someone’s property, the dog would be celebrated as a hero. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned an absolutely tragic and terrible situation. I hope that the family is returning to a semblance of order. I know that when I was bitten on the finger, I found it quite traumatic. I was a bit nervous around other dogs. I cannot think of anything worse.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Could you turn around and address your comments to the Chair and to Hansard please, Mr Evans?

[Chris Evans]

I am very sorry, Ms Dorries—please forgive me. I was getting carried away in the moment there.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

That is okay—it just makes it easier for Hansard.

[Chris Evans]

As I said, the owners of dogs that are abandoned and demonised need to be held accountable. In Wales, the Welsh Assembly has taken the lead on the microchipping of dogs and is currently consulting on the compulsory microchipping of puppies and on whether the ownership and information about a dog should be recorded on an approved database. The idea is that owners with microchipped dogs will be encouraged to put the welfare of their dog first, as well as to take more responsibility for the animal’s behaviour.

In Northern Ireland, the microchipping of dogs will become a compulsory condition of someone being issued a dog licence. What is more, the compulsory microchipping of all dogs has widespread public support. Not only do groups such as the Dogs Trust, Battersea dogs home and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health support the measure, but a recent Dogs Trust survey found that 83% of the UK population believe in compulsory microchipping. If the Government want to introduce worthwhile dog legislation, they have to extend microchipping beyond puppies.

[Mr Gray]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I quite understand that compulsory microchipping might help with stray dogs being rehomed and returned to their owners. However, I cannot imagine what possible connection there is between the compulsory microchipping of dogs and either the Scottie dog that very tragically attacked a child or, indeed, a perfectly normal dog that is microchipped and attacks a canvasser sticking leaflets through a door. What relationship is there between microchipping and controlling these dogs?

[Chris Evans]

To be honest, it is quite simple. We have no way of identifying these dogs. We do not know who owns them. If we have microchipping, we know who the owners are. At the end of the day, when I was bitten through a letterbox—

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) mentioned a dog that was in someone’s house.

[Chris Evans]

That is a different case. When I was bitten through a letterbox, I did not know who owned that dog. I could not track that person down. I knocked on the door and there was no answer. Somebody’s dog bit me and I do not know who owns it. If we are going to introduce major measures, we need to know who owns these dogs.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having secured this important debate. I would like to highlight the information I was given by the Hampshire police dog unit to assist him with that point. One of the biggest problems it has after a dog attack has occurred is identifying which dog did it. As a very experienced dog handler of many years said to me, one brindle Staffie-type dog looks very much like another. He went as far as to say that if he looked at Hampshire police dog unit’s entire dog stock, he would struggle to identify anything other than his dog and that it is very difficult indeed to tell the other 11 apart.

[Chris Evans]

I absolutely agree. That is exactly what I have experienced. When I walked around Battersea dogs home, I felt that if I had seen one Staffie, I had seen a thousand. To be honest, I could not tell the difference between them.

Another element of responsible dog ownership not tackled in the Government’s proposals is the rise of what is known as status dogs among gangs and young people, contributing to antisocial behaviour and illegal activities. Sadly, the victims of those gangs tend to be Staffordshire bull terriers. In 1996, Battersea dogs home took in 380 Staffies. Last year, that figure rose to 1,869, which accounts for 37% of all dogs at the home. It tells me that, between 1996 and 2009, the number of Staffordshire bull terriers at the home increased by 850%.

Battersea dogs home is now seeing a trend towards different breeds, such as the Siberian husky. The number of Siberian huskies at the home has increased by 28% in the past year. Those dogs are often taught to be violent and as a consequence struggle to be rehomed. The problem is made even worse by the rise of backstreet breeding and the sale of dogs over the internet. Such dogs are often abandoned and become stray.

Some 40% of all the Staffordshire bull terriers taken into Battersea dogs home are two years old or younger. Many of those dogs are labelled as pit bulls when they are nothing of the sort. The thing I found most interesting when I finally came face to face with a pit bull terrier was that I realised I did not know what a pit bull looked like. When I thought about what a pit bull looked like, the dog I was thinking of was an American bull dog, which is a far bigger dog and a different breed.

The online quick sale of puppies often takes place, and many of those sold online are banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Those negative aspects of dog ownership are not tackled in the Government’s proposals. It is highly unlikely that a puppy that is bred illegally and sold over the internet will end up in the hands of an owner who will make the effort to microchip them.

There has been success in recent years with the introduction of dog control orders, which prevent the movement of dogs on certain areas of land. Those orders are particularly helpful in safeguarding children’s play areas and parks from overly playful dogs that may scare or injure a child. However, dog control orders are at the discretion of the local authority, and there are playgrounds across the country where dogs are still allowed to roam.

When I spoke to Battersea dogs home about the issue of dog control orders, it told me that it was important for a balance to be struck. Of course, it is important that parents can take their children to parks without fear that they may be approached by a dog. However, at the same time, parks are obvious places for dog owners to walk their dogs.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Hackney, three new dog control orders were introduced as of 1 April. Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenge is having the resources to police those orders? Although they send out a signal, without the dog wardens on the ground, they do not have as much value as we may think.

[Chris Evans]

Absolutely. Unless dog control orders can be enforced and policed, they do not mean anything.

Therefore, instead of dog control orders, the Government could have followed the example of the Scottish Government who have introduced dog control notices. The Northern Ireland Assembly has also introduced control notices as a way of monitoring the behaviour of dog owners.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman dismisses microchipping, but presumably if it were made compulsory with proper enforcement, there is also a case for dogs, particularly dangerous dogs, being confiscated from people who do not have them microchipped.

[Chris Evans]

That is it in a nutshell. If people had dangerous dogs that were not microchipped, they could be confiscated.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the challenge not that, under the Government’s current proposals, microchipping will happen only to new puppies and, therefore, millions of dogs will not be microchipped? We will have to wait years until the entire British dog population has a microchip.

[Chris Evans]

That is why it is important that we follow the Northern Ireland example and have compulsory microchipping.

From speaking to groups such as Dogs Trust, it is clear that their favoured way of introducing legislation is as a preventive measure. They believe that improvement notices should be issued to dog owners rather than notices being linked to pieces of land. Such notices work preventively to ensure that owners take certain steps to control their dog in public, and allow local authorities to force owners to use a muzzle or lead if there is a risk to public safety. A breach of a dog control order is an offence that risks a fine of up to £1,000 and disqualification from owning a dog, but there was nothing about that in the Government’s recent proposals.

Stray dogs are an important issue in any discussion of dangerous dogs legislation, as they are linked directly with dog attacks. Despite that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs considers the control of strays as a local authority matter. With local authority budgets feeling the strain and more local services being cut, the budget for animal welfare is not high on many councils’ list of priorities. Some have merged their animal welfare function with pest control, while others claim that they have no budget at all to deal with stray dogs. The issue has not been dealt with adequately by the Government.

All those major problems still exist despite the Government’s recent proposals. The charities concerned with dangerous dogs legislation that I speak to have been left frustrated by the reluctance of the Government to go further. This was a chance to reform the legislation on dangerous dogs and include preventive measures to stop dog attacks before they start. By introducing compulsory microchipping of all dogs, recorded on a single national database, owners will be encouraged to take responsibility for the behaviour of their dogs. Banning the sale of dogs in newspapers and on the internet and introducing a list of approved breeders would help to prevent the illegal breeding of dogs. With more than 5,000 people hospitalised due to dog attacks in the past two years, it is time the Government realised that the law must change. Sadly, the Government’s proposals look like a missed opportunity.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Owing to the large number of interventions, and as there are seven people on the list who wish to speak, speeches will have to be limited to five minutes.

14:51

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.

As you know, Ms Dorries, the press can sometimes be very cruel. A few years ago, one of my dogs, a pug, won the Westminster dog of the year competition. The Times showed a photograph of the pug and me, and said that the pug was the one on the right. I thought that that was pretty cruel in the circumstances, but I was consequently invited to join the Kennel Club. I think I am one of the few Members of Parliament to be a member of the Kennel Club, so I feel an obligation to speak on this subject.

I agree almost entirely with the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), with one exception. Clearly, we need action to ensure that dogs do not attack people on private land. We need to ensure that it is an offence for dogs to attack other dogs, such as guide dogs. I think that everyone agrees about microchipping. Every organisation—the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and so on—is agreed on that. The only issue is whether microchipping will be compulsory for every dog, or whether to start with puppies and move up. All I ask of those right hon. and hon. Members who say that it should be compulsory to microchip every single dog immediately is that they reflect on the number of cases in each of our constituencies of elderly constituents who will say, “The trauma of taking my elderly dog to be microchipped will be too difficult.” Having every local newspaper carrying such stories about that will soon undermine confidence. I think I am one of the few hon. Members who was here during the progress of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It fell apart like a two bob suit soon after it was implemented because of all its internal contradictions.

[Chris Evans]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising an issue that I missed in my speech. I should have said that if we are to go ahead with compulsory microchipping we should consider some sort of scheme for the elderly, for whom dogs provide great companionship—access to free microchipping, or something similar to the Dogs Trust scheme, which charges £10. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I must apologise for not mentioning it in my speech.

[Tony Baldry]

That is a good point, too. There are a number of issues in any legislation introduced by the Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that will need to be teased out in due course on Second Reading.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Nobody has mentioned the legislation introduced by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which makes provision for elderly people who cannot afford to have their dogs microchipped. Perhaps the Northern Ireland example will be cited by the Minister, who is very knowledgeable on this issue, as a way to bring everybody on board and to not make people feel disadvantaged financially.

[Tony Baldry]

Of course. We will come on to a number of points on Second Reading or in Committee about exemptions and exceptions to compulsory microchipping of the entire dog population.

Universal, compulsory microchipping is not the immediate panacea that it appears to be. There are complexities that need to be teased out during the course of debate on any Bill. I hope that whatever legislation is introduced will be more enduring than the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—I think everyone agrees on that. If we start microchipping puppies, because they are easy to identify and so on, there is nothing to stop local authorities and other organisations, such as the Dogs Trust, encouraging people to microchip their own dogs. Indeed, if strays are taken in, they might be given to owners on the understanding that they undertake to microchip them immediately.

I think the whole House agrees on the need to take action to prevent dogs attacking people on private property, and to stop them attacking guide dogs. I think that everyone agrees on the need for microchipping. However, having gone through all the difficulties of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we need to ensure that we get the next piece of legislation right. That will require us to work hard on the detail of any Bill that is introduced.

14:56

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.

I welcome the debate and come to it with a number of interests. As a criminal defence solicitor for more than 14 years, I have defended many a so-called dangerous dog and have seen for myself the failings of the legislation. The winners are either the lawyers or the animal experts who deal with the not so simple issue of whether a pit bull is a pit bull. I have employed the wisdom of many such an expert in many a long trial. The legislation often fails the victims of the attacks that we have heard so much about.

I have a more immediate interest in the debate, as two weeks ago my Labrador was attacked in our local park by a Staffordshire bull terrier. My Labrador ended up in the local animal hospital. My family were around at the time. Thankfully it was only the dog who was attacked, and no one else. I have great respect for Staffies, which are great family pets, and I do not wish to demonise them. Indeed, it is important not to demonise breeds—sadly, a result of previous legislation. The owner of the Staffy had said, “He may look ferocious, but he is a lovely family pet and no problem at all.” No sooner had he said that then his dog set upon our Labrador.

The owner was shocked that his dog was capable of the attack, which reminds us that the heart of the debate is responsible dog ownership. Any dog is capable—given the moment, time or provocation—of causing injury. There needs to be particular responsibility for some breeds, such as some terriers and Staffies. That is why this issue goes far beyond legislation into our culture and attitude towards dogs. We all know that in many cases we are dealing with a dangerous owner rather than a dangerous dog, and we need to find ways to tackle the issue.

I also speak on behalf of my constituents. Increasingly typical in the constituencies represented in the Chamber, particularly in London, are a growing number of so-called status dogs roaming around parks without proper responsible ownership. Many of our constituents, whether families with young children or responsible dog owners, will not go into parks because they are worried about being attacked. That is unacceptable and we need to do something about it.

[Caroline Nokes]

I want to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to some work done by the Dogs Trust over the past few years encouraging responsible dog ownership, improving education and particularly working with disadvantaged young men to encourage them to have their dogs neutered and microchipped, and to learn how to handle them. Better education has a massive role to play.

[Mr Burrowes]

I pay tribute to the work of the Dogs Trust, which works locally alongside owners, housing associations, police, schools and across the board to carry out projects, including pilots that need to be extended. In Enfield, in the Parkguard project, two dedicated parks officers make it their business to encounter intimidating-looking dogs—and intimidating owners, probably—and work with them to try to encourage them and teach them how to handle their dog properly. More of that needs to happen.

We need a change in legislation. As a lawyer, I welcome the extension to the definition of private places, having argued the case over whether a place is private or public. I heard recently from the council leader in Enfield that, during the London elections, a German shepherd opened a door into a yard and attacked a canvasser, seriously injuring their arm. That change is needed and makes sense, as does microchipping. The measures must be dealt with proportionately but carefully. Local discretion needs to be inbuilt to enable more dogs—not just puppies—to be chipped.

This is a good start. As a lawyer, I know that identity is a key issue. Many an argument has been had about who really owns a dog and we should not underestimate that issue. However, it is important to go beyond legislation, into prevention. That is why local projects are good. We can develop a general culture about how we handle our dogs carefully.

This is still a nation of dog lovers. However, we must recognise that the nation has changed over the years, especially in London, with different cultures comprising our metropolis. In my patch, for example, many people in the Turkish community have a particular view about dogs, which are not traditionally regarded as pets. We need to show respect and develop people’s education early on, so that they understand how to look after dogs carefully and own them, so that we can truly be a nation of dog lovers.

15:01

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)on securing today’s debate, which is timely given the Government’s recent announcements. I apologise, Ms Dorries, because I will not be able to stay for the end of the debate; I have to leave early to attend a meeting with a Minister on a constituency matter.

All hon. Members in this Chamber know about irresponsible dog ownership: we see it at first hand in our constituencies. The British Medical Journal estimates that every year in the UK, 250,000 people are bitten by dogs. Since 2006, six children have tragically lost their lives in dog attacks, including the tragic death in 2009 of John Paul Massey in my constituency. Some 400 telecoms workers and more than 6,000 postal workers are attacked by dogs every year in the course of their work.

It is not just people who are victims. Hon. Members have mentioned dogs attacking other dogs. Some 100 instances of guide dogs being attacked by other dogs were reported to the Guide Dogs charity last year, affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I shall ask the Minister three questions in the light of the recent announcement by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and of the announcement by the Home Office yesterday on antisocial behaviour. First, I welcome DEFRA’s statement on extending the law to cover attacks on private property. With 70% of dog attacks taking place in a private home or garden, it is important that the law is extended. However, I am keen that the Minister should say when those measures will be put into force. Will we have to wait until the consultation on microchipping has ended before the law is extended to cover private property? The Government should not wait. I should like them to act now.

I am keen that the Minister should lay out a timetable for the coming into force of the proposals announced yesterday by the Home Office and say what steps he will take to ensure that that proceeds with all urgency. It is vital that, having made such commitments, they are brought in as soon as possible. Every day, we read newspaper stories about attacks in the UK. Delay leaves the public at further risk.

Secondly, with regard to resourcing, including cuts to policing, I am concerned about how effective the DEFRA announcements will be without proper enforcement. Changing policy and giving enforcement agencies the powers that they should have had for a long time is one thing, but it is equally important that the police and others have the resources to enforce the law and deliver results on the ground. Under the 20% police budget cuts, some 16,000 police officers will be taken off our streets. In Liverpool, that will translate to 350 police officers by 2015, which will leave our police force in Merseyside stretched.

What is the Minister’s, and his Department’s, assessment of the impact of police cuts on the enforcement of the new dangerous dogs legislation? What work has the Department done with the Home Office to ensure that, despite the cuts, police forces will still be adequately equipped to tackle irresponsible dog ownership? Thirdly and finally, on compensation to victims, I hope that the Minister is aware that the Ministry of Justice proposes to end criminal injuries compensation scheme payments to dog attack victims in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. Only in cases where the dog is purposefully set upon a victim will CICS claims be allowed in future. That means that in cases where the dog owner is uninsured and has no money or assets, postal workers and children who suffer horrific injuries will receive no compensation from any source. Will the minister confirm that this is so? If he cannot, will he engage with colleagues at the MOJ on that?

[Mr Burrowes]

Does the hon. Lady know about the recent and welcome criminal justice legislation, which gives a presumption of compensation for all victims of crime that will extend, particularly in respect of the legislation to cover private property, to most people who are victims of dog attacks? We must prosecute these people and get them before the courts, then people will receive the proper compensation.

[Luciana Berger]

As I said earlier, I welcome the Government’s extension of the legislation to cover private property, which hon. Members from all parties have been calling for for a long time. However, if such an attack happens and the owner does not have any assets, under the new proposals advanced by the Ministry of Justice, they will have no recourse to compensation, except in the specific instance where a dog is purposefully set on a victim, as outlined in the document. I am concerned that, under the proposals, someone who sustains an injury—a child or a postal worker—will not be eligible for any criminal compensation, even if there is a prosecution. That text is buried right at the end of the document. I can share a copy of it with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, if he would like to see it. I hope that the Minister responds to the specific points that I have made about the timetable, about the police being able to enforce the new legislation, and about criminal injuries compensation.

15:07

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this stimulating debate and on the measured, thoughtful way in which he introduced the topic.

I cannot compete with some of the horror stories that have been mentioned, but no politician is far from this issue. This year, I was accosted by two amiable Alsatians that did not quite wish me to canvass the house that I had intended to visit. In my constituency this year, a councillor has been bitten and a caseworker has lost part of a finger. Hon. Members might like to speak to my good friend the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr Benton), who to this day bears the marks of a serious attack by dogs.

Fundamentally, the problem is dogs’ bad behaviour, but that is associated with the problem of neglect and poor training, which is worsened a great deal by the contemporary cult of the status dog, which people use as a potential deterrent or threat. Hitherto, the resolution, which has been fairly straightforward, has been to ban so-called uncontrollable, savage dogs that are naturally disinclined to behave themselves in a civilised fashion. The view has also been that owners of dogs that are out of control should be charged by the courts, and guidelines have been issued in that regard over time. There is general consensus that such measures are not sufficient and that more is needed.

All hon. Members have acknowledged the fact that we cannot legislate for the genuinely unpredictable. Occasionally, even well-behaved dogs go beserk and do strange, unpredictable things, even if owners wish them not to do so. Hon. Members are probably aware of such cases. However, much of what people are anxious about is, sadly, predictable. The fundamental drive behind all our contributions today is the desire to see dog owners made more genuinely responsible for their dogs. Otherwise—something suggested to me by police dog handlers—there ought to be some restriction on who can own certain sorts of dogs. That idea was put to me seriously by a man who has had a lot of experience breeding dogs and working with the police with dogs. If we do not allow someone with a criminal record of some length to own firearms and the like, why would we allow him to own a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog?

That is a separate point from the drive to increase owner responsibilities, and I have no particular view on which of a number of different suggestions along that line would be best. I favour microchipping, but one might want to look at insurance, which has not been mentioned so far; at obliging owners to muzzle or keep dogs on a lead; and at neutering certain dogs, if they are to be owned in certain circumstances, almost as a precondition of sale, although none of that gets around the issue that is dogging the whole affair, which is the problem of genuinely irresponsible owners. They do not even shoulder their current responsibilities and, if asked to do more, will discard the animals that they have taken on. There seems to be a lot of evidence that that is happening—a large number of Staffordshire bull terriers end up in pounds throughout the land and are destroyed. The other day, the average life expectancy of a Staffordshire bull terrier was cited as about four years, because people take them on but discard them when they become troublesome.

I am genuinely convinced that the threshold for the ownership and breeding of dogs needs to be raised, either generally or for specific breeds, but that will only be an effective remedy if coupled with sensible plans for realistic enforcement. Without enforcement, no proposal will be worth while, but there is the question of how enforcement will be funded, which drives us back to the issue of whether a licence is a viable idea.

15:11

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries—for the first time, I believe.

It is almost exactly two years since I made my maiden speech to a half-full Chamber—or half-empty, depending on how we look at it—and one of the issues that I highlighted was that of dangerous dogs, largely because as a candidate in the few years running up to the election so many cases had been brought to my attention.

Two years on, we seem to be making some progress, which I am delighted about, but we are not there yet, and I welcome some of the measures that the Government are at last proposing. Top of the list has to be extending protection to private land, with appropriate exemptions if dogs are protecting property from illegal forced entry or whatever. For far too long, many of our hard-working postal workers, delivery staff, carers and health visitors—the list goes on—have not been protected by the law from dog attacks if those occur on private land.

As I pointed out in a previous speech, it is patently ridiculous that at the moment, if a hand puts something through a letterbox and gets bitten by a dog on the other side, that would not attract any prosecution but, if it was the owner of the house who was sitting behind the door and bit the hand, that would. Such a situation seems rather ridiculous, but is at last being remedied, although I understand that we are still awaiting a change in the law to allow such prosecutions to take place. I hope that that will happen soon—it cannot happen too fast, in my view.

I am also pleased that we are consulting on microchipping, and I have listened with interest to some of the remarks about that. We need to find the right balance; there is the issue of pushing for full implementation to further the cause of responsible ownership, but I do not want to see elderly grannies with their 14-year-old poodles being marched down to wherever it is and told that they must get their animals microchipped at that late stage. I hope I am making clear my point about the need for balance.

The most sensible course is to start with young pups that are taken to vets for early health checks. A decent percentage of people already microchip their animals, but there will always be that law-ignoring minority who will simply take no notice. We can get our numbers up, however, by encouraging early microchipping. Local authorities could do something to help by using their tenancy agreements to insist that animals living in council properties are microchipped.

The most difficult problem to tackle, but also one of the most urgent—certainly in my constituency—is irresponsible owners who use their dogs to menace their local community, hanging around in parks or on streets. Police are often reluctant to intervene, unless there is a clear-cut case of an unprovoked attack in which someone is badly injured. Even attacks on other pets do not seem to be a reason for police to interfere.

[Jim Shannon]

I want to make a point salient to the issue of people who hang about in parks with dogs. Another such issue is with gangs who hang about with dogs, and a multiplicity of people with dogs is a real threat—if we see them, right away we are fearful. Do we now have the chance to address that?

[Angie Bray]

That absolutely needs addressing. Often, too, drug dealers use dogs to protect them in their trade. Yes, indeed, we need to look at how we can break such gangs up. In fact, I was about to say that the Home Office is bringing forward some new measures that can help.

First, I like the suggestion of an acceptable behaviour order, which could enable the police or other agencies to require someone whose dog is proving to be a menace to sign up to certain conditions, such as muzzling the dog, having it on a lead or accepting some education from, for instance, the Dogs Trust or the RSPCA about proper dog ownership; if the owners do not fulfil what they sign up to, they are left open to further penalties. We would be getting involved with such people early on, hopefully before serious injuries happened. I like the early intervention possibilities and how owners are put on notice that, if they do not start looking after their dog properly, they could be in trouble.

We are also looking at something called the community trigger, which allows concerned residents to insist that the police or other agencies take action after three complaints. Again, that could involve people who are consistently worried about a gang of people hanging around with a threatening dog in a particular park. There are also criminal behaviour orders, which I understand could be attached to those convicted of certain crimes, including violence, and which could in certain circumstances ban someone unsuitable from being in control of a dog in a public place. That will all help, and the tougher sentencing guidelines are also welcome, although belated.

Finally, I want to flag up something that can make a difference in the medium to long term: local authorities getting much more involved in enforcing housing tenancy agreements, which seek to control pets in council properties. Wandsworth has led the way, and my own local authority of Ealing has also been setting up new agreements, although I am told that those are yet to be properly enforced; I have raised the issue with the council and been reassured that it is being looked at. Obviously, it makes no sense to adopt a new policy if it is not then implemented. I would like to see London councils and the Greater London assembly do much more to push those new housing tenancy agreements, which could make a real difference.

In conclusion, real progress is being made at last, which I welcome, but there is more to do, in particular to ensure that new measures are properly implemented and enforced. We need to remember the dreadful attacks on young children, as well as on many others such as postal workers, that go unreported. There are no guarantees, but we should be minimising the chances.

15:18

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. Congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate.

I simply wish to echo some of the points made by my colleagues from London who have spoken already, in particular about gangs and dogs used as weapons. I quote from one of the e-mails that I have received from a constituent:

“I no longer come across normal breeds now”—

this is his impression—

“just staffies and pit bull types. They are everywhere! In the parks where small children play, the dogs are hung on to the trees to strengthen the jaws. They are walked around by intimidating owners and quite frankly it is an epidemic.”

That is only one e-mail, but in the time that I have been an MP I have had a number of constituents contacting me, in particular people who are fearful even of going out of their front door, let alone into a park, because of the aggressive behaviour of some owners, with their deliberate training of dogs to be aggressive and weapon-like.

Hackney council has sought to deal with the problem in a number of ways. It, too, has introduced some controls into the tenancy agreement on the number of pets that people own, although that alone is not a solution. Any irresponsible owner will find ways around most of those measures, which is a point that we must all bear in mind.

As a result of situations such as the one I cited, Hackney council has introduced three new dog control orders, which came into effect from April. One is a dog exclusion order, which enables the council to stop dogs entering certain areas, including children’s playgrounds, sports courts, multi-use games areas and marked pitches when games are in play.

A second order requires dogs to be on leads and prohibits owners from exercising their dogs off the lead on roads, in small parks and gardens, on the canal towpath and in car parks and churchyards. That is an example of how irresponsible dog ownership has affected responsible dog owners. Many dog owners are quite able to control their dog on the canal towpath or in churchyards, for instance, without causing a problem for children at play or other adults. Hackney has felt the need to introduce the orders because of the fear factor and some irresponsible dog owners. We will see how that plays out, but it is a worry to me that we must go that way. I still welcome the move, however, at this point.

A third order requires dogs to be on leads when a request is made to owners. That gives officers the power to request that dogs should be put on leads if they are not under appropriate control or if they are causing damage or acting aggressively. That latter point is the most important, but the key issue, of course, with the new or even with existing powers, is enforcement. We already have the powers in Hackney to issue fines for dog fouling in public, for instance, but when I talk to constituents about that there is a certain cynicism about the likelihood of enforcement. Some of the people who are intent on using their dogs as weapons will not be where the dog wardens are. If they see the dog wardens, they will tend to disappear.

Good dog owners will do all the things that are required anyway. I am in favour of microchipping and think that the arguments have been well put today. Microchipping is a good thing. On its own, it is not a solution; it is something that good owners will do, but the bad owners, who breed and sell, will not play that game.

There have been proposals about exclusive dog breeders, and about being able to buy only from some licensed dog breeders. I would be wary of that approach, which it seems to me would create a sort of cartel. It would be difficult to control what happened, especially in rural areas where dogs are born without being, shall I say, planned and bred in the same way as elsewhere. I mean that I know farmers here who tell me that one in seven dogs is likely to become a sheep dog; they do not know which, when they are born, so of course they tend not to keep them all.

I welcome the fact that Hackney has taken on such important powers; however, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has made some sensible and reasonable points about what Parliament needs to do. There is clearly cross-party support for some measures, but we need to work, as the hon. Gentleman said, on ensuring that the Bill is put together properly. We have seen what seemed like the benefits of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. There was a lot of support for it. The danger is that we chase the headlines and pick up the bad examples, without thinking of the consequences.

We need to tease through every consequence to see what the impact will be on different areas of our constituencies, and on our constituents. It may be early for the Minister to reflect on this, but there can be a danger of including in primary legislation things that can be changed only with further primary legislation. The legislation may need to be adapted for the future use of dogs, and we need it to enable minor changes to be made through regulation, once the basic principles are established. That will give the Government and Parliament the freedom to change the law and adapt and adjust it as new breeds come to fruition, or as people try to use dogs in new ways. I feel strongly about that. We cannot wait for primary legislation if we do not get things right, or the situation changes.

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome the points that the hon. Lady has made, about things that affect London communities as well as the rest of the country.

The Government have made a proposal about kennelling costs, and ways to make the action that is taken proportionate. I know as a solicitor how long dogs effectively await trial. The cost of that, just in London, is £2.75 million. If we can deal proportionately with dogs that will not be a risk, that must be welcome. If dogs are a risk they need to be on bail conditions, so to speak, of muzzling and a lead, and so forth.

[Meg Hillier]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was just about to move on to the issue of the cost of kennelling. Responsible owners—and irresponsible ones—can contribute to that, but it is a cost to Londoners, and I think the money would be better spent on enforcement. We need to consider all the consequences. At the moment, because of the breed-based nature of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is difficult for the police to establish what they need to, and it takes them a long time. In my constituency there are higher priorities for police funding than kennelling, so we need to think about how the issue is tackled.

We clearly have a cross-party consensus and agree that we want to proceed positively. I hope that the Minister will take our suggestions in good part, and work with me and others who have an interest in ensuring that responsible dog owners can enjoy their dogs, and that other people will not be made afraid because of those who are irresponsible.

15:24

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for securing the debate.

It is good to have the Minister here. We are all very much in favour of microchipping, and I want to ask him about the database in particular. Microchipping is all very well, but the database must be right and it must work. The information must be correct. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs launched its inquiry at Battersea yesterday, and we found out that for a third of microchipped dogs the information is not accurate or up to date.

It is right to make sure that we have an accurate database. When a puppy is sold, the first owner or breeder must be responsible for ensuring that the information about where the dog then goes is correct. Thereafter, somewhat as with the licensing of a car, it is possible to follow the dog through its life. Otherwise it will disappear off the database. The idea is also good from a breeding point of view. It will make it possible to be sure that the breeding is correct, without in-breeding or the breeding of bad aspects into a certain breed of dog—so that the buyer gets a healthy dog. From all those points of view, the proposal is a good thing.

People always say, however, that the law works for the law-abiding, and we must be careful that we do not just make it more onerous for the law-abiding to get their dogs microchipped. We need to be able to tackle the other dogs out there, whose owners will never want to have them microchipped.

As to problems with postal workers and social workers, if someone is inviting someone to push a letter through their door and knows that their dog is likely to bite the person who puts it through, they are responsible for the dog and should take action so that that does not happen. The same is true if a social worker comes into their house. That is a key point. As a farmer, I know that occasionally—and this would be more difficult in law—a dog that has never turned before will turn suddenly. That will probably make for interesting cases, and we cannot get everything right, although we must try to.

I want to mention status dogs, quickly. Having looked around Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, it is clear to me—in relation to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—that breed-specific legislation does not work, for the simple reason that, as we were told, some of the cross-bred dogs that are now being bred weigh 8 stone. We can imagine that once a dog of that kind has been trained to be vicious, it will be a hell of a weapon. To be blunt, that is what some criminal elements do: they breed those dogs in the back streets, and train them to be vicious weapons. The other problem is that if they abandon those dogs, most of them are so vicious that they cannot be rehabilitated and rehomed: there is a death sentence on those dogs, because of the way they are brought up.

It is not often the dogs that are to blame—it is the individual or gangs who bring them up. That is probably the most difficult aspect of the measures to get right. There is currently law enabling the police to act in relation to dangerous dogs. We need to be able to allow the RSPCA and others to take up the cudgels. We need to act when a dog is obviously starting to get vicious, when that is obvious from the way that it is being taken around—whether the owner is hanging around the parks with it, or whatever they are doing—and from the behaviour of the dog and the people around it. Even before the dog has viciously bitten anyone, that is the time to pounce on it, and at least try to get it microchipped, so that a link back can be traced. In films where gangs use such dogs as weapons, the one great advantage that they have is the fact that the dog cannot be traced back to an individual member of the gang.

[Meg Hillier]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if aggressive behaviour is witnessed by the police they should have the power in law to enforce microchipping of the dogs? I would support that; it might tackle some of the irresponsible dog owners that we agreed about.

[Neil Parish]

That is exactly what I am suggesting, because we must try to take action. If someone has been bitten, or a dog has been used as a weapon—as an attack dog—we have failed. If we get hold of the dogs before that happens, and link them to their owners, those owners who want to use them as a weapon will be much less likely to be able to do so. We must send a clear message to those people that the situation cannot continue. It destroys not just our society, but many healthy dogs who should not have ended up as they did. I strongly believe that in most cases it is the fault not of the dog, but of the way in which it was brought up. That is why we must pin the dog to those who perpetrate the problem.

I know that it is difficult to get everything right, but I urge the Minister to ensure that we have an accurate database that will continue into the future, that we target not breeds but the behaviour of dogs, and, most importantly, that we make sure that when dogs are used as a weapon we use all the powers we have to link them back to their owners so that they can be properly prosecuted. That will send the message to everyone else.

15:31

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

I am the organising secretary of the Communications Workers Union group of liaison MPs, and I am proud of that. I compliment the CWU’s Bite Back campaign, which has put some steel into the issue since 2008—particularly Dave Joyce, who is the health and safety officer. Trade unions do good work for people.

Some 23,000 postal workers have been attacked by dogs in the past four years, and 6,000 go to hospital for treatment every year because they have been seriously attacked by dogs. Twelve deaths have been recorded in the UK since 2005—seven children and five adults. Nothing that we do is good enough if another life is lost. I have here a photograph of Lena Gane, a postman who was attacked by a dog in Bristol on Thursday 3 May 2012, and whose hand was almost severed. That is not uncommon for postal workers and other direct-contact public workers.

The union’s assessment of the present consultation is that it is yet another fudge, and a missed opportunity. A two-year consultation has just finished, and there are no proposals other than to consider extending the legislation to dogs on private property.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) mentioned microchipping. If people were compelled to microchip and insure their dogs, they would think twice about buying a dog and the responsibility involved. The Dogs Trust says that too many dogs are given as presents and then abandoned. Some, having not been controlled and trained, become a problem for the owner and the public, but many are kept on as family pets. I have seen someone in the park across the road from where I live releasing a dog—an Alsatian or German Shepherd—when children were playing in the small child’s play park. I quake when I see that, because no one knows what that dog will do, no matter how good the owner is.

It is important to put on the record the measures that the Bite Back campaign wants. Until they are granted, the Government—any Government, because the campaign started in 2008 under the previous Government—will be under pressure from those who want the problem solved. The campaign says that those measures should include UK-wide consolidated and strengthened dog control legislation, not tinkering, to prevent attacks on children and the general public, postal and telecom workers, and other public-contact workers who may go to places where there is a dog.

There should be dog control legislation that applies everywhere, including on private property. Preventive dog control notices, which exist in Scotland, should be introduced. The fudge of a wrap-around general control order will not do. The notices must be specific, as in Scotland and, I believe, Northern Ireland. All dogs should be compulsorily microchipped, so that people who take on a dog know that that will be recorded. I accept the good points that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made about the database being kept up to date and compulsory. That happens for cars, and if someone forgets to make a statutory off road notification, they are fined. I know farmers who have been fined for having cars abandoned in their fields, because they forgot to register that they had been abandoned.

There should be compulsory third party insurance cover for dogs and better criminal compensation orders. The Government must reverse their appalling proposal that people will not receive criminal injuries compensation if they are attacked by a dog when someone has been proven to be irresponsible with the dog. There should be good local authority dog wardens with powers for them and the police to intervene immediately if they think a situation needs investigation, and to have the dog removed.

There should be harsher sentences by the courts for irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs. There should be better information and education, but the question is how much should be spent to get that education. It should be compulsory for people to train and control their dogs. There should be large public information campaigns to persuade people not to take on dogs if they are not willing to be responsible for them in every situation, and to generate compliance.

The Bite Back campaign is supported not just by the postal workers, but by all law enforcement agencies, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Kennel Club, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Veterinary Association. That is a large body of opinion. Some 250,000 people are bitten by a dog every year. That means a lot of dogs that are not controlled. Some of the bites are severe, as we heard from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax)—he has now left the Chamber—who told us about a young girl who was bitten in the face. The problem is common and endemic, and the Government have a duty to do something about it.

It was wrong to make the existing legislation breed specific, and I have said that time and again. We must do better, do it right, and do it all.

15:36

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on relating to us in graphic and harrowing detail the incident that inspired him to apply for this debate. It is rare to hear a contribution that warrants an 18 certificate.

The debate provides a timely opportunity to discuss the Government’s policy on tackling irresponsible dog ownership and strengthening dog control. It is worth saying at the outset that if the Government get this right, they will have our full support. It may be appropriate to mention briefly a former colleague. Until 2010, Joan Humble was the Labour MP for Blackpool North and Fleetwood. Last month, while campaigning for a Labour candidate, the tip of her wedding ring finger was bitten off when she posted a leaflet through a letter box. I know that the House will want to send its best wishes to her for a speedy recovery.

I note from a report on the BBC news website that the esteemed Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), began her political career by being bitten by an Alsatian during an early campaign, but I am sure that she has now recovered from that.

The Government announced their proposals to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership on 23 April. Before speaking about them in more depth, I want to pay tribute to the work of two organisations that have already been mentioned and which have done some outstanding work in this field. First, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association spends up to £50,000 to train a single dog to a high enough standard to serve a blind person, yet every week those animals are subject to vicious attacks by aggressive dogs on the public highway, often dogs that are nominally under the control of their owners. Those attacks frequently result in the guide dog being injured, and even retired. By nature and training, they are passive animals, and their first instinct is to protect their owners, not themselves. Yet criminal sanctions against irresponsible dog owners are very rare, leaving guide dogs and their owners constantly at risk without the protection of the law. I hope that in his response the Minister will give a commitment to address that injustice.

Secondly, I pay tribute to the Communication Workers Union, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has already referred, and to the Bite Back campaign spearheaded by its national health, safety and environment officer, Dave Joyce. The union has welcomed the recently reviewed sentencing guidelines for dog attacks, but makes the serious point that in future the law must apply to private property as that is where 70% of dog attacks on postal workers take place. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not cover attacks that take place on private property, which means that traumatised and vulnerable victims are forced to seek recourse through the civil courts. Like Guide Dogs for the Blind, the CWU is concerned at the low level of convictions as a result of attacks. If the Government intend to extend the law on that issue—and I understand that they do—I hope that there will be no further delay.

In government, Labour recognised that there were problems with the existing legislation on dangerous dogs, and in March 2010 we began a consultation on tightening the law. We worked with the police, veterinarians, canine and animal welfare groups and trade unions on a range of powers needed to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners. That consultation ended in June 2010, but it took nearly two years for the coalition Government to respond. During that time, more than 5,000 patients were admitted to hospital because of injuries caused by dog attacks in England and Wales, and nearly 10,000 postal workers were injured by domestic dogs. Each month, more than seven guide dogs have been, and continue to be, attacked by dogs that are out of control. Those figures are startling enough, but over the past year, police forces in England and Wales have spent more than £3 million on kennelling dogs that have been seized under the 1991 Act.

Between 2004-05 and 2010, the number of out-of-control dogs seized by the Metropolitan Police Authority rose from 27 to more than 1,100. Scotland and Northern Ireland have already implemented their own dog control laws, and Wales is reviewing the issue—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn is taking a close interest. There have been many traumatic and violent attacks over the past two years, most recently the case of five Metropolitan police officers who were savagely attacked by a dog, curiously enough named “Poison”, as they attempted to arrest its owner. My hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) heard at first hand a horrifying testimony from the father of a little girl from Chingford whose ear had been chewed off in an unrestrained dog attack in a public park.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk pointed out, about 20 organisations, including the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Kennel Club, the CWU, the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers, want the Government to live up to the Prime Minister’s promise to target irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs. Labour, and all those affected by dog attacks, also want to see that promise fulfilled. This is about promoting responsible dog ownership and tackling irresponsible, incompetent and sometimes outright dangerous owners, as well as about the dogs themselves.

On 14 March 2012, my shadow ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, wrote to the Secretary of State stating:

“I can assure you that Labour will support any measures that support animal welfare charities, unions, the Police and others in preventing unnecessary dog attacks and tackling the scourge of irresponsible dog ownership.”

Sadly, however, the proposals announced last month fell overwhelmingly short of expectations, and there were few who welcomed them with any vigour or delight. We have noted the announcements in the White Paper on antisocial behaviour, and I will return to that shortly.

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the CWU, summed up the mood perfectly when he questioned why there was another delay caused by yet another consultation. He said:

“We’ve had a comprehensive consultation, there’s cross-party support, now we need action.”

The chief executive of the RSPCA, Gavin Grant, said that the proposals “lack bite”, although I do not know whether the pun was intended. Claire Horton, chief executive of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, said that the proposals were a “wasted opportunity”, and Clarissa Baldwin, chief executive of Dogs Trust, claimed that the Government are

“just tinkering round the edges.”

We welcome the extension—albeit delayed—of the law to cover attacks on private property, and the Government are making the right noises about a phased introduction of microchipping. However, the fact that we are to have more consultations has been criticised heavily, not least in the debate today, and there is no clear timetable for the implementation of the proposals. Furthermore, there is nothing in DEFRA’s proposals to help prevent dog attacks.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. I shall try to be brief and I hope that he will address these points today. If not, I hope that he will make a commitment to write to me with the answers. A new and additional consultation on microchipping has been announced. When will that end and when will the proposals be put into action? It is only right that the Minister makes clear the timetable for implementation. There are four existing microchip databases. Will the Minister explain how it will be made easier for law enforcement agencies, vets, animal welfare charities and dog wardens to cut through that confusion? Will the databases be streamlined, and will there be any compulsion for bodies to co-operate and share information?

As we know, information currently stored on dog microchips is often out of date. Owners have passed away or moved on and not informed the database, or else they simply deny that the dog is theirs. What measures will the Minister introduce to ensure that microchips are updated on a regular basis, and that the last recorded owners take responsibility for their dog? If the legislation is not tightened up, then short of being useful for restoring dogs to responsible owners, the database will do nothing to tackle irresponsible owners.

What discussions has the Minister had with animal welfare charities and others to make microchipping low-cost or zero-cost, and to make it apply beyond registered breeders, thereby driving programmes into other areas where the benefits of and need for microchipping and wider animal welfare advice are clear? What effect will the proposals for microchipping puppies from legitimate registered dog breeders have on the wider issue of unregistered or back-street breeders, surplus puppies from accidental litters, and the sale of puppies on the internet? Does the Minister accept that a large part of the ownership problem, and the tide of untraceable dogs that wash up in animal welfare charities, is unlikely to be affected simply by microchipping the products of registered puppy farms? The proposals are a welcome development, but how will they deal with the wider issue? The extension of the law on dangerous dogs to cover private property will require changes to primary legislation. When and how will that be done? We need certainty and clarity, neither of which has been forthcoming in ministerial announcements or in the Queen’s Speech.

The broad coalition of groups to which I have referred made a specific demand for measures that will prevent attacks from taking place. Such measures would reduce the costs of kennelling and euthanasia, thousands and thousands of NHS treatments in A and E units and GP surgeries, as well as days of work lost by front-line workers. Part of that is to do with early intervention and educating owners about responsible ownership. The limited programme that the Minister has announced is welcome but it is pygmy-esque given the scale of intervention required.

The Home Office White Paper on antisocial behaviour includes proposals that are aimed at tackling irresponsible dog ownership. The Home Office has rejected any dog-specific power, but stated that it will continue to work with relevant groups, including the police, in finalising proposals that will be of maximum benefit in dealing with dog-related antisocial behaviour. We are studying the proposals closely, but will the Minister guarantee that they will not become a dodgy doggy ASBO to be flouted and ignored? Many people want to see specific dog control notices. Does the Minister know why the Home Office rejected that idea?

What discussions has the Minister had with Home Office colleagues about these proposals, and does he know how acceptable behaviour order and community protection notices will be enforced? Has he made any assessment of what impact the proposals will have in preventing dog attacks? Does he know how many attacks will be prevented, and can he assure us that Ministers across his Department and the Home Office are working collaboratively to tackle out-of-control dogs and irresponsible dog ownership? In short, are Ministers barking up the same tree? [Interruption.]—Yes, I apologise.

We need joined-up government to make safety on the streets a reality, and I urge the Government to listen to the views of those who have come together to promote responsible dog ownership. Most importantly, I urge the Minister to get on with implementing the measures and put them in place as soon as possible.

15:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

It is a great pleasure to respond to this excellent debate and there have been some good contributions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for raising this important issue with such commitment, and for continuing an ongoing dialogue on the issue. I entirely recognise the points that he raises. I pay tribute to the many organisations to which he referred: Guide Dogs for the Blind, the Communication Workers Union, the Dogs Trust and, of course, Battersea dogs home, which he recently visited.

There were other very powerful contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) pointed out the limitations of what many people—some of our constituents and some Members of this House—see as a panacea for solving this problem. Microchipping is only a partial solution. As was said in a number of interventions, it does not deal with the fact that unfortunately there will always be some people who fail to comply. The law can go only so far in catching them.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who informed hon. Members that she had to leave the debate to go to a meeting, which of course we understand, asked some specific questions that were also asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). Incidentally, I should have started by congratulating him on his position and saying that I look forward to working with him. This issue is not my primary responsibility—it is, of course, Lord Taylor of Holbeach’s responsibility—but I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on it and many others. The hon. Lady asked when the measures would be brought in, as did the hon. Gentleman. The introduction of microchipping would involve secondary legislation—an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The elements of the measures that have been announced that would see current controls extending to private property and that relate to the requirements for kennelling and a number of other areas would involve primary legislation. I have no date for when those measures could be brought in, but we consider them urgent and hope that they can be brought in as quickly as possible.

The hon. Lady also raised the question of police resources. I can only say that these are local priority issues and will undoubtedly feature in the work of the new police and crime commissioners. When my neighbouring MP was Boris Johnson, we conducted a campaign with Thames Valley police on dog theft. We got that horrible crime treated as much more of a priority by the police force. It allocated resources and has done good work. A similar approach is being taken by other police forces. I know that hon. Members are still working hard with certain police forces to try to move this issue up the scale of their priorities. There will continue to be a debate and it will happen locally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) is a long-standing campaigner on this issue, and I pay great tribute to her. She is pleased about what is being done, but quite rightly there is an edge to what she says. She wants to push the Government, and I will ensure that we continue to work with her.

There was an excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). One very telling point that she made was about the irresponsible dog owners affecting responsible dog owners. That is entirely right. There are law-abiding people who are dog lovers or who do not have anything to do with dogs but whose lives are made hell by the irresponsible dog owners. Of course, that must remain a priority for us.

I will try to deal with as many points as I can in the few minutes that I have left. I certainly commit to writing to hon. Members if I fail to answer any of the questions put to me. Let us be clear: the announcement of 23 April set out a number of proposals. One is to extend to all places the criminal offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control. That deals with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and a number of others about the terrible attacks that happen in the home and elsewhere that currently are not covered by legislation. The other proposals are: to remove the mandatory requirement that suspected prohibited-type dogs must be seized by the police for at least the duration of the court case; to require all puppies to be microchipped; and to increase the fee to have a dog added to the index of exempted dogs. The proposals are subject to consultation, and we welcome people’s views before the consultation period ends on 15 June. We want to take action as quickly as possible after that.

In addition to the proposals that I have set out, we are taking forward other work that we consider will help to tackle the irresponsible ownership of dogs. A number of initiatives are currently undertaken at local level. Some have been referred to in the debate. Those initiatives are designed to promote more responsible ownership of dogs. The Government welcome that. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been giving great leadership to some of those local initiatives. We want to foster more of those projects and we feel that those who may be interested in setting up projects need to know what works well and in what circumstances. To enable that to happen, DEFRA is funding innovative projects in London and in dog hot spots outside London to provide learning that can be applied more widely.

In the past, one criticism has been a perception that enforcement of the law can vary between police forces, with some forces performing better than others. To redress that, we have already provided funding towards the training of more dog legislation officers—police officers specially trained in the law on dangerous dogs. That can make an enormous difference to a police force that is trying to tackle a problem but does not feel that it has the resources to deal with it. Those additional specialists will help police forces across the country to deal with dangerous dog incidents.

We also provide guidance to the courts, the police and the public on dangerous dogs. We are examining whether that guidance needs to be updated and have started to work with partners to see what changes need to be made.

On 15 May, the Sentencing Council published a new guideline for judges and magistrates on sentencing for dangerous dog offences. For example, the top of the sentencing range for the offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control and injure someone has been increased from six months to 18 months. The Sentencing Council states:

“The new guideline will mean more offenders will face jail sentences, more will get community orders and fewer will receive discharges.”

The new guideline will come into effect on 20 August 2012.

As has been said, the Home Office has published a White Paper—it did so yesterday—containing proposals to simplify the antisocial behaviour toolkit. We have worked closely with the Home Office to ensure that the new antisocial behaviour measures cover irresponsibility with dogs. That includes people who deliberately use their dogs to intimidate other people and those who allow their dogs to stray and cause a nuisance—precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. The Home Office is determined that those types of problem will be dealt with effectively in its proposed changes to the antisocial behaviour toolkit. The Home Office fully recognises the need to ensure that action can be taken to tackle antisocial behaviour problems proactively before they degenerate into more serious incidents, when action may have to be taken under existing dangerous dogs legislation. Many hon. Members have referred to the fact that certain dogs are used as a cover for other forms of criminality. That is of course a very big driver for the police and other law enforcement agencies.

I realise that a number of people wanted to see proposals such as the introduction of dog control notices. I can see why dog control notices may be viewed as a positive and preventive measure. However, I hope that I can reassure everyone that anything that could be achieved through such notices could be achieved through the new antisocial behaviour measures proposed by the Home Office. I see no reason to introduce dog-specific notices. They would not add value to what is already out there.

I hope that hon. Members will take the time to read the White Paper. It sets out a range of ways in which practitioners could use the new powers to deal with irresponsible dog owners, from using informal measures to deal with problems early, to taking proactive action through a community protection notice to tell an irresponsible owner exactly what he needs to do or else, and using the crime prevention injunction or criminal behaviour order to deal with more serious cases.

I understand that there is considerable support for microchipping to be applied to all dogs. Our consultation on microchipping includes four options, but our preferred option is to microchip puppies as opposed to all dogs. The Government consider that there should be a balance between linking dogs back to breeders and not imposing a burden on all existing dog owners. Many points were raised about the data and where they are held. There will be a real onus on the vendor of a dog to ensure that the data are changed. There will also be an onus on the purchaser. No one wants liability to remain with them. It is like selling a car.

The Government remain absolutely committed to resolving this problem as best they can. Let us face facts. There will still be dog attacks. Whatever legislation the House introduces, there will still be appalling incidents, but we must do everything that we can to provide the necessary protection to innocent people, who are currently too often the victims of appalling crimes and attacks by dogs that are not managed responsibly by their owners.

Scottish-recruited Units

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

16:00

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

It feels a bit strange to be standing here once again to address the prospects for the Scottish regiments, which we now have to refer to as the Scottish-recruited units. I remember standing in this self-same spot in the first of two debates that I managed to secure to put the case for Scotland’s historic regiments, when the previous Labour Government introduced their amalgamation plans. I remember some of the fantastic speeches and really passionate contributions from Members on both sides of the House, who recognised the incredible community links and associations that our local then regiments had with all our communities and constituencies.

The regiments brought heritage, culture and traditions to our constituencies and communities. More than anything, people recognised the admiration and respect that we all felt towards our regiments for the almost unimaginable task that they did on our behalf and the pride and respect that we had for them for fulfilling their function and making this the best Army set-up anywhere in the world.

In 2004, the Labour Government were the villains. They pushed through their amalgamations in the face of total and overwhelming opposition. I remember the rallies, the demos—the Edinburgh demonstration in December 2004 and the rally in Dundee. People came together to oppose Labour’s amalgamation plans. There were petitions. Usually, if an MP has a petition and is out on the high street, people are reluctant to sign it, but people were queuing to sign the petition to save their local regiment.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the issue goes back to the 1960s? One of my great-grandfathers was a pipe major in the Gordon Highlanders and one of my grandfathers went through the whole of the first world war in the Highland Light Infantry. Both those cap badges have long since disappeared. They were great regiments with great traditions, but their disappearance was not the end of civilisation as we knew it. We have seen amalgamation and changes to cap badges in the Scottish regiments for nearly 50 years.

[Pete Wishart]

It is with great regret that we have lost some of those fantastic regiments. There are ways to do it. Our regimental system is admired across the world, and we mess with it at our peril. We were not successful in retaining the historic Scottish regiments. They were amalgamated and the Royal Regiment of Scotland appeared. We acknowledge that with much regret.

One thing that we secured, an important concession that everyone recognises as valuable, was the idea of a golden thread that would allow the past to knit to the future and allow the former regiments some sort of identity and home within the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

When my hon. Friend speaks about the golden thread, it is not mere history or sentiment. It is essential to recruitment and retention into those geographically recruited units, such as the Black Watch, when recruits come from that area. It is vital for recruitment and retention into units such as that.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is spot on. It is more than history, tradition and culture; it is about community association and links. He and I share a local regiment—the Black Watch. He and I recognise the value and importance of those community links, which are lost at our great peril.

We were not successful in preventing the amalgamation plans. We had the golden thread. Some of us were sceptical: we feared that it might be lost in the greater tapestry of the Royal Regiment of Scotland and that once it was up and running it would develop a history, tradition and momentum of its own. There was also a very great and real fear that some future Government and new Secretary of State for Defence would come along and decide that the golden thread was not worth keeping and do away with it in a new defence review. We have come close to that in the past few weeks.

We have heard all sorts of remarks from the Defence Secretary. He tried to suggest that the golden thread was not valuable or important and that things such as names, cap badges and other insignia associated with the regiments are not worth what we say they are. He said something important:

“The ancient cap badges have largely gone, they are attached in brackets to some unit names”.

With those remarks, he was attempting to say that the legacy of our former regiments was somehow a burden that needed to be addressed and conveniently disposed of in favour of mere numbers. With one stroke of a Whitehall pen, these famous names would cease to exist and be no more.

I do not think that the Defence Secretary understood or appreciated the attachment that we have to our local regiments in Scotland, but after the furore of the past few weeks, he kens noo, as we say in Perthshire. The proposition that the names, cap badges and insignia should be done away with has been received with overwhelming hostility by every sector in the defence community.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

It is the same in Angus, which has a strong attachment to the Black Watch. It is about not only the current members of the regiment, but about thousands of my constituents who have family connections with the regiments that they hold very dear. Part of the thread that ties our regiments to our community is threatened.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot remember the number of veterans we have in Scotland, but it was revealed recently—somewhere in the region of 80,000. There are certainly substantial numbers—all of them determined to protect their former ancient regiments, and quite right too. He is right: the regiments bring history, tradition and culture into the new regiment, and that must be worth maintaining.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also about national identity? In Wales, we face potentially losing the 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards, which recruits, almost uniformly, from Wales and the borders. A regiment’s national identity is also important in giving a coherent community and regional identity.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is correct; there is national identity. The Scottish regiments are called “the Jocks”—it is an affectionate, not demeaning, term. Maintaining national identity within the regiments is important and we must hold on to it.

My local battalion—my Scottish-raised unit—is the Black Watch. The regimental headquarters are in my constituency in Perth. They are currently being developed, Ms Dorries, and I am sure that you would like to know that we will have a fantastic new museum. Come up and visit us. It is a magnificent place.

The Black Watch has just returned from its tour of duty in Afghanistan. Thankfully, this time round, there were no fatalities or casualties, and we are all grateful for that. When the Black Watch returns to Scotland, all sorts of homecoming parades are organised across the recruiting area. There were parades in Dundee, Forfar, Kirkcaldy in Fife and, of course, a huge one in Perth. The streets were thronged. Hundreds of people turned up to show their admiration and respect for the Black Watch, which had come back safely. We organised a civic reception for it in the evening; I will not tell you what happened after that, Ms Dorries, but I will just say that it was a particularly good evening.

There is a connection between the people of Tayside and Fife and the Black Watch. It is an important and cherished connection that must be maintained. The Black Watch was raised in Aberfeldy in my constituency on the banks of the Tay in 1740 to keep watch on the lawless highlands. Thankfully, it no longer has to fulfil that task—I could refer to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy)—but it had an important task in those days.

It must have been in 2005, when the Black Watch was amalgamated into the new regiment of Scotland, that there was a march through Aberfeldy. It came to the fantastic Black Watch memorial—a kilted soldier looking down on the very place that the regiment was mustered. I remember speaking to an infantryman that day who had served in the Black Watch many decades ago. He gave me the clearest understanding of what it is all about. He said that it is not about Queen and country, important though they are, but about your pals—the pals who you have shared the same town with; the pals who you might have gone to school with; and the pals who you know you can rely on when the going gets tough.

That is the greatest ever description and explanation of why the regimental system works, and it cannot be put any clearer than that. That day, back in 2005, was very poignant. I remember seeing brave serving soldiers crying because it was the end of the Black Watch as an existing regiment.

I have never been a soldier and neither has the Minister. The most dangerous thing that I have ever faced was a sea of excitable fans when I was a rock musician. Listening to the testament of former soldiers and seeing what they have been through is a very important lesson.

I do not need to tell the Minister that these suggestions and proposals have been met with the most incredible hostility and opposition. According to The Sunday Times, even the Prime Minister is opposed to them. What we need to hear from the Minister today is absolute clarification on the matter. When the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) raised a question in the House, all we got was total equivocation from the Prime Minister. We need a clear answer. When the Minister gets to his feet, he must say without any equivocation that regimental names will continue to exist within the Royal Regiment of Scotland and that there will be no diminishing of the golden thread. In fact, he could say, “We value the golden thread; it is important and instead of diminishing it, we will enhance and develop it.”

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. I am also proud to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. Regarding the Black Watch, my mother and sister are today attending a ceremony at the Black Watch memorial at Powrie Brae, just outside Dundee. The hon. Gentleman mentions the British regimental system—and he did say “British”—but given his party’s aspirations, would a Black Watch still exist?

[Pete Wishart]

Without any shadow of a doubt it would continue to exist. We have a firm, clear commitment that the existing battalions will be not only maintained but developed. [Interruption.] If it is an independent Scotland, the battalions are unlikely to be British, but they will be maintained and continued.

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have very little time, so I will take a quick intervention.

[Mrs Moon]

Everything the hon. Gentleman has said in relation to the golden thread applies also in Wales. There have been suggestions that a political decision will be made not to remove the Scottish regiments for fear of influencing the devolution debate. The reverberations of that in Wales would be tremendous. Some 9% of the British Army are recruited in Wales from 3% of the population. I am talking about some 10,000 people.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is good to see that the cause of Scottish independence is securing support and could have an influence on the recruitment of units in Wales.

I hope the Minister will clarify some matters for us today, because that is the intention of this debate. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State himself is not here today, but I appreciate and respect the fact that we have the Minister here. In even the darkest days of the amalgamation debates of 2004, Geoff Hoon always turned up. He always took the flak and got incredible respect for that. We really needed to have the Secretary of State here today to address our points unequivocally and end this damaging uncertainty.

There has been a suggestion, which has a degree of credibility, that this debate on our names and badges is a smokescreen and masks the Government’s true intention, which is to get on with the job of brutally decimating the Scottish defence footprint.

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

My hon. Friend mentions the defence footprint. He will be aware that Scotland contributes about £3.3 billion to the defence pot, but only gets back about £2 billion of the spend.

[Pete Wishart]

Those are the points that I want to make. Securing this regimental identity is important, but so too are the boots on the ground. There is this multi-billion pound spending gap between what the taxpayers in Scotland contribute to the Ministry of Defence and what is actually spent on defence in Scotland. I want the Minister to respond to some of this.

All we have left are four regiments in the British Army from the Scotland units. We have the Royal Regiment of Scotland with its five regular battalions and two territorial battalions. There are the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, Scotland’s only remaining cavalry regiment, the Scots Guards and the 19th Regiment Royal Artillery, the Highland Gunners. We lost the 40th Regiment Royal Artillery, the Lowland Gunners, a few weeks ago. We now have only 11,000 service personnel in the Scottish infantry, which is fewer than in Ireland. The Government should be ashamed of that.

Moreover, we have seen a further 600 jobs cut in Scotland. We were grateful to the then Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), for conceding to the Scottish Affairs Committee that between 2000 and 2010, the total reduction in service jobs in the UK was 11.6%, and that the reduction in Scotland was a massive 27.9%. That disproportionate cut is incredible. It is equivalent to 10,500 defence jobs and a £5.6 billion underspend in Scotland.

Only four of the 148 major regular Army units are based in Scotland. There is massive under-representation not only in unit numbers but in Army capabilities. At present, there are no regular artillery units, no regular signals units, no regular logistics units, no regular engineering units, no intelligence or special forces and little or no presence of combat services.

On top of that, we have the ridiculous situation, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), in which we contribute some £3.3 billion to the defence pot and only secure £2 billion in return. There is a structural multi-billion-pound defence underspend in Scotland, disproportionate base closures and disproportionate cuts to service personnel and to Scottish regiments and battalions.

As all that is happening, we learn that the MOD has given the go-ahead to spend £350 million on designs for the next generation of Trident. Talk about skewed priorities! Spending £350 million on a weapon of mass destruction that will never be used while the regular units are being undermined, diminished and under-resourced shows us everything about the Government’s priorities.

The Scottish people will have a choice to make. They can continue to go down this particular road of underspend and of diminishing the Scottish Army footprint and resource, or they can decide that these decisions can be made in Scotland—by the Scottish people, for the Scottish people. That is the choice they will be presented with in 2014 when we have the independence referendum. I am absolutely certain and confident that when they are presented with information such as this, with the run-down of our regimental units and resources, the Scottish people will make the right choice and we will determine these issues in our own country.

16:18

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I completely understand the concern and interest that have led the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to seek this debate, and I commend him for doing so. Necessarily, the answers that I am able to give to some of his questions will be only tentative because decisions in respect of the future structure of the Army have not yet been taken. Let me set out the national security context in which those decisions will be taken.

All Members present will agree that it is the first duty of any Government to ensure the security of the country, and that requires decisions to be based on a realistic assessment of a number of factors in the short and long term. We live in an increasingly uncertain world with complex and unpredictable threats, so our armed forces, must of necessity, be flexible and adaptable into the future. We must also accept that the decisions about defence that have been made since the general election must start from the position of clearing up the economic legacy that we inherited. That is a strategic imperative, because it is the only way we will be able to afford to project power of any sort, to protect our national security and to ensure that our troops have the equipment they need. The strategic defence and security review addressed the balance between our national policy ambition, available resources and real-world commitments. It did so by making reference to the national security strategy, which set out the principal risks to our security, and to the national security tasks, which we need to fulfil.

Implementing the SDSR was always going to be an ongoing process and not a single event. We are now working through the programme to ensure that it is fit to support the capabilities required by Future Force 2020. We are going through a process of rapid change, but we have identified clearly to the public—throughout the UK, including in Scotland—our strategic aiming-point and what we believe our future force requirement will be in 2020.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate. Regarding the decisions to which he has just referred, the Minister will understand the great anxiety felt in Fife, around the Leuchars and Caledonia bases, about whether the British Army will be arriving and the Royal Air Force will be leaving. Although I appreciate that he is keen to get that decision correct, will he give serious consideration to updating the communities concerned on when the decision about the Army and the Air Force at the Leuchars and Caledonia bases will be taken?

[Nick Harvey]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Of course, there was a statement to the House last July, but some of the announcements made that day have been, in a sense, superseded by the current review of Army structures. To the extent that I am able to communicate with the communities that were named in last year’s statement and that are therefore working on that basis, I will give them an update as soon as I can, when the Army restructuring work nears a conclusion.

As I say, we are working towards Future Force 2020 as our defined end-point. That process includes the statement from last July and the more recent statements made by the current Defence Secretary. Specifically, we are planning to make a progressive adjustment during the remainder of this decade to the balance between regulars and reserves in the Army. By 2020, we envisage a total Army force of about 120,000 troops, made up of 82,000 regulars and 30,000 trained reservists, with a margin for 8,000 reservists in training. As we withdraw from combat operations in Afghanistan, that shift offers a major opportunity to reconfigure the Army in a way that will maximise adaptability and flexibility for the future. The Army has been undertaking a major study—Army 2020—to determine how we will achieve these changes, and we will announce to the House the outcome of that study as soon as decisions have been taken.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly paid a warm and full tribute to the achievements and historic heritage of the famous Scottish regiments. I am sure that many hon. Members in Westminster Hall today who represent areas with a serious military footprint know only too well the pride that local populations take in such glorious histories. I add my own tributes to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland in its current configuration, and indeed to the Highland Gunners and the Lowland Gunners, and to their personnel who have deployed on operations in recent years. We all owe a great deal to the members of our armed forces; we owe a great deal to those who hail from Scotland, just as we do to those who hail from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, from across the Commonwealth. I pay tribute to their courage, commitment and professionalism.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

In 2006, I visited America and met General David Petraeus. I believe that he was at that time the supreme commander of the allied forces in Iraq. He was certainly an authority on the history of the Black Watch and very much an admirer of the regiment. Does the Minister agree—I hope he does—that names such as the Black Watch and regalia such as the red hackle should remain within the British Army? As General Petraeus said to me, the American forces were very envious of the fact that British regiments and battalions had such names and regalia.

[Nick Harvey]

Let me say that I fully recognise—as do the Government—the power of that heritage, and the strength of the identity that derives from cap badges, and to think otherwise is to completely misunderstand the piece of work that is being carried out. I will come specifically to one of the questions that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire put to me. What we are looking at is the future structure of the Army. If it serves to give him any reassurance, I will say that there is no intention as part of that work on Army restructuring to remove from the battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland the historic names that form such an important part of their heritage.

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that, because it is a very important statement. Is there anybody within the Royal Regiment of Scotland or within the British Army who is agitating to have such types of insignia—the names and the cap badges—removed? Is there anybody who is asking for that and, if so, who are they?

[Nick Harvey]

I am not aware of anybody agitating to that end. Removing such insignia does not form part of the restructuring work; it is not one of the things that we are considering. We have a great respect for these issues of historical heritage. In the Royal Regiment of Scotland in particular, the historic names bring with them a great tradition that is respected around the world, and not only in Scotland or the rest of the UK. I am very sympathetic to the points about heritage that the hon. Gentleman has made in this debate.

[Mrs Moon]

As the Minister has given that assurance, can we be equally assured that any decision about Army restructuring will not be based on the politics of the rest of the UK’s relationship with Scotland and any future plans regarding devolution? The Sunday Times ran an article at the weekend suggesting that the Prime Minister had intervened to say that Scottish regiments must be protected and that perhaps the Welsh regiments could be looked at instead. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that no political interference is coming from No. 10 to protect Scottish regiments because of a fear of devolution?

[Nick Harvey]

The hon. Lady has been involved in politics too long to believe what she reads in Sunday newspapers. This restructuring is a piece of work that is being undertaken by the Army, and the Army will put its proposals forward when its review is complete. Reducing the size of the Regular Army from 102,000 to 82,000 will inevitably mean a reduction in the overall number of units that are available, and a number of critical criteria will inform the decisions about which units will be affected.

We must maintain the right balance across different capabilities—the Royal Armoured Corps, the infantry structure and the roles that different units will perform. We must also balance geographically because of the recruiting pattern; that has always been an important part of the British Army and it will continue to be in the future. We recognise that factor and it will inform the decisions that are taken. Indeed, we will also take account of previous decisions on mergers and deletions, so that we can ensure that there is a fair solution across the generations, as well as between the different branches and different geographical lay-down of the Army. Our aim is to sustain optimal capability. There are issues about basing. We cannot go to a final basing blueprint yet; that blueprint will follow hot on the heels of the current piece of restructuring work that I have described.

Although the focus of this debate has been on Scottish Army units, it is important that we take a holistic view. The Government are committed to the defence of the United Kingdom and each nation and region within it. In addition to its Army regiments, Scotland has one of our three naval bases, which in the future will be home to all our submarines. One of the three main RAF operating bases will be in Scotland. Scotland is also the home of Quick Reaction Alert North. As was made clear last summer, there will also be an Army brigade in Scotland, along with thousands of reserves and cadets. We have set out a clear vision for the armed forces across the United Kingdom, with a very significant footprint in Scotland, as part of a realistic and well thought-out national security strategy.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire made the point that Scottish voters will be invited at some point in the future to take a decision about Scotland’s status. They have a clear understanding of where the UK Government are steering defence in Scotland. They have yet to gain any such understanding of where those who advocate independence for Scotland are trying to get Scottish defences to, and that will be an absolute necessity to inform a realistic and balanced debate.

The armed forces are at the core of the UK’s security. They make a unique and vital contribution, for which I hope all of us—whatever part of the UK we come from—are grateful. We will make the decisions that I have talked about—decisions to ensure that the armed forces are sustainable for the future—in the interests of everybody in Scotland and across the UK as a whole.

Petrol and Diesel

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

It is unusual to have this many Members present for a 30-minute debate. If everyone wants to make an intervention, Mr Halfon will not be able to speak. The Economic Secretary will have 10 minutes to wind up, and I ask Members to keep interventions to a minimum because Mr Halfon probably has a 20-minute speech.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate what you have said. I have cut my speech down to allow for more interventions. The number of people here shows just how important the issue is, and I thank Members from both sides of the House for coming along.

I want to start by knocking something on the head. I welcome, as I am sure everyone here does, the fact that in the past few weeks petrol prices have come down a few pence, but families in my constituency still spend more on petrol than on food. The price of petrol is at an historic, all-time high. In Harlow, it costs more than 140p a litre, and that hits the poor twice as hard as the rich. People say that the price has come down, but it is a bit like a burglar taking £100 out of your pocket and giving you £5 back.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when a few pence comes off the price of a litre and the foot comes off the neck of the economy and of hard-working families, it is the wrong time for the Government to put that foot back again and squeeze the life blood out of the economy?

[Robert Halfon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He supported me in the debate last year in which we managed to get the Government to postpone the January tax rise, and he will see from my remarks that I do not disagree with him.

Sir Terry Leahy of Tesco has said:

“Filling up the family car has gone up 70% in two years, causing what was a steady recovery to go sideways.”

I and most fair-minded people recognise that the Government have made significant progress, abolishing the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator, scrapping the planned hikes in 2011 plus a 1p cut in duty, with a partial fuel stabiliser and the freeze in fuel duty that I mentioned, in January this year. I firmly believe that the Chancellor shows an understanding of the matter, and that the Government must get credit where they deserve it, but we face considerable problems.

The first problem is the planned tax rise in August, which I ask the Government to reconsider. Secondly, we need a serious inquiry into the lack of competitiveness in the oil market, and possibly even a windfall tax on oil firms, to cut prices. Thirdly, there is the problem of the banks speculating on the price of oil.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Halfon]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris).

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

May I propose that my hon. Friend add a fourth suggestion to the list—that we consider a proper price stabilisation mechanism, rather than a fuel duty one? At the moment, the tax can go up, but it never comes down.

[Robert Halfon]

As so often, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We need a fair fuel stabiliser that looks at prices at the pump, so that when the international oil price goes up tax at the pump goes down. That really would be a fair fuel stabiliser.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend’s campaign. I represent the least densely populated constituency in England. In Northumberland, fuel is a key issue, as I am sure it is everywhere else. I suggest that there should be an Office of Fair Trading examination, much like those we have carried out so successfully in remote communities into other forms of heating and other oil.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. That matter is an important part of my argument.

On the August rise, the Automobile Association says that a 3p rise in petrol prices will switch £1.8 million a day out of the economy and into petrol costs, draining money away from high streets. At the same time, a report by the respected Centre for Economics and Business Research shows that cutting duty by 2.5p would create 175,000 new jobs. The RAC Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies—both very respected—show that revenues from motoring taxes are set to collapse by between £10 billion and £13 billion a year over the next decade, as people are driven off the roads by economising on fuel. That is why I urge the Government to think again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the very good campaign that he has carried out on this issue. We all appreciate it. With our fuel costs rising and it costing more to fill a car or heat a home than to buy groceries, does the hon. Gentleman feel that now is the time for a windfall tax on the oil companies that are making exorbitant profits?

[Robert Halfon]

Yes, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his incredible support all through this argument. I recognise that there is no magic money tree, so to cut prices at the pump the Government need seriously to consider another windfall tax on the oil companies, not necessarily on North sea production but on the companies as a whole.

Not enough emphasis is put on my second point which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) says, is that we need competitiveness in the oil market. Not only the Government but businesses and the oil companies have a responsibility. There are four complaints. The first is that pump prices are always quick to rise, but that it feels as though a court order is needed to get them down. Evidence shows that from May to August 2011, oil prices fell by about 5.5%, adjusting for exchange rates, but petrol and diesel prices stayed high, falling by only 1.5%.

The second complaint—the debate comes in the wake of this—is about the OFT’s interim decision not to investigate the UK oil market, despite a dossier of evidence from Brian Madderson, who represents the UK’s independent forecourts, which shows that British motorists are being fleeced and that oil firms active in the UK are under formal investigation by the Federal Cartel Office in Germany as a result of similar complaints.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Halfon]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis).

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent campaign. Does he agree that my constituents who live in the most rural areas face an additional penalty in that they pay much higher prices, and that prices can be many pence higher in garages only a few miles apart?

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I am grateful for her support. People in rural areas face fuel deserts, in essence, because of the uncompetitive nature of the oil industry. People have to travel further, particularly in rural areas, to deal with the cost of fuel.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Halfon]

I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth that I would allow him to intervene.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so generously, in an excellent debate. Rural areas such as Norfolk are affected, but does he agree that it is not just about rural areas? Places that focus heavily on the tourism industry, such as Great Yarmouth and other coastal towns, are adversely affected if fewer people are able to afford to travel there, which has a knock-on effect on our economy.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why I am proposing some of these things today.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Halfon]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and then I will carry on a bit more.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a hidden consequence of all this is to be found in the voluntary sector? People who do things such as meals on wheels and those who are voluntary carers—the pillars of our society—are beginning to wonder whether it is all worth while.

[Robert Halfon]

I am a passionate believer in the big society because it is about people power, social capital and helping social entrepreneurs, and the price of petrol and diesel stops people in their charitable work and harms communities. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

This month, Germany decided to initiate fuel price regulation and to limit price rises. Austria implemented similar measures last year, and the AA has noted their impact in keeping prices down.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Halfon]

I will in a minute. Because of where they are sitting, I am concerned that two of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), have joined the other side—I hope not. The Office of Fair Trading has not investigated the UK oil market since 1998, despite the fact that British petrol and diesel prices are among the highest in Europe, so we need a proper investigation.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a great case for a reduction in petrol and diesel prices. Oil companies, I believe, take far too much. When crude oil prices go up, they immediately put up their prices, but when the crude prices come down they take for ever to bring their own down. We need a thorough investigation into the oil companies.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, which is why I am arguing that the Government should force the Office of Fair Trading to launch an investigation into the uncompetitive nature of oil companies.

The third issue is the problem of local variation in petrol prices, especially in rural areas and towns such as mine. In Harlow, fuel is always 4p to 5p more expensive than it is a couple of miles down the road. I have complained to the OFT. Its letter was a classic Sir Humphrey reply, giving a lot of sympathy and a whole load of reasons why nothing could be done.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I pay tribute to his work on this campaign. On local areas and price differences, does he not agree that any OFT investigation should consider the lack of filling stations? Owing to the huge reduction in their numbers over the past 15 or 20 years, there is a distinct lack of price competition in local areas.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend has read my mind; I was about to come to fuel deserts. Britain has gone from 20,000 forecourts in 1990 to 8,500 today, a drop of nearly 60%, turning huge areas of the UK into fuel deserts where motorists must drive to fill up. There are examples in Cornwall, where a hypermarket sold fuel at below cost price until all the other petrol stations went bust, after which its prices rose considerably.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

From the Labour Benches, I, too, offer support to the hon. Gentleman’s campaign. Earlier, I went to a petrol price comparison site. Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that although the situation is bad in Harlow, it is even worse in Oxford? He will enjoy the support of my constituents in winning his campaign.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. The next time I get my many e-mails from Harlow residents, I will pass them on to him so he can help me to respond. I am grateful for his support. It shows the Minister that this is an all-party campaign, because the issue affects everybody.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The point about the price differential from area to area is particularly important in my constituency, where Immingham is a major centre for the haulage industry. Increased haulage prices trickle down into the economy generally. Does he agree that it is particularly important that any investigation take note of the impact on haulage businesses?

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Before I answer that, I should say that although I have received a lot of credit for working on the fuel campaign in Parliament, he is deputy chair of FairFuelUK and has done an enormous amount of work to help me behind the scenes. I must give credit where it is due. Haulage firms all over the country are closing down. Transport firms are closing.

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

Southampton is in close proximity to Portsmouth ferry port. One big challenge faced by hauliers in the south-east is easy access to the continent and European lorry drivers coming over with much cheaper tanks of fuel.

[Robert Halfon]

Again, we need to consider that, as well as considering the charging of foreign lorries that come here. I recognise that the Government have made some progress, but those lorries must be charged a lot more. The playing field is not level. Why should our people suffer because foreign lorries have an unfair competitive advantage?

[Andrew Bingham]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so generously every three or four words. We are all taking over his speech. I have two points. Does he agree that not only is fuel dear in rural areas, but rurality makes it far more necessary to have a car, so the impact of fuel prices is far greater there? Also, in High Peak we produce the finest limestone in the world, which is more often than not transported by road, meaning more costs.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is completely right. My argument has always been that it is not whether people can afford to have a car—we have a great car economy—but whether they can afford not to.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. We worry about the cost of petrol and diesel, particularly on the island, where prices are higher than everywhere but the most extreme places such as the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides and the northern islands. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the additional cost of transporting fuel to such places?

[Robert Halfon]

The Minister will have heard what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the fact that so many people are here today making similar points will not be lost on the ears of a Minister who we know listens.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves off rurality, can I make the issue real? A 10p difference per litre is nearly 50p a gallon or £5 a tank. For someone commuting and filling their tank twice a week, that is hundreds of pounds a year. I hope that he will take the opportunity to reinforce to the Minister that for ordinary working families who are struggling in this austerity period, that extra few hundred pounds makes a huge difference.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As I will say in my conclusion, statistics show that motorists in my constituency on average earnings pay one tenth of their income just filling up the family car. The Government say that people face fuel poverty if they spend one tenth of their income on fuel. People are forced to use their cars, and in my constituency—and, I am sure, elsewhere—they are paying one tenth of their income to fill up the family car.

I will make a brief point about the banks; I am nearly done. Last year, western Governments tried to release oil to cut pump prices, but banks bought up at least £1.6 billion of it. There is evidence that a lot of it was stored in silos at sea rather than entering the market, keeping prices high. America is introducing tough new penalties for market manipulation. I urge the Government to do the same in Britain. If Governments around the world do the right thing and release oil stocks, we cannot allow banks to buy it up, keep it at sea and hurt the struggling motorist.

What is to be done? I am a realist. I do not believe in “Charge of the Light Brigade” politics; I much prefer the battle of Agincourt. I accept that we do not have a magic money tree, but the big oil companies are not struggling. In the first quarter of this year, Shell had profits of $7.6 billion, BP $5.9 billion and Exxon Mobil $9.4 billion. It is a similar story at Chevron and ConocoPhillips. At the end of 2011, those firms had $58 billion in cash reserves. In order to find the money to stop price rises and help hard-pressed motorists, the Government could consider a windfall tax to fund cheaper petrol at the pumps. A windfall tax was imposed before, but on North sea oil in particular. I am asking the Government to consider a windfall tax on oil companies in general.

We must remember that motorists are not a lobby group. They are mums driving to school, children on buses and pensioners hit by inflation. When the cost of road haulage rises, the price of everything else rises too.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Halfon]

Very quickly, but this is the last intervention.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity. To declare an interest, I should say that I am a qualified transport manager and have run a considerable haulage fleet. One major anomaly in the haulage industry is that we compete against foreign competition, but diesel is priced considerably higher than petrol in the UK, whereas on the continent it is considerably cheaper. Perhaps we could explain that anomaly. It is extremely important in my constituency, because more than one third of private sector jobs there are in distribution or are distribution-related. As we have no railway stations in my constituency, a vehicle is not a luxury; it is essential.

[Robert Halfon]

I agree entirely. We must look at the price of diesel too, because it has risen hugely. Prices are much higher. People often quote unleaded petrol prices but forget to quote those for diesel.

As we have agreed, petrol prices are crushing businesses and families and creating a poverty trap, and evidence from the London School of Economics and elsewhere shows that they are adding to Britain’s dole queues. As I have said, I believe that the issue is not whether people can afford a car, but whether they can afford not to. I urge the Minister to reconsider the August tax rise, launch a tough investigation into the oil market through the OFT and elsewhere and consider a windfall tax to cut prices at the pumps.

Before I end, I should say that we are here today not just because of MPs representing their constituencies but because of the work of FairFuelUK, which has done much to bring the issue to the public’s attention, especially through The Sun newspaper’s “Keep It Down” campaign, which has done an enormous amount to highlight it. Both The Sun and FairFuelUK have campaigned tirelessly.

We face a petrol crisis in our tax system, our oil companies and our banks. Everyone seems to benefit except hard-pressed motorists in Harlow and the millions of hard-working people throughout our country who have no choice but to drive their cars.

16:49

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate. We are all aware of the passion with which he and other Members who have spoken campaign. So many have contributed to this discussion that I will struggle to name them all, but I shall endeavour to address the breadth of the debate.

I shall start by saying, as my hon. Friend did, that even though average pump prices have fallen by about 6.5p over the past month, there is little doubt that the price of petrol and diesel remains a very difficult issue and a concern to many families and businesses throughout the country.

Since we came to office, the Government have listened to those motorists and the many others who are concerned about high pump prices. Motoring is an essential part of everyday life for many households and businesses. Fuel costs affect us all in various ways, and the Government recognise that the rising price of motoring fuel is a significant part of day-to-day spending.

I will give a little historical context by noting that in 2009 the previous Government introduced a fuel duty escalator, which was a time bomb that involved planning for seven fuel duty increases. That could have resulted in average pump prices being a whole 10p per litre higher than they are at present. The previous Government would then have introduced further above-inflation increases in 2013 and 2014. None of those planned increases were subject to either oil price or pump price movements, unlike the fair fuel stabiliser that we have introduced.

We know that high oil prices are causing real difficulties in ensuring that motoring remains affordable. It is important to remember that pump prices are affected both by world oil prices and by duty rates, as I know all Members present will understand. It is important that a responsible Government are able to consider their actions and take them in that context. Although the Government cannot control world oil prices, they can control duty rates, which is what this Government have done. We have acted by providing £4.5 billion-worth of relief on the burden for motorists between 2011 and 2013. Indeed, VAT and fuel duty last rose in January 2011.

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

The Minister is right to say that the Government cannot control oil prices, but they can stop the European Commission attempting to frustrate the development of the Canadian oil sands, which has the potential to offer billions of barrels of oil to the US market, which will help bring prices down.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the complexity of the global market and its relevance to this debate. I suspect that there is a much broader debate to be had about where we might look for energy security and breadth of supply in the future, but he is right to raise that point.

On the impact of what the Government have been able to do, duty at the pump has been frozen for 16 months and pump prices are now 10p lower thanks to this Government’s actions. To put that into pounds, as other hon. Members have endeavoured to do in their contributions, a typical Ford Focus driver will be £144 better off as a result of those actions, and a haulier will benefit by £4,400 on average.

I understand why the August duty increase is one of the main points that has been raised. I am well aware of the burden caused by the rise in the international oil price and the concern it creates for businesses and families. This is, after all, a time of real uncertainty and instability from which no country can be immune. Britain has been comparatively stable in recent weeks. Only yesterday, the International Monetary Fund said that our approach is right and that we have earned Britain credibility again in our economy. Families and businesses benefit from that earned credibility, through lower interest rates.

Calls for the August increase to be scrapped raise an important question, because we would need to consider how to replace the £1.5 billion it would cost. That money would need to come from higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research report that has been cited today has a couple of weaknesses. Its analysis is not straightforward. For example, it makes no mention of the relationship between oil prices and pump prices. It does not recognise the range of factors that go into pump prices. As such, its proposed fuel duty cuts could be totally offset by increased oil prices, which means that there may not be any reallocation of spending elsewhere in the economy. It is important to place that point about this frequently cited report on the record. We really need to consider the volatility of global oil prices. Any Government action would have to be taken against that backdrop. It is not certain that cutting fuel duty would have a positive effect on families or businesses.

Instead, the Government have taken action to help in areas in which we can be sure of a positive impact: supporting businesses through cuts in corporation tax and helping families through increases in the personal allowance threshold, which means pounds back in the pocket.

[Stewart Hosie]

On the CEBR report, the Minister is right that there are multiple inputs into the pump price, but surely she is not saying that that is a reason for doing nothing.

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me explain over the past few minutes that the Government have done something and that there are many other ways in which this Government need to consider what they do through the economy.

On the recent Royal Automobile Club report, which has also been raised today and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is interested, the Government announced in the Budget that they will consider whether vehicle excise duty should be reformed to support the sustainability of public finances and to reflect the improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. The Government will, of course, seek the views of motoring groups before taking any decisions.

My hon. Friend also asked questions about the competitiveness of the oil market. As I think he knows, the Office of Fair Trading is undertaking research on pump prices on the Scottish islands, which are no doubt of interest to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). That work will help inform what further action, if any, may be appropriate elsewhere in the UK.

Several Members have asked whether other island and mainland areas could be included in the rural fuel rebate pilot scheme. It is a pilot scheme and nothing beyond its boundaries has been ruled in or out, but I have listened to what Members have had to say.

[Mr MacNeil]

I want to put it on the record that the pilot scheme seems to be working well. Indeed, I hope that it will be rolled out further and be made a permanent scheme in the future.

[Miss Smith]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s views and am grateful for his support.

Members have also raised the issue of banks speculating on the price of oil and potential market manipulation affecting oil price. The UK, along with other European Union members, is currently negotiating revised market manipulation rules for commodity markets, which the UK welcomes.

In conclusion, we have recognised the impact that high pump prices are having on motorists, families and businesses. The previous Government, I am sad to say, had no credible plan to deal with the debts that they created and no creditable plan to support motorists. We have listened and responded during our time in office to date. We have cut fuel duty and scrapped their fuel duty escalator. We have ensured that there will be just one inflation-only increase in fuel duty this year. We will have kept fuel duty frozen for 16 months and we will continue to support motorists with our fair fuel stabiliser. The Government have a fair and credible plan to support motorists.

I shall end on this final point. We seek to support motorists in their daily role not only as drivers—I have outlined a few ways in which we have endeavoured to do that—but, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, as mums, pensioners and all the other daily roles that they have to undertake. We as a Government and as responsible parliamentarians need to consider the breadth of daily roles undertaken by the public, whether they be workers benefiting from the personal allowance, mortgage holders benefiting from the low interest rates that we have earned in this country, or, crucially, taxpayers who know that we must deal with our debts and spend public money wisely.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

Wednesday 23 May 2012

UK Space Agency (Performance Targets)

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

I have tasked the UK Space Agency to provide policy support to Ministers on civil space issues and to lead a civil space programme which delivers maximum economic, scientific, and policy benefits for the UK.

I have set the UK Space Agency the following key targets for 2012-13:

1. To advise BIS on affordable options for UK participation in the ESA in readiness for the ESA Ministerial planned for November 2012, setting out the advantages and disadvantages of the options.

2. To ensure the ESA programme brings benefit to UK industry, and the research base.

3. To implement the proposal for the £21 million investment in the low-cost constellation of operational small radar satellites (NovaSAR).

4. To work with industry on amendments to reduce burdens placed on satellite operators, and based on the public consultation, set out a timeline to implement agreed proposals for change to the Outer Space Act.

5. To improve performance of the agency by implementing 2011-12 audit recommendations over the period 2012-13—2014-15.

Target measurement techniques:

Target 1—Decisions made on investment proposed by November 2012. This will need both BIS and HMT agreement.

Target 2—Measured by the industrial return figures of ESA that reflect the work won by UK organisations against an ideal of return coefficient of 1.

Target 3—A decision on the grant will be by June 2012, payment by March 2013, with the grant review open for the normal 5-year window.

Target 4—Consultation released in May 2012 and final plan by December 2012.

Target 5—Improvement in agency performance will be reflected in audit reports in 2012-13 and 2013-14.

State of the Estate 2011

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

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

I have today laid before Parliament, pursuant to section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, “The State of the Estate in 2011”. This report provides an assessment of the efficiency and sustainability of the Government’s civil estate and records the progress that Government are making in this area. The report is published on an annual basis.

ECOFIN

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 15 May 2012. Ministers discussed the following items:

Revised Capital Requirements Rules (CRD IV)

The presidency presented a proposal for a general approach on the CRD IV directive and regulation, which was followed by a ministerial discussion. Following substantial changes made to the proposal during negotiations at the 2nd May ECOFIN and a critical revision in the run up to this ECOFIN, I was able to join the rest of the Council in agreeing the presidency proposal. These changes will ensure that: the Government will be able to implement the recommendations of the Vickers review in full; that Europe as a whole will be able to implement Basel III; and that the Government will have the necessary freedom to carry out our macro-prudential policy objectives.

The presidency will now start negotiations with the European Parliament, on the basis of the Council’s general approach. The aim is to reach agreement on the texts at first reading, if possible by June, as requested by the European Council in March.

Negotiating Mandate for Savings Taxation Agreements with third countries

The presidency introduced a recommendation for a Council decision to adopt the mandate for the Commission to negotiate amended savings agreements with five third countries. During the discussion Luxembourg and Austria were unable to agree to the proposed mandate and the presidency concluded that it would not be possible to adopt the mandate at this meeting.

2012 Ageing Report

The presidency introduced proposed Council conclusions on the sustainability of public finances in the light of the 2012 Ageing Report. After a brief ministerial discussion the 2012 Ageing Report was endorsed and the conclusions were adopted by the Council.

Fast Start Climate Finance

The presidency introduced proposed Council conclusions to endorse the fast start finance report. The Commission highlighted that, despite the difficult economic situation and tight budgetary constraints, the EU was on track to meet its commitments and Ministers adopted the conclusions.

Draft General Budget for 2013

The Council took note of a presentation by the Commission of its draft for the EU’s general budget for 2013 and held an exchange of views on the proposal. The UK intervened to make clear that the Commission’s proposed 6.8% increase was not realistic in the current climate, with member states making great efforts to reduce deficits at home, and that the EU should focus on improving the quality, rather than increasing the volume, of expenditure, reducing over-budgeting and finding greater efficiencies. Our intervention was supported by a number of other member states. The Council will now look to establish its position on the draft budget by the end of July.

ECOFIN Breakfast

Ministers were updated over breakfast on the European Commission’s spring forecasts. Ministers were also debriefed on the euro group meeting of 14 May which discussed the economic situation in Spain and their three pronged strategy being implemented to: tackle regional fiscal deficits, implement structural reforms and reform the banking sector. The Greek delegation had also briefed euro area member states on the political situation in Greece.

Ministers also discussed the forthcoming election of a new president for the EBRD and were updated on the process that would be followed for the election on 18 May.

Finally Ministers were updated by the EFC president on the progress being made in reducing European seats on the IMF Board by two, as agreed at the Seoul G20 summit in 2010.

European Investment Bank (EIB) Board of Governors Meeting

The EIB board of governors met prior to ECOFIN. In discussion, the president of the EIB noted that calls for growth orientated policies were becoming more frequent but, for the bank to increase its lending activity, it would have to increase its capital. It was also important to ensure the bank maintained its AAA rating. I intervened to stress the importance of maintaining the AAA rating and that this was critical to the organisation’s effectiveness. However I was willing to consider the arguments for supporting growth. I also stressed that any increase in lending should have a better geographical balance throughout the EU.

Ministerial Dialogue with Candidate Countries

Ministers, over lunch, held an informal meeting with their counterparts from the EU accession and candidate countries—Croatia, Turkey, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Iceland and Serbia—focusing on the candidate countries’ pre-accession economic programmes for the 2012-14 period.

Enterprise Management Incentives

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government announced in the Budget that the individual limit on qualifying EMI options will be increased from £120,000 to £250,000.

The Income Tax (Limits for Enterprise Management Incentives) Order 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1360), giving effect to the increase was laid before the House of Commons earlier today. The order will come into force on 16 June 2012 and apply to qualifying EMI options granted on or after that date.

Tax Policy Consultation

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Budget 2012 announced that we would consult on requiring controlling persons who are integral to the running of an organisation to have PAYE and NICs deducted at source by the organisation by which they are engaged. As referred to in the Chief Secretary’s oral statement earlier today and his review into “The Review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees”; we are today publishing this in the form of a consultation document on the taxation of controlling persons.

The consultation document is available on HMRC’s website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

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

A meeting of the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council was held in Brussels on 10 and 11 May. I represented the UK at the culture and audiovisual sections of the Council, together with Fiona Hyslop, the Scottish Minister for Culture and External Affairs. Shona Robison, the Scottish Minister for the Commonwealth Games and Sport, represented the UK for the sport section of the Council.

Audiovisual

The Council adopted, without discussion, conclusions on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation. These conclusions follow on from the conclusions on Europeana adopted by the Council in 2010 and respond to a Commission recommendation on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation which was adopted in 2011. They identify key issues for further progress in this field and invite the member states, the Commission and Europeana to take further measures to ensure that progress in digitisation can be maintained. The UK supported the adoption of these conclusions.

Culture

The Council adopted a partial general approach on the proposal for a regulation establishing the Europe for Citizens programme for 2014-2020. This programme will follow on from an existing EU programme, but with a new legal base of article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Under section 8 of the European Union Act 2011, an Act of Parliament is required before the UK can consent to EU legislation based on article 352. The UK therefore supported the adoption of the partial general approach but I informed the Council that an Act of Parliament will be required. I also emphasised that in the current economic and financial climate we expect that the budget for the programme will be reduced from the level proposed by the Commission.

The Council also adopted a decision designating Donostia-San Sebastián (Spain) and Wroclaw (Poland) as the European Capitals of Culture for 2016.

Culture and Audiovisual

The Council adopted a partial general approach on the proposal for a regulation establishing the Creative Europe programme for 2014-2020. This programme will follow on from the current Culture, Media and Media Mundus programmes. The partial general approach did not include the programme budget and the proposed new loan guarantee facility. The UK did not support the partial general approach, as it does not provide for selection decisions—that is, decisions about which projects will be awarded EU funding under the programme—to be subject to member state scrutiny through the formal comitology arrangements.

However, I was able to welcome other aspects of the proposal, in particular recognition of the increasing importance of the digital agenda and technological innovation in culture and media, and the increased scope for new synergies and cross-sectoral initiatives.

Ministers from other member states expressed broad support for the partial general approach. Most were also broadly supportive of the loan guarantee facility as a means of improving access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises in the cultural and creative sectors. However, some raised questions and concerns about whether it should supplement or replace grant spending in the programme and about whether and how it would benefit smaller member states and organisations and how it would be implemented in practice. For the UK, I welcomed the opportunity to consider the issues relating to the loan guarantee facility in the light of developments in the negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework.

Sport

The Council adopted conclusions on combating doping in recreational sport. These conclusions refer to the European Union Work Plan for Sport for 2011-14 which highlight the fight against doping as a priority theme and established an expert group on anti-doping. They set out why doping in recreational sport is an important problem and support the extension of the mandate of the expert group to collate best practices and produce recommendations in this area by the end of 2013. The UK supported the adoption of these conclusions and they were adopted without debate.

The Council also held a policy debate on future challenges in the fight against doping including in recreational sport. The UK recognised the important role which the EU and its member states have to play in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) review of the world anti-doping code, noting that article 10 of the code (regarding the sanctioning of athletes) needs to be amended and that the UK is pushing for tougher future sanctions as part of the review process. The UK also set out its views on the issue of combating doping in recreational sport and noted that the education of athletes, particular younger athletes, is a key issue. The UK observed that the educational work carried out by UK anti-doping at the recent school games was a good example of this.

Any Other Business

The German Minister introduced a paper on the draft Commission communication on state aid for films and other audiovisual work. This paper was co-authored with the UK, France and Austria. The German Minister commented that new criteria proposed in the Commission’s draft communication would impose important restrictions on the film industry in Europe and there was a risk that large productions would begin to move away from Europe. In order to maintain Europe’s competitiveness, the wording of the communication needed to be revised. I supported Germany’s comments and noted that the film tax credit has been a huge success and that current territorialisation criteria (i.e. the obligation on producers to spend a specific part of their production budget in the territory offering aid) are working well. On aid intensity (i.e. the amount of aid available as a percentage of the production budget) I expressed our concern that the proposed new limits would impact negatively on the whole of Europe. In response, the Commission noted that the public consultation on the draft communication, which concludes on 14 June, provided an opportunity for member states and other interested parties to raise their concerns. The Commission did not intend to weaken the competitiveness of the European film industry.

The Commission briefly introduced the communication on a European strategy for a “Better Internet for Children” which was published on 3 May and stressed the need for an EU-wide strategy to provide the same protection opportunities for all children and to avoid fragmentation.

The Commission also introduced their first report on the application of Directive 2010/13/EU (the Audiovisual Media Services Directive) which was published on 7 May. The Commission stressed the importance of moving towards a digital single market and explained that they have set up a media futures forum which is intended to produce recommendations before the summer.

Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

In March I announced the commencement of the triennial review of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Today I am announcing the findings of that review, which I am pleased to say support the continuation of CoRWM as the most appropriate body to undertake the hugely important work of independently advising and scrutinising the Government’s managing radioactive waste safely (MRWS) programme.

The review has also looked at the governance arrangements for CoRWM in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office and makes some recommendations to improve the appraisal of the committee chair and the training and development of committee members.

The final report of the triennial review of CoRWM can be found at: http://mrws.decc.gov.uk and I have made available copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

Consular Procedures

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

On 17 April I informed the House that we would review our procedures for alerting Ministers to the death of British nationals abroad.

I can now inform the House that this review has been completed. While I am satisfied that, in the case of the death of Neil Heywood in China, consular staff followed the guidance that was in place at the time, I have also concluded that more detailed guidance would help staff decide when to inform Ministers of deaths in future. I have therefore asked that internal guidance for consular staff on the death of British nationals overseas be amended to ensure consideration is given to whether:

(a) A need exists, or may arise later, for Ministers to take action with the foreign Government to ensure appropriate handling of the case (e.g. because of any uncertainty over the cause of death);

(b) There is a high-level of pressure from the family to do something different to established consular policy;

(c) Relevant ministerial travel or other engagements is planned, especially if a visit is taking place or is pending, including consideration of the personal connections of people the Minister might meet in the UK or overseas;

(d) Strong UK and local media interest is likely (especially if a Minister is travelling);

(e) Significant parliamentary/constituency MP interest in the case is likely;

(f) There is any credible rumour or speculation surrounding the case which would significantly affect the nature of the consular support the FCO would provide;

(g) There are any other risks if Ministers are not informed.

If this revised guidance had been in place at the time of Neil Heywood’s death, I believe that Ministers would have been informed earlier than 7 February.

I have arranged for a copy of the revised consular guidance to be placed in the Library of the House.

I should also like to use this opportunity to correct a factual reference in my written ministerial statement of 17 April 2012, Official Report, column 18WS concerning the request by our ambassador in Beijing to the Chinese authorities to mount an investigation into the death of Neil Heywood. The statement:

“Our ambassador repeated the request a week later to the Director-General for Europe”

should have read

“Our Ambassador repeated the request on 5 March to the Director-General for Consular Affairs”.

Consultation on Shared Decision Making

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Today I am publishing “Liberating the NHS: No decision about me, without me—Further consultation on proposals to secure shared decision-making”. This publication forms the Government’s response to the “Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control” consultation.

“Liberating the NHS: No decision about me, without me” sets out detailed proposals to implement the Government’s commitment to giving patients more say over their care and treatment through more choice and control, informed by the consultation process. A further shorter consultation is to be carried out. A small number of focused consultation questions have been included which seek views on whether our proposals are realistic and achievable.

The accompanying document “Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control—A summary of responses” summarises the large number of comments received during the consultation period. The Government consulted on broad proposals to implement the commitments to give patients and service users more choice and control over their care and treatment and to make the goal of “no decision about me, without me” a reality. The views of patients, the wider public, health care professionals and the NHS were sought on how these plans might best be achieved.

The NHS Future Forum ran a listening exercise between April and May 2011. Its recommendations and the Government’s response to its report have been taken into account when producing our detailed proposals.

The final round of consultation will run for eight weeks. Views from patients, the wider public, organisations, health professionals and the NHS will again be sought.

Copies of the response and the summary or responses have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Explanatory Statements on Amendments (Pilot)

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

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

On 13 October 2011, the House agreed a resolution noting the recommendations in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Second Report of the Procedure Committee of Session 2010-12 (HC 800) relating to explanatory statements on amendments to Bills and inviting the Leader of the House and the Procedure Committee to put in place a pilot scheme to implement these proposals in respect of one or more Bills before the end of the next session.

In my written ministerial statement of 10 May 2012 relating to the Government’s legislative programme for 2012-13, I stated that I would write shortly to the Chair of the Procedure Committee with proposals for such a pilot in respect of two Bills to be introduced early in this session and that I hoped to make a further announcement soon.

I am pleased to tell the House that the Procedure Committee has agreed to my proposal that the pilot should take place in respect of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the Small Donations Bill.

The Electoral Registration and Administration Bill will have its Second Reading today and, if the programme motion is agreed to, will be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The pilot in respect of the Bill will cover both Committee of the whole House stage and any proceedings on consideration.

The Small Donations Bill will be published soon. The pilot in respect of the Bill will cover both Public Bill Committee Stage and Report stage.

Guidelines for the tabling of explanatory statements were set out in paragraph 32 of the Second Report of the Procedure Committee of Session 2010-12 (HC 800). Questions as to the implementation of the rules shall be decided by the Chair of the Public Bill Committee, the Chairman of Ways and Means in respect of Committee of the whole House and the Speaker in respect of Report stage.

The Government intend to participate fully in the pilot. We plan to provide explanatory statements for all Government amendments for Bills in the pilot at both Committee and Report stage other than those amendments where the legal effect is clear on the face of the amendment. The Government will also do what they can to promote awareness of, and encourage participation by others in, the pilot. The Procedure Committee will consider other steps which might be taken to the same end.

The Government believe that there would have to be very significant and clearly definable benefits illustrated from this final pilot for any further progress to be made. Because there have already been several pilots for explanatory statements and only limited evidence available on the outcome of those pilots, I have proposed to the Procedure Committee, and that Committee has agreed, that there should be a formal evaluation of the pilot, with an initial evaluation conducted by the House service which the Procedure Committee will then use as the basis for a report on the outcome, together with evidence from elsewhere, including the Government’s views.

The criteria for evaluation which I have agreed with the Procedure Committee are as follows:

The extent to which explanatory statements are tabled by (a) Back Benchers and (b) the official Opposition;

The extent to which explanatory statements are viewed as worthwhile and of assistance by Members;

The extent to which explanatory statements require editorial or other intervention by the House authorities to ensure compliance with the guidelines;

The extent to which explanatory statements provided new or additional information about amendments;

The extent to which explanatory statements or information uniquely available from those statements is referred to in debate or otherwise used in discussion about the Bill;

The costs and resource implications, including indirect costs.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I am pleased to announce the publication today of the business plan 2012 to 2016 for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

The business plan sets out the services the agency will deliver over the next four years and the resources they will have available. This is a refresh of the plan the MCA first published last summer. The agency is also publishing a set of performance indicators for 2012-13.

Both documents will be available electronically on the MCA’s website, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Wage Incentives for Work Choice

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I would like to announce plans to launch a new wage incentive scheme in July this year. The wage incentive—worth up to £2,275 each—will be available to employers who recruit an 18 to 24-year-old disabled person from Work Choice into sustained employment. Work Choice is a specialist disability employment programme that provides tailored support to help disabled people who have the most complex support needs.

This extra support for young disabled people will sit alongside the youth contract, which currently offers a similar wage incentive for employers who recruit an 18 to 24-year-old from the Work programme—the Government’s leading back-to-work programme.

The aim of this wage incentive scheme is to incentivise employers into giving young disabled people participating on Work Choice a chance in a weaker market. This is at a time when they might be overlooked because of a lack of skills or experience and the scheme can therefore help reduce the scarring that young people face as a result of a recession. It provides valuable support to employers, in addition to the support to employer and disabled employee already provided through Work Choice in-work support or Access to Work.