House of Commons

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

Thursday 22 November 2012

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

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

1. When she expects the Leveson report to be published.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I expect Lord Justice Leveson to deliver his report by the end of the month. The inquiry team will make an announcement about specific times later this morning.

[Mr Buckland]

If the Leveson inquiry recommends an end to the current system of press regulation, will the Government rise to the challenge and help to create a system that will quickly gain the trust of the public?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to identify trust as an overwhelming prerequisite for any solution to our problems involving the press. Certainly the status quo is not an option. The principles that will drive any solution are the need for an independent regulator, the need for tough regulation, and the need to do everything possible to preserve free speech.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Given that both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who set up the inquiry, have stressed time and again the importance of giving Lord Leveson space in which to report and not prejudging the outcome, how helpful is it for colleagues of the Prime Minister, in the Cabinet and elsewhere, to make repeated comments in an attempt to undermine the report in advance?

[Maria Miller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for endorsing the importance of the report, and I join him in doing so. We must ensure that we look at the facts and the judgment of the inquiry. Comments expressing concern are coming from many quarters, but I urge everyone to wait and not to prejudge the findings of the inquiry, which will be forthcoming very shortly.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to study Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations very carefully, but that any decision affecting the freedom of the press is so important that it should be made only by Parliament? Does she accept that there is now almost total agreement that we need a new, independent regulator with tough powers, but that the decision on whether there should be any legislative back-up involving statute is of such huge importance that we need to be absolutely certain that there is no alternative before proceeding down that route?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the importance of the freedom of the press, but we must also ensure that there is robust and full redress for victims. Those are the things that we must balance, and that is why I think that it would be entirely appropriate for us to have discussions, whether in the Chamber or elsewhere in the House.

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

I agree with Members who have said that this issue is of enormous importance. Like me, the Secretary of State had an opportunity to meet victims of phone hacking and press intrusion yesterday.

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) was absolutely right to say that this is a matter for the House. In that context, may I ask the Secretary of State whether she intends to make a statement to the House on the day on which the Leveson report is published, and also whether she will ensure that the Government provide an early opportunity for the House to debate it? I have already asked for cross-party Front-Bench talks, but this is also a matter of great interest and importance for Back Benchers in all parts of the House.

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for the opportunity to clarify the position. She and I have already had discussions about this very issue. I hope that we will continue to have such discussions, and that they can involve the other parties as well. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to make things clearer in his business statement later today.

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

The Secretary of State will recall that the Leveson inquiry started as a result of the phone hacking scandal. Is she aware of recent evidence that journalists were using information like a trading commodity, one of them picking up the hack and then passing it to another to disguise the source of the hacking? Will Leveson cover that aspect?

[Maria Miller]

Obviously Lord Leveson has been looking at this issue in an enormous amount of detail, and criminal investigations are also in progress. I am sure that the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, and indeed many other issues relating to the prevalence of phone hacking, will be dealt with in Lord Leveson’s inquiry report, which, as I have said, will be available very shortly.

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

2. When 4G network services will be rolled out in (a) England and Wales and (b) Central Bedfordshire.

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

EE is already deploying 4G services in 11 cities, and will be doing so in five more before the end of the year. We expect further 4G services to become available by mid-summer. It will of course be for the operators to decide when they will become available in Central Bedfordshire.

[Andrew Selous]

My constituency is only 34 miles north of the House of Commons, yet large parts of it, such as the village of Studham, have almost no mobile phone coverage. Many complaints have been raised with me about that, particularly by people running businesses and working from home. Will 4G help them?

[Mr Vaizey]

4G should be helpful to them in the next few years, but I would also say that we take the issue of partial not spots, where there is not universal coverage, very seriously. That is one reason we are looking at making it easier to deploy mobile phone masts and increase mobile phone coverage, particularly in areas such as the one described by my hon. Friend.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Has the Minister seen reports this week showing that the failure to roll out 4G speedily will cost £120 million at Christmas alone—in sales just next month? Does he accept that the Government’s failure to deliver 4G speedily has an economic impact? Will he indicate when 4G will be available in my area and throughout the Principality of Wales?

[Mr Vaizey]

The spectrum for the 4G services that are going to be auctioned only became available when we completed the digital television switchover in October. We followed the previous Government’s timetable for that, so if anyone is to blame for the delay, it is them.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

3. What plans she has to ensure a suitable commemoration of the centenary of the first world war.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

We have announced a series of measures to commemorate the centenary of the first world war. The Government’s programme will focus on the key themes of remembrance, education and youth. It will include national commemorative events, a major remodelling of the Imperial War museum, support for school visits to the battlefields and a special grants programme from the Heritage Lottery Fund to support young people in community projects.

[Damian Collins]

I thank the Secretary of State for that. Does she agree that it is particularly important to support community projects, especially those such as the Step Short project in Folkestone, which is working to commemorate the lives of the 10 million men who passed through the fort, going to and from the trenches, during the first world war?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the importance of local events, and I urge all hon. Members to examine the connection between their area and the first world war. It is by bringing it to life in this very local and personal way that we can give this commemoration the importance it needs. The Government are investing more than £50 million in projects such as the refurbishment of the Imperial War museum, but we will also be doing an awful lot more at a community level.

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

4. What assessment she has made of access to the arts in each region.

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

My Department’s Taking Part survey shows high levels of access to the arts in all regions of England; the figures are 78.9% in England overall and 74.5% in the west midlands.

[Tristram Hunt]

First, may I pay tribute to the great work the Minister is doing on the Wedgwood museum? However, as a result of the extraordinary and disproportionate cuts to local authority budgets, great museums such as the Potteries museum and art gallery in Stoke-on-Trent face a funding and scholarship crisis. In a recent letter to The Guardian, the chair of Arts Council England, Liz Forgan, said that bodies such as hers cannot fill the vacuum. What talks is the Minister having with that great aesthete and lover of the arts the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make sure that our great cities and regions continue to have access to great art?

[Mr Vaizey]

I met the great lover of the arts’ junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), only yesterday, and my Department has regular communications with the Department for Communities and Local Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we managed to keep the cuts to national portfolio organisations down to 15% or less, and we have massively increased the national lottery share for the arts. However, we do, of course, take concerns about local authority funding seriously.

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

Does the Minister agree that funding for the arts through the national lottery has vastly increased because of the changes made by this Government?

[Mr Vaizey]

Absolutely. We increased the share for the arts and for heritage from 16% to 20%, which means that the arts will get hundreds of millions of pounds more of lottery funding.

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

The Minister’s Department is responsible for the arts, which are so important to not only our culture, but jobs and growth. The Government have already cut funding for the Arts Council by 30% and abolished the regional development agencies, which supported arts in the regions. Now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has said, local government, which has always been such an important support for arts locally, is struggling with huge central Government cuts to its budgets. That is set to have a catastrophic impact on the arts in local communities, with some councils set to end their funding of local arts altogether. Will the Minister make an immediate detailed assessment of local government cuts in arts funding and place a copy in the House of Commons Library?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is an honour to answer a question from the right hon. and learned Lady, but I simply do not recognise the picture she paints. The arts are in a very healthy state in this country, as I said. We have maintained significant funding for the arts and for our national museums and heritage. We have substantially increased lottery funding for the arts and heritage. I will, of course, continue to engage with local authorities on this important issue.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

5. If she will bring forward proposals to reduce the BBC licence fee.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

It is right that the BBC should play its part in making savings alongside all other public sector organisations. The Government have delivered a real-term reduction in the BBC licence fee by freezing it at its current level until March 2017.

[Mr Bone]

I do not think the Secretary of State quite answered my question, but clearly we are not going to get a cut in the licence fee, as requested. May I make it much easier for her? The Secretary of State believes that everybody loves the BBC, so why make it compulsory to pay the licence fee? Why not just make it a subscription channel?

[Maria Miller]

I would never want to fall out with my hon. Friend, but I think that is exactly what I did say: we have already brought forward proposals to ensure that the BBC licence fee is, in effect, reduced by freezing it. I hope that he will welcome that and, of course, we will always strive to ensure that the organisation brings forth value for money.

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

The Secretary of State will know that the BBC World Service is to be funded from the licence fee in due course. Whatever else happens, will she ensure that the World Service is not in any way jeopardised and that its ability to serve our national interest and to provide services to many viewers and listeners across the world is not reduced?

[Maria Miller]

The World Service has a unique role to play in broadcasting on a global level. The hon. Gentleman can have my assurance that we will continue to value that in the future, though the changes to funding that have been made are important.

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

May I urge the Secretary of State to resist any calls for a reduction in the licence fee? The BBC has already faced significant cuts to valued services, such as local radio, as a result of the budget constraints. Surely this is just yet another attack on the BBC by its enemies, at a time when it should be focusing its attention on getting its own house in order.

[Maria Miller]

There must be recognition of the fact that the BBC received £3.6 billion in licence fee in this year alone. My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot put the quality and standing of the BBC anywhere other than at the top of the pile, but when it comes to ensuring that we get value for the significant amount of money coming from the licence fee payer, it is right that that pressure should be there.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

6. What support her Department is giving to bids for the Tour de France to come to the UK in 2014.

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

UK Sport and British Cycling are discussing potential bids to host stages of the event around the UK in 2014. We have asked UK Sport to assess the strategic importance and financial viability of the bids and to provide support as necessary.

[Jason McCartney]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Yorkshire bid for the Tour de France in 2014 and its potential route over Holme Moss in my constituency will be given equal support and funding to the Scottish bid? May I invite my hon. Friend to come and have a look at Holme Moss, which is the most picturesque part of the world and would make a superb stage for the Tour de France?

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is aware that we believe that the best chance of success will be to submit a single bid and we have reached out to Yorkshire to ask them to take part in a national bid. Anything he can do to help would be most welcome. I was grateful for his intervention, but I think it would be more appropriate for the Minister for Sport, to whom I spoke yesterday. He is keen to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the Minister also reach out to Shropshire? As he will know, the national cycle network goes through the county, and he has visited the Wrekin, the wonderful landmark in Shropshire. Will he continue his conversations with the Minister for Sport and ensure that the Tour de France comes through that beautiful county?

[Mr Vaizey]

I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and can confirm its beauty. As I am standing in as proxy for the Minister for Sport, may I also confirm his acceptance of the invitation to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency?

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

7. What plans her Department has for a gender audit of public spending on sport.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The Department measures sport participation by gender via the Taking Part survey. In addition, Sport England’s Active People survey provides more detailed data on sport participation. Together, those provide a good understanding of the gender implications of public spending on sport. The Department has no plans to undertake a specific gender audit.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Active People survey shows that more than 2 million fewer girls and women than men take part in sport, at both weekly and monthly intervals, but 12 million say that they want to take part in sport. Is not it time we had a full audit of public spending on sport to find out what it is spent on and why so many fewer women than men take part?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady puts her finger on it. We know that there are participation issues, so rather than simply continuing to audit it, we are taking action. We already have our £1 billion youth and community sports strategy, which is looking at ways of ensuring that girls take part in sport, and the Active Women programme, a £10 million lottery programme aimed at getting women into sport. Of course, the most important audit of all was the Olympic games this summer, in which the very first gold medal was won by a woman, as indeed was the last. That is evidence that things are moving in the right direction, but clearly there is still more to do.

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

It is important to build on the success of the Olympics, particularly in participation, but the reason a survey is important is that we are seeing a drop in the number of girls involved in school sport, so there is a need to measure what is happening. I think the Secretary of State should speak with the Secretary of State for Education, who does not seem to like sport.

[Maria Miller]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I speak regularly with the Secretary of State for Education on this and many other issues and to ensure that we continue the excellent work of the school games, which has done so much not only to improve girls’ participation in sport, but to help more disabled people get involved.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to address problems with digital television reception in Baxenden.

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

There are a few factors that could affect reception in Baxenden, but I gather that the most likely cause is a wind farm—I do not know whether that information is available to the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes).

[Graham Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is up to date on the matter. Baxenden, of course, has a weak signal from the Winter Hill transmitter, which has been identified by his Department as one of those that will be most adversely affected by the 4G roll-out. That will affect my constituency because the weak signal spans right across it. He is correct, because over the weekend scientific evidence indicated that the wind farm was the problem. I add that more turbines would probably alleviate the situation. What will he do to clarify the legal responsibility in this case and how my residents can get compensation in cases where it could be the wind farm or 4G that is the cause?

[Mr Vaizey]

As I understand it, mitigating the impact of the wind farm is the responsibility of its operator, which is now communicating with residents and providing solutions, such as moving aerials so that they can pick up signals from the alternative transmitter. As he correctly says, interference is not caused by 4G, because of course the 4G that could interfere with digital televisions signals has not yet been deployed.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

9. If she will take steps to accelerate the repayment of moneys taken from lottery good causes funds to support the London 2012 Olympic games; and if she will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The Government have put in place a new legal agreement with the Greater London authority ensuring that the £675 million that the lottery will receive from Olympic park land sales will be returned to the lottery earlier than previously planned.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The point is this: when? The Olympic delivery third quarter report stated that the centrally held contingency funding remaining in the package will be transferred to the national lottery distribution fund for the benefit of lottery good causes. Those good causes, which are being hit by Government cuts and squeezes in philanthropy following the recession, want to know when they will get the money and how much interest they will be paid.

[Maria Miller]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern with the plans that were put in place by the Government of whom she was a part and the timing of the programme we inherited. That is why we have made sure that the money will be repaid earlier. If she wants further details on that, which is quite complex, perhaps I can write to her.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Lottery funding helped the Olympics to generate unprecedented levels of enthusiasm in sport, and was one of the factors that brought together a community sport group, a school, a college, a local residents group and a developer in my constituency to create a sports park for all who live there. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet representatives of those organisations to see how we can make this dream a reality?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the important role the Olympics played as a catalyst in making people aware of the importance of having the right facilities available in local areas, and we have made it one of the key parts of our legacy programme to make sure those facilities flourish. I would be happy to hear more about the initiative my hon. Friend mentions.

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

Taking money from lottery-supported good causes was about the worst possible way to pay for the Olympics. The Secretary of State now has the opportunity to put this right. There is a £377 million underspend. Will she now pledge to return that money to good causes as soon as possible?

[Maria Miller]

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think the role the lottery played in the delivery of the Olympics was absolutely right. He raises an important point, however, about rebalancing the lottery. As he will know, we have already put measures in place to do that and to bring forward this important repayment.

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

10. What assessment she has made of the progress of the rural superfast broadband programme.

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

We are making good progress, and I can confirm the good news, which I know the hon. Lady will welcome, that the European Commission has now approved the UK umbrella state aid notification. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] A cheer for Europe in this Chamber is a thing of rare beauty, and we will continue, therefore, to progress our rural broadband programme.

[Chi Onwurah]

But the Minister for communications cannot hide the complete “comnishambles” over which he is presiding. That is why state aid approval was delayed for so many months. We have a multi-million pound superfast broadband process with no competitors. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is effective competition in the delivery of superfast broadband, so British consumers and businesses get the choice they deserve?

[Mr Vaizey]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we have a multi-million pound superfast broadband programme, and it is going to deliver superfast broadband to 90% of the country. I cannot make companies compete for these funds, but we do have a robust process in place to ensure value for money, and we are proceeding apace.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will Ministers consider prioritising not spots for the roll-out, such as the village of Denton in my constituency, which has shamefully been neglected by BT, as well as areas that have poor mobile reception, such as St Margaret’s and Kingsdown, which get French mobile phone signals?

[Mr Vaizey]

For the 4G auction, we have put in place a 98% coverage obligation. Getting broadband to the village of Denton will, of course, be part of the Kent rural broadband programme, so it will be a matter for my hon. Friend to discuss with his county council.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Government chose to abandon Labour’s target of universal broadband access by 2012, and last week Ofcom published figures that showed that 10% of the population— 5 million people—have no access to broadband whatever. The problem is especially bad in rural areas, where access is 50% worse than in urban areas. In north Lincolnshire, only one person in five has access to broadband, and in Ceredigion the proportion is one person in four. Whatever happened to the party of the countryside?

[Mr Vaizey]

We did not abandon Labour’s pledge; Labour’s pledge was unaffordable and it was unclear how it was going to be paid for. We have put in place a much better pledge—to deliver superfast broadband—and we have among the highest penetration of internet access in the world.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the Government on getting this state aid approval. The Minister will be aware that some telephone exchanges serve residents and premises that cross local authority boundaries, so will he encourage authorities to work together even when they are not in the same consortiums, to ensure residents served by those exchanges are properly supported?

[Mr Vaizey]

We are certainly encouraging that, and a number of counties are working together, including Devon and Somerset, and Herefordshire and Gloucestershire. We will continue to encourage that where it is appropriate.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

11. What assessment she has made of the cultural sector in Merseyside.

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

Our most recent survey data show that last year, nearly 80% of adults in the north-west engaged with the arts and 4.9 million people visited DCMS-sponsored museums. Between 2010 and 2015, the Arts Council will invest £44 million in Merseyside organisations and £140 million across the north-west. National Museums Liverpool will receive £109 million in grant in aid.

[Alison McGovern]

I never get tired of hearing how successful the cultural sector is in Merseyside, so I thank the Minister for his answer. However, he knows as well as I do that National Museums is not the same as the support that local authorities formerly gave, and that before the disastrous cuts that they now face, leaders in Merseyside had been able to support the arts, so why will he not answer the question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)? Why will he not say to us today that he will undertake a survey of local authority cuts and place that information about the arts in the House of Commons Library?

[Mr Vaizey]

The reason the hon. Lady does not get tired of hearing about the success of Merseyside’s arts organisations is that they are astonishingly successful. Liverpool had an incredible year as the European city of culture, its central library is being refurbished, it opened the first national museum for a century, the Liverpool Everyman is benefiting from a £28 million refurbishment, and only recently the Royal Court received a grant of £867,000 for its refurbishment.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of Merseyside’s creative industry strengths is our video games sector. Will the Minister please update the House on the progress that his Government are making towards introducing a video games tax relief?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to remind the House that we are introducing an important tax credit for the video games industry. Our negotiations with the European Commission are going very well and we are, I hope, still on target to introduce it next April.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

12. What steps she is taking to increase the effects of tourism on the economy.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Tourism is a key priority for the Government. That is why we are funding VisitBritain’s biggest ever global tourism initiative, the GREAT campaign, which is expected to create 4.6 million extra visitors, £2.3 billion additional spend and nearly 60,000 jobs over the next four years. In addition, a major domestic campaign by VisitEngland is expected to create 12,000 jobs over three years, with £500 million extra spent by tourists.

[Andrew Bingham]

Recent research has shown that tourism in Buxton in my constituency of High Peak generated a massive £72 million for the local economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates not only the huge financial and employment benefits of an effective tourism industry, but the fact that these benefits spread out to surrounding areas and all parts of the local economy, even those that would not necessarily be associated with tourism?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend should not be surprised at that level of tourism in his area, given the fantastic international festivals, the wonderful Georgian architecture of Buxton and the way that it has inspired so much creativity over the generations. All Members of the House should be looking at the way that tourism can help to support their own local economies because it has such potential for growth.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Secretary of State held with Ministers in the Department for Transport regarding the needs of coach operators and the vital role that they can play in promoting tourism?

[Maria Miller]

As I said earlier, the role of domestic tourism is more important at present than even international tourism so connectivity through trains, coaches and our road network is a vital part of making sure that we maximise that. I will take a particular look at any issues that the hon. Lady wants to raise with me with regard to coach travel because it is clearly an important part of the domestic market.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

14. My constituency is the only place in the world to have given its name to an international game and we are working hard to derive an economic benefit from this by attracting visitors to the town. May I extend an invitation to the Secretary of State to join together her responsibilities for tourism and sport by visiting Rugby as it prepares for visitors during the rugby world cup, which is being held in England in 2015?

[Maria Miller]

Again, my hon. Friend demonstrates the fact that tourism can play a role in a wide variety of towns—Rugby is, I think, the second largest town in the country. I will look carefully at any proposal to come and support the rugby world cup.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If one goes on holiday to Poland, France or Italy, it is nice to be greeted in the hotel by a receptionist who is from Poland, France or Italy. The same does not often happen in the United Kingdom. Is it not time that the British hospitality and tourism industries did more to enable young British people to get jobs in British hotels?

[Maria Miller]

What is important is that hoteliers are able to use people who are best placed to support the visitors who stay in those hotels, whether those are young British people or people from other countries as well. I do not recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

17. In welcoming the Government’s tourism strategy, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say a little more about how communities who are close to major gateways such as Gatwick airport can benefit from tourism so that people can enjoy, in my local case, the fantastic entertainment and retail facilities in Crawley and the beautiful countryside of west Sussex?

[Maria Miller]

It is right to point out that many areas of the country could be benefiting even more from tourism. That is why we are putting record levels of spend behind our domestic campaign to encourage people to consider Britain as the place for their holidays or short breaks.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

As hon. Members will have noticed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is not with us for oral questions. He is currently in Rio de Janeiro leading a delegation to share London’s knowledge and expertise with our Brazilian counterparts, helping them to prepare for the World cup in 2014 and the Olympics and Paralympics in 2016—and, importantly, banging the drum for British business. With £70 million of contracts already won for UK companies in Rio, we are continuing to deliver an economic legacy for the UK from the most successful games of modern times.

[Simon Hughes]

Rio in November—it must be a hard life!

There is often lots of conversation about the difficulties of broadband access in rural areas. What can Ministers do to help people in urban areas such as mine, where in Rotherhithe, for example, people are not near the telephone exchange and broadband is therefore very poor indeed?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue with which many people in the Chamber will identify. Urban areas by no means always receive the sort of connectivity that our constituents want. That is why it is important that we have put in place not only the rural broadband programme to deliver better connectivity in rural areas but the urban broadband fund for our urban areas, which will ensure that London has some £25 million to achieve the improvements that he talks about.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The “Chance to Shine” survey published this week shows that the majority of parents who were surveyed—54%—said that since the Olympics their children have played less than two hours of sport and PE per week. Participation in sport in school is on the way down. The PE and sports survey published in 2010 told us that over 90% of schoolchildren were doing sport in schools. If we are to have any chance of instilling a sporting habit for life in our young children, we will have to start in schools. Will the Minister tell us what the Government intend to do to monitor what is going on in our schools?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we have to instil that habit of sport at the earliest age. As I have said before, I share his concern about participation levels among young people. We will be looking carefully at the findings from the “Chance to Shine” survey. I have already talked to him and to other Members about the school games, in which 50% of schools have participated, and through our youth sport strategy £1 billion is going towards supporting further participation. I hope that he will welcome those facts.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T2. The London Olympics and Paralympics were clearly an outstanding success delivered on time and within budget, with an outstanding performance by Great Britain. Now comes the long-term challenge of delivering the legacy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the position as regards progress in dismantling some of the venues that are due to be moved elsewhere so that everyone can enjoy that success?

[Maria Miller]

The decommissioning of venues is already well under way, with the transference of temporary venues to new owners, whether it is the volleyball courts or the beach volleyball courts that were just round the corner from here, from which the sand has been taken and used to create tens of new volleyball courts throughout London, including one in Wimbledon park.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

T3. The Conservative party used to support a competitive telecommunications market. Why on earth are Ministers now establishing a new private sector monopoly in rural superfast broadband by simply handing all the Government subsidy over to BT?

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

I cannot keep on making this point, but I will. We are not handing the money to BT. It is a competitive tendering process, and if BT wins the contracts that local authorities put out, that is a matter for those local authorities.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

T6. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) mentioned the rugby world cup in 2015. I must just clarify that he was referring to the rugby union world cup. The rugby league world cup is happening next year.Switching to football, do Ministers accept the case for introducing, on a trial basis, limited standing areas at football grounds for premiership and championship clubs whose management want to participate?

[Mr Vaizey]

We believe that seated stadiums offer the best experience for spectators and the best safety measures. That view is supported by the Government, the police and the sport.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

T4. Given the importance of the high standards and diversity in our media, will the communications Bill include any Leveson inquiry recommendations on media and cross-media ownership?

[Maria Miller]

We have always made it clear that we will take Lord Leveson’s thoughts and findings into account as we draw the Bill together.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

T8. I recently attended Worcester’s Gheluvelt park for a moving service to mark the 98th anniversary of the battle of Gheluvelt, at which the Worcestershire Regiment stopped the Prussian guard and stabilised the western front. As the 100th anniversary of those heroic actions draws near, what can the Secretary of State do to ensure that local connections with the first world war will be properly recognised amidst the national commemorations?

[Maria Miller]

An important part of the work that we will do to commemorate the first world war will be to ensure that every community, and indeed every individual, has the opportunity to find their own story, whether they have overseas connections or not. The Heritage Lottery Fund will be important in delivering the finances for that.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

T5. We have talked in this Question Time about the contribution of schools to developing sporting activities among children. Schools are also key to developing creativity among children, and Britain leads the world in the creative industries. Will the Secretary of State meet the Secretary of State for Education to discuss the effect of the EBacc plans on creative subjects in the curriculum, and to ensure that creativity is part of our children’s education?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady needs to understand that the English baccalaureate has creativity at its heart. It includes English, maths, science, history, geography and languages, and will give students the opportunity to explore the heritage of this country’s literature. Sitting alongside that, the 123 new music hubs that have been established will ensure that creativity is at the heart of our children’s education.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T9. Essex is an important engine of economic growth in the United Kingdom. Businesses in our county are being held back by poor broadband infrastructure, and yet we have been placed 31st out of 35 on the Broadband Delivery UK project framework. Will the Secretary of State support local businesses in Essex by prioritising the roll-out of high-speed broadband?

[Mr Vaizey]

Essex has been awarded £6 million for its rural broadband programme. Although it is low on the list because of when it submitted its application to BDUK, we will work with Essex and a lot of work can be done before procurement.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

There has been a huge increase in the number of betting shops opening in generic shopping units and the subsequent installation of the high-stake, high-price fixed odds betting terminals, which contribute to gambling addiction. Will the Secretary of State meet the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to agree a policy that places betting shops in a specific planning category to stop the increase in betting shops and high-stake machines? Will she carry out an investigation into the impact of those machines on gambling addiction?

[Maria Miller]

On the final part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, we believe that there is a need for more evidence on the impact of gambling within society. We are collecting that evidence now and are looking carefully at all the issues that he raised.

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

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and Ofcom for the auction arrangements, which satisfy all the mobile phone operators. However, will Ministers reassure the House that planning guidance will be put in place to enable mobile operators to introduce higher masts and bring about 4G roll-out much more quickly?

[Mr Vaizey]

We are looking at the planning regulations on mobile phone masts. We will bring forward proposals and consult on them in the appropriate manner. My hon. Friend’s point is well made. If we want to benefit from 4G, we have to make it easier to deploy networks.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I was concerned by the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been taking evidence in its inquiry into the creative industries. Every single witness has said that the Government’s plans for the EBacc will be devastating for the arts and culture. The Secretary of State must be the champion for arts and culture in government and must ask the Education Secretary to think again.

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand that as well as Ebacc’s creative content, many things are going on around that in schools. The issue has been carefully considered by Ofsted, which assesses the cultural development of individuals in schools. That is at the heart of what we are doing.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Today is the feast day of Saint Cecilia, the patron saint of music, and it also marks the launch of celebrations in Aldeburgh for Benjamin Britten’s centenary year. Will the Secretary of State join me next year at the Red House to celebrate one of our greatest ever composers?

[Mr Vaizey]

I have already accepted a number of invitations on behalf of the sports Minister, and I am happy to confirm that the Secretary of State will, I am sure, make it to Aldeburgh next year to celebrate the centenary of one of our greatest composers whom children will learn about in school, particularly after we publish our national cultural education plan—the first of its kind in our history.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Department plan any legislative changes to the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, and if so, when?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that the Government are doing an enormous amount to help libraries. We have given responsibility for libraries to the Arts Council, which has set up a £6 million fund to support them, and we have appointed a new libraries adviser, Yinnon Ezra. We are piloting the compulsory membership of libraries for schoolchildren and we have the Seighart review on e-lending. We continue strongly to support libraries. This is not about legislation; it is about action.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Under the previous Government, broadband provision in Northumberland was woeful, disorganised and underfunded. That situation is slowly improving, which brings great benefits. Will the Minister meet me—rather than the sports Minister having that pleasure—and fellow representatives in Northumberland, to discuss how we can improve the provision of broadband in Northumberland?

[Mr Vaizey]

As a matter of principle I never refuse a meeting with an hon. Member under my portfolio, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend—in fact, I would be delighted.

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the differential effect of unemployment across age groups.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the differential effect of unemployment across age groups.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

6. What assessment she has made of the differential effect of unemployment across age groups.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

Over the past year, unemployment has fallen in every age group and the number of people in work has risen by more than half a million.

[Alison McGovern]

The Minister’s answer concerns me slightly because in my constituency surgery I have heard from women in the 50-to-64 age group who are finding the labour market very tough. I believe that we have seen a recent increase in unemployment of more than 20% in that age group. What will the Minister do to help older women get back to work?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Lady represents the constituency next to mine and we should both celebrate the fact that employment figures are up for every age group, locally, nationally and regionally. The unemployment rate for people over 50 is 4.5%, and for women over 50 it is 3.5%. Those figures are lower than the total unemployment rate of 7.8%. I would question your facts.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the Minister is not questioning my facts, but I think I have the gist of what she is saying.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Over the past two years, long-term unemployment among young women increased by 412% on Teesside, with 640 women aged 24 and under claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months. Does the Minister agree with figures from the Office for National Statistics which show that under this Government, long-term youth unemployment among women on Teesside has skyrocketed, and what will she do about it?

[Esther McVey]

I believe that is only part of the story, and in the past, false breaks in unemployment statistics—particularly under the new deal—skewed figures. The Work programme has removed that anomaly, providing a true reflection of the facts. Youth unemployment is down, and the Government are doing significant things to help with 250,000 more work experience places, 160,000 more wage incentives, and 20,000 more apprenticeship grants. We are doing as much as we possibly can and, as I said, unemployment is significantly down under this Government.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Youth unemployment in Clwyd South is up 157% from this time last year. Does the Minister accept that her weasel words simply will not wash with those young people, and will she confirm how the Government intend to help them? Surely the Government should take the utmost action to get them back into work.

[Esther McVey]

They are not weasel words. Clwyd South’s statistics show that unemployment is down whether for 18 to 24-year-olds or for all claimant counts. We are doing significant work to support young people.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

It is extremely concerning for all hon. Members when young people are unemployed. Enormous numbers of jobs have been created in London in the past 10-plus years, and yet some young people have been left behind. Does that not highlight the fact that we must approach the problem from the point of view of education and skills, rather than pretending, as the Opposition do, that the problem started in 2010?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my hon. Friend absolutely. For clarification, the unemployment figures for young people are affected by the rising proportion of people in education rather than in the labour market. Those who have left education and are unemployed in the 16 to 24-year-old population is 9%, which is lower than in the recessions of the ’90s and the ’80s. We are doing more than ever before for the youth of today.

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

Youth unemployment in Hastings has fallen by 16% in the past year, which I welcome. Is the Minister happy with how youth unemployment is assessed? Some of my constituents find it confusing that young people in full-time education are still classified as unemployed.

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my hon. Friend—I referred to that in my previous answer. We need to get the statistics right. As I said, 9% of the total 16 to 24-year-old population are unemployed. We have put more in place than ever before to help that group of people.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I declare an interest in the employment of women aged between 50 and 64? Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that the unemployment rate in that group is, at 3.5%, the lowest rate of unemployment for any group of women? Some 3.5 million women in that age group are employed, which is the highest number ever, and 60.6% is the highest rate of employment for the group.

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my hon. Friend—that is obviously a very talented group of women. She is correct that 3.5% is lower than before. It is half the total unemployment rate, which is 7.8%.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Last month in Women and Equalities questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said she did not accept that the figure of 50% unemployment among young black men was accurate. On 24 October, in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), Glen Watson of the UK Statistics Authority confirmed that the figure is actually 52%. I listened carefully to the answers the Minister gave a moment ago about the definition of the unemployment rate. Is she saying that she does not accept the official figures? What will the Government do about the scandalously high level of black youth unemployment?

[Esther McVey]

We are doing a lot about this. Again, unemployment for that group is under a third—the figures the hon. Lady presents do not include people who are in education.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to support women and minority groups in the workplace.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)]

In the current economic circumstances, we need more than ever to maximise the full potential of the diverse talents in our work force. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed last week that we will legislate to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, ensuring that the benefits of flexibility are available as widely as possible. In addition, more than 50 leading employers are signed up to our “Think, Act, Report” initiative, covering more than 1 million employees.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Government state that the new employment tribunal fees for claims relating to the national minimum wage will attract the lowest level of fee—£390—yet the average payout to workers who make a claim enforcing the minimum wage is just £165, which is less than half the cost of pursuing a claim under the new fee structure. Does the Minister agree that the new system of employment tribunal fees will unfairly punish women, disabled people, and black and ethnic minority workers, who are disproportionately represented among the low paid?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady raises the issue of access to justice, which I agree is important. That is why, in addition to the fee regime, there will be a remissions regime, which will mean that the people on the lowest incomes will not have to pay. The key point to remember about employment tribunals, highlighted by the figure she gave on the average payout in those minimum wage cases, is that they are often not the best route to resolving disputes. That is why the Government are legislating to make sure that there is more early conciliation, so that for employers and employees alike the stress, time and money involved in employment tribunals can be avoided in all but the most necessary circumstances.

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

Will my hon. Friend look at the cohort of older women who are being asked to work longer before they can claim their state pension? They are particularly difficult to place in the workplace. What measures will the Government consider to assist them?

[Jo Swinson]

This group of women is very talented and we need to be using their talents in the economy. The additional plans for flexibility are helpful not just for those with caring responsibilities for young children, but for people as they get closer to retirement age. Rather than falling off the cliff of working full time and immediately going into full retirement, being able to reduce hours and work flexibly can be helpful in that transition.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Synod rejection of women bishops will have deeply disappointed the talented women who work in the Church of England, the vast majority of Church members who had expressed their support, and those in Parliament and across the country who supported women bishops. Does the Minister agree that we should urge the Church to look again at this swiftly, and that it cannot be left to lie for another five years? The Church is the established Church, so the issue affects bishops in Parliament and Parliament has to agree to the changes. She and the Secretary of State will know that many in Parliament will feel uncomfortable if new proposals come forward that further water down plans for women bishops, when the majority of those in the Church have already shown their strong support for these plans. Will she ask the Secretary of State to convey to the Church the willingness and readiness of Parliament to work with it and to support the views of the majority of Church members in support of women bishops?

[Jo Swinson]

The right hon. Lady will know that there is due to be an urgent question shortly, when this issue will be discussed in more detail. Personally, as a strong supporter of women’s equality, I share her disappointment and that of many others. As a Scottish humanist, I recognise that I may not be the best person to tell the Church of England what it should be doing. All our religious institutions are important. She raised the issue of the role of Parliament. She may be aware that I have not been a supporter of all-women shortlists for Parliament. There is an irony in that there is a continuing all-male shortlist as a result of this decision. She is right to highlight that a significant majority in the General Synod supported the move to women bishops. The fact that 95% of dioceses supported it gives some reassurance to those who would like to see this change happen.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Women are routinely paid less than men—15% less on average nationally; 23% less in London. However, the Davies report found that organisations with more women on their boards outperformed their rivals by 42% in sales, and significantly on return on capital and on equity. Does my hon. Friend agree that to promote greater equality in the workplace, companies must be far more open about their employment practices so that they have better outcomes?

[Jo Swinson]

Of course, the pay gap figures have just been updated and published this morning and they have come down slightly, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that they are still too high. My hon. Friend highlights the fact that having more women on boards can help companies’ performance. I encourage employers to sign up to our “Think, Act, Report” initiative, so that they properly use the talents of women within their businesses at all levels.

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

4. What steps she is taking to ensure that the London 2012 Paralympic games leave a lasting legacy for disabled people across the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The Paralympics were hugely successful. Now, we must ensure that we convert this success into an Olympic and Paralympic legacy that lasts beyond one great summer. The Government are working with Lord Coe so that the legacy programme delivers real and tangible benefits, including for disabled people.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Paralympic games sent a tremendously positive message across wider society. Does the Minister regret, therefore, that the aim of achieving disability equality has been dropped by the Department for Work and Pensions? Is that not a completely contradictory message to send?

[Maria Miller]

I know from personal experience that at the heart of everything the Department does is giving people an opportunity to play a full role in society and looking at people for what they can do, not what they cannot do. That is exactly what we should be doing to support disabled people into work.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to support more women into work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)]

The Government are taking strong action to support more women into sustainable work. We are delivering the biggest apprenticeships programme our country has ever seen, with more than half going to women. More than 200,000 women started an apprenticeship last year. Our tax cuts for 20 million people on the lowest incomes ensure that work always pays, and our radical reforms to parental leave announced last week will allow more women—and men—to balance their work and caring responsibilities.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Is it not particularly important that we help partnered mothers with children into the workplace, particularly considering that in 1985 less than 30% of women with children under three were in the workplace but today it is nearly 60%?

[Jo Swinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we help working mothers who wish to work to play a full role in the labour market. That is also about ensuring that fathers who want to play a full role in parenting can do so. The ability to share parental leave between mums and dads in the way they choose, rather than how the Government dictate, is an important step towards achieving that goal.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Minister will be alarmed, as we all are, by the big rise in long-term unemployment among women over 50—up from 50,000 to 62,000 since the election. The Work programme, which is designed to address that, does not seem to be delivering. What more can the Government do?

[Jo Swinson]

We are looking into this issue in detail, because we want to ensure that this group of women, as with all unemployed people, are supported. The Work programme provides tailored and targeted support to the individual, which is what is needed, and we will report back to the House about what more can be done.

Petition

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I wish to present this petition to the House, which has nearly 1,000 signatures, and is from Mr Ali and residents of Coldhurst and other parts of Oldham. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition.

The petition states:

The Petition of Mr Ali and residents of Coldhurst,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that as a result of a recent attack on the Rohingya ethnic minority in June 2012 there is now a humanitarian crisis in Burma and that more than 90,000 Rohingya have been displaced; further that the Petitioners believe that since 1962 no Rohingya have been issued with birth certificates which renders them aliens to their own country and means they have no citizen’s rights and that innocent civilians are being targeted because of their ethnic background; further that the Petitioners believe that this is a modern ethnic cleansing and that it has been described as such by many independent journalists and NGOs and that the Rohingya require relief and aid. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to cease its economic ties with Burma and to assist in providing aid for the displaced Rohingya of the region.

And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

[P001138]

Women Bishops

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

10:31

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner make a statement on this week’s decision by the General Synod on women bishops?

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury made it clear at the General Synod of the Church of England that the Church of England could not afford to “hang about” over the issue of women bishops and observed starkly that

“every day that we fail to resolve this issue…is a day when our credibility in the public eye is likely to diminish”.

Justin Welby, the Bishop of Durham and the next Archbishop of Canterbury, said:

“The Church has voted overwhelmingly in favour of the principle. It is a question of finding a way that…is the right way forward.”

It is important for the House to recognise that there is overwhelming support in the Church of England for women bishops to be consecrated. The draft Measure rejected earlier this week was supported by clear majorities in 42 of the 44 dioceses in England. As I have repeatedly said, it is impossible for me to explain to parliamentary colleagues how a Measure that has had the clear support of 42 out of 44 dioceses failed to pass in the General Synod. Let us take all the votes passed in the General Synod: 324 members voted for women bishops, and 122 against; 94% of the bishops who voted on Tuesday supported the Measure, as did 77% of the House of Clergy; and even in the House of Laity, 64% were in favour. The Measure was lost by a handful of votes among the laity, because for the Measure to pass it had to clear the hurdle of a two-thirds majority in each House of the General Synod.

Speaking for the whole House, I am sure, my right hon. Friend and fellow Church Commissioner, the Prime Minister, made it clear to the House yesterday that the

“Church needs to get on with it, as it were, and get with the programme”—[Official Report, 21 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 579.]

He observed that the Church of England needed a “sharp prod”.

I appreciate that frustrations exist in the House on this matter—a frustration that I share—and I think that the following needs to be understood. First, this is not an issue that can in any way be parked for the next couple of years or so, while we await another round of Synod elections. It must be understood that this issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible. I hope that it will be convenient for the House if I seek to arrange a meeting in the near future for concerned Members, together with the Bishop of Durham, the archbishop-designate, to explore how this matter can be resolved as speedily as possible.

There have been some suggestions in the press that it is impossible for the Church of England or General Synod to return to this issue until after a new General Synod has been elected in 2015. That is not correct: the rules prevent the same Measure from being reconsidered by the General Synod without a special procedure. It is perfectly possible for a different and amended Measure to consecrate women bishops to be considered by the General Synod. Although this is for the Church of England to resolve, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, I suspect that there will also be those in the Church of England who will wish to consider whether the election process to the General Synod is sufficiently representative, particularly of the laity of the Church of England, as Tuesday’s vote clearly did not reflect the overall and clear consensus of dioceses across England in support of women bishops.

It is my earnest hope that during the time I serve the Queen—whose appointment I am—this House and the Church of England as Second Church Estates Commissioner it will prove possible for me to bring before this House a Measure that will enable women to be consecrated bishops in the Church of England.

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to the urgent question, and I know that he is as disappointed as I am at having to speak on this matter today. May I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Floor of the House today?

It appears to me and many others that the theological arguments over women priests—and therefore their position in roles of authority—were settled 20 years ago in the Church of England. The next natural step, on which I think there is agreement across the House, is to see some of the excellent ordained women priests now move into positions of leadership in our Church as bishops. Just as discrimination in the wider community is wrong, as it keeps the talents and abilities of all from flourishing, so it is important in the established Church that the talents, experience and skills of both men and women are used and that the Church is led by the very best, not just those who happen to be male. There should be no stained glass ceiling for women in our Church.

The Church of England now stands to be left behind by the society it seeks to serve and made to look outdated, irrelevant and frankly eccentric by this decision. It appears that a broad Church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds, but as the hon. Gentleman said, the vast majority of members of the Church want to see women bishops. He set out clearly the votes that were cast at both diocesan and General Synod level. I was pleased to hear him say that there are questions to be asked about the convoluted decision-making structure in the Church, and in particular about the representative nature of the House of Laity, and whether an overhaul of the electoral system needs to be considered. The decision made by an unrepresentative minority in the House of Laity means that this essential modernisation of the Church of England has potentially been put back for another five years or more, with no guarantee of progress even then.

In fact, I think positions will become even more difficult. Many campaigners felt that they had offered concessions to accommodate those of different views and will perhaps now take a much less conciliatory approach, as they feel that the concessions have been ignored, with no willingness to compromise. As the Church of England is part of the constitutional settlement of this country, it is important that Parliament has regard to what the decision means for the country and the Church’s role in law making. With the decision made, we now see the entrenchment of the discriminatory nature of the 26 places in the upper House reserved for Bishops, who can only be male. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this cannot be right, and that Parliament and the Government have to consider what we should do, especially in light of the Government’s decision to abandon any wider reform of the Lords? Does he further agree that we must also consider whether the exemption from equalities legislation for the Church of England now needs to be re-examined?

Finally, I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman’s resolve on the need to sort this out as soon as possible, as well as what the Archbishop of Canterbury said. I understand that there will be moves by the Church to spend some time thinking about how to proceed, but it is imperative that those in the all-male group of bishops do not talk just to one another, but work with and alongside senior women in the Church to find a way forward. Unlike the Prime Minister, I think Parliament has a role to play and should now look at doing all it can to support the Church at this time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I agree with almost all that the hon. Lady said. The really important point is that the whole House wants the Church of England to get on with this matter. It cannot be parked, and work needs to be done urgently to try to ensure that it is resolved as quickly as possible. In fairness, the House of Bishops gave the greatest possible leadership in the General Synod. However, as I sat there, the analogy that struck me was that it was a bit like Government Whips trying to talk to the Eurosceptics; there were those in the General Synod who, whatever the bishops said to them, were just not going to listen. So, in fairness, the House of Bishops in an episcopal-led Church was very clear about the need to make change. Those bishops work every day with women clergy in their dioceses and see the fantastic work that they are doing in the Church of England. That work must be valued and cherished, and we need to ensure that any changes do not square the circle by bringing forth proposals for women bishops who would be second-class bishops. I have made it clear to the General Synod on a number of occasions that Parliament simply would not approve any Measure that introduced women bishops as second-class bishops.

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

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the whole House has sympathy with his position and great respect for the hard work that he has done in trying to resolve this matter. Does he agree that when the decision-making body of the established Church deliberately sets itself against the general principles of the society that it represents, its position as the established Church must be called into question?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady makes a perfectly good point, and it is one that I have repeatedly made. As a consequence of the decision by the General Synod, the Church of England no longer looks like a national Church; it simply looks like a sect, like any other sect. If it wishes to be a national Church that reflects the nation, it has to reflect the values of the nation.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing a wonderful, and rather thankless, job on this issue over the years on behalf of parliamentarians. He was at the very stormy meeting yesterday between parliamentarians and the bishops. Peers and MPs of all parties were saying with one voice that if the Church does not get on and do this, Parliament will. Will he therefore convene an emergency meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee, so that we can take legal advice as to what Parliament can do to help the Church to achieve the will of the people in the Church?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

It was because of yesterday’s meeting, and because I am conscious of the concerns being expressed on both sides of the House, that I would like to convene a meeting with the archbishop-designate. Justin Welby has great leadership skills, and it is he who will have to lead the Church of England in this matter. He needs to hear the voices from the House of Lords and the House of Commons that were heard in that meeting yesterday. We need to funnel our energies into helping him to resolve the matter.

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

Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker.

Can we all send our support, love and concern to all women who are ordained or hope to be ordained in the Church—including your chaplain, Mr Speaker, and all others? They must feel even more frustrated than we do, but we are not going to let them down. Given that, over the past 20 years, the Church has managed to sort out how parishes that did not want women priests could be looked after, does the Second Church Estates Commissioner not agree that it must be possible to resolve this issue? Will he invite the Minister for Women and Equalities to offer the services of the Government, not to tell the Church what to do but to offer it professional advice on how to deliver what the majority want, as soon as possible?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am sure that it must be possible to resolve this issue. The important thing is to continue to work at it until it is resolved. An increasing number of ordinands coming into the Church are women, and we need to have a Church in which everyone is valued. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct is saying that, at present, a number of women out there in the clergy are feeling undervalued. That is wrong; they are very much valued and cherished, and there needs to be a full place for them in our national Church.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Since I was ordained as a priest in the Church of England 25 years ago, women have become vicars, rectors, deans, rural deans and even archdeacons, so it is ludicrous that they cannot now become bishops. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we will have no truck with more concessions to the hard-liners who want to make women second-rate bishops. We need to speed this up. Would it not make sense to have a moratorium on the appointment of any more male bishops until there could also be women bishops—no nomination without feminisation?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Of course, we could have done that if the Prime Minister still had control over the appointment of bishops.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Take it back then.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

It was of course the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) as Prime Minister who, without any proper consultation, renounced the ability of Downing street to have any influence over the control of bishops. I am encouraged by the suggestions from Labour Members that the Prime Minister should take back the power to appoint bishops, but I suspect that might create a few problems. I think everyone will have heard the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I think my hon. Friend was wrong in what he said about the Eurosceptics, because the Eurosceptics happen to be right. The important point, which I hope he will accept, is that it is not for this House to say how the established Church is run. We may well have our own opinion, but it is a very dangerous thing for the House of Commons to tell the established Church how to run itself.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I say, in all friendship to my hon. Friend, that as I sat through the debates in General Synod, it struck me that the Eurosceptics and the conservative evangelicals had quite a lot in common in their approach. Nevertheless, he makes a serious point on which the House should reflect. Since 1919, it has been the convention that although Parliament has the ultimate control over the Church of England—it is an established Church, after all, and the Book of Common Prayer is but an annexe to the Act of Uniformity—the Church of England comes forward with its Measures, and if they are passed by the Church of England they will be approved or otherwise by Parliament. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that if the Church of England is a national Church and an established Church, it is right and proper for Parliament to make clear its views and opinions to the Church of England and for the Church of England to hear what Parliament is saying.

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

I am not involved with the Church of England and I am a lifelong non-believer, but I want to say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire for the stance he has taken, that it is simply impossible to understand how on earth it can be argued that if women are considered appropriate to be deacons and priests, as they have been in the last 20 years, they are not worthy to be bishops. It is simply impossible to understand that. Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that, for many of us, this opposition to women bishops bears comparison with the opposition 100 years ago to women having the right to vote and to sit in the House of Commons? It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics—that I find contemptible.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fairness, if he reads the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury yesterday, he will find that the archbishop said exactly the same as him—that it is intolerable to have a situation where women can be priests, deacons, archdeacons and deans, yet not be bishops. In his own way, the hon. Gentleman is saying almost exactly the same as the Archbishop of Canterbury about this intolerable situation.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Probably not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I think that we are elected on a far more democratic basis than the House of Laity.

I believe that there is very strong support for this Measure both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). We share the most extraordinary Dean of Salisbury Cathedral, in the shape of the Rev. June Osborne. May we please urge the bishops to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rhondda of a moratorium? It is in their control. They could do it themselves. I know that it would be a complicated process, but it would be less complicated than the fiendish voting structure that we saw yesterday.

If you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, may I add that my heart goes out to those women who will be standing up on Sunday and doing, in many cases, a superior job of bringing people to God and bringing the comfort of Christianity to their constituents? This is disgraceful. Please could we all share in some sort of message of support? There will be change. We are behind this change. It has to happen.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am sure that women throughout the Church will have heard the encouraging comments of my hon. Friend, and those of, I think, every other Member who has spoken so far.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I joined the Movement for the Ordination of Women in 1976, and I find it incredible that we are still having this argument 36 years later. I am very pleased that the Second Church Estates Commissioner understands our feelings about the urgent need for this Measure.

May I suggest that too many concessions have been made to those who are opposed to women priests? That is what has given them hope, and it is why they have continued to fight. It is simply unjust to do that at the expense of women in the Church.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady’s comments demonstrate the difficulty of striking a balance between various groups in the Church of England, and trying to ensure that everyone feels that there is a continuing place for them in the Church. It has always been a broad Church, and as far as possible we want to keep everyone in that broad Church. However, I assure the hon. Lady that I know, and the House has made very clear, that Parliament simply would not pass a Measure that discriminated against women, squaring the circle by trying to make them bishops but second-class bishops. Everyone has to understand that.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I think it important for Parliament to express a view, but I also think that it would be better for us to pass a short Bill requiring female bishops. We need to put the Church out of its agony, and to end the antiquated voting system to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is nothing new about female bishops? There is a 9th-century mosaic in a Roman basilica showing two saints, who are named, the Virgin Mary, and a fourth woman who is clearly described as Bishop Theodora: Theodora Episcopa. She was a female bishop. The Church has had them in the past.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The occasions in the past when Parliament and the Church of England have gone head to head on matters of worship and doctrine—there were disputes about the prayer book in the late 1920s, for instance—are not happy precedents. I think it important for the Church of England to listen very carefully to what Parliament is saying. Although, in my view, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to say yesterday that the Church needed a “sharp prod”, I hope and believe that Parliament will give it time to sort itself out and get on with the issue, and I assure the House that we will do so as speedily as possible.

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

Speaking as one who is part of the wider Anglican communion, I am profoundly saddened and disappointed by the Church of England’s failure to make progress on the role of women in spiritual and public life. It leaves us with the continuing anomaly that seats for bishops in the other place are available exclusively to men. I simply do not believe that that is sustainable in a modern democracy. Does the Commissioner believe that we might, in fact, be doing the Church a favour by seeking to review its constitutional status?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to remind us that the Church of England is part of a wider Anglican communion, and that the whole of the Anglican communion will be looking at how the Church of England conducts itself. I agree with the comments that have been made about the Church reflecting, and I think that everyone in it needs to reflect on how out of touch it now appears to Parliament—to every part and every corner of the House of Commons.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the many women in my constituency who take part in the formal and informal structures of the Church. They are very important to rural life, and I know that my bishop—Peter Price, the Bishop of Bath and Wells—deeply appreciates the contribution of his large female work force.

I agree with what has been said about women on boards. Might the hon. Gentleman be able to explain to newer Members why this particular Church does not have to observe equalities legislation?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

May I correct a point that seems to be getting some coinage? The Church of England does not enjoy any particular exemption from sex equality legislation. Obviously, equalities legislation is entirely a matter for this House, but the legislation that applies to the Church of England applies to all faith groups in this country. If Parliament were to seek to change the legislation, it would apply to every faith group. That is clearly a matter for the House.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

The bishops sit in the House of Lords on the basis of a moral authority, and they vote on a range of issues, including equalities legislation. It is now clear that the views of the established Church do not reflect the views of the British people, so is it not time that the bishops left the House of Lords? Is not the real problem that the Church of England is entitled, by right, to places in an unreformed, unaccountable and unelected House of Lords?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I think it is rather tough that a number of people are taking out their frustration on the bishops, because the bishops gave clear leadership, with almost every single bishop who spoke and voted indicating that they want to have women bishops. They, too, are very keen to ensure that they are joined in the House of Lords by women bishops. There could be no clearer leadership in the Church than that given by the bishops of the Church of England on the fact that they want to have women bishops.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and agree wholly with what he was saying, and I particularly welcome the opportunity of parliamentarians meeting the archbishop-designate. May I link two points that my hon. Friend made? Speaking as a Eurosceptic and as someone who has stood, unsuccessfully, for election to the House of Laity, may I suggest to him that the House of Laity is about as representative of opinion in the pews as the European Parliament is of constituents? May I also urge him to move forward as quickly as possible with a review of the electoral arrangements for the House of Laity?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

It was my mistake for wandering down the route of commenting about Eurosceptics. One thing that we were enjoined to do in the General Synod was live in amity with all our colleagues, so I hope that I can always do that. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that a number of questions will continue to be asked about the arrangements for electing the General Synod, because we simply cannot have a situation where 42 out of 44 dioceses vote overwhelmingly for women bishops and that simply is not reflected in the vote in the General Synod and the House of Laity—that is simply unsustainable.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all his work on this matter and thank him for it. I also wish to echo the sentiments that so many hon. Members have expressed about the contribution that women in the Church make in all our constituencies. Does he agree that the reaction that this has caused in the population as a whole, including on Twitter and in social media, has shown how important this issue is to the nation and how important it is that Parliament acts? I include in that the petition that has been started to raise the question as to whether there should be an automatic right for bishops to sit in the House of Lords if there are no women bishops.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady clearly demonstrates that the Church of England has to be a national Church. It is the Church of the Remembrance day services, it is the Church of the coronation and it is the Church of which the Queen is head as Head of State and Head of the Church. One of the first things the Queen did during her jubilee celebrations was attend a meeting at Lambeth palace that was attended by all faith groups. What was very moving was that all those faith groups said that they felt confident in freedom of religion for them because of the role of the Church of England as the national Church. So the Church of England, as a national Church, is failing the whole nation and other faith groups if it does not reflect our national character.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

May I say, Mr Speaker, how much many of us supported the robust comments your Chaplain made in the media after this announcement was made? My oldest friend is due to be ordained in 2014, and the Church will be lucky to have her, as she is someone of huge talent. Surely the Church sees that it will not attract women of that calibre if they see that they will not be able to pursue the full extent of their talents.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We are very fortunate to have attracted into the Church over the past 20 years many women of extraordinary talent, leadership, skill and commitment. Indeed, the Church of England would not manage without their skill, leadership and commitment. We need to be able to continue to recruit people of that high calibre and I hope that we will continue to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

We are also all extremely fortunate in our Chaplain and I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) for what she said.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and many people will appreciate the way in which he has put them. It is clearly unsustainable for us to have an all-male episcopate. Does he agree that the decision sadly risks damaging the reputation of the Church in the eyes of many of our constituents? Will he consider working with the business managers to find a way for this House to express its will and send a clear, unanimous and courteous message to the General Synod that it needs to think again?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I shall certainly reflect on that interesting suggestion with the business managers and the Clerks.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Given that a significant minority in the House of Laity have spoken and said that women are not competent to be bishops, will my hon. Friend, alongside me, call on that significant minority to launch an urgent review into the competence of its own head of the Church of England?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Those who voted against women bishops at General Synod did so because of their own particular theological convictions. While acknowledging those theological convictions, the Church now needs to find a way to move forward as speedily as possible to ensure that women can be consecrated as bishops in the Church of England.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my sadness and that of many other people that the Church has made itself appear so out of touch and anachronistic in its decision making? The head of the Church of England is a woman, but in the 21st century we cannot have women bishops.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I agree. It is a great sadness. I suspect that every right hon. and hon. Member has recently had representations from Church members on same-sex marriage. If the Church of England thinks that Parliament will listen to it with considerable attention on moral issues such as same-sex marriage and so on when the Church of England seems to be so out of step on other issues of concern to Parliament, it is simply deluding itself.

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

I must declare an interest in that my sister is a vicar in the Church of England in your constituency, Mr Speaker, and I personally own the living of a parish in Oxfordshire. Does my hon. Friend think that if Mrs Proudie had been the bishop rather than her husband, Obadiah Slope would have had a rather different career path?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I suspect, Mr Speaker, that that is true. It is reassuring to discover that there are still Members of this House who own livings of parishes in the Church of England.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I caution my hon. Friend about comparisons between the EU and the Church of England, as the EU forces people to vote and vote again until it gets the result it wants. Clearly, the Church of England has shown itself to be completely out of touch with the views not only of Parliament but of the country at large. Is it not time now for the General Synod to review its whole decision-making process so that it can reflect the wishes of its members?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The General Synod will have to reflect on the comments made by my hon. Friend and others about its effectiveness, about how it is elected and about whether it represents members of the Church of England, the broader community and society as a whole. Historically and even today, church wardens have been elected by the whole community because there is recognition that in every parish church wardens represent the community as a whole. We will have to consider how the laity elected to the General Synod can reflect the broadest range of society—certainly among those who are members of the Church of England and perhaps among the community as a whole. I am quite sure that will be reviewed in the coming months.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

As a Church of England believer, I have never understood how a woman can be head of the Church yet somehow women cannot be bishops. I urge that we consider bringing in a short Bill ordering that women should be able to be bishops in the Church of England.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

In the General Synod debate, part of which I sat through, there were some who argued that it was impossible for women to have headship, and I just could not understand how they sought to reconcile that with the fact that Parliament has made the Queen defender of the faith and that we are fortunate enough to have her not only as Head of State, but as head of the Church.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

This week’s decision reflects very badly on the Church, but also very unfairly; the Church, after all, is all the people who are part of it, not just one legislative committee. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, given that a large majority of them have shown that they are as keen to have women bishops as we in this House are, the problem lies not with the members of the Church of England, but with the paralysis of its decision-making structures?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is right to remind us at the end of these questions that the overwhelming majority of members of the Church of England want women bishops. It is now beholden on us all, whether in the Church of England or outside, to try to ensure that happens as speedily as possible.

Business of the House

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

11:06

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 26 November—Remaining stages of the Small Charitable Donations Bill. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement on the EU Council.

Tuesday 27 November—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.

Wednesday 28 November—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Thursday 29 November—A debate on a motion relating to Scotland and the Union, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Lord Justice Leveson intends to publish his report on 29 November. The Prime Minister plans to make a statement to the House subsequently.

Friday 30 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 3 December will include:

Monday 3 December—General debate on the Leveson inquiry.



Tuesday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Public Service Pensions Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of IPSA board members.

Wednesday 5 December—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his autumn statement, followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill.

Thursday 6 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. The recent military conflict in Gaza has horrified many Members of the House. There is widespread relief that there is now a ceasefire, but it feels like the possibility of a lasting settlement is slipping away as facts on the ground make any agreement harder to reach. We welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House earlier this week. As the Leader of the House will know, the Palestinian leadership are applying for full observer status at the UN. The Opposition support that application. Before the vote at the UN, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the matter in Government time?

On the Justice and Security Bill, we had suggested to the Government a sensible way forward that would have given judges greater discretion and accepted the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights while at the same time ensuring that intelligence sources were protected. We regret that the Government did not seek to work on a cross-party basis. Yesterday, on three separate occasions, they were defeated in the other place when our Liberal Democrat colleagues joined Labour and Cross-Bench peers to improve the Bill. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the roving Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), to make an urgent statement on how the Government will now proceed?

In business questions before the recess, I asked the Leader of the House about the forthcoming report by Lord Leveson. I said the House should have an opportunity to debate the report fully, and the Government should set out in advance the process for consideration of the inquiry’s recommendations. May I therefore thank the Leader of the House for announcing a general debate in Government time on the Leveson recommendations, which we now understand will be published next Thursday?

Does the Leader of the House agree that throughout this process we must remember to listen to the voices of the victims and their families, and also remember that this inquiry was the result of the gross intrusion they suffered at times of maximum distress? Will the Leader of the House therefore assure me that his Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Education Secretary, will not seek to undermine Lord Leveson or his report?

Will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement on the elections for police and crime commissioners, as his appearance at this week’s Deputy Prime Minister’s questions left none of us any the wiser? The House has heard from the Home Secretary, but if the Leader of the House is successful in coaxing the Deputy Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box we could ask the great strategist why he was so keen to hold these elections in November. So successful was this strategy for getting out the Liberal Democrat vote that the Liberal Democrats managed to win exactly none of the elections they chose to contest last Thursday.

It appears that the Liberal Democrats used the PCC elections to test out their brand new election strategy. In north Wales, the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats endorsed one Winston Roddick, saying that

“as an independent candidate, he is free from party political pressure”.

He was elected, but it was subsequently uncovered that Mr Roddick was, in fact, a member of the Liberal Democrats masquerading as an independent. May we have an urgent debate on this new Liberal Democrat election strategy to hoodwink people into voting for them?

Has the Leader of the House had a chance to look at the winners of The Spectator parliamentarian awards? Will he join me in congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister on his award—for apology of the year? I predict he will be up for it again next year. May I also congratulate the Government Chief Whip, who won the award for resurrection of the year? My only disappointment is that I did not win tipster of the year for predicting that in this House.

Does the Leader of the House think we should nominate Mr Roddick, the not-so-independent police and crime commissioner, for politician of the year, as he is the only Liberal Democrat to have found an election-winning strategy? The Education Secretary should be given a special award for News International politician of the year now that Louise Mensch is no longer a Member of the House. Will the Leader of the House suggest which Cabinet Minister we could nominate for omnishambles of the year, because Labour Members think any number of them would be worthy winners?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response, particularly on the arrangements for a debate, provisionally set for Monday 3 December, on the Leveson inquiry. We now have a date for the publication of its report, and she asked further about that. The House will have heard what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said. As the report will be published in just a few days, it is absolutely right that we should wait and see what Lord Leveson says in it, and very shortly thereafter the House will have an opportunity to express its views.

The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary made a statement on that, and there were further questions at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House fully informed. The Prime Minister said yesterday what we made clear last year at the United Nations General Assembly: that it would not be helpful for the question of observer status for the Palestinian people to be brought to a vote. None the less, if that question is brought to a vote, the Foreign Secretary will, of course, want to tell the House about our judgment on it.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the progress of the Justice and Security Bill in another place. I and my colleagues will make it clear during the passage of the Bill in another place how we propose to respond to the progress of the Bill. We will look carefully at the votes and think carefully about them, but there is an important principle, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio and others have made clear: that in cases before civil courts the judge should have access to all the evidence. That is also a principle of justice that it is important to seek to maintain.

I am very tempted to have a debate on police and crime commissioners, not least because it would allow us an opportunity to set out clearly how, under this coalition Government, crime across the country is falling. Police and crime commissioners will be democratically elected and democratically accountable to enable us not only to sustain that reduction in crime, but to translate the priorities of the people directly into the priorities of policing in their areas. I do not understand why Labour Members now want a debate about this. The Labour party did not seem to be able to work out whether it wanted to debate it, deny it, support it, oppose it, say it was the wrong thing to do and then stand candidates for it. A debate would give us the opportunity to debate the position not of the current Deputy Prime Minister, but of the former Deputy Prime Minister.

I was interested in what the hon. Lady said about Mr Winston Roddick as the police and crime commissioner elected in north Wales. As it happened, my wife met him in Menai Bridge during the fair. He came up to her and asked, “Do you know anything about the police and crime commissioner elections?” She said, “As it happens, I do.” Curiously—I have checked with her— Mr Winston Roddick did not disclose any party affiliation whatever. So there we have it.

I share with the House our admiration for many of those who were the recipients of awards from The Spectator last night, but especially so for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who is an inspiration to all of us.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate a motion next week setting up a Committee of MPs who could educate the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority about the work of the House? Did my right hon. Friend hear the admission by that gentleman on this morning’s “Today” programme that although he understood a lot about what MPs do in their constituencies, he was totally ignorant about what they did in the House, other than, as he put it, attend a zoo for one hour every Wednesday? In the light of that amazing demonstration of his ignorance, if he is to continue in his post is it not essential that he gets educated properly?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know from the statement that I made about forthcoming business that my expectation is that in the week after next we will be able to debate the appointment of Members to the board of IPSA—not the chair of the board of IPSA, whose tenure continues. In my conversations with Ian Kennedy he has made it clear to me that one of the things that he regards as most important is that there is a better understanding of the work of Members of Parliament. I will further encourage him in that process.

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

Could we find time for a debate on policing in London, specifically the proposal announced by the Met for a major programme of closures and downgrading of police stations across the city? May we have an opportunity during that debate to discuss the fact that police stations are already closing in advance of that consultation, including Marylebone and St John’s Wood in the London borough of Westminster? It is not acceptable for our constituents to face the loss and downgrading of police stations with no opportunity for anyone in Parliament to discuss that matter

[Mr Lansley]

It is not that there is no opportunity for such discussion. I recall that during the previous Business questions the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) raised issues relating to fire and rescue service stations across London and was subsequently able to secure a debate on that subject. It is primarily a matter for the Mayor of London as the commissioner of policing in London and for the London Assembly, but we here and those representing London here should have an opportunity to secure a debate.

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

My parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) is attending a conference this morning and so is unable to be here, but I share her concern about what happened yesterday when a ship carrying live animals sailed from the port of Ramsgate in her constituency in appalling weather. The ship should never have been allowed to sail at all. It went halfway across the channel, turned back and had to unload the animals, which were then transported a long way across the country in absolute misery. This is absolutely intolerable, and it is done in the name of free trade. It is not a matter for an Adjournment debate. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to come to the House and make a statement to explain what we propose to do to stop this in future?

[Mr Lansley]

I was not aware of those circumstances, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making me and the House aware of them. I will of course raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and invite him not only to respond to my hon. Friend but to consider what form of statement it might be appropriate to make.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating Paula Dunn on her appointment as the Paralympics head coach of UK Athletics. She is the first woman ever to have held that role. In relation to supporting what she and other coaches might do, we had questions earlier today on the legacy of the Olympics for women in sport and the legacy of the Paralympics for disabled people, but no clear answers from Ministers, so may we have a debate in Government time on exactly what is happening and going to happen as regards the action needed to address those important legacy issues?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I think that Members of the House will share with her a sense of the real potential that the Olympics and the Paralympics gave for a legacy that is vital not only in respect of development in sport but of social change and understanding of the position of disabled people in society. It is almost difficult to talk about people being disabled when the thing that came most to the fore when watching the Paralympics was that we all have very different abilities. The Paralympics seemed largely to consist of people whose abilities were far in excess of mine and those of us who think of ourselves as not disabled. In truth, we all have very different abilities, and that very much came to the forefront; I thought it was very persuasive. The House is considering Olympic legacy issues through the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I will talk to my colleagues about how we might find an opportunity to discuss and debate those issues, but it might also be considered by the Backbench Business Committee.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I have given the Leader of the House notice of my question, which is to do with my constituent, Katie Lock. Katie applied to work at the Olympics and got all the way through the training for the company, but her application was turned down by the Home Office. The Home Office has been singularly unhelpful at all stages in finding out why this young girl’s application was turned down. May we have time to discuss this, because I am sure that she cannot be the only person to whom this has happened?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who did indeed raise this with me. I will ensure that he gets as full and complete a reply as I can secure for him from the Home Office as soon as I can.

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

The House will remember the triumph of the Olympics. The only slight blemish was the security company G4S, which got into serious trouble and could not deliver the security that we expected. We were saved by our great troops, who stepped into the breach. Is the Leader of the House aware that G4S is now trying to ameliorate its financial position as regards the Olympics by failing to pay its supply chain and sub-contractors? Is not that a disgrace given that many of those sub-contractors performed absolutely to their contracts?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I freely confess I was unaware of, although it may have been evident to the Home Affairs Committee consequent on its inquiries. From the House’s point of view, one of the routes to inquire into what happened in relation to G4S is through that Committee.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that we could debate the priorities of the Environment Agency’s maintenance programme, particularly in Somerset, where there has been catastrophic flooding over the summer and throughout this autumn, including yesterday and today? Water is lying in the fields for weeks, and that increases its toxicity so that it eventually kills off the fish, birds and other wildlife when it is released into the rivers; it is unable to be drained away or pumped from those hundreds of acres of agricultural land. Is it not time to rebalance these priorities and look at the value of wildlife over food and farming?

[Mr Lansley]

It is important to recognise that the Government have put in place partnership funding arrangements with local authorities that are contributing to substantial enabling schemes to deter flooding. We expect to exceed our objective of 145,000 households being better protected by March 2015. In addition, I will talk to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because it is important not only that we have adequate flood protection, but that the means by which we provide it are environmentally sensitive. In the wake of the flooding in my constituency in 2001, we were able to recreate some floodplains, which was an environmentally responsible way to provide flood protection.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Given the Government’s 20% cut to policing, which has necessitated a cut in the number of front-line police officers of 15,000 nationally and 100 in Croydon, may I echo the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for an urgent debate on policing in London so that voters have the unequivocal facts before they go to the polls next week?

[Mr Lansley]

I encourage the hon. Lady to look in the Official Report at the questions that the Home Secretary answered last Monday, because I do not recognise her figures on the number of front-line police officers. Indeed, the proportion of officers on the front line is increasing, as is their effectiveness, as we can see from the further reduction in crime across the country that was reported recently. The first thing we should do is express our appreciation of the effectiveness with which police forces across the country are addressing the necessity of managing within reduced budgets. We should support police and crime commissioners in taking that forward and in responding to local priorities.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

A large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As usual, I am anxious to accommodate as many of them as possible. The House will be conscious of the fact that there is an important Government statement and three pieces of business under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee to follow. That information serves to underline the imperative of short questions and answers. We will be led in our mission by Mr Robert Halfon.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 686 on compensation for Zimbabwean farmers who had their land stolen by Mugabe?

[That this House calls on the World Bank and the Zimbabwe government to respect the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) court ruling in April 2009 that granted compensation of EUR22.5 million to Zimbabwean and European farmers, including Timolene Tibbett, who were illegally and often brutally thrown off their land during the Mugabe land reform in 2000 and 2001; believes that settlement of this claim will demonstrate a commitment to international law from the coalition Zimbabwe government and build confidence with international investors that arbitration ruling for investments, no matter how small or large, will be respected to created jobs and opportunities in Zimbabwe; and cautions the World Bank against adopting the incoherent position of progressing with a debt write-off programme with the Zimbabwe government whilst not ensuring the Zimbabwe government honours the legal commitments arrived at via proceedings of the ICSID, which is a World Bank court.]

May we have a debate on Zimbabwe to ensure that we get justice and compensation for farmers, including my constituent, Timolene Tibbett?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that, like me, the House will have seen my hon. Friend’s early-day motion. I hope that we can find an opportunity for such a debate. To accelerate the process, it might be advisable for him and others to seek time to discuss the issue on the Adjournment.

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

Given the Government’s promise to review the way in which the work capability test is carried out, may we have a statement on their progress, because to many Members it seems that nothing is improving?

[Mr Lansley]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a written ministerial statement yesterday on the further report by Professor Harrington, which has enabled us to make considerable progress in improving the work capability assessment.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

May I return to flooding, which adversely affected my Tewkesbury constituency yesterday? Given that further heavy rainfall is predicted for tonight, will the Leader of the House alert the relevant Departments that they may need to make a statement or respond to an urgent question on Monday?

[Mr Lansley]

Many of us have experienced flooding, to varying degrees, in our constituencies. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency has experienced serious flooding in the past and is at risk now. It is important that we keep the House fully informed—my hon. Friend will make sure that we do—about the steps that the Government can take, through both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Communities and Local Government in supporting local authorities. I know that I do not need to encourage those Departments to keep the House and Members fully informed.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate or statement on the devastating report that was published this morning by the chief inspector of the borders and immigration service? It revealed that in Liverpool there are 100,000 letters from Members of Parliament and the public that have not been opened. When may we have a debate on that important issue?

[Mr Lansley]

The UK Border Agency chief executive will have written to the right hon. Gentleman as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to address some of the issues raised by the report and make clear that UKBA has accepted all the chief inspector’s recommendations. The chief inspector was clear that UKBA is now tackling those problems—and has been since April 2012—although I would not diminish the scale of the legacy problems it inherited and some of the difficulties and errors that have occurred. My colleagues in the Home Office are determined to ensure that UKBA not only deals with those legacy issues, but that it continues to improve the service it provides, and they will report on that to the House.

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

May I press the Leader of the House on the present crisis in the middle east and urge him to reconsider and try to find time for an urgent debate so that the House can make clear its views?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware, not least from the statement I have just made, of the many pressing issues that the House has to consider. There are opportunities through the Backbench Business Committee for Members to pursue those issues, which may—and often have—extend to international affairs.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement or debate on the privatisation of Greater Manchester ambulance service? As he may know, the contract to run part of this important service was recently awarded to Arriva—yes, that is the bus and train company—despite the NHS bid winning on quality and service. Arriva was given the contract on cost alone. Patients and carers across Greater Manchester are rightly worried that the quality of their service will suffer as a result, and that they have been consigned to a poorer quality service than the rest of the north-west region.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House will wish to welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Decisions on contracts of that kind are made locally within the national health service, not centrally by the Secretary of State, but I will ask my ministerial friends in the Department of Health to write to her with details on that case. My recollection is that the tender is often for patient transport services, rather than emergency responses, and one should be careful to distinguish between those two things. There are examples elsewhere in the country of where patient transport services are not administered by the local ambulance service trust but a good service is maintained none the less.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

My constituent, Vaughan Williams, served on the arctic convoys during the second world war—a journey that Winston Churchill described as the worst in the entire world. Foreign Office rules prevent Mr Williams from receiving the medal he was awarded by the Russian Government, who recognised that he had risked his life to fight Nazism. May we have a debate on the bravery of those who served on the arctic convoys, and on the inappropriateness of rules that prevent full recognition of such bravery?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend may seek to secure such a debate on the Adjournment of the House or through the Backbench Business Committee, and judging from the response in the House he may be supported in that. I recall—as no doubt he does—that at Prime Minister’s questions a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister made it clear that he will look personally at the question of a service medal relating to the arctic convoys.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware of intense media speculation in recent days that the UK Government will not get any EU funding for carbon capture and storage in the current round because they have failed to provide funding guarantees? So far, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has refused to deny those rumours, which are causing great uncertainty and sending mixed messages on the UK Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage. May we therefore have a statement from the Department at the earliest opportunity?

[Mr Lansley]

My colleagues at the Department have made it clear that, among other commitments, they will make an annual energy statement at some point this year. I will raise that issue with them, but they are aware of it—the Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage has been made very clear on a number of occasions.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Last week, I visited a school in Tamworth, where a 16-year-old history student asked, “Who is Napoleon?” They had also not heard of the Duke of Wellington. May we therefore have a debate on extending rigour in education, particularly in the teaching of history—history student numbers fell by 1.2% in 2011—so that future generations of history students know our history and chronology, and that the Duke of Wellington was a soldier and statesman, and not a public house?

[Mr Lansley]

The Duke of Wellington in Bourn in my constituency is well known for that purpose. My hon. Friend makes a good, important point well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Education is among those at the vanguard of believing that an understanding of history, and of the narratives that form an essential part of it, is an essential part of our understanding of who we are and where we come from, and what kind of people we are and what we can achieve. From that point of view, I am sure the Secretary of State shares my hon. Friend’s view—as will Members on both sides of the House—that we must ensure we achieve such understanding of the history of this country in schools.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the situation that arose in north Wales, where a Liberal Democrat pretended to be an independent? There is evidence that that has happened in still higher-status positions than police and crime commissioner—in the Deputy Prime Minister, we have a Tory pretending to be a Liberal Democrat.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot speak from personal experience of Mr Winston Roddick in north Wales, but I referred to the matter earlier in response to the shadow Leader of the House. To that extent, I have some knowledge of it.

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

May we have an early debate on crime prevention, so that police forces around the country can learn from the excellent Hands Off project, created by Bedfordshire police, in which owners’ property is marked by their DNA? That has been used successfully and enthusiastically in schools, and has great potential to cut crime.

[Mr Lansley]

That sounds like an intriguing, if slightly alarming, mechanism. I had heard of highlighter pens, but not of DNA marking. Members and police services might be interested in that. My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that that illustrates the importance of innovation and new technology as essential parts of the process of fighting crime. I hope police and crime commissioners will demonstrate not only their responsiveness to public views, but their ability to embrace innovation.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Halton is the 27th most deprived borough in England and Wales, and has high unemployment. I was therefore shocked to receive a letter last week from the permanent secretary at the Department for Education informing me that it was shutting its Runcorn site, with the loss of 220 jobs. The letter states that a report would be available on the website, but it was not. Only through the good work of the permanent secretary’s office did I manage eventually to find the report, but it left more questions unanswered than answered. May I ask the Leader of the House for his help? Does he agree that the Department should brief MPs in detail on the reasons for decisions of that magnitude, so that we can ask questions? Will he use his influence and ask his colleagues in the Department to ensure that the meeting I have requested happens sooner rather than later?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Education whether they can meet the hon. Gentleman as he has requested. I do not know the circumstances, but I judge from what he says that the Department’s intention, through the permanent secretary, was to inform him of the decision. I will check how that was achieved to ensure that he and Members get notification of announcements affecting their constituencies in future.

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

May we have a debate on yesterday’s report on sexual grooming by gangs?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will have been shocked, as my hon. Friend no doubt was, by the report. The House, through the Backbench Business Committee, was able to debate child sexual exploitation last week. The issue has been debated, but we must press forward, and my colleagues are doing so with the tackling child sexual exploitation action plan and other measures. The interim report made a number of recommendations that we must pursue. We must also look at the recommendations from phase 2 next year, but be ready now to take all the action we can, as illustrated by my hon. Friends’ response to last week’s debate.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), during a statement earlier this week, called for a full debate in Government time on the situation in the middle east. The response of the Leader of the House today was as incoherent on the issue as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were in trying to justify not supporting Palestinian statehood. This is a serious situation with a fragile ceasefire, the threat of a ground attack and 160 dead. May we have a debate as soon as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

We will of course consider that. I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) and he was clear in encouraging us to consider having a debate on the middle east. I have not been able to find time now, but it is open to hon. Members to seek such a debate using the time available to the Backbench Business Committee. Likewise, it is open to the Opposition, which has time for a debate next week should they wish to use it for that purpose. I think what I said was simply a reflection of what has been said many times by the Government and was repeated by the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday: what we want to do is secure the best possible progress in negotiations and use the ceasefire to make progress quickly. His response illustrated that urgency and the Government’s view that precipitating a vote at the United Nations was not necessarily the best way of making progress.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

May we have a debate in Government time on community first responders, in particular on maintaining and improving training capacity? They do such a lot to ensure that people in rural areas are looked after when ambulance response times are often so slow.

[Mr Lansley]

I share completely my hon. Friend’s support for and appreciation of community first responders. Ambulance service trusts across the country have achieved the most consistent performance to date in responding to category A calls. However, while they meet the overall targets well, we know that response time is variable and particularly difficult in rural areas. Those of us who represent more rural areas appreciate how community first responders can make an important, additional contribution.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the ever-increasing price of gas and electricity, and the obscene profits posted by the organisations who provide those utilities? Mr John Bisset, who is a community activist in my constituency, said that when he goes to the post office each week many elderly people approach him and say that they are unsure of the Government’s position, following the Prime Minister’s recent statements. I hope that such a debate will allow us to clarify that position.

[Mr Lansley]

I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will therefore have been appreciative and attentive when the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change gave evidence to the Select Committee. He made it clear that—as the Prime Minister and Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, and as I repeated at previous business questions—we will ensure that people have access to the best possible tariffs. That is exactly what the Secretary of State has now made clear we will do, and further announcements will be made shortly.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

We were all inspired by the success of our sporting heroes this summer. The challenge now is to get ordinary people involved in local sports, so can we have a debate about grass-roots community sport and the vital work of our county sports partnerships? Will the right hon. Gentleman also commend West Yorkshire Sport in my area for putting on the first Olympic legacy “Be Inspired, Get Involved” community sports fair next Wednesday at Lawnswood school?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I very much appreciate that. In my experience, sports partnerships have made tremendous strides in enabling competitive sport to prosper in schools around the country and have not limited but encouraged wider participation in sport among young people. That is why, as Secretary of State for Health, I provided additional financial support to organisers of sports partnerships. I share my hon. Friend’s view. We have discussed this point previously at business questions, and I hope that initiatives will emerge that enable us to debate the sporting legacy and the future of sport in this country, given the tremendous opportunity we have following the Olympics and Paralympics.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister today rejected my request in a parliamentary question that we ensure that independents standing for election declare any political party membership at the time of their nomination. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said about Winston Roddick in my area of north Wales and given the sympathy I sense the Leader of the House has with this issue, may we have an early debate on transparency of independents at local, national and regional elections?

[Mr Lansley]

Those issues are governed by statute, and an opportunity to discuss them might arise in a debate on electoral registration and administration in due course.

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

Harrogate high school is receiving funding for a complete rebuild from the priority school building programme. May we have a debate on capital investment in schools, particularly considering that the current scheme is achieving better value for taxpayers than previous schemes and that capital is being used to provide the extra school places we need?

[Mr Lansley]

I would be delighted if that opportunity were to arise, particularly given that secondary schools are now being built for £6 million less, on average, than under the Building Schools for the Future programme. I have seen evidence of that in my own constituency, where a new school is being built, as a free school, employing composite laminated timbers prefabricated in Yorkshire and Humberside.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the living wage, so that we can explore why councils such as Tory Croydon, which does not pay the living wage to its employees, charges a higher level of council tax than neighbouring Labour Lambeth, which does?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman might like to talk to his own Front-Bench team about whether they wish to discuss the matter, as Opposition time is available next Wednesday. He might like to press that case on them. I would be happy to debate the matter, however, because it would enable us to discuss not only our support for a living wage but the efficiency and value for money delivered by Conservative local authorities relative to Labour ones.

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

On 18 October, the House passed a motion calling on the Government to reverse their decision to disband the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. May we have a statement on when and how the Government propose to respond to that motion?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that Ministers responded not only at the time but at questions subsequently. The Army will continue to implement the changes announced on 5 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or Defence, and further uncertainty for serving Fusiliers would be unhelpful. We now need to support them through the battalion merger as they look to the future.

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

When will the Leader of the House schedule a debate about the misery that falling real wages are causing to the living standards of millions of people across our country? Is he aware that this morning the Office for National Statistics published data showing that wages rose by only 1.3%, on average, across the UK and by only 0.9% in Scotland, but that the inflation rate has been, on average, 3.1%? Is that not another example of the Government’s complete economic incompetence?

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to persuade his hon. Friends to have a debate on the economy next week, we will be happy to have that. We could explain how inflation has fallen, how unemployment is rising, how we have cut the deficit by a quarter, how we have spending under control and how we have low interest rates as a consequence of the confidence that people across the world have in the Government’s fiscal consolidation. I know that he and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) are interested in the level of the minimum wage and living wage. That and other issues, including equal marriage, will be debated by the Youth Parliament in the Chamber tomorrow. They might like to watch.

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

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the House considers the order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998—a significant piece of constitutional legislation, giving the Scottish Parliament the power to conduct a referendum that has the ability to affect the entire constitutional position of the United Kingdom—it will do so on the Floor of the House and for a whole day?

[Mr Lansley]

I have not been able to announce that business yet, but I will fully take into account my hon. Friend’s views when we schedule it in future.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

In July, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told me that there was to be an announcement about the new agreement between the insurance industry and the Government on flooding insurance. Some 500 of my constituents wrote to the new Secretary of State recently but have not had a response. With the inclement weather, flooding is obviously becoming more of an issue. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that statement is to be expected?

[Mr Lansley]

I recall the Secretary of State making it clear at questions recently that continuing progress was being made in those discussions, but that there were complex discussions to be had with the Association of British Insurers and others. I will of course discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that under the current circumstances people will be reassured if such a statement can be made, but clearly it is dependent on the outcome of negotiations.

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

In recent weeks it has become clear that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s work on the BBC “Newsnight” investigation into allegations of child abuse in north Wales was highly inaccurate and lacked even the most basic journalistic rigour. On Monday 12 November, I wrote to the bureau asking journalists there to detail any payments they had received from the BBC for that work and to return this licence fee payers’ money. As yet I have had no response. Can we have an urgent debate on whether an investigation should be carried out into whether any organisation profited from this shoddy work of journalism, which has caused distress to so many and so damaged the reputation of the BBC?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. Many colleagues will share his view about this. I can reassure him that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided no public funding to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Broadcasters are independent of Government, so whether they work with the bureau or any other organisation is a matter for them, but it is also incumbent on them to ensure that they maintain the tradition of strong investigative journalism—which we all appreciate and which is an essential part of public service and commercial broadcasting—in a way that maintains high standards. That is the balance—I think we will be debating this a lot in coming weeks—of achieving freedom and having a mechanism of scrutiny and accountability, which a free press and free broadcasters enable us to have, while maintaining high standards.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on why the Government have overspent by £1 billion on their misapplication of the academies programme, as outlined by the National Audit Office? Its report says:

“DfE was unprepared for the scale of the financial implications”

of this rapid expansion. Can such a statement indicate where budget cuts to children’s services, funding cuts to underperforming schools and funding cuts to 16 to 19-year-olds staying on in education have been made, and also provide an explanation to Department for Education staff in the Tees valley who have recently been sacked?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read the National Audit Office report to which he referred, which also says that the rapid expansion of academies schools was a significant achievement, which it is. It will have important benefits, through the increased autonomy and accountability that it brings and by delivering improved standards for our children. That is an investment worth making. As for future debates, no doubt there will be an opportunity at questions or for the Liaison Committee to consider whether it wishes to follow up on that report.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the importance of the post office network, which in my constituency provides such an important public service? My constituents will welcome the fact that it recently won the new Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract and that over £1.3 billion is being invested in the network, so that we can finally say that the era of post office closures in this country is over.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. Hon. Members have often asked me about it, and I could quite properly say nothing about it that would be prejudicial to continuing contract negotiations. But now that the contract has been won, I am pleased to say that we can really celebrate the fact that the Post Office has won it. I think Members across the House will appreciate it, and as we made clear in the past, it allows us to ensure that the Post Office can not only secure business from Government, but maintain its offer of business in many communities across the country that were threatened under the last Government.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the Charity Commission in England, with a view to reviewing the Charities Act 2006 to ensure that previously accepted religious charities, such as the Plymouth Brethren, are not threatened with the removal of their charitable status?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I have had occasion to meet, by way of example, members of the Plymouth Brethren in my constituency, who have raised these issues with me, and I will of course discuss them with my colleagues.

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

Earlier this year, the all-party group on pharmacy published its report on the shortage of medicines from local pharmacies. The group had a meeting earlier this week with my noble Friend Earl Howe, the Health Minister responsible for pharmacy, to give us an update on the Department of Health’s progress, which was not as fulsome as I would have liked it to be. May we please have a debate on that important issue, so that my constituents can know where they stand on the future supply of the important medicines on which they depend?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware, because we discussed the subject when I was Secretary of State for Health, that the supply chain for medicines is very complicated, and that it can be a very small number of medicines that are in short supply at any given moment, sometimes for reasons outside anyone’s control. For example, recently there were fires in Italy, which led to the inability to access the right medicines at the right time; but in so far as it can be managed, the Department has been pursuing supply chain initiatives that are intended to enable that to happen. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department of Health. I know they will want to be as helpful as they possibly can be in showing how we can improve reassurance for patients about their access to medicines.

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

The currency or value of GCSEs has been undermined over the past 15 years or so. Atlantic college, based in my constituency, established the international baccalaureate some 50 years ago, and has maintained the rigour of that qualification. May we have a general debate on qualifications, to expose the failure over the past 15 years and to learn from other organisations how we can maintain rigour in our qualification system?

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think he might say to Atlantic college that if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the examination system in this country is increasingly going to imitate the initiative from those decades ago. I know from my constituency that those who have used the IB have thought it a very successful means of reassuring themselves about standards. I hope that the English baccalaureate, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education last September, will enable us to apply some of those principles successfully across the school system. As for a debate, I do not have immediate time available, but I know that the House would appreciate the opportunity to debate the subject as soon as we can.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I attended the Huddersfield Examiner business awards earlier this month, and saw at first hand all the wonderful, enterprising businesses going out there and making it happen, and I proudly wear the “Huddersfield Place to Make It” campaign badge, which celebrates manufacturing in Huddersfield and my Colne Valley constituency. May we have a debate on all the wonderful, enterprising businesses in our constituencies that are going out there creating jobs and creating wealth for our nation, in sharp contrast to the doom-mongering mithering from the Opposition Benches?

[Mr Lansley]

Huddersfield has a proud legacy of manufacturing and an inspiring future in it, too. The Government are setting out to ensure that we rebalance our economy. We understand that we are going to have to pay our way in the world in a global race, not least by reinvigorating the manufacturing heritage of this country with new technologies, first-class innovation and very high productivity. I know that Yorkshire and Humberside will be at the forefront of that. The regional growth fund projects have demonstrated how many good projects are coming forward. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend’s notice that, later today, the House will have a debate in Backbench Business Committee time to discuss the reinvigoration of manufacturing in this country.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

12:00

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I wish to make a statement about the Government’s approach to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on prisoner voting. This is a subject that provokes intense debate, not least in this House. The House will know that, from as early as the case of Hirst in 2004, the Court found the United Kingdom’s bar on prisoners voting to be “general, automatic and indiscriminate”, and concluded that it was, in the Court’s view, in violation of article 3, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which covers the right to free and fair elections.

The previous Government committed to implement the judgment, and issued two consultations which did not resolve the issue. Litigation has continued in the domestic and Strasbourg courts. In the case of Greens and MT in 2010, the Strasbourg Court again found that the UK was in violation of article 3, protocol 1 of the convention, and gave the UK six months to bring forward legislative proposals to remove the violation. That deadline was stayed pending the UK’s intervention in a further case, Scoppola, involving the Italian Government. In that case, the Attorney-General argued in person before the Court that national Parliaments’ discretion to determine policy on this issue should allow for a complete bar on prisoners voting.

The judgment in the Scoppola case was handed down in May of this year. It concludes the Strasbourg Court’s consideration of the issue. In that judgment, the Court made it clear that, in its view, the “margin of appreciation” afforded to individual Council of Europe member states to decide on how far prisoners should be enfranchised was wide, but confirmed its position that a complete bar was outside that margin. The judgment restarted the clock on Greens and MT, and it requires the Government to “bring forward legislative proposals” to give effect to the judgment by tomorrow, 23 November, and to enact the required legislation.

The Prime Minister has made clear, on the record, his personal views on this subject, and I have done the same. Those views have not changed. However, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the Court judgment. As Lord Chancellor, as well as Secretary of State for Justice, I take my obligation to uphold the rule of law seriously. Equally, it remains the case that Parliament is sovereign, and the Human Rights Act 1998 explicitly recognises that fact. The current law passed by Parliament remains in force unless and until Parliament decides to change it. As Lord Justice Hoffmann put it in a case in 1999:

“Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost.”

Last month, the Attorney-General made it clear in evidence to the Justice Committee that

“it is entirely a matter for Government to make proposals but ultimately for Parliament to determine what it wants to do. Parliament is sovereign in this area; nobody can impose a solution on Parliament, but the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations”.

The judgment requires the Government to bring forward legislative proposals for Parliament to consider. It will then be for Parliament to scrutinise and to decide on them. So I have today laid before Parliament a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Leaders of both Houses are writing to the Liaison Committees proposing that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to conduct that pre-legislative scrutiny. We judge that pre-legislative scrutiny of this nature is appropriate, given the significance of this issue and the strong views on both sides that exist right across this House.

The draft Bill sets out three different potential approaches for the Committee to consider. Presenting a draft Bill with that range of options reflects the spectrum of views that we know exist on this question. However, it will of course be for the Committee, once established, to consider whether approaches beyond those canvassed in the draft Bill should also be considered by Parliament in due course.

The first approach in the draft Bill is for prisoners sentenced to less than four years to be entitled to vote. A four-year bar has previously been discussed by Parliament. The second approach would limit the vote to prisoners sentenced to six months or less. The final approach would effectively restate the current position that anyone incarcerated following conviction would not have the vote.

The Committee will want to consider these approaches, their consequences if they were in due course adopted by Parliament, and whether there are other options—for example, the Italian system, found to be compliant by the Court, which disfranchises prisoners post-release. The Committee will, I am sure, consider evidence on this and other approaches. It may also want to reflect on the consequences for the rule of law and the UK’s international standing of Parliament’s ultimate decision. The Committee may also wish to think about practical implementation. The administrative consequences and costs for the Prison Service, the courts and the electoral registration system and electoral registration officers of different approaches could be significant.

The House will want to note that this draft Bill does not yet deal with territorial extent. Any Bill introduced into Parliament would need to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, although the Bill is currently drafted for England and Wales only. The Government will engage with the devolved Administrations during the pre-legislative scrutiny process to ensure that the legislation applies correctly in Northern Ireland and Scotland, in recognition of the interaction with devolved policy matters,.

When the Joint Committee has finished its scrutiny, the Government will reflect on its recommendations. We will continue the legislative process by introducing a Bill for full debate and scrutiny as soon as possible thereafter.

I have set out in some detail for the House the background to the draft legislation that I am publishing today, and the respective roles of Government and Parliament in resolving this issue. I commend this statement to the House.

12:07

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for allowing advance sight of his statement. This issue has been controversial since the 2004 Hirst v. UK case when the European Court of Human Rights ruled our blanket ban on prisoner voting was contrary to article 3, protocol 1 of the convention. The Labour Government disagreed with the Court’s decision. It is not, and never has been, Labour’s position to give prisoners the vote. That is why we appealed the decision and continued to challenge it until we lost office.

Under this Government, I am afraid, there has been a lack of consistency on prisoner voting. On 20 December 2010—the last day before the Christmas recess—this Government snuck out a written ministerial statement announcing that prisoners on sentences of under four years would get the vote. This meant roughly 30,000 prisoners getting the vote. Information we sought showed that 4,188 offenders convicted and sent to prison for burglary would get the vote—so much for this Government being on the side of innocent homeowners. Had the Government’s original plans gone ahead, 5,991 offenders convicted of violence against the person, 1,700 offenders convicted for sexual offences and even 67 rapists would also have been given the vote. I asked the Government at the time for their legal advice that supported giving violent and serious prisoners the vote, but they declined to provide it. The Government then performed one of their earlier U-turns and in a debate on 10 February 2011, Back Benchers from all sides voted overwhelmingly to maintain the status quo.

I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General appealed to the European Court again in the Grand Chamber this year, but many of us remember the previous Lord Chancellor boasting that he would use our once-in-a-generation opportunity of chairing the Council of Europe to ensure that the European Court changed the rules so that civic and social issues such as this would not be adjudicated on in this way. Once again, the Government over-promised and under-delivered.

We will digest the details of the draft Bill, and will work with the Government to ensure that it receives the pre-legislative scrutiny that it deserves. Like my predecessors in the last Labour Government, I am unhappy with the European Court’s ruling on prisoner voting. I think that the Court got it wrong. This is not a case of our Government failing to hold free or fair elections, or an issue of massive electoral fraud; it is a case of offenders, sent to prison by judges, being denied the right and the privilege of voting, as they are denied other rights and privileges. This issue should be within the margin of appreciation that nation states are given by the European Court.

Let me make clear that I am passionate about punishing and reforming offenders. I believe in intervening aggressively to address the offending behaviour of prisoners, ensuring that they can read and write, addressing alcohol and drug dependency, treating mental illness, providing job training so that prisoners can find employment later, enabling them to work in prison and to find somewhere to live, providing a mentor to help them with those tasks, and much more. I meet many offenders, ex-offenders and experts, and I know that the idea that depriving prisoners of their votes makes them more likely to reoffend —or less likely to reintegrate themselves in society—is absurd.

That being said, I respect the rule of law, and we must uphold it. We do not and cannot abide only by judgments with which we agree. This issue is part of the bigger picture of our membership of the European convention, a membership of which Labour Members are proud. We acknowledge its role in protecting human rights throughout Europe for more than 60 years, and the fact that it gives the United Kingdom more leverage over other countries that are less scrupulous in their approach to human rights. It allows us to press others to improve their human rights records, just as the Foreign Secretary rightly did this week with the Syrian opposition coalition.

Parliamentarians need to know the Government’s legal advice on what is needed to enable our obligations under the convention to be discharged. We also need to be clear about the ramifications of any decisions that Parliament makes, as there is a risk that choosing the wrong option could lead to compensation claims from prisoners and to our being in breach of the rule of law. That is why I wrote to the Justice Secretary last week—as I did to his predecessor—to request that his legal advice be published so that Members in all parts of the House could make an informed judgment. He has not responded yet.

I should be grateful if the Lord Chancellor would answer a number of questions. Will he make available to the House the legal advice on which his draft Bill relies, and if not, why not? Does he agree with all the Attorney-General’s views on this matter? When will Parliament vote on his three options, and which of them will he recommend to the Joint Committee and the House? Finally, will he confirm that no compensation will be paid as a result of the announcement that he has made today?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sorry that the shadow Justice Secretary did not take the measured approach that was taken by the shadow Home Secretary at the weekend. When he talks of a lack of consistency and commitment, he should remember that the Attorney-General went personally to Strasbourg to argue the case for this country. That does not suggest to me any lack of determination on the Government’s part.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the previous Lord Chancellor. I pay tribute to him for the progress that he made in the Brighton declaration. These are not easy matters. We are dealing with a very large number of countries, and it is difficult to reach unanimous agreement. I think that my predecessor took a good first step towards securing the reforms that are needed—and I agree that reforms are needed: indeed, I personally take the view that further reforms are needed. I think that I have been very clear about that over the past few weeks. Unless and until such reforms happen, however, we must also recognise the reality of our international obligations, and Parliament must decide what approach it wants this country to take. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I am not entirely certain what approach he wants us to take, but I think it important for Parliament to be in a position to make the decision.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the legal advice. I do not think that the Attorney-General’s views on this matter are any great secret: he has given evidence to Committees of this House during the last few weeks. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that on no occasion under the last Government was advice given to them by the Attorney-General willingly published. However, I will give careful thought to the issues that he has raised. I want to be as helpful as possible to the Joint Committee, and I am willing to consider what methods are available to us that are appropriate and follow due precedent.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for clarification of the implications of all this. It involves complex matters that need to be discussed by Parliament, which is precisely why we need pre-legislative scrutiny and should not head straight into a Bill. Both this Government and the last Government have talked about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny, and this is exactly the kind of Bill that requires it. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about voting intentions. That is a matter for the House to consider. When we reach the point at which a Bill is before the House, every Member will consider how he or she wishes to vote, but, for now, let us wait and see what the Committee comes up with.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s question about compensation, I hope that the Court will—as it should—view my announcement as the first step in the process that it has asked us to complete, and that the issues to which he referred will not arise.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much interest in the statement, and I am keen to accommodate it, but I remind the House that there is a further piece of business within the hands of the Government to follow, and then three pieces of business under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, the last of which, in particular, is very heavily subscribed. I am keen to accommodate the interest, but I appeal to colleagues to help me to help them, and that is done through brevity.

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

If the House agrees to the establishment of a Joint Committee, should not that Committee consider other options, such as restoring voting rights only in the last stages of a sentence? What makes me feel sick is the thought either of criminals cashing in from compensation because we have not sorted this out, or of Britain using the same arguments against international human rights jurisdictions as states with truly appalling human rights records.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the different options that it will be for the Committee to decide whether there are other elements that it wishes to see in a Bill. We have tried to put together a simple framework within which consultation and discussion can take place. That will undoubtedly involve considering whether there are other options, in terms of either the scope of the Bill or some of the operational issues that underpin it.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about other countries, I must make clear that I do not equate a legitimate democratic debate about these matters in this democratic House of Parliament with some of the extraordinary abuses of human rights that we have seen elsewhere in the past, and all too often today. These are very different issues.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Does the Justice Secretary accept that on matters of fundamental human rights, the United Kingdom, under successive Governments, has been impeccable in observing the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, even—for example, in respect of terrorist suspects—when it has disagreed profoundly with those decisions? Long may that continue.

Given that we are talking about the rule of law, does the Justice Secretary also accept that—in breach of ideas of the rule of law that are based on consent—the Strasbourg Court has extended its jurisdiction from fundamental human rights to social and civic rights, for which we have not signed up? As Lord Hoffmann, the former Law Lord, has said, the Court “lacks constitutional legitimacy” in respect of such matters, and

“has no mandate to unify the laws of Europe”

on subjects of this kind.

[Chris Grayling]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I think it is worth recalling that when the convention was written, back in the 1950s, Stalin was in power in Russia and people were being sent to the gulags without trial. That is what the convention was all about, but over the past 50 or 60 years the Court has moved it away from those fundamentals, and into a territory that many of us find deeply unsettling and wrong. I think there is a compelling case for reform, but while the current situation continues, we must none the less respect the laws of which we are part, and put to Parliament the questions that I am putting to it today.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

As the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has just demonstrated, this is a non-partisan, parliamentary issue—a matter of debate across the House. In that context, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing exactly the right thing in the Bill and handing the decision back to Parliament. I am sure, given the debate that the right hon. Gentleman and I secured some time ago, that the House will effectively decide on the status quo, but that is for the House to decide. If that is what the House decides, does he accept that it will set a precedent, and that every time the European Court goes beyond the remit set by the treaty, to which we did sign up, Parliament will reserve the right to correct it and put things back into proper law?

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend has set out clearly the legal position: Parliament has that right. It has been endorsed in the comments made to a Committee of this House by the Attorney-General, as it was in the House of Lords 13 years ago by Lord Justice Hoffmann. That is the legal position—Parliament is sovereign, and long should it remain so.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Are we not in grave danger of insisting on the British way on a relatively insignificant matter and giving an open invitation to other, oppressive countries in Europe to mistreat their prisoners? I recall meeting a woman in a Turkish jail who had been given a 35-year sentence for murdering her abusive husband. As someone who has been involved in these matters for the past 15 years in Europe, may I say that we are sending out a signal that other countries may behave in line with their own national interests and traditions, and that those traditions are to oppress their prisoners and to ignore human rights?

[Chris Grayling]

If the Court in Strasbourg were following those fundamental principles to which the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred a moment ago and concentrated on serious human rights problems, the issues we are talking about today simply would not have arisen.

[Mr Speaker]

It is time to call a knight of the realm. I call Sir Gerald Howarth.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

In thanking you, Mr Speaker, and in congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I suggest to him that it is an affront to the British people that judges from such A-list countries as Andorra, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg should be seeking to usurp the judgments of this sovereign Parliament? In so doing, they have, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) implied, discredited themselves. It is not we who are discredited by this judgment; it is they who have discredited the Court.

[Chris Grayling]

I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on these matters. What I would say as Lord Chancellor is that it is important always to remember that judges, whoever they are and in whichever court they are, be it the European Court or a national court, have the right to reach the decisions they reach. We may violently disagree with those decisions, but they have the right to reach them, and it would be a sad day when they no longer had that right. Our job and duty as legislators—the job of national Parliaments such as this—is to exercise sovereignty when we wish to do so. If we do not like the decisions that judges take, we always have at our disposal the ability to change the law. My statement today indicates to Parliament that the legal precedents before it are very clear: it has the right to disagree with the decisions reached in the Court in Strasbourg, but it would be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to exercise that sovereignty.

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

Do the Government want to pass this decision to Parliament without providing it with the legal advice or any estimate of the potential compensation claims that might be met if we do not comply?

[Chris Grayling]

Absolutely not; I intend to be as helpful as possible to Parliament. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already been extensive in his evidence-giving to Parliament about the legal position. There is no secret and nothing to hide; we want Parliament to have access to all the sensible advice. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend will be willing to give evidence before the Joint Committee.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Just because there may be a bipartisan consensus does not mean that it is right or rational, and it certainly does not include me. May I volunteer to serve on this Joint Committee, and may I ask those who give evidence the following? Is denying the vote to someone who has been sentenced to jail after being convicted of a crime a deterrent? It clearly is not. Is it a punishment, given that most criminals have not voted in their lives? Is it a penance? Or is it part of rehabilitation? Having discussed Strasbourg, we ought to start discussing why we are doing this to prisoners.

[Chris Grayling]

It is clearly a matter for Parliament to decide. There may be divided opinions, in different ways, on whether or not to give votes to prisoners and on which form any reform should take. That will be debated in the coming months, but surely it is ultimately the job of Parliament to decide which of many options it wishes to adopt.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Can the Lord Chancellor confirm the position on judges’ discretion on sentencing and the sentencing guidelines? Is there room in the Bill for that, given that the length of sentences could change over time?

[Chris Grayling]

It would not be my intention to try to add additional dimensions to the Bill. It is important that it concentrates on the core issues in relation to prisoner voting and the decisions of the European Court. There will be other opportunities to debate matters relating to sentencing when we discuss Bills that are before the other place and will, I trust, be before this House in the coming years.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust position. Can he confirm that the legal advice is that Parliament, not the European Court, has the final say? Will Ministers be free to vote for no change?

[Chris Grayling]

As regards voting, I shall leave that question until we see what the Committee has brought forward. As for Parliament having the final say, I can tell my hon. Friend that it absolutely does so. That is clearly what the Law Lords ruled 13 years ago and it is clearly what the Attorney-General has advised. It is also absolutely right—our national Parliament should be sovereign.

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

Let us suppose that this House were to accept the most modest of the Minister’s extensions of voting rights to prisoners—the option for sentences of less than six months. What assurances can he give us that at some point in future that, in itself, would not be found to be incompatible by the European Court?

[Chris Grayling]

It is unlikely; the indications from the Court are that a level of reform of that kind would be sufficient to satisfy it that we had conformed to the judgment. That is one reason we have put that option in the Bill for consideration. A number of people have suggested more minor changes, but we do not believe that those would be sufficient to satisfy the Court. One can never say never about anything, but our expectation and belief is that that option would end this matter for the foreseeable future.

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

What sanctions are available to the European Court of Human Rights to apply against the UK Government if they are judged not to have complied with the judgment sent down?

[Chris Grayling]

Ultimately, if this Parliament decides not to agree to rulings from the ECHR, it has no sanction. It can apply fines in absentia, but it will be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to recognise those decisions, as it is with all decisions. Of course, as Lord Justice Hoffmann said in 1999, there are political consequences for the UK if Parliament chooses to take that decision.

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

It is right and proper that convicted prisoners should not be able to vote while they are in prison. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to consult the Scottish Government at the pre-legislative stage, but may I seek his assurance that he will prioritise keeping to a minimum the burden on the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Court Service and those who administer elections?

[Chris Grayling]

I will certainly give the hon. Lady that commitment. I should say that I spoke to the Scottish Justice Secretary this morning ahead of this statement, as I did to his counterparts in the other devolved Administrations. It is important that they play a part in the discussions that lie ahead. Of course, one factor that needs to be a part of the discussion is what the burdens will be on those who have to administer systems to provide prisoners with the vote, if indeed that is what Parliament chooses to do.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Prison governors have more regular contact with prisoners than any of us in this House. Does the Justice Secretary therefore agree with the past president of the Prison Governors Association, who has said:

“The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners’ voting is out of step in a modern prison service and runs counter to resettlement work which aims to ensure that prisoners lead a responsible, law-abiding life on release”?

[Chris Grayling]

What my hon. Friend has just brought before the House is one example of the kind of views I expect to be submitted to the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the views of prison governors will be listened to with interest.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Of the 43 member countries of the European conventions, which ones maintain a blanket ban on prisoner voting?

[Chris Grayling]

Seven countries have done so. Most recently, Italy was before the Court and has made an amendment to its system. Of course, each country will form its own decision based on the system it has in place and the sovereignty of its Parliament. There has been some suggestion that ours is the only country that has even contemplated failing to implement a decision of the European Court, but I should tell the House that if we look at the record of different members of the Council of Europe for implementing decisions over the years, we see that this country stands near the top of the list.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to nail the myth about the so-called blanket ban? We do not have a blanket ban in this country; remand prisoners, contemnors and fine defaulters retain the right to vote. Will he assure me that it is for this Parliament to consider a range of options, which I hope the Joint Committee will consider carefully?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about those in our prisons who vote, including fine defaulters, people on remand and people who are between verdict and sentence. I can give him an absolutely clear assurance that it will be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to see more prisoners with the vote or simply to retain the number at that level.

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

The Secretary of State will know that the Edinburgh agreement devolves the franchise in the forthcoming independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament but that Acts of the Scottish Parliament have a very different relationship with the European convention on human rights from Acts of this Parliament. Have the Scottish Government contacted him to put on record their position about whether prisoners will have the right to vote in the referendum? Should any prisoner decide to sue, will that Government or this Government be liable in the courts?

[Chris Grayling]

The legal position is very clear: this is a reserved matter for this Parliament and not for the devolved Assemblies. As I mentioned, I have already had a discussion with the Scottish Justice Secretary. Clearly, one issue that will have to be addressed in the pre-legislative process is what will happen with the Scottish referendum. We have already started that conversation and it will continue.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Should we not set store by precedent? Am I right in believing that when we signed up to the convention, before the 1960s, those serving as misdemeanours for fewer than six months were allowed to vote but felons serving for more than six months could not? Of course we must be sovereign, but is that not the sort of compromise that could be reached to ensure our continued membership of the Council of Europe?

[Chris Grayling]

That is a very interesting point. It will be for my hon. Friend, given his expertise on these matters, to make representations to the consultative Committee, which we hope will be able to consider all these issues before it forms a view of what this Parliament should do.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which was very clear. I understand that no matter what the European Court says in the future, if Parliament decides that prisoners will not get the vote, with which I agree completely, that is the end of the matter. What if compensation claims are still made and won in the European Court? Will the Government refuse to pay out any compensation?

[Chris Grayling]

If Parliament decides not to change the current position, that will clearly, as per the ruling from Lord Justice Hoffmann, generate a political issue between the United Kingdom and the Council of Europe. The Joint Committee will wish to consider that as part of its deliberations. As for the consequences, we cannot know what they will be until that decision has been taken. The legal position is very clear. The hon. Gentleman mentioned fines, and as I said earlier, this Parliament is ultimately sovereign and can decide whether it will accept a ruling of the European Court of any sort or whether it will not.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to get everybody in and do not want to disappoint anyone, so we need short questions and speedy answers.

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

Many members of the public will believe that this decision is because of the Human Rights Act. As the Lord Chancellor has said very clearly that it is not, will he confirm whether he supports repealing that Act?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the question refers back to the original convention and the structures that have been in place since the 1950s. I support reform of that system and I have been quite clear that I intend on behalf of my party to introduce proposals before the next election. If the whole House decides to adopt those proposals, that will be great. Otherwise, we will fight the campaign on them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will not the whole of the British people welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Justice has come to the Dispatch Box and put their views first, making this Parliament sovereign and ignoring the Mickey Mouse court in Europe?

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. He has been a great champion of the rights of Parliament and I think that Parliament’s role in this and other matters is enormously important. I am very glad to put it at the centre of a vital decision for this country.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

May I commend the approach taken by my right hon. Friend? This is a matter for Parliament and Parliament alone to decide, but the processes he has outlined to the House today, including pre-legislative scrutiny, will take some time. Can he assure me it that will be drawn to the attention of the Court that this House will need a proper amount of time to consider these detailed matters and for reflection?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a part of the legislative process that is now supported strongly on both sides of the House. It has been used on many occasions for other Bills. In the case of a Bill as controversial and with as many permutations as this one, I shall make it very clear to the Court that this is the start of a parliamentary process and an important part of the response to what it has asked us to do.

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

Many people will accept that prisoners serving custodial sentences rightly surrender many of their civil and social privileges and rights. What does the Secretary of State think about the proposal that one determining factor on reinstating any of those rights to vote should be proximity to the end of a sentence?

[Chris Grayling]

There is a perfectly coherent argument to be made by those who believe that, and it is undoubtedly one of the areas I expect to be discussed by the consultative Committee. I should also say that I would expect the different Select Committees with an involvement in this area to want to contribute to the process, too. I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman has just described will be one of the options discussed.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The option that gives prisoners with lower sentences the opportunity to vote would therefore include some prisoners who have been convicted of electoral fraud. Does the Secretary of State regard that as appropriate?

[Chris Grayling]

We have different rules for those convicted of electoral fraud, who are banned from voting for an extended period. The Government have no plans to change that, but the issue will be discussed as part of the review process and we will see the will of Parliament. I do not believe that that is necessarily the same legal issue as the broader one about the availability to prisoners of the right to vote.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on emphasising the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. In that context, will he assure us that this is not an area in which the European Union and the fundamental rights agency have any competence whatsoever?

[Chris Grayling]

I wish I could give my hon. Friend that complete assurance, but there is another case pending on the right to vote on European elections, rather than national elections, that will be heard in our Supreme Court next summer. That is another thing that is not entirely welcome, but we will have to see what the judgment is when the time comes.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I am still not clear about the issue of compensation. What advice has the Secretary of State received about what the situation will be if Parliament restates the present position and current prisoners decide to claim compensation?

[Chris Grayling]

The legal position remains that Parliament has the right to say no to any decision of the European Court of Human Rights, whatever that might be. It is clear that that is its absolute right but, as Lord Justice Hoffmann said, there is a political consequence of doing so. I do not make light of the challenge or debate that would follow if the decision were not to give prisoners the vote.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has just mentioned that a number of leading EU countries have ignored judgments of the ECHR on the grounds of parliamentary sovereignty. It was stated at the time that their international reputation in various forums, such as the UN Human Rights Council, would suffer. Is there any evidence of that happening and has any analysis being carried out?

[Chris Grayling]

I have no evidence of such issues. Some people have suggested that if Parliament chooses to exercise its right of sovereignty, the UK would become a pariah state, but I must say very clearly that I simply do not accept that. I believe that Parliament has the right to exercise its sovereignty. It will be for Parliament to decide in this situation whether it wishes to exercise that sovereignty, but I do not believe that if it chooses to do so, Britain will somehow turn into a nation with an appalling human rights record. Our human rights record stands comparison with anyone’s.

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

As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with senior members of the European Court of Human Rights in a particular context. There are 47 member states of the Council of Europe and very many of them—France is one; Malta is another—hold prisoners for very long periods without trial in clear breach of the convention on human rights, about which the ECHR chooses to do precisely nothing. Would it not be a good idea for the ECHR to concentrate on enforcing article 5 and such matters rather than meddling, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has said, in matters that are not even within its remit?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the problem; at the moment, we have a Court that is drowning in hundreds of thousands of cases in areas that the originators of the convention would never have considered relevant to what they were creating. That has taken the judges in Strasbourg away from the fundamental principles that they are supposed to be there to protect, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

The European convention on human rights was set up in the aftermath of the second world war to ensure that the horrors of Nazi Germany never happened again. It was never the intention of its framers to give Albert Speer and Rudolf Hess the vote. Does not that make it clear that there is a difference between the convention and the Court? That is why Parliament will have a moral mandate to defy the Court.

[Chris Grayling]

I really believe that is the central issue, which is why I feel so passionately that we need to reform the system, which has moved a long way from the noble motives of its conservative creators, who were trying to address some of the appalling situations that people in Europe found themselves in at the time. It was not about whether prisoners had the right to vote; it was about people being put in mental hospitals for the rest of their lives without trial as an excuse for taking them out of the political process. That is the kind of thing we should be fighting.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on doing something previous Secretaries of State for Justice have not done, which is invoke parliamentary sovereignty, but I gently suggest that that takes us only so far. It is likely that ambulance-chasing compensation claims will be made, so will he indicate what steps he is taking now, by way of contingency planning, to prevent any prisoners from making claims, in either the European Court of Human Rights or English courts, for denial of their alleged human rights?

[Chris Grayling]

I cannot say too much about all the detailed plans I have at the moment—I am in the early stages of thinking through some of the broader issues—but one point I will make is that I have asked the question about the use of the legal aid system for purposes that I do not believe it was designed for. I hope to bring forward further thoughts on that before too long.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my recently published book on prison reform.

I have represented hundreds of people who were in prison, not one of whom ever said to my good self that they were busting for a chance to vote; I assure the Secretary of State that that was not the intention of many I represented. What is the proposal in the option for considering short sentences of a few weeks or even a few days in custody?

[Chris Grayling]

Under the proposal to give the vote to prisoners who have received a sentence of either six months or less or four years or less, someone given a very short sentence would be eligible for a postal vote in prison. Of course, whether or not they are given that vote would depend on what Parliament and this House decide.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am appalled by the lack of legal training for so many of the so-called judges of the European Court of Human Rights, incensed by the Court’s repeated attempts to traduce the sovereignty of the British Parliament, and cognisant of the fact that there would be no Court and no human rights in Europe if this country had not stood alone against Hitler in 1940. My constituents want their MP to vote to ban prisoners from voting, and in that they will not be disappointed.

[Chris Grayling]

We have had one or two early statements of intent from Members, some of which have not surprised me at all. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about these matters and is an effective advocate for both his constituency and his point of view on these issues, which I know is shared across the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) made clear, those views are not unanimous across the House and, therefore, I think that we will have a constructive and lively debate before Parliament reaches its view on the way forward.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the stance my right hon. Friend has taken. Does he agree that everybody supports the concept of genuine human rights but it is this sort of nonsense, whereby the Court interferes in the internal affairs of a country with an impeccable record and tries to micro-manage our system, that gives the whole concept of human rights a bad name and undermines the work the Court should be doing?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree. It is a little-known fact that at university I was chairman of the Amnesty International group and campaigned for Soviet prisoners of conscience. That work is a world away from some of the areas the Court is currently considering, which is why I believe it needs serious reform.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments today about Parliament being sovereign on this issue and on how he is vigilant on legal aid. It would be completely unacceptable to my constituents to see legal aid paid to convicted criminals.

[Chris Grayling]

On legal aid, there will always be people we might find repellent but for whom we must provide financial support so that they can defend themselves in a fair and open justice system, but that does not mean that our legal aid system should be open to abuse for purposes it is not intended to serve. That is why I have asked my officials to look closely at that area and consider what changes are necessary.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify that it will be open to Parliament to decide that non-violent offences tried summarily by the magistrates would comply with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights and that using the sentencing guidelines and the experience of the judiciary, which is independent of interference and hears the evidence, should be a vehicle for deciding whether or not prisoners are entitled to vote?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend has put forward a further option for the eventual legislation, and I encourage her to take it to the Committee for its consideration.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

My constituents are horrified by the prospect of prisoners being given an entitlement to vote. Further to the issue of those given short sentences, will the Secretary of State comment on the position of offenders who are given community sentences?

[Chris Grayling]

Those who are given community sentences are currently still able to vote and we have no intention of changing that, although one option that has been adopted in some other European countries, Italy particularly, is having tighter rules for those released after a prison sentence. That is clearly an option that the Committee might wish to consider.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he will uphold our obligations under international law. I welcome the middle option of six months or fewer as something that those of us who are not implacably opposed to prisoners having the right to vote under any circumstances could consider. Will he qualify that further and comment on whether further restrictions could be added to that option—for example, eliminating from the list of eligible people those who have a record of violence or taking into consideration their previous convictions?

[Chris Grayling]

Those issues could certainly be discussed, but the Court has indicated to us that, were we to implement a measure that took the bar lower than the six-month sentence point, it would be unlikely to see our approach as compliant with the original ruling. Whether an exception for violence could be made is a matter that needs careful consideration in Committee. I do not have the legal basis to rule it in or out at the moment, but the six-month threshold is certainly where the Court has indicated that it sees the line being drawn.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is it fundamentally wrong for prisoners to be given the vote, but it is British courts that see all the evidence and take away the freedom of those people, so why on earth should it be European courts that overrule us?

[Chris Grayling]

As a great believer in the principle of subsidiarity, I think that, where possible, national courts should take decisions on all but the highest points of principle. That, of course, is not where we are at the moment with the European Court of Human Rights, which is taking decisions on issues that, in my view, should certainly be a matter for national courts.

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

The Secretary of State is absolutely right: this is not just about the important matter of prisoner voting; it is about the even more important matter of the very sovereignty of this House and this Parliament. To that end, can he reconfirm that the legal advice is clear and unequivocal that it is this Parliament, not the European Court of Human Rights, that has the final say on this important matter?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely confirm that. That advice has come from distinguished legal figures at both ends of this Parliament, from the former Law Lord, Lord Justice Hoffmann, and a current distinguished legal figure, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who have given identical advice on the sovereignty of Parliament and its right to take the final decision on the matter.

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

I warmly welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement and look forward to being able to vote again in favour of maintaining the status quo. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend please confirm that the pre-legislative scrutiny will in no way be rushed and that when the Joint Committee comes to consider the draft Bill every single issue will be explored and every interested person will be given the time and opportunity to put their views in full and to be examined about them?

[Chris Grayling]

Given the wide range of views expressed in the House today, it is clear that there will be an extensive and broad-ranging debate, and it would be entirely wrong to curtail the parliamentary process and prevent legitimate views from being heard.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that voting is a right, but it is also a responsibility? Prisoners are in prison precisely because they have shown a lack of responsibility, so they should not have the right to make decisions over other people by voting in elections.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend has articulated one of the clear views held in the House on this issue. The issue commands very strong opinions, and I believe that today I have offered Members such as my hon. Friend the opportunity not simply to express their view, but to vote to express it.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I absolutely agree that deciding whether prisoners should have the right to vote is properly a matter for this Parliament, but I am concerned that the United Kingdom may well find itself either asked to pay fines or outside the judgment of the European Court. Britain has an admirable reputation for leading the world in respect of the rule of law, so will my right hon. Friend work with the other 46 members of the Council of Europe to find ways of avoiding the confrontation we seem to be heading for, which will almost inevitably involve curtailing the ambitions and scope of the European Court?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is my view that reform must come, and I am very pleased to have heard today that that is clearly the view of Opposition Members as well. The former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), made a good start with the work done before the Brighton declaration, but my view is that there is a long way still to go on this matter.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Parliament is rightly seeking to reflect the public’s horror at the prospect of prisoners getting the vote, so why not tap into that by putting the options in a referendum coinciding with the next police and crime commissioner elections, in which we want more people to vote?

[Chris Grayling]

That is an intriguing idea, but, sadly, I think the European Court will not allow us to wait four more years before reaching a final decision on this matter. I think Parliament will have to vote before then.

Bills Presented

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Theresa May, supported by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Secretary Maria Miller, the Attorney-General and Damian Green, presented a Bill to make provision about interviews held during certain investigations under schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002; and about the application of part 2 of that Act to matters occurring before April 2004.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 93) with explanatory notes (Bill 93-EN).

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment ) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Frank Field, supported by Diana Johnson, Andrew George and Mrs Eleanor Laing, presented a Bill to amend the Equality Act 2010 to remove discrimination against women in relation to consecration of bishops in the Church of England; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 94).

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

12:52

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.

The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan, known as Ansaru, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 11th proscription order under that Act.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation

“is concerned in terrorism if it—

(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b) prepares for terrorism,

(c) promotes or encourages terrorism”—

including the unlawful glorification of terrorism, or—

“(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

If the test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.

In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in dealing with counter-terrorism matters. I had not realised the Immigration Minister was now going to be responsible for counter-terrorism within the Home Office, but I am glad he has got this portfolio as well. Is there any indication as to how many supporters Ansaru has in the UK?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, may be pleased or disappointed to know that I am handling this order, but my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, retains responsibility for security matters. He is out of the country today on Government business, so I am dealing with the order on his behalf.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not answer the question he asks. There are things I am not able to say in the House, based on intelligence issues. If he will forgive me, I would prefer not to answer his question directly.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation concerned. That includes open-source material, intelligence material, legal advice and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that Ansaru is concerned in terrorism. Members will appreciate that I am unable to go into detail, but I can provide a brief summary. Ansaru is an Islamist terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, which publicly emerged in January 2012. It is motivated by an anti-Nigerian Government and an anti-Western agenda, and is broadly aligned with al-Qaeda. It is believed to be responsible for the murders of British national, Christopher McManus, and his Italian co-worker. Franco Lamolinara, in March 2012.

In conclusion, for these reasons I believe it is right that we add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I commend the motion to the House.

12:57

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and congratulate him on his pronunciation of the full name of this group. I shall refer to it as Ansaru.

We support the Government on issues of national security and work with them on the basis of cross-party co-operation. As the Government are acting today against a group that was identified as an independent entity only in January 2012, I commend them on their speedy action.

As the Minister has said, under section 3 of the 2000 Terrorism Act a group can be proscribed if it

“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, .

(b) prepares for terrorism,

(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or

(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

Obviously, the Opposition are at a disadvantage in evaluating the evidence against such groups, as we do not have access to the same intelligence data as the Government. However, based on what is in the public domain and the brief summary the Minister was able to give today, we are satisfied that the Home Secretary is justified in coming to the conclusion that Ansaru meets these criteria, and we will support the motion.

Members will be particularly concerned to hear about possible links between Ansaru and the kidnap of Chris McManus and his Italian colleague, Franco Lamolinara. The treatment of Mr McManus and Mr Lamolinara was barbaric and despicable, and it is right that the UK Government should take action against any group that commits such acts of terror against UK citizens.

Ansaru has also been linked to the long-established Boko Haram sect, which is not proscribed. I hope the Minister will commit today to keeping the status of Boko Haram under review. So far the actions of this group have been largely confined to Nigeria, but I hope the Government will act to proscribe Boko Haram if links to the UK emerge.

Finally, I remind the Minister of his party’s commitment, made repeatedly when it was in opposition, including by the now Prime Minister, to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Conservatives have now been in power for two and a half years, yet Hizb ut-Tahrir is still a legal organisation in the UK. Now that the Minister has the responsibilities of government I wonder whether, in respect of that organisation, he regrets playing politics with national security while in opposition.

13:00

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I fully support the motion that the Government have put before the House today. One of the features of the fight against terrorism is that the Front-Bench teams unite as they have today in supporting what the Home Secretary proposes.

We must, of course, give the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt. I am sure she has looked at this case very carefully indeed. I am certain that she, like previous Home Secretaries, does not take lightly the decision to proscribe an organisation. However, I want to raise a number of concerns that I have raised in the past, and that the Select Committee has raised, that have not been really been answered by the Government. I am glad to see here the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is also a member of the Select Committee and who played a leading part in producing the report that we published at the end of last year on the roots of radicalism.

Of course it is right that when the Government have the evidence, and the security services and others give advice to the Home Secretary, they should initiate a ban. Despite the fact that we have had successive orders on the Floor of the House that have gone through relatively quickly because of the support of the Opposition, the concern expressed by the Select Committee, which has not really been answered, is that the orders are not time-limited. Once the proscription is put in place, there is no revisiting it unless there is an application by the group concerned to get itself de-proscribed.

In the time that I have been in the House, there has been only one example of a group being de-proscribed. That was the People’s Mujahedeen, which in the end had to go to court in order to get the proscription lifted by the then Government. The concerns that I have raised have been raised with me and with the Home Affairs Committee by a number of groups including, for example, members of the Tamil community, who were concerned at the banning of the LTTE, an organisation that no longer exists, whose leaders have been executed or dissipated. It does not function, yet that proscription remains in force. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have members of the Tamil community in their constituencies and they have raised this concern. That is why it is important that the Government should take a view on the matter.

Whenever Ministers have come to the House before to talk about proscribing organisations—in this case, Ansaru—we have raised the point but we have never received a response with a definitive answer. David Anderson, QC, the reviewer of counter-terrorism appointed by the Government, has favoured a time limit. In Australia there is a time limit of two years. There should perhaps be not an automatic de-proscription, but at least the opportunity for senior Home Office officials to review the decision and to see whether the organisation has changed. One of the points that was made to the Home Secretary the last time she used proscription against an organisation—I think it was Muslims Against Crusades— was that organisations can change their name, but still function. By changing their name, they become, in a sense, a new organisation.

The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) about Hizb ut-Tahrir are relevant. I know the Prime Minister is very keen to ban this organisation. He has said so as Leader of the Opposition and as Prime Minister, but he has come up against advice that has been given, presumably, by those who give advice whose names we do not know —obviously, because by the nature of their job they have to operate in the shadows. They have clearly said to the Home Secretary that in respect of Hizb ut-Tahrir there is no case to proscribe, but that there is in respect of Ansaru.

We in the House probably know more about Hizb ut-Tahrir than we do about Ansaru. Many of us, myself included, probably discovered this organisation only when we knew that a proscription order was going to be issued on the Floor of the House today. In the case of Hizb ut-Tahrir, we know what its members are up to, we know about their activities, we know what they have said, but still they are not proscribed.

It may seem odd that Members are asking for more proscription and at the same time are asking for time limits, but when an organisation ceases to exist and members of settled communities, though not members of that organisation, are loosely associated because they come from the same geographical area, such as members of the Tamil community who are settled in this country, obviously there are concerns.

I hope that when the Minister replies, he will at least give us some indication—I appreciate that this is not his area of responsibility—when we will know that the Government have made up their mind in respect of the response to the Select Committee’s report published a year ago. That will assist us, as I am sure it will assist David Anderson, QC, in our deliberations on this very important subject. On the substance of the order, I fully support what the Government are doing today. I have faith in the Home Secretary’s judgment. I know that she would do this only if she felt that it was the right thing to do, and I hope the order will go through with the support of the whole House.

13:06

[Mr Harper]

Let me deal with the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The hon. Lady spoke on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank her for their support, as I thank the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for his support. This is always a difficult area, because as the hon. Lady said, there are things that the Government know which they are not able to share publicly. I am grateful for what she and the Chairman of the Select Committee said about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to that proscribed organisation, to invite support for it, to arrange a meeting in support of it or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member of that organisation. Proscribing Ansaru will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any of its supporters in the UK and—picking up the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee—ensure that it cannot operate effectively in the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned de-proscription. Anyone who is proscribed can apply to the Home Secretary to be de-proscribed. If that application is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal which is able to consider the sensitive material that underpins proscription decisions.

The Chairman of the Select Committee also mentioned the report that David Anderson, QC, has recently produced and also the Select Committee’s report. The Government have carefully noted the comments that David Anderson made in his report about the de-proscription process and the Home Secretary will respond shortly to the report, so the right hon. Gentleman may not have too long to wait to find out the Government’s view.

[Keith Vaz]

I know that we have become used to the word “shortly”, but it may well have been used a year ago, when we were told that there would be a response shortly. Is that this year? Is it next year? [Interruption.]

[Mr Harper]

As my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary says, the waiting time is getting shorter. I will not put an exact date on it, because when I have done that in the past I have inevitably disappointed people. The right hon. Gentleman will clearly have less time to wait than he did when he heard a Minister say that last year.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned Boko Haram, which operates in Nigeria. For very sensible reasons, the Government do not comment on whether any group is under consideration for proscription, but we are deeply concerned about violence, whether terrorist or otherwise, in Nigeria. We remain committed to working closely with the Nigerian authorities to tackle the security situation in Nigeria. When the Prime Minister met President Jonathan in February this year, he re-affirmed our shared agenda. We have experience on counter-terrorism policy and various frameworks for dealing with it, and we work closely with our Nigerian colleagues to support them in any way we can in combating the security challenges that they face.

The hon. Lady mentioned Hizb ut-Tahrir. As she knows, that organisation is not proscribed in the United Kingdom. As I said, proscription can be considered only when the Home Secretary believes that an organisation is involved in terrorism, as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000. As the right hon. Member for Leicester East suggested though, it remain an organisation about which the Government have significant concerns, and we continue to monitor its activities very closely.

The final issue that the Chairman of the Select Committee raised was organisations that change their name but not necessarily their activities. Section 3(6) of the Act allows the Home Secretary, by order, to specify an alternative name for a proscribed organisation, and we keep the list of organisations under review, including consideration of whether they are operating under any alternative aliases.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Is there a streamlined process for claiming that a group with a new name is still the old group? Instead of having to start again and prove that the group under the new name is a risk, is there is a quick and simple process for saying “This is the old group under a new name”?

[Mr Harper]

Yes. If we proscribe a group on the basis of all the information we have about it, and it then tries to change its identity, there is provision in the Act to allow us to specify an alternative name without having to go through the process of reconsidering all the legal tests that the Home Secretary has to carry out.

I hope that with those answers I have dealt with the questions that were raised, and that the House will support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.

Backbench Business

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

Universal Credit

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that by convention only Dame Anne Begg will speak in this debate. Interventions are allowed, but no other speeches.

13:11

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Third Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, on Universal Credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants, HC 576.

Today the Work and Pensions Committee published a report, “Universal credit implementation: meeting the needs of vulnerable claimants”. Universal credit is a new working-age benefit that, if the various IT systems work—fingers crossed—should be easy to operate for the majority of claimants. Almost all our witnesses supported the principles of universal credit, but as we took evidence it became clear that there were concerns about how those who will find the new system difficult are to be helped. That explains the title of our report. The Government’s approach is to design a system that works for the majority before they then assess what additional support more vulnerable claimants might need. However, we have significant concerns that insufficient progress has been made in deciding what the additional support will offer, how it will be delivered, and who will qualify for it. There is therefore a risk that this help will not be in place for the implementation of universal credit in the first pathfinder areas from April next year.

The report highlights several areas of concern. First, “digital by default”, as the Government call it, means, in effect, that all claims and all changes in circumstances will have to be submitted online, which might cause problems for a sizeable minority of people. On the single monthly payment per household, we are concerned about who within the household will be the recipient. We are worried about potential delays in the system that could mean not only that one benefit is delayed but that all moneys that are due to go into the household are stopped for one reason or another. Another concern is that under universal credit the housing costs of someone in social housing will no longer be paid directly to the landlord but will be part of the single monthly payment.

The Government’s emphasis on planning for the majority means that that is where all the work has been done. There has not been enough detail on the so-called exceptions policy and on how people who are not managing—those who are not in the majority—will be picked up.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for presenting this very important report. I think she will agree that one of the Committee’s major concerns was that the concept of exceptions—people who might get additional help or assistance, or who might not be subject to the monthly payment rule—was very unworked-out. It would be helpful to get some of the detail so that these things are anticipated rather than dealt with once people have got into trouble.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed. We hope that in response to our report the Government will give more detail—put more flesh on the bones—on exactly how the exceptions service will work and how it will identify vulnerable people. I will have a bit more to say about that later.

Another area of concern is the ambitious implementation timetable. We think that there is a danger that the Government have a degree of blind faith in thinking that all the IT systems will work. We would love to share their feeling that everything is all right, but we have seen in the past how other Government IT systems have not lived up to expectations.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Did the Committee note the concern of the Federation of Small Businesses that only a quarter of small businesses are aware of the need to provide real-time information to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? What did the Committee recommend as regards those communications?

[Dame Anne Begg]

We heard a lot of evidence from members of employers’ organisations and from organisations representing accountants, and others, who were concerned about HMRC’s real-time information requirements, on which the system strongly depends. They felt that there was not enough knowledge among employers who will have to operate the process. One of our recommendations was that the Government should be liaising more closely with those organisations and helping with publicity. Another recommendation was that the Government should be wary of trying to keep to the ambitious timetable that has been set.

The Committee has two other areas of concern. First, there are still decisions to be made about how to deal with passported benefits. Secondly, the decision to localise council tax benefit seems to fly completely in the face of the basic principles of universal credit. That might create extra computer problems, because the Department for Work and Pensions’ computer system would have to interface not only with the HMRC’s computer systems but those of local authorities.

Let me look at these matters in a bit more detail. “Digital by default” sounds great in theory, but it might be more difficult to manage in practice because the number of people likely to be applying for universal credit who do not have access to a computer or are not digitally aware or computer literate will be much higher than in the general population. We are keen that the Government should lay out exactly what will happen in the case of claimants who are unable to make any kind of digital claim, because we understand that there will not be a paper form. Indeed, the Government expect that only 50% of claimants will make their claim online in 2013, when universal credit starts to be rolled out.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech. Does she agree, though, that many people find the existing multiple claims processes very difficult to deal with and get right? Does she also agree that there are advantages to people using computers and becoming familiar with the internet because it will help them to get into work, where they may well be expected to do those things?

[Dame Anne Begg]

As we say in the report, it will not be a problem for the majority of people, but it will be for some. We must remember that the people who will get universal credit are not just run-of-the-mill out-of-work claimants; some will have very severe disabilities because employment and support allowance is part of the new system. Some people will have quite profound barriers to accessing benefits of any kind on the internet. We hope that they will have help, but it would be useful for the Government to spell out in more detail exactly how that help will be accessed.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I am delighted to have joined the Select Committee, albeit after the evidence for this report was taken. When the Committee reviewed the draft report, we discussed the issue that many of those who may struggle are the very people who struggle at the moment. It is important that we do not suggest that universal credit will be the source of the problem, because some of the same people struggle now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, there are opportunities in going digital such as having translation online and different ways of presenting information. A mass of paper is often more confusing.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed, but a large number of our witnesses said that there are people who are managing in the present system who will not necessarily manage under the new system. Somebody who is struggling at the moment with a paper form will almost definitely struggle with an online form, but there are people who can manage a paper form who will not be able to manage an online form.

As housing benefit will go not to the landlord but to the individual, there are other groups that the current system supports who might have difficulties managing under universal credit.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Given the difficulty that many people have accessing applications through IT, does my hon. Friend recognise that this change will lead to a massive surge in demand for the help of advice centres? Does she have any thoughts on the additional support that such centres will require to help those people?

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed, the report makes a strong recommendation on ensuring sufficient funds to support Citizens Advice and other advice and welfare rights groups. When they appeared before us, Ministers promised that there would be additional resources for such organisations. There is a recognition that that there will be difficulties, certainly with initial claims and when people move on to universal credit. It would be foolhardy of the Government to say that there will be no difficulties, and I do not think that they are saying that. There are bound to be difficulties, and that is where such organisations have an important role.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that only on Friday Ofcom published new statistics showing that 10% of the population simply have no access to broadband?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I thought that the figure was 20%, but perhaps the hon. Lady has given a more recent figure than the one that was available when we wrote the report. There is no doubt that there will be challenges for people because of “digital by default”.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I entirely take on board the point about the lack of digital access for certain people. That is a problem across a range of Government services, and not just in this area. Does she agree that moving away from multiple applications for a large swathe of different benefits will provide a benefit, for want of a better word? I am sure that, like me, she is visited by many constituents who simply do not know what benefits they are entitled to and are not claiming them. Universal benefit should help to prevent that.

[Dame Anne Begg]

That is why most of our witnesses supported the basic principles of universal credit. I do not like to say that it will simplify the benefits system, because I do not think there is such a thing as a simple benefits system, but it will be more coherent, transparent and understandable.

However, there is an inherent problem in the single payment. At the moment, if somebody makes a mistake in their housing benefit claim, only their housing benefit is affected, and if they make a mistake in their child tax credit claim, only that tax credit is affected. As universal credit will be a single benefit that is paid in a single monthly payment to each household, if one of those things goes wrong for one reason or another, it could mean that a family’s whole income is withheld. That is why it is a real challenge for the Government to get it right. It might mean that some individuals and households do not get their benefit at all. By the time that is picked up, it might be too late. The concern is over how quickly such people can be helped and how quickly they will be able to access the system. One of our key recommendations is about the speed of that identification.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I notice from the report that the Committee is keen to ensure that there is digital access via smartphones. I believe that the Government are looking at that idea very carefully and will implement it. I imagine that the hon. Lady will welcome the idea that people will be able to check their real-time universal credit status when they are out on the street or on the move, and will thus have a much better idea of what they can and cannot do when out shopping or transacting in any way.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Ministers’ responses suggest that the smartphone technology may be some way off. There are issues with the security of the data. We have had some assurances from the Government on that. This is such a big reform that we could not, in our short inquiry, look in detail at all of these matters and their implications. That is the challenge for the Government.

On the implementation timetable, the Government have made great play of saying that there will not be a big-bang effect, because universal credit will not come in for everybody on one day, but will have a slow roll-out. In the pathfinders that will operate from next April, it will be the easy claimants that are seen to first, such as single people who are on jobseeker’s allowance. However, people’s circumstances change, so it is imperative that the Government can foresee how universal credit will work in all circumstances for it to work even in the first cases. It will be no comfort to a claimant who receives no benefit in 2013 because there are failures in the system or because it cannot cope with their change of circumstances for the Government to say that the problems will be sorted out by 2017. For each family, there will effectively be a big bang when they make a new claim or when they move on to universal credit. We are hopeful that the Government are alert to those concerns.

[Jane Ellison]

While there is cautious hope that the IT systems will work, the report acknowledges that if they do work, particularly the real-time information element, it will alleviate many of the problems that we see in our surgeries, such as when people forget to report changes in their circumstances and end up with enormous arrears. That is a particular problem with tax credits. There is therefore the potential to solve one of the biggest problems that affects many of our constituencies.

[Dame Anne Begg]

As the hon. Lady said, that is all dependent on the IT. A lot of what we are talking about is dependent on the IT. That brings me on to my next point.

We were not persuaded by the assurances from HMRC that everything would be fine. We were concerned that there appeared to be no proper contingency planning for where the IT does not work as expected or at all. The points that we make in the report are based on the premise that it will work. Our concerns therefore come on top of any problems that might arise because of the IT.

The report expresses concerns about the additional costs of disability. Ministers have told us that the total expenditure on disabled people as a whole will not be reduced under universal credit, but we are concerned about individual disabled people whose entitlement will be reduced. Existing claimants will obviously have transitional protection, so they will not lose out in cash terms immediately, but that protection will erode over time and will be lost if their circumstances change.

[Kate Green]

Was the Committee concerned that the protection for existing claimants, which means that they will not lose out unless there is a change in their circumstances, might act as a disincentive to enter into work, because they might worry that the job will not work out and that they will have to go on to universal credit for the first time, which could mean receiving a lower payment than they had previously?

[Dame Anne Begg]

A number of witnesses pointed out to the Committee that there can sometimes be unintended consequences and that people’s behaviour does not always follow a logical pattern. What my hon. Friend has said might be logical in certain cases.

Many decisions must still be made on passported benefits. The Committee acknowledges that it is a difficult issue, but it is essential for the Government to make a decision. A lot of working families depend on passported benefits, and that is one of the elements that will make work pay. I do not have time to consider in detail the localisation of council tax, although I have a feeling that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions might share a few of the Labour party’s views on that, even if they do not say so publicly.

The concerns set out in the report about the impact of universal credit on vulnerable claimants are significant and should give the Government cause to reflect on the speed at which they plan to proceed. This is an important reform for the Government, who have been willing to go where no other Government have feared to tread. Many have described it as a brave, radical step that should provide a more coherent and transparent benefit system for working-age people. It is therefore important that the Government get the implementation right, and ensure from the start that all 8 million households affected by the reform will be able to access the help they might need to make a claim. The success of universal credit will be judged not on how well it works for those able to manage it, but on how well it serves the most vulnerable in society.

Question put and agreed to.

Life-saving Skills in Schools

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) I inform the House that we intend to finish this debate at about a quarter to 3. I am seeking to protect the next debate, so once the hon. Lady has moved the motion I will decide whether to apply a time limit, and if so, I shall inform the House what that limit will be.

13:32

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes every child should leave school knowing how to save a life.

First, a big thank you is due to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the Backbench Business Committee, because without them this important issue would not have been given air time. This matter has concerned a number of Members for many years, and I pay tribute to those who have fought on this issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). It is something about which Members across the House feel strongly and passionately.

What do I mean by emergency life-saving skills? For most of us that includes some of the basic things that can be done for an individual before professional trained help arrives. It usually includes putting people into the recovery position and enabling them to lie down and feel safe; helping people who are at risk of choking or have severe bleeding injuries; and, perhaps the most well known, CPR—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—when somebody’s heart has stopped and they are not breathing.

Why has this issue been raised in connection with our schools and schoolchildren? Most of us are passionate about the fact that if anything in life is truly important, it is life itself and how to save it. That being the case, the more widely spread life-saving skills are, the better off we will be as a community and society. If we start with schoolchildren we build a pyramid, and slowly but surely we begin to inculcate those skills into society.

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

The hon. Lady is introducing this debate very well indeed. When I was at school I did full St John Ambulance training that involved three or four days on a course and was extensive. Training does not have to be like that, however; it can be quick, effective, short and clear instruction that could result in saving many lives. Children are often at home in the kitchen near their parents and would be able to save a life if they had clear instruction.

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It takes two hours—that is all—to teach CPR. Indeed, if CPR is applied, a person is three times more likely to survive. It is well worth while. A third of all deaths in the UK result from cardiovascular disease and there are about 124,000 heart attacks each year. Heart attacks are perhaps the most common situation in which people need life-saving skills.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that great work has been done by the charity SADS—Sudden Arhythmic Death Syndrome—UK? In my constituency, Robert and Maggie Underwood have already secured 14 defibrillators for our schools and campaigned tirelessly for that charity.

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend gives me added ammunition and I am delighted to hear what has happened in her community. That is absolutely first rate.

Although we talk mainly about heart attacks, there are more cases of cardiac arrest generally but we are not necessarily as aware of them. A person can suffer an arrest if they lose an excessive amount of blood, suffer a lack of oxygen, become very hot or very cold, or have a blood clot on the lung. It could happen to anybody. It does not have to be someone who suffers from heart disease or is elderly; it could happen to any of us here.

As was alluded to earlier, 60,000 cardiac arrests happen outside hospitals—two thirds in the home and one third in public. In the public arena there is often a witness, and in half those cases somebody who would be able to do something if they were properly trained. Irreversible brain damage to an individual who is not helped can take place in very few minutes. Every minute counts and there is a 10% reduction in someone’s chances of survival for every minute that passes. That must be put in context with the time the ambulance takes to arrive. The target at the moment is eight minutes, and 75% of ambulances make that. If we do our maths, however, we can see that it does not leave long to get professionals to the site.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about heart attacks? Unbelievably, a four-year-old in my constituency who is a carer for her mother undertook training with the local ambulance crew. She was able to put her mother in the recovery position and managed to save her life. That was at four years old.

[Anne Marie Morris]

That is a wonderful example of what can be done. There is often a sense that this issue applies only to older children, but younger children can also learn valuable skills.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that if we educate pupils, they in turn can educate their parents? A school in Cheshire teaches emergency life support, and I understand that a parent of one of its pupils was able to administer the appropriate action when confronted with someone choking in a restaurant.

[Anne Marie Morris]

That is an excellent example and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution.

If we look across the world, the UK does not find itself in a happy, comparable position in terms of the teaching of ELS and survival rates. Our survival rate following a cardiac arrest is pretty poor and quite variable—it depends on where someone is in the country. The survival rate for those who suffer an arrest is between 2% and 12% after they leave hospital. The British Heart Foundation estimates that 75% of people are untrained. That means that only 25% of the population have some training and the number of people in our community who are able to help is very small.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. Speaking to the British Heart Foundation today, I discovered that only 13% of children leave school with some sort of training in CPR. Although I have reservations about making such training compulsory in schools, does she agree that making CPR courses available to children and encouraging their use in schools is key?

[Anne Marie Morris]

It is key that courses are available and recommended, but I will come to compulsion later. My hon. Friend is right that the number of children who have access to training is relatively small, but all credit to the British Heart Foundation, which started its Heartstart programme in 1996. We now have courses in life-saving skills in 400 of our secondary schools. The problem is that it has taken 16 years to cover only 10% of secondary schools, so it will take an awfully long time to get to 100%.

The position in Europe is much better. Eighty per cent. of residents of Scandinavia and Germany have first aid skills because they learned them in schools and elsewhere. The survival rate from a shockable cardiac arrest in Norway is 52%, whereas our survival rate is between 2% and 12%. Compulsory training is common in Europe—Norway, Denmark and France are good examples. Across the pond, 36 US states have legislation requiring the training. The cardiac arrest survival rate in Seattle is twice what the survival rate is in the UK, and 50% of the population is trained.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a lack of understanding in this country that young people suffer cardiac arrest? We need to do more, because it is not just an older persons’ illness.

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes an appropriate point. He is right. There is an additional benefit—on top of the volume of people who will end up trained—because cardiac arrest happens to young people as well.

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

The hon. Lady is extremely generous in giving way, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. She mentioned a number of countries and US states where training is compulsory. Compulsory training could give us much greater chances of survival. I hope she will tell us she is in favour of mandatory training.

[Anne Marie Morris]

The right hon. Lady makes an appropriate and fair point. As they say in business, what gets measured gets done. We have training in this country, but it is not measured. There is no record of how much CPR is included. ELS is included in personal, social, health and economic education, but it is not consistent. We consequently do not get the results that other countries get.

Why do we raise the issue of life-saving skills now? We are doing so in part because we have the evidence, some of which I have just shared with the House, but there is also clear public support. In response to the British Heart Foundation survey in February 2011, 86% of teachers said ELS should be included in the curriculum, and 78% of children said they wanted to be taught it. The evidence is that they enjoy it, and that it gives them a broader sense of self-worth and value within the community. Seventy per cent. of parents believe it should be taught. This will not be an uphill battle, because everybody wants it.

There was a moment when ELS became front and foremost in everyone’s thinking—when Fabrice Muamba tragically collapsed on the football pitch in March. But for an individual with ELS skills coming on to the pitch, he may not have survived as well as he has. That led to the Love Heart campaign in The Sun—well done to The Sun; that was a great campaign that attracted a lot of support. Ultimately, a petition of 130,000 signatures was delivered, asking for us to ensure that we have ELS training in schools. Support in the charitable and third sectors is huge. The British Heart Foundation, the British Medical Association, Cardiac Risk in the Young, St John Ambulance and the Red Cross support it—I could go on, but I am conscious that time is not on my side.

As hon. Members have said, there are some great examples of the community providing training voluntarily. Dawlish community college in my constituency does one whole day on emergency life-saving skills for year 10s. A recent Ofsted report found the school to be good, and outstanding for leadership and management. Does that not show?

What is the way forward? The first option is to continue with the status quo, but as we have seen, results are patchy. ELS is included in PHSE, but it is not mandatory or delivered consistently. CPR is often not included. My view is that we will not achieve what we need to achieve as a society with the status quo.

The second option is making ELS a mandatory piece of the PHSE curriculum. Under the current review, although PHSE will not be mandatory, the Minister has said that bits of it will be identified and made so. ELS could be included in the science or physical education curriculums. The Minister could also consider including it as a compulsory element in teacher training, so at least our teachers will have the training. She could also think about including it as a necessary part of the National Citizen Service programme.

The second option has been debated on many occasions, and the objections to it have been very much the same each time. Let me briefly rehearse them and say why they no longer stand ground. The first argument is that the curriculum is too full and teachers need choice. I agree that the curriculum is too full and that we need to ensure that the core subjects are taught well, but I also agree with choice. It is appropriate to consider what is included in PHSE. When the matter was last debated, even my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who was then the answering Minister, could see the priority of ELS. He was lobbied to include knitting in PHSE, but agreed that knitting simply does not have the same value as ELS. It is perfectly possible both to include it and to retain flexibility in the curriculum. As I have said, it is only a two-hour course. On choice, we could say to schools, “It is compulsory, though you have the choice of including it in PHSE, science or PE, but it must be measured by Ofsted.” That would give flexibility.

The second argument usually advanced against the proposal is cost and resource. The British Heart Foundation has estimated that it will cost £2,200 a year per school, but that is not a huge amount of money. The charitable sector, trainee doctors and general practitioners can get involved in teaching on a voluntary basis. They will do it for free, and the cascade principle says that if we teach the teachers, they will teach others and so on. I suspect that the number of people wanting to get involved and to help for free would make this a relatively inexpensive activity.

We must set that against the cost to the public purse. If an increasing number of people have brain damage when they need not have it and are kept on life support machines in hospitals, or if there is an increasing number of people who survive but who must be supported at home, the bill goes up. A day in hospital costs £400 or £500. As hon. Members know, disability living allowance can be £131 a week. That adds up to a sizeable bill. It is not just about money—there is also a cost to the family and society. As a nation, we believe in prevention rather than cure. The question, therefore, is not whether we can afford to do this, but whether we can afford not to.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. I was contacted by a constituent whose brother-in-law had a huge heart attack at the age of 46 while at work. If a colleague of his had not had CPR skills to keep him alive until the ambulance arrived, he would have passed away. Does that not emphasise how important it is to give our young people those skills for the whole of their lives to help to save other people’s lives?

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and leads me to the third and final objection I suspect will be raised, which is the problem of physically damaging somebody’s health through CPR by, for example, breaking a rib. No one has ever been sued for helping somebody in those circumstances. When a person has a cardiac arrest, they are almost clinically dead—only the brain is still going. So someone helping a person who has had a cardiac arrest cannot do any more physical damage because the person is pretty much dead, and no one has been sued; indeed, I do not believe that people in this country would support such legal action. In exchange for training, these young people have a huge opportunity.

In conclusion, the case has been made for emergency life-saving skills to be taught in schools consistently, to ensure it happens in all schools. It is the right thing to do for society and for the economy. It is not just a decision for the Secretary of State for Education. For all the reasons I have mentioned, the Minister should work with the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. This is a broad issue. Not making it mandatory is the triumph of hope over experience.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There is now a seven-minute limit on speeches.

13:49

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and other hon. Members on bringing this issue before the House, and commend all the newspaper and petitioning activity that led to that. It is not every motion before the House of which we can say it will save thousands of lives and cost very little, but that is precisely what this motion will do if the Government follow through on it, as the hon. Lady has been advocating. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said about making it mandatory and with her demolition of all the arguments against it.

In the brief time allowed, I want to refer to a programme that originated 15 years ago at the John Radcliffe hospital in my constituency, which has been extended to nine other centres in the UK and emulated overseas in Hong Kong and Belarus. The injury minimisation programme for schools was, like most of the best ideas, very simple and obvious once someone was clever enough to think of it. The idea is that if we educate children in accident prevention and what to do when there is an accident, and at an age when they are old enough to understand and apply the lessons but before they become especially sensitive about their bodies, that will cut accidents and save lives. The programme works by combining work in the classroom with a visit to hospital to learn emergency life skills. Approximately 5,000 10 and 11-year-olds in Oxfordshire take part each year. Children enjoy it, teachers value it, and, most importantly, it works.

I congratulate all who work on the programme—its administrators and volunteers, as well as the medical staff and teachers. I have met children on the course, and it is uplifting to see their enthusiasm for the knowledge and practical skills that they have learned, and how proud they are to go home and tell their parents that they know how to save their life. I have one feedback message from a youngster who went on the programme:

“I have shown my mum how to do the recovery position! She was very impressed! I told her about CPR and I now know that if someone has collapsed then I could save their life. Hope you enjoy my feedback. Please carry on teaching children to save people’s lives.”

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the practice were adopted and made mandatory, it could improve social cohesion? Young people could have the skills to save the lives of people from the older generation, and that would change perceptions in society.

[Mr Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is vital to understand what children are capable of, and that we do not underestimate the live-saving skills they can learn. There is hard evidence for that. In a scientific abstract to the international conference on emergency medicine in June, the journal Academic Emergency Medicine reported on a study assessing whether children can defibrillate. The study was done properly and rigorously, with control groups and so on, and chi-squared analysis of the conclusion. In concluded:

“This study demonstrates that children aged 11-years-old can use a defibrillator effectively and safely, and retain this knowledge over several weeks”—

and that active training, unsurprisingly, is the most effective way of teaching it to them.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

There is perhaps even more important feedback in the case histories that the St John Ambulance has circulated to all hon. Members, where children of that age have been shown to save lives, either of their peers or of their parents in some circumstances.

[Mr Smith]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I have similar evidence from IMPS. What is more, and as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot argued, such initiatives are very cost-effective. The IMPS estimate is that it costs approximately £16 a head to enable children to take part. I would like to raise a couple of points about funding.

In Oxfordshire, 50% of the cost of IMPS has been met by the PCT, there has been some support from the county council, and the rest of the cost has been met by fundraising initiatives. Of course, classroom time and teacher involvement is met from the base education budget, which is right because there are wider commensurate educational benefits relating to the self-esteem of children who take part. Funding for some of the other centres is under acute pressure. Sadly, the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster IMPS closed because of shortage of funds—absolutely tragic when one thinks of the benefits.

There is also a general issue about future funding with the establishment of the NHS Commissioning Board. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether funding for this sort of initiative will be the responsibility of the Commissioning Board as the main successor to the PCT, whether it will fall to the county council with its public health responsibilities, or whether the responsibility will be shared. Whichever it is, it is essential that IMPS and similar initiatives are enabled to continue and thrive to form the basis of what we hope will be part of the mandatory curriculum provision for which we are arguing. At the end of the day, there can be nothing more important than helping children save lives, both their own and those of others.

13:55

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing the debate on a subject that I know she is passionate about. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), as we have been pushing on this collectively for some time. I feel that we are making some progress.

The debate is essential, because we are talking about creating the next generation of life-savers. Let me use some cold, hard statistics to reinforce that point. Some 60,000 people a year will have a cardiac arrest. The survival rates in this country are disgracefully low—between 2% and 12%—which means that approximately 55,000 people a year will die from a cardiac arrest. About half of those are, in theory, able to get help through the ambulance service, but on average it takes approximately 6 to 12 minutes for an emergency ambulance to reach a critically ill patient. For every minute that passes, the chance of survival falls by 10%. However, if CPR is given immediately, survival rates increase threefold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot said, we really cannot do any worse by leaving somebody in that position.

The great shame is that most people are simply not able to help. For about half of the 60,000, there are witnesses on hand who could help, but most either do not have the skills or lack the confidence even to try something. By training and educating individuals, we can radically alter the situation. I have heard horrific stories of crowds gathering round, with no one willing to step in. Thankfully, the evidence clearly shows that, with training, lay people can overcome the psychological barriers and manage the patient until more advanced and experienced personnel arrive.

Those are the cold, hard statistics, but I was in such a position with my own father. When I was 12, my father collapsed. My attempts to help were, at best, muddled, and passers-by then helped. We all rely on people having that confidence to go and make a difference. Sadly, my father was one of those statistics who did not survive. We will never know, had we all been equipped with the skills, what difference that would have made.

What we are asking for would take only 0.2% of the school year. It takes less than two hours to train a young person fully in emergency life-saving skills. To put that into context, that is the equivalent of one PE lesson. I am conscious that schools Ministers are for ever lobbied by campaigns saying, “This would be very important for the national curriculum.” I am as guilty as any MP for asking for financial education, basic cookery skills and a variety of other campaigns. However, we are trying to be helpful; we would be happy if such training were included in PSHE, as long as it was a mandatory part of it. It could go into biology, as one understands how the breathing system and the heart works. It could go into PE lessons, especially given the number of sports therapists we would like to encourage. We are not proud—as long as we can get it in somewhere.

We are told that there is a limit to the amount of time available in the national curriculum, yet we find time for every school to practise fire drills. They are important, but 60,000 people a year having a cardiac arrest is certainly up there with fire drills. We could take the training in assemblies. If we really are struggling with the school curriculum, then there are always driving lessons, because all young people want to take lessons—we are trying to be as helpful as we possibly can be.

The training is straightforward. At a recent meeting of the all-party group on heart disease, I and all of my staff took part, and it was a breeze—it was pretty impressive for us for it to be a breeze. The training can be broken into three levels and even the most basic form of training can make a difference. For example, the body has enough oxygen in the blood so that even basic compression CPR is sufficient for 15 minutes. Crucially, these skills will remain with people for the rest of their lives. We will create a new generation of life-savers and they can pass their skills on, so it is a win-win situation. We have the evidence that it will work. It will allow us to change the prognosis of this devastating condition and save thousands of lives a year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot made great play of international comparisons, talking about the improvements in France, Denmark, Norway and Seattle. The cold, hard statistics show that, where such training is compulsory, survival rates are not 2% to 12% but 52%. That means that an extra 15,000 lives a year would be saved.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that children would thoroughly enjoy learning emergency life-saving in school? Instead of sitting in the classroom reading books, they would be getting involved; it is hands-on. They would enjoy it, and learn quickly, too.

[Justin Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend has been a good supporter of our ongoing campaign, and his question leads me on to my next point.

This idea has huge public support. According to a British Heart Foundation survey, 86% of teachers think that ELS should be part of the national curriculum—we have the opportunity to get teachers’ support—and 78% of children want to be taught how to save someone’s life in an emergency, which touches on my hon. Friend’s point. Furthermore, 70% of parents thought that children should be taught ELS at school.

Following Fabrice Muamba’s cardiac arrest and with the help of a campaign by The Sun, which we all supported, more than 100,000 people signed the e-petition—it is one of the few that quickly racked up the 100,000 signatures. I was delighted to read today that, although Fabrice Muamba thought his football career was over, he has said he will review that decision in two years, if his heart rate settles. That would be a fantastic achievement. He was technically dead for more than 70 minutes, but, because of ELS, he survived, and he has gone on to get married. That is a testament to the difference it can make.

In conclusion, ELS would make a real difference to survival rates. Training takes less than two hours, and the skills remain for life. Through education empowerment, a new generation of life-savers will be created, saving thousands of lives a year. I hope that we can make this a compulsory element of children’s education and create an army of life-savers with the confidence and skills to save a life.

14:02

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris)—I hope her foot gets better—and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who had a ten-minute rule Bill on this issue in the previous Session, which sadly fell. I congratulate other Members, too, who have taken this message forward.

I am a signatory to early-day motion 550, which calls for compulsory ELS in schools. I have also undertaken a three-day course with St John Ambulance—so I know, I hope, how to save a life—and I am a member of the Health Committee. Making ELS compulsory in schools would send the message to children: “Don’t walk on the other side. You can help someone. When you see someone, you can help them.” That is an incredibly empowering message. The simple task of knowing the recovery position, or even knowing when not to move a person—for example, if they have hurt their neck—are important skills. We are saying to them, “Don’t be afraid. You can be concerned, but don’t be afraid when someone is having a heart attack or is distressed.”

There are many children with conditions such as epilepsy or even diabetes—they will have to inject themselves—and children with siblings or parents with such conditions. They will understand these conditions and be able to help. This idea is just an extension of that. The 2001 census found that 174,995 under-18s are carers. So many children already know how to look after adults. There are four simple measures: dialling 999; administering CPR; putting someone in the recovery position; or simply staying with them, holding their hand and talking to them. That can save lives, and those measures are the basis of ELS. It should be compulsory for them to be taught in schools

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It will come as no surprise that Scotland has had voluntary engagement with pupils in schools for some time. In Inverclyde, we offered it to children in their lunch break, and we were astounded by how many came forward to learn these skills.

[Valerie Vaz]

I agree with my hon. Friend. As we have heard, different parts of different countries are doing this on a voluntary basis, but we are calling for something more: for it to be compulsory as part of education.

I had the privilege of administering CPR during the last conference recess. Most Members—certainly of my generation—will know the tune of “Stayin’ Alive” by the Bee Gees. That is the kind of rhythm one should use to administer CPR. [Interruption.] I will not sing it, although I can hum it. I want to bring that up to date. I do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you have seen this hit song on YouTube, but “Gangnam Style” has a similar beat, and in fact the first movement of the dance is similar to that required for administering CPR—as long as the person uncrosses their hands. Imagine teaching that in schools. How wonderful it would be to engage children in that way.

The British Medical Association has said that almost 60,000 people suffer from out-of-hospital strokes, and evidence shows that CPR can triple the rate of survival. I urge the Government to take that onboard, to listen to Back Benchers—for a change—and to include training on it as part of the curriculum. It is compulsory in Norway, Denmark and France. Let us embed it in our children’s psyche, engrain it and make it part of their DNA. After all, it is a matter of life and death.

14:06

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

In making a brief contribution, I shall carry on where the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) left off—with how a piece of music can save a life. She is so right. In a slightly different context, I remember listening to a radio interview with the wife of the great violinist, Yehudi Menuhin. She said she was always terribly worried when her husband played Beethoven’s violin concerto, and when it got to a certain bit—when she knew the end was nigh—she used to sing to herself, “Thank God it’s over, thank God it’s over”. That has ruined Beethoven’s violin concerto for me ever since, because I have never been able to get it out of my mind.

Reading the briefing, I did indeed see that, “Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin’ alive” is apparently the rhythm that should be followed when administering CPR. I read that in the context of a report from the Daily Mail on 10 January, helpfully included by the Library in the debate pack. In it Dr Rob Galloway told the story of the rector of St Nicholas church in Sevenoaks, Angus MacLeay, who collapsed at the age of 51 and died—but his son and his friend had been told how to administer CPR. The report read:

“Although they had only a few hours’ training, it’s all they needed to know instinctively what to do. They took it in turns, pushing down on the chest in a continuous cycle”

that the experts say should, indeed, follow the rhythm of that famous Bee Gees song. Two weeks later he was back at home, having died and been saved by his son.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It also works if the person sings “Nellie the Elephant”—for those of us who are more musically challenged or who cannot remember “Stayin’ Alive”—although it has to be a fast version.

[Dr Lewis]

I look forward to the hon. Lady’s rendition when she speaks—very shortly, I hope—and I pay tribute to her, to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and to other hon. Members. I was particularly touched by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), when he said what happened to him and his late father.

My own background in this subject is slight. I have been involved with organisations such as Cardiac Risk in the Young, which campaigns to have young people screened for heart defects that otherwise no one would know were present, and with the battle to save the children’s heart hospital at Southampton general hospital, which is one of the best in the country and fortunately will not now be reorganised out of existence.

My immediate incentive for coming to today’s debate was a letter I received from my constituent Natasha Jones, who lives in Brockenhurst, who has set up an organisation called Baby Resuscitation. During the summer of 2010, she experienced an episode with her 11-week-old daughter of what is known as near-miss cot death, when her baby stopped breathing and was drifting in and out of consciousness. At the time, my constituent had no resuscitation training. It was only her maternal instincts that succeeded in keeping her baby alive until professional help arrived. As in the case of so many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, the experience motivated my constituent, spurring her on to do something to ensure that the availability of skill would not be hit and miss in future. That is why she set up the Baby Resuscitation scheme, which is over-subscribed and to which parents go to get the skills they need. The point she makes to me is how much more vitally helpful and productive it would be if children had to learn such skills at school.

I know many people want to speak. This seems to me such an obviously admirable cause that I do not need to say anything more, other than that I wholeheartedly support it and I look to Minister to give the campaign the encouragement and endorsement that it clearly deserves.

14:10

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to my colleagues in the campaign, the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), which is dear to our hearts.

This is a

“no brainer, it’s just common sense”.

Those are not my words, but the words of Dr Andy Lockey from the Resuscitation Council. He and another 124,665 people are calling on the Government to put emergency life support skills in the curriculum for all schools. For just two hours every year, we could make every child a life saver—just two hours that may save some of the 150,000 people who die each year in situations where first aid could have made a difference; two hours that could save some of the 60,000 people who have a cardiac arrest outside the hospital environment.

On 17 March this year, Fabrice Muamba was playing for Bolton Wanderers against Tottenham when he suffered a cardiac arrest. Fabrice was really lucky, because he had his cardiac arrest in a public place where there were trained first aiders; because the paramedics at the match were knowledgeable enough to give him immediate CPR on the pitch, so that his brain was saved; and because medics did not give up, but worked on him for 78 minutes until his heart restarted. Just because he was with people who knew what to do he survived, although sadly he has had to give up football—I was interested to hear the hon. Member for North Swindon say that it might not be for life. Fabrice joined us to take the British Heart Foundation’s petition, signed by 124,665 people, to Downing street.

My sister’s friend Malcolm McCormick was also really lucky. In April this year, he went to school to pick up his grandchildren when he keeled over—effectively dead, not breathing, heart not beating. Malcolm was really lucky because one of the people waiting to collect their children was a retained firefighter, who started to give CPR. He was also really lucky because once a month another firefighter volunteers in the school tuck shop and it was his Friday to be working, so he came out and took control of the situation. Malcolm was also lucky because a defibrillator was available and he was rushed to a specialist hospital. Malcolm left hospital three days later with very sore ribs, albeit alive and with his brain intact. Four months later he was fit enough to be a games maker at the Paralympic games.

However, it should not be down to luck, because there are far too many other examples of people suffering a cardiac arrest not being saved because the people around them do not know what to do. They include children such as Ciaran Geddes, who died aged seven, 12-year-old Oliver King, 16-year-old Daniel Young and 17-year-old Guy Evans. Their mums are campaigning for defibrillators and for emergency life-saving skills to be taught in schools. The Government have a chance to make a difference—to save lives simply, cheaply and immediately. They have said that they want a national curriculum to reflect the

“essential knowledge and understanding that pupils should be expected to have to enable them to take their place as educated members of society.”

Surely knowing how to save a life would be absolutely in keeping with that aspiration.

I cannot imagine anything worse than watching a loved one die and not knowing what to do—especially if we find out later that doing something may have saved their life—so I have become a Heartstart trainer. I can teach people to do CPR and deal with choking and bleeding, and my staff are Heartstart trained. All the secondary schools in Bolton West have become or are becoming Heartstart schools, and they are rolling the programme out to the primary schools. There is co-ordinated action across Bolton to train as many children and adults in emergency life-saving skills as possible. The North West ambulance service, the fire brigade, Bolton Wanderers, Bolton council and the British Heart Foundation are all working together to teach the skills and promote defibrillators. In the new year, The Bolton News will run a campaign to get schools to sign up for Heartstart and raise funds for defibrillators in schools and public places.

Fabrice Muamba’s collapse raised awareness locally about the dangers of sudden cardiac arrest. The response in Bolton has been fantastic, but it cannot go far enough until every child leaves school a life saver. I met two 13-year-olds in Horwich on Saturday who had just learnt life support skills as part of their PE lessons in Rivington and Blackrod high school. Demi told me it made her feel good about herself because she can save a life. Matthew told me that he feels confident because if anything happened to someone, he would know what to do. Mark Roach, the Heartstart co-ordinator at Ladybridge high school, told me that his pupils leave school with a real life skill that they can pass on to others, and they do the lessons during form time. There are many places where Heartstart would fit into the curriculum. My local lead teacher for PE believes it would fit perfectly into the PE curriculum. Other schools do it as part of personal, social, health and economic education or biology, but where it fits is less important. Emergency life-saving skills should be part of the core curriculum, taught in all schools.

The Government like to compare themselves internationally. As has been said, in France, Denmark and Norway, ELS is already a compulsory part of the curriculum, as it is in a number of states in Australia and 36 of the 50 states in America. In Seattle, because no one can graduate from school or gain their driving licence without leaning first aid skills, more than half the population is trained in emergency life support. In the UK, there is only a 30% chance of a bystander administered CPR; in Seattle it is 60%. People have double the chance of surviving a cardiac arrest in Seattle than they do in the UK. Since the British Heart Foundation has run its “Hands-only CPR” advert with Vinnie Jones—to “Stayin’ Alive”—another 28 people have been saved because bystanders “had a go”, but it is not enough. As Dr Lockey says,

“Every year we don’t teach Emergency Life Support Skills to all school children, people are dying unnecessarily”.

The Government should act now and make emergency life-saving skills part of the core curriculum in schools. They can save lives now.

14:17

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I cannot tell you how important I think this debate is, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing it. I also congratulate the hon. Members who have spoken—with a great deal of knowledge and personal experience—about how important this issue is. The hon. Lady made an excellent speech, touching on all the key issues, and asked most of the key questions.

I will speak from personal experience. I qualified as a lifeguard in the mid-1990s. I did it to support my daughters, who were in a swimming club that needed voluntary lifeguards. I trained every two years and did the exam. During that process my children trained with me—we used to practise the various required skills on the front room floor. I was fortunate that there were no major incidents in the pool during the almost 10 years in which I turned up five nights a week to lifeguard—as parents do from time to time. However, on dry land it was altogether different. Let me cite some examples.

I remember stepping off a London bus one day to see a woman lying on the pavement, literally in front of me, and five people standing around, before doing the basic checks and asking people, “Has anybody done anything? Has anybody moved her?” Everybody stood there, shook their heads and said no, either because they were too scared or because they did not know what to do. The lady was unconscious, and was still unconscious when the ambulance arrived. Again, it was people’s lack of knowledge that prevented them from doing even the basic checks—that her pulse was there and she was breathing.

On another occasion I was on a train, travelling into London, sitting opposite a very large gentleman who was clearly in difficulty. My assessment was that he was having a cardiac episode of some kind. We cleared the area around him. I asked whether there were any doctors or nurses on the train; there were not. People were coming up to me as I was in the middle of it all, asking, “Shouldn’t you ring his wife?” I got someone to stay with the man and keep him calm, went down the carriage with the woman and said, “Well, what do we tell her—that her husband is having an episode on a train in the middle of nowhere and we don’t know which hospital he is going to?” “Oh,” she said. Common sense, I am afraid, rather goes out of the window when these things happen. He was a very large gentleman and I was worried that if he actually went on me, he would not fit in the gap between the seats so that I could do CPR. So I was struggling about how I was going to do it, but fortunately we got to a station and the ambulance got there and took him away for expert treatment. Again, at the end of that, people came up and said, “Thank God you were there. We didn’t know what to do. We were scared”—exactly the same comments.

The final example was in Brighton, at the Grand hotel, when I was having a dinner during conference. One of the guests started choking, slumped and started to go blue. So it was a Heimlich manoeuvre. I have to say it was my boss, so it was probably just as well I did it, not least because he is alive and I have now just married him; but that is another story.

[Valerie Vaz]

Too much information.

[Alison Seabeck]

Yes. But again, the comments came back, “Thank heavens. We didn’t know what to do.” The basic skills are so simple and so easy to teach, and once you have them you almost automatically go into support mode, as I did in the hotel in Brighton. I admit that afterwards I was shaking a bit, but none the less you just do it, because that is what you have been trained to do.

Children are like sponges. They soak up information, and if they can see a practical use for it, they will learn even more quickly. This week, I am going to talk to pupils at Manadon Vale primary school about this very issue, as part of the discussion. Knowing basic techniques, such as being able to administer support when someone is having a cardiac arrest, is absolutely vital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said, being in a situation where a loved one is having a cardiac arrest or perhaps where the baby is choking and not knowing what to do is unimaginable. I really cannot imagine how someone must feel in those circumstances. Teaching the basics is so important.

Of course there are people who say, “I don’t want to do the mouth-to-mouth bit.” They could do hands-only, as a number of Members have said. I still walk around carrying a British Red Cross Resusci-Shield for mouth-to-mouth, because I do think it is important to have one, but it is possible to do it hands-only, and one certainly should try.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about the lesson in which these skills should be taught being flexible. I think that is a really good proposal. We need to move towards ensuring these skills are taught as a matter of course in our schools. Pregnant mothers should have a basic training as well, because there are lives to be saved. The idea that such training is too onerous is a perennial excuse. I ask the Minister not to hide behind that.

Importantly, I would ask the Minister to go away and talk with colleagues in other Departments—in Health and in Communities and Local Government—because there are benefits across other Departments and there are possibly even some cost savings, ultimately, which the Government are obviously very interested in. Most important of all, lives will be saved. Children and young people are very capable of using these skills, and that is the time to teach them.

14:24

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I shall speak very briefly; I am a late interloper into the debate, but I wanted to raise two points. Actually, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) has touched on them already. I recently attended a demonstration of CPR. The instructor was at pains to say that mouth-to-mouth was not essential but CPR was, and that some people are put off volunteering for such courses because they are fearful of engaging in mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. That is what my hon. Friend said, so she emphasised, “Do not press the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.”

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on launching this superb debate, and all those who spoke so excellently. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View deserves a medal because she has saved several lives.

I want to speak specifically about water life-saving, because 55 years ago I acquired an intermediate life-saver’s certificate. I have never had to use it, but I think even now I could do the basics and get someone out of the water without drowning myself, and get them breathing again—free their tongue, and all the things that I remembered when I was 14 or 15. That is a subset of life-saving, but it is very important and I hope that the Government bear in mind the encouragement for people to take up life-saving in water as well as dealing with cardiac arrests.

Those were the two points that I wanted to raise. I promised to speak for two minutes, and I hope I was not too long.

14:25

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a very good debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), whose name appears at the head of the motion, on her very fine speech, which drew a lot of agreement across the House. She was absolutely right to emphasise that without compulsion, we simply will not get the levels of performance and the number of lives saved that we want, in comparison with other countries. I shall return to that point later.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) rightly said that we must not underestimate what children are capable of. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly said that we need to get on and train the next generation of life-savers, and he mentioned, as other Members did, the survival rate of 2% to 12% of cardiac arrests in this country compared with 52% in the better jurisdictions. He also, movingly, told us about his own personal experience involving his father, which brought a lot of sympathy from across the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) did her speech gangnam-style, which I thought very appropriate. On MP4’s album, track 2, “Love’s Fire,” is also about the same rhythm, although it is not as well known as the other examples given. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) also spoke with personal experience. I can assure him that no one was saying, “Thank God it’s over,” at the end of his speech, which was a very effective contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who herself is common sense on legs, told us that it is simply common sense for us to be teaching these skills and making that teaching compulsory. She gave us real examples of where young lives had been saved. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who brought her personal experience as a trained lifeguard and who saved her future husband as a result of that training. Only time will tell whether she lives to regret that but, all joking aside, she showed the importance of these skills. Briefly, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) drew on his personal experience.

We support the inclusion of life-saving skills as a compulsory element in our schools. We are open-minded, as hon. Members said, as to how we achieve that—PSHE might be the best subject in which to include that on a statutory basis. The motion does not actually spell that out, but it says that everyone should learn these skills. My question on these occasions is always, “If that is what the House wants to happen, what is the transmissions mechanism to ensure that it does happen?” The Government frequently talk about the necessity of following the examples of high-performing jurisdictions when we are looking at what schools do well and at the outcomes, so how about, on this occasion their following their own advice and looking at what happens in high-performing jurisdictions around the world as far as life-saving skills are concerned? I am afraid the evidence is clear that unless the Government spell out that such training should be compulsory and must be taught in schools, it simply will not work and we will continue to have the very slow progress in saving lives that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot talked about in her speech.

That would not be acceptable, because we are talking about people’s lives. What is the barrier anyway? All the arguments against the proposal have been demolished in the debate, so the only objection can be an ideological one relating to telling schools what to do. That is not a good enough reason when we are talking about saving lives. Unless this is made a requirement in all our schools, it will happen only in some of them. We can already see that on the ground.

Earlier this afternoon, just before I dashed over here for the debate, I was talking to children from Lansdowne primary school in my constituency. I took the opportunity to talk to them about life-saving skills, and some had been taught those skills, but only as part of their first aid club activities. When I asked whether they thought that everyone should learn them, they were unanimous in agreeing that they should. Children and young people are up for this, and as has been observed, they are like sponges and can learn these skills quite quickly. The training need not take up a huge, burdensome amount of time in the curriculum. There is therefore no reason for the Government not to listen to what has been said by Members on both sides of the House today and come forward with proposals to ensure that this training happens in all our schools.

As the Government’s changes to the school system continue, this proposal will become more difficult to implement. It is already the case that nearly half of all secondary schools do not have to follow the national curriculum, following the academisation programme. We have heard today about the £1 billion overspend on that programme, which will take money away from other areas of the Department for Education’s budget. We have no evidence yet to show whether their academisation programme is working. It is fine to change the name and governance of a group of schools, but we need to see evidence that that is working. There is, however, evidence of the negative impact of those cuts being felt elsewhere. If academies are not required to follow the national curriculum and cannot be directed to introduce these programmes, it is likely that the life-saving skills situation will get worse. The Minister needs to get a grip on this.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

Was it not the case that the previous Government who introduced the idea that academies would not teach the national curriculum?

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed it was, but that was a small, targeted programme aimed at a small number of schools in deprived areas. The hon. Lady’s policy is completely different, in that it aims to roll out academy status. I think that about 47% of secondary schools in England now have that status. So her policy is on a completely different scale from ours, and she must adjust her policy according to those facts.

The Minister will no doubt say that she hopes the proposals will be introduced as a result of the motion being passed today, but unless she can tell us, perhaps in her forthcoming announcements, that they will be made a statutory part of PHSE or that she has some other way of achieving this, it simply will not happen. I can predict here and now that, if she does not take action, we will be back here debating this issue in a couple of years. Unless she makes this training a compulsory part of the curriculum, the statistics will not get much better.

We support the motion, for all the reasons that have been outlined in the debate, and the Minister should tell the House whether she agrees with what has been said. I know that she won the “Minister to Watch” award yesterday at The Spectator magazine’s Parliamentarian of the Year awards. During her acceptance speech, she thanked the Secretary of State for Education for “not fettering or gagging” her. Well, here is an opportunity for her to show that she is not being fettered or gagged by the Secretary of State, that she is her own woman, that she is in charge of her brief and that she is going to get on and make this training compulsory, as everyone here has called for today.

14:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have had an interesting debate, and I know that many people feel very strongly about the provision of emergency life-saving skills in schools. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and her colleagues, who have come together to put the subject on the agenda today. I have learned a great deal today about ELS, about staying alive and about the singing skills of some Members. The next time I tune in to “Saturday Night Fever”, I shall no doubt think about resuscitation.

We have heard some affecting stories about the impact of ELS and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation training on Members and their families. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to hear them, and to have the subject brought to life. I agree that the ability to save a life is one of the most important skills a young person can learn. I also recognise the excellent work being done by organisations such as the Red Cross, with its “Life. Live it” campaign and resources, and St John Ambulance with its classroom-focused “Teach the Difference” resources and schools first aid competition. In addition, the British Heart Foundation’s Heartstart campaign has already trained 2.6 million people, including many young people in our schools. I met representatives of that organisation earlier this week.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

While the Minister is talking about those initiatives, will she respond to the question I posed in my speech about whether the funding that currently comes from primary care trusts for initiatives such as the injury minimisation programme for schools—IMPS—in my constituency will in future be the responsibility of the commissioning groups or of the county council? If she does not know, will she undertake to write to me with the answer?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I was just about to mention the right hon. Gentleman and IMPS. I will certainly take up the matter with the Department of Health in order to understand that specific point.

Schools are free to take up all the programmes I have just mentioned and to make use of those reputable organisations in order to bring the subject to life and teach it in a high-quality way in schools. I am keen to see a higher take-up of the subject; I think it is a good thing. I want to see it done in such a way that quality will be on offer. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) asked how we could achieve what we want in Britain’s schools. Should it be done through compulsion or through winning hearts and minds? I favour the approach of winning hearts and minds and of improving practice in schools, rather than ordering something to be done compulsorily and not necessarily getting the quality we need.

When the national curriculum was first devised in the 1980s, it was seen as a slim guide to core knowledge, with schools having the freedom to teach in the way they saw fit. However, even its first draft was far larger than its originators intended. A lot of that came about through people wanting particular subjects to be included, often for laudable reasons. I am now working on the drafts for the new national curriculum at primary and secondary level, and it is our intention that it should be slimmed to reflect a framework for essential knowledge. It has been rather content-heavy in the past, which has restricted what schools teach and how they are able to teach it.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has given me many helpful suggestions over the past few weeks. Even though I have not been in the job long, I have had quite a few meetings with him at which he has suggested various topics that he considers to be part of that core knowledge, all of which we are considering. It is our aim, however, to reduce unnecessary prescription throughout the education system.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I put it to the Minister that the teaching of life-saving skills is quite different from the range of other activities about which she has had representations. We are talking about learning a skill for life that could be taught in as little as two hours and that could save lives. There is nothing to compare to that, which is why it should be mandatory.

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have said, I completely agree with those sentiments. This is an important area for students to study, but there are different and better ways of achieving that.

[Julie Hilling]

Will the Minister give way?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am sorry; I have taken quite a few interventions, and Mr Deputy Speaker is keen to get on to the next debate.

As I have said, I believe that it is best to win hearts and minds. We can then ensure that the teaching of life-saving skills in our curriculum is first class. Compulsion could result in the subject being taught in a tick-box fashion.

Schools can choose to cover ELS as part of non-statutory personal, social, health and economic education, which we have already talked about. At primary level, PSHE provides for pupils to be taught aboutbasic emergency procedures and where to get help, and at secondary schools they can develop the skills tocope with emergency situations that require basic first aid procedures, including, at key stage 4, resuscitation techniques.

In this afternoon’s debate, I was struck by the fact that 86% of teachers are in favour of teaching life-saving skills at school, but that the take-up is much lower. From all the discussions I have had with the professionals in the organisations that design life-saving courses and offer them in schools, I have found that the reason teachers often give for not being able to take up these good programmes is that they do not have enough discretion within their teaching time and their curriculum time to be able to teach those subjects. Our whole aim of giving teachers more discretion and more time will surely mean much stronger take-up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot pointed out, 86% of teachers want this subject to be taught. That is already a long way towards 100%; there is only another 14% to persuade.

[Andrew Bridgen]

From my own experience in education and that of my children, I know that schools have spent many hours a week teaching children to learn to swim, giving them the tools to save their own lives if they fall into water. Why can they not be given two hours a year to help save the lives of others?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments, but my point is that teachers want to do this and that we are giving them space in the curriculum to allow them to do so. I think that will result in a very positive outcome, but I also think it is better to win hearts and minds and allow freedom of judgment.

[Julie Hilling]

rose—

[Elizabeth Truss]

I need to reach the end of my comments to provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot to reply to the debate.

Today’s debate has been very helpful, and I agree completely with the sentiments expressed by hon. Members, but I think the best way of achieving the goal we want is to give teachers the freedom and the discretion to allow them to follow their natural instincts. We have already seen that 86% of teachers want to achieve this, so let us allow them to get on with it.

14:42

[Anne Marie Morris]

I will be brief. We have had an excellent debate. Given the restricted time available, I shall not name them all, but hon. Members’ contributions have been first class across the board. I have learned a lot; some wonderful personal insights have been shared.

The message I take from the all the contributions, however, is that it is the mood of the House—despite what the Minister has said—that this issue needs to be made compulsory. What gets measured gets done. If we think that we can achieve this without some element of compulsion, I am afraid that is little more than hope. It is not borne out by 10 years’ experience of trying, trying and trying again.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The Minister has the message, and I hope she will take it away and discuss what can be done across the ministerial portfolio.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes every child should leave school knowing how to save a life.

Industrial Policy and Manufacturing

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

14:43

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of industrial policy and UK manufacturing industries.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for today’s debate.

A debate on industrial policy, particularly with regard to manufacturing, is overdue. It is also extremely timely, given the recent publication of Lord Heseltine’s review, “No stone unturned in pursuit of growth” and a number of recent developments, including Ford’s announcement of the closure of its plants in Southampton and Dagenham, and what we saw earlier in the year with the Coryton oil refinery. It is also an opportunity to highlight some of the excellent work being undertaken by the all-party associate manufacturing group, of which I am an officer, along with the hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and several others. I know they will all make contributions today.

I believe that the UK has an incredibly important manufacturing sector—one that has huge potential, but one that needs a successful industrial strategy that would contain a number of elements and could carry widespread support across this House. One factor common to countries that have successful industrial polices is that the fundamentals of the strategies are widely shared. Businesses can invest for the long term, knowing that the rug will not be pulled from under them. Lord Heseltine makes that point on page 8 of his report, when he asks for the “maximum political consensus possible”. I would like the work of the all-party group, as well debates such as this, to become the basis of precisely that.

Let me say at the outset what a debate about industrial policy is not. It is not misty-eyed romanticism for a return to the 1970s. This is forward looking, not backward looking. I believe there is a case for a modern industrial strategy that allows for our manufacturing sector to be a driver of prosperity for many years ahead. When people from across the political spectrum, such as Lord Mandelson and Lord Heseltine, seem to be coming to a consensus behind this, too, there definitely appears to be some momentum building for it.

One part of Lord Heseltine’s report jumped out at me—not the lovely picture of Manchester town hall on the back cover, welcome though that is in any Government report, but paragraph 10 on page 5, where Lord Heseltine says:

“Whether we look at the well established mature economies such as the United States or the new thrusters of the BRICs, there is one clear message we overlook at our peril: the public and private sectors are interdependent. Only by working together and learning to understand each others’ strengths and capabilities will we succeed.”

I firmly agree, and I want to mention a number of areas where our industrial strategy should reflect that—in skills, investment, procurement and the image of manufacturing as well employer-employee relations.

The battle to attract and retain a skilled work force is a constant issue for industry. All major economies face it, and there is no magic bullet. However, the age profile of our skilled work force in the UK, which creeps ever upwards, should be of huge concern to us all. Every company I visit tells me that the skills pipeline does not work as it should. I believe we should be looking at two things here. First, we should be looking at ways to devolve skills funding more directly to business itself, and in exchange business should guarantee that they will provide the high-quality apprenticeships we all want to see.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest problems is the careers advice offered to young people in schools from the age of 12 onwards? The careers advice is normally given by teachers who have only ever been teachers and have no concept of industry outside school. Would it not be better if we had dedicated and qualified careers advisers in every secondary school in the country?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman makes some good points. Careers advice is variable. As I understand it, we are moving away from face-to-face interactions and more towards website-based and telephone-based careers advice services. Whether that will have the effect we would want is probably a matter of concern to us all.

We need to make apprenticeships work for the long term. I know Government Members are always well armed with statistics on new apprenticeships, but I would say to the Minister that there is a quantity versus quality debate to be addressed here, and an issue to do with how many apprenticeships are effectively developing the skills of our next generation. This is an area where more needs to happen.

When I visit manufacturing businesses in my constituency, I am always struck by just how many skilled people started off at British Aerospace. Whether we meant it or not, it seems to me that in the past British Aerospace acted to all intents and purposes as an active industrial intervention, but with that role diminishing we do not have anything that really fills the gap.

As for investment, I am sure that nearly every Member in the Chamber could report the same conversation with local businesses about the banks’ lack of interest in what they do. Businesses say that funding halved overnight during the financial crisis, but that it was never that good beforehand. It seems that, as banks nationalised their business operations and their heads were turned by sectors of the economy that may have been more lucrative in the short term, they were no longer interested in the steady success of their manufacturing clients.

We must find a way of securing for our manufacturing businesses the investment that they need. It seems to me that there is a growing consensus on the need for a British investment bank, whether it is modelled on Germany’s KfW or on France’s Financial Stability Institute, and I am attracted by the idea of a regional or sectoral structure. The proposed green investment bank could form part of a wider strategic investment bank, with a remit to generate long-term returns based on investment in infrastructure and businesses across strategic sectors.

When it comes to procurement, I could simply use the word Bombardier, but there is plainly a view throughout industry that the United Kingdom’s current attitude to procurement represents a wasted opportunity for British business. Let me make it clear that I do not endorse protectionism. Some of the local firms in my constituency have been extremely successful in the export markets, particularly the aerospace businesses, and I think that talk of protectionism at home fails to recognise their achievements. A company delivering a contract here in the UK does not have to be British, but it should be possible to consider how we might be able to make procurement policy work for the UK economy in an intelligent way while still honouring our commitments to the single European market.

I was recently made aware of the problems of Manganese Bronze in Coventry, which could lead to the disappearance of iconic British cabs from the streets of London. The Mayor’s clean air strategy means that as many as 2,000 cabs may have to be replaced in December this year. With Manganese Bronze in administration, the market is now wide open for Mercedes vehicles manufactured in Germany. Surely there could have been a better way.

Another problem is the image of manufacturing. Modern manufacturing is clean and safe, but that does not seem to be widely understood. In fact, at a recent event held by the all-party group in Rochdale, some businesses reported struggling to convey the message that it was also well paid. I did not consider the problem to be particularly significant until I listened to the evidence that industry leaders gave to the group. If we are to try to increase the share of the economy that manufacturing represents, we will need to tackle that. I am not thinking of short-term rebranding or anything that smacks of a gimmick; I am thinking of a long-term campaign—similar to that requested by the hon. Member for Burnley—to get the message across to schools and make them understand what modern British industry is really like.

Finally, I want to say something about employer-employee relations and employment law in the UK. I have deliberately left that subject until the end of my speech, because I suspect that it is the one on which there will be the least consensus. Let me explain my view by giving an example from my constituency.

Kerry Foods, in Hyde, is the largest private sector employer in Tameside. It makes, among other things, Richmond and Walls sausages. Food manufacturing, incidentally, is a much undervalued part of British industry. A few years ago, Kerry needed to adopt the principles of lean manufacturing. It needed to be able to scale its production up and down much more quickly in order to remain competitive, and it therefore needed to consider moving from a five-days-a-week to a seven-days-a-week working pattern. That had big implications for the work force, who were strongly unionised, so Kerry decided to work with them and with Unite, the recognised trade union, to deliver it. In effect, Kerry told the union what it needed, and the union asked the work force to design a shift system that worked for them.

The staff knew that the company’s bottom line was staying profitable, and the company knew that there had to be something in it for the staff. They agreed on the new shift system and a 3.5% wage rise for two successive years, dropping to 2.5% in the third year. That is more than most of our constituents are getting at the moment. My constituents who work for the company have told me that they felt that the consultation process had been extremely sincere, inclusive and open to recommendations, and that input from the union had made it into the final proposals. Unite also sent its reps at Kerry Foods to “change at work” courses which would help them to understand the company’s objectives and deliver the agreement of the work force to the new system. I should add that the company pays for a full-time convenor at the site through facility time, in line with a great deal of best practice.

I gave that example in order to demonstrate that trade unions are not in themselves anti-competitive, and do not constitute a blockage to our economic prosperity. Given the right approach, they can make a very significant contribution to British industry. They should not be demonised. The Ford work forces in Dagenham and Southampton were given very little notification of the recent announcement, let alone a chance to serve as part of a solution to the problem. That was a missed opportunity.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is the trade union involvement with Jaguar Land Rover that has done so much to secure investment in the west midlands in new models and the new i54 development and, to an extent, the new Vauxhall Motors development at Ellesmere Port. Perhaps they could serve as a model for industrial communication for the purpose of promoting investment.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Those are powerful and timely examples, which illustrate the positive role that trade unions can play in an industrial strategy.

There are many other issues with which I could deal if I had time, including our relationship with Europe and the devolution of power and spending from Whitehall in the UK. I hope that other Members will refer to those. Let me end by saying how pleased I am that we are having this debate. I hope that it constitutes the beginning rather than the end of a conversation in the House about the future successful operation of the country’s industrial policy.

14:55

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

May I say how delighted I am to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) in this important debate? I must also thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling time for it. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on manufacturing, along with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), one of the most consistent messages I hear is that the UK needs to have a comprehensive industrial policy setting out the key economic objectives and the policies we need to achieve them. We need, as a country, to get back on a more sustainable path to growth, which means seeking to balance our books—specifically, by reducing our trade deficit—so that Britain can be more resilient against future shocks and thrives in a more competitive world. Any industrial policy needs to consider the full range of the UK’s economic strengths, from financial services to creative industries and renewable energy. However, the most effective way of achieving a more sustainable growth trajectory is to boost manufacturing and our industrial capacity.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

May I advise my hon. Friend that in 1997 manufacturing was responsible for 22% of our GDP and we had a £4.4 billion surplus on the balance of payments, whereas by 2008 that had reduced to 12% and we had a £42.6 billion deficit on the balance of payments? Does that not show that manufacturing and exports are vital to this country?

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I note the figures he uses. One target the Minister might like to consider in an industrial strategy is about 15% by 2015—that works in so many ways.

We cannot afford merely to dismiss a large part of our global economy. Emerging markets are focusing on production and industry already, but they will not focus on those things for ever. Soon they will seek to compete with the developing economies in highly lucrative services, as well as in research and development. Where will the UK go then? We need to compete in manufacturing, as well as in services and the creative economy, if we are to succeed in the years ahead. The narrower our economy becomes, the more unstable it will be. We need a broad-based economic strategy, and manufacturing can and must play a crucial role in delivering that.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not forget the very small manufacturing companies in my constituency and elsewhere? This is not all about big factories; it is also about small niche manufacturers producing specialist goods in this country.

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As someone who worked for MG Rover, I had a great experience of the supply chain and some of the smaller businesses that supported it. They have a great part to play in our economic growth, certainly in terms of new jobs in this sector.

It seems clear from the statements that the Government have already made that they understand and appreciate the important role that manufacturing can play in supporting the UK economy. But I hope that the Minister will see these words turned into action, and I believe that means beginning the process of developing a formal UK industrial strategy for the next 10 years, at the very least. Countries such as Germany and Japan, where industrial policy is at the very heart of government, can perhaps operate without such a formal process. However, I believe that the UK would benefit from it, not only through the consultation, debate and consensus building that would be necessary in the formulation of such a document, but from having a document against which civil servants and politicians can be held accountable through regular reviews.

Parliament should be at the centre of the development of this industrial policy. We need a policy that can last beyond the lifetime of one Government, which means ensuring that we have policies that all parties support or broadly favour, so that we create the policy stability necessary for businesses to invest in the UK.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

It is a year since we last debated manufacturing, on a Thursday late in November 2011. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some evidence that actual change has taken place, particularly on local banking? That is now that much easier because of the Financial Services Bill, which we passed on 23 April. It means that the smaller businesses so favoured by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) can much more ably be financed by local banks.

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is fortuitous, and something I did not realise until he mentioned it, that a similar debate was held this time last year. I hope we have made more progress and that that will continue. One issue on which we have made progress is the business bank concept, about which I know that he spoke in that debate.

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

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, many of which I agree with. May I point out to him that there is something we could do right now about industrial strategy? A year ago, we were bemoaning the fact that the large energy companies did not have the market certainty to invest in large infrastructure, which would have had a ripple effect on all the smaller suppliers across the UK. Three weeks ago, seven of the largest worldwide energy companies wrote to the Chancellor to say that they still do not have certainty. Will he urge the Government, as I do, to put that certainty in place? There will be a ripple effect of tens of thousands of jobs in this country once we know that we are heading to a decarbonised future.

[Chris White]

All I will say is that energy and how we deliver on an energy strategy must be part of any industrial policy.

One of the most pressing concerns for manufacturing is access to finance. At meetings of the all-party group and with constituents, bank lending is a theme we return to time and time again. We must consider closely how we will reform our banking system for the benefit of our manufacturers, which must be a key part of our industrial policy.

Skills are another area that the Government must consider and I welcome the work that has already been done, particularly on apprenticeships. They are giving more young people the chance to learn skills in some of our excellent educational facilities—not least Warwickshire college in my constituency. We need to do more to strengthen the whole curriculum, however, so that it supports our economy, particularly by supporting science, technology, engineering and maths—the STEM subjects —at primary and secondary schools. We also need to look at apprenticeships so that we have more of the higher level apprenticeships our country needs to compete with other rapidly upskilling economies.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the importance of education and training. Is he not concerned that every year we have to import tens of thousands of qualified engineers from abroad because we cannot produce enough through our own educational system even for our diminished manufacturing sector?

[Chris White]

Yes, I share that concern. It is incumbent on the House and on partners with an interest in manufacturing and industry to spread the news and create a greater awareness of jobs in industry. It is a matter of attracting people to those jobs, and our education system has a great part to play in that. That brings us back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).

The Government have also rightly focused on infrastructure, on which the UK needs to improve, and a comprehensive industrial policy would seek to address that problem. A modern industrial policy must work to increase investment, by providing the right incentives and ensuring that the allowances and tax breaks make the UK one of the most attractive places in the world to do business.

Of course, an industrial policy should also consider other areas such as research and development, energy, procurement and export support, but I believe that the most crucial thing is that we should act swiftly to work on building a new industrial policy. Sector strategies are useful, but the main obstacles to UK manufacturing are at a national level.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Chris White]

If I may, I will continue.

A strong manufacturing ecosystem cannot depend on a few favoured industries but must see the whole of industry succeed. We have an historic opportunity over the next few years to develop consensus on a policy that our country desperately needs, working across political boundaries with business, trade unions and policy experts. I hope the Government will take the opportunity to do that, enabling manufacturing to be the engine of the UK economy once again and putting our country back on the path of sustainable and balanced long-term growth.

15:04

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who are members of the all-party group on manufacturing. I think it is indicative of the consensus that is emerging on industrial policy that I heard little that I disagree with.

I welcome the debate and the Government’s publication of an industrial strategy. Indeed, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has published any number of strategies so far, and I would find it difficult to disagree with any of the major points in them. The problem is not so much with the industrial strategy— I think that a consensus on that is emerging on the Back Benches—as with the priorities in the culture of the Government, which is not necessarily aligned with the Department’s priorities and the strategies.

I could not help but notice the comments made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in September:

“The Government shapes the British economy with its decisions every day. It makes many decisions about skills and universities, on research, on technologies, and on infrastructure. Through what it buys, and how it goes about buying it, the regulations that exist, the markets it oversees, and tax policy. All of these send messages to the economy.”

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Bailey]

I will, but briefly, because my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) is going to make his maiden speech.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend is right that Government decisions shape industrial strategy. I hope he might have some thoughts on where we go on carbon capture and storage as part of the strategy. It was with great regret that we found out this week that there is uncertainty over future funding and a drawing down of European funds because the Treasury was unable to provide guaranteed funding. Does he hope that CCS will be part of the industrial strategy in phase 2, which will come up next spring?

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend tempts me with an issue that is worthy of a separate debate, but broadly I agree, and I will make some allusions to the green economy later.

The problem is basically that although the Minister outlines the impact of different Government policies on the economy, the Department, in its delivery in those different areas, does not necessarily seem to be signed up to the same economic and industrial priorities. For a start, on the fiscal strategy, our ability to eliminate the deficit depends crucially on our ability to generate investment in economic growth, yet at the same time the Chancellor’s strategy has effectively squeezed consumer spending and failed to recognise that in many areas public spending and private engagement with it are crucial to economic performance. That, coupled with various apocalyptic utterances about the state of the British economy, has generated a feeling of insecurity and uncertainty that has had a knock-on effect on consumers’ confidence to spend money and the willingness of businesses to invest. I hear that many businesses are currently sitting on piles of cash, but they will not invest it because they fear that the investment would not pay off. Similarly, with such uncertainty, banks are less likely to lend because they obviously sense a higher risk in doing so than they would if there was greater confidence in the economy.

Also, the Government’s tax policies have concentrated on reducing corporation tax. All the messages I get from manufacturing—I know that the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) has strong views on this—indicate that money to generate investment would be much better focused on research and development and capital allowances than on corporation tax. Much more needs to be done to assess the relative impact of reductions in corporation tax, rather than investment in R and D and capital allowances, and where future Government policy on that should go. Given the number of foreign businesses that have invested in this country and seem to have paid very little corporation tax, I wonder how relevant the reduction in corporation tax set out in the Chancellor’s first Budget was in attracting foreign investment. I need only repeat the comments the chair of my local enterprise partnership made this week: he said improving capital allowances would be a quicker and more effective step than creating a business bank. I do not decry the long-term significance of a business bank, but right now we need some shorter-term policies that can have a more immediate impact.

[Guy Opperman]

One such short-term policy that would have an impact is the liberalisation of small local community banking, as that would mean there would be lending directly to small and medium-sized businesses, which is what the hon. Gentleman would like. This Government are doing that, but the Opposition voted against it. Can he explain why?

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to address a much bigger debate about the appropriate ways of financing industry, but I am not going to do that. I have been involved in local organisations providing access to finance for small businesses, and I know that the perception of risk is crucial. It does not matter where the money might come from, because if the risk is considered too high any funds will only be available on very expensive terms.

On green issues, the decision on solar panels, the dispute that still exists at the heart of Government on the future of wind power and the delays in the implementation of the green deal make for uncertainty in an industry that needs certainty above all else, and the Government must resolve that. In the submissions I have received from bodies representing manufacturing industry, two measures have been highlighted, which I think the all-party group would also call for. First, any industrial strategy must have at its heart a degree of certainty. That requires building a cross-party consensus that will outlive any Government, so that business can invest for the long term. That is especially relevant for green industries. Secondly, there must be changes in the culture and structure of Government that will allow economic, and in particular manufacturing, priorities to be considered across Departments. That was touched on in Lord Heseltine’s recent report, and it has featured prominently in submissions from organisations representing manufacturing. If we are to convince industry that there is a future in investing in our manufacturing, there has to be general confidence that the Government recognise these priorities and that project economic growth must be a key priority for any Government.

Having an industrial strategy that highlights the most important measures and stimulates debate will go some way towards achieving what we want, but I have yet to be convinced that other Departments accept the logic of this argument. However, there is an emerging consensus in Parliament, especially on the Back Benches, and in industry that the two key issues of long-term certainty and having a driver within Government to prioritise economic growth are crucial. That fact, allied to an emerging public consensus that economic growth must be a priority, could provide the public opinion background to enable any Government to drive forward this agenda. There is therefore a challenge for both the Government and the Opposition to have such policies in place for the public to decide on at the next general election. That is crucial for the British economy and for the future welfare of everybody in this country.

15:14

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for it was in 1984 that I made my maiden speech in the House as the newly arrived Member for Cannock and Burntwood on the subject of manufacturing in the west midlands, so I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for manufacturing industry.

It has been a mistake in this country that for the past 40 years there has been an over-reliance on financial services as the salvation of our prosperity. The bust of 2008 has blown that apart and revealed that there is a pressing need for the United Kingdom to have a much more diversified economy. As a former international banker, I like to tell people that I am now going straight—I am a politician. For some curious reason, they think that is rather funny.

The point has been made about the decline in manufacturing industry in Britain. Let us look at the figures. In the case of Germany, 20% of its output is now manufacturing. It has maintained its position, and of course it is benefiting from a thoroughly depressed exchange rate. Nevertheless, it has seen that manufacturing can contribute, whereas as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) pointed out, in the United Kingdom manufacturing has declined from 18.4 % of our national output in 1997 to 10.8% last year. I hope that the Opposition will not constantly deride those on the Government Benches for the decline in manufacturing industry on our watch, as it pretty well halved on theirs. I hope we can attain a consensus on the need to do something for manufacturing. There is good reason why we should be confident.

[Mr Bailey]

I think I know what the hon. Gentleman means, but he has not reflected that. Manufacturing did not halve under the previous Government. As a proportion of the economy it may have done so, but it actually grew. That has been acknowledged in the Government’s policy.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

It is important to make the point that the contribution of manufacturing to output halved. That is a figure that the public will understand as indicative of what was happening.

I want to be positive, because the United Kingdom has historic and current industrial manufacturing flair and capability. I single out just two companies—JCB, a brilliant private family company in Staffordshire, and Dyson, the inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner. [Interruption.] Indeed, Hoover too, as my hon. Friend the Minister says. Formula 1 as well has been a stunning success for advanced United Kingdom manufacturing, as has aerospace, which I shall come to in a moment.

I remind the House that JCB employs 10,000 people worldwide, of whom 6,000 are employed in the United Kingdom. JCB’s revenues rose last year by 37% to £2.75 billion. Dyson sold eight out of 10 of its appliances abroad, with revenues of £770 million and profits of £206 million—a serious success story.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned JCB in my county, Staffordshire. Does he agree that one of the reasons why such companies have been successful is that remaining in family hands over such a long period, they are able to take long-term investment decisions without necessarily looking to the needs of quarterly reports to the market?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend in my old county makes my point admirably for me. A common feature of both companies that I mentioned is that they both invest heavily in research and development, which the chief executive of Dyson, Max Conze, describes as “the key to success on the world stage”.

I want to concentrate on defence. BAE Systems and QinetiQ both have their headquarters in my constituency and I make no apology for being a strong supporter of Britain’s defence industry. According to Peter Rogers, who was last year president of ADS—the aerospace, defence and security trade body—the UK’s defence industry employed 110,000 people, of whom 25,000 were graduates and engineers, and supported a further 314,000 jobs. Turnover was £22 billion and export sales were just short of £10 billion—a fantastic record and a fantastic success story in manufacturing industry.

The United Kingdom is a world leader in both civil and military aerospace—as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, know better than almost anybody in this House apart from myself, Sir—with Rolls-Royce in advanced aero engineering and propulsion and Airbus providing the most advanced wing manufacturing in the world. On the military front we have Typhoon, with SELEX supplying the radar and MBDA the missile systems. We have a range of companies, from Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, to EADS UK, Thales, Ultra, Chemring, Cobham, and Marshalls, to tiny bespoke hi-tech companies that should not be ignored given the fantastic contribution that they make to the cutting edge of technology. We need to maintain our leadership of that cutting edge, not only to win wars but to enable us to compete against newly emerging economies.

If I can single out one man for his contribution to this, it is Lord Drayson, who in 2005, when he was the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement, produced a fantastic paper called “Defence Industrial Strategy” in which he said:

“Well targeted investment in R&T is a critical enabler of our national defence capability; it strengthens innovation in our defence industry, produces more capable equipment for our Armed Forces and underpins our ability to operate with high technology allies like the US or France”.

I could not put it better myself.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I agree that the defence industry is an important part of the manufacturing base of our country. Will my hon. Friend contrast the previous Government and this Government in terms of the leadership provided by the Prime Minister? Under Labour, QinetiQ, which now headquarters in his constituency, closed down just outside my constituency with no support from the Government. Under this Government, our Prime Minister went to China and won a contract on behalf of the Aircraft Research Association, which is based in my constituency, thereby securing jobs and securing its future.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend anticipates a point that I was going to make, so let me do so now. I fully concur. I do not think that people in this country really appreciate the extraordinary lead that the Prime Minister has given in the promotion of defence exports. Having been the Minister responsible for defence exports, I can testify to his determination, vigour, enthusiasm and commitment. There is every prospect that that commitment will pay off, because he has seriously re-engaged the United Kingdom with the rest of the world in a way that the previous Prime Minister was wholly incapable of doing.

In respect of defence exports, we are increasingly being required to transfer our technology as well; indeed, that appears to be the only way in which we will be able to win these contracts. In looking at the technology, it is very important to understand the significance of defence research. I have QinetiQ in my constituency, but I also have Roke Manor in Hampshire, which produces fantastic defence research and has 400 engineers. In 2009, BAE Systems invested £833 million in defence research.

We have a good record, but I am afraid that the previous Government do not have such a good record. In 1990-91, at 2009-10 prices, real defence R and D expenditure was £3.8 billion, but in 2009-10 that figure declined to £1.7 billion. In other words, it declined from 11.6% of the defence budget to 4.4% of it. As Lord Drayson said in his 2006 document, “Defence Technology Strategy”, today’s equipment is the result of yesterday’s investment in research. He also said:

“Current threats emphasise that science and technology is fundamental to UK military capability.”

Maintaining a vibrant defence industrial base is not a throwback to a 1960s socialist planning concept, as it appears that some of my colleagues believe, but an essential ingredient in the defence of the realm and in contributing to the export-led economic recovery that the Prime Minister wants and which, as I said, he is leading.

I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) for his sterling endeavours to ensure that the case for supporting British technology was made within Government, but I fear that the right balance has not been struck. People need to understand the consequences of simply buying abroad. Initially we might get a good price and the kit that we want, but then next time we are told, “The price has gone up, so I’m sorry but you can’t have the same capability.” We then find ourselves on a very slippery slope where we cease to be major players in the world and cease to be able to command our own operational sovereignty. We are facing that issue with the joint strike fighter. There is ongoing argument over our access to the technology. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, know a great deal about that. It is imperative that, as equity partners in the joint strike fighter programme, we have that operational sovereignty.

Seeking to grow the UK’s defence industrial base must not be an excuse for the military to over-specify its requirements or for the industry to inflate its prices. Competition clearly has a role to play in restraining such excess, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) suggested. However, other nations, including an increasing number of emerging countries, are investing in military capability development and their demand for our products is likely to decline. That raises the inevitable question: from where will the United Kingdom derive its income in the future? I submit to the Minister that the answer has to be in upping our expenditure on defence research, for all the reasons that I have set out.

As a former Bank of England man and adviser to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I say to the Minister that the position of R and D tax credits needs to be looked at again. QinetiQ has pointed out to me that it is being seriously disadvantaged by the Treasury’s proposal to change R and D tax credits to make them above the line, which would remove the fiscal incentive for companies that focus mainly on research, rather than development, to locate their activity in the United Kingdom. Given the strength of feeling around the House this evening about the importance of our manufacturing industry, I hope that the Minister will take back to his friends in the Treasury the need to ensure that we incentivise industry and the Government to invest in our technology. That will be hugely important for the defence of Britain and for our defence industrial base.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the House to observe the conventions of the maiden speech.

15:26

[Andrew Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am very proud to speak in the Chamber for the first time as the Member of Parliament for Corby. Locally, we know the constituency as Corby and east Northamptonshire, comprising as it does both Corby town itself and the surrounding villages, the four towns of Raunds, Irthlingborough, Thrapston and Oundle, and many villages across east Northamptonshire.

I will start by paying tribute to my predecessor. Louise Mensch served as Corby’s MP in her own unique style. She was proud to be a vocal woman MP, speaking up for women in public life. She played an important role on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, particularly on matters concerning the role of the media, in which she took a great interest. She championed the local media, such as in her debate earlier this year in which she praised our excellent local newspaper, the Corby Telegraph. She was also known as an advocate of social media. As I know already, combining family life with the demands of being an MP is challenging, but in my predecessor’s case there was also the matter of an ocean between those two parts of her life. I wish her and her family well in the future.

Louise had a tough act to follow. Her immediate predecessor, the Labour and Co-operative MP, Phil Hope, served for 13 years and was well known as a very hard-working local MP who was concerned with his constituents. He was instrumental in the opening of a new railway station in Corby, the opening of children’s centres across the area, major health service improvements and the building of new schools. He also served with distinction as a Minister.

Like Phil Hope, I am a co-operator, and I am proud to be a member of the Co-operative group of MPs, which this week has reached record numbers. The first ever Co-operative MP in the country was elected to represent my constituency, on its earlier boundaries, in 1918. The driving force behind Alf Waterson’s selection was the blastfurnacemen’s union in Corby. Although Northamptonshire had once been a stronghold of the Liberals, in the early 20th century, a more radical culture emerged from the chapels and the boot and shoe industry, in which past generations of my family were employed. Local co-operatives in towns across the constituency became a vital part of the local economy, and still feature strongly today. I believe that co-operative approaches, such as mutual housing and new energy co-ops, can play a big role in my constituency’s future.

The towns of Raunds and Irthlingborough are known for their co-operative heritage, and as boot and shoe towns. Raunds’s place in history is assured by the events of the Raunds strike of 1905, during which a party of boot operatives marched to London to demand fair wages. The Times reported:

“Their arrival was awaited in Parliament by a large number of people in Parliament Square, from where a deputation of ten proceeded into Parliament to meet with MPs. Afterwards, the men were admitted to the Strangers Gallery, and a slight disturbance was created.”

Although I urge no disturbance in the Strangers Gallery today, I assure the descendents of those Raunds marchers that I will continue their campaign for fair wages.

All those years ago the War Office agreed to the demands of Raunds workers and committed to a minimum rate of pay that people could live on. Today, I urge all parts of the public sector in Corby and east Northamptonshire, and the private sector, to consider the case for a living wage of £7.45 an hour. Too many people in my constituency are being squeezed by rising food and fuel prices, and by other factors such as the role of employment agencies in our local labour market. Too many people are on zero-hours contracts where no work is guaranteed. When they do work they are paid low wages with agencies taking a cut of their earnings, and sometimes workers are poorly treated. I am also concerned about the way in which some agencies have set up offices overseas to facilitate employment in my constituency; I want them to make a much more determined effort to ensure that local people are given employment opportunities. I have raised that point with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I am grateful that he has listened and said that he will take action.

In these tough economic times, many people in my constituency are unable to find work at all. Independent studies show that Corby is the most difficult place in the country to be a young unemployed person looking for work. Corby is, and must be, a working town. It is particularly well known as a steel town. Corby provided the steel for Operation Pluto—the famous pipeline under the ocean—which provided the fuel for allied forces invading Normandy in world war two. My granddad was there on D-day as a Royal Marine commando, and my other granddad, who worked in farming, helped to feed that Army and the country. Both would later become Corby steelworkers.

Today Corby’s steel tubes can be found at the Olympic park, and seen on everything from the Wembley arch to the millennium wheel across the river from this House. Tata is still a major local employer and I support its call for a level playing field on energy prices—which it tells me are much cheaper in continental Europe—and, crucially, for investment in infrastructure to boost demand. These are key issues for manufacturing industry in the UK. I want to see more action to create jobs, such as a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses to pay for a real jobs guarantee for young people, and to help our small firms with a one-year national insurance tax break if they take on extra workers. I will also work locally with businesses, councils, schools and colleges. Skills matching is a particular issue, helping people to gain the skills they need for the jobs that will be created.

I was struck by the experience of a local man I met recently. He had started his working life as an apprentice toolmaker, carrying out a high-quality apprenticeship and being mentored by an older toolmaker who was in his last few years before retirement. I want such experiences to be much more widely available to support our young people to develop great skills and careers in the manufacturing industries—the important subject of today’s debate.

Corby is very proud of its Scottish connections and has a large population of Scottish descent. The Highland gathering is a big event, as are the Burns suppers. Generations of Scots and other people coming to the town have blended with Northamptonshire people to create a distinctive, incredibly strong and proud community that it really is a privilege to represent. There has not always been such co-operation between the Scots and the English in my constituency. Today Fotheringhay is one of our many beautiful villages, but it has a more gory past as the place where Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded. I assure the House that today there is a more harmonious spirit and we believe that England and Scotland are definitely better together.

That spirit has enabled Corby to survive at times of great hardship. In the 1980s. 10,000 people were made redundant at the steelworks—my own dad was one of them—and that experience shaped my childhood. My dad went to Ruskin college to study, while my mum worked in a leather goods factory to pay the bills. My dad, who is here today, went on to become the Member of Parliament for Kettering from 1997 to 2005, and I am very proud to continue my family’s record of public service.

I look forward to raising other issues that matter a great deal to my constituents, such as the future of vital local services, including our schools, local policing and health services. I am particularly concerned about the threat of serious cuts to Kettering general hospital. It is where my own children were born, and it serves people across my constituency. I will do everything I can to protect our hospital services. I will speak up, too, for our more vulnerable residents: the families affected by cuts to special needs services; those who rely on disability benefit who feel unfairly treated by these Atos reviews; and the pensioners, who want to know that their MP is on their side.

Thank you for the warm welcome, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the staff of the House and MPs on both sides, and from my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip—[Laughter.] I intend to work hard here in Parliament and in my constituency for all the residents in all the towns and villages. I very much look forward to the honour of representing Corby and east Northamptonshire in the years ahead.

15:35

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

It is a pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford). Clearly, my two Saturdays in Corby did not turn out too well. I remember the rain in Thrapston. I offer him many congratulations. Obviously he is a man of strong views, and he puts them across clearly. I have known him before—briefly—in his professional life. He proves that he does his homework and research, and will make a great addition to the House. Unfortunately for Government Members, it looks like he will stay the course.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), on getting this debate under way. I declare an interest in Stalybridge and Hyde—I spent my childhood at Hyde county grammar, and used to live in Dukinfield, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. My sister still lives there and works at the company the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the debate.

We need to rebalance the economy in terms of the types of the businesses we have, but getting manufacturing and industrial policy right is critical in rebalancing the economy regionally. I am pleased the hon. Gentleman said we do not want to go back to the failed policies of the 1970s in trying to pick company winners—he agrees with Government Members on that. Surely the Government’s job will be to identify sectors where we already have a world lead, such as life sciences, higher manufacturing and aerospace, as well as sectors of high growth, such as the automotive industry.

As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) pointed out, we need a strategy that resolves the country’s energy needs, which will give stability for investors on which to build an increased manufacturing base. We also need a positive climate for inward investment and business start-up.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) mentioned a competitive tax regime. I congratulate the Government on what they have done on corporation tax, which I believe is having an impact. We need a competitive tax regime, but we also need a regime under which tax is collected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington emphasised education policy and the reforms the Government are introducing to ensure that we have properly trained and qualified workers, which hon. Members on both sides say we need. When we meet local employers, they complain about their employees.

I agree with other hon. Members on apprenticeships. I congratulate the Government on what they have done—we have nearly half a million new apprenticeships. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a small manufacturing factory in my constituency—it is essentially small scale, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). A and G Precision and Sons Ltd has only 40 employees, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) will be pleased to know, it supplies parts to BAE Systems for the Typhoon fighter. Only this year, it decided to make two work experience lads from the local school into full-time paid apprenticeships. I see the beginning of that welcome change throughout my constituency. The other part of that—my hon. Friend has just touched on it and it is one of my main points—is the encouragement of R and D, so that our companies remain at the cutting edge in their field.

My constituency benefits from having Lancaster university in it—one of the top 10 universities. The university has recently been made a centre of excellence for cyber-security, and has the potential to generate multi-billion pound business across the world. We need to build on that. In my constituency, ideas have been developed and transferred. For example, First Subsea Ltd took a design from the university and has now produced an engineering mechanism to pick up pipes and buoys from under the sea for the oil industry. It employs 45 people and has sales departments in all the major oil-producing parts of the world.

I have previously made this point, but we have missed a trick with local enterprise zones. I have never understood why we could not give every university the potential to have their own enterprise zone. The purpose of enterprise zones is to encourage start-ups. Where do start-ups start? Many of them at the high end start with universities. We also want enterprise zones where businesses, as they expand, eventually move off and pay their taxes like every other business.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. May I remind him that Surrey Satellite Technology, a fantastic world leader in satellite technology, was spun out of the university of Surrey? That reinforces his point about the role that universities can perform in advancing high technology.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.

When I make inquiries, I am told that the problem in defining and facilitating university enterprise zones lies apparently with the Treasury. The Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), is an expert in these areas and I am not. However, I am told that the Treasury rules are that it has to make a calculation about the taxes it would have received from companies that have not yet been set up in order to make a decision about whether to allow an enterprise zone to be created. How civil servants can calculate the tax of non-existent companies—or new companies that have not even been dreamed up—I am not quite clear, but to me there is something wrong with the system.

Our universities have pushed forward the science park idea—Cambridge is a notable example—and it is being pursued by Lancaster university to enable graduates with skills and ideas to stay in the local area. To underline my theme, we have to use this policy to rebalance the contribution to growth that the regions make. The council, under general powers of competence, has the power to vary business rates. The concept suggested by the university, the council and myself was to have an enterprise zone-lite. The local council could define the area of the science park and lower business rates. The problem then—going back to the Treasury rules—is that the local council would then have to calculate the difference between the full business rate and an estimate of what those companies, some of which might not have even been set up, might have to pay. That seems to defeat the whole object, but watch this space. We are still trying to pursue where we can go with this. It is key that policy is not only about what Government can do—I will say a little bit more about that—but about what local councils and local authorities can do, on their own volition, with the new powers that the Government are giving them. That policy, based around universities, is the key to top-level manufacturing and to growing the economy of the north and, in particular, my constituency.

Hon. Members have mentioned exports. Lots of companies in my constituency export. I have mentioned before a company in Fleetwood that exports 50 tonnes of whelks to Korea. Only the other week, I was called by someone from another company in Fleetwood. I do not know if this counts as manufacturing, but the gentleman there reconditions and patches up end-of-life heavy trucks. He has found that the market in developing countries is either for brand-new Chinese trucks or British Bedford ex-defence vehicles—probably the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot secured the contract for many years ago. He says that the Chinese trucks do not last five minutes. I have no comment to make—I am not a truck expert—but he says that although they are glittering they do not survive very long.

The gentleman in question, then, has found a market in the developing world for reconditioned heavy vehicles, so why did he approach me? He wanted to know whether I had contacts with other countries that might want to get involved. Having been a member of the all-party group on Kurdistan, I mentioned Kurdistan. That taught me a lesson, because he came back and said, “We’re looking at Kurdistan”. Where was UK Trade & Investment? Through contacts in the all-party group, he contacted the consular staff, who were extremely helpful, and now he is on his way to selling reconditioned trucks to Kurdistan. Where was UKTI? Its role is pivotal. A small business that wants to be in the export market needs a simple lead.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments about reconditioned British vehicles, which are much-sought-after all around the world, but does he agree that there is another problem, as experienced by a company in my constituency? Reconditioned UK Army vehicles, which cannot be described anymore as military vehicles, are banned from export to certain countries, yet similar German army vehicles are available in those places, because German companies face no such obstacles.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

My hon. Friend clearly demonstrates his point about reconditioned vehicles. I do not want to prolong this debate, but clearly there is a market. Small businesses at—I would say “the coal face”, but we do not have one anymore—the end of manufacturing do not have time to make the phone calls and make the contacts. They need support. For that reason, I welcome some of the changes to UKTI. In particular, I welcome its approach to Members about getting these meetings going in their particular areas. That will, I hope, provide the contacts, so that no longer do I have to be called in to make the contacts myself. As I learnt, we should not assume that these small businesses are not looking at what is available on the global market. All they want is the assistance to get into that global market, and obviously we should do everything we can to address our concerns about manufacturing.

I supported the abolition of regional development agencies, although I should declare an interest, as a past member of the London Development Agency—why London needed an RDA I never understood, even though I sat on the board. I have, however, been a great supporter of local enterprise partnerships, and I take Lord Heseltine’s point about giving them greater support. I support LEPs because areas such as Lancaster and Fleetwood—at the north end of Lancashire—and surrounding constituencies, are dominated by Manchester and Liverpool. So despite serious concerns about the proposal for city regions and the dominance of those areas, which in my constituency resulted in little help from the RDA, I hope that we will get some help from the LEP.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. In order to accommodate everybody who wants to take part in this debate there will be a seven-minute limit on speeches.

15:49

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

May I first congratulate my new hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his absolutely splendid maiden speech? I have some connection with him in a sense, because I come from the east midlands, my grandfather worked in the boot and shoe industry, and at this moment I am wearing a pair of English leather shoes that were probably made in his constituency—and splendid shoes they are, too. It really was an excellent speech, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend’s father is here to hear it, because he was a very good personal friend and comrade in this place. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is following in his father’s footsteps and I welcome him to the House of Commons.

I want to mention Bedford trucks as well, because the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) mentioned them. They were made just outside my constituency in Dunstable and are all over Pakistan—thousands of them can be seen there today. Many people think it was a great mistake to stop manufacturing the basic truck, which is so rugged and can work in any conditions—and no doubt is infinitely superior to the Chinese competition.

I want to talk about Britain’s experience of manufacturing. Britain has suffered from savage deindustrialisation, brought about by utterly misguided economic policies enacted over a long period. We have had many figures quoted to us today. We have only to look at, say, the comparable 2006 figures for Germany and Britain, to see that manufacturing comprised 12.4% of our economy in Britain and 23.2% of Germany’s economy—almost twice as much. Germany is indeed the economic powerhouse of Europe, and one can see why. During the period 2000 to 2010, the UK share of world trade fell by 28%, whereas Germany’s fell by a mere 3%. Why are our countries so different? Governments in Britain have made persistent attempts to sustain an overvalued exchange rate. This goes right back even to the 1931 crisis, which sadly destroyed the Labour Government, because they did not realise that they could come off the gold standard and devalue, which is what they should have done and what happened immediately after they lost office.

Then we had the 1949 devaluation—very sensible—and in 1967, again after resisting devaluation for a long time, we eventually devalued, following which the economy of course bounced a bit. But then in 1979 we had the Thatcher Government, who immediately introduced policies that saw a massive appreciation of the pound. In two years we saw a fifth of manufacturing industry disappear and unemployment rise to 3 million, simply because of the massive appreciation of the pound and the collapse in demand for manufacturing. Between ’82 and ’88, in the Nigel Lawson period, we saw a pretty savage depreciation of the pound—by some 35% from peak to trough—and a great recovery because of that depreciation.

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

One of the industries hardest hit has been ceramics. One of the things that we have wanted for years in the ceramics industry is accurate country-of-origin marking and an end to bogus back-stamping. If something says “Made in England”, it should be made in England. Other countries in Europe want that in the ceramics industry, but the UK has always stood in the way. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we had a more open mind to such measures to ensure accurate consumer information, to counter counterfeiting and to give our industries a fighting chance?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I have a wonderful set of Wedgwood china, which we use on special occasions, that no doubt comes from his constituency.

Then we had the 1990 to 1992 exchange rate mechanism disaster—again, an attempt to pinion our currency, in essence against the Deutschmark. We recovered from that after we devalued substantially—golden Wednesday—and the economy started to strengthen again. Indeed, if that economic strengthening had continued for three or four years longer, Labour might not have won the 1997 election, because we won on the basis of the terrible mistake made by the Conservative Government by going into the ERM. Those are key factors—the key factor, I think—in our economic weakness. But Germany kept its Deutschmark at a low parity for a prolonged period, and was allowed to do so because West Germany had to be, inevitably, the showcase for western capitalism against the east, and everything was done to ensure that Germany succeeded. It was permitted; it was allowed by the rest of the western world to keep its currency low as a necessary condition for economic success. Other factors, of course, were used to ensure that the Germans were successful, including a very strong interventionist industrial policy, which we forgot and left behind when we abandoned, for example, the National Economic Development Council, abolished by the Tory Government.

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

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Germany. Would he join me in congratulating the Germans on the important supply side reforms that they have made in recent years, to liberalise their economy and to make it the exporting success that it clearly is? Is that not a lesson for the United Kingdom?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we can recover by taking supply side measures, he is gravely mistaken. It is the macro-economic measures that the Germans took that were the basis for their success. Supply side measures can no doubt help, but having a low parity for the currency and then ensuring that investment goes into manufacturing above all was the key to German success. The euro, of course, is an invention, essentially to pinion the Deutschmark within the euro at a relatively low parity compared with the countries that Germany exports to. If those countries outside Germany but inside the eurozone were permitted to recreate their own currencies and devalue, they would not be able to buy quite so many BMWs and Mercedes as they do at the moment, and that would affect Germany. One of the reasons Germany is so keen to keep the eurozone going is simply that Germans know very well that if the eurozone was disaggregated, or collapsed, depending on how one chooses to describe it, the Deutschmark would immediately appreciate and Germany would have much more serious difficulties.

We have had that constant problem with our exchange rate. Ours has always been high, and Governments have tried to keep it high. Germany’s has always been low and German Governments have made sure it stayed low. I have had a number of experiences, about which I have written in the past, and spoken on many occasions. In 1988 I went to a meeting of the Anglo-German Foundation and raised the question of the “balance of trade problem” with Germany. I was immediately told to shut up by a very angry representative of the then German Government. I thought I was just raising something that was obvious to everyone, but he was very upset that I even raised the issue. In 1988 the Institute for Public Policy Research produced a pamphlet, “The German Surplus,” which raised that issue. That too was suppressed. I tried to get extra copies; I was told there was none. I asked who wrote it; no one would tell me. Clearly, the Europhiles inside the organisation were suppressing that document because it would damage our relationships with the European Union, which we were moving towards.

Macro-economics is the core problem. We could do lots of other things as well, but the macro-economics must be right. We must ensure that our exchange rate is right, and the only way we are going to start to recover industrially—in manufacturing terms—is first to have a substantial depreciation and then to do other things to ensure we recover. If we do not do that, we are in for a very bleak time.

I have with me the fine document produced by the Library every month, “The Economic Indicators,” which I read avidly. Let us look at the trade balances—visible trade. In 2010, Germany had a trade surplus—converted by the Library into dollars, for comparison’s sake—of $204 billion, when the UK had a deficit of $151 billion. That is the difference between countries. They should be, in many other ways, very similar. They have got it right; we have got it wrong. The UK trade deficit with the EU27—essentially with Germany—in August, the last month recorded, was £4.9 billion in one month, up from £4.4 billion in July. So it is getting worse. Most of that is, of course, with the Germans. The UK trade deficit for 2011 tipped over the £100 billion mark—a staggering figure. No other country would be able to sustain that, and we must do something about it in time.

Only a much lower exchange rate will make it possible to increase exports and drive an economic, and specifically industrial, revival in the UK. Only then will we see unemployment come down and living standards start to rise again. We must do this; it is a necessary, vital condition for success, and if we do not do it, we have a bleak future before us.

15:58

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his excellent maiden speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing this important debate.

I firmly believe that the United Kingdom needs a long-term industrial policy, but it must be rooted in growth. There is no point in focusing on economic sectors that will not create jobs and wealth for the UK in the future. We have fought shy of introducing an industrial policy in the UK for many years, because we believe that Governments should not be in the business of picking winners. It is true that a Government should not select one company over another, but we will be failing our country and future generations if we do not look ahead to see which economic sectors are likely to prosper and which are likely to fade away.

Suspicious as we have been about industrial policies, we have nevertheless had them over the years. In the midlands, in and around my constituency, I can see the positive results of at least three of them. Rolls-Royce aero-engine manufacturing was saved—perhaps fortuitously, and not as a result of a deliberate policy—by a Conservative Government intervention in 1971 after the company overreached itself with the development of the RB211 engine. Rolls-Royce employs tens of thousands of highly-skilled staff, contributes greatly to UK manufacturing exports—I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on the need for rebalancing—and is one of the best-known British products on earth.

Alstom, the largest private sector employer in my constituency, was assisted by a French Government intervention in 2003. Since then, it has consolidated its world-leading role in developing high-voltage direct current transmission as well as being the only remaining manufacturer of large transformers in the UK. It, too, makes a significant contribution to the UK balance of payments.

Jaguar Land Rover is investing heavily in south Staffordshire, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) said earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) and other neighbouring MPs have worked hard to secure that investment, alongside the strong support of both Staffordshire county council and Wolverhampton city council. In recent years, the UK Government have made a determined effort to attract automotive investment, and this is one of the many fruits of their and the local councils’ efforts.

So industrial policy can work, but only that last one could be said to be the result of a determined effort by the UK to establish a proper policy that is consistent, long term and based on a competitive advantage. That is happening in the automotive industry. Another industry that needs a long-term policy is energy, in regard not only to the consumers of energy but to the manufacturers of the equipment used in the industry. Such manufacturers in my own constituency and many others across the country are world leaders.

What are the building blocks of a successful industrial policy that will stand our country in good stead for the 21st century? I shall make a few suggestions. First, we need a clear understanding of what we will concentrate on. The Netherlands, as so often, provides a good example, as has been set out in Lord Heseltine’s excellent report. The report sets out the nine top sectors in which it believes the Netherlands has a competitive advantage and on which it wishes to concentrate. They include agro-food, horticulture and water—all of which the Netherlands has a lot of—as well as manufacturing and service industries such as chemicals and logistics. The report identifies a “golden triangle” involving links between businesses, research institutions such as universities, and the Government.

Secondly, we need to ensure that we not only make the end products but control as much of the supply chain as possible. That is particularly the case in the aerospace and automotive industries, which are making efforts in that regard. The supply chain has been relatively hollow in those industries until recently. It has become clear that the UK’s manufacturing base has become increasingly reliant on imported components.

Thirdly, we have to ensure that our education and training system is more closely integrated with the needs of the sectors on which we are concentrating. It has been said in this Chamber more times than I can remember that we face a critical shortage of engineers. That is why, this week in Stafford, we are looking into forming a local engineering partnership between universities, colleges, schools and industry. Science and research are an easy target for cuts in both public and private sector budgets because the results are further down the road, whereas the benefits of the cost reduction are felt straight away. But that investment must be maintained. I welcome the Government’s action in protecting the science budget in cash terms in the last spending review, and I urge them to do the same and more in the next one.

[Paul Farrelly]

The hon. Gentleman is also a great friend of the ceramics industry in north Staffordshire. Does he agree that a laissez-faire approach often translates in government to a “faire rien” approach—doing nothing. I mentioned country-of-origin marking a few moments ago. A measure such as that, we agreed, is not protectionist, but it would afford some support to our industry and is much needed.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I totally agree. I have supported country-of-origin marking for many years to ensure that people know that they are getting the best of British and not some foreign substitute or import. It is vital to maintain the quality of our products around the world.

An industrial policy must set out quite clearly how much we as a nation value research and back up warm words with action. Here, I mention research and development capital allowances. Capital allowances are vital for encouraging companies to invest the cash they have on their balance sheets—some £70 billion at the last count—into productive plant, equipment and other capital investments.

Finally, I turn to finance. It is naive to think that all good projects will attract commercial finance in the UK. If that were the case, we would be the home of many more of the largest companies in the world because the technologies were invented here. The first large computer was built on the work of people such as Alan Turing, and the plasma screen was invented in Malvern by what is now QinetiQ but was then the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment. Then there is the work on the human genome, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) mentioned. We should have more of these large companies, but we lack them because the finance was not available.

That is why I think the Government’s business bank proposal is a good start, but it needs to be the source of long-term patient capital. Lord Heseltine’s reminder in his report of the work that the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation did after the war is welcome, and I urge the Government to consider his suggestion of providing more such long-term capital through the business bank.

In conclusion, an industrial policy is not a panacea, but it is a structure that provides the inventiveness and entrepreneurship of the people of the United Kingdom with the best possible chance to thrive in a competitive world.

16:07

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and my parliamentary near neighbour the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing the debate. It was a good initiative of the all-party group on manufacturing to secure this debate about a year after we had the last one. This is a year in which we can see ever more clearly just how important manufacturing is to the country, but also how far we still have to go because of the relatively little progress we have made.

I do not want to interject any party political emphasis into anything I say. Indeed, I think that, on the whole, the debate has been remarkably clear of that. That shows one of the great advantages of having Backbench Business Committee debates. Although it is delightful to see the Minister and the shadow Minister in their places to respond to the debate—we can take advantage of that—I do not think it was ever intended that they would engage with each other in Dispatch Box altercations. On these occasions, Back Benchers can speak for their constituencies and for the whole country without the sort of pressures that inevitably arise on party political occasions.

Having said that, as far as the industrial strategy goes, I very much take to heart what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said in his brilliant tour d’horizon of post-war economic history, highlighting the great advantages that Germany has had. I do not think, however, that we should look wistfully or enviously at Germany’s position, as a period of prolonged devaluation or low-value exchange rate will not be available to us. Looking to the future, it might be less important to us than it was for Germany over long periods and still is within Europe. The one good thing is that we are outside the euro, but I do not think that long-term depreciation of sterling will ever be allowed, even with a floating exchange rate such as the one we have now.

From my experience both inside and outside the House, the basis for an industrial strategy comes back to the Government not only in respect of the provision of finance, but—and this is of equal importance—in respect of the intelligent and unobtrusive use of Government purchasing. Those two things go together. What the country desperately needs—this is agreed throughout the House—is a major infrastructure programme. However, it is proving extraordinarily difficult to get one under way. One of the two or three questions that I want to ask the Minister—I am sure that he will have time to deal with all of them—is this: what is the real stumbling block? Is it a lack of confidence outside, or is it a lack of Government confidence in the projects?

There is a lot of talk about a lack of confidence in the market at present—many Members have referred to it—and there is no doubt that it exists; but, as I have said many times, although the House is yet to be as seized of it as I am, the Government are showing a lack of confidence in British manufacturing, from the Treasury down through various other Departments. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), they are afraid to invest real money on a long-term basis. Unless we can get over this fear of failure, invest in the long term, and stick with projects despite the difficulties, we shall not succeed.

In that respect, the Government’s role is vital. An industrial strategy comes down to this. Government finance for infrastructure is desperately needed now, for economic and other reasons. What is holding it up? The process is stuck: the Minister knows that, and the Government know it. It would be helpful if the House could be told what we can do, or what anyone can do, to get these projects under way.

Some aspects of the second issue that I want to raise were dealt with by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who, as is recognised in the House and widely outside it, speaks with great authority about high-technology industries. Several sectors are involved, and I want to ask the Minister about one in particular. The Government took a bold initiative in becoming a partner and stakeholder in the joint strike fighter project. What I want to know is whether we are being given access to the software technology that is so vital to the process of landing on and taking off from British aircraft carriers.

I understand that the problem lies with Congress rather than with the President or the White House as such. I do not think that it is to do with the political side of things. However, I understand that there is still some reluctance in Congress. It seems that, having taken a risk and invested, I believe, $2 billion many years ago when that was real money, we are now being denied key access to points of software interface between landing and taking off involving aircraft carriers that are different from those that the Americans had. Can the Minister assure us categorically that the problems have now been solved and that we are being given access to what we vitally need?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Although the joint strike fighter aircraft was not part of my portfolio in the Ministry of Defence, I believe that Lockheed Martin’s argument was that it was still struggling with the technology itself. However, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It is imperative for the United Kingdom to be insistent in this regard. The United States is our closest ally. It has looked to us for political support, which we have given, and it needs to return that support.

[Mr Robinson]

I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. There are always problems with those crucial software interfaces, but this was not really that sort of problem. It was made clear by members of Congress, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, that they were unhappy about releasing the key elements that we needed, for various spurious, specious reasons. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the problem has been resolved.

As I said, public purchasing is vital, and I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on it. We are looking for a new approach from the Government. I hope that it will not amount to an overtly “Buy British” campaign; indeed, I cannot conceive of its doing so, because that is not in the nature of the civil service. It would be counter-productive, and in any case it would not be allowed. As I said earlier, we must be intelligent and unobtrusive, which implies that we must have confidence in British companies.

One Department to which that applies particularly is the Department for Transport. There seems to be a tremendous anti-British bias within that Department, which was especially noticeable in regard to the Bombardier project. The Department said that the decision must be based strictly on price, fundability and the strength of the company. However, there are other factors, to which the Government’s new public purchasing policy should refer and which are allowed under the treaty of Rome. May we please have some indication of when we will see the policy, and some assurance that it will allow us at least as wide a margin of appreciation in assessing such projects as is taken by the French and, for that matter, the Germans? The Germans have a simple policy—German is best. So they buy German and they do not have to do any more. The French pretty much have a policy that says, “Buy French”, but nobody ever says it. We cannot find examples of that being said, even in writing, but the policy does exist. Will the Minister let us know when we will see the new public purchasing policy and what we might expect to see in it?

On the banks, what are the Government really doing to provide finance for small companies, a matter to which several hon. Members have referred? We know that the money is there, but the cost involved is huge and no real solution has yet been found by government. Why do we not do something with the Royal Bank of Scotland? We could turn it into a bank for industry and give a long time for its sale and the repayment of the money. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions when he winds up.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Four speakers are left, and the Front Benchers have to begin at 4.35 pm. So to share the time out I am going to give each speaker five minutes. If there are interventions, the time will come off the last speaker and they will end up with no time at all.

16:15

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing this debate.

The manufacturing and industrial sectors have a vital part to play in developing the UK’s economy. They are also very important to me, as I spent more than 20 years working in the manufacturing industry. I started out working for BAE Systems at Woodford on airborne early-warning Nimrods in the 1980s. The chemical industry is of particular importance to my constituency, where Tata and INEOS Chlor are still major employers in Northwich and Runcorn. What have the Romans done for us? They started the chemical industry in Cheshire when they discovered salt deposits in Northwich. I am therefore very pleased that this issue has been chosen by the Backbench Business Committee for today’s debate.

I wish to address Britain’s historical relationship with manufacturing industry, where the industry sits now, and what we must do to ensure that our great tradition adapts and flourishes in a changing market. Manufacturing industry has seen a steep decline since 1997. The number of jobs in manufacturing halved between 1997 and 2009. The manufacturing industry accounted for 20% of the UK’s total economy and a gross value added of £186.6 billion in 1997. That plummeted to £139.5 billion by 2009, accounting for a mere 10.5% of the economy. The reduction was £3.5 billion per annum in real terms. Only since 2010 has there been an increase in the figures, but progress is limited and growth rates have been mixed this year.

Despite the decline, manufacturing has a vital role to play in our current economy, with 46% of the value of all exports in 2011 accounted for by manufactured goods. I represent a north-west constituency, so I am acutely aware that manufacturing industry directly benefits all the regions. Some 97% of manufacturing jobs are based outside London. We have been left with the appalling legacy that under the Labour Government only one in 10 of the jobs created were outside London and the south-east. For Britain to thrive we must redress that balance, and it is clear that manufacturing is part of the answer.

So what areas should we focus on? As some of my hon. Friends may recall, this is not the first time I have spoken in the Chamber on the subject of manufacturing. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who is no longer in his place, alluded to the debate we held on 24 November last year. On that occasion, I set out some of the ways in which I believed the Government could proactively develop and promote the industry. I am, therefore, delighted to report that several of my suggestions have appeared, perhaps less by design than chance, as part of Department for Business, Innovation and Skills policy.

I made considerable reference to the Germans’ long-term support for manufacturing, which has given their industry real economic clout from far humbler beginnings after the second world war, when the country had been devastated. Germany’s recognition that manufacturing was the backbone of its economy has resulted in political infrastructures set up to nurture industry, especially the mittelstand—the small and medium-sized enterprises. Foremost among those tools stands KfW, the state-backed bank that ensures the mittelstand can access funding, even when the commercial banks are unwilling to lend. In 2010, KfW financed a record €28 billion for SMEs. The latest SME finance monitors show that in the UK over the past year 33% of businesses that applied for a loan were rejected. If the Government do not take up the mantle of supporting SMEs, we cannot expect any of our industries, and especially not manufacturing, to grow.

Hon. Members can imagine my delight when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the launch of the funding for lending scheme to encourage banks to invest; the enterprise capital funds and enterprise finance guarantees to help early-stage business to access capital; the £1.2 billion business finance partnership; and the £2.5 billion business growth fund.

I also spoke in the earlier debate on encouraging education and how to engage young people so that they think of manufacturing as a future career. I set out my concerns that part of the problem of youth unemployment is that many are simply not equipped with the skills or given the aspiration to engage in the manufacturing industry. Again, I am very pleased that the Government have made a long-term commitment to world-class skills.

It is clear that new technologies are emerging, particularly at the fantastic Sci-Tech Daresbury in my constituency. It is clear that many factors will contribute to the success or failure of the manufacturing industry and I am pleased that once more we are debating this important topic. The interest shown by so many colleagues on both sides of the House is heartening, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that “Made in Britain” is something that future generations can say with pride. I sincerely hope that we will tackle the challenges of manufacturing head on.

16:20

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I, like others in the Chamber, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his excellent, confident speech. I am sure that we will see a great deal more of him in the Chamber.

Today’s debate is about one of the most important and neglected areas in British politics: the abandonment of industrial policy under the embrace of neo-liberal capitalism has, in my view, been one of the most catastrophic errors of the past three decades. It has been a fundamental mistake to believe that the massive switch away from manufacturing to services, particularly financial services in the City of London, is a sustainable model for the British economy. The last time Britain had a current account surplus was in 1983, 29 years ago. In the last 55 years, Britain has had a surplus on its traded goods in only six years. By 2010, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) noted, the deficit in traded goods had reached a staggering level of £100 billion a year. The surplus on services, at £49 billion, could cover only half of that. This year, the deficit is likely to reach £110 billion or £115 billion, or 7% of our GDP.

A yawning and still increasing deficit of such magnitude cannot continue for long without our foreign creditors, like any bank manager, calling time. The only way to reverse this steady slide towards collapse is by addressing the real causes of decline via a major and sustained revitalisation of our manufacturing capacity. The need for that is unimpeachable. In 1950, our share of world trade was 25%. Today, it is 2.3%. That marks a catastrophic decline in our position as a world leader in manufacturing compared with just 60 years ago, which largely reflects three factors: our gross neglect of industry when other nations were fast recapitalising their manufacturing base; the disastrous assumption under deregulated capitalism that leaving it all to the market would best safeguard Britain’s interest; and the maintenance over most of the period of an over-high exchange rate, putting the City of London’s interest above that of the nation’s industrial base.

Clearly, it will be difficult to reverse that slide into economic weakness, but we have no alternative but to focus all our efforts on doing so. The first requirement is to stave off any further economic collapse by switching away from a self-defeating deficit-cutting strategy to a public sector-driven jobs and growth strategy. That should be funded by diverting a tranche of any future quantitative easing to direct investment in industrial development, by taxing the ultra-rich—that is, the thousand richest people in the UK who, according to The Sunday Times rich list, have increased their wealth in the past three years by no less than £155 billion—or, and this will no doubt be preferable to Government Members, by taking advantage of the lowest bank base rate for 300 years by borrowing the relatively small sum of £150 million to secure an investable fund of £30 billion, which could certainly kick-start the economy.

The real medium-term challenge, of course, is the realignment of the economy away from finance and in favour of manufacturing. It has been talked about regularly but very little has happened. First, as everyone knows, and as other Members have mentioned, there is a continuing shortage of skills, aggravated by a slippage of standards in science and technology education in schools and universities. Secondly, access to finance is a major problem. There is clearly a gap in the market for specialised banks focusing on small businesses, manufacturing services and green investment which needs to be met.

Thirdly, I believe that we have a national interest in preserving industries and companies that are integral to Britain’s economic survival. The disastrous consequences of leaving Britain’s key industries and strategic companies uninhibitedly exposed to foreign acquisition or private equity buy-outs and asset stripping, which no other advanced industrialised country would allow, are clearly a lesson that I hope has been learned. There are many other things that need to be done, and we need to do them.

16:25

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to contribute to the debate. I thank the three Members who secured it for bringing the matter to the House’s attention and congratulate them on doing so. I have time to touch on only a few details of this important and broad subject. I wish to start by highlighting the fact that, although manufacturing in this country halved over the 13 years of the previous Government, in my county of Gloucestershire we operate at almost double the country’s current economic output for manufacturing, at 20%, which is close to that of Germany. The important ingredient in that success is that we grow things in the part of the county that is rural, which is most of it, and make things in the part that is urban, which is predominantly the city of Gloucester and other leading towns, including Stroud—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) will follow me shortly.

The key to growing and making things is a belief that they are important productive activities that will generate jobs for our communities and wealth for the nation. Members are right that this debate should not be partisan, but it is unfortunately true to say that almost 6,000 jobs in the business sectors were lost in my constituency over the period of the previous Government, which is tragic. Many were lost in engineering, a sector in which Gloucester has for years led the country, most spectacularly, of course, with the introduction of the world’s first jet engine.

During that period, apprenticeships all but disappeared. There were champions on the other side of the House—the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) believed in apprenticeships, as he still does—but the fact of the matter is that the number of apprenticeships has increased significantly over the past two and a half years. That is typified in my constituency by Gloucestershire Engineering Training, a company that has quadrupled in size through the number of apprentices it trains in its new premises, which were opened earlier this year.

The first words I spoke in this House, before making my maiden speech, were about apprenticeships, and that was because they are absolutely critical to manufacturing industries. I am talking about manufacturing industries beyond purely engineering; this spreads across a wide variety of sectors. I made my maiden speech wearing a shirt that was made on the Cross in the centre of Gloucester, and every Wall’s ice cream Members eat was made in my constituency. Manufacturing is a broad activity. The fact that we have seen some 3,000 new apprentices start in Gloucester and more than 10,000 start in the county since May 2010 is a huge credit to the coalition Government, to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has responsibility for skills, and especially to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who famously championed apprenticeships during his time in that role.

The question today is this: what is the role of Government? We have heard about the many ways the Government can contribute positively, perhaps above all in the commitment to rebalancing the economy away from finance, property and the public sector and towards making and growing things. The export drive that the Prime Minister has led has been rightly congratulated by a number of Members. I am pleased to play a small role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Indonesia, a market of some 250 million people, and one where our trade figures can surely increase rapidly over the next couple of years, in line with targets agreed between the Prime Minister and the President of Indonesia, who was here only two weeks ago.

There are also important tax policies, of course, and I pay tribute to the Government for reducing corporation tax. Research and development credits are extremely important to manufacturers, too. The visible encouragement given by Government is important psychologically as well, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for visiting the country’s largest independent spectacles manufacturer, Norville, whose product I am wearing on my nose today. Other initiatives should also be mentioned, including the advanced manufacturing supply chain. The Queen Elizabeth engineering prize is an interesting example of how we can help champion innovation.

The Government have a significant opportunity to rebalance the economy by bringing UK manufacturing back home. Companies that went overseas for cheap labour or relaxed environmental laws have often found that their new location is not as cheap as they had imagined. I strongly echo the statement of the chairman of John Lewis, who said he saw an opportunity for a resurgence of products that are made in Britain. We want to see more of those products.

16:30

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), not least because he is absolutely right about the importance of manufacturing in Gloucestershire. One in every five jobs in my constituency is in manufacturing and engineering, so, unsurprisingly, I am constantly promoting manufacturing in Stroud.

I also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford), too. I was struck to learn of his connection with Ruskin college, because Jim Callaghan used that institution as a launch pad for a great debate on education when he was Prime Minister, and rightly so, as we were concerned about the performance of our schools and colleges then, as we are still.

As Lord Heseltine notes in his report, we have a productivity gap. It takes us 10 hours to do the same thing it would take an American about eight hours to do. We must address that gap, and the Government are therefore right to focus on radical reforms of education, on STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and on making sure our colleges are up to speed in responding to the needs of business.

As the Prime Minister has said, all Governments—including all Government Departments—need to think about economic growth. To reiterate Lord Heseltine’s point, we need a grand strategy to concentrate the mind on the needs of our industry and our businesses, in order to make sure we get that growth.

Infrastructure is crucial, and it has rightly frequently been mentioned in our debate. We are going to take three years to decide whether we want a new airport, whereas the Germans are building one in Berlin now. It may well be taking a little longer than usual, and it may well be costing them a little more money than they expected, but the point is that they are building one. We need to sweep away some of our planning restrictions and some of our reticence to make such big and bold decisions, because we need to make those decisions.

Let me give an example of why that is important. I recently went to Leipzig in eastern Germany. I had visited the city as a student almost 30 years ago, when it was an economic wasteland. It was a disaster zone; I could see that whichever way I looked. Now in Leipzig there is a huge factory making Porsche cars. They are great cars—they are so good that I cannot afford to buy one. The factory’s supply chain is very effective and tight, and it is supported by an infrastructure that enables that supply chain to work. I asked the managing director if he could produce a map of the factory’s supply chain for me, and he did so right away. It served to demonstrate the value of a good supply chain and the importance in that regard of good infrastructure. We must learn these lessons, and we must be bold enough to take the appropriate action.

It seems to me that Lord Heseltine was right about localism, to the extent that we need to make sure that local structures have the necessary capacity. I am very impressed with our local enterprise partnerships. They are the right approach and are certainly a lot better than regional development agencies, but we have to make sure that all of them are up to standard and know what they need to do. Before we give them a huge bucketful of money, they must demonstrate to us that they are capable of identifying the right firms and making sure that they understand the needs of those firms. That is about knowing the skills requirements, knowing the skills capacities available and matching the difference. I hope LEPs will start to do that.

I finish with an important appeal. We should not forget the value of our technology. Recognising the added value in our product is important. We must think forward, not backwards. We should not be manufacturing what we manufactured before. We should manufacture products that are needed now and will be needed in the future. That is where the technology matters.

16:35

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

This has been an important, passionate and, dare I say it, industrious debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for choosing the topic, which is very much in the long-term economic interests of our country and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) for the manner in which they advanced their arguments. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).

I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speech that we heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford), as one by-election victor to another. I have known him for a very long time and he has always been passionate about manufacturing, industry and his local area. He was extremely gracious to his predecessor, as the whole House will have recognised. He mentioned his passion for co-operatives and co-operation. That is a necessary value in an industrial strategy. Industrial policy is often simplified or dismissed as picking winners, but it is fair to say that in my hon. Friend the people of Corby have definitely picked a winner.

I will be as quick as I can, because there is an awful lot to get through after such an important debate. It is clear from this afternoon that there is a welcome consensus about the need for an industrial strategy with manufacturing at its heart. We in the north-east know all about the importance of manufacturing. Both advanced and emerging nations are repositioning or developing their industrial and manufacturing capabilities—we have just heard from the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) about Leipzig—with the aim of enhancing comparative advantage for their key sectors and maximising opportunities for growth.

We should not blindly follow our competitors into the latest economic fashion. We cannot replicate off the shelf the German model, still less the Singapore model, but it is clear that in the 21st-century global economy, business and Governments are working together to ensure that potential is realised. We can exploit our values, our tradition and heritage and our current sectoral strengths to create a bespoke one-nation industrial strategy, helping all regions achieve their potential.

As the CBI stated only this month:

“Rebalancing the UK economy must consist of boosting our productive potential, which means reviving business investment and trade as key drivers of growth. The debate is no longer over whether the UK needs an industrial strategy, but about what form this should take.”

We would all agree with that. The message from today’s debate is clear: we need to see clear leadership on an industrial strategy. I therefore fully applaud what Lord Heseltine said in his review when he stated:

“The Government must have a clear blueprint for the future to support wealth creation. This approach should then be applied without exception across the whole of government.”

I support the TUC when it said:

“If we are to move forward, government, industry and unions must agree between them what a renaissance for manufacturing actually means. . . a strong manufacturing sector, across a variety of high skill, high value industries, is both achievable and desirable”.

The CBI said this month that we should

“adopt a shared vision . . . for the UK economy, with the government reporting back regularly on how this vision is being delivered”.

We would all agree.

We hear warm words from this Government. They often talk a good game, but their actions fail to match their rhetoric, and this country’s industrial potential suffers as a result. So I welcome the Secretary of State’s 16 speeches on the need for an industrial strategy; I just wish he would implement one. I fully support what the Prime Minister said in 2010 in his CBI conference speech—that the Government should be

“getting behind those industries where Britain already enjoys competitive advantage. All over the world governments are identifying dynamic sectors in their economy and working strategically to strengthen them”.

He said something similar only this week at the 2012 CBI conference:

“Government gets it…To have a proper industrial strategy to get behind the growth engines of the future.”

I fully agree. Yet in response to the speech the director general was forced to ask, “Where’s the beef?”

I welcome the honest appraisal by the Secretary of State in his leaked letter of February 2012 in which he said that the Government do not have

“a compelling vision of where the country is heading…and a clear and confident message about how we will earn our living in the future”.

However, I remain anxious that only last month Lord Heseltine felt the need to say in his report:

“The message I keep hearing is that the UK does not have a strategy for growth and wealth creation.”

Earlier this month, the CBI stated the position even more bluntly than that.

[George Freeman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I have a lot to get through.

The CBI said that

“the current hands-off approach to growth is failing to provide the confidence necessary for businesses to compete for the biggest opportunities out there”.

Most concerning was the verdict of Sir John Parker, one of Britain’s pre-eminent industrialists as chairman of Anglo American and president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, when he said last month:

“It has been two years since this Government came to power but it still has not set out a vision for Britain’s industrial future. There has been no leadership from the top—and by that I mean David Cameron—which has given a signal to society that Britain values industrial activity.”

[George Freeman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am keen to make progress.

Business is unconvinced that the Government’s warm words have materialised into firm leadership and tangible action. People want to see action and a sense of urgency, but they have not seen that. Will the Minister at least acknowledge this and outline his plans to do something about it?

[George Freeman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

Since the hon. Gentleman is being very persistent and because this is about a long-term vision, of course I will give way.

[George Freeman]

I am extremely grateful; I will be very brief. This time last year, the Prime Minister announced the strategy for the life sciences, which was warmly welcomed across industry—not least by GlaxoSmithKline, which then announced a £500 million investment in advanced manufacturing in the north-west—and has been lauded internationally. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at least in that sector the Prime Minister personally and this Government, including the Secretary of State, have set out exactly the leadership that he is asking for?

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about consensus. If we are to have an industrial strategy, we must ensure that it has a long-term strategic focus. Political and business cycles are not aligned—we often have a four or five-year cycle while businesses, certainly in the manufacturing industries, tend to have a 30-year or 40-year cycle—and it would be good to have as much consensus and policy certainty as possible. I hope that this debate has demonstrated that.

Manufacturers’ organisation the EEF has called for

“An industrial strategy”

that

“needs to endure beyond the latest political fad or any one political party. All our politicians need to recognise the value of having a clear vision, gearing the whole of government to delivering that vision, and setting clear accountability arrangements.”

I fully agree.

In certain sectors, there has been a degree of continuity of policy. The previous Labour Government set up the Automotive Council UK. The current Government have continued with that, and we have seen substantial investments in the automotive industry as a result. We fully recognise and welcome that approach. I have said to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is now in his place, that his formation of the Aerospace Growth Partnership is very welcome, and I would like a future Labour Government to pledge to continue to provide certainty for that key industrial sector. We have seen success in close relationships between Government and business in a number of sectors; the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) mentioned life sciences. Will the Minister say whether the Government plan to replicate that across other key industrial sectors such as chemicals, the construction industry and pharmaceuticals?

There is concern about long-term policy certainty, which investors in manufacturing require. Energy policy has rightly been mentioned a lot in this debate. In the summer, the CBI said in its report on maximising the potential of green business that

“while business wants to keep up the pace, they are equally clear that the government’s current approach is missing the mark, with policy uncertainty, complexity and the lack of a holistic strategy damaging investment prospects.”

Will the Minister acknowledge that such policy reversals are damaging to business investment, especially for manufacturing? What is he going to do to make sure that he can put arrangements in place within Whitehall to minimise the policy reversals and procrastinations in decision making that are damaging to our long-term industrial prospects?

In the remaining time that I have, I will focus on two important points. The first is that the key to the implementation of a long-term industrial strategy must be an emphasis on business policy across Government; it must not reside just in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Other Departments cannot wash their hands of growth.

As we have heard, energy policy has profound implications for our manufacturing base. The manner in which the carbon floor price is implemented will have significant repercussions on our industrial competitiveness. Our aviation and transport policies also have an impact on our competitiveness. Local government can be a driver of economic regeneration and development. The Ministry of Defence should be working closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that we have a defence industrial strategy. Of particular relevance to the Minister is the close link, which we have heard about today, between an industrial strategy, skills and what is being taught in schools. I recall that the hon. Member for Burnley made an intervention on careers advice. We must see clearer signs that there is proper co-ordination on business and industry across Whitehall. What is the Minister doing to implement the Heseltine recommendations on creating better co-ordination, accountability and commitment across Whitehall on wealth creation?

My second point relates to procurement. The Government intervene in the markets by buying things every single day, and yet Government procurement does not maximise Britain’s industrial capability or enhance the UK supply chain. What else will the Minister do to push for smarter procurement across Government to help British industry, and to encourage innovation and create jobs in this country?

We believe that there is a need for an intelligent industrial strategy. This debate has shown that our industrial and manufacturing sectors have huge potential in the 21st century, but that to flourish, they require active co-operation. The whole House seems to have supported that today. I hope that the Minister will pledge similar support.

16:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

Debates in this House are often described by those who speak in them as important, but there is something important about today’s debate: on this subject, cross-party unity matters. There has been clear unity across all three parties that have been represented in this debate. Almost everybody stuck to that tone, until a brief period at the end. I will not push the point about who got us into this mess and I will not ask under which Government the number of private sector jobs in the west midlands fell, because it is important, for substantive reasons, that there is a cross-party approach to industrial strategy. This debate has shown the passion of Members and of the Associate Parliamentary Manufacturing Group.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with the Minister that there should be cross-party consensus, provided that that consensus is on the right side. If everybody is wrong, we will drive ourselves further into difficulty.

[Matthew Hancock]

That is a profound point about the need to avoid groupthink, with which I profoundly agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) argued that we need to identify the best. He was passionate about enterprise and I heard his message. He will know that I am a huge supporter of enterprise zones.

I enjoyed listening to the historical debate between the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who are continuing their debate as I speak.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) asked a series of questions and brought his huge experience to bear, especially in relation to defence. The defence growth partnership is a BIS-led cross-Government partnership, which the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), leads. On the specific point about R and D tax credits moving to above the line, the Treasury has consulted on that and is deciding on the detail. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me with the answer on the joint strike fighter, which I will come to in a moment.

Everybody in the House was struck by the fluent and impressive speech by the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford). He described passionately his membership of the Co-operative party as well as the Labour party. My grandfather was part of the co-operative movement. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt want to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who takes a lead on such issues among Government Members.

The hon. Member for Corby advanced the argument for the living wage powerfully. He spoke of the need to ensure that domestic British people have the skills to take the jobs that are available. Although more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created under this Government, we still have a huge amount of work to do. As Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my prime motivation is to ensure that British people have the skills and ability to do whatever it takes to get the growing number of jobs available. The hon. Member for Corby spoke with great passion, and all those present in the debate will have clocked that—well, let me put it like this: the attitude he showed to the Chief Whip on the Opposition Front Bench, and his ability to ingratiate himself with her, shows that he may not be on the Back Benches for long.

An industrial policy is central to achieving the goal of growth and enterprise, and there is broad consensus on that from the CBI to the TUC, as well as across the House. The reason for that is simple. Any Government in a mature economy has an industrial policy—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) argued, a Government cannot choose not to have one. We have an industrial strategy but the question is whether we have it by default or design.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford praised the Dutch system, from which we have much to learn. In my few weeks in this job I have recognised and warmly welcomed the constructive approach taken by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West to chairing the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. He argued for a cross-departmental approach, and the growth committee on which I sit is an important part of that. He also argued for a cross-party approach, and not only do I agree with that, but I think hon. Members have demonstrated such an approach today. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s realism and ability to accept failures on the part of all past Governments. As he said, manufacturing halved as a percentage of GDP, and the passionate argument about that and the history around it was also put forward by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).

Crucially, an industrial strategy looks both at and across sectors, and we must ensure that we allow for the challenge of sectors that are yet to be dreamed of. Let me touch on four cross-cutting themes, as well as on sectors such as the automotive industry, life sciences and aerospace, in which we are pushing rapidly ahead with the publication of individual papers.

[George Freeman]

On the point about convergence, does the Minister agree that one of the most exciting things in life sciences is the way that medical, food and clean environmental technologies are beginning to merge? I recently visited a plant in Norfolk that converts agricultural waste into fuel for powering Lotuses made in Norfolk. That is a powerful illustration of convergence.

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes indeed, and across supply chains too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) powerfully said, it is vital that we bring whole supply chains together when thinking about the sectoral approach. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Some sectors will do well on their own; others need a long-term strategic partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) called for a document that brings things together in each sector, and that is happening.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Briefly, and on a genuinely cross-party consensual basis, will the Minister update the House on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) about energy-intensive industries such as Tata Steel? Those vital employers and big economic generators have a massive impact on the supply chain, but they consistently say that they do not have a strategy that deals with their energy costs as well as everything else.

[Matthew Hancock]

The Government have an energy-intensive industries approach, and an energy Bill will soon be published that I hope will provide some long-term certainty.

Let me return to the four cross-cutting areas. The first is finance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) spoke fluently about the funding for lending scheme that lowers the cost of funding. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) called for a business investment bank, which is happening, and the green investment bank is already operating and making loans.

Secondly, and close to my heart in the industrial strategy, are skills. The call went out for more employer focus on skills, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made a passionate case for apprenticeships. I strongly agree, and I urge all Members to engage with the employer ownership pilot that was published on Monday which is about looking ahead. For example, we know that with Crossrail, High Speed 2 and broadband, more tunnelling skills will be required in the future. We now have a pipeline for those tunnelling skills—a pipeline for pipelines.

As the hon. Member for Coventry North West discussed, the third thing we need is more intelligent procurement. This Government have a more intelligent approach to procurement, and I hope it will become more intelligent still. Crucially, our national infrastructure plan identifies 500 projects. Some £70 billion of future contracts have been planned and published across 13 different sectors. We are also trying to speed up procurement.

On technology, we have protected the science budget and are focusing on eight key technologies. Links to universities are vital. Catapult centres will accelerate that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot spoke about Surrey satellites. That example should go out throughout the country. Turning links with universities into business reality is critical to our future success.

I commend the cross-party approach. I urge people to look at the fact that all three parties are coming together to promote the long-term industrial strategy we need, which I commend to the House.

16:55

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I congratulate my two colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—on securing the debate. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Corby (Andrew Sawford) on his maiden speech. I remember doing mine two and half years ago. I hope he is as enthusiastic in two and a half years as I am now. It does not take long for the House to kick the strength out of people.

The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) put the debate into perspective when he said that, in the past 60 years, we have gone from being the major supplier to the world to being a minor supplier. In 1958—nearly 60 years ago—I turned up on my first day as an apprentice engineer at a company in Accrington that employed 5,000 people to produce textile machinery that was sold around the world. It is no longer there, and has not been for many years. I have been involved in manufacturing almost throughout the period he described.

We can get growth going in numerous ways. The one thing the Chancellor can do in two weeks’ time is give 100% capital allowances for investment in capital, buildings and the like for the manufacturing sector. As I understand it, the major companies in this country, and companies from abroad who wish to invest, have £70 billion stashed in banks. One hundred per cent. capital allowances for just two years would boost investment and the money would be spent in the UK.

Another major problem is the supply chain—it is a problem in the automotive and aerospace industries. It needs to be resolved. To get rid of our balance of payments deficit, we need to increase exports by 15% and reduce imports by 15%. It does not sound like a big task to export 15% more and import 15% less. I have asked companies whether they are able to do so. The vast majority in the aerospace industry say, “Yes, we can. We’ve got order books for 25 years ahead, but we do not have a supply chain to feed our order book, so we are having to import. We would really like to manufacture in the UK so we have our own supply chain.” We need to resolve that, but we also need the staff to work in the supply chain—the young people to work in the supply chains of our top industries, such as the aerospace, automotive and chemical industries, are not coming through. The supply chain gap is a major problem.

We have a major skills gap. I visited Rolls-Royce in Derby only last week and asked to see its apprenticeships training programme. I was delighted to hear that it takes on 40 extra apprentices every year not for Rolls-Royce, but for the supply chain—companies that supply Rolls-Royce but that cannot afford to take on apprentices. Those small companies want high-class apprentices and to deliver the skills of the future, and Rolls-Royce takes them on at its own expense so that its supply chain is secure.

Hon. Members mentioned careers advice. I am horrified when I go to schools in my constituency and hear about the careers advice that is given to young people. Basically, it is nothing—no careers advice that is of any use is given. Some young people would be interested in going into manufacturing, but nobody advises them what it is about. It is high time that the Department for Education looked into careers advice in schools. We need young people who really know what manufacturing is about.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

business of the house

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Rohingya Community

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

17:00

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I wish to present this petition to the House, which has nearly 1,000 signatures, and is from Mr Ali and residents of Coldhurst and other parts of Oldham. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition.

The petition states:

The Petition of Mr Ali and residents of Coldhurst,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that as a result of a recent attack on the Rohingya ethnic minority in June 2012 there is now a humanitarian crisis in Burma and that more than 90,000 Rohingya have been displaced; further that the Petitioners believe that since 1962 no Rohingya have been issued with birth certificates which renders them aliens to their own country and means they have no citizen’s rights and that innocent civilians are being targeted because of their ethnic background; further that the Petitioners believe that this is a modern ethnic cleansing and that it has been described as such by many independent journalists and NGOs and that the Rohingya require relief and aid. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to cease its economic ties with Burma and to assist in providing aid for the displaced Rohingya of the region.

And the Petitioners remain, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

[P001138]

NHS Trust Merger (Dorset)

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

17:02

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I first thank Mr Speaker for selecting this subject for this evening’s debate? I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) are here. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West has himself sent a submission to the Office of Fair Trading in relation to the proposed merger of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust with Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.

This is not just an important subject for our locality. It raises issues of principle, because this is the first time it has been proposed that two separate NHS foundation trusts merge. The OFT says that there a lot of other proposals in the pipeline. It is therefore important that the Minister has the opportunity to comment on what seems a bizarre procedure, certainly in relation to this matter.

I have to express an uncomfortable truth about tonight’s debate. I have always trusted the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as being open, transparent and honest in its dealings with me and the public at large, and my constituents appreciate the excellent services provided at the two hospitals. However, it is fundamental to public confidence in hospitals that there should be transparency and openness in dealings with the public. Indeed, the requirement for such transparency and openness is set out in the documents on which the foundations trusts are based. The constitution of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust describes it as a “public benefit corporation”, and paragraph 6.5 states:

“In conducting its affairs, the Trust shall have regard to the need to provide information to members and conduct its affairs in an open and accessible way.”

As I shall demonstrate, in relation to the merger proposal, quite the reverse has happened.

I also refer my hon. Friend the Minister to another trust document, “Authorisation of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust”. It was approved on 1 April 2005 by Monitor. Paragraph 25, headed “Information given to Parliament and to Members of Parliament”, reads:

“In addition to any statutory requirements, the Chairman, Chief Executive or any other person giving information to Parliament or to a Member of Parliament on behalf of a Trust shall ensure that they comply with the standards expected of Ministers of the Crown with regard to openness of dealings, the giving of accurate and truthful information and the correction of any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Any question submitted to the Trust by a Member of Parliament shall be responded to by the Trust within the same timescale as that expected of Ministers with respect to Parliamentary questions.”

In due course, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see that the trust seems to be totally in breach of that paragraph.

The trust has embarked on a merger proposal. Obviously, with any such proposal, people will wonder, “What is the purpose of the merger? Why do we need a merger? What will be the benefits and consequences?” I found out that the trust had produced a long document setting out the benefits. In order that I could respond to the Office of Fair Trading inquiry, I thought it would be helpful to see the benefits case, and I eventually received an almost totally redacted version, dated September 2012. The section on the key patient benefits to cardiology starts on page 29, but almost every line on every page is completely redacted. The same is the case with the sections on acute general surgery, haematology and maternity services—indeed, the only word that is not redacted in the latter section, which is four pages long, is “maternity”.

That is scarcely credible. It is farcical and makes a complete mockery of any public consultation or involvement. The OFT has the task of trying to find out from local people and third parties whether they believe that patient benefits flowing from the merger will outweigh the loss of choice and competition that will inevitably result, but the basic information needed to reach a judgment is not available. That is why I am in a state of limbo. We had only 14 working days to send in our submissions to the OFT, so I sent in mine on the basis of as much information as I could gather on the grapevine, plus some speculation, pointing out how aggrieved I felt, on behalf of my constituents, that the information needed was not made available.

The OFT is now considering the issue and will, I am told, announce its decision by 8 January 2013. I hope that at the end of this debate the Minister will say to me that, on behalf of the Government, he will ask the Office of Fair Trading, as I have, to refer the matter to the Competition Commission for a full inquiry, because it raises lots of issues. It also makes it difficult for the Office of Fair Trading if the information provided to it cannot be tested in public.

That is where we are at the moment. I received that heavily redacted document, and instead of anything else I was then given a set of slides, which caused me to raise a number of questions. I put them in writing to the hospital and at the end of last week, after about a fortnight, I received replies to them. However, the letter I received, dated 16 November, starts:

“Dear Chris

Strictly private and confidential. Not to be disclosed without express prior written consent of both Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust”.

I therefore cannot disclose what the document says—I think I can disclose that it exists and I can tell the House what some of the questions I asked were, but the answers cannot be shared. One of the questions was:

“Why do services have to be reduced in the absence of a merger ‘in order to stay viable’?”,

but I am not allowed to publish the answer. I also asked:

“In the event of no merger, which services will no longer be provided locally which will thereby necessitate patients having to travel further?”,

and so on. I asked all those questions, but the answers—if they can be described as such—cannot be made available. Surely that must a breach of the terms of the constitution to which I referred earlier.

The process is far from satisfactory, but let me turn to the substance. After a considerable amount of digging and discussion with local people, I found out why there is this conspiracy of secret dealings. The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Foundation Trust knows that it is under an obligation, under section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006,

“to engage and/or formally consult when considering changes to the way in which services are provided or the range of services they intend to provide”.

The trust wants a service reconfiguration, but it wants to close down the options before any public discussion of it takes place. The trust effectively wants to pre-empt discussion by using the cloak of the merger proposal. As a unified trust—a monolithic monopoly supplier—it would then effectively be able to dictate terms to the Government and the local people. For example, reducing the Royal Bournemouth hospital’s accident and emergency service from a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week service to one operating between 8 o’clock in the morning and 10 o’clock in the evening could be presented as a fait accompli, as could closing down the maternity service, which is a midwife-led service, and transferring it to Poole because Poole is desperately short of money.

One of the issues behind all this is that for years the Royal Bournemouth has prided itself on wanting to be the hospital of choice for local people, but then Poole hospital got into financial difficulties—indeed, it did not have its accounts properly accepted for 2010. It seems that the only way Poole hospital can get out of those difficulties is by merging, because then it would have a higher prudential borrowing limit, which would enable it to carry out improvements. However, my point is this: what is the benefit for the people using the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals at the moment?

There has also been an attempt to try to intimidate people and prevent them from participating in any public discussion. I have had a number of discussions with people involved in the governance of the hospital, and with other local residents. I shall not quote from all the letters that I have received, but I do have one letter that I thought would be worth quoting. It is from a lady who says:

“I am very impressed by your investigations into the planned merger, which once completed will suddenly and too late wake the slumbering populace up. I really wonder who the NHS thinks they are there for—it seems only, sometimes, for themselves and their accountants. And to issue our MP with heavily redacted information is bordering on Stalinism.”

There is a notice up now in the local hospital, saying that there is legal advice against disclosing the benefits case, and restating that no decisions have been made regarding the reconfiguration. But the issue is not decisions; it is about proposals, and it is the proposals about which we should be having a discussion. If I asked my independent foundation trust for information, I should not have to receive a letter back from the two foundation trusts jointly. They should be looking at the matter from the point of view of the interests of each of their localities, rather than having a joint exercise, which is squeezing out the public interest.

The notice continues:

“The benefits submitted to the OFT have had full engagement with lead clinicians across both hospital trusts around how the new organisation could move forward”.

I do not quite know what “full engagement” means, but obviously if there is no public declaration of what the benefits are, nobody is in a position to know whether it reflects their views. That is one of the fundamental reasons why we support the principles of accountability in this House.

I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will deal with the issue of accountability. I am hopeful also that, in looking at the whole case, he will have regard to the comments that he made when he responded to a debate on acute and emergency services on 26 October. On that occasion, our hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) was arguing for nationally led service reconfiguration, but the Minister pointed out that changes to services in Manchester and London, which had been cited, were

“driven at a local level by good clinical leadership and effective engagement of local communities.”

It is the latter part of that which is totally lacking currently in Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole. In the same debate, my hon. Friend emphasised the need for plans for service change to be developed in a way that

“gives confidence to local communities.”

He also emphasised that change

“should encourage choice and availability”

and identified the danger that in the more rural parts of the country,

“bigger and better centres will often reduce choice”

and result in people having to travel

“long distances to receive their care.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 1271-2.]

The Minister also referred to the advent of clinical commissioning groups taking over from primary care trusts, but there has been no engagement between those groups and Members of Parliament about what is being proposed in Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole.

That is where we are at the moment. I think it is very sad that there has been that breakdown in communication between the Members of Parliament and the trusts. The whole purpose of the trusts—I was delighted when the Royal Bournemouth was one of the first foundation trusts, established in 2005—was that they should be independent and could not be interfered with by Government, but would be accountable to local people. But I am afraid that the local people, even those who are serving in positions on the board, are feeling that they are being squeezed out of the debate, being told that they must not say anything for fear of prejudicing the outcome. Surely this very important proposed merger should be the subject of a public debate, and before we get to the stage of a merger the proposals for the reconfiguration of services, which are obviously being actively discussed and debated by the chief executives of the two trusts, should be put before the general public for their views. I do not think that my constituents are very keen on the idea that their accident and emergency unit, which they use, at the Royal Bournemouth should be closed after 10 o’clock at night and not reopen until 8 o’clock in the morning. Likewise, I do not think that they are very keen on the idea of the maternity service being relocated from Bournemouth to Poole.

Anyone who asks questions about the merger is told that if it does not happen, Poole hospital will close. A similar threat was made to me on Monday when I went to the hospital. I was told that if the merger did not go through, Christchurch hospital would close. That is completely at odds with a letter that was sent to one of my constituents who had expressed concern about the changes at Christchurch hospital. In that letter, the hospital stated that, because of the financial strength of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the future of Christchurch hospital was assured. That letter was received by my constituent earlier this month, yet the chief executive told me on Monday that if the merger went ahead, the proposal for Christchurch would be abandoned and Christchurch hospital might have to be sold. What an extraordinary state of affairs we are in! I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will be able to allay some of the concerns in our locality.

17:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing it, and on being a strong advocate for the needs of his constituents and of patients throughout his part of the world. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who are also in the Chamber. They, too, are strong advocates for the patients they represent, and I know that their constituents are grateful to them for that.

It is right to highlight the importance of having a good working relationship between Members of Parliament and their local hospital trusts. It is never desirable for any hospital to embark on local service changes of any kind without properly engaging with the local Members of Parliament. In this case, we are talking about a merger, rather than a service reconfiguration; there is an important distinction between the two, which I will come to in a moment. Nevertheless, from what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has said, it does not sound as though the local hospital trust has engaged with him in a way that we would all consider desirable, and I am sure that it will consider that in its future relations with MPs.

That point was strongly made when my hon. Friend read out the heavily redacted document. There is freedom of information, and certain issues can quite rightly be exempted from freedom of information requests under statute. However, to present a document bearing only the heading “Maternity” is not in the spirit of co-operative and collaborative working with Members of Parliament or in the spirit of being as open and transparent as we would like. I am sure that he has already raised these issues locally, but I would also like to place on record my concern at what he has told the House. It is important that MPs, as strong advocates for our constituents and the patients in our constituencies, should always be engaged at an early stage when decisions of this magnitude are being made.

My hon. Friend paid tribute to the dedicated front-line staff at the hospitals in Poole and Bournemouth. It is worth highlighting that some very good things have been happening in both trusts. At Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, a life-saving service that treats heart attack patients within 60 minutes is now available 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the Royal Bournemouth hospital. It treats heart attack patients from across Dorset, Hampshire and Wiltshire. Also, a new combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit opened in 2012. It is designed to improve the experience and outcomes of stroke patients by providing specialist services, with a particular focus on the rehabilitation of patients, which is an important part of stroke care.

[Mr Chope]

I am glad that the Minister cited those examples, but are they not examples of how independent trusts can innovate and thereby create beneficial change rather than have a monolithic monopoly? Surely we would not have so much innovation if all our trusts were merged into one.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is right that trusts—in their own right, or when they are merged together as they were historically over the river at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ and at the medical school of Guy’s, King’s and St. Thomas’ of which I am a graduate—can gain and improve the quality of care available to patients without losing their distinctness. Services are offered on each site, but at the same time they can add to the services they provide to patients in the totality. I believe my hon. Friend is right to say that these innovations have come from the independence and the good work of his local hospital, but I also believe there can be distinct advantages from hospitals coming together as well. The common purpose is making sure that good local service provision is maintained, while services of clinical excellence are also developed, further improving the offer to patients—not just in those towns, but throughout the area.

I want to highlight, and not leave out, some of the good things happening at Poole hospital, as it would be wrong for me, having highlighted a number of good developments at the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, not to mention them. At Poole hospital, the standard of care for cancer patients has been rated as among the best in the country in a national survey. The 2011-12 national cancer patient experience survey found that 94% of patients rated their care as “excellent” or “very good”, giving Poole the highest score recorded among participating trusts. I know all Members, as constituency Members, would feel very proud of that hospital’s achievements.

I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes this Government’s investment in the NHS, even in very difficult economic times, as we put an extra £12.5 billion into NHS services over the lifetime of this Parliament. I am sure we all agree that that is a good thing.

What is the current position? Let me address some of my hon. Friend’s points. As to the proposals by the foundation trusts in Bournemouth and Poole, I appreciate that when any changes to local NHS services are mooted, people can become anxious and feelings can run high. However, I must be very clear to my hon. Friend that there is no formal role for Ministers or the Department of Health in approving mergers between two foundation trusts. I fully appreciate his concern to ensure that there is appropriate engagement and consultation on any proposals for service changes that may affect his constituents. I have already put on record some of my concerns about the process and engagement so far, which I think we would all accept is not ideal.

[Mr Chope]

I was not asking the Minister to have a role in approving the merger or otherwise. What I asked him to do, on behalf of the Government, was to say to the Office of Fair Trading that this is an issue of sufficient significance that it should be referred to the Competition Commission.

[Dr Poulter]

If my hon. Friend will be patient with me for a few moments, I will address that point a little later.

In acknowledging the understandable anxiety that can be stoked when any discussions about hospital services take place, it is important to highlight the fact that, as we saw over the river at Guy’s and St. Thomas’, although there was some good preservation of the individual and distinct offers to the local populations of the two institutions in their own right, by coming together they have been better together and provided better services.

One of the big problems we face in the NHS is concern about putting more money into front-line care and about cutting back on waste and bureaucracy. Clearly, if the administration across two trusts can be shared, it will free up more money to be diverted and put into what we all care about—front-line patient care.

Let me put on record once again that the trusts have clearly stated that this is not about the reconfiguration of clinical services. That is quite distinct. My hon. Friend was quite right to mention some of the points I raised in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) about the important and distinct challenges faced in rural constituencies, and the fact that service reconfiguration challenges are very different in rural areas where there are longer distances to travel. As I have said, however, this is not about reconfiguring services, but about trusts merging and seeking what I think we would consider to be potentially desirable results, such as economies of scale and a reduction in unnecessary administrative burdens when possible. I think that, although the process and the approach taken to engagement with my hon. Friend and other Members of Parliament have not been ideal, some very positive elements have emerged from the discussion.

As my hon. Friend said, stringent tests would be applied to reconfiguration if it were on the table. The criteria would be strong public and patient engagement, consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice, a clear clinical evidence base, and support for proposals from clinical commissioners. Clinicians should always lead reconfiguration challenges, but today we are not talking about reconfiguration; we are talking about a hospital merger. It is the first of its kind to be proposed between foundation trusts in the country, and in that respect it is new territory for the NHS. There are distinct rules, including, as my hon. Friend said, referral of the case to the Office of Fair Trading.

The OFT’s role in reviewing the merger will be to establish whether there is a realistic prospect that it will result in a substantial lessening of competition. I am sure that it will also consider the issues of rurality and the choice of services available to patients. Should it refer the matter to the Competition Commission, which it has a right to do if it has concerns, the commission’s role will be to conduct an in-depth investigation, and to decide whether the merger does indeed represent a substantial lessening of competition and choice.

Concern has been expressed about the rurality of surrounding areas, and about the fact that there are long distances between hospital trusts. That may—

17:32

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 22 November 2012

Written Questions

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Ministerial Corrections

[Chris Ruane]

To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many questions for written answer were tabled on average per day, including non-sitting days, in the period (a) 25 May 2010 to 21 October 2011 and (b) 22 November 2011 to 17 September 2012.

[Official Report, 16 October 2012, Vol. 551, c. 261W.]

Letter of correction from John Thurso:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on 16 October 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[John Thurso]

The information requested is as follows:

(a) The number of questions for written answer tabled in the period 25 May 2010 to 21 October 2011 (including those tabled on non-sitting days) was 410 per sitting day.

(b) The number of questions for written answer tabled in the period 22 November 2011 to 17 September 2012 (including those tabled on non-sitting days) was 329 per sitting day.

Questions tabled on sitting and non-sitting days cannot be readily distinguished.

The correct answer should have been:

[John Thurso]

The information requested is as follows:

(a) The number of questions for written answer tabled in the period 25 May 2010 to 21 October 2011 (including those tabled on non-sitting days) was 346 per sitting day.

(b) The number of questions for written answer tabled in the period 22 November 2011 to 17 September 2012 (including those tabled on non-sitting days) was 285 per sitting day.

Questions tabled on sitting and non-sitting days cannot be readily distinguished.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

Thursday 22 November 2012

[Mr Hywel Williams in the Chair]

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Seventeenth Report of the Transport Committee, Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) Reform, HC 1798, and the Government Response, HC 557.]

13:30

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Williams. Before you start proceedings, can I raise a couple of questions? I am not sure what we do in the event of not everybody who indicated that they wanted to speak in this debate turning up. The Select Committee on Transport has scheduled two important debates for this afternoon. Does the Chair have any discretion to delay the start of proceedings to ensure that those who want and are expected to participate have the opportunity to do so? Previously, when I was a Minister, if I had been at a debate and there was nobody in attendance, or if someone to whom I had spoken in the Lobby and who had indicated that they wanted to speak was not there, I would obviously have wanted to ensure that they had a chance to speak.

What are the rules and protocols of the House in the Standing Orders? We would not want anyone to miss the opening speech from the distinguished Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), ably supported by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). The Transport Committee has spent a lot of time on the two reports. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith and Pentland—or is it just Edinburgh and Leith?

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

Edinburgh North.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My apologies. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) clearly has something to say in the debate, and it is important that everybody who wants to speak has the chance to listen to the opening speeches. Without an opening speech from the Transport Committee Chair to set the context for this debate—the Opposition have a few things that we would like to say, although the reports deal comprehensively with the issues, and the Government’s response is equally detailed—it would be helpful if you could advise us, Mr Williams, how we might proceed so that everybody who wants to participate can do so.

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Thank you for that point of order, Mr Fitzpatrick. I think we have shown a degree of forbearance. It puts us in a difficult position if we have neither a Whip nor a Minister, but I am advised that we may proceed, and I think that we had better, given that we have hon. Members here who are anxious to contribute to the debate. I will take advice during the debate, and if we can start, we will see how we might stop as well, which might be something of a problem. I call Mrs Ellman.

13:33

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I am pleased to present two Transport Committee reports for debate. Both are on aviation, and although they deal with complicated matters, they are vital to the public. The first debate is on the reform of Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing, or ATOL.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Before my hon. Friend proceeds, does she agree that, although we are discussing the first report, it is particularly important that we have a Minister here to hear what is said about the second report? Important negotiations are going on in Europe about flight times, and many of us have constituents working in the industry who have contacted us about the matter. It would be amazing if we did not have the opportunity for a Government response on this important topic.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I certainly wish Ministers to listen to what I have to say, and I have numerous questions to pose to them, but the proceedings have started, so I must continue. I hope that the Minister will arrive before I have proceeded much further.

The ATOL scheme was introduced in the 1970s, a decade in which there was a dramatic increase in the number of people travelling abroad on package holidays. ATOL is a Government-backed insurance scheme that protects holidaymakers flying abroad from the effects if travel firms go bankrupt. Holidaymakers can be reimbursed for the cost of holidays and repatriated where necessary. Over the past three years, 250,000 people have received refunds as part of the scheme and 100,000 have been repatriated.

Firms covered by the ATOL scheme charge each passenger £2.50 to cover the cost of ATOL. However, at the time of our inquiry, the Air Travel Trust Fund from which payments are drawn was in deficit to the tune of £42 million. That deficit is now decreasing. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us the latest figure, as it is important to have. The deficit is falling because the charge per passenger was recently increased from £1 to £2.50, but the scheme remains controversial. Currently, only about half of holiday bookings are covered, an issue at the heart of ATOL reform.

The situation is complicated. Traditional package holidays sold by travel agents and tour operators are covered by ATOL. Holidays sold by agents or firms defined as acting as agents for the consumer, particularly online, are not. Firms selling holidays not covered by the scheme have a competitive advantage, because they do not have to charge for ATOL cover. However, it is not clear whether consumers are aware of that difference. There is also the problem of who pays for repatriating travellers stranded abroad by the bankruptcy of an airline or agent not covered by the scheme.

The Government are in the process of changing ATOL. Two reforms have already been made. First, “flight-plus” holidays—in which a flight plus another part of the holiday, such as a hotel booking or car hire, is bought within a 48-hour window—sold by existing ATOL operators are now covered. Secondly, customers buying holiday packages covered by ATOL must now be issued with a certificate telling them that that is the case. Those two changes are an advance.

The extension of ATOL to certain flight-plus holidays is estimated to bring some 6 million additional holidays into the scheme, ensuring that 60% of holidaymakers are covered. The extra revenue brought into the scheme by those extra travellers should help reduce the charge per passenger, but operators have challenged the Government’s figures, claiming that the travel industry will find ways around the new regulations.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend is outlining clearly the background to the ATOL scheme and illustrating the details. She mentioned the changes. On Tuesday, we had the opportunity to debate in the Chamber the Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill, and the Minister moved amendments to improve the ATOL scheme. Will she be referring in her remarks to how those amendments improve the scheme? They relate to what she is discussing, and they go part of the way towards what she wants addressed, which is the 21st-century way of booking holidays.

[Mrs Ellman]

Yes, I will be referring to that point. I would like some information from the Minister on what has happened in practice since the scheme was changed in April.

Our other concern about the extension of ATOL involved the lack of consumer input into the changes. The Government’s consultation on the change attracted just four responses from consumer groups, which I find pretty amazing, because I have had responses from constituents concerned about the scheme as it was operating. The responses from those four consumer groups hardly seemed to feature in the Government’s analysis. Only one consumer group, Holiday Travel Watch, submitted evidence to our inquiry, opposing the extension of ATOL to flight-plus holidays.

The Committee was concerned, as was I, about the minimal consumer response. We need to know what consumers think about the proposed changes and how they are working, and what further changes consumers want.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Having read the recommendations from my hon. Friend’s Committee and the Government response, one of the questions that I will be asking the Minister later—reinforcing what she is asking at the moment—is about the Government’s saying that the responsibility for ensuring protection against the collapse of a holiday lies with the consumer. Part of the great difficulty is that consumers do not pay enough attention to whether they are insured and, if they get stranded, the taxpayer picks up the bill.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend’s comments reflect views that the Committee has heard over a long period—we have been looking at the issue for a number of years. Particularly when people are stranded on holiday and have problems, we realise that those consumers simply did not know what they were covered for or indeed whether they were covered. That has to be a key issue for the Government. They have partially addressed it, but I will say later how I think that that is proceeding.

The Government were well placed to overcome the problem of that relative lack of formal reaction from consumers and consumer groups by commissioning their own research into whether consumers understood the concept of ATOL cover and whether they wanted it to apply to packages that they assemble themselves online. We must remember the changing nature of the way in which people organise their holidays, because individual consumers organising their own holidays and assembling packages online is a growing trend, so it is important for us to know what consumer views are and about the type of insurance that they think most appropriate. Up until now, however, the Government have not done that. The extension of the scheme has not been based on explicit consumer research, and I want the Minister to tell us why the Government did not do more to find out specifically what consumers want.

The Committee welcomed the introduction of the ATOL certificate, which will increase clarity for consumers about their cover. We have found a consistent issue over the years to be that passengers and holidaymakers simply do not know what they are covered for. There is a risk, however, that consumers who buy holidays that are not ATOL protected will not realise that. Owing to the Government’s positive action, the people who are now ATOL protected will know that they are covered, but the ones who are not covered will not know, because they will not have a certificate. Do the people without a certificate realise that that means they are not covered by ATOL? We simply do not know.

More could be done to inform consumers not covered by scheme of their position and options. The Government agreed to consider our suggestion, perhaps by introducing a voluntary scheme for airlines to inform customers of their protection—or lack of it—when buying a flight. Can the Minister tell me what progress has been made in taking that suggestion forward?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is important because, as my hon. Friend said, normal people make their holiday arrangements, effectively, by putting together their own packages, which raises the issue of what cover there should be in the event of an airline-only arrangement falling through if the airline goes out of business. There are clear difficulties with doing something at UK level only, as well as issues of practicality, but the report highlights the importance of voluntary agreements and discussion in the industry up to a European level. Does she think as I do, it important for the Government to be able to show that they are actively pursuing the possibility at European level? That is another point to which the Minister needs to respond when we reach the appropriate point in the proceedings.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the matter needs to be pursued in the European arena, because the nature of air travel is such that it is likely to involve travel outside this country. We need to know from the Minister exactly what is happening and what progress, if any, has been made.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned, the Civil Aviation Bill includes clauses that will make more fundamental change possible. Such changes will be implemented, we are told, at a future date. Will the Minister say what the timetable for that implementation is? As my hon. Friend said, there was a debate on the subject yesterday, and amendments to the Bill were discussed, but we need to know the timetable so that we can monitor progress. During the Select Committee inquiry, the then Minister was asked how the Civil Aviation Bill would affect holiday insurance cover, and it was clear that there would be major changes. We need to know the detail of such changes, as well as the timetable for implementation of the Bill.

In future, packages sold by airlines and by those designated as agents for the consumer, will be included in ATOL. The Committee supports that change, because it is an anomaly that a holiday package sold by a travel agent has ATOL protection while the same package sold online by a firm operating as an agent for the consumer—for which there is a specific definition—is not covered. That is extremely confusing for the consumer, and one reason for the reform is to provide greater clarity for the consumer, as well as more comprehensive cover, and to create a more even playing field in the industry. When we conducted our inquiry, we spoke to a range of people, including those from the travel industry and its different sectors. One point made forcefully to us was that different parts of the industry would be affected in different ways, and a strong view from some was that there should be an even playing field for the travel industry itself. The Government are addressing that situation, but we need to know how the proposals will change it. We need to know what progress has been made on providing appropriate cover, clarity and even-handedness for the consumer, and on creating a more equal playing field in the travel sector.

There have been calls for the Government to go further than they propose and to bring all international flights within ATOL, providing passengers with protection from airline insolvency. In our inquiry, we found different views in different parts of the travel sector. ABTA, the Association of British Travel Agents, has argued strongly for that, pointing out that tour operators often fail because airlines have run into financial difficulties. On the whole, the airlines oppose such calls, arguing that there is a significant difference between a holiday package and a flight. They suspect that the change would mean their being asked to bail out the air travel trust fund, which, they argue, has been emptied because of what they allege to be badly managed tour operators going bust. Those were the points made to us in our inquiry, although we did not get a unanimous view from those who came to speak to us.

On balance, it would be helpful to see international flights covered by ATOL. The additional cost per ticket would be small, consumers could be confident of repatriation in the event of an airline becoming insolvent, and the scope for operators to find loopholes in the ATOL rules would be reduced; quite a number of the witnesses to our inquiry felt that if a scheme for partial cover was proposed, part of the industry would find loopholes to get around the new regulations. The European Commission is looking hard at the question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith was right about the importance of looking at the issue across Europe. When a decision is taken in Europe, it is not taken just by another body with no reference to the United Kingdom Government. There is a process, and the Government and specifically the Department for Transport in this instance have a way of influencing what happens, and should advocate what they believe is best for our travel industry. Will the Minister update us on what is being discussed at European Union level, and on the Government’s view on the matter? It is important to know what the Government, through the Department for Transport or any other appropriate part of Government, are doing to pursue what they believe is the right way to proceed on travel insurance, and getting the best deal for British consumers.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is particularly important because in the few instances of airlines going out of business in recent years, most have been pretty small, and passengers have been picked up by other, larger airlines. However, low-cost budget airlines are now operating throughout the European Union, and many are based in other countries where a UK operator might not feel inclined to offer a replacement flight if it had no connection with the UK. Is that not an important reason for addressing the matter at European level, and why the Government must show that they are actively pursuing the issue to try to get an appropriate solution for consumers?

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One issue raised during our inquiry was that the European travel package regulations are being renegotiated, which may take some time. That makes it particularly important that our Government, through the Department for Transport or whatever part of the Government is thought to be correct, advocate during the long-drawn-out discussions on that package, what is correct for UK consumers. It is an ongoing process, and it would be helpful to know what the Department is pursuing in this area at European level, what stage those discussions have reached, and how it will be involved as they proceed and before the extensive European travel package regulations are finalised.

The charge of £2.50 per passenger to pay for ATOL is unfair, because it is not linked to the value of the holiday booking or any assessment of risk. Someone booking a cheap package deal with an established operator pays the same for protection as someone buying a luxury trip to a far-flung country with a niche provider. That is unfair, and the situation would be even worse if flight-only bookings were included, because the ATOL charge could be a high proportion of the cost of a cheap flight. The Government have agreed to re-evaluate the level and the basis of the charge. Will the Minister say what progress is being made with the review?

On the long-term options for ATOL, we considered whether it should be scrapped altogether and replaced with private insurance. We concluded that that was not possible. Few insurance policies are available to provide the same level of protection, and the Government cannot avoid their responsibility swiftly to repatriate people stranded abroad because a travel firm has failed. The EU package travel directive requires the UK to provide a financial protection scheme for holidaymakers.

Nevertheless, there is scope for further reform, particularly when the scheme’s deficit has been cleared. In the Committee’s view, a reformed scheme must distinguish clearly between financial protection for consumers, which might sometimes be covered by private insurance, and repatriation, which is unavoidably an issue for the Government. The scheme should be industry funded, not reliant on Government guarantees as at present, and perhaps it should be managed by the industry. Consumers should have a greater say in deciding what is covered, and there should be more research on what consumers want. There must be more clarity and more public information, so that consumers are clear about when they are covered and when they are not. The Committee would like the cost per booking to come down, and be proportionate to the price of the package. If that were done, much of the controversy about the scheme might fade away.

In recent years, the internet has enabled some people to bypass travel agents and tour operators, and to put together their own package holidays. The ATOL scheme has not kept pace with that development. It has run into financial difficulties, and there is now confusion about who is covered by the scheme and who is not. The Committee welcomes the Government’s steps for reform, but there is much more to be done. I look forward to hearing about further proposals for change.

The nature of the leisure industry and holiday bookings has changed. Travel protection needs to reflect those changes and consumers’ needs. The Department has started to address that, but a great deal more needs to be done, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps are being taken, and what the Government’s plans are.

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Fitzpatrick.

13:55

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am sorry, Mr Williams, as that comes as a bit of a surprise in that I was anticipating other colleagues to be called to speak before me. However, I am grateful for the opportunity.

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

In the interests of clarity, I should say that my ambition is to speak in the second debate. I hope that this brief interruption gives the hon. Gentleman time to get his paperwork in order.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Given the number of colleagues who have been able to attend, and given other business in the House, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make a substantial contribution to the second debate, given that we have three hours in which to discuss both reports.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Williams. It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our business. I also welcome the 17th report from the Select Committee on Transport, “Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) Reform”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chairman of the Committee, eloquently outlined in introducing the report, the air travel trust fund has its origins in the 1970s, but in March 2012 it registered a deficit of some £18.5 million. She mentioned the fact that in 1992, 98% of holidays were covered by ATOL, but in recent times the figure for the market in package holidays, which were the original target for the protection scheme, has fallen way below 40%.

As my hon. Friend also outlined, protection is not just good; it is essential. When companies fail, citizens may be abandoned, and certainly distressed. Responsibility is then on the Government to rescue them, and ultimately the taxpayer must foot the bill. That cannot be right. If people are able to enjoy holidays abroad, there must be some responsibility on them, as well as the organisations that get them to their destination, to ensure that they are covered for returning home. The previous Government were addressing the need for reform, and this Government have carried that on, as well as the need to close the deficit, balance the fund and provide future protection in the light of how bookings are made in the 21st century.

A helpful briefing from the Association of British Travel Agents says in respect of the modern way that people book holidays that

“robust evidence exists to prove that airlines can and do fail financially. Since 2000, 46% of monies paid out from the ATTF on failed ATOL holders can be attributed to the knock-on effects of airline insolvencies.”

It continues:

“In the last three years alone, 51% of all claims on the ATTF can be attributed to monies paid out following failures of ATOL holders as a direct result of airline insolvencies”.

That reinforces my hon. Friend’s point about the modern way of booking holidays.

I shall refer to some of the recommendations in the Committee’s reports, and to the Government response, to reinforce what my hon. Friend said. Recommendation 2 says that additional consumer protection is needed, and in respect of consumers the Government responded

“so they can make alternative arrangements for financial protection, if desired.”

The essential question here relates to many of the points made by my hon. Friend and to the Committee’s recommendations. As she said, only four consumers responded to the report. We had an exchange about consumer awareness of whether they are protected. People want to book the best holiday at the cheapest price, and they may not recognise whether those holidays are ATOL protected. Therefore, the Government’s comment in response to recommendation 2—that consumers

“can make alternative arrangements for financial protection, if desired”—

is somewhat inadequate. We do not want people to want to be rescued; we want them to help to pay for the cost of being rescued, because if they do not, the rescue is down to the Government and the taxpayer foots the bill.

That theme is continued in recommendation 7. The Government responded:

“When a consumer does not receive a Certificate, they will know that they will not be covered by the ATOL scheme”.

However, I am not sure that the consumer will know about that if they do not receive a certificate. It is clear that a lot of people, over recent years and decades, have been stranded, thinking that they were covered, without realising that they were not, because they did not understand the scheme.

Subsequently, the Government say that they

“will consider with the CAA… suggesting information that should be provided to consumers about financial protection every time that a flight is purchased.”

Our point of view, and the theme of the Committee’s report, is that everybody should be protected, and a way must be found to ensure that that protection is included in the price of the holiday.

Finally, the Government’s response to recommendations 5 and 9 states:

“The requirement that those organising and selling package holidays should have in place provision for refunds or repatriation in the event of organiser insolvency comes from the PTD.”

In our view, the position is straightforward: the Government need to ensure that consumers are protected, even against themselves.

Competition within the travel industry is fierce, with many great holidays on offer from airlines, travel companies, package holiday companies, and all manner of individual organisations and collectives, and the Committee is asking a number of questions that the Government need to address. My hon. Friend detailed those issues in her opening remarks, covering the scheme’s history and asking the Minister a number of questions that I know he will respond to in due course, because they are outstanding from the Committee’s report. I have reinforced some of those questions, because they are fundamental to the well-being of the scheme.

The scheme has been reformed in recent years, and that continues with the amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill moved by the Minister in the House on Tuesday. Clearly, the Government are indicating that they will continue with that reform and that, in due course, they will hold a consultation on future reforms. Comments made to me and to the Opposition suggest that there is keen interest in continuing the reform process and in making progress. If I remember correctly, the Minister said in the House on Tuesday that a further consultation is due in the spring, but the question from the industry, consumer groups and the Committee is, when is it likely to happen and can it be expedited?

This is unfinished business, going back many years. We began with it in government, and it is great to see the coalition continuing with it. We want the situation reformed, the deficit bridged, and the fund to be in surplus, not in excess, with enough to cover any contingencies. The whole travel industry—airlines and travel operators—wants exactly the same thing. There is agreement that progress has been made over recent years, but work remains to be done and I look forward to the Minister outlining how he intends to finish the job.

14:05

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and I am pleased that the Transport Committee has secured this debate on a very important subject.

Before I get to the detail of the points that have been raised and of the Government’s approach, both to the Committee’s report and in terms of our response to the recommendations, I must make an abject apology—not only to you, Mr Williams, but to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman); to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick); and to others who have come to the debate—for the fact that I turned up late.

I was under the impression—totally wrongly, as it happens—that the debate would start at half-past 2, and I had planned on that basis. What had not been taken into account was the fact that we have, of course, modernised our hours since the middle of October and that debate starts at 1.30.

I am very, very sorry about that. I am furious with myself that I have been discourteous to the Transport Committee and to the Chamber. I can guarantee you, Mr Williams, that this will never happen again, as it affects me, and I hope that, in that spirit, you and hon. Members will accept my apology. There is no excuse whatever.

[Mrs Ellman]

I completely accept the Minister’s apology. At times, we all get caught out by changes in the timetable. Until relatively recently, I thought the debate was at 2.30, then I discovered that it was to start at 1.30. It is perfectly understandable.

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being remarkably generous in the circumstances. Although I appreciate her kindness, there is no excuse for what has happened. I should have been here at 1.30, but I do thank her.

It is clear that the hon. Lady’s Committee has taken a keen interest in ATOL reform and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss it further following the Committee’s report, which was published in April. Since the Committee reported on ATOL reform, significant changes to the scheme have come into effect that have greatly improved its functioning. Reform of the ATOL scheme is necessary to increase consumer clarity, ensure its efficient functioning and, in the longer term, put it on a self-sustaining financial basis.

On 30 April, the same day as the Committee’s report was published, the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 2012 came into force, bringing flight-plus holidays into the scope of the ATOL scheme. A flight-plus holiday is one where the consumer requests to book a flight and accommodation or car hire within a two-day period. That change gives consumers greater clarity and covers many more people. It means that, essentially, if one buys something from a travel agent or tour operator that looks like a package holiday, including a flight, one should be protected by ATOL.

The Civil Aviation Authority has reported that in 2012-13, 2.5 million more holidaymakers can be covered, thanks to that single change. The flight-plus reform has enjoyed broad support from industry, consumer groups and other stakeholders. As the Committee and our analysis have suggested, it is critical that consumers are aware of their coverage. Flight-plus has gone a long way towards clarifying the ATOL scheme and reducing the chances of consumers mistakenly thinking that they are covered, but further to address that, on 1 October, we introduced the ATOL certificate, which is a standardised document given to every person booking an ATOL-covered holiday. It sets out the coverage and says what to do if things go wrong.

The introduction of the ATOL certificate has been widely welcomed by the travel industry and consumer groups alike. On its launch, it received favourable coverage in the travel industry and national press. The travel trade has worked hard to get ready for all the ATOL reforms, and I applaud its efforts to do so. The CAA has also done a very good job in supporting the travel trade in its preparations. Receiving the ATOL certificate shows that holidaymakers and travellers are covered; equally, not receiving an ATOL certificate with a booking indicates that people are not covered. It removes any uncertainty and gives holidaymakers and travellers peace of mind.

To make the changes effective, the holiday-buying public must be aware of them. To that end, the CAA is preparing for a publicity campaign in the next few months to increase awareness of the changes. Fortunately, that will coincide with a significant period when people are preparing for and buying their summer holidays, immediately after Christmas. That is a relevant and appropriate time to start getting the message across.

We are pleased with what we have achieved with the ATOL scheme thus far. It goes a long way towards addressing a number of the points in the report. We intend to address some of the remaining issues in the ATOL scheme using new powers in the Civil Aviation Bill, which completed its progress through Parliament earlier this week and will receive Royal Assent in due course.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I have missed this point in his comments, and if he has not covered it, perhaps he will do so.

We referred to the fact that the percentage of holidays covered by ATOL is falling because of the different ways in which people book their holidays. The figure was 98% in 1992, but it is down to below 40%. Will the Minister tell us the percentage of holidays covered by the current scheme and the estimate of the number that will be covered following the reforms that he has introduced and the amendments made to the Bill? How much of a gap will there be?

Will the Minister be looking to address that gap, which we need to close, when he undertakes consultation in the spring, although we will never get to 100%, because some people will always book their own holiday and do their own thing? Will he give us those answers at some point?

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will certainly come back to him because I also want to deal with a number of points raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside.

Before the hon. Gentleman’s valid intervention, I was about to say that we are pleased with the achievements that the ATOL scheme has so far realised. We believe that they go a long way to addressing a number of the points in the report. We intend to address some of the remaining issues in the ATOL scheme using the new powers in the Bill. For example, holidays sold by airlines are not required to be ATOL protected. That creates a regulatory inequality and potential confusion for holidaymakers. It is important to have a consistent regulatory framework for businesses selling holidays, including a flight, as far as is consistent with EU law.

Further, some consumers are not protected when buying a holiday because that holiday was procured on an “agent for the consumer” basis. That means that, rather than selling a holiday to the consumer, the travel agent technically buys one on the consumer’s behalf, as we discussed on Tuesday in the main Chamber, which means that it is outside the scope of the current ATOL scheme. The powers in the Bill will allow that method of avoiding the scheme to be removed.

Some companies might claim that they are merely facilitating a purchase of a flight, but neither buy on the consumer’s behalf nor make available or sell flight accommodation to them. Thus, they might argue that they are outside the scope of the ATOL scheme. That business practice is a potential avoidance approach. The Bill will give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State powers to require such businesses to hold an ATOL licence.

The Bill is awaiting Royal Assent. Our intention is to create a level competitive playing field and to avoid holidaymakers mistakenly thinking that they have protection when they do not. Holidays including a flight that look like package holidays should be protected like package holidays under the ATOL scheme. These further reforms will go a long way towards ensuring that.

Of course, before taking further steps, we will consult widely. Subject to parliamentary processes, we expect to produce an impact assessment and launch a consultation on draft regulations in 2013. Our decisions will be based on the outcome of that consultation.

[Mrs Ellman]

I am reassured by the information that the right hon. Gentleman is now giving us, but can he say when he anticipates that a new scheme or the new regulations will be operational?

[Mr Burns]

I would very much like to do so, but that would give too many hostages to fortune at this stage, because, as I said, we are going to base our decisions on the outcome of consultations. The consultations will be on draft regulations. Obviously, that is a due process, with time scales. Once we have had a consultation, we will have to consider fully the responses to it and any lessons that we may learn from it—any points that arise. Therefore, I hesitate to give a precise timetable that I could be held to, because often, for the best reasons and intentions, one does not keep to a precise timetable, which then leads to further problems. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that we are determined to do this because we want to get protection for those who deserve and should have protection. We want to get it right, effective and appropriate, and we will do it without cutting corners as soon as it is practically possible to do so.

Let me return to the intervention from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse about the figures. This information may be helpful to him. As I understand it, ATOL coverage is now at about 50% for leisure trips abroad by air. We expect flight-plus reforms to increase that to 55%. No estimate has been made at this stage of further increases from reforms that will be made by the Civil Aviation Bill. However, we expect that to be included in the consultations next year, so that when we move forward with our precise proposals to tackle these problems, we may be in a better position to upgrade the second of the figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman and anticipate the increase in the coverage percentage as a result of the proposals that we will bring forward. I hope that that was of some help to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I appreciate the statistics that the Minister has just cited. I confess to being a little surprised that, with the advent of flight-plus, the protection goes only to 55% of people travelling abroad on holiday. I am not pointing the finger at anyone and saying that they are responsible for that, but it shows the size of the problem facing the Government, because the other 45% of travellers are the ones the Government will have to pick up the tab for if they need emergency flights to get them home. Those are the people the taxpayer wants to ensure are paying some insurance cover for themselves.

[Mr Burns]

I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think, though, that, up to a point the relatively small increase in the coverage reflects the fact that the number of people who buy a package holiday in the conventional sense is far greater than the number of people who will buy a flight-plus plan. I think that that is one of the main reasons for the relatively small increase in the percentage.

On ATOL and our proposals, our aim—from the actions that we have already taken and those that will flow from the Civil Aviation Bill—is to provide clarity about coverage rather than to protect everyone. The ATOL certificate will help to show consumers when they are or are not covered. They can then decide what level of protection they purchase through insurance or by paying by credit card, which is an element of the protection in the scheme. The scheme will give greater clarity to individuals before they decide what to purchase.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

One point referred to earlier is the consumer’s awareness of whether what they purchase is ATOL-protected. That is a huge issue, because the more that people realise they are uninsured or unprotected, the more likely they are to think about that and to decide that it is worth the £2.50, as it currently is, to protect their family and themselves against anything that might happen, and with which they may not be familiar.

The Minister may not be able to respond on this now, but in due course, when the CAA launches the extended scheme, will it seek the biggest possible buy-in, particularly from the companies that offer protection, to have as much publicity as possible? That would raise the awareness of consumers, and allow companies engaged in the scheme to point the finger at those that are not, and say to people, “If you go with them, you are not covered; if you come with us, you are.”

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. For any scheme, a crucial element, apart from its effectiveness, is people’s understanding and knowledge of what they may—or, more importantly, may not—have protection against.

I have every confidence that companies, whether tour operators or airlines, will do all they can to make potential customers aware that they are covered by the scheme, because that is a positive selling point for customers and gives them peace of mind. However, as I said earlier, the CAA will also publicise the scheme proactively to ensure that people are generally aware of their protections if they make purchases from those covered by the scheme or from those who, in due course, will be brought within its ambit through our use of the powers contained in the Civil Aviation Bill.

It will become part of people’s mindset that the protection exists, and they will want to know whether they are protected because of the possible implications if they are not. This is slightly off the subject, so I will keep the comments brief, but that is like people going abroad under their own initiative, who may not get the health card for the reciprocal health arrangements in Europe if they travel there, or private health insurance if they travel further afield—to the United States or wherever—although, if they are taken ill or have an accident and need medical treatment, they will face catastrophic bills that could, for instance, completely change their family’s financial position.

The more publicity there is and the more that people are aware of what the situation is and what protections they have, the more the consumer will be interested and concerned to find out exactly what they are buying.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does the Minister know when the CAA intends to embark on the advertising and the promotion of information? Will the CAA do that with the industry itself, and will the advertising relate to the consumer needs that we have already identified? One feature that has been constant, certainly over the many years that the Committee and people elsewhere have looked at the issue, is the confusion in the customer’s mind about whether they are insured, and about what they are covered for and when.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because it raises an important issue. As I said earlier, we expect the campaign to be launched by the CAA immediately after Christmas. That is when many people consider purchasing holidays for the summer, so it will be relevant at that time. It will seek to make people aware not only of the ATOL scheme—for those who are not aware of it, and I fear that many are not or do not fully understand what it is—but of the changes and improvements made during this year. It will also provide clarity, so that the message gets across to those who are purchasing a holiday, flights or whatever, that as well as looking for value for money and so on, they should check whether their purchase is ATOL-protected and what that protection means.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I was going to ask the Minister another question but, if I may, I will ask him a supplementary to the one from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside.

The Minister has said that the CAA is looking to start advertising in the new year. We all know that summer holidays start being advertised on Boxing day. That is the sort of time when people are indoors and when those who work have a few days off, and they will be tempted by the adverts on the TV. That is the time for the industry to advertise. My hon. Friend asked whether the CAA will be engaged with the industry. An imprimatur on adverts—that they are CAA-approved—might be the way to co-ordinate the publicity campaign between the industry, which will have greater buy-in from the customer, and the CAA, which might have their future bills reduced.

I wanted to ask about the Minister’s earlier comment on people not taking out private health insurance, for example, when they go to the United States. Most people know that if anything happens to them there, they face a massive health bill, and I think that most people therefore take out private insurance. Are there any figures for the comparison between the number of those who travel to such difficult places and the 50% to 55%, who the Minister says are ATOL-protected against the collapse of their airline?

[Mr Burns]

On the last point, to the best of my knowledge, there are no figures, and I suspect that, by their nature, it would be difficult to find any accurate figures. However, there is one benefit. The hon. Gentleman talks about the north Atlantic route, on which the two main carriers are British Airways and Virgin. At the moment, they have both voluntarily signed up, so their passengers have the protections. They have done that simply because they want to give such protection to their customers, and I pay tribute to them for doing so voluntarily.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the start of the advertising campaign is intended to coincide with the Boxing day bank holiday. He and I are familiar with the huge number of adverts that traditionally emanate immediately after breakfast on that day.

On whether the CAA will consult the industry, I have no doubt that it will. The CAA wants a focused system of advertising that gets across the message. It is open, as the Government are, to views, opinions and recommendations that will help it come up with the most informative and best advertising, and with maximum coverage for their message.

I am not sure that I altogether have the same faith as the hon. Gentleman in human nature. Although, to the best of my knowledge, no figures can prove or disprove this, I suspect that significantly more people do not bother to get health insurance to go across the Atlantic than either of us might think, particularly those who go for only a short period and try to wing it, believing that nothing will happen to them. However, that is a slightly different point.

Let me now move on to the European angle that the report covered. The Committee called for a clearer distinction between the consumer protection and the repatriation functions of ATOL. Much depends, however, on what happens at the European level with the planned reforms of the package travel directive. The ATOL scheme implements in part the PTD requirement for insolvency protection for consumers. We expect the Commission to announce its reform proposals in spring 2013, and the Government will consult on what position the UK should take. The form of the Commission’s proposals will help determine how we implement further changes to the ATOL scheme, so we will not consult on the new ATOL regulations until the Commission has announced its proposals, because, as both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will accept, it would be rather pointless to put the cart before the horse.

The scheme is financed by the air travel trust fund. For historic reasons, the ATTF has a deficit and requires a commercial borrowing facility, backed by my Department, of up to £20 million. The introduction of the ATOL protection contribution and the increased number of protected passengers have, thanks to our recent reforms, brought more money into the fund, and the deficit now is on track to being eliminated in the next year or so. That presents an opportunity to reform the finances of the ATOL scheme.

The Government will consider broader changes to the scheme and invite comments on its funding and management to ensure its continued effectiveness. Our aim is to ensure that the scheme is equitable for consumers, the travel industry and the taxpayer.

The hon. Lady raised a number of matters during her contribution. On some, for the reasons that she is aware of and that I am acutely aware of, I will have to write to her to give her the answers. She asked whether airlines and tour operators based in other countries will be covered by the scheme. All sales of package holidays in the EU are covered by the protections in the PTD, but under EU law we cannot require airlines or tour operators established in a European economic area state, other than in the UK, to have an ATOL licence to protect sales of flight plus holidays. That is why we want to examine the Commission’s proposed reforms to the PTD before consulting on any new ATOL regulations, as that might extend protection to all or some flight- plus type holidays. We want to understand the impact on UK airlines and other businesses as part of that consultation, and, as I say, we will engage in that once the Commission has published its proposals.

The hon. Lady also asked about the discussions on travel insurance between the EU and the Government. All I can say is that they are ongoing. The most appropriate time to discuss them is within the whole consultation process on the PTD in due course next year.

In conclusion, as might be clear by now, ATOL reform is not a simple process, but at each step of the way, the Government have acted to create an effective and financially self-sustaining scheme. To ensure effective protection for travellers and holidaymakers, the Government have increased the extent of coverage, improved consumer clarity and moved to bring more holidays into the scope of the ATOL scheme. We shall keep the principle of effective protection in mind as we consider further changes to the ATOL scheme in the near future.

Once again, I thank the Transport Committee for its constructive comments and I am glad to have had the opportunity to debate this important issue. Again, I offer my sincere and deepest apologies to the members of the Committee for the position that I put them in at the beginning of the debate.

Flight Time Limitations

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Transport Committee, Flight Time Limitations, HC 164, and the Government Response, HC 558.]

14:35

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

We now come to our second debate of the afternoon on the flight time limitations applying to airline pilots and cabin crew. The subject is complex, but it has a direct and major effect on anyone who flies on a commercial aircraft. Fundamentally, it is about safety—regulating the hours and working practices of air crew so that they are not too tired to do their jobs and can keep passengers and crews safe. It is a matter of crucial importance.

Human error is associated with around 80% of aviation accidents. A major research study has shown that pilot fatigue contributes to between 15% and 20% of fatal air accidents. Fatigue makes it harder for people to concentrate, decreases reaction times, and increases the risk of people lapsing momentarily into unconsciousness or sleep. All such problems can prove fatal if the fatigued person is piloting an aircraft.

The most shocking statistic that we came across during our inquiry was from the British Airline Pilots Association. A survey of its members found that 43% of pilots reported involuntarily falling asleep while on the flight deck. Of those, 31% awoke to find their co-pilot asleep. That demonstrates why the subject of flight time limitations is so deserving of our attention.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who is Chair of the Transport Committee, has raised that statistic; it certainly saves me raising it later on. It truly is shocking. Has she considered what the impact will be of the proposal to reduce the number of pilots on some long-haul flights from three to two given that they might both be asleep, or does she have further information about whether there might only have been two pilots on such aircraft at the time?

[Mrs Ellman]

I will take up that point in a moment.

Flight time limitations are a complex package of measures, dealing with how working hours are distributed over the year, start and finish times, rest periods, and the impact of time zones. UK airlines are currently regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. The major change that sparked our inquiry is that the rules are now being set at an EU level by the European Aviation Safety Agency, which is based in Cologne. As part of our inquiry we visited EASA, to discuss its work with the agency’s director.

The UK’s flight time limits are set by the CAA, which is permissible under EU regulations. In 2009, EASA started a process of establishing a Europe-wide scheme, and the UK Government are part of those negotiations, so the matter has not come on us suddenly. The advantage in establishing EU-wide flight time limitations is that safety standards across the EU are expected to rise, which will benefit passengers travelling on European carriers. However, there is also a real risk that well-established UK standards will be reduced as part of the process of achieving consensus across the EU. In addition, there are serious questions about EASA’s work, particularly in relation to how it has used scientific advice. More plainly, there are questions about how EASA did not use the latest scientific advice in assessing safe standards.

Many aspects of flight time limitations are relatively uncontentious, but some have generated passionate debate. I will focus this afternoon on the most hotly contested issues, and I will set out my Committee’s conclusions.

We looked at the proposals that were published by EASA in January this year. EASA has since published its formal opinion, which will now be reviewed by the European Commission before coming into law. I will be putting some questions to the Minister about EASA’s latest conclusions. Again, I stress that we are not talking about the EU suddenly announcing a decision without proper consultation. This country, including the Department for Transport, is part of that ongoing and long consultation, so it has an active part to play.

One of the main concerns of the Committee was about the number of hours that crew can fly overnight. The scientific advice provided to EASA has been clear in recommending that the proposed 11-hour duty period was too long and that the limit should be 10 hours. The Government told us that they would not press EASA to change its proposals, arguing instead for more active management of long overnight flight duty periods. In that, the Government were successful. But why is the Minister satisfied that pilots will be allowed to fly overnight for one more hour than scientific opinion considers to be the safe limit? That is an extremely serious matter.

Another concern was about the very long duty periods allowed for under EASA’s proposals. We heard that a pilot could be landing a plane after 19 hours at work and perhaps after 21 or 22 hours of being awake. The CAA described that scenario as “exceptionally rare”, but I do not think that anyone here today would be happy to fly if they knew that their pilot had been working around the clock, however unusual that situation is alleged to be.

EASA’s new proposals seem to improve that situation, with a cap on airport stand-by and associated flight duty of 16 hours. However, BALPA has put a new scenario to us that shows how other aspects of the rules could lead to a pilot working for almost 24 hours, if a long period on stand-by waiting for a delay to an aircraft to be resolved is followed by a normal duty period. I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on a situation of that nature.

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

Perhaps it would be helpful to the hon. Lady if I said that such a situation is not the intention of the proposal. A cap of 16 hours has been placed on combinations of airport stand-by and flight duty periods, to clarify the issue. I hope that she finds that helpful.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the Minister for his comments and I would be grateful to receive more detail on that cap, in a written response, so that we can consider it. There are concerns that there could be situations in which EASA’s 16-hour limit is breached. As I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members recognise, even after the short time I have been discussing the issue, the nature of the rules is complex. There are individual regulations that give rise to concern, and because they can be combined and have an impact on each other, the worry is that that might result in flying becoming less safe.

The Committee also raised concerns about the scheduling of frequent consecutive early starts, which can be particularly fatiguing. EASA requires early duties to be actively managed; we heard that response in relation to several of our recommendations. In principle, careful management of how rosters and duty patterns affect crew is, of course, sensible. However, it is not yet clear what careful management will actually involve and how it will be regulated. Will the Minister explain how UK airlines will discharge their responsibilities to manage fatigue actively, particularly where the potential for fatigue is high, such as in early starts? Will he also explain how the CAA will regulate early starts? Will he give a commitment that the CAA will step in and act against any UK airline that is not taking fatigue management seriously?

When we hear that fatigue is to be “managed”, that is superficially reassuring, but what might happen on a day when an aircraft is flying late and timetables must be met? Would short cuts be taken? Would a member of staff who raised the issue of management of fatigue be seen as disruptive rather than concerned about safety? Those are practical issues that must be addressed, because it is all too easy to hide under the cloak of generalities; I am sure that those generalities are well intentioned, but the test is whether they are applied in relation to a particular flight at a given time when there may be stressful conditions.

It is crucial that there is transparency about incidents involving fatigue and situations that might lead to fatigue, such as increases in duty periods at the commander’s discretion. Greater public awareness will help to drive complacency and poor practice out of the airline sector. It is also essential that the under-reporting of fatigue by aircrew is addressed. In 2011, just 20 reports of incidents caused by fatigue that endangered or could have endangered life were reported to the CAA. That is surely an example of gross under-reporting, given the other evidence about how common pilot fatigue is. The issue is not only what the rules say, particularly if those rules are of a general nature, but what happens on a specific occasion and whether a member of staff—a pilot, or indeed another member of the crew—might feel that if they make representations they would be seen as not supportive of their airline when in fact they were raising concerns about safety.

The CAA is now considering how to address under-reporting. It would be very helpful if the Minister told us exactly how the CAA is doing so, what actions will be taken and how any proposals that the CAA has would be monitored? The Government told us that they were committed to transparency and have asked the CAA to review what data can be put in the public domain without discouraging the reporting of incidents or identifying individuals. Again, I would be grateful if we received further information about what exactly is being planned.

One of our most serious concerns was about EASA’s treatment of scientific evidence in developing its flight time proposals. EASA started from the standpoint that flight time limitations are based on operational experience and negotiations with trade unions. Scientific advice about how fatigue affects people at work was overlooked. After being criticised for this omission, EASA commissioned three scientists to give independent advice, but then ignored some of that advice. The decision to press ahead with an 11-hour overnight duty period is the best example of that. During the course of our inquiry, we spoke to some of those scientists and we found that, following their report, EASA had had very little contact with them, which was a matter of concern to us.

We called on the Government to ensure that scientists have a more central role in further work by EASA on flight time limitations. In response, we were told that the CAA wants EASA to maintain an advisory group on flight time rules, calling on scientific and other expert advice. Is the Minister satisfied that EASA has developed its current process with little input from scientific advisers and has directly ignored some of the clear advice that it has received? Moreover, is he confident that from now on EASA will change its ways and pay more attention to experts in fatigue? This matter is of great concern and relates to the safety of pilots, the public and passengers. We do not want to have a calamity and then look back and ask, “Why was up-to-date scientific research not incorporated into decision making?” That is why I am posing these questions now.

Many other hon. Members will have been contacted by BALPA on other aspects of the rules that concern it. I want the Minister to address two further points that have been drawn to our attention.

First, we have been told that the Government could adopt the new flight time limitations and then supplement them with higher national standards using existing national legislation. Does the Minister think that is feasible? Is he considering it? One major change, which has been in discussion since 2009, is that Ministers and the Department have told us that it would no longer be possible for the UK to maintain higher standards than other parts of Europe. However, we have now been told that that is not the case. I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister on that important point.

Secondly, will the Minister and the CAA consider setting up the UK’s own independent fatigue science advisory panel to help the CAA implement the new regulations safely and press EASA for any necessary changes? I cannot over-stress the importance that the Committee attaches to the impact of scientific evidence on fatigue, and how that is interpreted, on the complex combination of flight time limits.

[Mr Burns]

If it is helpful to the hon. Lady, may I deal with the point about adding on to the proposals? There seems to be some confusion. In the light of some people maintaining that we can add on if we wish to, we have checked yet again with the Commission and have been categorically assured that we cannot.

[Mrs Ellman]

I am sorry to hear the Minister’s response, but it at least clarifies how the Department sees the position.

I return to a theme of the previous debate—the interplay of decision making between the European Union and its agencies, and the UK. I want the Minister to acknowledge that the UK is not a passive recipient of what the EU decides; that we are part of the decision-making process, and we should advocate what we think is best. The Minister told us during our inquiry that the Department will represent the UK on the comitology committee, which will consider the draft Commission regulation. I want to know what policies the Department has been pursuing and what policies it will pursue as the process of decision making continues.

I have been told that following an EASA committee meeting last week, a number of member states expressed concerns, and that an extraordinary EASA meeting will be held to consider them. I am told that the UK was not one of the member states expressing those concerns. Is my information correct? Was the UK involved with other nations at the meeting last week in expressing concerns? If not, was it a conscious decision? Are there any points which the UK intends to continue to pursue before the matter progresses?

The inquiry was a complicated one for the Committee to undertake, because it was about not just one change but a number of changes and the overall impact of the combination of complex changes. It is an extremely important matter, because it is about public safety. There are clear benefits to setting minimum safety standards across the EU, but there is a clear risk that our own currently higher standards could be compromised. I hope that the UK Government will continue to fight for the highest possible standards. It is also important that there is an open and transparent culture in the airline industry, so that incidents involving fatigue can be reported without staff fearing that they would be reprimanded or viewed in a negative light. It is vital that lessons are learned and that up-to-date scientific advice is heeded.

Airlines, air crew, passengers and the Government all have a strong interest in achieving the highest safety standards, which I hope the new regulations, when they are implemented, will achieve. I want a categorical assurance that our Ministers are fully conscious of all the points that I have raised and that the Committee has considered, and that they will continue to pursue the issue, so that the highest possible safety standards are achieved.

14:55

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and to take part in this important debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, who has comprehensively set out the scope of our inquiry, investigation, conclusions and proposals.

We have many debates on transport—different modes of transport, their economics, speed and social impact—but surely our most important debates are about safety. Any transport accident results in terrible cost, but clearly, the consequences of an airliner incident are particularly severe.

I have been concerned for some time about the proposals from the European Aviation Safety Agency. In addition to our work in the Select Committee, I have had meetings with the British Air Line Pilots Association. I also have a constituent who is a long-haul airline pilot, with whom I have had some discussions about the current situation and the potential consequences of the proposals.

[John Robertson in the Chair]

As has been said, the UK currently has among the strongest regulations in the world, but that does not mean that we are immune from problems. The shocking statistics have already been mentioned: 43% of pilots have reportedly fallen asleep involuntarily on a flight, and, even more disturbingly, 31% have woken up to find the co-pilot also asleep.

[Mr Burns]

May I put that in context? Those are not hard and fast statistics but a poll, which is slightly different.

[Iain Stewart]

I appreciate that it was a poll, but that finding must give us cause for concern. It gives us no room for complacency.

I want to back up those findings with an example, given to me by my constituent, of what it feels like to be a long-haul pilot. In a letter he sent me, he said:

“As I am sure you have experienced, occasional jet lag gives you a ‘hung over’, jaded feeling. Perpetual jet lag, as experienced by…long-haul pilots, gives you a much deeper seated, longer lasting ‘hung over’ feeling, with a reduction in your capacity for lucid, quality decision making…Additionally, normal sleep patterns take several weeks to return to normal, which is quite debilitating.”

That is what he feels. When we fly in an aeroplane, we put our lives in the pilots’ hands, and we must have a regime that ensures that we are as safe as we can be.

While there are concerns that Europe is harmonising and potentially reducing the standards in this country, the United States is moving in the other direction. It is looking at tightening up its regulations in response, I understand, to the Colgan air accident in New York in 2009, of which pilot fatigue was a proven cause.

As has been mentioned, the proposals for change to our regulations come from EU legislation that was passed in 2008. The possibility of the United Kingdom maintaining its own separate regulatory regime has been ruled out. I am not, in principle, against harmonisation of standards, and I completely accept and welcome the fact that for many countries in Europe, it will lead to an increase in standards. British passengers who, whether for business or for leisure, do not start or finish their journeys in the UK will rely on other European airlines, so that increase in safety is certainly welcome.

I also accept that the harmonisation of standards has potential economic benefits for airlines. They are operating in tough trading conditions, so anything that helps them to survive economically is welcome, but that cannot be at an unacceptable cost to safety.

I will not repeat all the concerns that the hon. Lady listed, but I want to give a couple of illustrations to show why there is cause for concern. Again, I go back to the example of my constituent, who flies long haul and quite often does the Los Angeles to Heathrow route. It is now exactly 3 o’clock, which is about the time the overnight flight from Los Angeles touches down in London. It is pretty windy today, so the landing would require all my constituent’s skills to be conducted safely. If he was flying today, he would have got out of bed at 2 o’clock this morning to get to the airport for a half-past 4 departure, which means that the flight time is 10 or 11 hours.

Currently, planes have three pilots in the cockpit. That gives each of them a chance to have a sleep so that they can rest and refresh themselves. I am no expert in flying a plane—the Minister will be greatly relieved that I am not flying a plane—but for all the modern equipment that modern airliners have, flying them is still a very cerebral job. Pilots are required to make tricky decisions, and to balance different decisions, to make sure the plane flies safely.

As has been mentioned, however, that three-man crew would be reduced to two under the current proposals. That reduces the potential for the crew to sleep in the bunk, and they would have to sleep in their seats. That is not something I can do—I cannot sleep in a sedentary position—but that is what we are going to require pilots to do. To me, that increases risk, and I am not satisfied that the safety implications have been fully thought through.

I want to highlight a couple of other areas that BALPA is particularly concerned about. One is the fact that pilots will be legally allowed to land after being awake for 22 hours. They could also be forced to work up to seven early starts in a row; that has been proved to cause dangerous cumulative fatigue, which can be as dangerous as drink-driving, a fact that is not fully appreciated.

My other concern is one that the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety highlighted, and the hon. Lady also mentioned it. The proposals are complicated and interlinked; we are not looking at just one change. The advisory council’s concern was that, because the proposals were overly and unnecessarily complicated, airline companies would be able, inadvertently or deliberately, to misinterpret them, or to pick and choose from them, and they might make a decision in one area without realising its consequences elsewhere. Again, I have some concerns about that.

The decision we have to make is whether these changes amount to an acceptable risk. Any journey, on whatever mode of transport, involves an element of risk; whether we get behind the wheel of a car, get on a bus or train, walk somewhere or fly somewhere, we all accept some element of risk, but I am not yet convinced that the proposed changes fall within the bounds of acceptability.

I am particularly concerned that questions remain about whether the proposals are based on scientific evidence. I accept that the Government cannot act unilaterally in this matter, but they are part of the ongoing discussions in Europe, and I simply urge the Minister, in those discussions, to press his colleagues in Europe to base any changes on science, so that we can be as safe as possible in the sky.

I will end on the point the hon. Lady ended on: I do not want to come back to the House at some point in the future, after a disastrous air accident, to debate whether the changes that are happening now were responsible for that accident.

15:14

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Mr Robertson, it is a pleasure to see you presiding over the debate, sir. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who spoke so eloquently about safety, and I will return to his remarks later.

We welcome the Transport Committee’s first report of the 2012-13 Session. The key question for this whole debate is on the very first page of the Government response. The first sentence under the heading “General” says:

“The Government believes that the current draft of the European Aviation Safety Agency’s…proposals will not lead to a diminution of safety in the UK.”

Well, we have heard from two members of the Committee, who have quoted extensively from personal experience, constituents and BALPA submissions, and made it clear that there were a number of safety concerns about the regulations, and I want to emphasise some of them. Like the previous speakers, I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I seek the reassurance that I am sure he hopes to give us in due course.

Recommendation 1 of the Committee’s report says that the CAA should set

“out its strategy for enforcement and how it will ensure that operators comply”

with their responsibility. In their response, the Government say:

“The CAA will continue to work with EASA on this to ensure that comprehensive guidance material is established”,

adding that once the proposals have been finalised, there will be seminars and the rest of it. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the timing and about what progress is likely.

Recommendation 2 says the Government should follow up

“the CAA’s concerns about the frequency with which the maximum flight duty period can be exceeded during a scheduled seasonal period.”

The report is referring to the concerns of the CAA, not BALPA or the Transport Committee, and those concerns reflect the evidence the Committee received. The Government’s response says that they

“will raise this issue during EU discussions on this matter.”

That goes back to the point raised by the Chairman of the Committee, who asked about last week’s Transport Council, the UK Government’s response and, generally, where we are going on this issue.

Recommendation 3 calls

“on the CAA to investigate potential under-reporting of pilot fatigue”

so that there can be confidence in the procedures and structures put in place to protect the industry against bad practice. The Government response says:

“The Government accepts the recommendation to investigate the potential under-reporting of pilot fatigue and notes that this is already under consideration by the CAA.”

Again, could the Minister elaborate a little on how that will be undertaken?

As has been mentioned, recommendation 4 covers long-haul flights and oversight. Again, the Committee quotes the CAA as having expressed reservations about the proposed flight duty at night. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) gave a good explanation of the concerns that have been expressed, given that the scientific evidence submitted to the European Aviation Safety Agency makes it absolutely clear that the 11-hour flight duty period at night is too long. The Committee recommends

“that the Government press EASA for a lower limit”.

The secondary question in respect of whether that was going to be done—I will perhaps come back to this a little later—is about the weight given to scientific evidence. My hon. Friend said that the Committee had spoken to the scientists, and as the report goes on to say, the Minister said that their evidence was part of the information used. The question asked is: what is the balance of objectivity? How much weight is given to the scientific evidence? How much weight is given to other submissions and where does the balance lie in terms of the Government arriving at their conclusions?

In their response to recommendation 4, the Government state that additional requirements will be included in the final draft of the impending rules. I am not sure whether that is covered by the Minister’s saying that that is misinformation and that there are not going to be any additional requirements.

Recommendation 6 states that information provided on “commander’s discretion” should be collated and made publicly available. The Government do not believe that publication of a single figure on discretion usage or even an operator’s average discretion usage would provide any safety benefit. I must question the logic of that on the basis that not publishing the data looks as though there is something to hide. Publishing the data, even though it is only a single piece of evidence, gives the safety community, the Transport Committee and others the opportunity to look at it and say, “Is it a single figure? Is it insignificant, or is it a single figure tip of an iceberg? Is there a lot more to this, and do we need to have a look at it?”

The Government’s response states that the CAA will review what information can be published without compromising the integrity of the reporting systems and how best it can be presented to ensure that it is intelligible to the public. I am not sure whether that demeans the public’s intelligence in terms of identifying good safety information. Most of the information will be analysed by experts, professionals and organisations such as the Transport Committee. The CAA will be deciding what can and cannot be published, but when it comes to safety, we want the greatest possible transparency so that everybody can have confidence in what is going on. Will the Minister comment on not publishing the data? After all, it is the commander’s discretion—we are talking about the pilots in charge actually making a judgment.

In recommendation 8, the Committee states:

“The Government should press EASA to amend its proposals to give national aviation authorities the power to monitor”.

That goes back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside that the Government say that there is no discretion—

[Mr Burns]

No additional advice.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

There will be no additional reporting. But in their response to the Transport Committee report, the Government say that the rules will fully address the Committee’s concern on the issue of oversight.

Finally, in recommendation 9, the Committee states:

“we would have expected scientific advice to have had a more prominent role in the rule-making process.”

That is the point that I was referring to earlier in one of the other recommendations and the question about the balance of consideration given to the scientific evidence, which the Government in their response state is one element of the development of the regulations. But surely scientific evidence would carry greater weight than the comments from an operator? Perhaps the Minister will outline what the balance might be.

Dr Rob Hunter, the head of flight safety for BALPA, has written to us. He has been quoted by hon. Members during the debate. He raises several concerns. I will mention three to reinforce that which has already been referred to. The first is:

“The provision for airlines to extend flying hours rather than it being a Captain's sole decision.”

The second, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South is:

“A reduction in the number of pilots needed on many long-haul flights, so that, for example, a London to Los Angeles flight which would currently require three pilots would only require two”.

So at least one of them might be awake during the whole flight if 43% or 31% of the others are asleep. The third is:

“An increase of over 30% more time on home standby so that pilots could be landing aircraft after having been awake for over 24 hours.”

I heard the Minister’s comment about the 16-hour time limit. Will he reinforce that in his remarks? BALPA is a representative organisation, but it has a very strong safety record and a high reputation within the industry. I know that the Minister would not in any way impugn that. However, the fact that it is raising these issues obviously means that it has to be taken seriously.

The submission, which I am sure the Minister has seen, goes on to say that there is no increase in the hours, so this is not a protection issue in terms of carrying out more work. This is about the way in which the work is actually structured. I know from my time in the fire service, and we have seen it in other businesses, that sometimes managers think they can reconfigure the hours to get greater productivity or greater efficiency, when all they are really doing is tinkering with the mechanism. There is no increase in hours here. The validity of BALPA’s concerns that this is a safety issue are underscored in that respect.

BALPA gave evidence to the Treasury Committee on waking hours and provided specific examples of possible shifts. I will not repeat them, because they have been referred to by the Chair of the Select Committee and her colleague, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, and I have referred to them earlier.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside introduced the report and effectively outlined the EU consultation and the role of the UK Government. I have asked the Minister about our role within the EU. My hon. Friend raised the key questions of reporting procedures, the scientific evidence and separate national standards, and she sought reassurance on those issues.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, as we all know, has established a sound profile on the Transport Committee. He has a reputation as a diligent member of that Committee, as demonstrated by his attendance here today, as well as by his speech. He reinforced the safety concerns of his colleague, the Committee Chair, and lucidly contrasted the different outcomes when harmonising EU standards through regulation. In some countries we will see a lowering of standards and in other countries they will be raised. What is the balance for the UK aviation industry and the travelling public? He gave a graphic illustration of what is at stake here, relating the experience of his constituent, who, hopefully, has now safely landed and is on his or her way through the terminal.

In conclusion, nobody here is saying that safety is anywhere other than at the forefront of Government thinking. However, when BALPA and the Transport Committee, two very reputable organisations in their different arenas, raise so many questions about safety, it is the duty of the official Opposition to reinforce that. We look forward to the Minister’s comments and we look for some reassurance. Hopefully, when we get to the end of this process, we will have a safer industry and not the reverse.

15:17

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Again, I thank the Transport Committee not only for its report on what is, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said in his concluding remarks, a very important subject, but for the opportunity to debate it today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse on their speeches, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his powerful and interesting contribution.

I want to go through the overarching issues as seen from the Government’s point of view and how we believe they should be dealt with, and then I will move on to some of the specific questions raised. I recognise that there has been—understandably—considerable interest in the proposals, not only in the aviation industry but in a wider field. The proposals arouse passion, concern and interest, and it is crucial that we make sure that we get it right.

We have heard examples of pilots falling asleep on duty and concerns that, under the new proposals, they may have to land aircraft after being awake for 22 hours. For that reason, I have a number of important points to make at the outset.

First, the safety of the UK travelling public remains of paramount importance to us, and it always will. That has always defined our approach to air safety regulation in the UK, as it defined the approach of the previous Government, of whom the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was a member, and it continues to define our approach to air safety negotiations in Europe.

Secondly, decisions on safety matters must be informed by the best evidence available, not just scientific evidence, important as that is, but the wealth of evidence gathered from day-to-day operations. Thirdly, safety rule-makers need to remain objective and to base their decisions on independent and impartial advice.

In the UK, we are fortunate to have the Civil Aviation Authority as our specialist adviser on air safety. The CAA is one of the world’s most respected aviation safety regulators. In Europe, the CAA is the national authority with the most experience of fatigue management. It is independent of Government and, more importantly, it is free from the influence of the aviation industry and other interest groups. The Government and I have the utmost confidence in the CAA’s expertise in this area, and it is right that we should continue to be guided by its independent advice.

The CAA has been at the forefront of work to develop a harmonised set of air safety rules across Europe. The European Aviation Safety Agency is responsible for developing those rules. In doing so, the EASA works closely with national agencies such as the CAA. Harmonised rules are important as there is a single market in air services within the EU. The single market has ensured real competition, benefiting passengers through lower fares and greater choice. Different safety standards in different member states, however, can distort the market and could, if some do not provide a robust level of safety, put flight crews and passengers at risk.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree that the Civil Aviation Authority is highly respected and has a very good reputation; nevertheless there are some concerns because, during the course of our inquiry, it expressed reservations about the proposed flight duty period at night but did not object to the European Aviation Safety Agency’s decision, even though it went against scientific advice. The CAA felt the situation could be “actively managed.” In practice, on a given day and in a given crisis or with given pressure of time, how could such a situation be managed? That query does not challenge the CAA as such, but I am asking whether, in not following scientific advice, the CAA has put too much faith in the situation being managed, when in reality that might not happen on every occasion.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I will return to this, but, yes, I do have faith in the CAA, because I do not think it is doing what she suggests. I will return to that when I address a number of questions, because it is an important issue and the hon. Lady and others beyond the House, who will be reading the comments of all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, need an answer.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

This is a small point, but it has yet to be stated in our deliberations and the Minister may well put something on the record in due course.

We finished considering the Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill on Tuesday. The Bill transfers massive new responsibilities to the Civil Aviation Authority, with which everyone is quite comfortable. Obviously—I am sure this will happen, but I want the Minister to put it on the record—we want safety to remain paramount in the CAA’s responsibilities. Given that the organisation will grow in numbers, organisational strength and structure, will the safety element of its role grow commensurately?

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that safety is paramount. Among other things, safety is the responsibility of the CAA. The CAA’s commitment, and the amount it devotes to ensuring that the safety of the aviation industry and airlines in this country is paramount, will continue, unaffected by the legislation.

I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether it has reassured him, because he has not indicated either way, but I hope it does.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the Minister. Obviously, I fully accept his assurances. What was going through my mind was that, notwithstanding those reassurances and the respect I have for the CAA, ultimately we are going to disagree about the conclusions that it has reached on some of the issues we have raised. Unless the Minister can give us further reassurance, there will be question marks in our mind about the length of flight times, the reporting procedures and the balance of evidence. We have to go along with the Government’s objective analysis of all the evidence and with their conclusions because we cannot change them. Obviously, I accept the Minister’s assurances.

[Mr Burns]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s last point. I hope that by the time I sit down I will have completely reassured him. If I were a betting man, I would not place a wager on that, but I will do my best to seek to assuage his concerns as much as possible.

Importantly, different safety standards in different member states can distort the market and could, if some do not provide a robust level of safety, put flight crews and passengers at risk, which we all find unacceptable and are united in wanting to address. The harmonised rules will apply directly to all EU airlines, ensuring that UK citizens flying within Europe enjoy the same high safety standards, regardless of where the airline is based.

The flight time limitation requirements are a package of closely interrelated measures that address a number of issues relating to fatigue, including work load, sleep and body clocks, in several different ways. Work load is addressed through setting limits on the length of duty times. The more intensive the work load in terms of take offs and landings, the lower the limit. Additionally, there are medium and long-term limits on duty hours to prevent cumulative fatigue.

Adequate sleep is ensured by the establishment of minimum rest requirements. Body clock issues are addressed by adjusting duty limits according to the time of day the duty starts. There are additional limits if crews are not acclimatised to the local time zone.

I emphasise again that those requirements and limits are closely interrelated. For their effectiveness to be properly understood, they need to be considered together as a package.

Limits are only one aspect of the new proposal. Airlines will also be required to put in place a number of new management processes, including flight time specification schemes tailored to the type of operation being undertaken. Airlines will have to ensure that schedules are planned so that aircrews can operate safely in all circumstances. All aircrews, rostering staff and their managers will have to undergo regular training in fatigue management. The training programme will have to be approved by the CAA.

Additionally, all airlines will be required under separate legislation to have safety-management systems. Under the EASA proposals, those will have to have a specific fatigue risk-management element in certain circumstances. The CAA will be responsible for approving and monitoring airlines’ safety management systems and flight time specification schemes. Airlines will no longer be able to rely solely on complying with fixed limits on flight times. Instead, they will also need to demonstrate how they are managing crew duties to prevent the risk of fatigue from arising in the first place. This part of the EASA proposal is a major step forward. It is very much in line with UK thinking and with international best practice in this field.

Although some provisions of the EASA proposals are slightly less restrictive than the current UK requirements, others are more restrictive. However, as I have said, the new flight time limitations requirements are designed to work as a package of measures. It does not make sense to draw comparisons with the current UK rules by looking at specific limits in isolation.

The CAA looked carefully at the package of new proposals and considered how the various elements will interact. It has assured me that, in its opinion, the package of measures will not lead to any reduction in safety for UK airlines. Moreover, the new proposals are much more stringent than the current EU rules. EASA has identified more than 30 separate provisions where this is the case. For example, it provides for safety improvements in addressing cumulative fatigue, including through extended recovery rest periods twice a month; increasing rest to compensate for time-zone differences and disruptive schedules; and expanding the application of the most restrictive flight duty period to 12 hours between 5 pm and 5 am. That will lead to a substantial improvement in safety across Europe. It is a good deal for UK passengers in today’s single market in air services. When they use any airline from any EU member state, passengers will be protected by the same high standards as those followed by UK airlines.

This is also a good deal for UK airlines, which will no longer have to compete against other EU airlines that follow less stringent rules. It has been suggested that the UK should consider opting out of some or all of the proposed rules or enhancing them. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised the matter, but I have to say that this is not an option. We have checked, because there has been a belief that we could add to the proposals that EASA is bringing forward. However, the European Commission has once again confirmed categorically that no member state could do that. It is the package that is accepted. No member state can add on something if it wishes to and, fortunately, no member state can take away anything, either—that is the other side of the coin—which some member states might be interested in doing.

It is fair to say that the Transport Committee itself concluded that the legislation under which these provisions are made rules out the option of a separate UK regulatory regime or an add-on, but I accept that Committee members will have wondered about that in the light of other information that has been bandied around and been in circulation since the Committee produced its report.

I stress that the proposals are currently only an opinion of the European safety regulator. The European Commission has yet to issue its own legislative proposal and we will reserve our final judgment until we see it. We will not vote in favour of the regulation unless the CAA advises us that it provides an appropriate level of safety.

I should like to say something about the use of scientific evidence in developing the proposals, because several hon. Members have raised this matter. Some have expressed concern about this. During the development of its proposals, EASA reviewed more than 50 scientific studies and employed three independent scientists to review its proposals. It also took into account a large amount of operational data and experience across the EU. EASA provided, in the regulatory impact assessment published alongside its opinion, a detailed assessment of the evidence and advice that it considered.

The CAA gave this House, in its evidence to the Transport Committee in February, a detailed account of the procedures followed and the evidence taken into account by both it and EASA. I will not repeat that evidence here. The important thing is that I am satisfied with the CAA’s assurance—that view is shared by EASA and by the CAA’s counterparts in other member states—that a thorough, transparent process has been followed in this case.

The draft legislation imposes a legal obligation on EASA to review the effectiveness of the rules three years after they have come into force. EASA has also said that it plans to carry out further research in a number of areas, to help improve understanding of crew fatigue. The CAA will work closely with EASA to ensure that this research is carried out effectively.

As I have said, we have yet to see a legislative proposal from the Commission. I repeat, to provide reassurance I hope, that we will reserve our final judgment until the CAA has had the opportunity to review that proposal when it is produced.

[Mrs Ellman]

I feel reassured by some of the Minister’s statement, but on the scientific evidence, I wish to make it clear that the Committee spoke to scientists involved in giving advice and there is concern about the current proposals. It may not be a unanimous decision, but there certainly is concern. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind as he continues to consider the issue.

[Mr Burns]

I appreciate that. I will certainly bear it in mind. However, from the evidence that I have been given and conversations that I have had with the CAA, I am confident that a thorough review of the 50 studies has been done. I do not want to be flippant, but I suspect that scientists can, at times, be a bit like economists, in that they will have different views or will place emphasis differently on solutions to problems or issues, and that might be a part of what is behind the discussions or conversations the hon. Lady has had. But that does not detract from my initial point that I am confident, from the assurances that I have had, that the review of 50 independent scientific studies by independent scientists has been done thoroughly and properly.

I repeat that we have not yet seen the legislative proposals from the Commission and we will reserve our final judgment until the CAA has had the opportunity to review those proposals and form a view. I hope that that is reassuring.

I shall answer questions in no particular order. I may have misheard the hon. Lady and if I did I hope that she will forgive me. I think she mentioned an EASA meeting last week. Is that correct?

[Mrs Ellman]

Yes. I was informed recently that there was an EASA meeting last week and that a number of member states—not the UK—raised concerns and that, as a result, an emergency EASA meeting was called. I was seeking confirmation or otherwise of whether that is so.

[Mr Burns]

That is helpful, because I was genuinely confused. The advice that I had—I will check it, because it is at such variance with what the hon. Lady has been told—is that we are not aware of any meeting that took place last week. We are aware of an EASA committee meeting in October at which the proposals were discussed, and no member state raised any significant concerns about them. As I said, we will check that, and I will ensure that she is informed of the results.

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked a number of questions arising from the recommendations of the Select Committee report. As both of them will know, the Government have responded to those recommendations. The responses that we gave are still our responses, and we still believe in them. I could go through them one by one, but I suspect that Opposition Members in particular would not want to hear the sound of my voice for quite that long. However, I can confirm, particularly on the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, that our responses on all issues linked directly to the recommendations of the Select Committee report are as valid today as when we published our response. I hope that is satisfactory.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I certainly hear what the Minister is saying. In one or two of my comments, I was acknowledging the Government’s published response while seeking a bit more information. For example, as he says, the new regulations have not been introduced, so I was asking what the time frame was for EASA coming forward, the Commission considering regulations and national consultation. Recognising what the Government have said in response to the Select Committee recommendations, I was seeking elaboration on one or two points, not reiteration. I certainly do not expect the Minister to read into the record the Government’s lengthy responses to the Select Committee recommendations.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The only downside of not doing so is that people will not have the opportunity to hear once again the wisdom of the Government’s responses to the excellent report by the hon. Lady’s Committee. However, I accept what he says.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the time scale for adoption. As I said, we are waiting for the Commission to introduce legislative proposals. We expect that the regulation adopting the implementing rules will come into force next summer, but will allow a transitional period of two years before the requirements become applicable. That is the best advice I have at the moment. As he will appreciate, it is outside our control, but we assume that EASA and the European Commission intend to stick as closely to that timetable as possible.

The hon. Lady asked how the CAA will tackle the under-reporting of fatigue. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with her point, because I believe that the problem is potentially serious if it is happening on the scale of the poll that she referred to. I do not cast doubts on the poll, but we lack clear evidence of the extent of the problem. However, as we said in our response to the Committee’s recommendation, the CAA is investigating possible under-reporting. I understand from what she said, conversations that I have had with the British Airline Pilots Association and my correspondence on the subject with constituents of mine that in certain cases, there may be an incentive for people to under-report for a variety of reasons. We must change the culture. We need an open and transparent system so that we know exactly what the level of the problem is, if there is one, and how to minimise it. It would seem from the poll that the problem has persisted under the existing rules, never mind what some people say might happen under any changes.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister gave a good explanation of the new reporting procedures and fatigue management systems that airlines will have to introduce. That is reassuring, because it is far more structured, but one point of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised is this. Notwithstanding that the airlines will compile their own data, how does that compare with the confidential reporting systems that exist at the moment, in which pilots can report directly to the CAA? Will those lines of communication still exist? It might be easier for a pilot to send a confidential e-mail or, more likely, a verbal report to the CAA if they want to tell somebody that they are worried. Telling their employer could be entirely different; they might be worried about future employment, promotion prospects and so on.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As he said, an individual would find it easier to report directly to the CAA, so that brings more openness and honesty to the reporting system. He is absolutely right, and that is why the system will continue. Individuals will continue to have the opportunity to make contact through that channel.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside talked about what happened to flights that reached the maximum limit permitted under the proposals and the need to report to national aviation authorities as part of an open and transparent approach. The new EU implementing rules governing the oversight of operators will come into force later this year. The rules will give national aviation authorities the power and responsibility to monitor all aspects of the application and performance of any flight time limitation.

The Government share the Committee’s concern on the theoretical length of the flight duty period. EASA has acted on the UK’s advice and amended the proposal to limit the combination of stand-by and flight duty periods to a maximum of 16 hours, as I mentioned to the hon. Lady in an intervention during her comments. I hope that goes some way to reassuring her.

To the best of knowledge, and looking at my notes, I think I have covered the main points made by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside and for Poplar and Limehouse, as well as embracing the spirit of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. In concluding, I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the Transport Committee for their work and for the care that they took to produce an important and interesting report. We considered it carefully before responding. I have sought to reassure hon. Members about more of the background, the Government’s attitude and what we and the CAA have been doing.

I will conclude on this final point—made for the third time—to ensure that people can be reassured, as I hope they can: we will wait for the publication of the proposals and the CAA’s final recommendations and views before we take any definitive action on this important issue. The Government are as determined today as they were yesterday, and as the previous Government were, to ensure that the safety of passengers and those working on aircraft and in the aviation industry is paramount.

Resolved, That the sitting be now adjourned.— (Mr Simon Burns.)

15:49

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

Thursday 22 November 2012

Kay Review

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

I would like to inform the House that the Government are today publishing their response to the “Kay Review of UK Equity Markets and Long-Term Decision Making”. Copies of the response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

In his final report, Professor John Kay concluded that short-termism is a problem in UK equity markets, principally caused by a decline of trust and the presence of misaligned incentives in the investment chain. The report sets out a vision for reform of UK equity markets to ensure that they support long-term investment, constructive relationships between companies and in their investors, and sustainable value creation by British companies. It has been widely welcomed by business and the investment industry.

The Government response welcomes the Kay report—accepting Professor Kay’s analysis and conclusions. It endorses 10 principles for equity markets to which market practitioners, Government and regulatory authorities should have regard, and the report’s directions for market participants which follow from these principles.

The Government also commit to working with relevant regulatory authorities to explore further the Kay report’s directions for regulatory policy, to identify to what extent these directions are practical, what changes in the law or in regulation might therefore be appropriate, and how these can best be delivered.

The response sets out a number of steps the Government are taking to deliver on the Kay report’s detailed recommendations, including:

completing reform of corporate narrative reporting to be higher quality, simpler, more relevant to users and more focused on forward-looking strategy;

pursuing reforms to the EU transparency directive which will remove mandatory quarterly reporting;

promoting the revised edition of the stewardship code which emphasises that stewardship should encompass engagement by investors on company strategy.

Many of the report’s recommendations are for market participants—in particular companies and institutional investors. The Government agree that the necessary changes in culture cannot simply be achieved through regulation, but rather through the development of good practice in the investment chain. The Government are promoting Professor Kay’s good practice statements for company directors, asset managers and asset holders, as the basis for industry-led standards of good practice.

The report’s recommendations, and the good practice statements, aim to deliver, among other things, more collective action by institutional shareholders via the establishment of an investors’ forum, better disclosure of costs in the investment chain, transparency and fairness around the lending of securities, and better alignment between pay and long-term performance for company directors and asset managers.

The Government response notes promising signs that market participants are responding to the challenge in each of these areas, but makes clear that more progress is required: delivering on this agenda will require a sustained commitment.

The response therefore makes clear the Government’s intention to publish an update, in summer 2014; setting out what further progress has been achieved by Government and others, to consider Professor Kay’s directions for regulatory policy and to deliver his specific recommendations.

Banking Act 2009

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

The Treasury has laid before the House of Commons a report required under section 231 of the Banking Act 2009 covering the period from 1 April 2012 to 30 September 2012. Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

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

The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council will take place in Brussels on 26-27 November. The culture and audiovisual issues will be taken on 26 November and the sport issues will be taken on 27 November. The deputy permanent representative to the EU, Shan Morgan, will represent the UK at the culture and audiovisual and sport sections of the Council.

Culture and Audiovisual

The Council will be invited to adopt a revised partial general approach on the proposal for a regulation establishing the creative Europe programme for 2014-20. The revised partial general approach incorporates the text relating to the proposed new loan guarantee facility into the partial general approach which was agreed at the Council meeting in May. It does not include the programme budget.

The UK will not be able to support the revised partial general approach. At present we are unable to support the loan guarantee facility, as we need to consider this in the context of the overall budget allocated to the programme and in relation to the amount of funding allocated to grant expenditure. These will not become clear until the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-20 have been completed. Moreover, the revised partial general approach—like the previous partial general approach, which the UK did not support—does not provide for selection decisions, i.e. decisions about which projects will be awarded EU funding under the programme, to be subject to member state scrutiny through the formal comitology arrangements.

In the debate, we will make clear that the UK is able to support other elements of the revised partial general approach, and also that we will consider our position on the loan guarantee facility in the light of developments in the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework.

The Council will receive a progress report from the presidency on the Commission’s proposal for a decision establishing the European capitals of culture action for 2020-33. This action will follow on from the current European capitals of culture action which ends in 2019. The proposal is being discussed in the Council working group, and the presidency will inform the Council of the progress made to date and the key issues which delegations have identified.

The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on cultural governance. These conclusions note the importance of research and statistics in cultural governance and in developing policies and strategies for the cultural and creative sectors.

They also identify key issues for future work and propose some actions for the Commission and member states to maximise the use and benefits of current work in these areas. The conclusions take account of UK interests and concerns and we will support their adoption.

The Council is also expected to adopt conclusions on a European strategy for a better internet for children and hold a policy debate on the internet: a better and safer place for children as a result of a successful interplay between Government and industry. The UK will support the adoption of the conclusions, as in the main they are in line with UK policies in respect of online child safety. The debate is framed around two questions. Here, the UK will report on the work of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety and we will propose that there should be more effective discussion and co-ordination of member state initiatives and those proposed in the Commission’s communication on a better internet for children. Targeted discussion and co-ordination could assist the creation of a true pan-European digital single market for children.

Sport

The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on strengthening the evidence base for sport policy-making. This encourages member states to continue to develop sport satellite accounts as a means to strengthen evidence-based sport policies and to promote the role of sport as a driver in areas such as economic growth. The UK already actively participates in this strand of work and will therefore support the adoption of these conclusions.

The Council is also expected to adopt conclusions on establishing a strategy to combat the manipulation of sport results. These are based on recommendations produced by the EU expert group on good governance in sport which set out the relationship, roles and responsibilities needed between member states, the sports movement, betting operators and regulators. The UK is content with these conclusions as they are broadly in line with our approach in tackling match-fixing and we will support their adoption.

The Council is also expected to agree the three chosen candidates to be the EU representatives to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) foundation board. The WADA foundation board is the 38-member supreme decision-making body composed equally of representatives from the Olympic movement and Governments. The presidency will also provide feedback to the Council from the recent WADA meetings that took place in Montreal on 17-18 November 2012.

The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on promoting health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA). The conclusions encourage member states to promote health-enhancing physical activity acknowledging the EU’s physical activity guidelines. They also promote closer co-operation between the sport and health sectors; awareness raising on the benefits of adopting a more active lifestyle; and physical activity in supporting active ageing. The conclusions are based on the work of the EU expert group on sport, health and participation and are, in the main, in line with UK policy. The UK will therefore support the adoption of these conclusions.

Related to the HEPA conclusions, the presidency has prepared a discussion paper on an annual European week of sport as the basis for a policy debate. The paper considers the challenges of having such a European week and how youngsters can be encouraged to participate in physical activity rather than playing sedentary virtual games. The debate is framed around three questions.

The UK will highlight how the number of similarly themed initiatives has lessened their overall impact. For the EU to add value in this area it would need to have a different concept, possibly engaging civil society and commercial partners. In addition, rather than trying to create a behavioural shift from virtual games, physical activity initiatives should embrace new technology.

Any Other Business

The presidency may present an update on the proposal for a regulation establishing the Europe for citizens programme 2014-20. This programme will follow on from an existing EU programme. The proposal is currently with the European Parliament, which must give its assent before the regulation can be adopted by the Council.

The French delegation will present a note expressing concerns about the Commission’s draft communication on state aid for films and other audiovisual work. While the UK recognises the concerns of other member states, we welcome the Commission’s revisions to the previous draft, particularly the confirmation that our film tax relief scheme does not restrict the free movement of goods and services in Europe. We urge a speedy resolution of outstanding issues to ensure that the film industry across the EU remains strong and healthy.

The Slovak and French delegations will present information on Kosice and Marseille-Provence which have been designated as the European capitals of culture for 2013.

Finally, the Irish delegation will inform the Council of the work programme and priorities for their forthcoming presidency of the Council.

Warm Homes Healthy People

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

This is to inform the House of the award of funds from the warm homes healthy people fund (WHHP) 2012.

On 13 September 2012, the Department issued a circular to upper-tier local authorities in England inviting them to apply for funding from the WHHP.

The aim of the WHHP fund of £20 million is to support local authorities and their partners in reducing the levels of death and morbidity in England due to cold housing in the winter of 2012. With this funding, local authorities and their partner organisations are encouraged to undertake a variety of projects to support a range of national and local initiatives.

The Department, along with other Government Departments, already provides a range of advice and support to help individuals, families and carers to prepare for cold weather, including the “Cold Weather Plan for England 2012” published on 26 October 2012, which is available at: www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/10/cwp-2012/.

The evidence that the annual cost to the NHS due to cold private housing alone is over £850 million is compelling. More work is underway to improve the health and well-being of the most vulnerable, and the WHHP provides support to help vulnerable people deal with winter weather.

A list of successful proposals detailing recipients of the funding from the warm homes healthy people fund for this year has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. We are able to provide funding to 149 out of 162 local authority proposals.

Because of the success of the WHHP fund last year, we were oversubscribed with suggested proposals for 2012, and have had to reduce the funds provided across the board by 19% to stay within the limit of the total fund.

The process is similar to that of last year’s fund so that funding goes to local authorities quickly, in time to make a real difference this winter. Proposals display co-operation with local partners, from the voluntary and community sector, who have been fully engaged in the bidding process, as they will be with the delivery of the projects.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Last month I made a commitment to ensure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has the powers and resources it needs to carry out its investigations into the Hillsborough disaster. This commitment was made in the knowledge that the families of the victims and the survivors have waited 23 years for the truth about the disaster to be revealed.

I have today published fast-track legislation that will enable the IPCC to conduct a thorough, transparent and exhaustive investigation into the Hillsborough disaster.

This legislation will provide the IPCC with two new powers:

The first is to compel individuals currently serving with the police or certain other policing bodies, to attend an interview in relation to any investigation managed or undertaken by the IPCC in the capacity of a witness.

The second will allow the IPCC to investigate matters which were previously subject to investigation by its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority. This power will only be exercised where the IPCC is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case justify its use.

These enhancements are being made at the request of the IPCC and will ensure they can investigate the conduct of the police at Hillsborough in depth and without delay. The IPCC has indicated that as part of its ongoing investigations, it will likely be in a position to call witnesses early in 2013.

Immigration Rules

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.

In April last year the Government made substantial changes to the tier 1 (Entrepreneur) and tier 1 (Investor) categories. The Home Office has been reviewing how effective these changes have been. As a result, a number of minor changes are being made to these two categories, including:

Providing for entrepreneurs with funding from Departments of devolved Administrations;

Lowering the English language requirement for entrepreneurs in response to concerns that the high requirement was a possible deterrent to potentially successful businesses;

Restricting the ability of students to switch into the entrepreneur route, due to concerns about abuse;

Restricting investors from working as professional sportspeople, to prevent them circumventing the sports governing body endorsement needed in the dedicated routes for sportspeople;

Additional controls to ensure entrepreneurs and investors genuinely have access to the funds they claim they do;

Providing for investors’ leave to be curtailed if they fail to maintain the required level of investment; and

Clarifications to confirm that points will not be awarded for investments against which applicants have taken out loans, or investments that are held in offshore custody.

I am making minor changes to tier 2, the route for skilled workers with a job offer. These include supporting business by allowing very senior intra-company transferees to extend their stay in the UK for up to nine years (other transferees are restricted to a maximum of five years); making provision for barristers to apply in tier 2; and making the operation of “cooling off periods” more flexible for migrants who leave the UK before their leave expires.

I am setting the annual allocations of places for participating countries and territories in the tier 5 (Youth Mobility Scheme), and widening the definition of a training programme under the tier 5 Government Authorised Exchange category to include training by HM armed forces and UK emergency services.

I am making changes to the international agreement sub-category of tier 5, to make more specific provision for contractual service suppliers (who do not otherwise have a UK presence) seeking admission under the relevant commitments in certain international trade agreements to which the UK is a party.

Applicants for settlement on the basis of work or economic activity in the UK must complete a continuous period of lawful residence in the UK—usually five years with exceptions for some tier 1 investors and entrepreneurs and some highly skilled migrant programme migrants. Although it has been our practice to permit some absences from the UK during this period, the length of the short absences has not been specified.

I am making changes to the Immigration Rules for indefinite leave to remain for work permit and other pre-points based system employment, for businesspersons, innovators, investors, self-employed persons, writers, artists and composers, those here on the basis of UK ancestry and for tier 1 general, tier 2 general, sportsperson and Minister of religion migrants and retired persons of independent means. These changes clarify that absences of up to 180 days in a 12-month period are permitted, provided the absence is for a reason that is consistent with the migrant’s purpose of stay in the UK or for serious or compelling reasons.

I am also making minor changes to the tier 4 immigration rules on students, including allowing students to start work on a business idea or as a doctor or dentist in training as soon as they have submitted an appropriate application; removing an avenue used by applicants to circumvent our rules that ensure an applicant has sufficient funds to cover their course and maintenance; and extending the period of the interim limit where educational institutions that have not achieved both a satisfactory educational oversight inspection from a specified body and highly trusted sponsor status are subject to an interim limit on the number of international students that can be recruited.

I am making a number of changes to the immigration rules on family and private life. These mainly reflect experience of the operation of the new rules since they were implemented on 9 July 2012 and will help to make those rules as clear and comprehensive as possible. The changes mainly concern the child and parent provisions of the rules and the specified evidence required to meet the financial requirements of the rides.

In addition to these changes, I am also creating a more robust, clear and transparent criminality framework against which immigration applications will be assessed. At present, there are few specific thresholds in the immigration rules. Much is left to discretion, except at the settlement stage where an unspent conviction results in mandatory refusal. There is some advantage to this flexibility in that it allows discretion to deal with hard cases, but it also means that there is a lack of consistency in dealing with offences. These changes will make it clearer about the level of offending that will lead to refusal.

The consequential changes will also:

change the periods before a deportation order will normally be revoked;

introduce a limited leave “route” for foreign and Commonwealth ex-armed forces personnel who fail to qualify for indefinite leave or citizenship because of a relatively minor conviction;

introduce a re-entry ban of five years for any offender who leaves the UK as a requirement of a conditional caution; and

introduce a discretionary power to curtail leave where a person commits an offence within the first six months of entering the UK.

Finally, I am also making a number of minor technical changes, corrections and updates to lists contained in the Immigration Rules. Details of these are set out in the explanatory memorandum being laid today to accompany the changes.

Data Protection

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Today, I will publish the Government’s impact assessment of the European Commission’s proposals for data protection.

In January this year, the European Commission published a draft data protection regulation which will impact on business, the public sector and charities and a draft data protection directive, covering the police and judicial sector. Coupled with the publication, the European Commission published its impact assessment of the proposals.

The Commission’s impact assessment estimates that the new regime would bring an administrative saving to the EU, totalling €2.3 billion each year. As the analysis published today shows, the Government disagree with this assessment and believe that the burdens the proposed regulation would impose far outweigh the net benefit estimated by the Commission. For the UK alone the annual net cost of the proposal (in 2012-13 earnings terms) is estimated to be between £100 million and £360 million a year.

The Government’s view is that the Commission both overestimates the benefits achieved through harmonised EU data protection law and fails to address the full costs and unintended consequences of its own proposals, by only considering administrative costs. Our analysis addresses some of these failings by considering in full the impact of the proposed regime, including the additional costs for businesses, including small and medium enterprises, the additional costs to supervisory authorities, conducting data protection impact assessments and complying with other new obligations.

This impact assessment focuses on the proposed regulation. Under article 6a of the UK’s Title V opt-in protocol we believe that the proposed directive will have a limited effect on the United Kingdom, in that it will only apply to data being processed under an EU instrument that binds the UK. Therefore, criminal justice system agencies within the UK will avoid being bound by the directive when processing personal data outside of such provisions.

It is worth noting that organisations which process criminal justice data will also process personal data covered under the regulation and so some of the monetised costs and benefits stemming from the regulation could be shared (for example, the cost of designating a data protection officer). The directive would require transposition into UK law, at which point domestic legislation would also be needed to cover that processing purely internal to the UK. There is therefore a degree of flexibility for member states in determining how the EU-level rules in the proposed directive would be transposed and a fuller assessment of the costs and benefits specific to the proposed directive will be produced nearer the point of transposition.

The UK Government are seriously concerned about the potential economic impact of the proposed data protection regulation. At a time when the eurozone appears to be slipping back into recession, reducing the regulatory burden to secure growth must be the priority for all member states. It is difficult therefore to justify the extra red tape and tick-box compliance that the proposal represents. For example, we estimate the costs for UK small businesses of simply demonstrating compliance with the new rules to be around £10 million (in 2012-13 earnings terms) every year. A further serious issue is the possibility of stifling innovation through prescriptive and inflexible rules on gaining individuals’ consent and informing them about the processing of their personal data, while offering people an unworkable “right to be forgotten”. Instead the focus must be on achieving the right ends: meeting people’s rightful expectation that their personal information is used lawfully, proportionately and securely, while being able to offer them the goods and services they want and need.

Negotiations on the proposals are ongoing in Brussels. With the evidence set out in the impact assessment published today, the UK Government will continue to push for a lasting data protection framework that is proportionate, and that minimises the burdens on businesses and other organisations, while giving individuals real protection in how their personal data is processed.

Copies of the impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website at, www.justice.gov.uk.

Drink and Drug Driving

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Government have today launched a consultation on some enforcement issues relating to the current legislation on drink and drug-driving. This consultation encompasses the legislative changes the Government proposed in their response of March 2011 to the reports by Sir Peter North¹ and the Transport Select Committee² on drink and drug-driving (“the Government’s response”³). The changes covered in this consultation should not be confused with the legislation related to driving with a specified impairing drug in the body, which is currently passing through Parliament in the Crime and Courts Bill.

The consultation on enforcement of drink-driving will cover four potential legislative changes:

1) Withdrawal of the right people have to replace their breath alcohol specimens with either a specimen of blood or specimens of urine in cases where the lower of the two breath readings provided does not exceed 50 microgrammes (meg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres (ml) of breath (known commonly as the “statutory option”).

2) Removing the requirement for preliminary testing where evidential testing is undertaken away from a police station. This would mean that a preliminary breath test would not have to be taken in addition to two evidential breath tests, when mobile evidential breath testing devices are used away from a police station. While such devices are not yet available, it is expected that they may be type-approved within the next two years.

3) Streamlining the procedure for testing drink-drivers and drug-impaired drivers in hospital so that a wider range of registered health care professionals are allowed to take evidential blood specimens. This would make it consistent with other policing provisions.

4) The consultation asks for views on whether a health care professional other than a doctor should be able to assess whether a driver may be under the influence of a drug prior to evidential testing.

The legislative changes proposed in this consultation would apply to the Road Traffic Act 1988. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows on the matters covered in points 1 to 4 above.

Other proposals in the consultation

The Road Traffic Act 1998 (and other parallel legislative provisions) apply similar measures to the drink-drive offence to railways, shipping and aviation. The consultation seeks views about whether any changes here should also apply to these other transport sectors.

The consultation explores how further use can be made of vehicle forfeiture powers to get the most dangerous and irresponsible motorists off the road including those who drive while under the influence of alcohol.

The consultation document explores the scope for further research into the processes for reassessing whether a driver banned due to drink-driving should regain their licence. The research would develop the evidence base for longer-term solutions in this area.

The consultation seeks views about the way forward on three as yet un-commenced legislative provisions in the Road Safety Act 2006 relating to the training and punishment of certain road traffic offenders.

In line with the revised guidance on consultations, we propose to shorten the consultation time for this to just over five weeks. We are particularly interested in the views of the health care sector on points 3 and 4 and are planning to meet representative bodies for medical professionals in early December.

¹ Report of the Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law: Sir Peter North CBE, QC (June 2010)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100921035225/http://northreview.independent.gov.uk/docs/NorthReview-Report.pdf.

² Report of the Transport Select Committee: Drink and Drug Driving Law (November 2010) http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/460/46002.htm.

³ The Government’s Response to the Reports by Sir Peter North CBE QC and the Transport Select Committee on Drink and Drug Driving: Command Paper 8050 (March 2011) at: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8050/8050.pdf.

“Reinvigorating Workplace Pensions”

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Later today I will publish the Command Paper “Reinvigorating Workplace Pensions”. Building on our coalition agreement commitment, this document sets out our strategy for putting in place arrangements that result in the provision of high quality pension schemes people can trust and take confidence in.

We need pensions that are affordable for employers and attractive to employees to ensure that automatic enrolment succeeds for the millions of new savers it creates. Our reinvigoration strategy covers a broad set of issues from how we increase the amount people are saving to how we ensure those savings go into high quality schemes that give people the income they expect in retirement.

Research shows people want more certainty in pension saving. We have responded by encouraging more risk-sharing through the development of defined ambition pensions, outlined in this plan, and are working closely with the pensions industry to encourage innovation and explore possible options and models.

Promoting scheme quality is also critical. Savers need to be confident they are putting their money into stable, well-run, customer-focused schemes that will give them the income they expect in retirement. This strategy sets out the issues we are examining to achieve this, such as scale, charges and the regulatory regime.

Part of the reason people lack confidence in pensions is they find them confusing, so we are looking at ways to increase engagement through improved information, and are considering putting in place simple mechanisms to support employers and consumers with scheme choice.

We will be working closely with consumers, employers and the pensions industry as we develop the plans set out in this strategy.

The document will also be available later today on the Department’s website.

House of Lords

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 22 November 2012.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Children: Child Protection

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Baroness Gale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to ensure that children are protected against physical and sexual abuse.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, child protection is an absolute priority for this Government, as indeed it is for all Governments. It is also a priority for the police and local authorities, who have a statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children. Following the Munro review of child protection, we are supporting local agencies to free professionals from central prescription, focus on early help, develop social work expertise, strengthen accountabilities and promote learning. The Government’s child exploitation action plan also outlines a range of measures to tackle this particularly pernicious form of child abuse.

[Baroness Gale]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that children who are subjected to sexual abuse and have the courage to report that abuse must always be believed and should be treated as victims? Will she further agree—perhaps she could ask the Government this—that when the nine inquiries into child abuse are completed, the Government need to have an overarching review of lessons learnt from those inquiries so that all our children will know that they have someone to go to, that they can report abuse and that they will be believed? The level of child abuse in our country at present, and in the past, is a national disgrace.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that all victims must be treated with respect and that their allegations must be taken seriously. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been very clear in another place and at all opportunities when speaking recently about this issue, that anyone who is or has been a victim of abuse or has relevant information about any abuse must go to the police. As for a full review after the various investigations and inquiries are completed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has not ruled that out. However, we wish to wait for the outcome of the various reviews before deciding what further steps to take in light of that.

[Lord Roberts of Conwy]

My Lords, we have appointed children’s commissioners in Wales and England. Is it not time that we reviewed their powers? It seems that at the moment all they can do is listen to the victims and write about them. They should have more powers of inspection.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, perhaps the best way of responding to my noble friend is to refer to a very powerful speech that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, made at the end of last week, in which he set out very clearly our great concern about child abuse. He said that although all Governments have tried hard to tackle it, the state is currently failing in its duty to protect children. He made various statements in order to provoke debate and discussion. One of the areas that he focused on was accountability, the structures that are in place and the different roles for different people. He did not refer specifically to the children’s commissioners, but I know that because he feels so strongly about this matter, as we all do, he is very open to proposals which would lead to a greater and more effective approach to dealing with child protection.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

Does the Minister agree that the police are regarded as not being sufficiently effective in this area? Will she ensure that the new police and crime commissioners have this issue as a top priority?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As the noble Baroness may recall, when I recently answered a Question about the role of police and crime commissioners with regard to dealing with various different kinds of abuse, I had the opportunity to make the point that there is a clear statutory requirement on the police to ensure that they safeguard the welfare of children. This is a very important matter and a priority. Under the heading of child abuse—other noble Lords may wish to ask about this—there are things to do with child exploitation, which is a specific issue within child abuse. If that is what the noble Baroness is referring to, after the recent government review on this, CEOP has taken the lead in ensuring greater training of the police in the area of child sexual exploitation, and that is being rolled out in all police areas in the country.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords—

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, it might be worth pointing out that there are only three Questions today, so there is plenty of time left. I think it is probably the turn of the Labour Party.

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, following yesterday’s report by the deputy Children’s Commissioner Sue Berelowitz, what steps will the Government take to make sure that all those who are involved in the care, education and upbringing of children are alerted to her findings about the signs of sexual abuse? They are things such as staying out late, drinking alcohol and missing school. A combination of those things may well point to the fact that a child is being abused. That information ought to be much more publicly available.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness makes an important point because child sexual exploitation is a specific type of child abuse. As noble Lords will be aware, this form of abuse is very pernicious because those who are affected by it often do not consider themselves to be victims of that abuse. As the noble Baroness rightly suggests, it is very important that we ensure that the relevant agencies are properly briefed and made aware of what to look for. That was a recommendation that came out of the original government action plan, which was published a year ago. We are considering carefully the report published yesterday by the deputy Children’s Commissioner, and we will look to build on the action we already have in place.

[Baroness Walmsley]

Will the Minister join me in condemning those who called yesterday’s excellent report “hysterical”? The evidence was extremely sound. Will she encourage those who inspect local authorities to ensure that if authorities do not take into account the very clear evidence about the factors which lead to a young girl being abused, they should be downgraded when they are inspected?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that the report published yesterday by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner is very important. The Government will consider it carefully and seriously, and will respond later this year. As to the point made by my noble friend about inspections, as the House may or may not be aware, Ofsted carries out inspections of local authorities as regards their provision for child protection. The noble Baroness makes an important point; namely, that inspections have to be rigorous. Certainly, in recent times, the criteria and the way in which Ofsted has carried out these inspections has been tightened. We no longer accept a level of standard that clearly was not adequate to tackle this issue.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I should like to pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lady Howe. What are the Government going to do about what appears to be the culture of the police, certainly in Rotherham and Rochdale, where girls under the age of 16 were treated as bad girls, rather than appreciating that criminal offences were being committed by these men? The girls, being under 16, were victims and were not just acting as prostitutes. It is a very serious matter that the police were not recognising criminal offences.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is absolutely right. Forgive me if I did not respond in a way that properly acknowledged that point. If there was any ambiguity in my response, it was because, as I was trying to make clear in my response to another question, there is both child abuse and child sexual exploitation. Child sexual exploitation, to which the noble and learned Baroness referred, until fairly recently has not been properly tackled for all the reasons that she gave. In light of the review and the action plan that the Government produced just over a year ago, much more is going on in the police services to make sure that the police are properly aware and take the action that they must to tackle this serious crime.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the Government’s response to the Children’s Commissioner’s report. It makes extremely grim and worrying reading that thousands of children and young people have or are being sexually abused, or are at risk of sexual exploitation. I am not sure that I heard the Minister condemn the Government’s source’s response to the report as being “hysterical” and I hope that she is able to do so. Does she agree with the comments in the report that many parents feel that they are ignored, or are assumed somehow to be at fault, if their child has been sexually exploited? Parents also must be involved in the solution.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that the parents of those who have been abused have an important role to play in helping us to tackle this serious crime. Certainly, the recommendations made by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in this report will be taken very seriously. We want to address this absolutely dreadful behaviour. We certainly will, as we already are, do everything that we can to make sure that this is addressed properly.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:19

Asked by

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to men seeking to control their violent or abusive behaviour; and how they are supporting organisations and partner support projects that assist those men.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a joint patron of Everyman, an organisation working to overcome such violent behaviour.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the government strategy to end violence against women and girls sets out our approach to responding to perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse. This includes: challenging attitudes and behaviours through communication campaigns; funding the Respect Phoneline, which offers support and advice to people who are violent and want help to stop; and developing intervention programmes for convicted perpetrators of domestic violence and abuse—programmes delivered in partnership with support services for victims.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she believe that the prevention programme goes far enough? Surely she will accept that prevention is fundamental to reducing domestic violence, not only for the sake of the victims and their families but for reducing the financial cost to the NHS and local authorities. That is particularly important at this time, given the estimated 31% cut in support for refuges and support services for victims, which means that more of them will have to stay with the perpetrator. The Government need to help those perpetrators with a strategic prevention plan that includes a programme of education in schools.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I agree with the noble Baroness that primary prevention is vital. That is why we are trying to change attitudes that can lead to violence against women and girls at an early age through national advertising campaigns such as those against teenage relationship abuse and teenage rape. One of those campaigns will be starting again shortly. We are also working with partners to see whether more can be done to identify and support perpetrators at an early stage and encourage them into voluntary programmes to address their behaviour. However, as I am sure that noble Lords will acknowledge, we need to input a great deal of effort when perpetrators are picked up by the criminal justice system, because, while we want to try to tackle this before anyone commits this terrible act of violence in the first place, it is just as important that as soon as a perpetrator has been identified and has gone through the criminal justice system we have a robust programme in place to deal with these men to avoid them reoffending in future.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that drugs and alcohol are often important factors in domestic violence? Is she aware of the important work of the Family Drug and Alcohol Court, pioneered by the district judge, Nicholas Crichton, at the Inner London Family Proceedings Court, in addressing the issue of family drug and alcohol abuse? Will she look with her colleagues at ensuring that the funding of these courts is sustained over time? I apologise if the Minister is not aware of this initiative, but I recommend it for her attention.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising that matter and I will ensure that I am fully informed about it.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important that services working with perpetrators of domestic violence are delivered with a high degree of safety. Does she therefore share a concern and recognise that well meaning but ill thought-out attempts to do this work can end up doing more harm than good? What are the Government doing to ensure that where new services are developed, they are done well and meet agreed Respect service standards for practice and accreditation?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this matter. He will be aware that one of the things that the Government do is fund the Respect Phoneline, which is there for perpetrators or people who are inclined to carry out these terrible acts of violence. The Government also support Respect in its role in properly accrediting the kind of voluntary programmes that are important in local areas. We would certainly encourage anyone who wishes to follow one of these programmes to ensure that it has been fully accredited by Respect.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a lot of relevance to this question in the report published yesterday by the Children’s Commissioner? The perpetrators of violent crimes and abusive behaviour are predominantly male and the victims are predominantly female. Will she have a word with my noble friend Lord McNally to see how similar partnership projects could be promoted in our prison establishment to ensure that violent and abusive behaviour is tackled there?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am sure that on another occasion my noble friend Lord McNally will respond in greater detail. As I said in response to a previous Question, as part of the offender management programme there are clear programmes to address those who have gone through the system and been convicted of these crimes.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister is on some kind of productivity bonus, given the work that she is having to do today. I have two very quick questions. First, cuts to council budgets mean that half a million streetlights are having to be turned off, leaving women feeling unsafe when they are out at night and walking home. Will the noble Baroness write to local authorities to point out the issue about streetlights and safety for women? Secondly, we know that all the elected Labour PCCs have committed to a policy of making the fight against domestic violence a central part of their planning. Will the Minister write to all the other PCCs, inviting them to do the same? We would be very happy to let her have a copy of the policy.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestion about streetlights. That is clearly an interesting idea. I will take it away and give it further consideration. On the role of the PCCs in taking the lead to address violence against women and girls, clearly the principle behind PCCs is that they are there to decide how to prioritise strategies in their local areas. However, local campaign groups have been very effective in raising those issues with PCC candidates, and I am sure that the organisation that acts as an overall body for PCCs will want to communicate this point to them as well.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords, will the Minister bear particularly in mind the work done by Judge Crichton? His work is saving a lot of people and proving a lot more successful in its operation than other methods that have been tried. It would be dreadful if it were stopped.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will certainly take on board what my noble friend said.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords—

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:28

Asked By

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to help small and medium-sized enterprises to access sources of finance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Marland)]

My Lords, the Government recently announced that they are setting up a business bank to address long-standing gaps in finance for small and medium-sized businesses. This will build on a range of measures already in place. Increasing the supply of finance to lenders through the Funding for Lending scheme will lead to lower costs for borrowers. The Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme helps small businesses lacking a track record or collateral secure bank finance. The Enterprise Capital Funds programme provides equity funding to businesses with high growth potential.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, according to the Federation of Small Businesses, three out of four small firms rate credit availability as either poor or very poor, and four out of 10 firms are being paid later than the agreed 30-day payment period, including by the Government. What will the Government do to enforce the excellent legislation on late payment of the previous decade and ensure that small businesses get their money back? Welcome as the announcement of the British business bank is, does the Minister recognise the failure of the regional growth fund, which was supposedly designed to help small businesses but was panned recently in the House of Commons by the PAC? When will the Government deal with small business as big business on the road to growth and to restoring the economy?

[Lord Marland]

The word is “restoring” the economy. We have inherited a significant problem—I am talking about the previous Government—and we need to be careful not to get too political. Small business is at the heart of what we are trying to do. On a serious note, it is clear to me that all of us in this House want to achieve dynamism in the small business community. In fact, I am extremely grateful for the noble Lord’s Question because today we have published Best-Practice Guideline: SME Finance which sets out ways and options available relating to this critical subject. I do not want to go on too long, but there is a lack of confidence in business that banks will give finance. The banks have to look at themselves and consider that they are turning the screws on successful businesses too tightly and government have to work hard with them to make sure they get the finance.

[Lord Cotter]

Does the Minister agree that we need to continue with increasing competition within banking in the country, have greater transparency and more locally focused initiatives to lend to SMEs, as happens in the USA and Germany, for example?

[Lord Marland]

Transparency in banking and increasing its scope and width by setting up new banks is absolutely fundamental to getting competitiveness into the banking system, which does not look very competitive at the moment. We have a range of schemes—I could go on forever. I will start with the enterprise capital fund, because it was started by the previous Government, which shows that all Governments are active. We have put another £200 million into it recently. We have the regional growth fund, with £1.4 billion, which will help small businesses in the regions, which I think is the noble Lord’s interest. There are many initiatives which I am happy to be questioned about.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that invoice discounting and factoring have a far greater part to play in funding small businesses, in particular in dealing with cash-flow problems?

[Lord Marland]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, but getting access to factoring is much more difficult. Obviously, it smoothes the cash flow that is so critical for businesses. The noble Lord shows a great deal of knowledge in that area.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, the EIS has raised some £10 billion of risk equity capital for small business and been a great success. I declare an interest as chairman of the EIS Association. Is the Minister aware that a combination of the RDR reforms, which will greatly reduce the number of intermediary financial advisers, and the new FSA initiative to limit the marketing of most forms of EIS funds to professional investors only, is likely to considerably reduce the flow of risk capital for small businesses under the EIS scheme?

[Lord Marland]

There are elements of give and take in that particular area. The EIS scheme is extremely beneficial. We have raised the limits of tax relief for that scheme—which is the “give”. The “take” is that the Government are concerned that it does not attract unsophisticated investors. It is important that investors are clear about the risk that EIS-registered companies have. After all, most are start-up and new businesses, which have an element of risk. So there is an element of give and take.

[Lord Mitchell]

My Lords, after two and a half years and half a Parliament, it is about time that this Government started taking responsibility for their actions and stop blaming others for the consequences of their own shambles. However, when will this Government understand that announcing convoluted schemes every few weeks is not the primary way to help SMEs to recover? What will help businesses recover is creating an atmosphere of confidence. That will be created by increasing demand, and demand will be increased by moving from a policy of ever-tightening austerity into one of strategic economic growth.

[Lord Marland]

If I may say so, that is a rather disappointing question from someone with so much expertise in business. We all know that the heart of the problem is the banking crisis. That was not caused on our watch, so we are perfectly entitled to look in the rear view mirror and say that it was not our fault. I do not think there is any lack of entitlement there. We have to get finance into the market, but what is much more important is that we have to be outward looking and developing trade. That is what the Government are doing and, my goodness, I have been to some countries over the past few years that have not had a labour trade Minister for years. That is why the Government are committed to expanding exports, helping SMEs and helping big companies to act as mothers to smaller companies in an export drive that is going to be fundamental to our growth.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, credit unions in the poorest of our communities have an excellent record of helping redundant workers start up and become self-employed. Will the Government encourage the credit unions in this country?

[Lord Marland]

The noble Lord makes an excellent point. Of course the credit unions have a vital role to play, as does, funnily enough, anyone who is prepared to extend credit or lend money. As the noble Lord says, they do an incredibly valuable job in the slightly distressed regions.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, what does my noble friend think of the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, soon to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury, who is on the parliamentary banking commission, that we should create a number of small banks by breaking up the big ones and increase competition in that way?

[Lord Marland]

I am not going to prejudge the final report on that issue. I have some private views on it, with a view on the Church of England being one of them, but I will not go into those now.

Procedure of the House

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

11:36

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 54) be agreed to.

Motion agreed.

Information Committee

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Baroness Seccombe be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Feldman, resigned.

Motion agreed.

Draft Care and Support Bill

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the Commons message of 20 November be considered and that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the draft Care and Support Bill presented to both Houses on 11 July (Cm 8386) and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 7 March 2013;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee: B Eaton, B Greengross, B Jolly, L Mackay of Clashfern, B Pitkeathley, L Warner;

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

Millennium Development Goals

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:37

Moved by

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

That this House takes note of progress towards the successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, I was delighted when I learnt that I had been successful in the ballot for today’s debate. It is a pleasure to see that my noble friend Lord Ahmad will respond for the Government today, and I am sure he will continue his excellent start on the Front Bench with his new portfolio. I tabled this Motion after receiving in March and April of this year two very disappointing answers to my Written Questions to DfID on our Government’s plans for engagement with the public, the private sector and here in Parliament on the shape and elements of the successor framework for the millennium development goals. The ministerial replies I received indicated that there were no plans to provide either House with an opportunity to debate this critical issue. Surely, on something as important as the millennium development goals, where the Prime Minister has a unique contribution to make on our behalf as co-chairman of the UN High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, and with Britain having the presidency of the G8 next year, the Government should not have had to be dragged to the Dispatch Box through a balloted debate. Parliamentary time should have been made available. The large number of noble Lords who are to follow my own remarks today show the necessity for the Government to do so. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that this will be the case.

I believe that the post-2015 goals require a redefinition of “development”. Development is about more than simply reducing poverty. At its centrepiece is the fight against corruption, the support of political and civil liberties, especially but not only for women, and access to public health for all—health that enfolds all diseases. The UK’s leadership on development should seek to strengthen the inclusion of values that we strongly support, such as the fundamental freedoms, rule of law and free market, and it must include a clear analysis of the distinctive nature of fragile and conflict-affected states. Unique targets for and within such affected populations are required in any post-2015 framework.

In the run up to 2015, we can rightly celebrate a number of successes brought about by the millennium development goals. They have taken development to the top of the global agenda. The target for halving the population of the world whose income is less than $1.25 a day has been achieved—a core goal in the overall UN strategy of poverty reduction in every country. The millennium development goals are also simple and easy to understand, communicate in every language and promote worldwide. However, these tangible successes must not divert us from the harder tasks ahead. Millennium development goal failings include the vast disparity between countries and the different goals in achieving the targets set. There is a growing cluster of countries that are being left behind. The millennium development goals were set by donors with little if any local involvement. This time round we must enshrine goals that respond to the demands, and meet the concerns, of the people we seek to support. What do these populations require? Overwhelmingly, they seek the fundamental freedoms: democracy, the rule of law, the development of the private sector, an effective fight against corruption and to lead their lives in an environment of peace and stability. In this light, I suggest that the narrow prism of development—as defined by the MDGs—is less than adequate for the tasks in hand.

This may be why a lopsided focus on certain development issues has emerged from the implementation of the MDGs so far. For example, the great expansion of global health institutions, such as the Gates Foundation, the GAVI Alliance—formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation—and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has been highly valuable, helping countless millions in extreme need to achieve freedom from pain and suffering. However, the near-messianic focus of these new and powerfully funded global health institutions on single diseases or single health tools—such as immunisation—has pushed aside the World Health Organisation’s topmost priority of access to affordable public health provision, both preventive and curative, for all humanity.

These fast-forwarding, vertical health interventions have not only drained funding from the World Health Organisation’s Health For All campaign, but it has also weakened and hollowed out local capacity to plan, administer and deliver public health on a continuing and sustainable base to local populations. This core weakness of the MDGs affects the global topmost priority of health. Primary health should become as strong a goal as primary education. Nor do the MDGs’ overall statistical analysis on health, as understood through DfID’s expenditure, highlight the health needs of acutely underserved populations in continuing complex emergencies, who are perhaps the neediest of all. The new framework for the MDGs should address these issues rigorously.

I turn to the millennium development goal for primary education. The Government have mentioned in the other place that the MDGs’ focus on quantitative results has skewed incentives, such as measuring school attendance rates rather than the quality of education actually received by those who attend school. Interestingly, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact has criticised DfID for that in two recent reports on its educational programmes in Rwanda, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Nigeria.

I see four major gaps in the MDGs that need to be resolved in any successor framework: the fundamental freedoms, development of democracy, rule of law, development of the private sector and fight against corruption. I turn first to the fundamental freedoms and development of democracy. Our long-term aim in providing development assistance is to support the advance of a prosperous, well governed, democratic and stable polity that includes all its citizens equally in development. If that is the case, development cannot only be about poverty reduction. The problem is that the MDGs define development need through a poverty reduction lens, excluding such factors as human rights and corruption. In UK thinking, such neglect is accentuated by the lack of political economy analysis in our development policy, and because the FCO leads on human rights policy but not on all the related issues. This has resulted in a DfID development policy led by the MDGs that does not require the acquisition of a political understanding of the contexts in which it works. The lack of human rights in the MDG agenda needs to be rectified. Other national development agencies, such as Germany’s, have recognised the clear synergies between development and human rights, and development and democracy promotion. We are yet to set out a similar approach in the UK, leading to obvious concerns about their place in any post-2015 development framework. Will the Minister indicate in what way the Government intend to ensure that human rights will be central to any post-2015 framework?

A focus on the fundamental freedoms and the development of democracy highlights a more nuanced perspective of development need. Until now, the MDG agenda has focused largely on sub-Saharan Africa while neglecting areas such as the Middle East and North Africa. This is surprising, since the Middle East and North Africa suffers from structural violence, acute political repression and a severe lack of civil liberties, making it profoundly poor in terms of rights. The MDGs’ lack of focus on MENA arises from their privileging of material poverty over social and political change. Furthermore, despite the G8’s Deauville declaration in May 2011 that the Arab spring’s political movements,

“are historic and have the potential to open the door to the kind of transformation that occurred in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall”,

such rhetoric has not been fulfilled with the action and funding appropriate to the scale of transformation identified. Is it surprising that such glowing forecasts have not come to pass and show scant signs of doing so?

In the UK, DfID and the FCO have agreed to work together on a £110 million Arab partnership initiative from 2011-12 to 2014-15. In effect, we are providing across MENA, over a period of four years, a level of funding that is about one-third of what Ethiopia received in 2011-12, even though this funding is for a political and social transformation that we believe is on a par with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Frankly, that is nonsensical and underlines the lack of consideration that the MDGs provide toward human rights, political and civil liberties, and confronting deep-seated political, social and economic forces that support corrupt, deeply unequal and repressive states. A focus on poverty based only on income and on delivery of social services enables the sidestepping of such fundamentally challenging issues at the expense of the people who experience them.

I turn to the rule of law, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected states. The increasing stress on the need for poverty reduction on security grounds has been a pillar of the work of DfID and of many other aid agencies since 9/11. This rests to a significant extent on the work of Paul Collier, who has argued that:

“War retards development, but conversely, development retards war”.

This belief leads directly to DfID’s identification of 21 out of 28 priority countries as fragile and conflict-affected. DfID says this is to capture the multidimensional nature of fragility. I am not denying that it is multidimensional, but I believe that the concept is being stretched for the purpose of justifying poverty reduction on security grounds. This surely provides an exceptionally weak foundation, as the major body of evidence from the field shows that it is misleading to argue conflict is development in reverse. Perhaps surprisingly, human conflict has often been the engine of development and not the obverse. Nor does it fully capture the range of factors and dynamics driving poverty and insecurity, which I would identify as corruption, heavy discrimination against different faiths, the enforced lack of freedom of association, and the lack of employment and commercial opportunities to generate entrepreneurship and private sector growth, and other matters. Surely we can all agree that these fragile and conflict-afflicted states are in a special category of concern, and that each population requires tailored and not template solutions. In his reply, can the Minister identify how the Government will incorporate conflict and security, particularly human and personal security, into the post-2015 framework?

On the development of the private sector, it is almost impossible without huge oil reserves to become a middle-income country without an industrial or manufacturing sector, particularly as this is where jobs and futures are created. Yet the MDGs do not even mention the private sector and most development work, ours included, focuses on small-scale initiatives, which do not add up to a growth strategy. I would very much welcome the Minister indicating whether the Government are working to include in the post-2015 framework words such as “industrialise” or “exports”, instead of what the Prime Minister highlighted in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, as the way to unleash the dynamism of developing economies. He said that it was,

“enabling farmers to access price information by mobile phone”.

While that is undoubtedly helpful, it is not a growth strategy that will lead to full-scale and long-term development. Can the Minister indicate whether the Government are considering how to integrate major trade preferences for developing economies into the post-2015 framework? Are they considering how to facilitate, rather than impede, migration, which has been shown to have positive development implications? After all, ODA is dwarfed every year by foreign direct investment and remittances. The post-2015 framework must harness and work with these financial flows.

On the fight against corruption, last year’s World Development Report made it clear that institutional legitimacy is the key to stability, while corruption has the doubly pernicious impacts of fuelling grievances and undermining the effectiveness of national institutions. Without comprehensive anti-corruption reforms, neither the long-term nor the immediate goals of development will be met. In his op-ed, the Prime Minister highlighted this point by mentioning corrupt elites and multi-national companies’ transparency but without putting any meat on the bones of how he intends to frame a post-2015 goal against such elites. Can the Minister suggest how the Government propose to develop a serious fight against corruption at all levels within the new MDG framework?

Finally, the four core pillars that I have identified require a broadly conceived post-2015 framework, where development does not solely mean poverty reduction but a redefined development of prosperity and freedom. I have raised many issues that have traditionally not spanned the majority of our development work on the ground. These involve the Foreign Office, UKTI and the British Council, among many more. It is essential that once the Government have developed our position towards the post-2015 framework, which will utilise large sums of UK taxpayers’ money and materially affect billions of people in the decades following 2015, that both Houses have the opportunity to debate this position. I look for a commitment from the Minister on this. It also indicates that we should begin a discussion here in Parliament on how best our ministries, agencies, and government-supported organisations should be shaped and led for the grave challenges that lie ahead for the rich and poor alike. I beg to move.

11:52

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and I pay tribute to way in which she has introduced the debate. I pay tribute to her work and understanding of these very important issues. She provided a comprehensive introduction. I support her call for greater time to be made available to debate these important issues. I hope that that message has been heard on the Front Bench and among the business managers. Perhaps there might even be a case for the Chairman of Committees looking at a special ad hoc Select Committee to look at the millennium development goals, supporting the work of the Prime Minister and the high-level panel, because of the wealth of expertise which exists in this House on this subject.

I will focus on one issue that the noble Baroness has already referred to: conflict and development. One of the elements that I have always found disappointing about the millennium development goals is that within the eight goals, within the 21 targets, within the 60 indicators, there is not one single mention of conflict prevention, or the essential condition of peace which precedes development in any country. Not a single low-income or fragile, conflict-affected country has yet achieved a single millennium development goal. Nine of the 10 poorest countries in the world are fragile states. It has been estimated that a civil war can cost 30 years of GDP growth in its impact on the economy. The noble Baroness mentioned Paul Collier who is highly esteemed in these areas and who said that war was “development in reverse”. One and a half billion people live in conflict-affected states: 60% of the refugee flows which are a prime cause of poverty are attributed to people fleeing violence. It is therefore essential that conflict prevention should be at the heart of the successor regime to the millennium development goals. I pay tribute to the Government for the way they are approaching this. They have led with documents such as the excellent Building Stability Overseas Strategy which shaped a cross-departmental approach to these issues and they have enhanced the Conflict Pool for conflict prevention. Prevention is always more cost-effective than intervention. If we have learnt anything over the past 10 years, we have surely learnt that by now. The expansion of the Conflict Pool up to £300 million in 2014 is very welcome indeed. Peace is the essential building block from which all else follows.

The millennium development goals were of their time. When they were conceived at the G7 conference—as it was then—in Cologne in 1999, the world was a very different place. It was a time of heady optimism between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the tragic terrorist attacks which occurred on 11 September and which slammed the door shut on a very optimistic view of how the world could develop going forward. I urge the Minister to feed back to the Prime Minister and to other departments that we do not just need to tweak the millennium development goals. They were of a time and of a place and we missed that opportunity because the successor to the Cologne agreement was the Monterrey development finance commitment where people said they would put up the money to make sure that the development goals were brought into reality. That has not happened and I am delighted that this Government, even in the toughest of economic times, are actually going to make good on that commitment by 2013. This gives tremendous credibility to the Prime Minister in advancing this case on the millennium development goals with colleagues at the G8.

Once we have peace and security and the aid and development are coming in, we must remember that the reason why most people have been lifted out of poverty over the past 10 years has not been as a result of any of that. It has been a result of the growth and dynamism of economies such as China and India. China has lifted more people out of poverty than any other nation in history. We need to remember the centrality of trade: trade liberalisation has been part of the drive for development. It is trade and it is aid, but it is all built on peace.

11:58

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness for initiating this very timely debate and for her wise words during her speech. In the MDGs, we have a common, agreed agenda. It is time-bound and measurable and includes priorities which have multiplier effects in other areas. Our obligation now, and post-2015, is to provide continuing leadership and partnership with developing countries on, for instance, child and maternal health, nutrition, education and gender rights. A huge amount is now at stake and we must work to accelerate progress towards meeting the MDG objectives before 2015. The framework we have had since 2000 has helped to raise global awareness of the interrelated and multi-dimensional nature of poverty. In addition, and importantly, MDGs have made the development process more understandable by both the public and policymakers. They are goals drawn up by 187-odd heads of state, so it was a challenging time. A global willingness to do more after 2015 will depend on the judgments that will inevitably be made about the MDGs’ achievements—essentially, a future framework will have to deal with the MDGs’ unfinished business.

Regrettably, the promise offered by the millennium declaration in 2000, which preceded the MDGs, has not been met. This declaration promised freedom, solidarity, equality, tolerance, the right to development and human rights, and that this would be for everyone. Together, these objectives spell out a firm commitment to social justice as the guiding spirit of the millennium declaration. However, that promise was lost in translation when the eight MDGs with targets and indicators were drawn up. Now we see clearly that the failure to retain an explicit commitment to equality has led to uneven progress and the persistence of inequalities and social exclusion. These omissions must be the major focus of efforts to devise a post-2015 programme.

In addition, the use of national averages to measure progress has meant that efforts have not been able to focus on the hard-to-reach poor, who are excluded because of ethnicity, disability, gender or location. We know that national ownership and leadership make the real difference and post-2015 these will absolutely have to be in place. The MDGs were primarily top-down; they were negotiated behind closed doors and then pushed through the General Assembly. A new post-2015 agenda must be grounded in human rights, reducing inequality and ensuring environmental sustainability, and the process has to be inclusive. It must be drawn up after a rigorous process of consultation and commitment to the concept of genuine partnership.

The challenges post-2015 are formidable but doable, and we can then hope for a green, inclusive and equitable world. Twenty years ago, more than 90% of the world’s poorest people lived in low-income countries; now 75% of the world’s poorest people live in middle-income countries. There is now a new geography of poverty, which will pose great problems in the discussions on the post-2015 arrangements. What we need to know, and to respond to, is how to deal with people who are systematically excluded and marginalised because of their social identities. We can tick the boxes when we use MDGs as our benchmarks, but social exclusion and environmental sustainability are not factored in and we must work out how these essential issues can be tackled.

As we look at the impact of the MDGs, it is also important to take into account the very different political and economic context of the post-2015 framework, as has been mentioned. A very important question is whether the UK is calling for data disaggregated by gender, disability and age. One of the problems we face is that we are unable to make those assessments. For instance, will there be an investment in ensuring that Governments in developing countries have the statistical support that they will need to provide these data?

Whatever else we do after 2015 we should not lose sight of working to meet the unmet promises of the MDGs, but we should also adopt an uncompromising position on finishing the job. In the months and years ahead, we must avoid a sort of Christmas tree approach, where we have a declaration haphazardly overloaded with goods like ornaments festooning the branches of the tree. We must stick with health outcomes such as child and maternal mortality, as well as literacy, respect of civic and political rights, a minimum of income as everyone’s right, meaningful employment, and goals that must survive after 2015. Global environmental sustainability also has to be a priority. This is a challenging list but one that, with political will, we can achieve.

12:04

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Nicholson on an illuminating speech—I look towards her so that she can hear what I am saying. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, on her contribution, which I think I can build on.

There has been, I think, almost universal agreement that the MDGs have been successful in reaching most of the world’s poor. Sadly and frustratingly, they have not reached the world’s most poor. Forty per cent of the populations living in fragile states are living below the poverty threshold of $1.25 a day. A third of the world’s poorest live in the 45 states identified as fragile by the OECD. Not a single fragile state has met any of the MDGs.

World Vision argues that a new set of goals must first correct the development deficit in fragile states if global initiatives are going to address the root causes of poverty. They point out that, within fragile states, women and children suffer most from the lack of progress in the MDGs, with fragility being the key driver of the high death rates for preventable illnesses.

World Health Organisation statistics show that 14 out of the l5 countries with the highest neonatal mortality rates have recently experienced, or are in the midst of, a civil conflict. A child born in a fragile state is twice as likely to die before their fifth birthday as one born in a stable, low-income state. They are five times more likely to die before their fifth birthday than a child born in a middle-income country. On average in a fragile state, 140 children die per 1,000 live births.

World Vision has pushed for a reduction in child and maternal mortality, MDGs 4 and 5, through its Child Health Now campaign. The United Kingdom has focused its efforts on securing a major push on MDGs concerning women and children’s health. More than a third of a million women have died during pregnancy or childbirth in the past year.

A number of strategies are being promoted to keep health high on the agenda post-2015. Save the Children, another well known charity, points out that there is a need to build on the health MDGs by first addressing their shortfalls. For example, the MDGs are aggregate targets and mask inequity within countries. The majority of MDGs could be achieved statistically by targeting only the “low hanging fruit”, the easy targets, without changing the situation of the poorest, the most vulnerable and the most isolated. The post-2015 agenda needs to ensure that health gains are further accelerated and sustained, with public health systems sufficiently invested domestically and through donors to serve the health needs of whole populations.

Our Prime Minister is now appointed to co-chair the high-level panel charged by the United Nations with addressing the post-2015 provision. He is in a prime position to lead the debate. We need the Prime Minister to ensure a specific focus on fragile contexts in the post-2015 framework in ways that draw on the principles of the new deal for fragile states, launched at the high-level forum at Busan, which builds on goals for peace-building and state-building.

In the post-2015 framework, we need to know what the thinking is about introducing overarching goals for health. How can the post-2015 development agenda both build on the successes and address the shortfalls of the health MDGs? What indicators would encourage a greater focus on equity and on reaching the poorest and most marginalised populations? Probably the most glaring omission from the MDGs has been a governance goal—the lack of a mechanism allowing citizens to hold Governments to account on the selection of development projects and the distribution of aid in health, education and so on, in their communities.

At the fourth high-level forum on aid effectiveness in Busan in December last year, a global partnership for effective development co-operation was unanimously agreed. It created a new partnership that is broader and more inclusive than ever before, founded on shared principles, common goals and commitments for effective international development. The post-Busan co-ordinating committee, of which our Secretary of State for International Development is a co-chair, is charged with developing global indicators for aid effectiveness. One of the most important is that dealing with ownership, results and accountability.

For the first time, Parliaments and local governments are recognised as playing critical roles in linking citizens with government and in ensuring broad-based and democratic ownership of countries’ development processes. This is the forerunner of a “governance goal”, with the target of accelerating and deepening the implementation of existing commitments and strengthening the role of Parliaments in the oversight of development processes, including by supporting capacity development, backed by adequate resources and clear, defined action plans.

12:10

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on securing this debate and on the comprehensive and wide-ranging way in which she introduced it. I also apologise that I was caught out by there not being a fourth Question today so I missed the first minute or two of her speech.

Discussion of the framework that should take the place of the MDGs when they run out in 2015 is now in full swing and it is good that the House of Lords should have an opportunity to put its two penn’orth in. I declare my interest as president of the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment, an organisation which is not very snappily named but at least has the merits of doing what its says on the tin—promoting the education of children and young people with visual impairment. As such, we have a clear interest in what the post-2015 framework has to say about both disability and education.

There is now a widespread sense that it needs a stronger focus on the needs of the most vulnerable and marginalised and in this I very much echo what the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said. The word “disability” does not feature anywhere in the millennium development goals. Disability may have been perceived as a niche issue at the time, but we now know that disability is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. Disabled people make up 15% of the world’s population, yet it is estimated that 20% of the world’s poorest people are disabled.

While overall progress against the millennium development goals is being made, the most vulnerable are being left behind. According to the World Report on Disability, there are an estimated 1 billion people with disabilities across the globe. They face barriers to participation in society, such as in accessing development programmes and funds, education, employment, healthcare, communication and transport. People with disabilities and their families—80% of whom live in developing countries—are over-represented among those living in absolute poverty.

Furthermore, people with disabilities are particularly at risk from the effects of climate change, such as natural disasters and food insecurity. They are also more vulnerable in situations of conflict. They face discrimination on multiple levels yet remain absent in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of MDGs. This has been compounded by a lack of reliable statistics on people with disabilities.

The International Disability Alliance and the International Disability and Development Consortium have jointly developed recommendations for a more equitable and inclusive post-2015 agenda for people with disabilities. They say that the new framework,

“must enable a focus on the poorest, most marginalised groups, such as persons with disabilities, ensuring … full and effective participation for persons with disabilities”,

and their representative organisations at all stages of the process. Any new global partnerships and international co-operation efforts must be driven by a human rights approach and be compliant with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including all projects and programmes, whether mainstream or disability specific, with equality and non-discrimination as priority themes. There should be a stand-alone goal on equality and non-discrimination, as well as the obligation to pursue these principles right across the new framework. All goals should be inclusive of persons with disabilities and measures of progress should be disaggregated to show impact on, and inclusion of, persons with disabilities within each goal. The current understanding and definition of poverty, progress and development should be revised to go beyond the most basic data of income, consumption and wealth.

I have not left myself much time to say why it is crucial for education to remain central to the post-2015 framework. However, education has been shown to be one of the most effective means of increasing the health, wealth and stability of nations. Now is not the time to move on from the focus of the education for all goals. The latest figures from UNESCO show that progress has stalled—more than 60 million children of primary school age remain out of school. Many young people lack even basic foundation skills. Around 775 million adults remain illiterate—two-thirds of them are women, which is only 12% down on the 1990 figure. Global inequality in learning outcomes remains stark. MDG2, like some of the other existing goals, has suffered from a lack of specific focus on reaching the most vulnerable and marginalised. Without needing to report progress in a disaggregated way across different sections of society, it was perhaps inevitable that people would focus on the lowest hanging fruit, the easiest to reach in the quest for results. Groups such as children with disabilities, being some of the hardest to reach, have thus been left behind. UNESCO estimates that a third of all children of primary school age who are not in school have a disability, and being disabled more than doubles the chance of a child never enrolling in school in some countries.

The Global Campaign for Education has made the following recommendations for education with a new framework: first, that there continues to be a central focus on the basic right to free universal and compulsory education; secondly, that the education provided in all countries is of high quality and that the children achieve learning outcomes relevant to their lives; thirdly, that education and learning are equitable and inclusive and that no population group is excluded from education or given substandard educational provision; fourthly, that there is a global recognition of the importance of a professionalised, properly qualified and supported teaching profession in order to achieve education for all; and, finally, that systems are developed effectively to monitor goals and targets and that the importance of accurate data collection is fully recognised as a means of ensuring equitable progress.

12:16

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Low, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for achieving this debate. My friend, the Archbishop of Central Africa, Albert Charma, notes:

“The success of the MDG project is best witnessed through the eyes of a woman who can finally escape an abusive relationship because through her involvement in a microfinance project she can provide for herself and her children. It can be viewed also through the eyes of an orphaned child, who does not have to go to bed hungry and who can also attend school regularly”.

Success is about individual lives being transformed. The impact of the MDGs cannot be captured by statistical trends alone; context is everything. From the perspective of the Church of England, the development goals have provided a broad narrative from which we have been able to frame development. They have animated our networks and our relationships around the Anglican Communion and, on a day-by-day basis, our diocese networks and mission agencies have used the MDGs to mobilise parishes and clergy on global issues. They have also been taken up by our schools. Those most affected and likely to affect the future are taking part in the concerns of these goals.

Further, the MDGs have become a meeting place for faith communities, both here in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, to come together to campaign for the global common good and to share best practice. This is a very positive approach. It is an educational approach that has caught the mind and the public’s imagination and we should commend it. Of course, like other speakers before me, I am very conscious of the fact that the millennium development goals, as has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, have not impacted as well as they might on the poorest in the world. Nevertheless, there has been an extraordinary achievement in the period of time that we have undertaken them.

We are now looking forward to the post-2015 reality. We have recognised that the MDG process has sharpened political attention and public engagement with poverty reduction efforts. That is something that many of us have longed for over many years. I am absolutely sure that the post-MDG agenda should not be defined by a group of people who regard themselves as experts or technocrats. We do not need a donor-centric model. We have to work to something that enables and empowers right across the board. I believe that the consultation process regarding the post-2015 reality needs to be generally universal in nature. We should not be limiting this to low-income countries, nor simply to sub-Saharan Africa. We need to think more broadly than that. It is important, however, to retain a target-based approach post-2015 and it is always true that when targets are inspiring, clear and measurable, we get the best results. They need to be few in number but clear.

I was very grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, earlier in the debate for, like him, I believe that a key element of the future must be a commitment to peacebuilding through disarmament. We have only to look at the realities of our world today to see the impact of indiscriminate arms and the continual build-up and maintenance of weapons which we no longer need for the future of humanity.

I have already referred to my belief that we need to challenge the existing donor-centric model of development. We need a new timeframe in order to accomplish the major transformations that we envisage. We need to return to the millennium declaration and see it as something that was, as it were, setting out before us a wider vision. The millennium development goals show that a set of clear and measurable targets can be a driver of transformative change. Of course, the world will not achieve all the MDGs, but they have galvanised all sorts of people around the world and all sorts of political persuasions have been empowered to think differently. A target-based approach to 2015 ought therefore to be retained and it is important to remember that targets work best, as I have said, when they are clear and ambitious but feasible and, above all, measurable.

12:21

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for the comprehensive way in which she initiated this interesting debate. Despite the huge progress that has been made through the MDGs, hundreds of millions of people will still remain in desperate poverty after 2015. However, I am delighted that the Prime Minister’s role on the UN high-level panel will bring Britain’s first-class development expertise to bear in working with others to help shape the world’s future efforts.

The MDGs have shaped the world’s approach to international development for a generation, helping to put millions of children into school and save countless lives. They have focused international and country efforts on poverty eradication and have prompted an alignment of donor aid policies, giving time-bound and credible goals and targets for the world to achieve. We now know far more about the critical role that economic growth, trade, tackling corruption, effective government and open societies play in creating wealth and unlocking the potential of the poorest countries. Technology advancements that we could not have dreamt of even a few years ago are making it easier for Governments, business and society to share information. They are enabling citizens to use that information both to hold decision-makers to account and to make more informed choices in their daily lives. From understanding prices before you go to market to mobile phone banking technology and access to information, technology is driving transformational change.

It is also encouraging that the members of the high-level panel have a programme which involves listening to many more voices before setting out their ambitious new agenda for ending poverty in the years beyond 2015. In that context of listening, I would like to include a few remarks about young people and their role in this debate. Half the world’s population is under 25. Young people are the largest demographic bar none in relation to all facets of poverty. Indeed, young people are disproportionately affected by poverty across all indicators: 87% of young people live in the developing world and, globally, one-third of 15 to 24 year-olds currently live on less than $2 a day.

As we start to think about the successor framework to the MDGs, we must start to look at young people in a different way. They can no longer be viewed simply as beneficiaries of a new tranche of development assistance—still less as the problem. We must instead look at them as partners and leaders in the design and implementation of a new set of goals. The recent meeting here in London of the UN’s high-level panel included, for the first time in history, a session entirely dedicated to a dialogue with young people. The charity Restless Development, of which I am a patron, convened 23 young people from developing countries to come to share their ideas and thoughts on what should replace the MDGs after 2015.

Young people are a diverse demographic, affected differently by all the issues that the MDGs are targeting. However, they are all products of the MDG generation. There is no sense in discussing a future development framework without recognising the role that they can and must play as assets and problem-solvers.

I was present at a meeting last week hosted by the Conservative Friends of International Development, which I co-chair, and the ONE campaign, at which Justine Greening and Bob Geldof spoke. He reminded us of the conversation that he had in the 1980s with Margaret Thatcher, who told him that no one would have remembered the Good Samaritan if he had had only good intentions—he had money as well. This opinion, however harsh, contains a fundamental truth: it is difficult to make good on a promise to make someone’s life better if you do not have the resources to do so.

The intention of these goals is to ensure that billions of people across the world enjoy a better life by setting targets in health, education and so on that all countries should meet. Some countries will need those that have resources, like the Good Samaritan, to cross the road to assist them.

To many people in poor countries, the value of aid is obvious: at its most basic, such as through the supply of food or water, lives are saved. A more sophisticated use of aid, such as improving literacy and developing legal systems that underpin the rule of law, can foster economic opportunities. This creates not only a better life for those who receive it but business opportunities for companies from donor nations.

However, the current debate about the value of development aid is justified. No country wants to, or should, become dependent on the generosity of others. Aid should not be an alternative or a barrier to self-sufficiency, but a facilitator of it. What is certain is that the debate about aid needs to mature, so that we can have a serious discussion about how best to create new, stable trading partners that in turn can create opportunities and jobs in both emerging and donor countries.

There is a moral obligation to ensure that we support countries in their development, but there is also an economic interest. It is worth remembering that the Good Samaritan also benefited by crossing the road to help. He created the chance to work and trade with the person whom he assisted.

12:26

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington. In her emphasis on engaging young people in the shaping of the framework for the development goals beyond 2015, she makes an important contribution to our debate. I am delighted to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, for introducing this timely and important topic. I congratulate her on achieving this debate and, if I may say so, on making a characteristically clear and well argued introductory speech. As with others, I hope that she will forgive me if, in supporting the observation and arguments that she made, I concentrate on one issue in the comparatively short time open to me. I make no apology for concentrating again on the issue of disability, which the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, has already comprehensively addressed.

I start these remarks in the same way that the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and my noble friend Lady Kinnock did, by reminding ourselves of the achievement of the millennium development goals to date. The fight against extreme poverty has made great progress under the millennium development goals since they were agreed in the 2000 UN summit but, as others before me have said, the record is mixed. They have succeeded in building consensus and focusing attention and resources on important issues and making significant progress. The targets-based approach of the MDGs, the continuation of which I support, is not perfect but has made it possible to hold both national Governments and donors to account for specific development commitments. Setting targets and, in particular, an end date, has created a sense of urgency that has galvanised and united civil society and other advocates with national Governments and donors in trying to achieve change. Unfortunately, though, as we have heard, inequality and social inclusion are widening within most countries; indeed, they are widening within 16 of the G20 countries as we speak. More than 1 billion people continue to live in extreme poverty. None of the MDGs will be met completely, with some countries having made little or no tangible progress. Besides, while trying to achieve change, many Governments have focused on the targets that are easiest to reach rather than tackling the root causes of marginalisation and inequality.

Shaping the new framework needs to include those who were left out in 2000. I am thinking here in particular about people with disabilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, reminded us, disabilities are not specifically mentioned in any of the eight MDGs or in the 21 targets of the 60 indicators. However, there is a strong link between disability and poverty. Disabled people are disproportionately represented among those living in extreme poverty. A recent World Bank comparative study of 15 developing countries found that disabled people were significantly worse off, were more likely to experience multiple deprivations and had lower educational attainment and employment rates than non-disabled people. The same study showed that disability also affects households and the wider economy.

Progress within the existing framework has not been equitable for disabled people because there is no requirement to include them or to address their needs. It has been assumed that the general development process will improve conditions for everyone. With the exception of MDG 3, which promotes gender equality, no incentive has been placed on development programmes specifically to address disadvantaged groups or to tackle issues of social exclusion. Therefore, disabled people represent many of the people who have not benefited from recent development gains. I think we should agree that intervention is needed when unemployment rate for people with disabilities in some African countries is 90%—a staggering figure.

I know that charities, such as Sense International, which supported me in my preparation for this debate and supports work placements for disabled people in countries across the world, are doing great work in this regard, but much more needs to be done. Disabled people’s economic contribution is as important as their work and their feelings of dignity, economic independence and self-confidence are to them. We know and understand that in this country, and it should apply across the world.

The problem of unemployment is also rooted in the fact that children with disabilities are still disproportionately excluded from school. Worldwide, there are approximately 106 million children with disabilities, and, while roughly 1 billion children are in school globally, the UNESCO report that has already been referred to estimates that, of the 61 million children now out of school, one-third have disabilities. This disproportionate exclusion means that disabled children miss out on education’s lifelong benefits: a better job, more social and economic security and more opportunities for full participation in society. This contributes to a cycle of intergenerational poverty as they establish their own households. All this means that disabled people are disproportionately represented among the 1 billion people who will continue to live in chronic poverty even if the MDGs are achieved.

Rather than concluding with a list that reiterates the remarks that other noble Lords have made, I request that the Minister addresses disability in his remarks and that disability should be included in the future development framework and should be mainstreamed across all the post-2015 development goals.

12:32

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. We share a background in the voluntary sector. I strongly agree that we need more time, as is evidenced today, for debate. She said that there are huge imbalances between and within countries. The main target, the halving of poverty, is certainly a milestone, but the noble Lord, Lord Bates, reminded us that it will be met not because the west has helped the south, but because millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty, largely, in my view, by their own efforts. Not surprisingly, rural China remains poor. According to a Save the Children study, Born Equal, the urban/rural ratio of income in China has widened progressively to about 3:1 since 1990 and gender inequality there has also increased dramatically. The political climate in China, though restrictive, has certainly not inhibited urbanisation and entrepreneurial spirit, and the example of Mozambique shows that even communism can be adapted to some of the principles of smallholder capitalism.

The MDGs are primarily about aid to reduce poverty, but they should also be a catalyst to economic development, especially in agriculture. Oxfam rightly says that its influence on central Governments is fast diminishing. In itself, it makes a minute contribution in a country such as India. Of course, if aid misses its mark, it has to be our fault. While we cannot be blamed for the mistakes and corrupt practices of Governments, we are responsible for channelling our aid in the direction of the poorest and most vulnerable, and that is not something we are succeeding in.

It is said that OECD countries have not met the MDG targets in developing countries because they have not given enough. The $167 billion shortfall in development aid means that they have failed to meet the 0.7% target, and they will have to double their assistance even during a recession. As we are among a handful of countries trying to maintain or increase our aid budget, I agree with those who accept that aid must be value for money. I agree with the Prime Minister, who repeated that the coalition is determined to resist its Conservative Back-Benchers on this issue. Of course, none of this is as simple as it sounds. The public know there is corruption and bad governance out there. The aid agencies offer solutions, but their outreach is limited.

We have to convince the public that some aid is bound to be wasted, and that is difficult when we know there are hungry people in our midst. I would like to recommend a new MDG in public awareness. I have always believed that we know far too little in this country about other cultures, and in the US, the public know even less. How can we give more aid when we do not understand how its recipients live? It can be done through the media, educational exchanges and in many other ways, including through the MDGs themselves, as others have said. NGOs that are critical of the MDGs also admit that they have been a yardstick for educational purposes, although they are increasingly meaningless to academics since you can prove anything you like with statistics.

From an educational point of view, we should not complicate the present MDGs with human rights and governance tests that can scarcely be objective. After all, we are not free of corruption ourselves. I read recently that the EU gets only six out of 10 on Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index, with some member states scoring below five. I am convinced that NGOs in general are the best route to poverty eradication. Since the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, will speak later, I am glad to say that the LSE-based International Growth Centre lends economists to developing countries and shares experience gathered in those countries on subjects such as finance, banking, taxation and currency. Such NGOs can multiply the value of aid many times over.

Most NGOs that have kindly contributed briefings to this debate are concerned about inequality and the need to see in the post-MDG agenda a more universal recognition of poverty, with more benchmarks of progress. I strongly agree with those who say that gender disparity and inequality must be addressed, but across the whole spectrum of the MDGs, not as an addition to the list of new goals.

I was going to say a word about the health targets, but in this environment, it seems very appropriate that a Crisp should replace a Sandwich.

12:37

[Lord Crisp]

My Lords, I rise as requested to respond to my noble friend. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on this important and timely debate and on setting out the big picture which, as I interpret it, is really about what sort of world we want to work towards. That is what this is all about. In that context, I am indeed going to talk about health.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of chairing two meetings of five All-Party Parliamentary Groups—Global Health, which I co-chair; HIV/AIDS; TB, Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases; and Population, Development and Reproductive Health—where we discussed precisely this issue. What health targets should there be in whatever replaces millennium development goals? A number of noble Lords took part, including the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and my noble friends Lady Hayman and Lord Low. We produced a list of principles at the end of the day, and I shall mention a few of them.

The first is that while the Government have talked about economic development being a golden thread throughout all development—and I think that is true—health is another golden thread. Disease, like conflict, destroys growth. It affects, and is affected by, all the other aspects of development. Healthy populations are more productive. We know that the scourge of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa has destroyed growth for many years and has reduced the output of that part of the world. We also know that, the other way around, 25% of diseases are affected by the environment and that, of the most effective interventions to improve health, the two perhaps most effective are the education of women and clean water, neither of which are immediately obviously health interventions.

In the meeting, I think that we all felt that health, because of its central role, must be explicitly mentioned in whatever replaces the millennium development goals. We need to maintain momentum on the MDGs. As many noble Lords have said, there is unfinished business. We need to learn the lessons. There has been measurable real value and impetus from the MDGs. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and others have said, we must be sure that they do not override local priorities, that single-issue disease programmes do not destroy local, more generalised healthcare systems and that they also address the wider issues, such as non-communicable diseases and disability. There is a clear need for a global framework but we also need local decision-making.

Looking forward, the group which met yesterday made the very strong point that, in all aspects of development, we need to focus much more on what women can do and on raising the profile of women in all countries of the world. That was a very strong theme. Linked to it was the management of population growth and contraception. We also spent some time talking about equity and the inverse care law which so many people have mentioned; namely, that in any given population, the poorest, who have the most need, get the least access to services.

We felt, ultimately, that we need one explicit health goal, which may be linked to other goals in other sectors. We discussed universal health coverage—the idea that healthcare should be available to everyone in the world through local health systems. We have not yet resolved exactly how we will want to take this forward. Perhaps I may say to the Minister that we will meet again and will no doubt write to him as part of the contribution to the DfID consultation on this.

On two personal points, first, I echo all the points about disability. I chair Sightsavers, which works on blindness around the world. It is very clear that so much can be done very cheaply to support disabled people. Our research shows us that in Nigeria, for example, people who are prevented from going blind or are treated with cataract surgery return to full economic employment within one year. It is very directly related to economic development.

Secondly, I believe that the goals chosen should reflect the needs of the whole world. It is not just about the rich world looking after the poor world, if I may put it like that. This is one world and there needs to be one-world goals. My personal proposal for the future is that in health terms, we should be looking for a goal that is about improving the health of the poorest 25% in every country. The goal should be linked somehow to measuring this in terms of a healthy life for the poorest 25% in every country. That could link closely to similar goals in education and elsewhere, and would leave the choices of what to do locally. If you happen to be a country in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV/AIDS would be the priority; in other parts of the world, other things would be the priorities. It involves us all and is outcome orientated.

In conclusion, let me return to the theme that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, started with. This debate is about what sort of world we want to work towards. I believe that greater equity in access to healthcare is central to that.

12:44

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Nicholson for introducing this debate. By taking note of the progress towards the successor framework to the MDGs, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the International Olympic Committee’s adoption of the UN MDGs and its development of a partnership with the United Nations in the field of development through sport, education, humanitarian aid, health protection and the Olympic Truce, which I would urge the Government to take forward under the successor framework.

The partnership that has developed in the past decade between the world of sport and the UN is ipso facto recognition of the extraordinary power of sport, especially for young people, which is a key area of concern and was highlighted by my noble friend Lady Jenkin. It is a natural partnership, given the complementary nature of the UN’s objectives and the Olympic ideals for peace and human development. Essential sports values are very similar to the core values of the UN and, over recent years, the UN and sports governing bodies have worked increasingly closely together.

The IOC now has a longstanding record of pioneering work with the UN on the use of sport as a cross-cutting tool to promote peace, development and human rights, as has its work in advancing the purposes and principles of the UN charter and its fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility. UN and Olympic ideals have been linked in efforts to deliver tolerance and peace, which symbolically is reflected in the decision in 1997 to fly the UN flag at all Olympic competition sites.

The UN General Assembly resolutions endorsing the Olympic Truce have been sponsored by more member states than any resolution in the history of the organisation, including a record 193 nations for the resolutions ahead of the London 2012 Olympic Games. The UN millennium declaration included a statement which urged member states,

“to observe the Olympic Truce, individually and collectively, now and in the future, and to support the International Olympic Committee in its efforts to promote peace and human understanding through sport and the Olympic Ideal”.

In January 2006, for the first time, the UN Secretary-General met leaders of the IOC and agreed to strengthen co-operation in the use of sport as a tool to reduce tensions in areas of conflict. Co-operation between UN agencies and the world of sport has since been developed through a successful series of memoranda of understanding to undertake various activities worldwide in fields such as health promotion, humanitarian assistance, peace-building, education, gender equality, the environment and the fight against HIV/AIDS.

As a result, and in no small measure due to the active support and lobbying by the Foreign Office under the previous Government, in a historic milestone, in October 2009, the IOC was granted UN permanent observer status. This decision paid tribute to the IOC’s efforts to contribute to the achievement of the UN MDGs and equipped the sporting movement with an authoritative voice within the international community as an advocate for the role of sport in the service of peace and development.

Embedding sport and recreation into development policies provides a large umbrella for action from the most basic and local levels to the highest level of political activity. Within these partnerships, even small and individual gestures can have a major impact. On the same day that the Olympic Truce resolution was adopted in October 2011, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, met my noble friend Lord Bates who had recently completed a “walk for truce” from Mount Olympus in Greece to London. The Secretary-General praised my noble friend for raising awareness of the truce and noted that it highlighted the fact that everyone could make a personal contribution to peace.

In laying the groundwork for a successor framework, I hope that the success of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games will act as a catalyst for the Government to contribute to a lasting sports legacy to the Games by seeking to increase the number of joint endeavours between the sports movement and the United Nations system in community development, education, health promotion and HIV/AIDS prevention, particularly in gender equality, environment and sustainability, humanitarian assistance and youth empowerment, as well as social integration of persons with disabilities, thereby directly contributing to the achievement of the MDGs.

Sport is, and always has been, one of the most effective tools for bringing together people for a common purpose. It is a cultural phenomenon which transcends entertainment. In its purest form, it is a triumph of the human spirit. It is about heroes and legends; nor are those heroes necessarily the ones who fulfil the Olympic motto, “Citius, Altius, Fortius”. I recall the truly inspirational Phil Packer, an injured Iraq veteran, who was told that he would never walk again. He showed enormous courage, determination and commitment in completing the 2009 London marathon in 13 days. We can all reflect on the remarkable abilities of our Paralympians this summer.

If these outstanding Olympic qualities of self-discipline, selflessness, fortitude and endurance were more widely replicated through sport, we would succeed in making the world a better place.

12:49

[Baroness Goudie]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for securing this most important debate at a very important time.

We have to ensure—through the UN, which has to agree to this—that all countries have to sign up to the millennium goals. We know that not all have done so. We also know that countries do not have to accept funds set aside for them through the goals. The World Bank has frightening figures showing that certain countries in Africa and Latin America are not taking up money that is available for education. I look to our Prime Minister and the negotiating team to ensure that this issue is addressed. We cannot force people, because that is not done, but we must make sure that there is a mechanism whereby they feel that they can take up the money, but not in a corrupt way.

I should like to consider the issues of natural disasters and conflict, because it is in those areas that health and education are abandoned. We know about the Security Council’s resolution that all women should have an opportunity and a right to be at the peace table and at the table when natural disasters happen. At present, women are not there and are far from being there. They are given just lip service. If women were there and were part of the millennium goals in the areas of conflict and resolution, things would be far different in terms of health and education. If we are not feeding children in the first 1,000 days of their lives, however much money we throw at or put into these countries, it will not help with education. We have to ensure that children get the correct food to enable their brains to grow. We have all seen the pictures of the brains of children of four or more that are not growing properly.

As regards natural disasters, schools are one of the places used for shelter because they are the best built and have the right facilities. However, the schools are then closed because of their use as shelters, and people cannot be educated. Education comes first after health and it is vital that schools are part of the refugee camps we establish following terrible disasters. At present, the schools come later, if they come at all. We cannot make up education. Also, if a child is out of school for a long period in certain countries, they never go back to school. That country then loses GDP and that child ends up working in forced labour. A girl is sold for marriage or for other activities. It is absolutely important to keep education at the front. If we educate a woman and she educates her children, their countries will benefit from their achievement of economic, social and political empowerment. There has to be a clearer vision for reducing inequality in education, and that should be a successor to the framework of the millennium goals. A number of Members have already made the other points that I wanted to make.

12:49

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to be speaking in this debate. The focus of the development agenda post-2015 should be on the empowerment of people in the developing world. There was always an element within the MDGs of top-down western Governments and NGOs saying what they believed was needed by the people in developing countries. Inevitably, it remains a problem in a debate such as this.

Of course, there was nothing wrong with the MDGs because they focused minds and, in some cases, produced excellent results. However, we are now in a new era. This is the era of mass communication, leading, I hope, to greater power to the people. An unpopular regime cannot last long if the whole community knows that the whole community knows it is against it. The power of Twitter and the like may be worrying for some of our leaders, particularly those at the BBC, but the implications for democracy in the developing world could be truly scene-changing.

Even now, the mobile phone is revolutionising life in Africa. Banking no longer needs a bank, or at least a bank building, and much needed information and knowledge is only a finger-touch away. People are already being empowered by modern communication and we must focus on helping that empowerment to enable them to get what they want. That should be our primary aim in the new era.

It is not all about votes and democracy. People also vote with their feet, or rather with their purses. Of course, any community in Africa or elsewhere will gratefully accept whatever is donated to them and, indeed, in some countries and regions there is a worrying dependency culture developing, which does no one any good at all. However, if families have to put in some of their own money, it is the women who will choose their priorities. Is it electricity or water? Is it transport or health? Is it education for their children? It is only the ability to make real choices that brings that sense of empowerment that leads in turn to self-confidence and even greater self-empowerment. It is a virtuous upward spiral that starts with economic freedom and can lead to greater democratic freedom.

I realise that such aspirations remain merely a dream to a huge number of people in the developing world. In many countries in Africa right now, the focus is purely on finding today’s food and water. However, we are talking here of tomorrow’s ambitions and what the long-term goals ought to be. We therefore need to look hard at how we can help the vast and growing numbers of Africans to find the means to take the choices to change their lives. I do not think we need to waste much time on seeking where to help. If 70%, 80% or even 90% of a country’s population are farmers, then teach them and help them to become profitable farmers. That is how to kick-start the rural economy. It is truly possible that Africa could not only feed itself but help to feed the world. With logistics, processing, packaging and retailing to serve the African urban food market, which is going to grow fourfold in the next 18 years, a whole new food economy could provide jobs and thus choices to a large number of people. By focusing on agriculture, countries such as Ghana and Ethiopia are already transforming lives. If you are worrying about the choices that the lady farmers of Africa might make with any new-found cash, fear not. I have yet to meet a single woman farmer in Africa who does not want to spend every penny that remains after feeding her family on educating her children.

How can we help and encourage better and more profitable smallholder farming in Africa? That is another whole debate, not for today, but there is no doubt that African agriculture is on the verge of a great leap forward, if it gets the right support. Furthermore, the rural economy, the rural environment, the status of women, the health and education of the next generation and, above all, the ability of people to make their own choices will depend on how successful we are in making profitable smallholder agriculture a reality over the next 15 years or so. It must be a key plank of any new development framework.

12:57

[Lord Sheikh]

My Lords, the successor framework is vital to ensuring that we maintain and build upon the aims of the millennium development goals. The international community has made great efforts to fulfil the goals, with excellent progress in areas such as increasing access to primary school education and improving sources of clean water. Research by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund reveals that higher food prices increased the number of people living in poverty in the developing world. However, preliminary estimates suggest that the poverty reduction target is likely to be achieved ahead of 2015.

Millennium development goal 5, on improving maternal health, stands alone as the goal that has recorded the least amount of progress to date and it is far from reaching the 2015 target. Improving maternal health is not only a moral obligation, but is financially prudent. The United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health suggests that maternal health problems result in losses to productivity of up to $15 billion per annum. I would be grateful if the Minister would inform your Lordships’ House about the steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking, along with our international partners, to address the lack of progress in this vital area.

I support the view of the United Nations System Task Team that the successor framework should focus on four key areas: namely, social development, inclusive economic development, environmental sustainability and peace and security.

I have been to Bangladesh. It deserves praise for being on track to achieve millennium development goals 1, 2, 3 and 4, which relate to poverty, primary education, gender equality and child mortality.

The overall number of people living in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa has fallen. Research by the United Nations Development Programme, the Economic Commission for Africa, the African Union and the African Development Bank suggests that. The region is off target in meeting millennium development goal 1 on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, goal 4 on reducing child mortality, goal 5 on improving maternal mortality and goal 6 on combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.

I have spoken in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere about the importance of business and trade in the United Kingdom and in overseas countries. More business and trade uplifts people’s standards of life. I have travelled abroad to promote trade.

The change in Africa’s economic fortunes has been remarkable. The continent has even been referred to as “the next Asia” owing to its rapid growth. Forecasts by the International Monetary Fund suggest that seven of the world’s fastest-growing economies over the next five years will be in Africa: namely, those of Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Congo, Ghana, Zambia and Nigeria.

However, many stumbling blocks remain for Africans. Average life expectancy is still only 56 years, child mortality remains high and overall literacy rates are only 67%. Africa’s economic growth is often described as “jobless” because of its failure to create jobs, in particular for the 60% of Africans aged between 15 and 24 who are unemployed.

In order to break the cycle of poverty, individuals need sources of wealth creation such as employment opportunities, access to trade and greater interaction with the private sector. In addition, measures must be taken to combat corruption. The UN System Task Team on the successor framework post-2015 development agenda published a report in June that noted the progress made in areas such as poverty reduction, but highlighted the deficiencies in areas including governance and accountability. It is a credit to Britain that the Prime Minister has been appointed as a co-chair of the high-level panel of eminent persons to advise on the post-2015 development agenda. This will ensure that Britain continues to take the lead on this vital issue.

The progress made through the millennium development goals has transformed the lives of the world’s least fortunate people. We have a moral duty towards these individuals to ensure that a successor framework is created that builds on the existing achievements.

13:03

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords, having had to take what the Americans euphemistically call a comfort break, I am sorry that I missed the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in which he made reference to work going on at the London School of Economics. I assure him that I will read Hansard, and I thank him for the reference.

The UN report of 2012 on the MDGs shows a chequered picture that includes considerable successes, to which other noble Lords drew attention. However, it is important not to be intellectually lazy. We have no way of knowing how far changes happened because of the MDGs. Many of them might have happened anyway. At a minimum, we can say that it was an important consciousness-raising exercise on a global level—and probably quite a bit more than that. However, caution is needed in looking at the sources of the changes that happened around the world.

Today a much wider global discussion than at the millennium is going on about what the successor goals and strategies should be. This is one contribution to that discussion, as is right and proper. However, it is obvious that there are dangers as well as positives in this. For example, there could be a clamour to introduce multiple new goals, because everyone has their list of “musts”: must do this, must include that. So far in the debate I have listed 14 “musts” in what noble Lords said. It is clear that there should be some control over the list of “musts”, otherwise there is no chance of perpetuating a sustained programme. Noble Lords will remember the adage, “If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority”. I will make three brief comments based on that.

First, we should be conservative about the number of goals and the range of countries to which they should apply. In this sense I disagree with quite a bit that other noble Lords said. There should be no going above the existing number, and the goals should apply only to countries that have a significant proportion of those whom Paul Collier famously called “the bottom billion”. Aspirational targets are of no value without metrics, kept and systematised by the UN. Again, this suggests a concentration on concrete and definable ambitions, partly because the methodology already exists and also because there is a sustained amount of information on the existing millennial goals.

Secondly, it is very important to note that the pursuit of the MDGs was facilitated by a relatively benign economic environment after the turn of the century. The next few years might not look at all like this. We live in an extremely iffy and perturbing world. The world economy is slowing down; there is gigantic debt in the West; the EU is poised on the edge of potential catastrophe; in spite of the good news this morning about a ceasefire, there is the possibility of extended wars in the Middle East; and food security is looming in public consciousness as a global problem in a way that it did not at the millennium. This means that we will have to build into our assessment of the MDGs a range of new risk factors. A lot of attention must be given to how this is done.

Thirdly, we have one MDG where, because I work in the field, my view is that we have made no impact at all. It is the goal of ensuring environmental sustainability. Rio+20 has been a flop; in 20 years, virtually nothing of substance has been achieved. There are very serious problems ahead, especially from unmastered climate change. The level of CO₂ emissions in the atmosphere is mounting every year. The world has made no sustained response of substance to this issue. Some people have suggested that sustainability should be folded across all the millennial goals. I disagree; it needs to be specified and it also needs metrics. For example, we need poorer countries to be able to jump technologies in the development process, as they did with mobile phones. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on any of these issues.

13:08

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I will restrict my contribution to considering one possible barrier to achieving the current goals: the lack of attention to mental health. This is not just another “must”. The current MDGs do not explicitly address non-communicable diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease or mental illness. This may be because when they were agreed in 2000 it was believed that infectious disease, malnutrition and a safe childbirth were the most important health problems facing poorer countries. Mental health was not mentioned; perhaps it was not seen as relevant or because of the stigma of mental disorders. In 2005, the World Health Organisation presented a rather different view. It published a report called Preventing Chronic Diseases: a vital investment. It made the point that non-communicable diseases kill people at economically and socially productive ages and kill them mostly in the developing world: 80% of chronic disease deaths were said to occur in low and middle-income countries.

Neuropsychiatric disorders are non-communicable diseases and make up 13% of the global burden of disease. It is estimated that by 2020, 20% of the world’s population will experience depression—a treatable condition. In 2011 the WHO mental health atlas report showed that in most countries worldwide, there has been little progress in implementing mental health programmes. At the United Nations high-level meeting on non-communicable diseases in 2011, the political declaration concluded that,

“there is a need to provide equitable access to effective programmes”,

on mental health. At last attitudes to mental health across the world are changing. This year 500 organisations representing the mental health community and civil society worldwide signed up to the World Federation for Mental Health’s great push for mental health programme. A survey of these organisations demonstrated a high level of agreement on what they wanted the WHO to do to progress mental health globally. Ministers of health from many member states have prepared a comprehensive mental health action plan to be presented to the WHO executive in January next year. This draft action plan suggests targets for countries for mental health service development.

Mental health is now being recognised formally as important on the world stage—not just in the United Kingdom, where we now have a commitment to work towards parity of esteem between physical and mental health. Like other non-communicable diseases, mental disorders affect all aspects of life and frequently co-occur with physical illnesses. I suggest that mental disorders are relevant to all of the current eight millennium goals. I will give some brief examples to explain what I mean. For example, goal 1 aims to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. We know that acute and chronic mental disorders are associated with unemployment and a descent into poverty and thus treating mental illness as a root cause of poverty is key. Goal 3 aims to promote gender equality and empower women. We know that in most cultures women experience higher rates of mental illness than men, including prenatal and postnatal depression, and the emotional problems associated with domestic abuse, for example as a victim of violence, perhaps due to the mental health of their partners.

I take goal 4, reducing child mortality, and goal 5, about maternal health, together. Maternal depression affects birth weight and a failure to thrive in children. Mothers are more likely to cease breastfeeding early and their babies are more likely to develop serious diarrhoea and not complete their immunisations. Even with goal 7, ensuring environmental sustainability, we need to think about the mental health of migrants forced to leave their homes because of environmental disasters or war. Ignoring mental disorders is no longer acceptable. Mental health must not only be included in programmes serving the millennium goals, but must be seen to be included. Will the Minister indicate how the UK will contribute to making mental health a global priority in the development of successor millennium development goals, perhaps through advocacy but also through supporting alliances between economic, social, mental health and other stakeholders?

13:14

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, when the millennium development goals were first promulgated at the millennium summit in 2000, it was easy and tempting to dismiss them as just another piece of UN flannel; more warm words designed to conceal a lack of action. It was easy and tempting, but quite wrong. In fact, the goals have proved to be a lot more effective than all the volumes of exhortations which preceded them in earlier years; also because they committed the Governments of developing countries—as well as those of donor countries—to implementing them. This provided that platform of equal and mutual commitment which was so often lacking in the past and which surely must be a clear part of any post-2015 system.

Of course, not everything has gone right with the development goals. Many donor countries have fallen short on their commitments and allowed their aid budgets to be squeezed by austerity. Many developing countries, particularly those in conflict zones, have made little, if any, progress towards achieving them; and the broad-brush approach used in 2000 has meant that the major achievements of a few populous countries in Asia in lifting tens of millions of their citizens out of poverty have masked the failures elsewhere. That is why the worst possible course of action would be simply to roll over the 2000 system and targets and then forget about them. We need to learn and apply the lessons of those first 15 years and that is the reason why I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for initiating this debate and introducing it so well.

Here are a few thoughts for the future. First, any post-2015 system should focus much more specifically on what Professor Collier—already mentioned several times in this debate—has eloquently called “the bottom billion”. It is the plight of those people, wherever they may be found—and we should be wary of the sweeping classification of countries as poor or middle income—which needs to be addressed far more effectively than before. We should not turn our backs on the Dalits in India or on the street children of many Latin American countries. Secondly, we surely need far more rigorous systems for benchmarking progress—or the lack of it—in both donor and recipient countries and for naming and shaming countries on both sides of that divide who fall short of their commitments.

Thirdly, we need to bring the private sector, both business and the great philanthropic foundations, into the heart of devising and implementing the post-2015 MDGs. Too often they have been treated as add-ons and their contributions have not always fitted as well as they should with national Governments and the great intergovernmental institutions. This time, we need to do better than that and we should not forget what a crucial role business has to play in the fight against corruption, in particular through such schemes as the extractive industries transparency initiative. In that context, when the Minister replies to the debate will he report on the progress of negotiations within the European Union to make the EITI a mandatory requirement for European businesses?

Fourthly, we need to focus more effectively on the gender aspects of the post-2015 MDGs. It is not enough to have a single gender policy goal, or set of goals, because gender issues crop up in every one of the goals. Nor is it enough to say simply that gender issues are cross-cutting and then ignore and neglect them in their application. Somehow we need to resolve that paradox. I therefore hope that before too long, the Government will come forward with their thinking on the post-2015 MDGs in the form, perhaps, of a White or a Green Paper or a discussion document. We need to move the national debate on aid on to more positive and forward-looking territory and away from the well-trampled terrain of the ring-fencing of our aid budget.

13:18

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for raising the issue of the millennium development goals and for her perceptive speech and questions, so eloquently followed by other contributors to the debate. There are problems that are always inherent in goals and targets. Let me take the example of schools. Let us suppose that there are goals to reach certain standards in reading and mathematics. Schools in deprived areas will have more difficulty reaching the targets than those in affluent areas. As head teachers often say, it depends on where children start off, and success should be measured by what improvement has been made from the baseline of when a child enters school. Some countries, as we know, have horrendous problems around climate, poverty, disease, malnutrition, overpopulation, corruption and conflict. They will find it difficult to reach goals that others find much less so because the baseline varies in different countries. I support overarching goals, but I agree with the UK-based Global Health Network that we need to focus on inequity by directly targeting the groups, regions and countries that have fallen furthest behind in the development efforts related to the MDGs, and that we should build on vital unmet existing MDG commitments rather than seek to replace them.

I shall focus on the well-being of children, and I declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF UK. Children are vulnerable. The Save the Children Fund points out that 200,000 Syrian refugee children are at risk of enduring freezing temperatures this winter. More than 50% of the population of Gaza are children. Children are the hope of the future. Another key consideration, one that is supported by Women and Children First, is ensuring the involvement at the local level of civil society, communities and affected populations in the design, development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of laws, policies and programmes; in other words, investing in people. A top-down approach, as my noble friend Lady Kinnock discussed so eloquently, may alienate and disempower the very people it seeks to help. Many women and children in communities must be enabled to have a voice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said.

UNICEF is about to carry out a consultation with children about the successor framework. Helping and empowering children demonstrates how important are the links between education, health, poverty reduction and gender equality. Improvement in any one of these aspects helps to improve the others. In helping children, development becomes more sustainable. Countries cannot tackle diseases such as malaria and HIV, reduce poverty or improve the capacity of populations without investing in children.

Other noble Lords have talked about education in this debate. A focus on education, particularly of women and girls, should be paramount. The Millennium Declaration and the UNICEF “A World Fit for Children” declaration can serve as guidelines and incentives for future progress, but with the caveat I expressed earlier that more targeting on specific countries and populations in difficulty should be a priority, and children’s well-being must be to the fore. A UN summit held in September 2010 set a target to ensure that by 2015 children everywhere, boys and girls alike, would be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. In 2008, enrolment in primary education in developing regions reached 89%, up from 83% in 2000. This rate of progress is insufficient to meet the MDG target of achieving universal primary education by 2015. Around 69 million school-age children are not in school, and almost half of them are in sub-Saharan Africa. I hope that the successor framework will address the shortfalls identified by Save the Children, which points out that there are inequities within countries which must be addressed.

However, there are many good examples of education initiatives which I hope will be shared so that good practice is developed across the world, particularly for women and girls. Can the Minister tell us how the successor framework is to be developed? What are the processes and who will have input into it? How will the UK contribute, apart from through the Prime Minister? Will voluntary sectors and local communities around the world be involved? Can the successor framework, while maintaining the ambitions of the MDGs, refocus within each of the eight goals in order to prioritise the most vulnerable, and be realistic about some of the threats to development such as conflict and overpopulation? That is not a must, but a should. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

13:23

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Nicholson on securing this very important debate. It is widely accepted that the millennium development goals have concentrated the minds of donors on international development and it is acknowledged that some progress has been made. In declaring an interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, what is important is that we should bear in mind, when setting up the new frameworks, three overarching principles.

The first of these is sustainability. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, we need to address the effects of environmental change and global warming which, while they are caused mainly by us in the West, have a huge effect on people in the developing world. The second principle is that developing countries themselves, as was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, must be able to set their own agenda and priorities for the benefit of their people. They should not necessarily be completely bound by whatever replaces the millennium development goals or those vertical initiatives that we have seen from the donor community.

The third overarching consideration is population growth—I call it the elephant in the room. It is no good setting targets when the world population is still increasing by 80 million a year. That is the equivalent of adding another United States of America to the world every four years. The millennium development goals ignored population growth completely; it was not taken into consideration, although it is a huge challenge. A report published by our group three years ago, The Return of the Population Growth Factor, pointed out that in countries with high population growth, the number of school age children doubles every 20 years. Assuming a class size of 40, which is modest, this means that worldwide an extra 2 million school teachers are needed every year just to stand still, let alone to make any progress. The same problem affects other goals, of course. Population growth prevents progress. That is why I applaud the Government—yes, me, applauding the coalition Government—for prioritising maternal health and recognising at last that family planning is a human right. Our Government have recognised the fact that currently 222 million women around the world want to avoid pregnancy and need contraception. Coercion is not necessary, and religion and culture need not be a problem. Some countries have already achieved a reduction in fertility rates and falls in family size. Bangladesh has made great progress, as have Rwanda, Tunisia and countries in east Asia. What is surprising to many is that Iran runs an extremely good and successful programme for reproductive health and family planning for its women. We need to build family planning into the new post-MDG framework so that other countries can follow their success. Let us remember that if women are allowed to control family size and have the number of children they and their husbands want, there will be lower maternal mortality from unsafe abortion and unassisted childbirth, and all the complications that arise therefrom. Chronic ill-health in mothers who are too young or too weak to have large families can be prevented. Giving women access to family planning ultimately means fewer mouths to feed, less hunger and better food security—and that means less conflict. It means more girls and women in education and more women who are able to join the workforce. It cannot be repeated often enough that having educated women who can contribute to the economy means achieving the holy grail of economic growth.

13:29

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, one of the benefits of the millennium development goals—alongside those of a sharpened public focus and broad narrative to which the right reverend Prelate alluded—has been the opportunity to learn sometimes what does not work and what does. The focus and funding that has come with these goals have allowed development agencies and countries to improve their performance in the areas of concern.

I use as an example the work done by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine’s maternal and child health unit and declare an interest because I chair its advisory council. With support from DfID and under the millennium development goal of improving maternal morality, they have found a programme that trains, in-country, workers and birth attendants dramatically to reduce maternal mortality. Of course when you reduce maternal mortality, you have a hugely beneficial effect, reducing maternal morbidity and child and infant mortality, all of which is ongoing. Recognising that a lot has been learnt and is still being learnt, when we look post-2015, is tremendously important. Some wheels have been invented but we do not want to start reinventing every wheel in the post-2015 framework.

In the three minutes left, I echo three themes—unsurprisingly, themes that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because I, too, was at the event yesterday. I turn to women first—and perhaps, in the interest of brevity, I should stop there. We have huge amounts of evidence that, by improving the health, education and economic opportunities of women, their freedom from violence and forced and early marriage, their access to family planning, we underpin national development across the board. Women are absolutely crucial to that. Secondly, we must reach out to the bottom 25% in whatever part of the world they exist. Making this a universal and international aspiration and set of goals—not simply something that the developed world is doing unto the developing world—helps with this. I could say the same about women’s empowerment but perhaps this is a delicate issue in current circumstances.

Thirdly, there is the idea of having a single goal on health post-2015. Health is crucial to all those other areas of development, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, illustrated this in terms of mental health and the way in which not addressing mental health issues undermined achievement of the millennium development goals. As the House knows, my own interest is in neglected tropical diseases, which are not mentioned as such in the millennium development goals even within the health targets. Look at education, however. Children with worms do not go to school and, therefore, stop the achievement of the target. Look at economic development and the abolition of poverty. People who are blinded by oncho or trachoma are not going to be able to be economically active. Look at the reduction in HIV/AIDS. Women who have genital schistosomiasis are more likely to contract HIV and AIDS. Women with anaemia—because of neglected tropical diseases—are more likely to die in childbirth. Running through all those individual goals is the deleterious effect of neglected tropical diseases. You can go from that to health in terms of development. Having a single health goal—in terms of providing healthcare access, appropriate to that country, to everyone in that community—is one of the important overarching views going forward after the millennium development goals.

13:35

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, for tabling this important and timely debate and for her terrific introduction, which focused our attention on the importance of the successor framework to the millennium development goals. I very much hope that the Minister will ensure that today’s debate feeds into the current listening process. I am proud that the Labour Government were at the forefront of establishing the MDGs and the global efforts to meet them. However, like my noble friend Lady Kinnock, I recognise that they sadly did not meet all the objectives of the excellent Millennium Declaration. I hope that we can return to that declaration in due course.

As we have heard, while targets have not been met in many cases, the MDGs have made a real difference to millions of lives. They were not just warm words but real targets, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. They have also enabled millions of people in developing countries to better understand the challenge, and importance, of developments. With the Prime Minister as co-chair of the UN panel responsible for leading discussions on developing a successor to the MDGs, the UK has both a huge opportunity and responsibility to bring about a sustainable, inclusive and more equitable world. The successor framework post-2015 must build on the success of the MDGs and address the shortfalls. Decreases in maternal mortality are far from the 2015 target. Use of improved sources of water remains low in rural areas, and there are still 1.4 billion people living on less than $1.25 dollars a day, over 70% of whom live in middle-income countries such as India. That hunger remains a global challenge cannot be right in the 21st century.

Millennium development goals should, therefore, remain focused on ending poverty and retain a number of clear, measurable goals. We must evaluate and learn the lessons of the past 12 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, says, we must take from it what does and does not work. The global context has changed significantly since the MDGs were first agreed. Since 2000 we have witnessed global economic climate and political shocks. Technological advances have been made and environmental sustainability and governance have rightly moved to the forefront of development debates. We have also seen the rise of new development partners, such as China, and emerging economies and the shifting of power from small groups, such as the G8, to the G20. In order for any successor framework to be effective it has to take into account these evolutions, be rooted in today’s world and look to future challenges. A new agreement must encompass sustainability, a rights-based understanding of development and focus on growth, employment and inequality.

It is crucial that we urgently address rising levels of inequality. We on these Benches believe that it is important that our approach to post-2015 should be values-led, with the goal of tackling inequality at its heart. The gaps between rich and poor are growing rapidly both within and between a number of middle-income and developing countries. Gross inequality is wasting the talents of millions of our citizens, leaving behind individuals and groups in society and inhibiting growth globally. A recent discussion paper by the UN system task team highlighted a lack of focus on inequality as one of the weaknesses of the MDGs, while an October report by the ODI shows that MDGs did not incentivise a focus on the poorest and that targets expressed as national averages,

“can mask sometimes quite large inequalities within countries”.

At a recent parliamentary meeting on post-2015, there was a unanimous support from global civil society representatives for a greater focus on inequality and a successor framework to the MDGs. A recent briefing by Christian Aid found that, in Brazil, the proportion of malnourished children under five is 76.1% higher in the quilombola community—the descendants of slaves—than in the population at large.

Save the Children’s recent report, Born Equal, shows that inequality is especially hazardous for child well-being and development. In an analysis of 32 middle and low-income countries, it found that a child in the richest 10% of households has 35 times the effective available income of a child in the poorest 10%. In order to address inequality, there should be a focus on responsible capitalism—addressing tax dodging, fair trade, sustainable growth, decent labour standards and climate change; social justice, that is to say social protection, free access to education and healthcare; and human rights, that is to say human rights without exception, including women’s rights. Tackling inequality is about justice and fairness. Global growth should work for everyone.

The successor framework must—and I say “must” advisedly, because I believe that women’s rights should absolutely be at the heart of all MDGs—focus on gender inequality, violence against women and girls, and the role of women in peace-building. I take this opportunity to draw attention to legislation that is currently being considered by the Egyptian People’s Assembly, and note that the noble Baroness mentioned Middle Eastern countries. In Egypt at the moment, they are discussing a law that would reduce the marital age for girls to nine. That cannot be right. Such a move would violate all international agreements on children’s rights. Can the Minister assure me that our Government are making their views known on this issue?

Real progress has been made on girls’ enrolment in primary education, but huge challenges remain. According to a recent report by the Gender and Development Network, women are estimated to account for two-thirds of the 1.4 billion people globally who live in extreme poverty. It showed that gender inequalities—the unequal control and distribution of resources, legal and labour market barriers, the lack of representation and gender-based violence, to cite but a few—leave women and girls disproportionately vulnerable to shocks such as rising food or fuel prices, natural disasters and conflict.

President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, co-chair of the post-2015 high-level panel, alongside the Prime Minister, said a few years ago that,

“for far too long, women’s will, women’s voices, women’s interests, priorities, and needs have not been heard, have not determined who governs, have not guided how they govern, and to what ends. Since women are often amongst the least powerful of citizens, with the fewest social and economic resources on which to build political power, special efforts are often needed to elicit and amplify their voice”.

Once women are given resources, however small, they use them to improve the lives of their families and communities, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, suggested that they do in Africa. Women are powerful catalysts, but they need to be given the power in the first place. It is crucial that we tackle the abhorrent levels of violence still experienced by women in conflict situations and ensure that women have a greater role to play in peace-building and recovery. My noble friend Lady Goudie is right to say that women must be at the tables where conflicts are being resolved and peace built. Women should and must be part of the decision-making processes. Putting women’s rights at the heart of addressing the distinct challenges presented by fragile states must feature prominently in any new framework.

Provisions for an integrated approach to early childhood development should also be included in any new framework. This is based on our experience and on evidence that a joined-up approach to childhood development, which starts from when the child is conceived to when it enters school, and includes health and education provision, makes the greatest difference to a child’s life. Concern has been expressed about the absence of child protection in the current MDGs. Save the Children, for example, argued that there is evidence that the widespread violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation that children face is hindering progress on the current MDGs and the sustainable social and economic development of countries.

The current context in the UK, and in particular the recent report by the Children’s Commissioner, shows how important it is to focus our attention on, and listen to, vulnerable children. My noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen mentioned the Syrian children who are in refugee camps. Last week, I was in the Zaatari camp, where 55% of the population are under the age of 18.

A post-2015 framework has to be shaped in a more open, genuine and inclusive way, involving a wide range of actors in consultative processes. MDGs have received criticism for what has been described as a donor-driven approach and for not sufficiently involving all the actors of development. Gone are the days when developed countries can or should impose their will on the rest of the world. The new covenant must involve all countries, whether developed, developing or emerging, and all voices must be heard. It should not be directed at countries in the south, but instead reflect on behaviours in the whole world.

It is vital that any new agreement is developed through real partnerships between political leaders, civil society and the private sector in all countries. It could provide the opportunity for targets to cover national Governments, donors, regional bodies and the private sector. My own party is placing a big emphasis on co-ordination and co-operation. Indeed, we are in the process of organising a series of round tables with key stakeholders, which will inform our vision for a post-2015 international development framework.

In his statement after his appointment, the Prime Minister said he looked forward to listening to many voices. I welcome that. These voices must include, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, so rightly said, young people, but also disabled people, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Browne. The successor framework is an opportunity to build a more just and prosperous world. It is our duty to grasp it.

13:46

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and, as all noble Lords have done, draw absolutely appropriate attention to the post-2015 development agenda. At this juncture, at the outset, I also thank my noble friend Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne for calling this debate on such an important topic and take the opportunity to commend her on her outstanding contributions in the area of international development. I am sure that your Lordships’ House will agree that her opening remarks demonstrated her true expertise in this most vital of areas.

As we approach 2015, securing global agreement on the new framework to replace the current millennium development goals is a key priority for the Government and one that was, indeed, restated by the new Secretary of State for International Development. I listened very attentively, as I do through all debates. On international development in particular, I am fascinated by the expertise and am always learning of new things, new initiatives, new experiences and, of course, new proposals, all of which I have listened to very carefully and will certainly pass on to and share with colleagues.

In terms of priorities, I stand here both as a Minister in the Government and as a business manager of the House and underline the fact that in the two months that I have been on the Front Bench, this is the second occasion on which I have led and responded to a debate on international development, following the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. I hope that that underlines the priority that the Government continue to give to this most important of issues. Noble Lords can of course rest assured that this is not the last time that we shall return to this subject, about which we can learn a great deal from your Lordships’ House.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, talked about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister resisting calls from the Conservative Back Benches. Not so long ago, I was a Back-Bencher once—maybe I will be again, although I hope not too soon—and I assure your Lordships’ House that many on the Conservative Back Benches are 100% supportive of the Government’s stance. My noble friends Lady Jenkin, Lord Bates, Lord Sheikh and Lord Moynihan underline the quality and commitment that our Government, and the Conservative Party, have in respect of this important agenda. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about being, as ever, short of time on debates but this is an important issue and we shall return to this subject.

What have the millennium development goals achieved thus far? As we have heard, there were eight goals, and there has been good progress against some of them. My noble friend Baroness Nicholson referred to these, and I will give two examples—the global targets for halving both the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day and the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water were both met in 2010. Advances in primary education completion and gender equality in primary and secondary education have also been encouraging. However, not enough has been achieved. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, also raised this issue and I will return to it in a moment.

I will reflect on the comments of my noble friend Lord Sheikh and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. They cited examples of certain countries where things are being achieved. It is right that we highlight some of these positive achievements such as those in Bangladesh, where issues such as infant mortality and family planning have been challenged and looked at, and we are seeing success in those areas. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that women have been central to the delivery of those objectives in that country. Long may that continue.

However, I also accept that not all developments have been positive. Infant and maternal mortality and access to basic sanitation, for example, are lagging far behind in many countries. We accept that the MDG framework itself was not perfect. For example, the degree of national-level ownership of the goals and the extent to which MDGs were incorporated into countries’ own development strategies has been limited. In some cases, the framework’s narrow focus on quantitative results has skewed resource allocations; for example, focusing on getting children into school, rather than looking at the quality of those schools, has meant that what is being taught has perhaps not had the focus it deserved. As pointed out my by noble friend Lady Nicholson, countries being left behind must be looked at.

We still have three years to go until 2015 and, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said before at the United Nations, countries which are not yet playing their part must wake up and ensure that they do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, talked about leadership and partnership. It is important that the UK continues to be a partner in ensuring that countries progress to the next level.

As we approach 2015, the global debate about what should happen next is rightly gathering pace. As was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, 1 billion people will still be living below $1.25 a day in 2015. The new framework must address the issue of poverty and build on the notable successes, some of which I have already highlighted, of the MDGs. Agreeing a development framework will be challenging; let us not ignore that. There are a number of issues and debates to consider.

First, there are important questions about what the post-2015 framework should cover. Any new development framework needs to tackle the root causes of poverty, not just the symptoms; as my noble friend Lord Bates said, we must look at prevention rather than intervention. It will need to put in place the building blocks for sustained prosperity, what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister refers to as the “golden thread of development”. This means focusing on key issues such as peace and security, the rule of law, property rights, jobs, strong institutions, the integrity of government and good governance. As many noble Lords have already said, these were not addressed in the current MDGs. It also involves a virtuous and upward spiral of empowerment, as aptly described by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey also raised important issues. For example, he asked about the post-Busan committee and the need to build on its work, especially as a governance indicator. We agree. The Government stand by this. As I have already alluded to, it is part of the Prime Minister’s golden thread agenda. The global partnership for effective development set up in Busan will be critical to the delivery of the post-2015 framework. The new framework will also need to address new challenges and opportunities that have emerged since the MDGs were agreed, including environmental sustainability—mentioned by several noble Lords—resource scarcity and urbanisation.

I will now dwell on some of the points raised during this excellent debate. First, the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, all talked about education, health and the important issue of women’s empowerment. A focus on the golden thread to which I have referred and the new emerging challenges should not be at the expense of human development. In particular, access to quality health and education is essential. The Prime Minister is committed to building on the MDGs and to “finishing the job” on education and health, as well as the empowerment of women and the assurance of clean water and sanitation. I assure your Lordships’ House that Her Majesty’s Government are committed to making this happen. We look forward to receiving contributions from all noble Lords, but I would particularly welcome proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on some of the health development issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, also talked about sustainability, and said that this should be specified with particular references. He has rightly reminded us of the fundamental importance of environmental sustainability, and this will be used as a central plank of the post-2015 framework. My noble friends Lady Nicholson, Lord Chidgey and Lord Bates all talked about conflict and security, and whether they will feature in the framework. Fragile and conflict states are the furthest, I agree, from reaching the MDG goals. It is therefore right that any post-2015 framework reflects their unique challenges. One way of doing this, perhaps, would be for the post-2015 framework to build on the peace-building and state-building goals agreed as part of the new deal for engagement in fragile states.

My noble friend Lady Nicholson and the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, raised the crucial issue of human rights, and whether they will be central to a new framework. Around the world, it is an unfortunate reality that human rights are not being safeguarded. I assure them that the commitment of the previous Government is retained by this one. The excellent work done in this area by the previous Government continues to be built on. The UK believes that human rights should be reflected as a new part of the post-2015 framework. Discovering how best to achieve this through indicators, for example, will require a process of broad consultation and negotiation among member states. It needs agreement. This is a sensitive political issue with some countries, as I am sure noble Lords will acknowledge. It will be important to find common approaches, but it is an issue that cannot be ignored. My noble friend Lady Nicholson also raised the issue of the private sector. I was reminded of an issue that came out of the high-level panel meeting, brought up by the president of Liberia, about bringing forward a compact of people working together from all sectors of society, including the private sector. I assure my noble friend that Her Majesty’s Government are committed to working with all partners in developing the post-2015 framework. There are two private sector representatives currently on the high-level panel, and the London meeting of the panel had a session specifically on private sector engagement. We will continue to develop a new global compact with civil society, business and Governments to ensure that the new goals which are set target issues such as industrialisation failure in the post-2015 framework.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells talked of the target-based approach and the need for it to be maintained. The existing MDGs have put particular issues on the agenda and it is right that we now build on them. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that a target-based approach serves as useful political advocacy to incentivise focus and action for Governments. It also incentivises a focus on measurement and, most importantly, is results-focused.

Above all, elements of the new framework, as many noble Lords have reminded us, need to be focused, prioritised and, most importantly—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens—deliverable. A long wish list of issues and themes will have little traction or political resonance, as opposed to a prioritised framework. Debates are ongoing about the broader architecture of the framework, which needs to have a clear and prioritised set of goals which is likely to have more political traction than any high-level narrative. How these translate into targets at a national level is also an important question. National targets need to be set: it is no good having high-level, meaningful targets if countries themselves cannot actually work with donor countries to deliver them. What fosters real country ownership and accountability is incentivised action and results on the ground.

The Prime Minister has talked about poverty and various noble Lords have reflected on it. I am reminded of the words of Mahatma Gandhi when he said that,

“poverty is the worst form of violence”.

What he meant was the need to empower people. Poverty is an evil which we need to eradicate and it is right that we remain focused on doing so. However, I accept that some goals will apply to some countries more than others. There are clear responsibilities for donor countries on, for example, the transparency of aid flows. Any goal on extreme poverty would be most relevant to poor countries. Targets on gender equality, mentioned by several noble Lords, should also be applied to several countries.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and other noble Lords, rightly raised and focused on the issue of inequalities. She is a strong advocate of women’s rights and we shared common ground on the issue in the previous debate. Her comments resonate with all in your Lordships’ House. I assure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty’s Government are absolutely committed to putting a central emphasis on women’s rights in any post-2015 framework. We know that this is a key issue, but it is also a key part of a country’s development. I will, of course, raise the particular issue of the proposed new marriage law with my noble friend Lady Warsi and we will write to her in this regard as well.

My noble friend Lady Nicholson also asked whether Her Majesty’s Government would work to facilitate migration through a new framework. Whether, and how, to address migration in a post-2015 framework will be dependent on the priorities and this will be discussed.

There are a number of possible frameworks. We also talked about other inequalities including the issue of disability, so eloquently raised by the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Browne. There are a number of ways to incorporate disability and other forms of inequality into the post-2015 framework. One solution could be simply to disaggregate the measurement of targets in the new framework, a point touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock. Another solution could be to set “getting to zero” goals and targets. Meeting these targets would require the needs of everyone to be met, including the most vulnerable and marginalised groups. A third option would be to focus on areas where inequality is particularly pressing. In this context, it is important to dwell on the words of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I pay tribute to his efforts on the delivery of the Olympics and Paralympics which set a great example. They had the slogan of “Inspire a generation”: they inspired a nation and can perhaps inspire the world. Disability issues need to be central to any development goals and we shall be looking to raise them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, raised the issue of mental health. Once again, this should be reflected in the millennium development goals, but it is an unfortunate reality that, in certain countries, the issue of mental health is not recognised or is even hidden away. It is important that education about mental health and acceptance that this is a challenge faced by these countries is brought to the forefront so that the issues and challenges can be rightly targeted and addressed. Mental health is a fundamental health issue in the developed and developing world and Her Majesty’s Government will work with all parties to ensure that it remains a key focus.

I am conscious of the time and that there is much to be covered in this debate. I can assure the House that these debates are part and parcel of the Government’s wider consultation on the post-2015 development network. In the time left, I will answer some of the other questions which were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, rightly raised the issue of reproductive health and family planning. Access to family planning is a fundamental right for women and the millennium goal of universal access to reproductive health was not met. We therefore need to consider how this can be built into the post-2015 goals. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and my noble friend Lady Jenkin raised the issue of involving the next generation. Our children and young people are vital in determining the MDG goals post-2015. I can assure my noble friend and the noble Baroness that, in the final day of its London meetings, the high-level panel hosted a range of broad, in-depth consultations between high-level panellists, civil society groups, the private sector and young people. The young people meeting was crucial in hearing the particular perspective of youths, some of the key challenges of which were so ably and eloquently set out by my noble friend Lady Jenkin.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked me about the EITI. Transparency, accountability and governance are important and, in the interests of time, I will write to the noble Lord in this regard.

As a spokesman on this issue I assure the House that this important issue is close to my heart and that the Government will continue to consult on it because of the wide range of experience and wisdom held within your Lordships’ House.

I finish by saying that the United Kingdom is committed to doing everything it can to deliver a bold, useful and realistic post-2015 framework that will drive poverty reduction and deliver real improvements in the lives of generations to come. As has been said by several noble Lords, a new framework needs to be simple, ambitious but, most importantly, actionable. It needs to reflect the diverse conditions of development and be relevant for low, middle and high-income countries as well as fragile and conflict-affected ones. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells rightly said that these particular goals should be about transformative change; I totally concur with those sentiments. However, I am sure that all will agree that this debate underlines yet again the true expertise and informed opinions of your Lordships from across the Chamber. As this fascinating debate was over lunchtime, it was also apt that we had references to Sandwiches and Crisps.

The Government continue to be proud of the role that Britain plays against global poverty. We will continue to live up to that reputation as we pursue the unique opportunity to be the generation that addresses this key issue and eradicates absolute poverty.

14:07

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed for his full and detailed response. In this nation, with our wide, rich and varied experience and tremendously diverse but inclusive population, we have the most profound interest in the life and futures of the world. I mention the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, about the legislation which is now in front of the Egyptian Parliament. We are absolutely right to be concerned. It is a clear example of why your Lordships rose in such large quantities and with such a profusion of interventions in this important debate.

I am reminded of Pliny the Elder when he made his famous remark about Africa when I say that something new is always coming out of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Low, remarked that disability does not appear anywhere in the MDGs. What is this all about? The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, also remarked on the absence of mental health. This is simply not good enough. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, said, people need sources of wealth: they have to live and survive. We think, most profoundly, that the MDGs deserve a full-scale investigation in terms of the future post-2015 and we thank the Minister very much indeed for his commitment.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bates—that we should set up an ad hoc committee—might be a way forward and begin, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, by inviting the Government to contribute at least a Green Paper and, perhaps, a white one. Ministers know that this is an important topic and that this House, particularly, wishes to be heavily involved.

Motion agreed.

Prisoners: Voting Rights

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Statement

14:09

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice:

“Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Government’s approach to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on prisoner voting.

This is a subject that provokes intense debate, not least in this House. As the House will know, from as early as the case of Hirst in 2004, the court found the United Kingdom’s bar on prisoner voting to be ‘general, automatic and indiscriminate’ and concluded that it was, in the court’s view, in violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to free and fair elections.

The previous Government committed to implementing the judgment and issued two consultations that did not resolve the issue. Litigation has continued in the domestic and Strasbourg courts. In the case of Greens and MT in 2010, the Strasbourg court again found that the UK was in violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the convention, and gave the UK six months to bring forward legislative proposals to remove the violation. This deadline was stayed pending the UK’s intervention in a further case, Scoppola, involving the Italian Government. In this case, the Attorney-General argued in person before the court that national parliaments’ discretion to determine policy on this issue should allow for a complete bar on prisoner voting.

The judgment in the Scoppola case was handed down in May this year. It concludes the Strasbourg court’s consideration of the issue. In that judgment the court made it clear that in its view the ‘margin of appreciation’ afforded to individual Council of Europe member states to decide on how far prisoners should be enfranchised was wide, but confirmed its position that a complete bar was outside that margin. The judgment restarted the clock on Greens and MT and requires the Government to ‘bring forward legislative proposals’ to give effect to the judgment by tomorrow, 23 November, and to enact the required legislation.

The Prime Minister has made clear, on the record, his personal views on this subject. I have done the same. Those views have not changed. However, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the court judgment. As Lord Chancellor, as well as Secretary of State for Justice, I take seriously the obligation on me to uphold the rule of law. Equally, it remains the case that Parliament is sovereign, and the Human Rights Act explicitly recognises that fact. The current law passed by Parliament remains in force unless and until Parliament decides to change it.

As Lord Justice Hoffmann put it in a case in 1999: ‘Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost’.

Last month, the Attorney-General made it clear in evidence to the Justice Committee that it is, ‘entirely a matter for Government to make proposals but ultimately for Parliament to determine what it wants to do. Parliament is sovereign in this area; nobody can impose a solution on Parliament, but the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations’.

The judgment requires the Government to bring forward legislative proposals for Parliament to consider. It will then be for Parliament to scrutinise and decide on those. So I have today laid before Parliament a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Leaders of both Houses are writing to the Liaison Committees proposing that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to conduct that pre-legislative scrutiny. We judge that pre-legislative scrutiny of this nature is appropriate given the significance of this issue and the strong views on both sides that exist right across this House.

The draft Bill sets out three different potential approaches for the committee to consider. Presenting a draft Bill with that range of options reflects the spectrum of views that we know exist on this question. However, it will of course be for the committee, once established, to consider whether approaches beyond those canvassed in the draft Bill should also be considered by Parliament in due course.

The first approach in the draft Bill is for prisoners sentenced to less than four years to be entitled to vote. A four-year bar has previously been discussed by Parliament. The second approach would limit the vote to prisoners sentenced to six months or less. The final approach would effectively restate the current position that anyone incarcerated following conviction would not have the vote.

The committee will want to consider these approaches, their consequences if they were in due course adopted by Parliament, and whether there are other options; for example, the Italian system, found to be compliant by the court, disenfranchises prisoners post-release. The committee will, I am sure, consider evidence on this and other approaches. It may also want to reflect on the consequences of Parliament’s ultimate decision for the rule of law and the UK’s international standing. The committee might also wish to think about practical implementation. The administrative consequences and costs of different approaches for the Prison Service, the courts, the electoral registration system and electoral registration officers could be significant.

The House will want to note that this draft Bill does not yet deal with territorial extent. Any Bill introduced into Parliament would need to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, although the Bill is currently drafted for England and Wales only. The Government will engage with the devolved Administrations during the pre-legislative scrutiny process to ensure the legislation applies correctly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, in recognition of the interaction with devolved policy matters.

When the Joint Committee has finished its scrutiny, the Government will reflect on its recommendations. We will continue the legislative process by introducing a Bill for full debate and scrutiny as soon as possible thereafter.

I have set out in some detail for the House the background to the draft legislation that I am publishing today, and the respective roles of the Government and Parliament in resolving this issue. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

14:17

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is an issue of enormous interest and concern, not only in your Lordships’ House and the other place but across the country.

This is not the first time the UK Government have had to look at this issue. As the noble Lord said, it has been controversial since the 2004 Hirst case, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting was contrary to Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the convention. The Labour Government disagreed with the court’s decision. We appealed and we continued to challenge the decision until we lost office. There may be differences of view on this issue but the Labour Government provided clarity and a consistent position throughout our time in government.

One of my concerns now is the lack of consistency and the confused messages from this Government on the issue. Many of us will recall Prime Minister David Cameron’s comments in the House of Commons in November 2010 that it would make him,

“physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/2010; col. 921.]

As the Minister said, he has made similar comments since. Just a few weeks after those comments—in fact it was the last day in the Commons before the Christmas Recess in 2010—the Government snuck out a Written Statement announcing that prisoners on sentences of less than four years would get the vote. That would have meant roughly 30,000 prisoners getting the vote, nearly 8,000 of whom having been found guilty of violent and/or sexual offences, although other prisoners, presumably guilty of the same offences but serving slightly longer sentences, would not have got the vote. At the time, we asked the Government to share the legal advice on which the decision was based, but they refused to do so.

Then, following an overwhelming vote in the Commons in favour of the status quo on 10 February 2011, the Government appeared to abandon that policy and, this year, the Attorney-General again appealed to the European Court in the Grand Chamber and we supported that appeal. Then, just last month, the Guardian newspaper reported government plans for a draft Bill on prisoner voting. At the time, that was categorically denied by the Government, yet, four weeks later, we have a draft Bill. We need to digest the details of this draft Bill and will work with the Government to ensure that it receives the pre-legislative scrutiny that any such Bill deserves.

The Labour Opposition’s views on this issue are well known and well documented. We are unhappy with the European Court ruling on prisoner voting. It is not a case of our Government failing to hold free or fair elections, or of massive electoral fraud; this is about those convicted of an offence deemed so serious as to warrant a prison sentence being denied while they are in prison a number of rights and privileges, including the privilege of voting. The Labour Government remained consistently of the view that this should be within the margin of appreciation that nation states are given by the court.

Prison is a punishment, and we feel equally strongly about the state’s responsibilities aggressively to intervene to address offending behaviour of prisoners and to try to prevent reoffending. Improving physical and mental health, literacy, preparation and training for work and preparation for life outside prison are crucial ways in which any country should seek to end the cycle of offending. The notion that depriving a serving prisoner of the vote means that it is more likely that they will reoffend is absurd.

We have to respect, and will respect, the rule of law. We cannot abide just by those judgments that we agree with. We are mindful of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and of the way that it has protected human rights across Europe for more than six decades. However, we regret that the Government wasted the opportunity to reform the court during their recent chairmanship of the Council of Europe. They failed to secure changes that would have led to the court respecting the unique circumstances of each individual member country and have prevented it adjudicating on domestic social policy such as this.

Parliamentarians should know the Government’s legal advice on what is needed to discharge our obligations under the convention on human rights. We need full information and clarity on the ramifications of any decisions that Parliament may take, because there is a risk that choosing the wrong option could lead to compensation claims from prisoners and to us as a country being in breach of the rule of law.

We have again requested that the Government publish their legal advice so that Parliament can make an informed judgment. Does the Minister consider that it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House, the other place and any Joint Committee if the legal advice on which the draft Bill relies could be made available to Parliament? If not, why not?

How long do the Government anticipate the pre-legislative scrutiny lasting? My reason for asking is that the Government’s position on this issue has changed so often and caused so much uncertainty that it would be helpful for it to be clarified as soon as possible. When is Parliament likely to be able to vote on these options as the Government have outlined and are the Government likely to recommend any of the three options to Parliament?

This is an important issue that causes enormous concern in the country, in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, and we need clarity. On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister saying that even contemplating giving prisoners the vote makes him physically sick and the Government denying press reports that there would be a draft Bill, yet, on the other, we have a draft Bill being published today. Surely, on this issue, the Government should offer some consistency and leadership and be clear about their intentions.

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords—

14:24

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for that very constructive response and I accept immediately her offer to work with the Government to make this a constructive exercise. Obviously, the first objective will be to set up the Joint Committee and then to let it get down to its work. I hope that I have not damaged her political prospects too much.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I had not realised that I had been quite so constructive as the Minister thought.

[Lord McNally]

I am sure that when she reads Hansard she will agree with me, but if she wants to be more abusive to me in a letter, I shall put it in the Library of the House.

We can have analysis of how this issue has been handled during this past 10 years and whether there were better ways of doing it. The Statement today lets Parliament set out a path to resolving the issue which is sensible and which may help us get to a solution which addresses the complex and sometimes conflicting issues to which the noble Baroness referred. It is an acceptable view—I heard Mr Jack Straw express it again today—that denying prisoners the vote is a denial of civic and social rights but not of human rights, but the problem that we face is that the court has taken a different view and that we are legally committed to obey or recognise it. The Joint Committee will be able to listen to a wide range of views, which I am sure will be forthcoming.

It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not disclose their legal advice. However, on this exceptional basis and to facilitate appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of this issue, the Government will publish a summary of their legal position once the proposed Joint Committee convenes. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has also made it clear that the Government will try to give the committee all facilities and information to allow it to come to a considered judgment. We could have lots of fun debating who should have done what and when during this past decade, but today we can set off on a path which allows Parliament, with a full regard—this I do take from what the noble Baroness said—to the wider implications of whatever decision is taken, to take this matter forward. As always, we will listen carefully to the views of this House.

14:28

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, I do apologise for jumping up earlier and I shall jump down pretty soon. My remarks are based on many years as a member of the board of visitors of Pentonville prison and many years as a member of the mental health review tribunal dealing with Broadmoor.

First, I wonder about the inmates of Broadmoor, some of whom, one hopes, will become normal, if not totally, criminal lunatics with time. Will they eventually get votes? The same would apply to institutions where the prisoners are drug addicts. What would be their position? I have a feeling that every prison has a hospital. Who is going to judge whether the patients in the prison hospitals are in fit state to vote?

I also wonder whether Members of Parliament who have prisons in their constituencies have thought about their future voting figures—rather different perhaps from what they are now. There are a great many questions to be answered. I have a feeling that I share the views of the Minister and I hope that he can put my mind at rest on some of my questions.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the list of questions raised by the noble Baroness illustrates why this has been a very difficult issue. The issue of prisoners with mental illnesses has been looked at separately, but parallel, to this. However, the level and seriousness of illness has been a concern and that is why there are a range of options. I hope that when the Joint Committee is set up it will look at some of these issues and take evidence from a wide range of people with experience and expertise. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s personal expertise and experience in this area. Some serious examination is needed now based on good analysis and well informed opinion from people with experience. That then needs to be synthesised by the Select Committee into a well informed recommendation to Parliament. It is a sensible process and the indications are that all sides of the House will pay their part constructively.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, when I was on the human rights committee we visited the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It was concerned that Britain, which had previously implemented all decisions of the European court, would give encouragement to the notorious abusers of human rights around the world by not implementing this one. Will the Minister comment on that? Will he further comment on a letter dated 30 August 2011 that was sent from the European court to the British Government? The final paragraph of the letter states:

“The Chamber would therefore regard as reasonable an extension of six months after the date of the Grand Chamber judgment in Scoppola (no 3) for the introduction of a Bill to Parliament”.

Not a draft Bill; not a committee for the introduction of a Bill to Parliament. Surely we have missed the boat already.

[Lord McNally]

No, I do not think we have missed the boat already. In neither House have we pretended that this is an easy issue to deal with. If there was a consensus on what to do, we would have dealt with it quickly and early. However, we have conflicting views and we are taking this forward.

I agree with the noble Lord on one thing. I heard Mr David Davis in the other place say that what we do on this would be a precedent, and he is quite right. If the United Kingdom were to decide on a “pick-and-mix” attitude to the rulings of the court and the application of human rights, others would gleefully grab that example when we try to take them to task. I did not agree with the noble Baroness when she was rather dismissive of the progress we made in Brighton in reforming the court. I do not think that anybody has denied that the court needs reform and we made great progress there that is ongoing.

The most significant thing for me was the day after the declaration was signed when the Attorney-General hosted a tour de table where each of the responsible Ministers from the Council of Europe gave an explanation and a justification of how they were implementing the convention. Here was a Russian Minister—I know Russia is not perfect—explaining and justifying its stewardship of the ECHR. I am old enough to remember meetings with the old Soviet Union when any attempt to raise human rights was taken to be an interference in its internal affairs and could not be discussed. I consider it tremendous progress by the convention and by the Council of Europe.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I am very glad that we now have a framework but I am sorry that we are still embarked on the approach from the wrong way round, which is why the consultation has failed. The question should not be who should have the vote—that is what was laid down by the European court. The question is who should not have the vote. The consultation failed because it asked the wrong questions. I am concerned by that approach, although I am very glad to see that the Government are going to allow consideration of other options such as the one I have always advocated that the sentencer should award the removal of the right to vote at the time of sentence noted to a crime. I also note that there is still concern about costs. That a slight red herring. I have always understood that the costs are minimal because it will be postal voting which happens for all remand prisoners now anyway.

My concern and question relates to the current law passed by Parliament. As far as I understand it, the only law that affects voting is dated 1870. It condemns a person to prison as being a form of living death. That conflicts quite starkly with the Statement about rehabilitation revolutions which we have just heard from the Secretary of State. Is the law of 1870 still held to be applying or is there a new law at the back of this very sensible proposal? I look forward to helping the Select Committee when the time comes.

[Lord McNally]

I would have to take advice on whether the 1870 law is the only one. I presume that there have been successor electoral laws since then. However, I agree with the noble Lord that we now have a framework. Whether the wrong questions have been asked or in the wrong order, the committee once set up will have considerable leeway to set its own terms of reference. My right honourable friend in the other place made it clear that although the draft Bill gave a number of options that was not the full scope of where the committee could go or what the committee could examine. The Lord is quite right that mention of cost is a bit of scaremongering. It would be handled, I suspect, as postal votes. On the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I remember a newspaper suggesting that in the Isle of Wight the seat could be swung by the block vote from Parkhurst. It is a reductio ad absurdum of the debate.

I am told that the law disqualifying prisoners from voting is now contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983. We have moved on 100 years and it is interesting that the Act is now nearly 30 years old.

There have been many red herrings in regard to the methodology of prisoner voting. I suspect that it would be done by postal votes, which would not be a tremendous burden on the administration of any elections. However, that is another matter on which the committee can take expert advice.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, whether we like it or not—and if not now then at some time in the future—and whether it makes someone sick or not, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the ECHR judgment. That being the case, is my noble friend able to identify the countries in the European Union that allow those convicted of crimes to have the right to vote? As the Minister responsible for providing the initiative for the rehabilitation of offenders, does he accept that by granting prisoners the right to vote, it will help in the rehabilitation of offenders?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, that illustrates the range of opinions on this matter. The Secretary of State set out his personal view and the personal view of the Prime Minister. I share the view of my noble friend that it could be possible to devise a system of enfranchisement for some prisoners that could play a useful part in a rehabilitation process. That may be something that he, or other bodies with which he is associated, may wish to put to the committee.

As regards the Council of Europe, some 41 members give prisoners the right to the vote to some degree or another and six continue with a blanket ban. Those six are: Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Russia, San Marino and the United Kingdom.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement as it offers a number of options. You can accept the changes and, therefore, observe the rights of the convention; or, if you refuse, you can leave it. To reject and leave the convention would be a proper exercise of parliamentary democracy. Is the Minister aware that I am a member of the human rights committee in the Council of Europe? That committee has received reports of many abuses of human rights, particularly in eastern European countries. I was sent to release 130 people from an Armenian jail, who had been accused of threats to the state simply by holding a public protest. I was able to get them out of jail because I was able to argue that Armenia is in breach of human rights. However, having listened to them, I know that they would like parliamentary sovereignty to overrule the human rights convention and they are watching Britain to see whether we do this.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am aware of the service of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, not only on the human rights committee, but more generally, to the Council of Europe. That council and its membership is something of which Britain has, rightly, been proud. His illustration is a perfect follow-up to what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to. I hope that the committee and the other place, when they weigh in the balance the various competing issues, take full account of the fact that we might seem to be setting a precedent whereby it is optional whether one complies with the convention and the court. There are those on whom we have previously been able to exert pressure where that pressure will be the less because we have provided them with a precedent. It is not a complete and convincing argument but it is one that should be put into the mix for careful consideration.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that in today’s society, which is so affected by the pressures of the popular press, there is a danger of prisoners being given pariah status, as illustrated by the fact that candidates for police and crime commissioner who had had a minor offence years ago in their youth were automatically disqualified? Should that not be in the forefront of the consideration of the Joint Committee? Can the Minister also clarify whether, and at what point, this matter might be subject to a free vote rather than a whipped vote?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, on the latter point, I am afraid I cannot give the House guidance. Without trivialising it, the answer is how long is a piece of string; how long will a committee ponder, deliberate and take evidence on these issues and then bring them forward to Parliament. The process is there and I cannot believe that it will be approached frivolously. It will be approached seriously by those who serve on the committee. They will bring forward their recommendations and then the Government are committed to bringing forward legislation in the light of that.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate on the way that this debate is handled by the media. I am pleased that the Government are concentrating their efforts on rehabilitation—I was very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, lent her support to that concept—and it is worth considering that this could be part of a rehabilitation process. That will be a part of the discussions that the committee will have to consider.

[Baroness Seccombe]

My Lords, many people serve up to 50% of their sentence in prison and the remainder on release when, of course, they could exercise their vote. So are we not fulfilling our obligation to the ECHR already?

[Lord McNally]

Apparently not. A number of people have pointed out that those in prison on remand retain the right to vote and a range of others who are incarcerated also retain the right to vote. The noble Baroness points out that those who are released, having served part of their sentence, can resume their right to vote. However, in the view of the court, that was not sufficient to clear the hurdle that it believed was implicit in the Article 3 responsibility. The committee will look at the issues. If there is a way that Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, can find favour with, we will take that solution forward.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Scottish Parliament has more clearly delineated the relationship with the ECHR than this Parliament has. Can he give us some indication, particularly in the light of his response to the right reverend Prelate, on the timing of getting legislation through Parliament and what he thinks the implications of that would be for the referendum on Scottish independence, which is now less than two years away?

[Lord McNally]

I do not want to speculate on that. I shall repeat what my right honourable friend said in the other place concerning the devolved areas and jurisdictions. This morning, he talked to the Scottish justice secretary, and to Wales and Northern Ireland, and the reason they were not in the original document was simply that we were not able to consult them in advance of publication. However, as this matter is taken forward, we want them all to be fully involved.

China: Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

14:50

Moved by

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

That this House takes note of the case for intensified discussions on multilateral nuclear disarmament with China.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name, I draw the attention of your Lordships to my entry in the register of Members’ interests, particularly my engagement with a number of organisations devoted to multilateral nuclear disarmament, improved non-proliferation and increased nuclear security. When I first submitted this Motion to the ballot for debate, I thought it was an opportunity for the House to debate and, maybe for the first time, for the Government to report to Parliament on the P5 discussions on confidence-building measures and nuclear disarmament that have been taking place since 2009.

Members of your Lordships’ House may be aware that I have some investment in these discussions. In particular, in a speech that I gave to the conference on disarmament in Geneva on 5 February 2008, I reminded those listening that the preamble to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty made it clear that,

“all States party to the Treaty should work towards ‘the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the elimination of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery’”.

I observed that the international community, in the context of the anticipated NPT Review Conference, was seeking,

“a transparent, sustainable and credible plan for multilateral nuclear disarmament”,

one that addressed,

“proliferation, so that disarmament and counter-proliferation both move forward together”.

I announced then that the United Kingdom Government:

“As part of our global efforts … hope to engage with other P5 states in other confidence-building measures on nuclear disarmament”,

through the anticipated NPT review cycle, the aim being,

“to promote greater trust and confidence as a catalyst for further reductions in warheads—but without undermining the credibility of our existing nuclear deterrents”.

That announcement subsequently led to the first ever meeting of the P5 states, including China, in London in 2009, which then went on to a meeting in Paris to discuss these issues, and another in Washington in 2012.

It is interesting that at the time of that meeting in Washington on 28 June 2012, the head of our delegation to the P5 conference, Robert Hannigan, issued a press release, the last sentence of which read:

“I am pleased that we have come a long way since our initial discussions in London and can focus this week on implementation of our commitments and taking forward new initiatives on nuclear disarmament, including confidence-building measures and exchanging verification experiences”.

I start my remarks on this Motion by inviting the Minister, either when he responds or at some stage, to build on that short press release to make it clear to the House what these steps are and to account to Parliament for them. What engagement do we have with our P5 partners, particularly China, on these very important matters? A significant and potentially world-changing conversation is taking place and the first reporting of it cannot be to the next review committee of the NPT. There ought to be some reporting of these discussions to Parliament and I am unable to find any proper reporting of them taking place.

That was my initial focus. However, since then I have had the benefit of a visit to China, in late October and early November. In the context of my recently acquired board membership of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, I was invited to attend a board meeting in the company of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has served on that board for 10 years. For those of your Lordships who do not know what the Nuclear Threat Initiative is, it is an NGO based in Washington and led by Sam Nunn, who for many years as a senator was chair of the armed services committee of the Senate, and Ted Turner. For 10 years, it has done groundbreaking work on reducing the use and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, while working to build trust, transparency and security, principally from the United States but also in Russia and China. All of these trust-building, transparency and security measures are preconditions of the fulfilment of the NPT. I congratulate the Nuclear Threat Initiative on the work it has done; the House should record its congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her decade of contribution to that significant work, which has gone relatively unsung.

Over the days that we were in China, we had the privilege of meeting analysts, researchers, academics, retired senior military, senior officials and the Chinese Foreign Minister to discuss, among other things, nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear security. We also had the privilege of attending a seminar at the Chinese institute of contemporary relations; an excellent discussion about regional challenges, including what is happening in the East China Sea, at the Carnegie centre of Tsinghua University; and an international conference of technical experts and analysts of disarmament and verification under the auspices of an organisation that has the acronym PIIC.

All of this was absorbing and interesting and, as it was the eve of the change of leadership in China and as we had the advantage of detailed briefing and informed discussion about regional security issues in the broader geopolitical context, it was immensely informing and remarkably optimistic in its sense of engagement and trust-building. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is scheduled to speak in this debate. I hope she will agree—we have not caucused on this issue—that what was striking in those meetings, when all these interesting and important issues were being discussed, was how comparatively irrelevant Europe and in particular the United Kingdom were to those discussions. The expression I have used since then is that you had to have relatively sharp elbows to get between the Russians who were present, the Chinese and those from the United States as they discussed these great global issues. It was very difficult to get a European or British voice or justification. I concluded that this was perhaps because there was no manifestation of any great effort being made on the part of our country or of Europe to engage significantly with the Chinese.

However, we live in an interconnected world. China is the EU’s second biggest trading partner, after the United States. Until two days ago, the EU was also China’s biggest export market. I noticed that the Chinese announced on Tuesday that the United States has overtaken the European Union as their biggest export market, as demand on this continent has dropped off because of the financial crisis. However, since the start of 2012 alone, we have had shipments from China to the EU valuing $276.8 billion. We are integrated with China not only economically but politically and if we have taken the lead economically, why do we appear to be holding back politically in our engagement with China, which is such an important power? We can do more and I hope that the short debate we will have over the next two hours or so may make some contribution to that engagement.

As Jon Huntsman, the former United States Ambassador to China between 2009 and 2011, writes in December’s Prospect magazine:

“Over the next years China will face multiple challenges”.

He sets them out but I do not intend to repeat them here; I think everyone knows what they are. Among those challenges, he says, the new leadership and the new president, Xi Jinping, will have to face the responsibility of dealing directly with the United States and the rest of the world over global issues of security and defence. The discussion that will take place, which we—that is, the Europeans and in particular the United Kingdom—have to be part of, will set the tone for potential global peace and stability.

Xi Jinping faces that challenge in the context of the renewed hope that President Obama has engendered that he will pursue his Prague agenda in his second term in office and seek to take significant steps towards a world free of nuclear weapons by reducing the salience of nuclear weapons and their numbers. He outlined his vision for a world free of nuclear weapons in a major speech in Prague in 2009, and the cheering of the people of Europe was audible as he outlined it. I have to say that the political support that he received thereafter was conspicuous by its absence, but he had other domestic challenges.

Not only did he outline that challenge but in September 2009 he chaired the summit meeting of the Security Council in which it unanimously adopted the ambition of a world free of nuclear weapons. We are now in the situation where all the important global leaders espouse the challenge of zero nuclear weapons, including our own Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron. We are committed to a world free of nuclear weapons; we have signed up to that.

Since then, the US and Russia have signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, requiring both of them to reduce their deployed strategic arsenals significantly. Thereafter, though, by and large there is no more good news. It appears that all the nuclear-armed states of the world plan to spend approximately $1 trillion on renewing or improving their nuclear weapon systems, so the rhetoric is for a world free of nuclear weapons but the steps towards it are conspicuous by their absence. More needs to be done. The reduction of these stockpiles is a global responsibility. Of course the United States and Russia have by far the biggest arsenals, but we are not going to make any progress unless we, the P5 countries, take our shared responsibilities for these steps, and that includes China.

What is striking about our engagement with China is that its nuclear weapons are shrouded in secrecy. There is nothing very unusual about that, of course; most of the nuclear weapons states in the world have a substantial degree of secrecy about their nuclear weapons. The Chinese analysis is that they have a very small number of nuclear weapons and they have a no-first-strike policy, a combination that requires a deal of secrecy. That then engenders suspicion, and there is a whole spectrum of speculation about whether it has thousands, including some hidden in tunnels—some analysis by Georgetown University suggested that, with no basis—or whether the view that General Robert Kehler, the head of US Strategic Command, is said to take, that they have several hundred nuclear weapons, is likely to be correct. The conclusion that I came to in my discussions with both Chinese experts and the experts that we had in our company, including Eugene Habiger, the retired US Air Force four-star general who served as commander-in-chief of US Strategic Command, was that the smaller of those numbers is more likely to be correct.

It is important for a starting point of the steps that we are taking if these discussions to know where the United Kingdom Government stand in this broad range of views. If they believe the larger estimates, which in my view are significantly exaggerated, they feed western unease about Chinese ambitions and create difficulty when it comes to building trust and confidence, whereas if they tend to the lower end of the spectrum and they share the view of the US Strategic Command, there appears to be a basis for some sensible discussion, should nuclear disarmament discussions be multilateralised.

If we rely upon Wikileaks, there was some suggestion that as recently as 2008 very senior members of the FCO shared the view that the larger numbers were likely to be the truth. I do not expect the Minister to comment on Wikileaks, but it would be helpful for an informed discussion if the Government made some public declaration of where they think Chinese nuclear weapons sit in this range of speculation, and what the basis for our discussions should be.

The purpose of all of this is that if we are to achieve the ambition that we say we all share, we have to prepare ourselves for a discussion across the world about ridding the world of these nuclear weapons. It is possible that if President Putin and President Obama move beyond the phase of New START, there will be a new set of discussions. We know from his public utterances that President Putin’s view is that they need to be multilateralised. What will our contribution be other than saying, “When the time is right we will engage with these multilateral discussions”, and what steps will we take to encourage the Chinese to engage?

In the context of these P5 discussions, what possibility is there that we, the Americans and the French, having hosted meetings of these P5 discussions, can encourage the Chinese and the Russians to host discussions too? That would be a significant statement to the rest of the world.

I suggest this as a possible way forward for engagement with the Chinese. What possibility is there that we and the French will voluntarily buy into the verification and transparency of the New START regime in order to set a model for the Chinese Government to buy into it too, so that we can move away from our inherent suspicion about China’s nuclear weapons system and its intentions?

15:06

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on the subject before us. I am only sorry that because of the pressure on the House of Lords over the past few days there are not more people present to take part in this debate, because we are now looking at the second greatest economic power in the world, and perhaps the third greatest military power, and it is important that our Parliament understands better than it does at present, and takes a greater interest in, what is happening in that remarkable country.

I shall start by bearing out even further what the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was saying about the significance of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which held a meeting in Beijing. It is a body that, as he rightly says, has great influence in the United States; it has been consistently strongly in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament, has great influence with the Houses of Congress, particularly the Senate, and is greatly respected in many parts of the world. Indeed, it has access to an astonishing extent to countries where even foreign offices do not have the same kind of contacts or relationships that they ought to enjoy.

Furthermore, we also had great help from the University of Tsinghua, one of the key Chinese universities. There has been a lot of the discussion in our own House recently about universities. This particular university has great standing in China, is very internationally minded and has enabled many students to come forward with a real understanding of the global situation. It is a matter of great regret that that university, like many others, has run into the extraordinary visa problems that have been thrown up by the new immigration policies of the United Kingdom, which in many ways are very discouraging to people in China who we ought to relate to very closely.

The other thing to say about Tsinghua University is that its rector—Dr Yang Fujia, who, as it happens, is also chancellor of Nottingham University—has been a significant bridge between this country on the one hand and the United States and China on the other, and he has consistently and continually worked on trying to create better and more understanding relationships between this country and China.

I shall begin by saying a word or two about the situation thrown up by the change of leadership in China. I am delighted to see that there are speakers in this debate who know a great deal about this subject, and I hope that they will contribute their knowledge to this discussion. It is of the first importance that we understand what opportunities and difficulties confront what is, after all, a generational change. There has been no change for over a decade in the system of Chinese leadership, as distinct from the personalities, and it is that system that we have to try to understand, and which I believe China will have to try to change.

The election of Mr Xi Jinping as the new leader of China, following Wu Jintao, does not bring about any huge change in the doctrinal policy likely to be followed by the country. Some people in China believe that Mr Xi Jinping, partly because of his background, is likely to be rather more open-minded to the world and perhaps rather more liberal, but that view is not necessarily correct and is not tremendously widely held.

There were no systematic changes in this leadership shift. Although it was relatively seamless in appearance, there was obviously a great deal of difficulty, chaos and indecision over the past year or two running up to this change. We need only look at the fact that Mr Bo Xilai, the very popular leader of one of China’s major provinces, Chongqing, has been not just removed, but purged from the Communist Party. I understand from my Chinese contacts—and I have been to China quite a few times in the past few years—that one of the reasons behind this was precisely the clash between his popularity and the policies that he was suspected of being likely to pursue. When the Politburo made the decision to purge Mr Bo Xilai, one of the real problems it had was deciding on what basis it was going to purge him. It ultimately purged him on grounds of corruption, but there were certainly many rumours in China that he might be purged on grounds of treason. I mention that only because it is of such significance to look at a leading Chinese who was not a member of the Politburo, but a fast-rising star, in a situation where regime change began to be widely discussed.

I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and others Members of this House will make their contribution to this debate.

That purging suggests that we are looking at a very much more stormy period than most of us recognise or believe. Why is there such a stormy period? I shall mention some of the factors that remain unresolved in China. I speak as somebody who passionately hopes that China will make her way to a more open society because she is a country of great significance and importance. I shall list them very quickly. The first major factor is the rift in the leadership. The second is that the leadership has left itself wide open to the challenge that it is overtaken by cronyism and that far too many of the new leaders are princelings. The sons—alas, not the daughters—of the great leaders of the long march and the original red revolution have become significant financial players. In many cases, they are chairmen or vice-chairmen of the big state-owned enterprises and banks, and are, in fact, becoming something of an oligarchy. That is ironic in a way, given the original ideals of the Chinese revolution.

The third big factor is corruption. It is widespread in China, not least in local government, where it is fed consistently by the seizure of land and its sale to developers for large sums of money, most of which do not find their way back to the peasants who lived on that land. Very often, the money is siphoned off, sometimes abroad, or to the private fortunes of those who have the ability to turn that land from peasant, farming land into development land, with huge planning gains.

The fourth factor is that China has been slow to recognise the need for at least a basic welfare state. It is beginning to move on this. For example, at present something like 95% of the Chinese population is covered by some sort of very basic healthcare, whereas the figure only five years ago was 15%. The Chinese are beginning to move, however slowly, in that direction, but they are still a very long way from something like the National Health Service, in which they have shown considerable interest.

The fifth factor, but I shall not go on about it, is crucial to understanding the unrest in China, which is very great. Three years ago, when I went to speak to the China Reform Forum, the training college for the young elite of the Chinese Communist Party, one of the things that surprised me was the sheer scale of demonstrations in China, running into the thousands, all too many of which had to be put down by the People’s Liberation Army. In other words, those demonstrations were much more than the flag waving and shouting of slogans that we have day after day across the street under King George V’s statue. They were altogether different.

I shall mention one other factor, which is very important. It is the house registration system, with which many people in Britain are not familiar. Other people know more about this than I do, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and other Peers. It is a system under which you are registered in the house in which you are born. That house registration becomes your passport to whatever benefits or, for that matter, duties, you have in that province of China. Quite basically, it means that if you are born in a rural state, you will have only the most basic education and health services, very many benefits will not apply to you, you will have a very low pension, if any at all, and you can leave the province where you are registered only as a migrant worker carrying with you the lack of the benefits and rights that people in Shanghai, Beijing or Guangdong undoubtedly enjoy. One might almost describe the house registration system as a blockade to social mobility, and it is one of the reasons why the leadership of China has consistently become more an elite divorced from a large number of the people.

Having said all that, let me return to the issue we are discussing in this debate: the nuclear issue. I shall say a few words about the problems that China confronts in foreign affairs, which have already been adduced by my noble friend Lord Browne, but are worth saying a little more about. The first thing to say is that the United States’ modernisation of nuclear weapons is regarded in China as an extremely serious challenge. Whether we like it or not, China still sees three countries as posing a certain threat to itself. One of those countries is the United States, the second is India and the third is Japan. I shall say a word about each. I am not pleading for China, but I understand why the modernisation of conventional and nuclear weapons in the United States troubles China very much indeed. After all, the United States is the biggest naval presence in the Pacific and its defence budget is equivalent to the next 13 countries in the world, which include China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and many more, and, if Mr Romney had become president, it would have been increased very substantially.

I want to say a few words about nuclear modernisation. One of those words concerns the attempt to get smaller and more effective nuclear weapons—thermobaric weapons—which add a number of other fragmented materials to uranium or another nuclear product, usually U-235, to make the effect of those bombs much more explosive and much more devastating.

A perhaps equally frightening weapon is the “mother of all weapons”—the MOAW—so called, unfortunately, by the nuclear military industry. It is so powerful and so explosive that it is capable of knocking out anything buried several meters under earth, or even several tens of meters under earth. It is the biggest explosive device that anyone has ever invented.

Also very troubling is the introduction of nanotechnology into nuclear development. It means the opposite of the mother of all weapons; it means tiny nuclear bombs which can blow up a whole city but which are extremely hard to detect. It will be very difficult for the NPT—or to be more precise, the International Atomic Energy Agency in Geneva—to inspect, discover and track nuclear weapons as tiny as are now being developed. Therefore, China has some reason to be worried, as does the world. Not just China, but nuclear weapon countries—P5 and outside—all over the world are developing this highly sophisticated and rather terrifying technology.

I referred to India, which China sees as a rival. One of the most destructive steps ever taken in the world of attempting to deal with multilateral disarmament was—I said it rather loudly at the time but not many people were listening—the US-India agreement of 2008. It was a terrifying agreement because, not only did it exempt India from any of the controls by the nuclear suppliers group—an essential element in the whole structure of trying to control and govern nuclear weapons—it also enabled India to bypass issues about the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and fissile material induction, simply by the United States agreeing with India that it would not be pressed on any of those issues. It was a desperate act of irresponsibility by George Bush. I share my noble friend Lord Browne’s view that we are lucky to have seen Mr Obama re-elected if we are really concerned about the possibility of nuclear destruction in this world.

Let me add a little to what my noble friend Lord Browne has already said about what we might do. It is crucial to build on China’s doctrinal addiction, as he said, to the concept of no first use. China likes no first use because, effectively, it means that it is protected from being morally blamed when it deals with a country which is, for example, likely to move towards the development of nuclear weapons. For 20 years, it has enabled China to take a moral position in the P5 and then to argue to everyone else that they should take the same moral position. So far, no one else has done so.

However, in 2000, when the members of the nuclear proliferation treaty met in order to discuss what might be done, they strongly argued for—under great pressure from the non-nuclear weapon states—the idea of what was called at the time a major move towards an attempt to get multilateral agreement on no first use. They called for negative security assurances; in other words, a promise that, “If you meet certain conditions, we will not attack you with nuclear weapons or, in some cases, any other kind of weapons”.

Since 2000, there has been very little move forward on negative security assurances, which I believe to be one of the key elements in trying to get a sensible world of nuclear order. But I would say loud and clear that one of the things that this country and the Foreign Office—I give due credit to the Foreign Secretary and others in the Foreign Office for the work that they have tried to do in this field—should do is discuss the possibility of bilateral no first use agreements between the P5, and beyond the P5 between the P5 countries and those which are so-called nuclear weapon states not recognised within the P5—in other words, build up a network of no first use rather than simply making an announcement about no first use.

I am sorry if I have taken some time but this is a rather major subject. Finally, the other area where we can go a very long way to try to bring China within a more globally responsible structure—it is not very good at global responsibility—is by agreeing to start negotiating on things such as no first use, and moving on to things such as CTBT, of which China is a member, and the fissile material cut-off treaty, in an effort to bring this country, which is not an aggressive country but is certainly a troubled country, within the sphere of global responsibility. That very much includes its very special relationship with North Korea, which I am glad to say is getting somewhat better.

15:24

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, the subject of this debate might seem at first sight to be a little esoteric, but I suggest that it is not. It is, in fact, at the heart of any meaningful effort to make progress towards the objective of a world free of nuclear weapons, which was set out in President Obama’s Prague speech. However, the issue is equally at the heart of achieving that other objective, which is supported by a wider body of opinion than the first, of a world with far fewer nuclear weapons than exist now, and with such weapons stood down from the state of high alert that currently persists and playing a less prominent role in the defence and security strategies of the states that possess them. Add to those considerations the facts that President Obama has recently been elected to a new term of office, that the Democrats have a larger majority in the Senate than they had before that election and, at the same time, that a sweeping shift in the leadership of China is taking place—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told us some interesting things about that—you have all the conditions for a highly topical debate.

The tireless efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, as the convenor of the Top Level Group of UK Parliamentarians for Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament and Non-proliferation, and of the European Leadership Network, which met last week in London, are so noteworthy that he must be warmly congratulated, not least for the wide-ranging speech with which he opened the debate.

If nuclear disarmament discussions between the nuclear weapons states, the P5, often resemble a dance of the seven veils, it should be recognised that China has not, as yet, shed much in the way of those veils—fewer than most of the other nuclear powers. Its statements of nuclear strategy, which have just been referred to, are cast in the most general of terms and are bereft of any of the specifics that would be needed to provide the transparency required if genuine steps towards disarmament were to be achieved. That may not have mattered much, so long as China’s nuclear arsenal was pretty small and so long as the US-Soviet and, subsequently, the US-Russian strategic weapons negotiations were effectively the only game in town. However, given that China is reportedly alone among the P5 in still adding to its arsenal, and with the need for negotiations outside that original duo becoming more pressing, that is no longer the case.

Moreover, in the context of verification processes, to which in general terms China has always shown itself to be remarkably allergic—that was as true in the discussions on climate change as it is of nuclear disarmament—China will surely be a necessary component of any steps towards wider nuclear disarmament. China’s firm support for bringing the comprehensive test ban treaty into force, which will require its own ratification but which has not taken place, will be an important element of any renewed effort to get the United States Senate to ratify that treaty. There is therefore plenty to discuss with the Chinese, even if they were not the closest allies of two extraordinarily problematic possessors of nuclear and weapons, Pakistan and North Korea, and a crucial component in the international efforts to head off a third, Iran.

Fortunately, there already exists one forum for such discussions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made reference, in the shape of the regular, if so far pretty infrequent, consultative meetings between the P5—the five nuclear weapons states recognised as such under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The discussions, for which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, deserves a share of the credit, were initiated a few years ago. What is needed now is for those meetings to become more frequent, and for them also to become more operational and less academic. For example, those consultations could, first, make progress towards defining the terms of a fissile material cut-off treaty that would be supported by all five of the recognised weapons states, if ever Pakistan’s veto on even beginning the negotiation of such a treaty in the conference on disarmament could be removed or circumvented. Secondly, a better understanding could perhaps be reached in that P5 forum on how verification measures could be achieved without the risk of proliferation, and draw on the experience of the Anglo-Norwegian research project, known as VERTIC. Thirdly, consideration could be given on how to handle multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations among a wider group of countries, should a further round of US-Russian nuclear weapons reductions make that a realistic possibility.

There is a compelling case, too, for a much more intensive bilateral discussion between Britain and China on nuclear matters than has hitherto taken place. I hope that the Minister will say something about that and will commit the Government to stepping up those exchanges. They may not be likely to produce instant results but they could contribute to establishing greater confidence and understanding between the two parties, which will be an essential component of success in any future, wider negotiations.

Any dialogue with China on nuclear matters will need to address also the issues raised by the cases of North Korea, Iran and Pakistan. If North Korea is to be brought back into the six-nation talks, and if these are to make progress, China will need to play a more proactive role in its bilateral dealings with North Korea than it has done hitherto. Let us hope that the new leadership in Beijing will be prepared to look at that and will recognise and respond to the need. Then if Iran’s nuclear ambitions are to be brought back firmly within the ambit of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the potential disastrous outcomes of either a nuclear arms race in the Middle East or of hostilities in that region are to be avoided, China will need to give wholehearted support to the twin-track policy of sanctions and the offer of serious negotiations to which—it must be faced—it has not up to now given wholehearted support. Thirdly, if the conference on disarmament is not to lose all its not very abundant credibility as a forum for negotiation, China will need to help persuade its ally Pakistan to cease blocking negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty.

In conclusion, we should face up to the obvious facts. China’s role as a global actor in pretty well every sphere of policy is on the rise. Clearly that goes for nuclear policy, too. The case for intensified discussions, both multilateral and bilateral, between this country and China is unanswerable—but is it going to be answered?

15:32

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, as is the case perhaps too often when I speak in the House, I find myself reverting to the ancient past in my own recollections. I will try to avoid it, but there is no doubt that on the subject brought before us by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on which the two subsequent speakers emphasised the importance of the threatening weaponry concerned and of multilateral consideration of how we handle it, there is common ground. The question that may interest other people, as it has me, is how far we can be confident in a country such as the People’s Republic of China, which has a history that is unique in so many ways and which is overwhelmingly important in the consideration of this subject.

Remarkably, this reminds me—this again is one of my faults—of the occasion some 60 years ago when I first became aware of the importance of China. I was proceeding with two other Cambridge undergraduates, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and EAW Bullock—I think that he later became a diplomat—through south Wales, campaigning for the Conservative Party in the Constitutional Club of Ebbw Vale. On the evening we were in Tredegar Constitutional Club, the news was announced that the Labour Party Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, had announced Britain’s decision to recognise the emergence as a country of the People’s Republic of China. We were asked with some anxiety whether we agreed with this hazardous Labour Foreign Secretary in taking such a view. Fortunately, we had all been instructed in international law by Professor Eli Lauterpacht at Cambridge, and were able to say that, if a Government have been established with clear, credible control of a clearly defined territory, we should recognise it.

I have been facing this question in prospect for some 60 years and I now underline what other speakers have already said about the huge importance of China in this context. I shall add one other thing: it could have been historically uncomfortable if we had not given that answer because 250 years before that, George III, in consultation with Emperor Qiang Long, agreed on the importance of communication and a relationship between our two countries. So there has long been mutual respect, which makes this debate important.

In today’s context, one wonders about the western media’s outpourings on China’s party congress and its constitution, focusing too often on Chinese leaders as though they were old men in black suits, ignoring political reform and being highly challenged. We have to underline—as others have already done—the importance in this context of hoping for active participation by the People’s Republic of China. It is an area where there is some anxiety—as there often is about the People’s Republic of China. How we can be sure, our media often ask, about the sincerity and credibility of the people that I have indicated they describe? Fortunately, there have been a number of examples of the Chinese Government’s respect for the importance of law and the legal system, not only in the international fields that we are talking about, but in relation to their Government and, for example, to the discussions with us about the future of Hong Kong, which became an important issue. From that time they had respect for the special nature of Hong Kong in the context of a two-country system, which in a way exceeded our legitimate claim.

Our title to Hong Kong, under the lease we had agreed at the end of the 19th century, extended only to some 18% of Hong Kong’s territory and we had claimed the remaining 82% by the sheer force of our presence there. The Chinese had become accustomed to regarding the legitimacy and unity of the entire territory, recognising the importance of it being distinguished from and identified as a special component in the China where Hong Kong was thereafter going to live. That shows the respect we can expect from the attitude of Chinese leaders to the importance of an international legal approach to this question, and of securing agreement between China and the remainder of the world—not just with ourselves, but with all those concerned with the continued existence of these nuclear weapons.

It is important to remember that China in fact has respect for law as such. I have had some contact with this, apart from the Hong Kong negotiations, because of my presidency of the Great Britain-China Centre for many years. Perhaps I should have declared that interest earlier than now. The truth is that considerable discussion and negotiation takes place between our own modest GBCC and Chinese authorities about the role of law in a society, whether national or international. We have been able to discuss with the Chinese a range of important aspects of the legal system nationally, including the need for professionalism in China’s judges, the establishment, with our help, of a judicial studies training programme, the improving role of judicial management, consideration of strengthening the rights of defence lawyers, and a code of conduct for Chinese lawyers in other respects. In administrative law, there is the promotion of media freedom and ethics and, although it may be difficult for all of us to believe it, pushing human rights up the Chinese news agenda and improving the position of media regulation within that society.

All this may seem to be a departure from the subject we are primarily addressing, but I hope it helps to assure colleagues in this House of the importance of the subject of the possible possession of these fearful weapons by one of the world’s largest societies, but alongside that, the importance of its awareness of the role of law whether within the nation or between nations. We should note the extent to which, for historical reasons, our country has the capacity to undertake this kind of discussion. That is because of a substantial, historic—and conceited, if I may say—Government as important as the People’s Republic of China. So I feel much assured—

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question. He conducted a brilliant negotiation over Hong Kong when he was Foreign Secretary, but does he regard the fact that Hong Kong has survived for 20 years as an indication that we now have a well settled two-regime system in China?

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

Indeed, of course I do, and I would add that I have shed Hong Kong behind me because of the extent to which it has been established. We can all take from that some comfort about the nature of the People’s Republic of China as well. It is that satisfaction which has enabled me to go on other missions to China to discuss matters of common interest, including that which we are discussing today.

I am delighted as always to find myself speaking in the same tone and striking the same note as the noble Baroness who has just so kindly intervened in my observations. It is time that I came to a close.

15:42

[Lord Gilbert]

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Browne on getting this important subject debated in your Lordships’ House, and I do not say that with tongue in cheek in any way, because I am fully in favour of intensifying discussions on multilateral nuclear disarmament. I have long been of the view that the size of nuclear inventories on both sides of the Cold War were grotesquely high. All the main participants could have unilaterally reduced their inventories by 80% without any loss of physical security.

Having said that, I should make it quite clear that I do not favour a nuclear-free world. I am absolutely delighted that nuclear weapons were invented when they were and I am delighted that, with our help, it was the Americans who invented them. If we think of a world in which they had not been invented, it is very easy indeed to see world war three starting on many occasions after 1945. One of the reasons I want nuclear weapons is that I never again want to see a battle of the Somme, Passchendaele or Verdun, of Okinawa, Kursk or Stalingrad. To take another piece of evidence, let us look at relations between India and China. They fought several wars, and I was at the MoD when they both got nuclear weapons. We were supposed to be scandalised about it, but I was delighted. That proved, and it seems to me to have done so since, that nuclear weapons are as much a deterrent to gentlemen with brown skins as they are to those of us with white skins. I am glad that both of those countries have a nuclear capability.

I have always viewed the possession of nuclear weapons above all else as a deterrent. In many lonely years in my party, when I was one of the few people saying loud and clear that I wanted us to retain nuclear weapons, I never for one moment thought that we were going to be engaged in a strategic nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union or that there would be one between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Why, then, was I so insistent that we should have nuclear weapons? For a very simple reason: because I saw the possibility that I might be wrong. The cost of being wrong in a matter of this sort is absolutely incalculable, as your Lordships will know.

How far down we go is a very difficult question. I have personally been most impressed by the writings of the late, great Sir Michael Quinlan. He seemed to think that—if I read him with understanding—if anybody were to use nuclear weapons again, such would be the shock and horror that you would only need one or possibly two and that would be the end of exchanges. His proposition was that all anybody needed was two or three intercontinental ballistic missiles. It would be very difficult indeed to persuade the taxpaying populations of those countries who had that capability that they should invest in the platforms necessary to be able to dispose of those missiles.

I want to say one thing to your Lordships on the subject of deterrence. I believe in deterrence absolutely fundamentally. I believe it not only in nuclear weapons but I believe it in other weapons systems—some of which we have abandoned. I can remember once being at some seminar and a very distinguished, international civil servant—for the life of me I cannot remember who it was—saying that it was very difficult to explain to people the principle of deterrence. I said that it was very easy to explain the principle of deterrence. Every one of my constituents understood it. You only had to go around a council estate and see the sign on the side door: “Beware of the dog”. This is what deterrence is all about.

However, there are various areas of deterrence where we have been very unimaginative up to now. If your Lordships will forgive a personal reminiscence, I shall never forget when, a few years ago, I sailed across the Straits of Magellan from north to south in a normal ferry towards the eastern end and, as one came up to the southern shore of the straits, there were slopes, not cliffs, and, on both sides of the ferry terminal, there was a big sign: “Illegal. Zona me Nada”. Everybody knew what this meant. It was a very good deterrent, saying: “Don’t come here. You’re in danger of being killed”. There were mines, which was excellent. You often see outside sensitive military establishments in America the words, “Do not enter. You might be killed” or “shot dead”—I forget the exact terms used—making it absolutely clear that, if you go where you should not go, you are liable to be shot.

I am fully in favour of that sort of open deterrence where people know. It is a way of saving life rather than anything else. In this context I draw your Lordships’ attention to what used to be called the neutron bomb. It is a very misleading description. It was not necessarily a bomb. It was a warhead that could be attached to a torpedo or a missile. The main thing was that it was not a standard nuclear warhead. Its full title was the ERRB—enhanced radiation reduced blast weapon. I can think of many uses for it in this day and age. It is something that we could go and talk to the Chinese about. Building on the example that I just gave your Lordships about the Straits of Magellan, you could use an enhanced radiation reduced blast warhead to create cordons sanitaire along various borders where people are causing trouble.

I will give an example. Your Lordships may say that this is impractical, but nobody lives up in the mountains on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan except for a few goats and a handful of people herding them. If you told them that some ERRB warheads were going to be dropped there and that it would be a very unpleasant place to go, they would not go there. You would greatly reduce your problem of protecting those borders from infiltration from one side or another. These things are not talked about, but they should be, because there are great possibilities for deterrence in using the weapons that we already have in that respect.

I have already taken up half my time, and that is probably quite enough today. I am very relieved to say that I do not have any fears whatever of being confronted with a nuclear-free world so long as we have the French, God bless them.

15:50

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for initiating this extremely important debate, particularly as our discussions on China and multilateral nuclear disarmament are not just necessary but increasingly urgent, as we have heard from other speakers.

We know of the projection of China’s power, the significant uplift in its capabilities and the response that this is eliciting from the United States, among other countries. In a way, the crisis of China’s success in attaining the three goals of Deng’s era—affluence, stability and power—has resulted in such a changed dynamic, paradoxically known as its success trap, that that in itself poses a host of new problems both internally and externally.

For a generation, China’s foreign policy was guided by Deng Xiaoping’s injunction to “hide brightness, nourish obscurity”; that China, as a poor and weak country, should keep a low profile, avoid conflicts and concentrate on economic development. The foreign policy posture was defensive and accepted the US-dominated international order by free-riding on American protection of its investments and, of course, trade with Western free markets.

However, it is hard to maintain a low profile when your country has second-biggest economy in the world, its military spending is growing in double digits and has done so for more than 20 years, and you have a physical presence in every continent. With 50 million citizens living abroad and 80 million overseas Chinese, China is present in many of the world’s trouble spots. Only last year we witnessed the Chinese airlift of 38,000 citizens out of Libya in the lead-up to the no-fly zone. Its maritime footprint is increasingly visible, with its export-dominated economy and a navy needed to protect shipping lanes. Its interests and influence are bound to affect its outlook and actions.

Some Chinese analysts argue that China’s foreign policy outlook is grimmer than ever. Wang Jisi, President Hu Jintao’s adviser on foreign policy, argues that despite the balance of power shifting in China’s favour, its assertiveness on the South China Sea, the Yellow Sea, the Senkaku Islands and the Indian border have helped to create the conditions for a resurgence of American power in Asia, which I will come to later.

This summer has seen a series of maritime disputes involving China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines. In the dispute over the Senkaku islands, a Chinese newspaper suggested skipping the pointless diplomacy and moving straight to using the atom bomb on Japan. There is little doubt that both countries got to this point through excessive nationalism and both Governments are trying to play the dispute down, but nationalism, when unleashed, cannot be dampened that easily. The Economist states that a recent poll in China suggested that more than half the people thought the next few years would see a “military dispute” with Japan.

The European Council on Foreign Relations has published an outstanding series of reports on China, to which I pay tribute. An interesting thing is that it asked Chinese scholars to address and identify the issues they see as significant in the future. In a series of excellent essays, a wide variety of views emerged but, on the whole, it is not optimistic reading. From those who are multilateralist and want Chinese leadership to be engaged and responsible, to nationalists who want a clear and assertive stance, there runs a thread of pessimism and their challenges are significant. There are widespread fears that the next 10 years will be exceptionally difficult, both economically and politically, as dissent within the system grows. The social media site Weibo has at least 30 million active daily users, exposing official wrongdoing and voicing solidarity with the virtual community. The pervasiveness of corruption and the gap between rich and poor since the removal of the “iron rice bowl” of the Deng era, which leaves most without an adequate health or welfare system, is increasingly coming to the fore. In 2011, there were more than 100,000 mass disturbances—in other words, protests—reported.

Some years ago, Yan Xuetong, a scholar at Tsinghua University, was asked what he wanted from Europe. He said:

“When we go to war with America…I would like Europe to remain neutral.”

For him, a multipolar world is not a given, as he foresees an era of bipolarity with China rising, in the next 10 years, to become the only counterpart to American power. He wants a rethink of some of the fundamental doctrines of the Deng era: the quest for multipolarity, where he thinks a bipolar world of the US and China is inevitable; the principle of non-alignment, which he wants to abandon, thereby foreseeing an alliance with Russia. He also sees an advancement of the norm of intervention as the Westphalian system, based on sovereignty, is on the way out with the rise of American and European involvement in interventions.

The rise of nationalism in incidents in the South China Sea and East China Sea suggests that Chinese people want to see their economic clout reflected in a projection of power. Inevitably, there will be tension between domestic pressures and grand strategy. According to the Economist, fears among scholars that China is unstable at the grass roots, dejected among the middle strata and out of control at the top suggest that there is a deep-seated fragility in the system. When you have an information-age economy and a one-party state you may get the ability for spontaneous mobilisation alongside a crisis of legitimacy, which is an unhappy mix. Twenty years of double-digit military growth have raised the stakes in fishing, shipping lanes, energy resources and forward defence, making it more difficult to avoid territorial issues. With the rise of nationalism, it will be more difficult for new leaders to deal with China’s rise in its neighbourhood and beyond. China’s power has not improved its external environment any more than it has resolved its internal dynamics.

The question arises, therefore, of what can be done in the near term to bring stability to China’s neighbourhood. International safeguards in the Asia-Pacific region to limit the scope for mishaps to escalate into crises—particularly maritime ones—would be a solution. A series of confidence-building measures could be augmented with hot lines for communication between the relevant Governments in the event of an emergency or confrontation. Secondly, a dispute-resolution mechanism, including treaties to resolve disputes over sovereignty, is most urgently needed. Most importantly, and the US is taking clear steps over the Senkaku Islands in this regard, is bolstering deterrence. The islands are administered by Japan and so fall under American protection. The US therefore has, so to speak, “a dog in the fight” and can use its influence to defuse the situation.

The EU also needs a global China policy. Currently, when the Chinese think of the European Union they see 27 bilateral relationships and an overarching body principally concerned with trade. It is instructive that when Angela Merkel goes to Beijing the red carpet is somewhat plusher than when the EU high representative arrives there. It is imperative that the EU take a deeper strategic role in its relationship with China. One method of doing this is to strengthen its voice on other matters around the world so it can be seen as cohesive, representative and a potential partner to be reckoned with.

The most important bilateral relationship that concerns China is with the United States. We know that the projection of Chinese military power has elicited a significant response on the part of the US. China’s claim to about 80% of the South China Sea and its development of a new generation of more capable intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles has increased its ability to deliver nuclear warheads to the United States. There is also great concern that the deployment of China’s nuclear-powered submarines in the next few years, armed potentially with long-range delivery systems for atomic warheads, will cover the whole of the US from the deep waters of the South China Sea.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out in his opening remarks, US power is still overwhelmingly greater than China’s—indeed, greater than that of any other state in the world—and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the rise of China’s strategic military power might be a reaction to US guarantees to so many countries with whom China has disputes within its neighbourhood. US attitudes are also coloured by China’s record on nuclear proliferation, which was so aptly recorded by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Its assistance in providing missile technology to Pakistan, despite its commitments to abide by the International Missile Technology Control Regime, and its lack of wholehearted co-operation on Iran’s nuclear proliferation attempts are notable. Added to that, there is the apparent lack of determination on the part of China to work towards resolving the issue of North Korean nuclear proliferation.

I agree with other speakers that China’s ambitions are predictable, but its approach to disarmament does not give rise to optimism. If China wishes to lead in future, it might do better to signal its capability for leadership by leading in the multilateral fora for nuclear disarmament.

16:01

[Lord Wilson of Tillyorn]

My Lords, I am no expert in nuclear affairs but I have listened with enormous interest to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and others who are expert in that subject. It seems that we seldom get a chance to talk about China in general in this House, so I hope I may be forgiven if I join those who have a broader-brush view of the subject of this debate. I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is very generous in thinking that I may be able to interpret what is happening in the new Chinese leadership and what they are all going to do, but I will come back to that, to the extent that I can, a little bit later on.

The crucial background to all of this is the astonishing, phenomenal growth of the Chinese economy over the past two decades. It really is unprecedented in history. Part of it is what you see physically on the ground—the astonishing rise of skyscrapers in Shanghai; the transformation of Beijing, particularly in the suburbs—as well as the less pleasant side of that, such as the destruction of some of the older parts of Beijing. I feel sad about the fact that although the courtyard house in the centre of Beijing that I lived in about 50 years ago survived until about two years ago, the developers have now caught up and on my most recent visit to Beijing I saw that it had gone—but to my pleasure I saw that many of the traditional parts of Beijing are being preserved, which is good news.

However, the really significant thing is not those skyscrapers; it is the fact that millions and millions of people in China have been raised out of poverty, and that is what really matters. More germane to what we are discussing is the fact that inevitably when a country like China becomes as economically powerful as it now is—and even more, will be in the future—what goes with it is a greater degree of influence and involvement in the rest of the world. That is perhaps doubly so when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has just pointed out, the growth of military expenditure has gone up very greatly in the past few years. It is very striking to look at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s assessment—it is only an assessment—of expenditure on military matters by China, which it puts at $130 billion in 2011 as compared to only $88 billion four years previously in 2007. These are enormous sums of money, and enormous changes must be going on in China’s military power.

It is clear that when China gets involved in international and nuclear affairs, as in the case of North Korea, it exerts great influence. It was striking that China was so outspoken in 2006 when North Korea did its first test of a nuclear device. It shows what can happen and can be done when China involves herself in these sorts of international issues.

Two things follow from the growth of power and potential influence. The first is a question of other people’s trust in China and China’s trust in other people, and of transparency. As my noble friend Lord Hannay said, it is important that there should be as much transparency as possible in China’s strategic and military aims and its military expenditure. Perhaps that matters in particular in the case of the territorial disputes which are now very apparent in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, because the countries in that region will want to know what China’s strategic policies are and to be able to trust what China says. The disputes have been there for a very long time; Chinese maps have covered those areas as part of China long before—if we are to believe this morning’s Financial Times, the map appears as part of the new Chinese passport. With China now a very powerful military country, these issues are clearly very delicate and the handling of them will be of enormous importance.

The second thing is China’s involvement in discussion of international issues and playing the major part that it should have in international organisations. Here perhaps, to the extent that I can, I shall say a short word about the new Chinese leadership. We do not know as much as we would like, but you can tell, looking at the list of the new standing committee of the politburo, that they are remarkably well qualified. Academic qualifications may not always produce good political leaders, but the academic qualifications are there. Let us take the individuals—to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said. The new president, Xi Jinping, comes from a family of those who were major players in the Chinese Revolution. His father, Xi Zhongxun, was disgraced, like many of that generation, during the Cultural Revolution. He returned to a position in Guangdong province just opposite Hong Kong, and it just so happens, to join the reminiscences, that, in 1979, when the railway line between Canton and Kowloon in Hong Kong was reconnected for the first time since the Chinese Revolution—how recent that is and how different it seems—I visited Canton/Guangzhou with the then governor, later Lord MacLehose of Beoch, a Member of this House. We met Xi Jinping’s father, Xi Zhongxun and asked him what he did when he was in disgrace and under house arrest. He said, “Well, I read a lot of books. One of the series of books I read was Winston Churchill’s books about the Second World War”.

There is a hinterland there for somebody with that family as a background; somebody who then, as it were, did penance as a young man in the Cultural Revolution. There is also a hinterland with the new premier, Li Keqiang, who studied, among other things, English law. How they will face up to the massive problems that confront them, and how they will deal with the factional disputes which, as mentioned earlier, must have been a major concern over the past year at least, we do not yet know. However, perhaps one can take some encouragement from the hinterland they have.

I hope that will be of value in the broader question of involving China in international organisations and international discussions—all the things that have been mentioned in the debate today. Maybe, since many of those organisations were set up long before China resumed its place as a major world player, we shall have to adjust the way we deal with things and adjust bits of the organisations to encompass China. A new major power coming in sometimes will not be comfortable but I suggest that we should be prepared to adjust if necessary.

To return to the precise subject of this debate, it is clear to me that a greater involvement by China in crucial international issues must include the issue of multilateral nuclear disarmament and I hope, like other noble Lords, that Britain will play its role in that as well.

16:11

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, I would like to follow the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and say that I am not going to talk a great deal about the nuclear situation. I think it is a serious matter and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on the debate. I have sat and listened to a great deal, although the absurdities of the argument on nuclear become clearer time and again. There are good and bad nuclear states, and we do not know if Israel is one or not. What is clear is that they all exercise a considerable amount of power and influence in their regions. It is not surprising therefore that Iran, whatever we say, might secure a weapon to have that kind of influence.

I used to live near Capenhurst as a young lad and I used to hear all the arguments about why we needed the weapon. It was not a weapon of war—it was to be purely for energy and civil use. We know that the two go together, and that is one of the problems. My concern is with the security of the world, and China’s influence on it. I want to concentrate some of my remarks on my own experiences with China.

I was appointed chair of the China Task Force by Premier Wen and Tony Blair. I was asked to look at how to improve the relationships between China and the UK in medicine, education, the arts, economy, climate change and sustainable cities. They are all very relevant to the threats to security, prosperity and the economic facts that we face in our global problems today. I was clearly involved with climate change. We know that if you accept the science there is a connection between cutting carbon emissions and climate change. The consequences that will flow from that are very considerable indeed. I accept the science and I think most people do. The negotiations I led at Kyoto in 1997 took the first steps towards recognising that problem and targeting the cut in carbon gas emissions. It was an important step forward but it was only for the 47 industrial nations. I first saw the influence of China with the Group of 77. We were trying to find a global agreement with very difficult problems to be solved. China played a major part in getting the Group of 77 to agree that the Kyoto agreement could go ahead, even though they did not believe that the rich nations, to which the carbon targets would apply, would make it work. But they went along. If it had not been for China, we would not have got the first stage of Kyoto. The targets did not directly affect China, as it was absolved from them, as were the developing countries.

That was the first time I saw the influence of China and I knew from then, in the 10 years of negotiations I continued to play a part in as the Deputy Prime Minister, that you really need to have China on board in those discussions. I also knew that you needed to have America on board. In the case of climate change, the two competitors were China and America. They both had different views and saw themselves as competitors. Indeed when the Kyoto agreement is finally ratified, we will have to go without America because America was not prepared to accept the kind of changes that were necessary to achieve that global solution to a global problem.

I can give a good example, which came out of the negotiations. We were trying to get an agreement by 2012 and, in the later stages, which the Prime Minister and the President of the United States attended in Copenhagen—they all turned up—they could not agree a common formula which would have meant a global solution to a global problem. What was that? Simply, if there were a limit on the amount of carbon that you could issue, that would limit the consequences of growth in different countries. They all saw it that way. Mr Todd, who was the American negotiator, said at one stage, “Look, the problem between China and America is very simple: we are both the biggest producers of carbon”. That is true. Both of them are responsible for about 25% of the world’s production of carbon. He said, “Therefore, it is a mathematical problem, not a moral one”. If you want to find consensus and agreement, you had better start thinking about how to get agreement on fair terms. It is all right with nuclear—if you have the bomb, you are a negotiator. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said about us having the bomb but being on the outside when the discussions go on between the three big players.

Another interesting point came from that: why is China in the P5? It is only in it because it has the nuclear weapon. China has now been admitted into the IMF, the G8 and all the other organisations that it is part of, including the ILO, because people recognise that China has a major influence on decisions, if you want a global solution to a global problem. The problems are of that nature, the same as nuclear. The nuclear situation is about a military equation; it is about who is paying for it, who has the bomb and whether we can keep it. I was interested to hear a noble Lord saying, “I would want the bomb because it keeps peace”. He may well be right, but I do not know. The real point is that in the international arguments on the economy, you must have fairness, and that fairness has to be based not on equality but on equity and what is fair to all. The United Nations principles will apply.

In arguing his case, Mr Stern was ignoring the fundamental point of fairness; namely, if you measure the contribution of the gases that are causing a problem and poisoning the world on a per capita basis, you begin to find that it is 20 tonnes per person in America and six tonnes per person in China, and less in other countries. If you say you have to limit growth because of the scientific predictions, you had better find a principle that is fair to all. In the UN, that principle was about equal opportunities; indeed, it is the same common principle but with different responsibilities and capabilities. That is one of the main principles that we shall need if we are to find a global solution to a global problem. In this case, everyone will be affected by the consequences of climate change. We hear it and see it, day after day. To that extent, to find a solution you had better have principles that people can say are fair to all. That is very important.

Another example of that was when the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke of a major economic power. That is true, but China is often interpreted in western press—not that they are very friendly to China—as being second, if you measure it by GDP. Of course, that is more than Japan. I remember when the figures came out but they are now predicting that it will be greater than America. If you measure it per capita, that is not the case. The wealth of China measured in GNP is about halfway up the high-income countries. Perhaps you are going to ask China to co-operate, to limit their growth and not to bring as many people out of poverty. I was pleased to hear someone mention that. Fifteen million people a year come out of agriculture into jobs in the cities. They have reduced poverty by half a million; it is one of the few countries that has been able to do that. Of course, it has a massive scale of poverty, but that must be taken into account.

The GDP is another measure that is wrongly interpreted and which needs to be understood. It leads to misunderstandings. More importantly, it leads to a lack of consensus on how you deal with the problem. People say to me that China is basically a super power, but China does not seem to like that; it is the first to say that it is not a super power. I say, “You are the first undeveloped nation that I have noticed that sends a rocket to the moon”. It is like India, another great country that is developing at a rate of growth three and four times greater than the developed countries. That is a significant factor; the growth in the world will come from developing countries. We must also recognise that they will produce more carbon in the process. If you recognise that principle, does that mean giving a greater share of the growth to these countries, which are limited by the carbon output? This is a big, fundamental question of seeking to find agreement not between the 47 countries we had at Kyoto but between 190-odd countries. After all, they will all be affected by it, so while we begin this discussion about nuclear, prosperity and peace will be maintained by what people feel to be a fair share of whatever happens in these global solutions. China has shown that it wants to be involved and wants international stability. Why would it not? It fears America, as America fears China. As we put more and more military equipment around different parts of the world, the Chinese think that is evidence of that.

One point I would really like to make, which has always influenced me on this, is that China and India are in the early stages of industrialisation. That means they have been in that process for only about 30 years. We had 200 years of industrialisation. When you look at the criticism concerning human rights, civil rights and trade union rights, all those concerns were fought against in our country. We will fight against them in China; that is what is happening at the moment. There is a correlation with the development of industrial growth, as along with it came liberties that were fought for by individuals. That is precisely what happened in this country. While we must readily protest to China—I have done that myself by saying to premiers, “You have to have recognition of human rights. You must be doing that”—you do not then lecture them as if we were somehow a nation that had no problems in human rights. Look at the history of Britain. Blimey—in the colonies, and even in Northern Ireland, did we observe every human right consideration? Of course we did not. We are told constantly about that.

My point is not to apologise for that but to try to understand what motivates the Chinese in this process, if it is to have a major part. Why do they want to play a part? Why are they learning through the process of industrialisation how they can play a part and develop all those things that we in our democratic states say they should be aiming for? I will argue that that is the case, but understand the process: do not make it more difficult or look as if we are hostile to them. What we need is to encourage them to the best practices, and I think that change is coming.

I had a conversation in a lighter tone with Premier Zhu Rongji. In 1998 or 1999, he gave me a book to read on the Chinese economy. He asked me the next day what I thought of it. I said, “It is very impressive. You have growth in one year that we cannot get in 10”, which of course is continuing, “but I am confused”. He asked, “What are you confused about”? I said, “I kept reading in the book about the socialist market economy. What the heck is that?”. He began to explain it to me, using an example that some of your Lordships may remember. Ted Heath was well liked in China. He went to China and asked if he could bring a panda bear back. He brought a panda called Chi-Chi back; I think it went to Whipsnade zoo. He went there for a second time a year later and asked for a second panda. They told him, “This time it will be $1 million”. Ted Heath naturally said, “The first one was free. Why is the second one $1 million?”. They said, “Ah, it is now the socialist market economy”.

The Chinese are going through that process of change and if they are using that language, they understand where they are going, but it will be their process. What they call socialism is with Chinese characteristics, and in defining that we need to understand where they are going and how. Leadership is an important part of that, as indeed is the development of the public themselves. To that extent, I am hopeful that your Lordships will see those developments. We need to understand the change and measure it against some of our own history, instead of being hypercritical and assuming that just by taking democratic plants and planting it there, all they have to do is to find the political will. Well, the democratic process can be very hurtful, as I found in Humberside this week. Leaving that aside, I would say on this that China will play a major part, whether that is through the military, peace, security or climate change, which I have spent most of my time on. They will play that part as a willing partner and we should try to understand the difficulties that are taking place. After all, we will be the beneficiaries of an enlarged China rather than there being any question of threats and Cold Warriors, as I heard earlier. We need to ensure that China plays a positive role and develops itself, and we need to understand its difficulties. It is just as important to reach agreement on this among the P5 countries as it is to get 196 nations to agree on the Kyoto agreement by 2016.

16:24

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, take this opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton’s untiring work and commitment in the field of nuclear disarmament. He has made a powerful case for intensified discussions on multilateral nuclear disarmament with China.

The Chinese economy has been growing at a formidable pace. Some of its major communities look more and more like Western ones in terms of business, commercial and industrial development and, for increasing numbers of people, in terms of standard of living as well. China, with a significant percentage of the world’s population, is a rapidly strengthening power and is making its presence felt economically, politically and militarily—as Japan and Taiwan, on its doorstep, are only too aware.

A recent report to the US Congress by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission describes China as “the most threatening power” in cyberspace and as being,

“on the cusp of attaining a credible nuclear triad of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and air-dropped nuclear bombs”.

The report argues that the United States should increase efforts to integrate China into nuclear arms agreements. In that regard, I noted with interest the proposition from my noble friend Lord Browne that Russia and China should also host further meetings on the nuclear disarmament discussions to which he referred.

We have a new leadership in China, which might mean nothing as far as change is concerned, but which alternatively could represent a potential opportunity for a significant positive change in international relationships. We, along with other nations, are also facing the prospect, at a time of economic austerity, of further considerable expenditure on maintaining and updating our nuclear deterrent. The question that my noble friend raised is what the Government’s reaction is to these developments, and what is their position on the case for multilateral nuclear disarmament talks involving China.

A nuclear weapon state, as defined in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, is one that had manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967. As we all know, there are five internationally recognised nuclear weapon states: ourselves, the United States, Russia, China and France. Countries such as India and Pakistan that have developed a nuclear capability since that 1967 date are considered de facto nuclear weapon states. In addition, there are those states which are widely regarded as harbouring nuclear intentions, of which the most notable is Iran.

Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty states,

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.

Attempts have been made, with varying degrees of success, to reduce the dangers posed by existing nuclear arsenals and prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. Treaties and agreements have been sought to bring about the gradual disarmament of the five recognised nuclear powers. However, given the overwhelming nuclear superiority of Russia and the United States, the focus has been on bilateral treaties between these two countries aimed at reducing the size of their arsenals.

Attempts have also been made to restrict the development of new nuclear weapons systems by the nuclear powers, and to seek to limit or halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and know-how by imposing export restrictions on nuclear-related technologies and monitoring civilian nuclear facilities.

Bilateral talks aimed at restricting the nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union and the United States began during the late 1960s. As has been mentioned this afternoon, the most recent treaty was signed in 2010 and committed the USA and Russia to a number of disarmament measures. It also provided for a verification regime which includes on-site inspections of deployed and non-deployed systems. It laid down reductions in the nuclear arsenals to be achieved by 2018. Referring to the treaty, President Obama said:

“With this agreement the United States and Russia—the two largest nuclear powers in the world—also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities”.

However, the same degree of progress could hardly be said to have been made at the multilateral level. The Conference on Disarmament was established in 1979 as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. Although not formally a UN organisation, the Conference on Disarmament, which comprises 65 member states, is mandated and financed by the UN, and it reports to the UN General Assembly annually. However, it has achieved little—in recent years, in particular.

China’s initial quest for a nuclear weapons capability was motivated by recognition of the political value of nuclear weapons and a determination to remove what it clearly regarded as its vulnerability to nuclear blackmail. Following its first nuclear test in 1964, China announced that it would adhere to a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons and called for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Today, China appears to be the only one of the five original nuclear weapon states that is increasing its nuclear arsenal. Yet in a defence paper last year, China reiterated its long-held nuclear policies of maintaining a minimum deterrent with a no-first-use pledge and shunning any nuclear arms race. China has never defined in quantitative or qualitative terms what it means by a minimum deterrent posture. In the defence paper, China stated that it,

“pursues an open, transparent and responsible nuclear policy”,

but there is no governmental source giving basic information about the size of China’s nuclear arsenal or its future plans.

China’s intentions, particularly in the light of its nuclear weapons proliferation and its growing economic and political clout, is clearly, rightly or wrongly, of concern to the United States—a United States that is turning its attention and resources more and more to the Pacific region and Asia and rather less to Europe. Indeed, the United States believes that the European members of NATO should make a rather more significant contribution to the defence of European interests. The extent to which United States support in some key areas of operational activity was crucial to the success of the action against the former Libyan regime has probably reinforced, not weakened, that view.

Europe should be a significant player, not least in relationships with China, for whom Europe is a major trading partner. However, a point my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton made, as I understood it, is that Britain and Europe are not regarded in China as important players with regard to nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament. As far as China is concerned, the United States and Russia are the other nuclear powers. No doubt the fact that treaties and agreements on nuclear disarmament have been largely bilateral between the USA and Russia has contributed significantly to that view. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could in his response talk about the level and extent of our contacts with China on nuclear disarmament questions and about progress that might be feasible. Have we taken any recent initiatives on raising and pursuing multilateral nuclear disarmament, and does the Minister believe that recent economic, military and political developments in China represent a growing need as well as an opportunity to seek to pursue multilateral nuclear disarmament talks involving China?

As things stand, we are likely to see a further spread of nuclear weapons, not least among those nations not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Large stockpiles of nuclear weapons remain in the world. Some are being modernised and expanded. The number of nuclear armed states has grown and is likely to continue to grow. A significant number of states who currently hold nuclear weapons or which might develop them are in regions of instability and tension.

If we are to stop this potential further proliferation and expansion, further progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament talks between the main nuclear powers, including China, would seem to be a prerequisite. There surely is a need to go further than bilateral treaties and agreements between the USA and Russia, crucial though they are. There also surely is an opportunity, in the light of the economic and political changes that have taken place and are taking place in China, for Britain to play an important role in seeking to ensure that the prospects for talks and further progress in the field of nuclear disarmament are fully explored and pursued.

My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton has drawn an important issue to the attention of the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a considered response to the points and concerns raised in this debate.

16:36

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I sometimes feel that the best Thursday debates in this House are slightly like a really good academic seminar. I feel that I have been benefiting from that today through the speeches of a number of noble Lords, including some from whom I learnt on my first visit to China in 1981. I went from Beijing to Hong Kong, where a very wise political adviser called Wilson, as I recall, explained to me what I had half-understood while I was in Beijing.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, talked about the ancient past. In preparing for this debate and in thinking about what we are asking of the Chinese, I was reminded of when I, as a very green graduate student, started learning about nuclear deterrence and nuclear reassurance in the early 1960s. The first seminar I went to on nuclear reassurance was a discussion between Professor Hans Morgenthau and Professor Hans Bethe, one of the atomic scientists who designed the bomb, on “Are Nuclear Weapons Moral?”. Hans Bethe, in particular, was involved with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and then Pugwash in attempting to establish a dialogue with Soviet experts.

In the 1960s, that was extremely difficult. Most of their Soviet counterparts were coming out of an extremely dark period that had no previous contact with the West. Nevertheless, we managed, through successive formal and informal engagement—what we now call, particularly in east Asia, dual-track diplomacy—to begin to establish common terms, a common language, which we are now attempting to do with the Chinese. I think we would say that it is, in some ways, a little easier with the Chinese because they came out of their dark tunnel rather longer ago—20 years ago now—than the Soviets with whom we were dealing in the 1960s.

The United Kingdom retains a firm commitment to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Our aim is to build an international environment in which no state feels the need to possess nuclear weapons; an environment that will allow nuclear states to disarm in a balanced and verifiable manner. That is to say that Her Majesty’s Government do not share the rumbustious views of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, which clearly provide a strong argument that the world would be safer if Saudi Arabia and Iran had their own nuclear deterrents.

The agreement of the first-ever NPT action plan in 2010 was a major step in the right direction on multilateral nuclear disarmament. For the first time, all 189 signatories to the NPT committed to make progress towards this shared goal. But of course we understand that we and the other nuclear weapons states—that is, not just Russia and the United States, but including the UK and China—have particular responsibilities. I would emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the United Kingdom policy has been a matter of continuity from one Government to another for a considerable time. This is absolutely not an area of partisan disagreement.

This Government announced in our 2010 strategic defence and security review that we are reducing operationally available warheads from fewer than 160 to no more than 120, reducing our overall nuclear weapon stockpile and reducing the number of warheads so that we are the smallest of the nuclear weapons states in terms of the number of operational warheads and missiles. That is perhaps partly why the Chinese look to Russia and the United States as their natural counterparts. However, that is not to say that the United Kingdom has been standing back from this important area. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, noted, we have entered into the ground-breaking UK-Norway initiative on disarmament verification, the first of its kind in bringing together a nuclear weapons state and a non-nuclear weapons state, and the Prime Minister recently agreed with his Brazilian counterpart that we will explore with Brazil how we can work together on further ways to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. We are a firm supporter of the comprehensive test ban treaty. We are a firm supporter of the need to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty, and we bitterly regret that Pakistan has so far put a block on further progress on that. We are also firm supporters of nuclear weapons-free zones, and we hope that a new zone, the south-east Asia nuclear weapons-free zone, will be ratified soon.

The UK and China therefore share a fair amount of common ground. We are both committed to starting negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. We have both given negative security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states and to nuclear weapons-free zones. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that in the SDSR in 2010 the UK announced a new stronger negative security assurance, and the UK and the P5 have given negative security assurances in the context of nuclear weapons-free zones. We are not standing still on that.

While China has not yet ratified the CTBT, China has signed it, has maintained a moratorium on testing since 1996 and continues to signal its commitment to ratification. This is dependent of course on how the Chinese see the US Senate as making progress towards ratification. We continue to call on China and all other states that have not yet done so, including the US, to ratify the CTBT at the earliest opportunity.

The UK continues to work closely with China and the other nuclear weapons states to encourage further progress towards multilateral disarmament. I should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for initiating the P5 process, because that precisely pulls together all five countries. The 2009 London P5 conference brought together for the first time officials from the five nuclear weapons states when the noble Lord was Secretary of State for Defence. That makes clear our unconditional support for the NPT and our insistence that we wish to engage in dialogue aimed to build mutual understanding and trust to take forward our commitment to disarmament. Since then, we have had important further exchanges in Paris and then most recently in Washington in June this year. In between, there have been a number of other more specialist discussions. The P5 has agreed to hold a fourth conference next year in the context of the 2013 NPT preparatory committee. We naturally hope that one of the two P5 states that have not yet acted as host will host this conference—perhaps next, most appropriately, the Russians.

We welcome, in particular, the constructive role that China is playing in this dialogue, especially its leadership of work to develop an agreed P5 glossary of definitions for key nuclear terms. This glossary will be a key tool in increasing our mutual understanding and in facilitating further P5 discussions on nuclear matters. The Chinese have shown considerable drive in taking forward this crucial piece of work, including hosting the first P5 experts meeting in Beijing. Again, I remind noble Lords that it was with that sort of work that we started with Soviet experts in the 1960s. It establishes a common understanding of what one is talking about across different spoken languages and different traditions of expertise.

We welcome, too, the constructive role that China has played in seeking progress with Iran through the E3+3 process, and the positive way in which China has engaged with the United Kingdom on a range of nuclear security initiatives and on efforts to reach agreement on an arms trade treaty. Increased transparency by China, for example by providing a good deal more information on the scale and capabilities of its nuclear arsenal, would help everyone, and would help achieve our shared commitment to build mutual confidence and trust. Uncertainty about China’s nuclear capabilities risks creating misunderstanding, particularly in the context of its current military modernisation programme. China is modernising its deterrent. We have only unverified estimates of how far that modernisation also involves expansion, which leaves room for alarmist estimates from some quarters—as we have seen.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked what would happen if larger multilateral discussions on nuclear disarmament were started to expand the bilateral process. Since the UK deterrent is so much smaller than those of Russia and America, it makes good sense for those countries to be the two most directly engaged. However, we welcome the expansion of discussions as far as we can into a multilateral process. That is in part why we see the P5 exercise as being so enormously valuable.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked how far verification would be part of the P5 process. We have already discussed the UK-Norway initiative. When the P5 countries met at expert level in London in April 2012, it was the first time they had discussed verification. The British and Norwegians presented some of their work. The question of transparency for all nuclear weapon states was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. The UK has taken great steps on transparency. We have done our best to explain as clearly as we can how many nuclear warheads we have and how many we are putting on each of our minimum-deterrent submarines. We see that as an example to all others to provide as much information as they can, and of course we regret that China has not yet begun to release information on the size of its arsenal. We see our dialogue with the Chinese as one way of encouraging them to improve their transparency and thus build up mutual confidence between states.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, also raised the question of how far P5 discussions should be reported to Parliament. It is a condition of P5 discussions that they are confidential. It is felt by all those engaged in them that this is necessary to enable open and meaningful dialogue, which is where the value of the P5 process lies. However, the P5 countries issued a joint statement after each of their conferences—something that we hope will happen again at the end of next year’s conference. I will certainly feed back on whether the Government should provide a Written Statement and as full information as we can to Parliament.

A number of noble Lords raised the question of developments in China, and of how far the British are actively engaged with China. I asked the Box for some figures on the number of British ministerial visits to China. More than 14 senior UK Ministers went in 2011, together with two Scottish Ministers, the First Minister for Wales and there were a number of royal visits. There were fewer visits this year, partly because when the leadership is in transition, it is less easy for them to find the time to have extended dialogues with senior politicians from abroad, or for us to know exactly who we might want to visit. However, we are actively engaged and see the Chinese as natural partners. In particular, I will remark on Andrew Mitchell’s role in visiting China to persuade the Chinese to sign a development memorandum of understanding just before the last multilateral conference on global development in Korea. We talked to the Chinese about a partnership in helping African development and that is the sort of way we see ourselves engaging with the Chinese, to encourage them, little by little, to shoulder more global responsibilities. We are engaging. I do not agree, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Browne, suggested, that the United Kingdom is in any sense holding back politically in China.

When I was in Northwood some months ago, I was fascinated to hear from people involved with Operation Atalanta about the way in which there is now limited engagement with Chinese warships on anti-piracy patrol. It is a limited area of engagement—the Chinese will have nothing to do with multilateral command— but clearly there is a sense of growing mutual understanding of how one goes about keeping the international sea lanes open. Much of this, however, is strengthened by what in east Asia they call two-track diplomacy. Here, things such as the Nuclear Threat Initiative have an enormous value. I have learnt much about that over the years from my noble friend Lady Williams. We give every support we can to initiatives of that sort. The Government also support Wilton Park conferences, the UK-China forum, which I have been on once or twice, the activities of the body of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and many other conferences, links and intellectual and student exchanges.

The last time I visited Beijing, I found myself lecturing at Peking University to a joint London School of Economics-Peking University MA in international relations. That is all part of how, I hope, we are helping to train generations five and six of the Chinese leadership—we are now on generation four and a half, as I see all the newspapers telling us. The Government welcome enormously the work going on outside governmental constraints to engage the Chinese in all these discussions. We are committed to the P5 process and to preparations for the next review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which will come up in 2015. We look forward to continuing our constructive engagement with China on all levels; bilaterally, as part of the successful P5 dialogue, and through our regular multilateral exchanges. We are committed to encouraging further progress with China and all NPT states parties against our shared commitments. We are also clear—I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert—that we will remain resolute in pursuing positive steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.

16:53

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply to the debate—not just the content of the reply but the tone of the reply. I start my short response by reinforcing the non-partisan nature of these debates and the way we can move forward. The two groups which I convene, one here in this Parliament and one in Europe, are fixed on multilateral nuclear disarmament. In our group in this Parliament we are fixed on supporting the Government in their ambition to make a contribution and show leadership to a world free of nuclear weapons. This is far from being a partisan issue, but that will not stop us being challenging on occasion in relation to this area of policy.

As the Minister said, we have had many notable contributions to the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was in a most engaging, wise and, I am pleased to say, optimistic frame of mind. He emphasised the role of the rule of law, which is very close to my analysis of these issues and how we can move forward. On the one hand we had a typical battling performance from my noble friend Lord Prescott. Many of us on these Benches are pleased that he is back among us, not for the reason that is probably at the forefront of other people’s minds, but because it is perfectly clear that he has a major contribution to make to the great issue of climate change. He has a history of driving improvement and change internationally in that regard. We have seen an example of that and I am pleased that he is back and in fighting fit mode. I personally am grateful that he graced this debate with a contribution.

On the other hand, I thought that my noble friend Lord Gilbert was in many senses at his most—what shall I say?—challenging and perhaps contrarian best. I am tempted to engage with him on the detail of some of his analysis of the value of nuclear weapons. He must be alone in this world in thinking that the Middle East needs more nuclear weapons. I do not think anyone will agree him. I have tempted him to speak, and I should not have done so.

[Lord Gilbert]

I am provoked. Would my noble friend really like to live in Israel in a totally nuclear free world?

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

I would if there was peace must be the response to my noble friend. Since we are conscious of the time, perhaps we should have this debate in detail on another day, but I would just say that my noble friend reminds me of an experience I had when I was in China recently. I was standing on the Great Wall. I mused that for 13,000 years the Chinese thought that that wall was the ultimate deterrent. Now it is a tourist attraction in the middle of their country because it did not succeed in keeping the Mongolians out. However, for 13,000 years, some 10% of Chinese GDP and the population were employed in building it. That is my attitude to nuclear weapons in the 21st century. They may well have served a purpose at a certain time, but they have become part of the problem and not necessarily part of the continuing solution. Their proliferation to some of the most unstable parts of the world where they are in the hands of some of the most unstable regimes has generated a problem for all of us that we need to deal with multilaterally.

Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go through all their contributions in detail because I am conscious of the time. I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply and I am grateful for his reiteration of a commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. I thank him for his promise that we may at some stage have a further report on the P5 discussions, even if that is only the agenda of what these important countries are discussing. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would take back to his ministerial colleagues the fact that some of the behaviour of the P5 in other multilateral forums requires an explanation. An example is the P5’s agreement on 19 October to vote collectively and en bloc against the draft multilateral disarmament resolution of the most recent UN General Assembly. That is quite disturbing when set against the shared ambition. I thank the Minister for his consideration of the points I raised and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rosser for the support of our Front Bench for the agenda that I espouse in relation to these questions.

I suspect that we will want to return to these issues on another day. I shall conclude my remarks by thanking all those who have contributed, and particularly the Minister. Perhaps I may ask the Government whether, at some stage in the near future, there could be an opportunity for this House in government time to debate these issues, including their interaction with our plans and strategy in relation to ballistic missile defence.

Motion agreed.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2012

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

17:00

Moved by Lord Taylor of Holbeach

That the draft order laid before the House on 19 November be approved.

Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the Government are determined to do all that they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan, known as Ansaru, to this category. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that Ansaru meets the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate to exercise her discretion to proscribe it. This is the eleventh proscription order amending Schedule 2 to the Act.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors. These factors are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant material on the organisation. This includes open-source material as well as intelligence material, legal advice and advice that reflects consultation across government, including the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that both Houses must approve the order proscribing a new organisation.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that Ansaru is concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, but I am able to summarise. Ansaru is an Islamist terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, which publicly emerged in January 2012. It is motivated by an anti-Nigerian government and anti-Western agenda and is broadly aligned with al-Qaeda. Ansaru is believed to be responsible for the murder of British national Christopher McManus and his Italian co-worker, Franco Lamolinara, in March 2012.

The proscription of Ansaru will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and will signal our condemnation of this organisation and its activities. I should make clear to noble Lords that proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism.

Finally, I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact. Because of this, the legislation provides for an appeal mechanism. Any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed. If refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal that is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions. I believe it is right that we add Ansaru to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I commend this order to the House.

[Lord Patten]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend in what he said about the proposed proscription of this organisation. Acting swiftly and early is one of the best ways of attempting to prevent terrorist activity, and I wish that we had done more of that in earlier decades. The swift action that my noble friend proposes is excellent.

I also welcomed what the Minister said when he stressed again the view that proscription is not aimed at any particular religious faith, calling or group. That is something that we have to shout from the political and ministerial rooftops, because there is always the suspicion that, as news of an action mutates and develops around the world, people will think this is anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic or whatever. I applaud what my noble friend said and I hope that government Ministers such as him will never miss the opportunity of saying that we are blind to religion but eagle-eyed in the prevention of terrorism.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation on the SI today and for ensuring that a copy of the Home Secretary’s letter was sent to me prior to the debate. As I made clear when we had a similar order previously, of course we support the Government on issues of national security and we work on the basis of cross-party co-operation. I am grateful to him for his explanation of how decisions are reached, which is helpful for the House. I appreciate that the process of obtaining evidence on which action can be taken is often complicated. This week, and during the Committee stage of the Justice and Security Bill, we have discussed how the Intelligence and Security Committee operates. One of the things that became clear is that evidence is obtained from a number of different sources and it is often only by putting it together like a form of jigsaw that the true picture can be obtained. That is a complex matter to address. The Home Secretary has to be satisfied on the basis of the accuracy of that information in deciding what action can be taken—and taken as quickly as possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, pointed out.

As the Minister said, a group can be proscribed under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if it,

“commits or participates … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism, or … is otherwise concerned”.

That illustrates why it is so important that information is accurate and up to date. My understanding, which was confirmed by the Minister’s comments, is that the Government are acting today against a group that was only indentified as a separate, independent entity earlier this year, in January 2012. I also commend the Government on their speedy action, given the processes that have to be gone through to reach this stage.

Obviously the Opposition do not have access to the same information or intelligence data as the Government, but we have seen some of the publicly available information and we are satisfied that the Home Secretary is justified in her judgment that Ansaru meets the criteria required under the Act and we support the Government in the Motion to proscribe this group. We are particularly concerned about the links, which the Minister confirmed, between Ansaru and the kidnap and murders of Christopher McManus and his Italian colleague Franco Lamolinara. The treatment of these two men was barbaric and despicable. It is quite right that the UK Government take action against any group which is prepared to commit such acts of terror against UK citizens.

From reports, it would appear that Ansaru is linked to, or is a breakaway group from, the long-established Boko Haram sect. That sect is not proscribed. I appreciate and understand that the Minister cannot always provide detailed information to your Lordships’ House, but will he ensure that the status of Boko Haram is kept under review? I appreciate that, so far, the actions of this group have been mainly confined to Nigeria. I hope that the Government will not hesitate to take action to proscribe Boko Haram if links to the UK, or any credible threats to UK citizens at home or aboard, were to emerge.

Finally, as I mentioned in similar debates, when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was in opposition he repeatedly attacked the then Labour Government for not proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Minister has been very clear on this today—that any action to proscribe a group has to be taken on the evidence available. I know how complex and difficult it can be to get all that evidence and present it in an appropriate manner. The party opposite has now been in power for two and a half years and Hizb ut-Tahrir has still not been proscribed. I am not going to make the same points as were raised against us when we were in government. I thought at the time those comments were inappropriate and irresponsible, and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible of me to make similar ones now. All I ask for is an assurance that the Government are keeping the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir under observation and review and that should there be evidence that this group should be proscribed, that matter will be presented to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness for her positive support of this measure. She will understand totally that the Government do not talk about other groups that they may be looking at. The Government keep a range of options open and have a global view of the terrorism threat. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore understand why I do not go into any detail about any of the groups that she has specifically mentioned. However, I think that she can see by the way that the Government are acting in this case that we are undertaking our responsibility to try and maintain the security of our nation, of our citizens overseas and others as best as we can.

We are concerned about Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we will continue to monitor its activities very closely. Such groups are not free to spread hatred and incite violence as they please. The police have in any case comprehensive powers to take action under criminal law to deal with people who incite hatred, and will do so.

I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lord Patten, who made a very important point. This is directed against terrorism, not against faith or beliefs. It is about the way in which people dispense with their humanity in the pursuit of objectives which we cannot tolerate. I hope that noble Lords will support this measure and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Announcement

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I point out that the timings for the QSD are very tight. Noble Lords are usually exceptionally good at adhering to the allocated time, but I am available to help if necessary. Finally, when the timer shows four, the noble Lord speaking is doing so in his fifth minute.

Religion in the United Kingdom

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

17:15

Moved by

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of religion in society in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the role of religion in public life. Religion today has a bad press and has been pushed into the margins of society. Even there, key beliefs such as the importance of marriage are attacked by those intolerant of the rights and beliefs of others. To me, as a Sikh, this pressure to keep religion out of public life is like saying, “Keep ethical considerations out of politics”. This is bad in itself but what is worse is to see some within our different religions reacting to this pressure by withdrawing from involvement in daily life to contemplate the hereafter.

This disconnect between the practice of religion and the challenges and concerns of daily living is totally contrary to the central teachings of religion. Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, was highly critical of some holy men who had withdrawn to the wilderness in search of God. He told them that God was not to be found in the wilderness but in the service of our fellow human beings. He taught that religious disciplines like fasting, going on pilgrimages and, for Sikhs, the serving of food in the gurdwara to whoever enters, are simply reminders of our responsibilities to wider society. Unfortunately, some people in religion see these as an end in themselves and no wonder many in wider society see religion as being irrelevant to our lives. If we look at the behaviour of those who misuse religion in the pursuit of power or to justify cruel or discriminatory behaviour, we can see why religion has got such a bad public image.

Looking at the world about us, it is right to acknowledge the huge advances made by secular society in the pursuit of material wellbeing. Astonishing advances in scientific understanding and gigantic leaps in medical and genetic research mean that we are now able to play with the very building blocks of life, with the prospect of treating previously incurable disease and significantly increasing our life span.

For some, life has never been so good, but not for all. Alongside these positive achievements, we also have a record prison population of about 90,000. More than 10,000 traumatised and bewildered children are taken into community care every year. When we consider that the annual cost of keeping someone in prison is about £38,000 and that of keeping a child in care is about £2,500, we get a small glimpse of the financial cost of irresponsible living.

Only last weekend, the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, said that more children should be taken into care to save them from,

“soiled nappies and scummy baths, chaos and hunger, hopelessness and despair'.

We have record numbers of abortions and teenage pregnancies and binge drinking, not only among the young but, as we have heard recently, even among the elderly as a way to cope with the tensions and problems of selfish and uncaring society. The use of drugs in the search for elusive contentment has risen dramatically.

We regularly address such issues in your Lordships’ House, asking what the Government are going to do about this or that. The carefully researched answers couched in elegant terms amount to, “Not a lot”. This is not a criticism. Limited amounts of money can be shifted about but the real problems go much deeper. It is a bit like trying to treat the spots and sores of deeper maladies with cosmetic creams.

When Jesus Christ taught that,

“Man shall not live by bread alone”,

he reminded us of the futility of pursuing a mirage of happiness through more and better material possessions. The fallout from lifestyles that disregard wider responsibilities is seen in rising rates of divorce and separation. Children from divorced or separated parents, once a comparative rarity in the classroom, are now all too common, often showing patters of behaviour that link them to physical or emotional abuse.

Our different religions acknowledge the importance of the material side of life, but also remind us that this must be accompanied by constant reflection on the ethical implications of what we do and, importantly, active consideration for the wider well-being of society—something that Sikhs call “sarbat ka bhalla”.

It is sometimes argued that the problems created by selfish living and a lack of wider responsibility can be addressed by better citizenship training. The difficulty here is that citizenship looks at society as it is and teaches children to conform to transient and sometimes questionable social norms. Religion frequently challenges such norms. For example, in the 1950s, accommodation adverts in shop windows would often say: “No blacks or coloureds”. This was accepted by the culture of the times but opposed by religious teachings.

Today, we have both the challenge and opportunity of different faiths living side by side and must now move beyond superficial niceness to actively promoting common values that benefit society. The one God of us all is not interested in our religious labels but in what we do.

Our different religions remind us that the well-being of society starts with the family and a recognition of the importance of marriage as a committed relationship in which a couple are prepared to endure trials and tribulations to ensure a stable and positive environment for children. In school, children are taught the three Rs of basic education. In the home children can learn the equally important three Rs of right, wrong and responsibility.

We live in a society where different lifestyles are rightly respected. However, we cannot afford to ignore the harm done to children by transient and selfish relationships. A true story puts it better than any words of mine. Two children were seen fighting hammer and tongs in the school playground. Finally a teacher managed to prise them apart and asked what it was all about. Eyes brimming with tears, the smaller boy said, “His dad has taken my mum away”. We cannot afford to ignore the clear findings of surveys by Civitas and the ONS that show that in general married couples enjoy better health and better home care in old age than their single and cohabiting peers, and that children who live with married parents do better at school.

In recent years, the Government has made tentative attempts to engage with faiths through various government-chaired committees. Unfortunately, the nature of this engagement is often reflected in the name of initiatives, such as Prevent, geared to preventing religions making nuisances of themselves. Instead of Prevent, we need a greater enabling focus that helps religions to work more fully at all levels with secular society.

It is true that some in secular society are working to address many of the ills of which I have spoken. Religion has huge potential to add much needed impetus to their efforts, in our common goal of a fairer and more responsible society for our children in a world of new challenges and opportunities.

17:25

[Baroness Eaton]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate after the noble Lord, Lord Singh. Like many other Members, I have benefited from his wise words on “Thought for the Day” in the morning—a good start to many days.

At its best, religious faith motivates people to make changes in society for the better. At national level, this might mean founding a charity or beginning a movement. At local level, it may mean starting an initiative to change one’s neighbourhood.

At present, the key marker in the social policy world is the idea of civil society. There are various definitions, but perhaps it is best described as that part of our lives which is neither the market nor the state, nor our lives as private individuals. The problem, however, is that civil society in general lacks capacity and resilience, largely as a result of being for many years undervalued, under-resourced and lacking the sort of entrepreneurial energy necessary to develop creative solutions to the problems that it faces.

In practical terms, and at the core of the issue at the level of local communities, this translates into two related sets of activities: how local people take part as human agents in bringing about change in their community or neighbourhood and, where they are not able to bring about change, how they can be enabled to join together to hold to account those who are responsible for their welfare.

These aspirations fit well with the core Christian themes about valuing people for who they are, recognising their God-given agency and intrinsic capacities, and building relationships of mutuality and dignity which create fellowship and provide a framework of values. This provides for a prophetic engagement, calling to account structures and systems that dehumanise and undermine human flourishing. These aspirations are supported by many friends of other faith groups.

I wish to refer to a charity, Near Neighbours; as its chairman, I declare my interest. The Near Neighbours programme was begun to increase social interaction between people of different faiths and ethnicities and people of no faith, and to encourage local people to come together to transform their community. This is done by working at different levels; by training faith leaders and young leaders; by providing local community workers; and by giving small grants of up to £5,000 to local groups with a good idea. In the areas in which Near Neighbours is working, a local centre, one of the Church of England’s network of Presence & Engagement centres, acts as a resource hub and focus for good practice in interfaith working.

So far, halfway through the three-year programme, Near Neighbours has given 300 small grants to a value of £1 million. These projects range from a small project working with young people of different faiths in a London park, where volunteers from a mosque and a church come together, to a series of meals between Jews, Muslims and Christians in Luton, a homeless drop-in centre in Leicester hosted by Christians and Muslims, a project in Bradford encouraging women of different faiths to learn to cycle and a Sikh-led project in Birmingham supporting parenting.

Faith communities have many resources: buildings, volunteers, local embeddedness and trust. They develop local leaders and share the values of hope, faith, love, forgiveness and peace, which our society so desperately needs. The Government have recognised in funding Near Neighbours that these resources can be unlocked to benefit local communities more widely. The Church of England and the Church Urban Fund have recognised that working in this way with the Government can deliver real results.

In a world where we see nations and faiths in conflict, Near Neighbours shows us that in our local communities people of faith can come together to improve our society.

17:30

[Lord Janner of Braunstone]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Singh, on this important debate in the Chamber today and I will be delighted to hear Members of our House from different religions speaking this evening.

Today, I would like to tell you about my own Jewish connections and the Jewish community’s role in society. I am going to speak specifically about Mitzvah Day. I am proud to be one of its community advocators. This community-based project was held last Sunday, 18 November, in the UK and in many other parts of the world. It is a day when the Jewish community comes together to help society, not financially, but by giving our most valuable asset: our time.

Mitzvah Day is devised from the fundamental Jewish teaching of tikkum olam which means literally in Hebrew, “to repair and to heal the world”. On this day, my Jewish community joins with communities of all faiths, working together to promote happiness, duty and the importance of communities supporting our own society. We can do this through planting trees, collecting food for the homeless, or speaking to individuals who do not have family nearby. These are essential duties that are built in religions and in society.

My very good friend, the right honourable Ed Miliband, the leader of the Opposition, recently described Mitzvah Day so accurately:

“It’s through thousands of small actions that we build our families and our communities. The fruits of Mitzvah—small tangible signs of hope and solidarity—show that the shared wealth of a nation is measured not so much in pounds and pence, but in the bonds of compassion, care, and community”.

Compassion, care and community come together.

We speak of the importance of one nation—Britain as a community. The role of religion is important and evident in this Motion. Through communities and understanding we are all united. The contribution made by religious communities to our society is outstanding and we should recognise and praise their input into our country.

I want to ask the Minister how communities are being commended for their role in society and how our Government are using their initiative to build a stronger society in Britain. We must recognise and celebrate our true diversity and continue to work with all our minorities in our fine country and to keep Britain as it is: a truly unique place in which we are very fortunate to live.

17:33

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for securing the debate today on one of the key issues facing the UK and its diverse religious communities.

The benefits of religion and of those who follow a faith to their communities locally or nationally cannot be underestimated. Others have spoken of problems in society today and I want to focus on the positive work of our faith communities. Six years ago, when I was deputy chair of the East of England Development Agency, we funded a report on the vital role played by faith communities in social, economic and spiritual terms in our region. The research was carried out by the University of Cambridge and it discovered that volunteer time in our faith communities was valued at a minimum of £30 million a year. Work is varied and its scope impressive—working with homeless people, support for those who abuse drugs and alcohol, and anti-racist projects as well as the more traditional social cafes and outreach groups from church, synagogue and gurdwara.

Particularly important has been the support and, therefore, the benefit to child-focused services, including a project in Watford called Girl About, supported and promoted by the Soul Survivor church, working across Watford in a safe and supportive environment with vulnerable young teenage girls in and out of school. There is also much work in faith communities with the elderly. The survey mentioned that, in the region, more than 30% ran both formal and informal learning projects to help adults to improve their skills.

I remain impressed whenever I visit a faith-based organisation at its commitment to its outreach work. The Faith in the East of England report says:

“Secular bodies find it hard to understand that people of faith must be true to their faith, and not confuse this with a fear of religious people trying to convert others”.

It is on the basis of public benefit that the Charities Commission grants 99% charitable status to religious applicants. Last week, however, there was a heated debate in another place, suggesting that this might be under threat because of the case of the Preston Down Trust, a member of the Plymouth Brethren. It was denied charitable status because of an inability to demonstrate true public benefit and concerns about disbenefit to adherents, including, for example, not permitting any of their young people to go to university and worries about those who chose to leave. The debate in Hansard suggests that all Christian charities are now under threat as a result of this case.

The truth is far from that. Nearly 20% of all charities on the register are for the advancement of religion, with many hundreds of new Christian charities being registered each year. The commission is working with many faith groups to make applications easier and faith groups were a key part of the consultation in 2006 before the new guidance came into place. The Evangelical Alliance said of the new guidance:

“Religious Charities can be reassured that the propagation and teaching of faith principles will continue to be regarded as beneficial, provided it is open to and directed towards the public as a whole”.

This last phrase is key to the Preston Down Case, and why it differs from others. Others may speak on this later in the debate, but I am aware that, even with recent improvements, many of the brethren groups are not what we would describe as truly open, as they have restrictions on free and open contact with the outside world, especially with family members who have left. Contrast that with the exceptional contributions by many faiths that I have outlined earlier and the clear guidance from the Charity Commission. I think we have much to be proud of from across our faith communities, and their contribution to the United Kingdom today.

17:37

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate that the noble Lord, Lord Singh, has initiated today. I congratulate him and thank him for his inspiration over the years as a contributor to Radio 4.

As in all things, there is good religion and bad religion. It can be argued that since 9/11 a view has developed that religions are most authentic when they are most angry and irrational. All of us who claim a religious foundation to our lives need to acknowledge the reality of toxic behaviour, but good religion seeks the welfare of others and is a force for good in society.

Much of what our society is today is a consequence of the enlightenment. Christians like John Locke sought to develop a world view on how we live together valuing one another in all our differences, within a pluralist society. Christianity is not a religion of the private sphere, however much some inside the tent, and outside, might wish it. Christianity is a faith which seeks, in many creative ways, to contribute to the manner in which we understand ourselves. The value we give to each person, and the delicate balancing act which is at the heart of all politics, is ultimately about how we hold together questions of identity and difference, belonging and otherness.

Often in the Church of England, our debates are proxy for wider debates within society. Matters of gender, equality and minorities are all issues that we meet elsewhere in society. Yes, I know we did not crack it on Tuesday over women bishops. Although that has undoubtedly been a public relations disaster and a serious setback, religion is faith committed to working at it. The Church of England belongs to all within this country and when we get it wrong, we are left in no doubt about it and we have to make amends. I believe that we will do so, particularly in the matter that we have debated this week. I thank your Lordships for all the contributions that have been made, some of them not so easy to accept but nevertheless importantly said.

If your Lordships want to see the contribution of religion in British society today, look at your local church, synagogue, mosque or gurdwara—not at the Taliban or the Tea Party. Religion is both shaped by society and helps in the shaping of society. There is mutuality here. Like many, I became a Christian because I wanted to participate in creating a world in which compassion, justice and the making of peace for all humanity might be possible. I found that the manifesto of Jesus Christ offered me a credo for such hope. Yet many others will have come to the same conclusion and dedicated themselves to the same vision inspired by some other creed or manifesto, or that innate compassion within them whose origin they simply do not understand but know what it commands them to do and to be.

Religion can be both radical and reactionary, often at the same time, but then it is to a greater or lesser extent a human creation. God, however perceived, is always greater than human interpretation. When, at its most radical, it offers a critique of society’s value, where that is necessary, and proffers support in the outworking of a vision for a more human and humane world, religion is good. Religion both shapes and is shaped by society. Well managed, both serve each other and the common good. There will of course be conflict from time to time but we should not be afraid of that. Religion is not so much about giving answers as providing an environment for dialogue in society, where all may seek the welfare of the other and strive for the betterment of all humanity.

17:41

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Singh for bringing this debate before the House. There remains a keen interest in this House in discussing matters of communities, faith and religion, even though they are too often neglected elsewhere, and this interest is very welcome. I thank the Minister, who I know has a keen interest in these matters, for joining us in her new role.

It seems to me that this debate on the role of religion in society is asking three questions. What do people think the current role of religion in society is? In reality, what is the actual role of religion in society? Perhaps most importantly, what do we want the role of religion in society to be? I do not claim to have definitive answers to these questions. I have been a practising Hindu for as long as I can remember. I would never claim to be an expert on my faith; indeed, I often regret that I do not know more about it. When growing up in Uganda, I was fortunate to be taught at a local Christian school. While I may not always have stayed on the right side of the disciplinary elements of the school, I left there with a very healthy respect for and interest in Christianity.

It was only after moving to Britain, when I was 17, that I really began to take an active interest in my faith—a faith that I consider to be more of a way of life. My faith has given me courage and strength when times are hard, guidance when the path is not clear, a community that is stronger together and joy on so many occasions. These benefits, if I may call them that, are not unique to any one faith and I am sure that many people here and elsewhere can empathise with them. However, I consider myself to be a man of faith.

It is worth highlighting the inspirational nature of faith and religion. Faith inspires me to be a better human being. You only have to look at the work of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to see how faith can inspire someone. This inspiration is not limited to Iain Duncan Smith; vast numbers of believers are committed to creating a better society here and abroad through volunteering, politics and work. In my own community, so many institutions and charities are manned and supported by volunteers who act so selflessly.

Religion can and does have a very positive impact on society but, as I am sure everyone here would agree, this is not a one-way street. Far too many conflicts have their roots in religion and far too often the tone of religious organisations feels divisive, exclusive and outdated. I appreciate that that is easier said than done, but religions need to ensure that they are relevant to the societies that they encounter. If we continue to presume that all the instructions written thousands of years ago in our respective faiths are literally the be-all and end-all, I fear that the importance of faith will continue to decline, and this will leave our great faiths on the defensive.

People’s understanding of the role of religion in society may not always match up with what is happening, but it is undoubtedly true that those of us who believe in the power of fait need to work hard to explain why it is relevant. We must ensure that we are relevant but not outdated—that we are bringing people together through our deepest principles and not being divisive.

Last year the Prime Minister gave a speech in Oxford to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. He said that Christian values were central to Britain and should be treasured, including responsibility, hard work, compassion and humility. These are the values that I identify with my own religion as well, and I believe that any society with those values at its core will always flourish.

17:45

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, yesterday I was proud to speak at the School of Oriental and African Studies to inaugurate an exhibition called “Sugar and Milk”. It was about 10 Zoroastrian Parsee families who settled in south-east England and the stories of what happened to them after they settled in this country. What came across strongly was their identity and their religion as part of integrating into British society. Before I left India to study in this country as a 19 year-old, my father told me, “Son, you’re going to live abroad, and I don’t know if you’re going to come back to India. Wherever in the world you live, integrate with the community that you are living in to the best of your ability but never, ever forget your roots”. In the exhibition I saw how proud those families were of their roots and of their religious identity.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for initiating this debate at this crucial time, in Interfaith Week. My friend, the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, has written and spoken a lot about identity and the fact that we as individuals have not just one identity but several. For many of us, part of that identity is our religion. In my case I am proud to be an Indian, I am proud to be British, I am proud to be an Asian Briton and I am proud to be a Zoroastrian Parsee.

Mahatma Gandhi is reported to have said that in numbers Parsees are beneath contempt, but in contribution, beyond compare. The basis of the Zoroastrian faith is three words: humata, hukhta and huvarshta—good thoughts, good words and good deeds. The good deeds that religions promote have been mentioned; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that nearly 20% of charities in this country are linked to religions and their advancement. The Prime Minister has spoken about the big society. Religious communities practise the big society and have been doing so for generations. It is not just about religious communities looking after their own, either; it is about putting back into the wider community, and I am proud to say that the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, does just that.

Yet, sadly, religion is declining in this country. Some surveys show that 50% of people in this country say that they have no religious affiliation, while one survey said that 65% of youngsters between 18 and 24 had none. I am proud to be a patron of the Faiths Forum for London, working alongside my friend Maurice Ostro, the founder patron, with the nine faiths of the Inter Faith Network to try to promote interfaith dialogue and harmony.

I was brought up in the Indian army, and my father was posted all around India. The Indian army is huge, over 1 million strong, and contains all religions. I was brought up from childhood to celebrate different religions and their festivities, whether Sikh, Muslim, Hindu or Christian. I went to several schools, Anglican and Jesuit. India is one of the most secular and pluralistic societies in the world.

We talk about tolerance of faiths and communities. I hate the word “tolerance”—we should be celebrating each other’s religions and faiths. The most important thing is that no relationship can exist without mutual trust and respect. If there is mutual trust and respect among our religions, we have such a great future ahead.

I think the Minister said that this Government do God and religion. Are they doing enough to encourage and promote religion and religious faith? Could they do more? What religions do more than anything else is promote integrity and values. Religions are not about rituals or doing things right, but about doing the right thing. We are so lucky to live in one of the most open countries in the world, and I am so proud of the fact that we have wonderful celebrations of religions in this country.

17:50

[Lord Hussain]

I thank my noble friend Lord Singh for securing this debate. There are hundreds of different religions throughout the world. Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are embraced by nearly 75% of the world’s population. Christianity has become the largest religion in the world. There are about 1 billion Catholics and nearly half a billion Protestants. Islam is the second largest and the fastest growing religion in the world today. Muslims are estimated to number 1.1 billion. Hinduism dates to about 2,000 years before Christ. It is the source of Buddhism and Sikhism. Today there are some 800 million Hindus in the world.

Since the earliest prehistoric times, faith and belief have always been part of the texture of human society. Neither in the past nor in the present is it possible to find a society in which religious issues have not been raised. It may even be claimed that human endeavour in the realm of religion and belief has been more strenuous and longer lasting than efforts in the area of knowledge and art. In many historical events, religion can be seen to have dominated all relationships. All members of society belong to the church. Churches, sects, denominations and cults are religious organisations. The differences among them lie in their relationship to the social environment. It is possible that in many human societies unfavourable economic conditions, stagnation and backwardness may coexist with religious belief, but this coexistence does not necessitate any causal relationship; one cannot be presented as the cause of the other.

The espousal of a religious doctrine influences the way a person views the world, and when an entire society of people adopts the same religious beliefs, cultural, political, and economic changes are inevitable. Elements of society such as geography, resources and outside pressure also influence religious doctrines. Although societies and religions differ a great deal from one to the next, the connections between the two are inherently evident and similar in all religions. The power of humans to control events is limited, so religion provides an institutionalised means of adjusting to life’s uncertainties and risks. Humans need to feel that the world is comprehensible and that there is a rhyme and reason for the events of their lives. Religion is generally perceived as fulfilling social functions, such as preserving and solidifying society, creating a community of believers, cultivating social change and providing a means of social control. It also fulfils personal functions, such as answering ultimate questions, providing rites of passage and reconciling people to hardship.

In traditional societies, religion was seen as an authority in all areas of social life; few activities remained unaffected. In modern industrial societies, religion is one of many specialised institutions. As a result, religion has been stripped of many of its former functions and must compete with other institutions for authority. To the extent that individuals accept religious teachings and incorporate them in their business, politics, education or family life, religion has an indirect influence on these spheres. However, religious institutions have no direct authority or control. Whenever religion has played its proper role, society has been able to maintain a relatively peaceful balance and harmony among the generally disruptive and self-interested tendencies of politics and economics. Thus, the original role of religion prefigures the idea that civil society is needed to balance and correct the competing interests of state and capital in modern societies.

The proper role of religion has been to provide a higher purpose and meaning to human life that transcends limited self-interest; to counterbalance the disruptive tendencies of politics and economics with shared values able to hold society together; to provide a moral structure in which human beings act; and to stand up for and protect the “little ones”—those who are marginalized and oppressed within the usual power schemes. However, religion has often failed to play its proper role.

Britain is a truly multicultural and multi-religious country. While some of our politicians may claim that multiculturalism has failed, there is a strong case to be made that it operates successfully every day when Britons of different faiths, ethnicities and backgrounds co-operate alongside each other to make the nation what it is today.

17:56

[Lord Hameed]

My Lords, I am immensely grateful to my noble friend Lord Singh for initiating this timely debate. Through centuries of human history, up to our present day, one of the most divisive elements is religion. That was never meant to be so but extremists in many faiths are bent on exploiting religion for their own nefarious, political agendas. As we know, religion can be a force for peace or war. It can heal or hurt. It can create or destroy on a scale unimaginable to previous generations. Human history is filled with episodes involved with religion and of misguided believers responsible for the slaughter of fellow humans on the altar of religion.

Although there is warmth and friendship here this afternoon, there is fear and hatred outside in the world. We cannot be discouraged, for there is enough commonality in world religions to enable us to reach out to our fellow humans. Although humans have demonstrated their genius for creativity and achievement, we have lost none of our ability to destroy and kill fellow humans with impunity. When extremists inflict violence on society in the name of religion, the innocent are often their main victims. That has to be resisted by the community at large. Voices must be raised in protest and we must withhold the robe of sanctity when it is sought as a cloak for violence and bloodshed, even if the perpetrators are from our own faith. As human beings, we are all more alike than different—irrespective of our physical make-up and self-created labels which might suggest otherwise. The challenge before us is to respect and understand others without compromising the bedrock of our own faith.

Let us now look at the philosophical analysis of religion, which relates to logic that the human can understand and relate to. Religion and politics speak to different aspects of the human condition. Religion binds people together in communities, and politics helps to mediate peacefully between their differences. One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century came when politics was turned into a religion. The single greatest risk to the 21st century is that the opposite may occur, not when politics is religionised, but when religion is politicised.

Finally, in the vision of the modern thinker, trade would do for a man what politics could not; that is, tame passions and change the outlook of man from aggression to consumerism and production, thus integrating nations for mutual benefits from trade and finance. All these notions, however, do not answer man’s curiosity about himself. His sense of comfort, however, is well manifested in his loyalty to his tribe and community. Economics does not explain his quest for self-knowledge and identity. Religion answers this human dilemma. No other system explains, as religion does, our reason for being on this planet.

18:00

[Lord Patten]

My Lords, I thank almighty God, or whichever deity your Lordships happen to choose this afternoon, that we do not have some Minister for spiritual affairs, because religion is, rightly, not a matter for the Executive or Parliament, despite the presence of all those right reverend Prelates and most reverend Primates in your Lordships’ House. The leading spin-maester of the previous new Labour Administration once said that they “didn’t do God”. Whatever my noble friend may say in her wind-up, I hope that her words will not include a pledge to set up some Minister of religion.

However, I hope that our assessment will, first, recognise that Governments can benefit much from the spiritual guidance and advice of religious groups and, secondly, give a clear recognition of the role that decent spiritual values play in our society, although I claim no monopoly in this on behalf of organised religions. One of my dearest friends who I admire most is at the same time highly clear-sighted on spiritual values and matters of right and wrong, while being what could only be described as a high-church atheist in his total disbelief of the eternal or any deity. I also trust that my noble friend’s speech will not strike a utilitarian note towards religious groups along the lines of just how useful their cash and skills are, at a time of organising the delivery of voluntary work in these moments of austerity. Then there is the assessment of the role of religions in the big society, of which, alas, we have heard not much these days.

In reality, religious groups have already for a long time involved themselves in the work of the helpful and hopeful small society of communities that surround synagogue, church or mosque. Essentially, in relation to religion’s role in the UK, the Government should ensure three things. First, they should ensure that sincerely and often long-held religious beliefs, when they do not happen to fit in with the political social policy priorities or fashions of the day, are not marginalised or, at worst, sneered on by those in power as being backward or out of touch with progress—that much abused word—but, rather, treated with reasonable respect. Secondly, the Government should reflect the concern of our indigenous faith groups for those persecuted abroad—from minority Islamic groups under attack in a Turkey, a Syria or an Iran to Christians of all hues, from Chaldean Catholics to those right-on evangelicals among the half million who have experienced total religious cleansing in post-conflict Iraq. Thirdly, the Government should bend over backwards on the home front to protect the freedoms of religious groups in the United Kingdom, however small or strange they might appear to our governing class.

For example, contrast my, “If it’s all right by His Holiness the Pope, then it’s certainly all right by me”, brand of Catholicism is many a liturgical mile away from that of the tiny Plymouth Brethren. However, we should be very cautious before we interfere with religious freedoms. They are now under attack on public benefit grounds in the United Kingdom. If such freedoms fall on this, other religious groups may well follow. We had all better watch out.

18:03

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and appreciate the tabling of this subject by my noble friend Lord Singh. The problem is not, as the noble Lord has stated, with other religions. Like him, I am deeply concerned about the increasing dominance of secularism. As a consequence, many Christians find themselves not only marginalised but in some cases victimised. I am sure that this applies to other faiths, too.

The UK is constitutionally Christian. It is explicitly not a secular state. The monarch at her coronation swore an oath to God, not to a secular philosophy. Thank God for her continuing faithful, godly service. History has shown that this Christian constitution provides for a tolerant society in which people of all faiths or none are free to worship or not as they please. It has provided the basis for the kind of stability, peace, prosperity, happiness and individual freedom that still eludes a great many countries in the world that have not had this important influence. It is why many of us are so proud of our heritage. There is much more one could say about the historical influence of Christianity on life in Britain. It is evident all around us in the Palace of Westminster.

It is difficult in the time allocated to the debate adequately to express my concerns. I am sure that we all feel the same. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I chair one of the Christian charities that make up a huge proportion of our voluntary sector. This has been referred to already. Many of the charities attempt to provide valuable support in a society that our Prime Minister described as “broken”. It is seriously disturbing that many Christians should feel that their contribution to public life is now being not only ignored but denigrated. Atheist groups are actively campaigning to stop Christian and Catholic groups opening new schools—even going to court to get them stopped, as happened recently in Richmond. Christian charities are finding it increasingly difficult to get funding from public bodies.

I will give two examples. The late Earl Ferrers spoke of an example close to his home in Norfolk. A homeless charity run by a Baptist church was told that it would lose its funding unless it stopped allowing people to say grace before meals. Pilgrim Homes, a charity providing homes for elderly people, was denied funding by Brighton Council because it could not in all conscience comply with the diktat that all its Christian residents had to be questioned about their sexual orientation every three months. I find it difficult to believe that this is happening in Britain. I am sure that we are all aware of NHS nurse Caroline Petrie who was disciplined for making a kind, gentle offer to pray for a patient. The banning of prayers and the news last week about the demotion of Adrian Smith, who expressed a personal view about gay marriage, are further worrying challenges.

Most of these cases were resolved in the courts, but the fact that they were raised at all is indicative of how far we have departed from being a faith-based society. Despite the Minister’s assurance and the comments that have been made already, the prevailing political attitude that I am concerned about was succinctly expressed in the famous statement by Alastair Campbell, “We don’t do God”. We all want to live in a society where people, regardless of their religion, can make a full contribution to public life and be respected for it. We should not make compliance with some sort of secularist state orthodoxy a precondition for full participation in society. The power of God can change lives and influence communities and society. It has done so in the past. Doing God and doing good is what millions of people in Britain want the freedom to do today.

18:08

[Baroness Neuberger]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Singh of Wimbledon for introducing the debate. I will set it against the context of the polarisation that we are seeing between people who have faith and those who do not. That is something on which we have not yet spent enough time in this debate. We also see a broad lack of public understanding of the roles that faith can play in wider society. That is something I urge the Minister and the Government to reassess, by looking at the contributions that faiths have made. I will give some quick examples.

The first of these is the hospice movement, in which the UK has been, without doubt, the world leader. The modern hospice movement was founded by a profoundly believing Anglican, who built on the work already done by the Sisters of Charity, a Catholic order from Dublin. Both Dame Cicely Saunders and the Sisters of Charity founded our modern hospice movement, which has changed the way that we view death and dying in this country. It has been a good thing for all of us; it is something brought to this society by people of faith, because of what their faith told them about how people should approach their death. This is something that we have now managed to do in a multifaith, as well as a single faith, way—indeed in a non-denominational and non-faith way—but it started with faith.

The second is work with people with enduring mental illness. More than 20 years ago I was struck by the report of the Health Advisory Service into how people who are homeless and had long-term mental illness were treated. Often the line from the healthcare professionals was: “Do not bring your smelly homeless people to us”. It was the churches, the synagogues, the mosques, the gurdwaras, the temples and whoever else who picked up the pieces and sometimes—though not always—showed kindness. It is clear that faith organisations can make a great contribution to the well-being of people with mental disorders. It is also an activity and task carried by many faith organisations, which largely goes unrecognised by government.

So too does the work of many faith organisations, including my own West London Synagogue—I declare an interest here—in working with destitute asylum seekers. They cannot return to their own country, but are caught in a mess not of their own making caused by the unbelievable length of time it takes for applications to be processed and appeals to be heard. They are not allowed to work, either. The Government may not relish what some faith organisations do to help these destitute people, but they have to recognise that these people are still human and still here. This needs to be acknowledged. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, talked about Mitzvah Day, and it was on Mitzvah Day last week when members of my synagogue and people of many other faiths helped asylum seekers around London.

It is not only about what religion can bring but about how people are and what they believe. It is about the fundamentals of what makes human beings tick. It is about the need to give as well as receive—the volunteering and gift relationship ideas so rooted in faith. Governments have not been very good at recognising the role that religion can play in wider society. So will the Minister say whether the Government will now consider drawing in people of faith to debates about education for everyone, volunteering for everyone and the need to learn to give and receive? Politicians are no use at teaching these things, but religion can and at its best does. It does that day by day, not always well, but often brilliantly, setting a tone—as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has just said—for wider society which the Government could and should recognise.

18:12

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, the role of religion in society is recognised in our charity law, but this has become contentious in the case of the Preston Down Trust. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this is not the thin end of the wedge for the charitable status of our churches. I say that due to a comment in the decision letter from the Charity Commission, which says the question,

“will turn on the doctrines and practices of this particular religious persuasion”.

This also explains why, to my knowledge, none of the main denominations are at all concerned. This religious persuasion is the Exclusive Brethren, which sits under the universal leadership of Bruce Hales, in Australia. In August, this group incorporated in the UK as the Plymouth Brethren (Exclusive Brethren) Christian Church Ltd. I have family in this Hales Exclusive Brethren, which is not to be confused with any other brethren groups. The Hales Brethren hold to the doctrine of separation, so exclusives cannot live in semi-detached houses, as they share a party wall with non-brethren. They cannot eat with non-brethren, cannot have friends with non-brethren; they have no TV, radio, cafes, restaurants, etc. They can attend only brethren schools and they now work only for brethren businesses. Attending university is banned. Is it not contradictory to give gift aid to charities struggling to encourage young people into university and also to groups whose beliefs prohibit that choice for their young people? This is a very controlled environment to live and grow up in. Unsurprisingly, the preliminary findings of Andrew Mayers from Bournemouth University and Jill Mytton are that the mental health outcomes for former Exclusive Brethren are poor. I await with eager interest their full report.

Only last night I spoke to a gentleman who told me about someone who is currently in the Exclusive Brethren. The man had been to a pub and unfortunately he was spotted by a brethren brother, so he has been “shut up”, a term which means that no brethren can live with him. His wife and family were removed from the family home by the leadership and he has no contact with them. The brethren have also stopped doing business with him. The man has left the Exclusive Brethren, but his parents are still in. The only contact he has had with them is a five-minute conversation and he said to me, “They will not even have a cup of tea with me”. He also said, “I miss my parents so much”. But what about his children? That was the position I grew up in: cut off from my only living grandparent who was eight miles away because I was not in the Exclusive Brethren. This is why Kevin Rudd, the former Prime Minister of Australia, once said:

“I believe that this is an extremist cult and sect … I also believe that it breaks up families”.

If this is Christianity, it is not as we have ever known it before. I commend the Charity Commission on seeking to deal with this Christian sect, but many who would give evidence to the First-tier Tribunal fear the implications for families still in the brethren. The Charity Commission must ensure that victims can give evidence and tell their stories anonymously.

The Exclusive Brethren is a matter for the church collectively. I believe there needs to be a church-led inquiry into the Exclusive Brethren; a theological and psychological inquiry perhaps chaired by a former Archbishop. It is not a noble or honest response to seek to deal with a fudgy law in a decision letter than turns a blind eye to these victims. The Exclusive Brethren maintain that these assertions are without foundation, so they should welcome such an inquiry. Victims can be hard to find, but I hope that many former Exclusive Brethren will hear this debate and so will know that I am hosting an event in Parliament for former Exclusive Brethren so that parliamentarians can also hear their stories.

Groups about whom there is credible evidence that they harm health, split families and send no one to university can exist in a liberal society, but whether they should be charities is very much open to doubt. The religion and public benefit guidance needs to be clarified, but we also need clarity on the outer limits of what is acceptable behaviour for all religious groups.

I offer my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, not to have delivered a celebratory speech, but I cannot get out of my mind that there might be a young person listening to this debate in a brethren school who just wants to go to university. It is important that we should say that that is not wrong.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, rises to speak, I know that we are here to talk about faith, but if we could keep faith within the time limit, that would be appreciated, otherwise we will eat into the Minister’s time.

18:17

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, for initiating this debate. I fear that he will not concur with most of what I am going to say, but I thought it important to speak in the spirit of bringing a bit of balance to the debate.

I want to emphasise the role and importance of the secular space in public life. In that arena I am a secularist, and secularists can be religious too. As a society we can uphold everyone’s right to their religion or belief as well as their right to change or abandon it. Religions have just as much right to express their views as anyone else, but those views should not be privileged in the framing of public policy and law unless specifically related to policies of non-discrimination. Secularism, often unjustly maligned, is becoming more widely understood and recognised as its importance in a multi-religious society becomes more appreciated. The UK could hardly be more multi-religious, but France, India and even the United States opted for secular constitutions to avoid hegemony by any one religion.

Separating religion and state enables those of all religions and none to participate as equal citizens. The fight for that equality, which we now take for granted, has been fought over hundreds of years by non-conformists, Catholics, Jews, and non-believers. In fact, in the 1880s the founder of the National Secular Society, the Liberal MP Charles Bradlaugh, was obstructed from taking his elected seat in another place four times because of his non-belief, and was responsible for the Oaths Act 1888 which ended this affront. We take the Bishops’ Bench rather for granted as something very normal, but, in international terms, it could hardly be less so. We sit in the only Parliament in the world that gives bishops the right to sit. None of our reform proposals contemplated their departure, except as a by-product of the wholly elected option.

Let me turn to same sex marriage to which the established church is so opposed. It is surely entitled to that view and to tell its flocks not to partake in it. However, what rather alienates those who believe in it is that the church has sought to put pressure on the Government not to legislate on same-sex marriage, despite knowing that liberal religious groups, the non-religious and probably many individual Anglicans and Catholics wish to proceed with it. The church is, therefore, still seeking to restrict others’ freedoms, and I invite it to ponder on this.

I admire much charitable work done in the name of religion. However, there are also secular charities, and doubtless those of all religions and none contribute happily to both. In a society in which church attendance continues to dwindle and congregations age—I am sure there are anecdotal exceptions, but the statistics are very clear—we rapidly approach a time when we need to think about the extent to which religious precepts should be allowed, often through the workings of both Houses, to override the view of the people on sensitive social issues. When I say “the view of the people”, I mean even religious people.

It is remarkable that, according to reputable polls taken during the Pope’s visit, only somewhere in the range of 8% to 15% of Catholics agreed with their church’s official doctrine on such sensitive social issues as contraception, homosexuality and abortion. In conclusion, I very much regret our House’s repeated rejection of assisted dying legislation and stem cell research. I am convinced that that was done on religious grounds, while the public are so markedly in favour of those.

The secular point on which I would like to conclude is that religions should not have privileged positions to restrict others' freedoms—something that they do far too often.

18:21

[Lord Sacks]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for initiating this important debate, for his wise and gentle contribution to the religious life of this country and for the part he has played as a founding member and vice-chair of The Interfaith Network for the UK, which this year celebrates its 25th anniversary. It has helped to ensure that religious groups that may elsewhere find themselves in conflict meet here in Britain in friendship and peace. This is a great blessing to us all.

Religion is often misunderstood in secular times. It is seen as a strange set of beliefs and idiosyncratic rituals, both of which we could lose without loss. A better way of understanding religion, even from the outside, is as a sustained education in a life lived beyond the self. Many—perhaps all—of the world’s great religions teach their adherents the importance of making sacrifices for the sake of others, through charity, hospitality, visiting the sick, helping the needy, giving comfort to those in crisis and bringing moments of moral beauty into what might otherwise be harsh and lonely lives. Religion is the redemption of our solitude.

Long before these functions were taken over by the state, religious groups, here and elsewhere, were building schools and hospitals and networks of support. According to the extensive research carried out by Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam, regular worshippers today, in America and Britain, are more likely than others to give to charity—regardless of whether the charity is religious or secular—do voluntary work, give money to a homeless person, donate blood, help a neighbour with the housework, spend time with someone who is feeling depressed or help someone find a job. They are more active citizens and significantly more likely to belong to community organisations and neighbourhood groups. They get involved, turn up and lead.

Not for a moment do I say that to be good you need to be religious. However, religiosity as measured by attendance at a house of worship turns out to be a better predictor of altruism and empathy than education, age, income, gender or race. If this is so, the social implications are immense. Just as religions were building a welfare state before there was a welfare state, so now, and in the future, they may help sustain a welfare society in areas where the need for help is greater than the ability of Governments to provide it. They act as a counter voice to the siren song of a culture that sometimes seems to value self over others, rights over responsibilities, getting more than giving, consumption more than contribution, and success more than service to others. I therefore commend the Government for their support in bringing Britain’s many faiths together in acts of volunteering. I urge them to consider further ways of valuing the formidable altruistic energies of our faith communities for the good of all of us together.

18:25

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, I rise with the deepest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and thank him for allowing us to have this debate. It has been a humbling experience to hear noble Lords across the House. I will endeavour to add to the mosaic of this discourse.

Islam has been present on our shores since 1707 and is a widely practised religion. There are hundreds of places of worship in addition to strong civil society organisations such as An-Nisa, the Henna Foundation in Cardiff, Radical Middle Way and the London Muslim Centre. These are the backbone of our young and old, and provide support to the community in general, as well as providing leadership and enhancing interaction with one another and helping us stand together in a crisis. The events of 9/11 and 7/7 were turning points for all of us, not least for Muslims. The subsequent government response, with the Prevent agenda, caused long-lasting damage vis-à-vis confidence and trust in our institutions, resulting in Muslims being made a suspect community. Those involved in Northern Ireland matters will appreciate the gravity of that impact. During the most difficult period, many of these organisations played a pivotal role in ensuring calm and enabling dialogue and engagement with government structures, within the community as well as wider society. There has been a remarkable amount of work at the grass-roots level to ensure peace and stability.

Religion has been a fundamental driver to this work. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Singh and Lord Sacks, the Inter Faith Network and the office of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, among many others who worked in close collaboration with faith groups, building strong alliances. As a result, we have a community growing in confidence about their citizenship of the UK and their obligations to society. There is good news, but it is not often spoken of or acknowledged. One survey found that the UK is respected and regarded highly by Muslim communities: 87% of Muslims feel a sense of belonging; 83% of Muslims feel proud to be British citizens; and 77% of Muslims strongly identify with Britain, while only 50% of the wider public do so.

There are vast arrays of community work going on. One example is that this November, a number of Muslim organisations came together in partnership with parliamentarians and launched an exhibition, held in the other place, that drew attention to the prevalence of Islamophobia but highlighted the contribution Muslims make as citizens in wider British society. While optimistic campaigns highlight the positive contributions Muslims make towards society as inspired by their religion, it is important to underline the devastating impact that misunderstanding religions has caused.

This lack of understanding on the part of wider society, whether in the media or in general public life, has contributed to harmful ideas about, and attitudes towards, Muslims. There has been a disturbing increase in Islamophobia and Islamophobic incidents. A study of newspaper articles about Muslims by academics at Lancaster University found that a majority of the articles referred to Muslims within the context of extremism and/or terrorism, and noted that:

“Overall the project highlighted a serious journalistic problem—Muslims who just get on with their lives aren’t seen as newsworthy”.

Worryingly, these misconceptions draw inappropriate links between Muslims and extremism, which contribute to Islamophobia and neglect the positive contribution that Islam inspires and requires Muslims to make in societies.

There are of course matters we as Muslims need to address—the facts that about 80% of women are economically inactive, the fact that women’s leadership is lacking in public life and the fact of changing society and family structures. All those have huge implications and we ignore at our peril the benefits of working alongside faith organisations to tackle these social effects on our society. I believe that faith is the building block that can contribute towards a cohesive society, but it must be on the basis that there is equity and justice among us all.

18:30

[Baroness Flather]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for giving us this opportunity to say a few words about things that matter to us. I was beginning to think that this debate should have been called “In praise of religion”. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, put in a word or two that did not quite pass for praise of religion.

I am the last speaker, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. I had some notes, but I felt that I ought to say things which have come to mind listening to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. First, I am a secularist and an atheist, but I call myself a Hindu atheist because a lot of the principles that I live by are drawn from my Hindu ancestry and upbringing. I do have a set of principles. A lot of people seem to think that the only kind of atheist is like Dawkins; no, not all atheists are like him. I do not push my atheism on to anybody else. I say, “I am atheist; you have your own choice. If you do not wish to be an atheist, that is your choice”. At the same time, however, I hope that people would also say that to me.

The other thing that I strongly believe in is that if atheists or secularists push their views on other people, they become like the religious. Very often we find that religious people push their views on us. They like to make us feel that there is something wrong with us. I do not believe that there is.

The noble Lord, Lord Singh, is a very fortunate man. I do not know whether he realises that. He represents the most modern of the religions that we have spoken about today. It is the religion most suited for our modern life. The things that the founder, Guru Nanak, wanted the Sikhs to follow are very relevant today. It is just unfortunate that the followers do not follow them. I am afraid that that is the story of most religions: the followers do not follow their own religions. Guru Nanak did not know that he was starting Sikhism; he was a Hindu. But the Hindus were so tied up with ritual that he felt that something had to be done to bring people back to the principles rather than getting lost in ritual. The Gita, the most important book of the Hindus, says that ritual is the lowest form of worship. Everybody should take that to heart. Ritual is not what God watches. If there is a God, he looks at what kind of things you do and not the kind of worship you go into.

Having said that, of the two women who influenced me most, one was a Catholic nun and the other was a Salvation Army colonel. Why? They dedicated their lives totally to helping other people. This is where sewa comes in. I believe, first, in what the Gita says: you must do all your actions according to right and proper thinking. “Dharma” is not translatable into English, but it is your duty, the right way, the right thinking.

The second thing I believe in is the Christian saying from the Bible, that you should do to other people what you would like them to do to you. If the Christians just followed that, they could do no wrong. The third is seva, which the Sikhs say: service to other people. If you have just a few things to follow, you are in a better position than anybody else.

18:34

[Lord Griffiths]

My Lords, I confess what pleasure it gives me to stand in a House as diverse as this, which can command speakers of this quality from across such a wide range. I, like others, must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Singh, on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. He, like me, has done his apprenticeship on “Thought for the Day”. I did it for 17 years. He had 10 minutes, and even the two and three-quarter minutes that “Thought for the Day” takes is under great pressure from me.

We have celebrated the undoubted positive outcomes of religion but, like other voices here and as a religious person, I want to congratulate those who have had the courage to ginger us up with their thinking today. Self-congratulation is not necessarily always the best way of looking at our religious beliefs or the contribution of our religions to society around us. The right reverend Prelate has alluded to some of that too. I welcome the debate with science, secularism and humanism. If we cannot stand on our own feet in proper debate I do not know what on earth the point is. There should be no privileges as far as I am concerned: I want to be kept on my toes and I want what I contribute to the public debate to be sharp, self-critical and to lead me to be ready to collaborate with people of good will wherever they come from. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for what she said. I also want to express that an essential element within religion, which is so often so tight-lipped, is a sense of humour that allows us to see just how puny we are sub specie aeternitatis.

There are two tests for good religion and every time I think about the contribution of religion to society I think of them. First is the offering of a safe space for its adepts and adherents. There has to be somewhere where the vulnerable and minorities of every kind can feel safe. There has to be somewhere they can go to where they can fraternise, mix with people and know that they are not at the mercy of circumstance. The second is the refusal of good religion simply to serve the internal needs of its own religious group. I do not want any religion turning into a cult: we have heard mention of that today. Nor should it become sectarian in its interests or scope. We have had plenty of evidence that religion needs to be outward looking. The Sikh religion, which emphasises service—as the noble Lord, Lord Singh, uttered in his very first sentence—is a good example of that.

I will obey those who say that I must not take up too much time and I will allow a little on the credit side to flow across the Dispatch Box to the Minister. This credit from me may be the last she gets, so I hope she will enjoy it.

When I came into this House in 2004, the BBC stopped me doing “Thought for the Day” because I had chosen to take the Labour whip and they cannot have politicians doing “Thought for the Day”. As you well know, nobody must have a point of view when they do that programme. I want to say, as a personal testimony that I was a member of the Labour Party before I was a Christian and I was not going to give that up for anything in the world. It was the Labour Party that opened my eyes to see the world in a particular way: it was my Christian faith that gave me the fire in my belly to go out there and do something about it. I have sensed in this debate that the fire is not only in my belly but in the belly of many of those who have spoken today.

18:37

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for giving me some credit but despite it I will have to rush through because I only have eight minutes in which to conclude.

I thank those who have contributed to this well informed debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for focusing attention on this important subject. The noble Lord has extensive experience as a leading figure in the Sikh community and is an invaluable supporter of national and international interfaith work.

This Government believe that religion plays a vital role in British society. Not only do we support people in their right to follow a faith if they choose to do so; we also celebrate faith and faith communities’ contribution to society. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, when she spoke of the great contribution of faith in the areas of healthcare and education. As I put it in my 2010 speech to the Anglican Bishops’ Conference: unlike previous Governments—I am sorry, but I am going to have to say this—we do “do God”.

Faith communities make a vital contribution to national life and have done for centuries: guiding the moral outlook of many, inspiring great numbers of people to community service, providing help to those in need. Across the country, people from different faiths work hard in countless churches, mosques, temples, gurdwaras and synagogues, and in charities and community groups, to address problems in their local communities. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, summed this up better than I can when he spoke about the state being there when things in society go wrong, but religion being there from the outset to stop them going wrong in the first place. My noble friend Lord Hussain eloquently detailed his perspective on the role of religion today and its importance.

The 30,000 faith-based charities in this country make a huge difference at home and abroad. We warmly endorse the work of charities that do so much to support the fabric of society for the public benefit.

Research shows that people of religious observance are more likely to be volunteers. The Government are recognising and harnessing that fact. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Eaton on her contribution and leadership on this issue, specifically on the Near Neighbours programme. Through our £5 million investment in this Church Urban Fund programme we are using the existing infrastructure of the Church of England to build productive local relationships between people of different faiths.

Places of worship of different faiths in a town or city can sometimes be unaware of the work each is doing, often to address similar problems. The Government want to help build effective, co-operative working relationships between people of different faiths. We continue to fund the important work of the Inter Faith Network for the UK and the Faith-based Regeneration Network, intermediary bodies that link up, encourage and resource interfaith dialogue projects and faith-based social action. The previous Government had supported an annual Interfaith Week since 2009 and we are delighted to continue to do so.

The Government are also happy to support A Year of Service, to highlight and link up faith-based volunteering efforts during Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, was right to highlight Mitzvah Day, which is part of that. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there could be no better tribute to Her Majesty.

The Government are also committed to maintaining the status of religious education as a compulsory subject that all pupils must study throughout their schooling, subject to parental choice. Religious education is important so that children can understand the history that has shaped the values and traditions of this country, forming a key part of promoting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children and young people. We consider religious education fundamental to children’s learning. The Government also remain committed to the provision of collective worship in schools—or, as I knew them, assemblies.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, was right to say that the UK has a strong Christian heritage. As I said in a speech when I led the largest ever ministerial delegation to the Holy See earlier this year, Britain is proud of its established church and Europe must be more confident in its Christianity. It is therefore right that religious education reflects the fact that the religious traditions of Great Britain are in the main Christian. Last year, every state school in England was provided with a King James Bible to mark its 400th anniversary and recognise the huge influence it has had on our culture, language, society and values—values that my noble friend Lord Popat was right to say are as much his values as a Hindu as they are Christian values.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, also raised concerns about the perceived marginalisation of Christians. I am in receipt of the Christians in Parliament All-Party Parliamentary Group report setting out these concerns, and we are currently considering a response to that.

Local authorities are responsible for drawing up locally agreed syllabuses, which non-faith-based maintained schools must follow. These syllabuses are broadly Christian, while taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions in both that local area and wider Britain. Faith schools can develop their own syllabuses and we see thousands of fantastic Jewish, Hindu, Christian and Muslim schools setting the highest standards, both in faith teachings and more generally. This approach, which responds to local factors, giving local authorities a unique, locally agreed syllabus, chimes with this Government’s view of localism.

All academies have to teach religious education under the terms of their funding agreement with the Secretary of State. Academies are not required to follow a locally agreed syllabus, but can choose to do so. I am proud to say that one-third of free schools—our flagship education policy—are also faith-based.

Noble Lords will agree that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. The Government defend the right of people to follow a faith and express that faith, free from discrimination, intolerance or persecution. In an important and enjoyable intervention, my noble friend Lord Patten was quite right to raise the international dimension of this freedom. I hope that he will take comfort from the fact that my role, both in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and at the Department for Communities and Local Government, deals with the international and domestic aspects of freedom of religion.

In 2010, this Government made it a requirement for all police forces to record anti-Semitic attacks. We are funding tighter security measures in Jewish faith schools. We appointed the first UK envoy for post-Holocaust issues, Sir Andrew Burns. We are funding the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project and we are committing funds to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, all moves which I know the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, welcomes and supports

We are now finally starting to tackle the more recent scourge of anti-Muslim hatred. As we announced last week, we are funding the Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks programme and have established the cross-government Anti-Muslim Hatred group, allowing us to respond department by department to the growing problem of anti-Muslim hatred. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, will welcome these initiatives. We have changed the law to allow councils to continue to hold prayers at the beginning of their meetings should they wish following an attempt by the National Secular Society to have the long-standing practice banned.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Brinton for her clarification on the ongoing Plymouth Brethren case and to my noble friend Lady Berridge for sharing her moving account and her expertise in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was right to ask what more we could do. I hope that, after his discussions with me, he will see the fact that the Zoroastrian community was represented at the Cenotaph on this Remembrance Sunday as a step in the right direction. The noble Lord, Lord Hameed, quite rightly raised the challenging issue of when faith is distorted and used as a tool for fear and violence. My noble friend Lady Berridge reminded us that this distortion is not confined to any one religion. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, raised important issues of choice in religion and the choice not to have a religion. I am sure that many noble Lords are, like me, relieved to hear that she is not of the Dawkins brand of atheism.

This Government believe that faith should have a seat at the table in public life. I agree with my noble friend Lady Falkner that this is not a position of privilege but that of a strong contributor to the public debate. Yes, there will be setbacks both in the public debate and the debate within faiths, as the right reverend Prelate alluded to, but the place of faith in the public debate should not be altered as a result. Indeed, my appointment as the first Minister for Faith and Communities—not for spirituality, but for faith and communities—demonstrates the Prime Minister’s commitment to the voice of faith communities being heard at the Cabinet table. The Prime Minister has said that our faith communities make Britain “stronger” and he was right to say that,

“we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so”.

This Government have held faith receptions at Downing Street for major festivals: Vaisakhi, Eid, Hanukkah and Diwali—and, yes, it was right that this coalition Government introduced the celebration of Easter as well.

When I first set the tone for this Government’s faith agenda in 2010, declaring that we would “do God”, many warned that this was something that a government Minister should not say. Two years on, I am heartened to see that so many Ministers have got behind this agenda, and our actions demonstrate the importance that we attach to the role of religion in British society.

House adjourned at 6.47 pm.