Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26 February 2014

[Mr Jim Hood in the Chair]

Weather Events (South West England)

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Hood. I am sure that my delight is shared by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), who will be speaking in this debate rather than chairing it.

I would like to start by outlining the current situation, because although the national media and visiting politicians have moved on, we in the south-west are still feeling the impact of the recent storms and floods. The main and only railway route beyond Exeter to the rest of Devon, Plymouth and Cornwall is still severed at Dawlish; the main line providing cross-country services from our region to Bristol, south Wales, the midlands and the north is still under 18 inches of water for more than a mile of its stretch near Bridgwater in Somerset; and, of course, much of the Somerset levels still look as if they have been reclaimed by the sea.

We must also take note of the impact of the rail closures on our roads. First Great Western alone is running 166 coaches a day to replace rail services lost due to the flooding in the Somerset levels and Dawlish. The urgent priority is to get both important railway connections reopened as quickly as possible. I am sure that Network Rail is doing its best in Dawlish and on the Somerset levels, but I am also sure that both it and the Minister will be aware of the importance of the Easter holidays to our tourist industry. Everything possible must be done to ensure that both lines are reopened in time for the school holidays. We have heard encouraging words from Ministers and Network Rail about the need for an additional alternative route that avoids the vulnerable Dawlish section. We have had words in the past, but what the west country wants and expects now is action.

The Government have given the commitment that Network Rail will report back by the summer on its initial feasibility study into a Dawlish-avoiding route. Will the Minister reassure me that Network Rail will take advice from outside experts, including the Met Office, on the likely impact of rising sea levels and more extreme weather events due to climate change? When Network Rail reviewed the Dawlish line for the Labour Government in 2004, it deemed it viable for the foreseeable future and rejected the need for an alternative. That advice was hopelessly over-optimistic. In fact, Network Rail has been criticised in the past for opening its eyes too slowly to the resilience challenges posed by climate change. Will the Minister assure us that Network Rail has now opened its eyes and will not make the same mistake again?

As the four transport authorities in the south-west pointed out in a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport in January—before we lost the line at Dawlish—the re-announced £31.3 million for rail flood resilience in the south-west was actually promised a year ago, after last winter’s floods when we also lost our rail connection for several weeks. The money was not delivered then—will the Minister tell us whether it has been now? If not, why not, and when will it be paid?

On the wider issue of flood defence, the Minister will be aware that several important schemes in the south-west were abandoned or delayed after his Government cut investment in flood defences on taking office. The UK Statistics Authority confirmed again today that investment in flood defences has fallen by £250 million under this Government compared with the previous one. The Environment Agency’s flood maintenance budget has fallen from more than £100 million a year in 2010 to just £60 million this year. At the time when such changes were announced, many of us warned that they would be a false economy, because, as the Minister knows, for every pound invested in flood defences, at least eight are saved in the long run. Indeed, those are the Treasury rules—the EA is not allowed to spend money on new flood defences unless it can guarantee that level of return.

When the Government took office, there was also a very good argument for sustaining or even increasing capital investment in infrastructure. For the first three years under this Government, our economy flat-lined. Organisations such as the IMF and CBI argued repeatedly for more capital investment to boost jobs and growth, but that did not happen. The Government did not listen and we are now paying the price. Will the Minister assure us that the schemes that were in the pipeline in 2010 will now go ahead on a renewed, accelerated time scale?

Two weeks ago, in response to the floods, the Prime Minister said, “Money is no object”. He also kept repeating, in his now infamous press conference, the words “we are a wealthy country”, but I cannot see that any of the announcements made in the past few weeks represent any new money or increased investment. Indeed, there is still confusion about whether the Prime Minister was talking about resources to deal with the immediate crisis or long-term investment, in spite of the fact that he seemed to say quite clearly that we need to do everything we can to improve our resilience as a country.

What is the Minister’s understanding of what the Prime Minister was talking about? For example, there has still not been a firm pledge on the investment that would be needed for the Dawlish-avoiding route. Yet, whichever route is chosen, or even if the recommendation is somehow to maintain and better defend the current route, the cost will be a tiny fraction of the tens of billions of pounds that the Government have already committed to HS2. I am not against HS2, but why are the Government incapable of committing to ensuring that we in the south-west have a 20th-century railway that functions and does not leave us cut off on an annual basis, while remaining committed to HS2?

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does the current railway blip not draw attention to the fact that the dualling of the A303 and A30 is paramount so that if we get such appalling weather conditions in future, there will at least be access to the south-west? From my constituency, there is no access because the road infrastructure is terrible.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s argument, although he will be aware that the sort of dualling that some people would like would raise huge environmental challenges in the Blackdown hills. Nevertheless, he is right: we in the south-west are the poor relation when it comes to transport infrastructure. I will say a little more about that in a moment.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. We in Northern Ireland obviously did not suffer as much from the floods, but we sympathise with the agri-food sector, which has been badly hit. It will take tens of thousands of pounds to help the farmers in the right hon. Gentleman’s area, and flooding will have a devastating impact on future food prices.

[Mr Bradshaw]

The hon. Gentleman is probably right. The recent weather comes after droughts and floods in previous years. I am also going to say a little about the importance of land management, because I do not think that the current approach is holistic, as it should be.

I believe that the Government will not commit the money that we need to invest in the south-west because of the Chancellor’s addiction to austerity—so short-sighted when it comes to capital investment. As has been said, current Treasury figures show that expenditure per head on transport in the wider south-west is well below that of all other English regions and the devolved Administrations. The Minister is a Cornwall MP, so I am sure he is aware that it is politically difficult for any south-west MP to vote for any more funds for HS2 until we have a firm commitment to address our rail problems first.

Will the Minister tell us the latest position on job losses at the Environment Agency? As he will know, EA staff have been working around the clock during the recent flooding. In our region, it is the second year in a row that Christmas and New Year were effectively cancelled for them. I was pleased that, in response to the call from my own party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Government announced a temporary freeze in the EA redundancy programme. However, local staff in Devon tell me that they have already lost so many people that they not only do not have the staff to work on the new flood defence schemes that are under way, but they cannot adequately maintain current flood defences. It would be wholly irresponsible of the Government to press ahead with job cuts given what we have been through this year and last, and so soon after the even bigger floods of 2007.

When I visited the Environment Agency, with the Leader of the Opposition, in Exeter the week before last, we were told that this year is already categorised as a one-in-250-year weather event. Last year, 2000 and 2007 were categorised as one-in-100-year weather events. We seem to be having one-in-100-year or one-in-250-year weather events every other year, on average. That brings me to my next questions, which are about climate change.

It is well known that the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who sadly is still not with us, is the Government’s leading climate change denier—a position that many of us consider untenable, given his responsibilities. Will the Minister assure us as he sums up the debate, as Floods Minister, that he accepts the science on climate change? Has he, unlike his boss, met his own Department’s adviser on the issue and has he spoken to the world’s leading experts on the issue, who are based in Exeter? It is easy for him to do so on his way to and from his constituency.

I also appeal to the Minister to do what he can to ensure that his boss and some of the others who I fear are in denial understand the importance of overall land management in water management and flood avoidance. It is not all about dredging. As many have pointed out, including his Conservative predecessor in the job as Floods Minister, dredging can often make things worse.

In that context, let me draw the Minister’s attention to a study by Exeter university, in collaboration with his Department and South West Water, on land management and water management on Exmoor. That four-year project, led by Professor Richard Brazier, essentially involves blocking up ditches and other drainage courses over a 2,000-hectare area of the moor to help to restore the peatland that predates the drainage that has happened for grazing during the past 200 years or so.

The preliminary results, published last week, are dramatic. Because of the restored land’s improved ability to retain and absorb water, the project has reduced by one third the volume of water leaving Exmoor and entering the River Exe. That is the equivalent of nearly 7,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. It has significantly reduced the volume of storm and therefore flood surges all along the Exe. It has had the added benefit of improving significantly the quality of the water arriving at South West Water’s treatment works, thereby reducing costs for that company and ultimately, it is hoped, for those of us who pay water rates. That work has very important lessons for land management across the uplands of south-west England and elsewhere, including, Professor Brazier believes, the high land surrounding the Somerset levels.

May I turn briefly to flood insurance? Many householders and businesses in Exeter have seen their flood insurance premiums rocket because of the combination of the cuts in investment in flood defences, the delay in the construction of upgraded flood defences for the city and the continuing failure of the Government to implement the long-awaited deal that they finally struck with the insurance industry on long-term insurance cover.

When the Leader of the Opposition was in Exeter, he met a couple whose insurance had rocketed in price from below £200 to nearly £800. He also met the chairman of Exeter chamber of commerce, who told him that businesses on Marsh Barton, one of the main industrial sites in my area and, as its name suggests, on a floodplain, had seen the excess on their flood insurance policies increase fivefold. They had also been told that they would have to move all their plant and equipment to the first floors of their buildings in the event of a flood warning, even though many of them are in single-storey buildings.

We were told that there is an ongoing disagreement between the Government and the insurance industry about whether to make it clear on everyone’s bills the premium that they are paying to help to cover people in higher-risk areas and that that is holding up the implementation of the deal. There is also the problem in relation to leaseholders, homes built since 2009 and small businesses, none of which are included in the current scheme. Is it not clear that, as it stands, Flood Re, as the scheme is called, is not adequate? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will deal with its inadequacies in the Water Bill?

In opposition, the Prime Minister famously rode huskies and said “Vote blue, go green.” People thought that he was serious about the environment and climate change, yet in recent years, intimidated by the growing band of climate change deniers in his party, he has seemed almost embarrassed to talk about the subject. He oversaw huge cuts in flood defences and the Environment Agency budgets, and work on implementing the recommendations of the Pitt report, commissioned after the major floods in 2007, stalled.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a passionate speech on behalf of the south-west region. Does he share my concern that preparing for and managing flood risk has been dropped as one of the priorities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that the Government’s national policy statement on roads and railways contains no reference to ensuring the resilience of our existing transport network?

[Mr Bradshaw]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What she describes fits into the overall picture, which is that the joined-up, strategic, collaborative, comprehensive approach adopted following the Pitt review after the serious floods of 2007 has been picked apart. The Cabinet Committee on Flooding that was set up under the previous Government was scrapped. It has now been reintroduced, we hear.

I do not know whether the Committee has sat; I do not know whether the Minister serves on it. However, we have lost three and a half years of effective policy on flood defence, flood management and managing flood risk, and I still do not detect the “joined-up-ness” that we need. When the Prime Minister comes to the Somerset levels and repeats what he heard from the last people he spoke to about dredging, has he actually looked at the evidence? Has he looked at all the advice that is coming, including again today, from organisations that know much more about flooding than anyone in this room does? They say that we need a much more holistic and joined-up approach—in the end, an approach that would save us as a country not only a great deal of heartbreak, but a great deal of money.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is not just about dredging, but the problem with the Parrett and Tone is that the river channel is only about two thirds of the size it should be, so dredging is needed. The problem has been that dredging has not been put into the equation. The issue is about water management, but it is also about dredging.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I invite the hon. Gentleman, who serves on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which sits this afternoon, to invite Professor Brazier from Exeter university to come and give evidence to the Committee. If the Committee is to publish a report on the lessons that could be learned from what has happened in the past few months, it is very important that it listens to the views of people who have conducted such important research.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate that the concerns being discussed today are specifically about the south-west of England, but we have also had concerns in Strangford. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that this issue should be addressed in any way? There seemed to be a delay in responding, which was a big issue for many of my constituents at home, but also in the south-west of England. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Minister should set up a group to consider how the Government can react quickly when flooding starts, rather than providing a delayed response?

[Mr Bradshaw]

I did not want this debate to be about how the Government handled the immediate crisis, but about how we move forward and ensure that we have a joined-up approach to dealing with flood risk management. However, having been Minister for the South West in 2007, when we had what were more serious floods in many ways, I do have some experience of how to manage a crisis. I also dealt with bird flu at DEFRA. It is very important that when something such as this happens, it is gripped immediately from the top. When the Prime Minister finally did grip what had happened, things started moving and changed, but it is only really when the Prime Minister gets involved, starts chairing Cobra and takes control that all the agencies and Departments come together and work effectively.

However, what matters to people in the long term is not how Governments manage immediate crises—although that is important, not least for their reputation—but whether that collaboration, that “joined-up-ness”, that strategic approach is continued in the long term, because it is long-term and sustained policies and investment that will make it less likely that we will have constantly to fight these crises and fires in the future.

I hope that the recent floods and storms and their impact will have served as a wake-up call to the Government, because the long-suffering south-west of England will judge not on words, but on actions.

09:48

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on an extremely valuable introduction and on getting this debate on the table. Clearly, for all of us in the south-west, the impact of the storm in the weeks from 3 February onwards was more than significant. Certainly in Dawlish in my constituency, the damage was unprecedented. According to Network Rail, the breach in the sea wall was something the like of which had never been seen before.

Not only Dawlish was damaged—there was significant erosion damage in Dawlish Warren, which depends on tourism for its livelihood. Losing four metres of sand not only reduces the defence mechanisms, but the lack of sand on the beaches impacts on tourism, and there has been a delay in the recharge project to bring the beaches up to standard.

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

All along the coast, from Cornwall to my hon. Friend’s constituency, we have seen unprecedented coastal damage that will affect tourist businesses. Does she agree that the message must go out that the south-west is still very much open for business?

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point. It is clear to me from the conversations I have had with Network Rail that we will be open for business for Easter. It has been a challenging time, but from everything I have seen—I see the concrete lorries filling that wonderful hole—I am absolutely sure that we will see a successful result.

As for the damage, I will focus on Dawlish, which is where the most significant impact was. It would be wrong not to mention some of the other things that have happened, and the erosion is a part of it. We have also had significant flooding in some of our smaller villages. I have 40 villages in my constituency. I will not name each of them and list the damage that occurred, but Ringmoor and Stokeinteignhead were significantly damaged. However, Dawlish is where the most significant impact of the storm was felt.

Some 56 families had to be evacuated late at night. The police had to knock in windows to get residents out. Countless businesses lost trade and, although that was partly due to sodden buildings, it was also because the train was not running. The cafés that usually got the business from the tourist footfall simply did not do business. The district and county councils were brilliant in all that they did, doing much more than might otherwise have been expected. Volunteers were fantastic. There was a lot of action during the night. Tea was available 24 hours a day, served by a wonderful lady, and the Network Rail team, in their orange jackets, have now become almost iconic in Dawlish. The local community love them to bits and see them as local heroes. They are still giving them cups of tea and pats on the back, and whatever else it takes to keep them going.

During the crisis, First Great Western finally got up to speed and put in place the coaches that were needed, but it is fair to say—I am sure the right hon. Member for Exeter knows this—that there were severe challenges going south from Exeter, and I heard tales of queues of 200 people struggling to find places on coaches.

We need to remember that the impact of everything that has happened was not only physical, but emotional and economic. For my constituency, the impact has been devastating. That coastal railway line has stood the test of time since Brunel built it, although it has breached before. There are some wonderful pictures of previous breaches when passengers got off the train, walked over the rocks and got on another train on the other side. I am not sure we could do that today, but the pictures are interesting.

The coastal railway is an economic lifeline. The loss to the region is—conservatively—£2 million a day. It is crucial that the line is up and running for Easter. As the right hon. Member for Exeter mentioned, the line is particularly crucial in my area, not only because it is an economic lifeline, but because it is a flood defence. It protects 951 properties in Dawlish, Dawlish Warren, Starcross and Cockwood. It is absolutely mission critical for me as the Member of Parliament and for the constituents I represent that the railway line is made better and more resilient, and that it is there for the long term.

We must look seriously at what can be done to support the railway line. I hope the Minister addresses that in his remarks. There is new technology that will allow a secondary wall to be put on the external front, with wave-breaking technologies that will reduce any damage. There is also the potential for a breakwater to be put further out. I believe that has been done in Sidmouth and Plymouth. I see no reason why it should not be considered in Dawlish. Indeed, from conversations I had with Network Rail last year, I understand that it was already under review. However, I thought 2019 was too late and simply not an adequate answer.

The Dawlish station footfall, believe it or not, is 480,564 people per year. That is the 2012 figure, the most recent I could find. Over the past 10 years, the footfall through Dawlish has risen by 81%. The footfall for Teignmouth is 566,528 individuals a year—again, that is the 2012 figure—and that has seen growth of 98%. If we add the footfall in Newton Abbot, the number is similar to that in Exeter St Davids or Plymouth, so this is not a small rural area. It is a significant part of the south-west, with a significant local economy, much of which is driven by tourism, and it is absolutely crucial that the Government support it.

The Government’s help has been very welcome. The resilience review, which I gather the Army will be undertaking in five weeks, will make a big difference. My question is this: if the Army can do it in five weeks, why has it historically taken Governments years? Can we not make the process faster and have a real assessment of what can be done, with some proper open discussion about what money is needed and what money can be spent? Although the Prime Minister has said money is no object in relation to flood damage, given the budget left by the previous Government, there is not a lot of spare cash. However, this is a critical area for spending, and we must future-proof the railway.

[Lilian Greenwood]

On the best way to tackle resilience at Dawlish, it might be concluded that a new line is necessary or that substantial work is needed to strengthen the Dawlish sea wall. Is the hon. Lady concerned that the money could come from already squeezed Network Rail budgets and other projects in the south-west, rather than being funded with new money from central Government?

[Anne Marie Morris]

First, I do not think there is any question in anybody’s mind that any additional railway line or loop would be instead of the existing line—it must always be as well as the existing line, not least because any new building of railway will take a significant length of time, and whether someone lives in Plymouth, Exeter, Newton Abbot or Dawlish, they need the line and they need it for the long term. It is not a question of an alternative, but an addition.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Hear, hear.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support. As for the hon. Lady’s comments about squeezing other budgets, I would request, as I am sure she would, that additional money is found elsewhere in the Government’s coffers. They have some big issues to deal with, and I am afraid I am going to be a bit controversial here. Almost without exception, constituents have come up to me and said, “Why have we got so much money in the international aid budget?” In many ways, that budget is absolutely right, but what about our own people? Does not charity begin at home? I am conscious that that budget is not big and would not cover all the flood prevention work that is needed. Although it is laudable to have a fund for international aid, there must be a balance, and the time for reviewing that balance is now.

The help offered by the Government to date has been welcome. We have had a business rates holiday for businesses, and the changes to the Bellwin scheme, which gave us 100% cover and lowered the level that had to be reached before money was forthcoming, were welcome, but I have a concern for the Minister to pass on to his Cabinet colleagues. My concern is that the Bellwin formula money did not assist district councils, but most of the expenditure in my area was incurred by the district council, not the county council.

I am equally grateful to the Government for the business support fund, which is to provide support for businesses that have lost trade as a result of this weather event. There is considerable confusion about what “flooding” means. In my constituency, yes, we have flooding and water standing in properties, but we also have storm damage and erosion. It is far from clear what that support covers, because businesses clearly have lost trade from all those things. When my constituents and the council ring the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills hotline—and, indeed, when people speak to Devon county council—they find that they do not know either. We need some clarity about exactly what the business support fund covers.

I am grateful for the £22,500 that has been earmarked for my district council, Teignbridge, but I am saddened that, even as I speak this morning, it has still not been paid. I wonder whether the Minister could raise that matter with his colleagues.

Going forward, we need a proper strategy and proper flood prevention and advice. Villagers who have been flooded are concerned because they feel that they did not have any advice about what to do to shore up their properties. Could we not talk to the fire service to see whether it could provide advice? Otherwise it will be a free-for-all for individuals who might be giving the wrong advice. Villagers were also concerned that there was no early warning and said that a siren would have helped, because this weather event was in the middle of the night. Indeed, Network Rail only discovered it was a double black rather late in the day. Perhaps something could be done about warning and notification, not just of individuals and organisations that can do something, but of residents. That would be helpful.

As the right hon. Member for Exeter said, this is no time for complacency. There is much to be done and it must be done now. That railway line along the coast is vital to the whole south-west and action is needed now. I do not think any of us would condone delay until 2019. Now means 2014 or 2015 and, at the latest, 2016.

10:01

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. It is great that the Minister responding to this debate knows a great deal about the south-west of England, representing as he does North Cornwall, which is also feeling the impact of the issues that we are grappling with.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate, and he made a characteristically passionate speech. However, I say gently to him that his analysis appears to be that everything was great before 2010 and disastrous since 2010. That is not the real world. Other than that, I appreciate the passion and power with which he put forward his argument. He is right to say that we have to do more, both on flood risk management and on upgrading and making our infrastructure more resilient.

The greatest challenge that we in the south-west face is peripherality. People think that, when they get to Bristol, they have arrived in the south-west, but they have not; they are in the south midlands or the west country, not in the south-west. Plymouth is 110 miles from Bristol. I often thought, as I got off the train in days gone by—it seems a long time ago that I got off the train at Plymouth—that I felt sorry for people going on to Penzance in Cornwall, which is another hour and a half on the train. We are a long way from anywhere. Of course, peripherality keeps us beautiful and it is one of the great things that keeps our region from being overwhelmed.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the railway has become more important since Plymouth lost its airport? It is the main link to the south-west and Cornwall now.

[Mr Streeter]

I agree—it is the main link, although the M5 and A38 are pretty good in terms of bringing all the many hundreds of thousands of visitors who will come to us at Easter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who represents Dawlish so ably, that the south-west is certainly open for business.

If our big problem is peripherality, the solution to that is connectivity. This is where our rail link is so important. Yes, superfast broadband is important, as is the M5-A38 link, but as we have just heard, we do not have an airport at Plymouth any longer—there are airports at Newquay and Exeter, but not in Plymouth, which is the engine room of our sub-region—therefore our rail link is extremely important.

I remember a trip to India in 1990s with some Indian business people, just after the monsoon had struck, as it does every year in India. A frustrated Indian businessman said to me, “This is what is holding us back. Every year our physical infrastructure is overwhelmed by the weather and often is swept away and we have to start all over again.” We do not want to be in that position in the far south-west. We must have in place robust infrastructure that underpins our connectivity.

Let me mention the impact on Devon. There was, of course, flooding, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot talked about. By the way, just after the Dawlish breach, iconic pictures, now on the BBC’s “Spotlight” archive, show my hon. Friend raging against the elements, overlooking this breach, almost trying to turn back the storm and doing her utmost for her constituents in fighting for urgent action, which, of course, has followed. Those pictures will live with me for a long time. King Lear has nothing on my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot.

Of course, we have had flooding before, but the battering our coastline took was a new thing this year. In 2012, we had a lot more flooding inland, but it was the coastal attack that was so spectacular this time. There is a worthy scheme to compensate some businesses that have felt the impact of these storms and help has been announced for people in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, but no help has been announced for the people of Torbay or Plymouth. This may be an oversight. Perhaps a civil servant thinks that Devon includes Plymouth and Torbay, which, of course, geographically, it does; but legally it does not. Will my hon. Friend the Minister please look into that to ensure that those businesses on the seafront in Plymouth that were swept away by the storms are compensated in the same way as those along the Cornish or Devon coastline? My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) would make the same point for his constituency if he were here.

[Richard Drax]

Might I remind my hon. Friend about the Dorset coastline, too?

[Mr Streeter]

I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon. Of course, that is right. He will no doubt make that point in his speech, which we anticipate.

Although we are talking about weather, the main focus of our attention today is rail resilience. Network Rail has responded quickly and I pay tribute to it. On the very day of the Dawlish breach, it attended a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport, here at Westminster, and it was obvious that it was going to grip the situation. It gave a six-week timetable, which has slightly slipped because of further storms, and is getting on with it. I understand that it has 100 people working 24/7 to fill up this wonderful hole, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot described it. Congratulations to Network Rail on such a rapid response. The Secretary of State has also responded quickly, and it was good to see the Prime Minister coming down and taking personal control.

I, too, thank First Great Western. It gets hammered and gets a lot of criticism, but it has responded. Perhaps it took a couple of days, but it has now responded well. The service that it is putting on for many of my constituents is excellent.

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend might like to know that some constituents visited me yesterday and they were full of praise for First Great Western and asked me to mention it. Does he agree that this is now the trend, rather than people complaining about First Great Western?

[Mr Streeter]

I agree. It provides an increasingly impressive service to the far south-west. There is another debate to be had—it is not a matter for this Minister—about the future of the franchise and how, with only two and a half years to run, the company lacks the ability to invest in upgrading its rolling stock, and so on. That needs to be tackled, but that is for another day.

The real challenge will be not getting the Dawlish breach restored and the trains running again before Easter—I am confident that will happen—but, as my hon. Friend said, the report to the Government on alternative or additional routes that I understand will be made by July. That is when the fun will begin, because there will be myriad views on the right approach. Let me say, first, that I agree that the existing route has to be reinforced and kept open. We should consider alternative routes from Newton Abbot to Exeter that would be faster and straighter, because that would make the link from the far south-west to London much quicker and more acceptable, to business people in particular. That needs to be fully explored. However, I agree that the existing line must be kept open. All we may really need is an additional line to be used in extremis, but which can be used for freight and local traffic. Then if there should be another breach in years to come, traffic can be switched to that alternate route. It would be wise to wait until we see the report, but it will be important for those of us in the west country to try to reach a consensus on the right way forward. I am afraid that at the moment there are probably as many views as there are Members of Parliament in Devon and Cornwall, which is not helpful. We need to try to reach a consensus.

That issue is eclipsed by the far greater issue of funding. I agree with many of my constituents who ask me, “How on earth can you support HS2?” There is already tremendously impressive infrastructure from London to Birmingham and further north, while in the west country we have a Victorian line that is unfortunately looking more and more vulnerable. I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult to answer that question, except by saying—as I have already said to Ministers—that it will be impossible for me to support the Government on the Second Reading of the hybrid High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill unless there is a firm commitment on the table for a fully funded package for an agreed alternative route. That has to be new money. There is a lot of money in the five-year budget, but a lot of things have to be done with it; it has to be new money. We are probably talking about hundreds of millions of pounds.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, were every Member of Parliament for Devon, Cornwall and Somerset of every political party to sign up to that position, it would send a powerful message not only to the Government but to my party on the future long-term commitment?

[Mr Streeter]

It is hard to get all Members of Parliament to sign up to something like that because different agendas are running, but I agree that, in theory, there are enough Members of Parliament for Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and further afield that we could make an impact if we were to act collectively. HS2 is a decision not just for this Government but for the next Government. This is not a party-political point, and I understand that HS2 has cross-party support on the Front Benches, so it is important that we send a message from the west country that, unless there is a commitment to fully fund an alternative or additional route, we will not support the Bill on Second Reading. Although we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds, it is crumbs off the table compared with the money anticipated for the HS2 project. I am not against HS2, but now is the time for the far south-west to have a slice of the action. We have been putting up with a second-class rail service for far too long.

That is what I came here to say today. The next nine to 12 months will be challenging for west country Members of Parliament, but there is no higher priority than restoring our connectivity. In the meantime—I finish on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot was so keen to make—as Easter approaches and despite the challenges, Devon and Cornwall are firmly open for business.

10:09

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I also thank the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) for obtaining this important debate.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who said that the Dawlish line needs to be restored. As well as connecting to Cornwall, the line is a great tourist attraction. It is a lovely railway line to travel along. Given that it is 150 years old, it is amazing that it is still there. The line is a remarkable achievement of Brunel, who was such a great engineer. Restoring it is important.

We also have to consider a complementary line that would potentially make it much faster to get from Plymouth and Cornwall up to London. We already have a second line that comes from Exeter up to Waterloo; it runs through my constituency. We have a loop at Axminster, but we need a loop at Honiton, which would help. We also ought to consider twin-tracking the railway all the way down from London to Exeter because that would give us a line to Exeter. Furthermore, we should consider whether we can go across from Exeter towards Okehampton and down to Plymouth. We could try to go across Dartmoor itself, but that might not be easy.

Those things have to be done, and I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), who pointed out that billions of pounds are to be spent on HS2. Every time I have been through the Lobby to vote for HS2, I have held my nose for the simple reason that I did not want to support it. If we do not see real and meaningful investment in the west country, it is our duty to speak up and stand up for our constituents, and I believe we will. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) reinforcing that point in a minute.

We have to consider the current structure, but we also have to consider sea defences. After I said in Parliament the other day that we do not have to retreat from the sea, The Daily Telegraph poked fun at me slightly by saying that I am like King Canute. Of course King Canute actually stood in the sea to try to persuade his courtiers that he could not keep back the sea. On the Somerset levels there are now Dutch pumps. The people of the Netherlands do not retreat from the sea for the simple reason that, if they did, they would probably lose between a third and two thirds of their country, and they do not intend to do that.

We have to treat sea defences as an infrastructure project. People can rightly argue, as the Government have, that we inherited a huge £120 billion financial deficit in the day-to-day running of the country, and we are reducing that deficit, but there has never been a better time for investment in capital projects and infrastructure because we will never see lower interest rates. I lived through a period of interest rates of 12% and 15% when I was farming, and those rates were cruel and painful to say the least. We now have much better interest rates, so let us use them to our advantage. We need to protect our coastline.

The A30 and the A303 need to be dualled so that we do not only have the M5. The A30 down from Exeter is a good road, but the A30 that runs on the edge of Dorset into Wiltshire, Somerset and the south of my constituency needs to be dualled. We do not want to be held up entirely by Stonehenge. We have to sort out Stonehenge, but it should not be the sticking point against dualling the rest of the road.

On his visit to the west country, the Prime Minister said that 100% of the need will be provided under the Bellwin agreement. There are potholes all over Devon and Cornwall. The roads are horrendous, and a fortune has been spent on them. The roads have to be put right. I was driving through Seaton the other day, and I nearly drove into a pothole the size of half a car. The pothole was not quite that bad, but it was huge and would cause amazing damage.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Bellwin should be extended to allow local authorities to repair potholes properly, rather than cold-filling potholes only for them to become deeper a couple of weeks down the road?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is right about the need for good repairs. The county councils naturally argue that a major repair is much more expensive than just filling a pothole, but she is right that it is a pointless exercise if all the tarmac comes out of the pothole five minutes later. An awful lot of money is available to be spent.

I also welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge of £5,000 grants to help businesses through the floods. Will the Minister give us more detail on how people can claim that money? It is always great when the Government offer money, but people would like to be able to claim and use it.

On the Somerset levels, it has been said that raising the railway line across the moors would cost £200 million. There is one solution to ensure that that railway line does not flood, and that is a sluice at the end of the river Parrett to stop the sea from coming in. At the moment, the sea comes in and drives the fresh water back, and that is what keeps the moors flooded. I cannot guarantee that the sluice would mean that the moors never flooded again, but a tidal sluice on the end of the Parrett, north of Bridgwater, could mean that the depth of water on the moors would not be enough to flood the railway line.

Doing the arithmetic, it would cost £200 million to raise the railway line and that will never happen. I reckon that a sluice across the Parrett would cost some £50 million and if hydroelectric power was put there as well, the project would start to show its worth. It would help farmers, properties and nature conservation. When there is water over the whole Somerset levels for six to eight weeks, there is nothing left when the water recedes. There will not be the lovely flora and fauna or reeds and rushes that everybody wants, because it will all have rotted. Then there is the farmland, what has happened to people’s property and the stock that has had to be moved across the moors. We have to look at the situation seriously.

The other great benefit of having a sluice across the River Parrett is that the water could be penned in during the summer and the area could be made like a mini Norfolk broads. That would bring the benefits of a huge tourist attraction. Devon and Cornwall need a railway line, but we have to cross Somerset to get there, and we need to consider that. I know that the right hon. Member for Exeter does not like dredging and all those things, but they must be part of the armoury. We can hold water in certain places and further upstream, but in the end rivers such as the Parrett and Tone silt up, and without dredging we will not get the water away fast enough.

The management of those waterways has to be much more local, and that is where inland drainage boards can do a lot more. We might need more drainage boards. Will the Minister consider that? We might, dare I say it, have to get people living in houses further up the catchment area to pay a small amount, because their water is flowing down and flooding the lowland areas. There are ways of raising money, which will help. Local management would be so much better.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman just said. He seems to agree with the research from Exeter university, which argued that if landowners and farmers in upland areas were paid to manage their land differently, the amount of money saved through reduced flood risk on the Somerset levels and elsewhere in low-lying areas would massively outweigh that expenditure. Is it not better to pay farmers to do that, rather than to graze the uplands intensively, which is sadly sometimes the case?

[Neil Parish]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is part of the solution, and we have to look at how land is managed and how farmers are paid. At the moment, farmers are paid for loss of income. We should say, “If you are going to hold that water and that will reduce flooding, you should be paid to manage that water.” In the end, that would probably be a much cheaper option.

We must also remember—this is where I probably do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that we need land for food production; we should not take away too much land from food production for that type of process. It is about getting the balance right, an issue on which the right hon. Gentleman and I do not entirely agree. Land management is part of the solution.

Let us go forward and look at the infrastructure across the west country, including road and rail, and let us look at maintaining our coastline. Let us look at having, in the Somerset moors, the south-west and the country, pads and pipes where we could put in these massive mobile pumps that the Dutch have. We could have Dutch pumps in Sedgemoor and they could be moved around the country. Rather than having millions and millions of pounds invested in one pumping station, let us spend a few million pounds on portable pumps and the necessary infrastructure to connect those pumps wherever they are. We can import the pumps from Holland and have them ourselves. That is key.

We have to learn lessons. A lowland area has to be pumped fast. We should stop the tide from going up the Parrett so that we can fill it with fresh water. Then, when the tide goes down, we can let it out. There are lots of practical solutions. We have suffered and people still are suffering. We can never guarantee that flooding will never happen again, but we can reduce it. I will stop there, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset wants to speak.

10:25

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate, which is very appropriate at this time. I thank you, Mr Hood, for calling me.

As we have heard, the south-west has borne the brunt of the weather, and nowhere has that been more impressive than in South Dorset and, in particular, on the island of Portland. It is still there, I am glad to report, but there were moments when people considered abandoning some of the homes, because the sea had risen by some 60 feet, I would guess. If one goes to the Cove House inn—the pub faces the storm—and looks at the sea when it is benign, it is hard to imagine that it can come in through the pub’s top window. The two wonderful landladies, Jackie Breakspear and Amanda Broughton-South, withstood and held firm, despite the best that the sea could throw at them.

Before I briefly speak on behalf of the fishermen and the chartered crews, who have suffered badly, I pay tribute to all those who fought heroically, and not just recently. We seem to forget that this fight has been going on since Christmas. As the right hon. Gentleman said, these men and women have been working flat out for weeks, hour after hour, in the most appalling conditions.

I pay tribute to the Environment Agency and the local authorities, which did a wonderful job, but I pay particular tribute to the Royal Engineers. The sea came over the top of Chesil beach and deposited about 16 tonnes of pebbles by the Little Ship pub. The question that every MP dreads asking when we go into these situations is, “Can I help?” The landlady, Lynda Davis, said, “Yes, Richard, you can actually. You can remove 16 tonnes of pebbles.” I had this horrific image of spending the rest of my time before the general election with a bucket and spade trying to clear them.

Using my former-Army nous, I moved across and met a young lieutenant. I said to him, “You have got all this kit. I would be most grateful if you could just pop across to the Little Ship and remove 16 tonnes of pebbles.” I am still not used to being called sir, but he said, “Sir! No problem. We will get that done.” Within two days, 16 tonnes of pebbles had been removed. What was even more astonishing was that that young officer told me that his grandfather used to run the pub. What an extraordinary story!

I must also pay tribute to the volunteers, not least the appropriately named Storm Wallace, who became an overnight star. Yes, her name is Storm Wallace. The young lady went on the internet and within days she had 300 people on a beach clean of Chesil beach. It was very impressive, and we are all back there this Sunday, because the sea dumps all the rubbish on the beach.

The fishing fleet and the charter fleet have suffered gratuitously. The concentration has been to a large extent on people and their homes, and rightly so, as well as on the farmers who have lost acres and acres under the water. The fishing fleet and the charter fleet make their living at sea. I am indebted to Andy Alcock, who is the secretary of the Weymouth and Portland Licensed Fishermen’s and Boatmen’s Association. He has armed me with a lot of the information that I will impart. Mr Alcock is a fisherman himself, with two boats and six employees in the high season. He told me that many of our fishermen in South Dorset—that includes Swanage to the east of my constituency—have been unable to put to sea for 60 days. That is two whole months.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the small boat fishermen do not have the luxury of migrating or working in unusually strong weather? They suffer a lot from the consequences of the storms, and they should get help.

[Richard Drax]

I concur entirely with my hon. Friend. Many of our local fishermen, particularly in constituencies such as ours, are small boat operators, and they simply cannot cope with the enormous seas that we have been facing day after day.

Normally, at this time of year, the milder conditions in Weymouth’s microclimate might allow bass fishing to continue throughout Christmas and even new year. Netting for sole, cod and plaice continues throughout the winter months. On average, a Weymouth fisherman can count on being able to put to sea for three in every 10 days in December, January and February. This winter, since December 14, they have been able to fish for only five days. On other occasions, after spending three and a half hours getting to the fishing grounds, the appalling conditions have forced them to return. The result: no fish and no income.

On a good day, a fisherman might earn between £100 and £150. On a bad day, the take is much lower, and of course on many of the days it is nil. However, it is extremely rare that two entire months should pass without any earnings at all. Inevitably, the consequent loss of earnings has eaten into fishermen’s savings and is causing great difficulties.

The loss and destruction of expensive equipment has made recovering from such a dip in income even more difficult. Static gear such as lobster pots, crab pots, whelk pots and fixed nets have been particularly vulnerable because owners have been unable to reach them. Last week, fishermen were finally able to go out and count their losses. Gary Chard, skipper and owner of the “Gordeano Star”, has spent the six days he has been to sea since December 18 finding and repairing his equipment. He told me that of the 36 strings that he fishes, only 21 have been found. Some have moved more than a mile, and finding them has necessitated huge sweeps of possible locations. Each string is valued at £2,000, making Mr Chard’s equipment losses alone about £30,000.

Mr Alcock told me of another of his members who makes a living by tending 18 strings of lobster pots, using a small 18-foot Plymouth pilot boat in the inshore waters around Weymouth. Following the recent storms, the lobsterman found only five of his strings in place. Two more are stuck under the Lulworth ledges and need a diver to retrieve. The rest have gone. Most will be found, eventually, but that could take months, and it is likely that many of the strings will be wound around other nets and lines. Most will be unusable.

Yet, in the interim, that man must earn a living. Self-employed, the fishermen are not covered by the usual welfare safety nets. Mr Chard told me that British fishermen will soon be an endangered group. He asked whether the Government could consider loan grants, using the valuable fishing licences attached to British registered fishing boats as security—a question I pose to the Minister.

Certainly, I would urge the Minister to look kindly on applications from fishermen to the business hardship funds, which I understand are to be administered by local authorities. However, it is not clear where the money is, who is going to dish it out physically, how someone gets it—do they write or telephone in?—and how much they are going to get. I think I saw in one press release that the average amount would be £2,500, which clearly will not cover the vast costs that the people in the charter and fishing business have incurred. I would be most grateful if the Minister clarified exactly what the situation is.

I know that money is tight, but £10 million is nothing—really nothing—to cover the vast costs that the businesses have incurred. When businesses are allowed to apply for the funds, exactly who will qualify? I can see that farmers will; they have been in all the press releases. The Liberal Democrat leader, having been down to the south-west, issued a press release that included fishermen, which I was relieved to see. I have not seen charter boat crews included, but I assume—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that they will be, because they have to go out and make a living but have not been able to. Some clarity on that important point would be most appreciated.

Finally, Swanage beach is crucial for our town. The whole of our tourism industry is to a large extent based around the beach, because it attracts hundreds of thousands of people down to a beautiful part of the world. The town council has spent £2 million to recover the beach and prepare it for the summer. Will the Government consider helping us here? That is a vast sum of money, which the town council simply cannot afford, despite the low interest rates. I would be grateful if the Minister imparted some information today.

10:34

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

This debate has been absolutely excellent. I pay tribute to and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing it and on posing serious questions about the Government’s handling of the floods. I echo his remarks praising the officers of the Environment Agency and the emergency services for their work in assisting people throughout the crisis. I also echo the remarks of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) about volunteers and the extraordinary generosity that they have shown, giving up their time and energy to help people out.

It is clear that the Government have failed to take the risk of flooding in the UK seriously—right from the moment they first came into office, when they cut the flood defence budget in 2010. The Labour Government had left a budget of £670 million. After the election, the coalition partners agreed to reduce the 2010-11 budget to just £573 million. The figures for each year since then have been £576 million for 2012-13 and £577 million for 2013-14. The Government have budgeted for £615 million for 2014-15. Over the four-year spending period, this Government will have spent just £2.34 billion on flood defences, compared with the £2.37 billion that the Labour Government spent in the previous spending period.

Those figures are not the ones that the Prime Minister used two weeks ago at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but they are the ones set out clearly by the independent Committee on Climate Change in its policy note. They are also the ones used by the House of Commons Library in its briefing on flood defence spending in England, and the ones set out just yesterday by the UK Statistics Authority, which says that the Government have cut £247 million in real terms from the floods budget. Those figures can be corroborated on the Department’s website in the correction that it had to put out under the Minister’s guidance after the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister both misspoke.

Of course, the Prime Minister has now said that he will spend whatever it takes, but the people of the south-west of England will think that it might have been better to spend whatever it took to prevent the tragedy, rather than to pay to mop up the mess afterwards. It is important to be clear that the additional funding is expected to be a temporary boost from the Department’s contingency reserves and will primarily be spent on repairing and reinstating defences damaged since the east coast surge in early December.

Funding allocated to emergency response and the repair and reinstatement of damaged defences will not protect more homes and businesses. Ministers must be clear on that. Those who have seen their homes and businesses flooded and cut off over the past few months deserve clarity from Ministers. It is right that additional funding should be spent on urgent repairs, but Ministers must not suggest that that alters the fact that the Government’s downgrading of flooding has created a crisis in the funding of our essential flood defences.

The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), has been clear in pointing out that it was a mistake for the Secretary of State to downgrade flooding as one of his Department’s key priorities when he came into office, which became all too evident as the flood waters arrived in people’s living rooms before sandbags arrived at their front doors.

The initial response to the floods was slow and disorganised. The Prime Minister remained disengaged from the worsening crisis for far too long, and finally took charge of Cobra only when two of his Secretaries of State had apparently clashed over the Government’s attempt to blame anyone and everyone but themselves.

The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), challenged the Prime Minister at the last Prime Minister’s Question Time about the redundancy process currently under way at the Environment Agency. The Prime Minister said that we need to spend whatever it takes, but he was strangely reluctant to give any assurance that that included spending to save the 550 jobs that the EA has currently earmarked for redundancy in the area of flood management. Perhaps in his summing up, the Minister could update the House as to whether those redundancies will be going ahead. If he cannot, perhaps he can advise how he considers the EA may be able to give people the sort of assistance we have seen over the past two months in the future with 550 fewer staff.

What roles do the people in those posts currently perform? Are some of them the people who manage the flows of water in the waterways by monitoring and operating the sluice gates, weirs, locks and pumps? Do they include the people who survey and assess the condition of the flood defences or any of the people who have been helping with the clear-up operations? If the Minister cannot advise us in that much detail now, will he kindly agree to set out clearly to the House in a letter or a written statement precisely what skills and expertise may be lost with the redundancies and how it is proposed that there will be no corresponding loss of service and safety to the public in the future if they go ahead?

The Prime Minister also claimed that there would be a fund to pay affected home owners and businesses up to £5,000 to build in better flood protection as they repair their properties. The Minister will recall that one of the amendments that we tabled when the Water Bill was in Committee was to insert a resilient repair clause in the Government’s proposed flood reinsurance scheme, Flood Re. Given that the Prime Minister now believes that that is a good idea, is it proposed that a Government amendment similar to ours will be tabled, even at this late stage?

The House will recall that after the floods disaster of 2007, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the then Prime Minister, set up the Pitt review. The report presents an astonishingly detailed and comprehensive series of 92 recommendations, which, taken together, represent a blueprint for the management of flood risk. However, less than 18 months after the coalition was formed in 2010, the Government stopped producing progress reports on the implementation of the recommendations, despite the fact that half of them were still not fully implemented. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood in her urgent question on 10 February, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government gave the extraordinary reply that she seemed to be “obsessed by process” and claimed that he was

“more concerned…to deal with the problem of flooding.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 565.]

Does the Minister accept that the best way to deal with the problem of flooding is to get on with the process of delivering on the 46 Pitt recommendations that are still outstanding?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has rightly asked for confirmation that a full assessment will be made of the resilience of transport networks against future flood risk, and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who spoke passionately about the needs of her constituency, was at one with him on those points. Everyone in the south-west who was affected by the severe travel disruption caused by the destruction of the Dawlish line will want to know that future Government plans have taken full account of the increased risk of flooding in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the shadow Transport Secretary, has questioned why the £31 million originally allocated for rail resilience against floods, first promised to the south-west in 2013, failed to materialise in the autumn statement. More importantly, why was it subsequently re-announced this year as if it were new funding? That seems to be another example of deliberate obfuscation by the Government, who again and again put rhetoric before reality. Will the Minister update the House on what consideration the Government have given to the Opposition proposals for easing overcrowding in the south-west and ensuring that more passengers reach their destination? The Government should require all train operators to declassify first-class carriages in the event of delays or cancellations due to severe weather. When will that be done?

Perhaps the most worrying thing of all is the Government’s apparent reluctance to accept and act on climate science. The Met Office has made it clear that such extreme weather events as there have been are likely only to become more severe and more frequent. Has the Secretary of State still refused to entertain a briefing from his chief scientific adviser on climate science?

Will the Minister, who is, I know, very good on such matters, at least put his own views on the record? Does he accept the climate change risk analysis prepared by his own officials, which estimates that 1 million properties may be at serious risk of flooding by 2020? That is an increase on the current figure of 370,000. The 1 million estimate includes 800,000 homes. If he accepts it, will he tell us whether his Department’s flood insurance proposals under Flood Re take account of the additional properties? The Committee on Climate Change adaptation sub-committee has warned that they do not.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Environment Agency is notified of the decisions made in all planning applications where it has lodged an objection on the grounds of flood risk? At the moment, he will be aware that in one third of all such cases the local authority fails to notify the EA of the outcome. The suspicion is that local authorities that refuse an application are happy to notify the agency that they have taken its advice, but are less keen to report back to it when they have ignored it. The Minister cannot expect the EA to prepare adequate flood defences if it is not notified when properties are built in a flood risk area against its express advice. It should be necessary for the local planning authority to give notification in every case where the Environment Agency has lodged an objection on flood risk grounds.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made detailed and pertinent remarks about the importance of the fishing industry, and what he said was appropriate. We often consider farmers’ and businesses’ needs after disruption of the kind that has happened recently, but hon. Members all too seldom speak in this Chamber about the needs of the fishing community. The hon. Gentleman spoke passionately and well.

Finally, what is the Minister doing with his colleagues in DEFRA to ensure that proper catchment management plans and shoreline management plans make better use of natural processes? Land management plays a vital role, and the retention of flood water upstream through woodland and ground cover in the uplands is every bit as important as dredging in the lower levels of the catchment. Landowners will always seek to dredge the river as it passes through their land. That is the quickest way to try to ensure that their own land is not flooded and the problem is passed downstream, but under a proper catchment management plan it may be considered better to flood agricultural land upstream than to endanger an entire village at lower levels. That integrated approach was recommended in the Pitt review under recommendation 27. When will that most important element of flood risk management be properly implemented?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter once again on introducing this important debate. I congratulate all the hon. Members who spoke. It was an exemplary debate, and I look to the Minister for some clear answers.

10:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I echo what other hon. Members have said in welcoming the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing it and on re-examining several issues that he has raised before, including the importance of connections to the south-west. The debate also ensures that we take account of recent events and reflect on them, so that we can do a better job after any subsequent similar event.

I represent a constituency in the south-west, which has experienced significant flooding in the past and been affected by the recent events, and I appreciate the severity of the impact of flooding and storms on communities in our part of the world. I sympathise with residents who face serious difficulties. As we have heard, businesses, farms and fishing have been severely affected, and so, crucially, have transport links. As the country starts to recover from a lengthy onslaught of stormy weather, I express my condolences to those who have lost family members in the extreme events, and to those who have been affected in other ways.

Since the start of December 2013, the UK has experienced a prolonged period of very bad weather. In England and Wales it was the wettest January since 1766. Met Office statistics suggest that for the south of England it has been one of the most exceptional periods for winter rainfall—if not the most exceptional—in at least 248 years. The latest estimates suggest that more than 6,800 properties have been flooded in England since the beginning of December 2013, including more than 2,000 since the most recent event began in early February. In addition, more than 48,000 hectares of farmland are thought to have been affected.

In the south-west, about 550 properties flooded and, in particular, there is continued flooding on the Somerset levels and significant damage to vital railway infrastructure. Investment by Government and improvements to the way in which we respond to incidents, however, mean that we have been able to protect about 1.3 million properties since the start of December, of which 93,000 are in the south-west. That reinforces the importance of continuing our investment in flood defence schemes and forecasting capability.

I want to pick up on some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Exeter in his introductory remarks. Network Rail’s review of options for improving resilience is taking into account advice from organisations such as the Flood Forecasting Centre and the Met Office. The review is a wide one. The money for the resilience projects to which he and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) referred has been announced and confirmed by the Department.

Several hon. Members raised their concerns on maintenance.

[Mr Bradshaw]

The money may have been announced, but has it been delivered?

[Dan Rogerson]

The money is in place to make the urgent repairs, and that work is ongoing. We then need a scheme that we will fund. That could be smaller elements such as protection, or a bigger scheme if we want an alternative route. It is crucial to ensure that we get the repairs done and reopen the line to emphasise that the region is open for business.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important point on capital investment. As a Liberal Democrat, I am supportive of the coalition Government’s investment in infrastructure across a whole range of areas, including rail investment. I am a supporter of High Speed 2, as well as of the investment we are getting on the sleeper service in the south-west, among other things—I am always a fan of more investment of the south-west. The Government have invested huge amounts of capital in infrastructure. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who led on such matters as Chancellor going into the previous general election, set out what would have happened if a Labour Government had been re-elected. He spoke of 50% reductions in capital investment in the following years. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) said, we should not set against what this Government have done any idea that there would have been a huge increase in spending under Labour—there simply would not have been.

On maintenance, there is an idea that the efficiencies implemented by the Environment Agency might have affected the readiness of the defences. Those defences, in which we and all Governments have invested over many years, were in a condition that enabled them to defend those properties, but obviously we need to look at where further flood defences could provide protection on a cost-benefit basis so that we can get the best value for such investment. That is why I am pleased we could announce £344 million in the coming financial year in investment in new defences, as well as the £130 million announced to ensure that we get our existing defences back up to where they need to be following recent events.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I want to ask the Minister for some clarification on spending on repairs and resilience on the rail network in the south-west. Will the money for extra resilience at Dawlish, for example, come from existing budgets, or are we talking about new money from central Government?

[Dan Rogerson]

We need schemes before we can talk about how they will be funded. The £130 million was for flood defences and coastal defences that have been impacted by recent events.

I am happy to respond to the right hon. Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for Brent North with my own views on climate change, which are on the record. I am convinced that we are seeing changes in the weather. As parliamentarians, we have all had such advice. It is difficult to draw direct links as a result of particular events, but we can look at trends and the changes that are happening, the advice from the Met Office in recent weeks about weather patterns over the Atlantic and so on, and what has driven them. That gives us cause for concern and I am personally convinced that there is a man-made element to such events, which is why the Government continue to take forward at international and national level a number of measures to decarbonise the economy and make progress on mitigation, as well as on the adaptation works in which my Department is involved.

Several hon. Members made points about land management. That is crucial, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that we need to strike the right balance with food security and a thriving farming sector in upland areas and throughout the country. We have heard the concerns of the National Farmers Union. We do not want to hear the message that we should flood the farmland and give up on it. We can undoubtedly make a contribution through land management practices.

I am aware of the project on Exmoor and I know that South West Water is proud of its contribution. The right hon. Member for Exeter was kind enough to mention that the Department had been involved as well. Were the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, here, no doubt she would be talking about the slowing the flow project at Pickering—we have heard a great deal about that—in which the Department has also been involved.

We take seriously the huge potential to do more to retain water through land management, but, on dredging, the Somerset levels is a man-made environment. Those rivers do not function in the same way as many other catchments, because they have been raised above the level of the surrounding land, as well as redirected and rerouted. We are looking at maintenance and I am chairing the action group on the Somerset levels, which the Secretary of State has challenged to come up with the action plan. Some will be long-term issues, but others will be for the short term. We have already announced that dredging will take place this year to deal with this. The point about the barrier for the River Parrett is a good one. The barrier will allow better management for the Tone and the Parrett and that whole catchment. That work is under way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) was passionate in her defence of her constituents. She was right to say that that current rail link is crucial. There is a huge population along the south coast of Devon, so it is important to maintain those rail links. However, I represent North Cornwall, which does not have a single railway station. I am sure that if resilience could bring rail travel closer to my constituents, they and I would welcome it. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon on several of those possible outcomes as part of a resilience solution and I look forward to seeing the work on that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for the way in which he gave up his time to take me around affected parts of his constituency. We visited the very pub—the Cove House inn—to which he referred. The points he made about fishing and coastal industries are important. I have had time to visit, with the Deputy Prime Minister, fishermen down at Porthleven in the St Ives constituency and also spent time last week at Padstow with fishermen from my part of the world, particularly those lobster and crab fishermen who have lost so much gear, as my hon. Friend described, or found that their gear, if recovered, is crushed and no longer useable.

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), is looking at those issues to see what can be done to support such fishermen. In the meantime, the fisheries local action groups—FLAGs—have European fisheries fund money. I have talked to the project in Cornwall and there may be help under existing schemes.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that FLAGs operate under strict European rules? Replacement of fishing gear would not be included in that funding.

[Dan Rogerson]

I am being tempted into a quite local issue, but the discussions I have had suggest that help may be possible. I also draw attention to the fact that a number of banks have said that they will make interest-free loans to affected businesses. That may be part of the solution to allow people to get back up and running to trade again, not only in fishing, but across a variety of trades.

The Government have set out business recovery schemes, as well as schemes to help people make their homes more resilient. I am working closely with my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government on how people access those funds and we will make further announcements. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is making available an action line that businesses can contact for help and advice on how they take things forward.

This has been a terrible period of weather events throughout the country, from the east coast in early December to, as we have heard today, the south-west. The Government remain committed to spending the money we need on flood defences for the future. We will continue to monitor our response to improve on that. I very much welcome the huge efforts that all the agencies, volunteers and communities made to respond to those events. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will continue to discuss those issues with me over the coming weeks.

Motorsport Tyre Manufacturing

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.

Queen Victoria was on the throne when the Dunlop Motorsport factory first produced tyres. The factory has 125 years of remarkable history. To this day, it produces 250,000 tyres a year, including vintage tyres—it still has the technology to produce wooden wheels—race tyres and the latest, state-of-the-art tyres for motorsport. The factory also has a remarkable work force. They are highly skilled, and sons and daughters have followed their mothers and fathers there over the generations.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. Will Members please leave the Chamber quietly instead of having a chat during the debate?

[Jack Dromey]

I met one particular constituent in Kingstanding. He spoke about how he had worked for the factory for 20 years, his father-in-law had worked there for 42 years and his grandfather for 40 years—more than 100 years of service, all told.

When I was elected, my first priority was the future of the Jaguar plant, which was doomed to close. I worked with Tata Motors and the new management, and six months later came the historic announcement by Tata of its commitment to Britain and to Birmingham. Subsequently, we have seen Jaguar Land Rover become a world-class success story, with the Jaguar plant in my constituency now secure for the future.

The plant needs to expand, so Jaguar bought the land on which the Dunlop factory is located. Dunlop could have bought that land but declined so to do. A year ago, therefore, we swung into action and engaged with the company, with Birmingham city council and with the Homes and Communities Agency. I thank Sir Albert Bore, the leader of the council, and the Homes and Communities Agency for the way they worked with the company to identify a site but three miles from the current site in Erdington, at Aston advanced manufacturing hub.

Indeed, on 24 July Sir Albert Bore wrote to Dunlop, saying that there was sufficient land available at a competitive price and that the council would assist with a package to aid relocation of the factory. There was no answer. In parallel, I met senior management of the company three times over a nine-month period, together with the unions representing the work force, the GMB and Unite. On each occasion I asked whether the company would agree to look at alternatives in Birmingham. There was no answer.

In November I wrote to the global chief executive of Goodyear, Rich Kramer, who is based in Ohio in the United States of America, and asked, “Would you look at alternatives for remaining in Birmingham?” There was no answer. I then approached Jaguar Land Rover, and asked whether it would be prepared to extend Dunlop’s lease to allow Dunlop time to build a new factory and relocate. Jaguar Land Rover said to me, “Jack, we can’t get an answer.” However, it agreed to extend the lease by a further three months. There was still no answer from Dunlop.

I then asked the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to intervene, and he did so. I cannot praise him too highly for the steps that he took. He convened an urgent meeting with the chair of Goodyear Dunlop in Britain and Ireland, Erich Fric, on 30 January. Seven times I had to ask, “Will you look at options to remain in Birmingham?” The first six times, there was no answer. Eventually, on the seventh occasion, the chief executive said, “Yes, we will.” The Business Secretary pushed the button straight away for a meeting, which took place the following day, between civil servants from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Birmingham city council, the Homes and Communities Agency and UK Trade & Investment. The people at that meeting identified three proposals for Dunlop to relocate in Birmingham, and said that they would put together a package to assist that relocation.

A meeting was scheduled with Dunlop for the following Friday. We thought that at last it was going to do the decent thing and look at alternatives. However, but four days after that meeting, on 3 February Goodyear Dunlop announced its intention to cease manufacturing in Birmingham. In my 40 years in the world of work, I cannot remember any employer acting with such cavalier contempt towards a loyal and long-standing work force. A decision had been made 3,600 miles away, in Ohio, when the factory could have moved but 3 miles and remained in Birmingham.

Dismay has been expressed throughout Birmingham. The city has a great industrial history and the Dunlop factory in Erdington has been a great part of that history. Dismay has also been expressed by the £9 billion motorsport industry. Dismay has been expressed at the highest levels, including by our Prime Minister—I thank the Prime Minister for his intervention, in which he urged Goodyear Dunlop to look seriously at alternatives so as to remain in Birmingham.

Dismay has also been expressed by the reputable Dunlop, Dunlop Aircraft Tyres. Its factory is also in my constituency, and is mercifully no longer owned by Goodyear. It has issued a press statement, and its chairman, Ian Edmondson, could not be clearer: whatever Goodyear does with the motorsport factory, Dunlop Aircraft Tyres is committed to Birmingham, will invest in Birmingham and will grow its business in Birmingham—what a contrast with Goodyear Dunlop motorsports. I thank him for what he has said and done. I also thank the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Mail for their outstanding championing of the cause of the motorsport factory. They have stood up for Birmingham.

Dismay has been expressed in those ways, but what has been particularly heartbreaking is the dismay expressed by the work force. I will quote from one of the many e-mails I received shortly after the announcement was made. This particular individual has worked in the factory for nearly 30 years. He said:

“To be cast aside like a spare penny is heartbreaking and gut wrenching. I feel physically sick writing this, but feel our voices and our perspective of the situation have not been heard. I drove home today and pulled up on my driveway not even remembering how I got here. My brain is doing somersaults, not sure I’ll sleep tonight knowing I’ve got to get up at 5:00 and somehow drag myself back to the place that used to feed and clothe my family. A place I used to be proud to say I worked. A place that no longer needs my services after years of hard work and dedication, commitment and loyalty…the same company knows none of the above for me and my work mates.”

I have had so many other approaches of that kind, including one from a daughter who was absolutely distraught about her father. He is in his 50s and has worked at the factory for 25 years. He is not well, and his daughter said to me, “Jack, I fear for the future for him. I don’t know what he is going to do. He is in despair.”

It is not just dismay that has been caused: there is also the fear expressed by the work force. I have had e-mail after e-mail and approach after approach from people expressing their dismay but saying, “Please don’t identify me.” In the words of one:

“I’m a Dunlop motorsport employee and would really like you not disclose my contact with yourself as it will probably give good reason for them to dismiss myself”.

E-mail after e-mail, approach after approach, call after call has said exactly the same thing.

Birmingham and its workers will not be intimidated. Their message, our message, and the message of this House and of our Government—I pay tribute once again to the role the Government have played—is abundantly clear: Goodyear Dunlop has both a moral and a legal responsibility to look at the alternatives to closure that are on the table. My message to Goodyear Dunlop today is that even at this stage it should sit down, do the decent thing, engage, look at alternatives allowing it to remain in Birmingham, and not betray Birmingham and Britain.

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

rose—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. I must have notice if hon. Members wish to speak and I have received no notice from the Minister or the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) wishes to speak. Without that notice, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield cannot speak, unless the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington consent.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I am content.

[Jack Dromey]

Likewise.

11:10

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

I apologise, Mr Hood. I notified the Speaker’s Office, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) that I wanted to speak. I apologise that the message did not get through. I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend for allowing me to say a few words because the matter is very important to Birmingham, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate.

I want to speak briefly about Dunlop’s relationship and importance to Britain’s motor sport industry. It is an industry in which we lead the world with eight of the 11 Formula 1 teams based in the UK, and Dunlop has been part of that industry. The premier motor racing championship in the UK is the British touring car championship, which is sponsored by Dunlop. It is a proud partner and we are proud to have it as a partner in that championship. However, although Formula 1 and the British touring car championship are at the top of the motor sport tree in the UK, no tree is healthy if its roots are not healthy. Dunlop has been and is important to the grass roots of motor sport because the specialist tyres that are produced in Birmingham are vital to that series continuing.

In a former life, I did some motor sport with the 750 motor club, which was typical of the grass-roots motor sport scene in the UK. Its championships often rely on Dunlop tyres. If Dunlop leaves the UK, will those specialist tyres that are manufactured on a small scale continue to be manufactured here? I hope they will, but there is doubt about that, and I am not the only one to have that doubt. Steve Neal, managing director of Rimstock plc, a winning team in the British touring car championship—the Honda works team—has voiced precisely those fears if Dunlop departs from Birmingham.

Echoing my hon. Friend, I too appeal to Dunlop and Goodyear. If they continue to support the motor sport industry, which has been good for their company and its profile, as well as its tyres being important to the industry, why are they leaving Birmingham? Alternative sites have been offered, and three have been developed in detail. There is even a site at Longbridge in my constituency if they prefer that. There are all sorts of options for Dunlop, so why leave the epicentre of the global motor sport industry, which is in the UK?

I add my thanks to Ministers for their support in this campaign, but the focus must be on Dunlop. The arguments against leaving are clear and the alternatives that have been offered are clear, but more can be explored if that is wanted. The question is: why is it doing what it is doing?

11:13

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

Thank you, Mr Hood, for your flexibility and chairmanship. At this stage, the Minister normally congratulates the hon. Member who has secured the debate, and I do so wholeheartedly not only on that but on his approach to the issue. The campaign is truly cross-party work between local Members, the Government, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Prime Minister, local BIS officials in the west midlands and local authorities who are working to obtain a positive resolution in difficult circumstances.

The central argument that the UK is a leading player in motor sport is important. Around 4,500 companies are connected with motor sport and they employ more than 40,000 people, with around 40% of the world’s high performance motor sport engineers in the UK. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, eight of the 11 Formula 1 teams are based here, and last year 17 of the 19 races were won by British-built cars. Britain has a cluster of motor sport expertise. Dunlop’s long and proud history on its Birmingham site goes back to 1902, and it sells some 300,000 bespoke tyres around the world. Those exports from Birmingham are important, and we do not want them or the skilled work force to be lost.

The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister has written to Dunlop. We are urging it to look again at a UK option during this period of statutory consultation. We are working with the council and BIS locally in the west midlands, and with the company to try to persuade it to take up options. Possible new sites have been discussed and financial aid remains on the table—I stress that. The final decision is a commercial one for Dunlop, but we are working extremely hard to try to retain its presence here in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Goodyear Dunlop’s moral and legal responsibility. We are trying to ensure that its commercial decision will be to remain in the UK. This debate has demonstrated the full-throated support of the Government and local Members and it has been an opportunity for us all to reiterate that support.

If the company decides to proceed with the proposed closure, the Government will ensure that the people affected will receive the best possible support to help them to find new jobs. They will do so with Birmingham city council, which is engaged in case that happens. Goodyear Dunlop has confirmed that it remains committed to the UK through its Tyre Fort sales and distribution centre in Birmingham and the manufacturing plant in Wolverhampton, which together employ around 700 people We remain hopeful that we can work with the company to retain motor sport research and development in the west midlands.

Whatever the outcome, the situation with Dunlop motor sport should not be allowed to overshadow the wider success of the automotive industry, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned. The plant is next to the Jaguar Land Rover plant, which is a great symbol of the automotive industry’s renaissance. There has been striking growth in recent years with a sales increase of 19% in 2013 to more than 425,000 vehicles, and revenue up 17%. In September 2013, JLR announced plans to create 1,700 more jobs in Solihull as part of a £1.5 billion investment.

JLR, the supply chain and others tell a positive story, which reiterates that the UK, and particularly the west midlands, has a cluster of some of the most advanced automotive skills in the world. Development in most areas is positive and moving forward. The Government’s commitment at all levels—local and national—is very clear, and I hope that that message goes out from today’s debate, not least because ensuring that we have a high-productivity automotive sector is a big opportunity for a future with great potential. However, that does not make this specific decision any easier. We are playing our part to try to bring a positive solution, and both immediately and in the medium and longer term, we are absolutely committed to doing everything that we can.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has put personal time and commitment into trying to bring a positive outcome. We are doing everything we can, and I hope that we can continue to work with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and colleagues from across the west midlands to try to make an offer that is as positive as possible, and communicate that to Goodyear Dunlop, while, with realism, ensuring that we are prepared should the proposal go ahead. I look forward to working with colleagues in Government and across the House to do all that we can to keep this great and historic production facility here in the UK.

11:21

Sitting suspended.

Iran (Joint Plan of Action)

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams in the Chair]

14:29

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship of a Westminster Hall debate, Mr Williams. I am very grateful to have the opportunity. The issue of Iran and, indeed, of the whole middle east, is often shrouded in some secrecy, so, in the interest of transparency, I draw hon. Members’ attention to what I have submitted to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in the past.

On 24 November last year, the world woke up to the news that a deal had been reached between the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus one—the UK, the US, France, China, Russia and Germany—and Iran. A joint plan of action was the outcome of weeks of hard negotiation. The deal was revealed to be the fruit of years of US-Iran secret negotiations, alongside a decade of public Iranian diplomacy following the revelation of a wide-scale uranium enrichment programme. The P5 plus 1 countries and Iran concluded an interim six-month agreement, known as a joint plan of action, to restrain Iran’s nuclear programme, in exchange for limited sanctions relief. The deal is the interim first step towards a full agreement within six months to address comprehensively the international community’s long-held concerns that Iran’s nuclear programme is intended for military purposes. The agreement will be in effect for six months—it started on 20 January this year—during which time the P5 plus 1 powers will attempt to forge a conclusive, final-status agreement that will end the nuclear impasse.

We—or certainly I—have concerns about the agreement. I should start by saying that the interim nuclear agreement does not resolve international suspicions. It merely suspends some of the most immediately concerning aspects of Iran’s programme, pending a more comprehensive agreement. However, there are further serious concerns about the agreement. Some believe that it grants Iran exactly what it wanted—both a significant easing of sanctions and preservation of the most significant parts of its nuclear programme, including those with a military aspect. The agreement allows Iran to continue enriching uranium and retain all the centrifuges, and it is not required to dismantle the uncompleted heavy water research reactor at Arak, which has the potential to produce plutonium when completed. In effect, the agreement allows a plan B route for nuclear weapons in that country.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. Does he agree with me and share my concerns that Iran could use this as a way of increasing its military capability and increasing its alleged sponsorship of terrorism throughout the region?

[Dr Offord]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is certainly one of my significant concerns, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to comment on it when he sums up the debate.

It is also of great concern to me that the P5 plus 1 have tacitly recognised Iran’s right to enrich uranium, something that has been rejected by the international community for many years. In essence, the deal eases the pressure on Iran’s economy in return for minimal concessions that fail to curb the nuclear ambitions of the country. The interim deal has unravelled an internationally imposed sanctions regime that took years to enforce and was having the desired effect.

The ultimate objective is to prevent, on behalf of many countries, a nuclear-armed Iran. The repercussions of that could be disastrous, not least because Iran has threatened to destroy the state of Israel, but also because it remains the world’s leading financier of terrorism, and has the potential to provoke a major regional power struggle and arms race.

For the rulers of Iran, this is just another chapter in a dangerous game. Iran has a long history of exploiting international talks to buy time and further advance its nuclear programme, and the fear remains that this agreement is yet another example.

On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs updated the House on the progress of the E3 plus 3 and Iran talks. He reminded the House that the challenges to the success of the talks remain considerable and that a

“comprehensive solution must address all proliferation concerns related to Iran’s nuclear programme.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 29.]

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that the fact that Iran continues to support terrorist activity—Hezbollah and Hamas—and to support attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan puts into perspective its so-called peaceful aspirations in the area?

[Dr Offord]

My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), has mentioned something that I hope to come on to in my speech. It remains a great concern that, while Iran is engaging in the process of reconciliation through the talks and the agreement, it is also engaging in activities not only in places such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, but in places such as Lebanon, combining forces with Hezbollah and others.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he share my concern at the reports coming out of the area that only in recent days Iran has been stepping up its military and material support, and the provision of personnel, for the Bashar al-Assad regime? Would it not be strange for us to be granting new favours to the Iranian regime and helping it economically when it is supplying that terrible regime, which is slaughtering its own citizens?

[Dr Offord]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is another issue I intend to raise. The fact that we are seeking to allow a country greater economic freedoms that in turn allows it to support terror in others parts of the region is of great concern. That seems to act counter to the things that are being said by President Rouhani and others in that country.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, which is very timely, but does he not accept that the purpose of a sanctions regime, most of which is still in place, is to incentivise a change in attitude? Have not we seen that change in attitude since the election of Hassan Rouhani as President of Iran, and should not that be encouraged, not least to encourage further negotiations and positive engagement on the subject of Syria?

[Dr Offord]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He demonstrates that the interventions so far today have not been planted questions, because he has challenged me on what I am saying. I have to disagree with him. I cite as evidence the fact that the number of executions in Tehran and Iran in January last year was actually lower than the number of executions since the election of President Rouhani, which seems to indicate a more hard-line stance towards opposition in the country. In fact, the talks are more likely to disguise what is really going on there.

[Martin Horwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for giving way a second time so quickly, but that does not relate to the nature of the joint plan of action, which is precisely related to the nuclear programme. The commitments that Iran gave and the announcements that it made in that were very important. Surely he recognises that that represents progress of a kind, which should be encouraged.

[Dr Offord]

If I have not convinced the hon. Gentleman so far, I hope to do so later in my speech. I am not entirely convinced by what he says.

Let me return to the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Monday. What concerned me most was what he did not say. I hope that the Minister, in summing up the debate, can answer at least three specific concerns, including, first, how Iran’s nuclear programme, which includes a military dimension, will be addressed, as the interim agreement fails to address it. Secondly, I would be interested to learn what reassurances he can give that the final agreement will address the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, including the dismantling of all existing advanced centrifuges that accelerate breakout time; whether the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors will be granted unfettered access to all Iran’s nuclear facilities, including those that are being operated secretly; and what will happen to Iran’s existing stockpile of 3.5% enriched uranium.

Thirdly, what assurances can the Government give that the interim agreement will not simply unravel the international sanctions that have been imposed and that took years to be introduced, giving rise to a perception in the country that Iran is being rewarded for coming to the negotiating table while continuing to inflame tensions in the whole middle east, specifically in Lebanon, Syria and Israel, and while procrastinating on the fundamental issue of advances in its nuclear programme?

Before we get to that point, I want to take a few moments to outline Iran’s nuclear programme and the problems I anticipate. It is widely believed that Iran’s nuclear programme has significantly advanced in the past five years. Continuing to defy international pressure and binding UN Security Council resolutions, Iran has actively enriched uranium to 20% fissile purity—a level that has no credible civilian purpose. Without any additional sanctions being imposed, Iran has been able to continue producing uranium enriched to 90% purity, which brings it closer to weapons grade. The most difficult and time-consuming part of the nuclear process is, therefore, already complete. The IAEA estimates that Iran now has 9,000 kg of low-enriched uranium, an amount that experts say could be enough for four bombs if it was refined to 90% fissile concentration.

Iran also possesses as many as 18,000 centrifuges, including more than 1,000 new models—the IR2m—which are far more efficient and can provide bomb-grade uranium two and a half times faster than the previous model. A heavy water reactor has been constructed outside the city of Arak, which offers the possibility of a new pathway to a bomb using plutonium once it goes online. That is in addition to the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, which was built in secret and discovered in 2002; the Fordow enrichment facility, which was also built illegally and confirmed to be in existence by Iran in 2009; the Parchin facility, to which the IAEA is seeking access after evidence emerged that Iran has tested nuclear triggers and high explosives that could be used in nuclear weapons; the Bushehr nuclear power station, which is operated with external assistance; and the Isfahan nuclear research facility, which has the capability to process uranium yellowcake into a gas for enrichment.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) regarding a change in behaviour. However, my hon. Friend has just mentioned the Arak heavy water facility, which is perfect for producing weapons-grade plutonium. On 6 February, I asked a question in the House, to which the Minister responded:

“we remain concerned that Iran intends to develop the facility to provide a plutonium route to a nuclear weapon. Iran has not clarified how it would use the plutonium produced”.—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 356W.]

Despite the interim deal, the fact remains that Ministers are concerned. We should adopt the position of the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, who has said that

“Iran has not earned the right to have the benefit of the doubt.”

[Dr Offord]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has asked a question, as identified by the House of Commons Library, on the effect of the P5 plus 1, Iran and the joint plan of action, and the continuing manufacture of new centrifuge devices. We know that the technology, which has many applications, continues to be used, but we do not know for what purpose. That remains a great concern, and I do not believe the joint plan of action addresses it.

On Iran’s agreement to freeze the enrichment and halt the production of uranium, Iran has halted the installation of new enrichment centrifuges and has ceased the installation of new components at the Arak reactor. It has allowed the IAEA to make inspections at Natanz, Arak and Fordow. I acknowledge that the regime has granted the international community some concessions. We must be aware, however, that in return, the P5 plus 1 agreed to provide £6 billion to £7 billion in sanctions relief, of which roughly £4.2 billion would be oil revenue frozen in foreign banks. The P5 plus 1 allow temporary relief on some sanctions, including trade in gold, precious metals, petrochemicals, auto parts and aircraft parts. The P5 plus 1 have also agreed not to impose new nuclear-related sanctions for six months during the agreement.

Although the interim accord interrupts Iran’s nuclear progress for the first time in nearly a decade, it requires Iran to make only a modest draw-down payment on the central problem. Iran has benefited from disproportionate sanctions relief in exchange for cosmetic concessions that it can do away with in a matter of weeks. It has been rewarded with sanctions relief despite remaining unbowed in its demand to continue uranium enrichment, which is the root of the international community’s concern. Most importantly, the deal fails to dismantle many of the military aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. Without the requirement to dismantle a single centrifuge, Iran will remain a threshold military nuclear power. It will retain the capability to break across that line at any time it chooses.

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

Does my hon. Friend dispute the national intelligence estimates from the United States of 2007 and 2012, which directly contradict his proposition that Iran is on the verge of being able to break out in such a way? The United States national intelligence estimates are major pieces of work, and they are not done lightly. Does he dispute them?

[Dr Offord]

Yes, I dispute them. I am not a chemical engineer or a nuclear engineer, but on the basis of my research and the evidence I have read, I dispute those estimates and I maintain that Iran is on the verge of making a breakthrough. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), said in the House on Monday, with as many as 10,000 centrifuges in operation already, Iran retains the capability to break out and produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon in as little as two months. The deal does not roll back the vast majority of the advances that Iran has made in the past five years, which have drastically shortened what nuclear experts call its “dash time” to a bomb—the minimum time that it would take to build a weapon if Iran’s Supreme Leader or military decided to pursue that path.

Most concerning of all, the world’s leading powers have tacitly recognised Iran’s right to enrichment, which has been the Islamic Republic’s key demand for many years. The interim agreement states that the permanent deal will involve

“a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters”,

but the deal abandons the demand made by the six United Nations resolutions that Iran must halt all enrichment. That may undermine confidence in global non-proliferation norms. Iranian state media carried boasts by, among others, President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Affairs Minister Javad Zarif that the US had caved in on its long-standing position and recognised Iran’s right to enrich. President Rouhani said:

“No matter what interpretations are given, Iran's right to enrichment has been recognised.”

He went on to say:

“"Do you know what the Geneva agreement is? It means the superpowers’ surrender to the great Iranian nation. The Geneva agreement means that the world accepts [Iran’s] civil nuclear technology, which we achieved through the efforts and the sacrifice of our young scientists”.

The agreement does not stop Iran enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5% or compel it to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges, which can be used for military purposes. Iran can continue to enrich uranium with its 10,190 operational IR1 centrifuges. They are in addition to 8,000 machines that have been installed but are inactive. Iran can also continue to build new centrifuges to replace those that wear out.

The situation has not been lost on the Iranian rulers. In January this year, President Rouhani said that there would be no destruction of existing centrifuges “under any circumstances.” Iran’s Foreign Affairs Minister said in December last year:

“The structure of our nuclear program has been maintained and the 20 percent enrichment can be resumed in less than 24 hours”.

A month later, he said:

“We did not agree to dismantle anything”.

In January, Iran’s Parliament introduced a Bill to step up enrichment to the threshold of 60% fissile purity. That would put Iran on the technical verge of 90% fissile purity, which is enough for the core of a nuclear bomb. At least 218 of the Iranian Parliament’s 290 members have expressed support for the measure. The Bill’s supporters say that uranium refined to 60% concentration would be used to fuel nuclear-powered submarines. Some analysts have speculated that the Iranian Government might be using Parliament as a bargaining tool in nuclear talks with the P5 plus 1, because they would have no choice but to obey such a Bill if the Parliament passed it.

The deal also leaves untouched Iran’s portfolio of 1,008 installed advanced IR2m centrifuges, which can speed up break-out times using 3.5% enriched uranium. This month, Iran revealed that it had developed a new generation of centrifuges that are 15 times more powerful than those currently in use, and Iranian officials have stated that the centrifuges do not violate the joint plan of action. Although enrichment using those machines has not started, the vast majority of them are fully installed and under vacuum, which means that Iran could quickly begin feeding natural uranium into those cascades and more than double its enrichment capacity.

Centrifuges are not the only concern. Iran is in the process of constructing a 40 MW heavy water research reactor, for which there is limited peaceful civilian purpose. When it is operational, that facility at Arak will be able to produce plutonium, which is one of two substances that can form the core of a nuclear weapon. Iran is not required to dismantle the incomplete heavy water research reactor or convert the plant into a light water reactor, which would be less useful for military purposes.

Under the joint plan of action, Iran agreed to freeze progress on the Arak heavy water research reactor and not to commission it or transfer fuel or heavy water to the site. It also agreed not to produce or test additional fuel or install remaining components. The interim deal does not explicitly prevent Iran from manufacturing components offsite for Arak’s nuclear reactor that could then be installed later. Iran claims that its purpose is only to make medical isotopes and conduct research, but western countries believe that it could also produce plutonium, which is the plan B route to producing a full nuclear weapon.

The one mechanism we held over Iran was the sanctions, but the interim deal has unravelled the internationally imposed sanction regime that has taken years to enforce. Sanctions were having the desired effect, so why did we take a step back from a method that was working and put trust in a state that has given us no reason to assume that that trust will be guarded? However limited, the relaxation of sanctions will relieve the pressure that has brought Iran to seek an agreement, by giving direct financial relief and indirectly restoring confidence in the Iranian economy.

Many nations and companies—as well as the Iranians themselves—have interpreted the recent agreement as the beginning of the end of the sanctions regime. It is likely that a number of countries will apply pressure to resume trade with Iran, including its former key trade partners, such as South Korea, Japan, India and China. Within weeks of the interim deal, Iran’s petrochemical sector alone had appreciated by $9 billion—that is a capital gain of almost 40%, generated entirely by a new market psychology that bets on the end of sanctions. On top of that, Iran is already making efforts to recapture its dominant role in OPEC.

All of that goes to ensure that the agreement is rewarding Iran despite the fact that its long history of clandestine nuclear activities, support for international terrorism and repeat calls for the destruction of Israel are cause for legitimate trepidation and scepticism over its intentions. Although President Rouhani’s negotiating team has reportedly been more constructive in talks, supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say on major issues, including national security and Iran’s nuclear programme. Most worryingly, Iran continues to support terrorism in the region. It is a leading sponsor of state terrorism, providing financial and material support to extremist Islamist terrorist groups across the middle east, including Hamas, Hezbollah and insurgencies against allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran agreed to the deal as part of a long history of exploiting international talks to buy time and further advance its nuclear programme. The six-month timetable to reach a final agreement could be extended by a further six months by mutual consent. President Rouhani has previously spoken of Iran buying time to advance its nuclear programme. In 2004, he gave a speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, in which he explained how he was playing for time during the nuclear talks he was conducting with the EU3. He said:

“While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear conversion] facility in Isfahan. By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work there”.

Answers to the parliamentary questions I have asked provide little assurance that the IAEA will ensure that inspections take place. Iran has agreed to the IAEA conducting only limited inspections at the main enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz. Its history of deception about its nuclear projects requires higher levels of accountability. Iran is not required to provide unfettered access to its full portfolio of nuclear facilities, including many underground and undeclared sites where the USA, Europe and Israel believe that hidden enrichment facilities might exist. It is not possible to rule out the existence of secret nuclear sites in Iran without it agreeing to allow the IAEA to conduct snap inspections anywhere beyond declared atomic installations under the agency’s additional protocol regime.

Iran is still not required to grant IAEA inspectors access to the nuclear-related Parchin site, a suspected weapons-testing facility, but it is required to declare all facilities containing nuclear material under its comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Under the joint statement on a framework for co-operation between Iran and the IAEA, Iran has agreed to give the IAEA information on the 16 sites designated for the construction of new nuclear power plants, clarification about its announcement about new enrichment facilities, and information about all new research reactors. Fully verifying and monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities will require a level of co-operation and information-sharing between the IAEA, the western powers and Iran that is probably unprecedented for one country’s nuclear programme.

The overt military actions of missile development are also of concern. The interim agreement does not include a promise by Iran to abstain from pursuing work on ballistic missiles or weaponisation. UN Security Council resolution 1929 requires Iran to cease activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is touching on a key issue. Does he agree that if we are to treat Iran’s protestations seriously, we must see progress being made on the ballistic missile programme?

[Dr Offord]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am concerned about the fact that the agreement does not touch upon ballistic missiles and remains an opportunity for Iran to continue its programme—as President Rouhani said—in a calm environment, and to focus on its work and experimentation on such weaponry.

I am sure that your knowledge of ballistic missiles is better than mine, Mr Williams, but I can tell the Chamber that a nuclear weapons programme has three main components: the fuel, the warhead and the delivery system. Iran is free, in the coming six-month period of the interim deal, to continue with the missile and warhead-development activities to which my hon. Friend just referred. It has successfully test-fired two new domestically made missiles, including a long-range ballistic missile with radar-evading capabilities and a fragmentation warhead. It also test fired a laser-guided air-to-surface and surface-to-surface missile known as a Bina. The country already has long-range surface-to-surface Shahab missiles with a range of about 1,250 miles that are capable of reaching Israel and—indeed—US military bases in the middle east. The recent deal does not grant IAEA inspectors access to Iran’s Parchin military facility, which is a long-suspected location for nuclear-related weapons testing.

In conclusion, it is worth reiterating the questions that I would like the Minister to answer. Does he share my concern that limited processes and structures appear to be in place should Iran walk away from negotiations with the P5 plus 1 before a permanent nuclear deal is reached within the six-month period? Given its history of duplicity and procrastination over its nuclear programme, would the Minister agree that it is only right that there will be a degree of concern that Iran might abuse the interim deal merely to pocket the concessions and walk away?

A more receptive Iranian negotiating team is being welcomed internationally. However, Iran has not tempered its anti-Israel rhetoric, recently labelling Israel as the

“sinister, unclean, rabid dog of the region.”

Does the Minister understand why many of us think Israel should be concerned about the agreement? There are also concerns that the joint plan of action has green-lighted Iran’s right to enrich, or at least that it has done so according to Iranian interpretations. Iranian state media carried boasts by President Rouhani and his Foreign Minister that the international community had caved in. What assessment has the Minister made of such statements by Iran? Iran’s latest actions do not suggest that it is complying fully with the spirit of the joint plan of action.

Does the Minister share my concern that domestic production of advanced centrifuges, which further reduce break-out times, raises questions as to Iranian intentions? Under the joint plan of action, Iran retains its full portfolio of centrifuges. Would the Minister agree that any final agreement must seek to dismantle the bulk of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? The interim agreement is undoubtedly asymmetrical in structure, with Iran merely freezing its programme while the international community chips away at sanctions. Does the Minister agree that that might influence whether Iran decides to abandon negotiations for a comprehensive deal over the next six months? Finally, does the Minister share my concern that the joint plan of action will result in billions of pounds of financial relief for Iran, enabling its continued ability to arm, fund and train its global terror network?

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, it is right that the P5 plus 1 strive for a deal that reduces the threat of a nuclear Iran, but we must not agree to measures that have the potential to expedite such a scenario. A bad deal is worse than no deal at all. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

14:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on bringing this matter before the House for consideration. In introducing the debate, he has outlined the case for his concerns, which I share.

It is essential that Iran continues to follow the joint plan of action. The hon. Member for Hendon referred to it and to how it will work, which seems to be his major concern. It is essential not simply for the White House’s agenda or for our own agenda as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but for the safety and security of the entire world. That is an issue that the hon. Gentleman spoke clearly about, and it is not an overstatement in any way, shape or form.

I would like to thank all those who have been working hard. I know that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been energetic in trying to ensure that the plan is adhered to. I am aware of the delicate balance that has been struck.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Hendon and further express my fear for the state of Israel in particular, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned a couple of times in both his introduction and conclusion. It is certainly my concern. One can understand why Israel feels threatened—because of the statements coming from Iran and because of the history and the build-up of people in that country. Also, Iran has supported terrorist groups, whether they are directly involved in Syria or elsewhere in the world.

The basis of the joint plan of action is that Iran will undertake and indeed not undertake certain measures and aspects, receiving help and support in return. Some of those measures ought to include human rights and how they treat minorities. That should also be part of the joint plan of action, and I wish to focus on that in the few minutes I have.

While some measures have been taken, such as a good-will gesture and the release from prison of some Christians, I have received reports from persecution.org that new arrests by the authorities could suggest in-fighting between the new president and Islamist hard-liners. There is still a power struggle in Iran, with people jostling for power and deciding who is going to be top dog.

Information provided to me, dated the beginning of February—just in the past few weeks—states that Hassan Rouhani began duties as President of Iran last August on a platform of pragmatic moderation. That was what he said he was going to do. At Christmas, frequently a season of fear and persecution, Rouhani sent good-will messages to Iranian Christians via Twitter and greetings to the Roman Catholic pope. However, those overtures came against reports of arrests, raids on Christians’ homes and the jailing of converts from Islam. While there was an outpouring of best wishes during Christmas, there were also the behind-the-door actions of the state police and some of those of Islamic belief.

While many observers see the contradiction as a lack of commitment to addressing western criticisms of Iran’s treatment of Christians, some religious freedom advocates say that it may also represent a power struggle as Rouhani slowly navigates Iranian political waters; he will need a good hand on the steering of that particular boat.

A senior analyst at Middle East Concern said that much of the good news coming out of Iran is the result of “token gestures” and that Christian leaders in Iran “remain sceptical” about the prospect of reform under Rouhani. Will the Minister indicate what feedback he is receiving? Can Rouhani deliver the change that he has said he will regarding human rights and equality in Iran? I would be keen to hear the Minister’s response. I know that the Minister has a deep interest in human rights and equality, so I look forward to his reply, which I am sure will have plenty of content.

The analyst also said:

“There are lots of conflicting signals…There’s been some positive rhetoric from Rouhani, and by and large it hasn’t been matched yet by his actions. Even if he wanted to pursue a more moderate agenda, he doesn’t necessarily have the power to do that”.

Perhaps that is the crux of the matter. We may have a gentleman who is perceived by the world as interested in bringing change, but can he bring change to the society that he lives in and tries to lead? I suspect that he does not have the power to do that. There could well be some power play involved between branches of the Iranian Government, and that power play taking place behind people’s backs is the one that concerns me most.

Even with the release of Christians, the Assemblies of God church in Ahvaz remains closed, and Iranian authorities have banned Pastor Farhad from conducting any church-related activities. Those are further indications from persecution.org of what is happening in Iran.

Other similar actions continue to raise warning flags with me, including Farsi-speaking attendees being told they would not be allowed in the church any longer due to fear of arrest. There is something fundamentally wrong when someone cannot go into their church for fear of arrest. We are fortunate; we can attend our churches on Sundays. We have the freedom of choice to go to any church we wish across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is not possible in Iran and other parts of the world.

Of all types of Christianity, believers from a Muslim background face the most persecution—I want to highlight them today—as well as Protestant evangelicals. There is relatively less pressure on the historical ethnic Armenian and Assyrian Christian minority, as long as they do not evangelise to Muslims. Therefore, if people just worship and do nothing else, they will be left alone, but if they want to tell others about the gospel, which is what it means to be evangelical and to be a Christian, they are threatened for that. Ethnic Persians are by definition Muslim, according to the state. Evangelism, Bible training and publishing the scriptures in Farsi are all illegal. What a contrast that is from our society and the freedom of religious individual thought that we have in this country.

Any Muslim who leaves Islam faces the death penalty. The regime’s focus is on those reaching out to converts, and even well established Christian denominations are not safe from harassment. Church activities are closely monitored, their members identified and taken note of. Often, action is taken as well. Again, the words that say, “Yes, you are safe. You can worship your God and go to church” have to be contrasted with the action that happens.

In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to do all in his power to encourage the Iranians to give freedom of religion to all in Iran, so that people of faith can meet without fear of recrimination. If that can be tied into the joint plan of action and obligations, making it even tighter than it currently is—as I sincerely believe that it can—I would ask the Minister to do his best to ensure that that happens, and to see it done as a matter of urgency.

15:07

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing this important debate. He also deserves congratulations for asking all the right questions in his well-informed and technical speech, which was a great contribution. He asked all the questions that have to be asked about the scientific and technical aspects of the negotiations with Iran, and I certainly back him in all his points.

I intend to speak only briefly. I want to make it clear that I support the actions being taken by our Government; the approach that has been outlined by my right hon. and hon. Friends; and the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the Floor of the House on Monday, with the realism with which he approached the issue, saying that there are many obstacles to be cleared. I support him in his ultimate intentions on the matter and in the way in which he is carrying them out. I also commend the Minister of State for the realism and hard-headedness that he has shown on the issue; he is absolutely right to do so.

In conducting the negotiations, if we really want to have any chance of bringing them to a successful conclusion, it is important not to get ahead of ourselves. It is fair to say, looking at the history of the matter, that we are dealing with a regime that has played for time; is extremely astute; and takes a long-term strategic view on prosecuting its interests. We need to be equally hard-headed in our approach.

Therefore, while I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have concerns about what is happening in other quarters. I also fear that some people are getting a little ahead of themselves. I am concerned by press reports saying that Baroness Ashton is due to visit Iran next month. I suppose that Baroness Ashton, in a way, represents us all, as the European Union’s High Representative under the Treaty of Lisbon. I certainly have concerns about that, and I wonder whether that is sending the right signal at this stage of events.

I have three particular concerns. The first concerns the signal that the visit sends to the Iranian side about what they can get out of the talks and what they have to give up in return. I am keen on the principle, which should have been enunciated by the international community, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I do not see how that principle is consistent with the actions of Baroness Ashton in going to Iran, and the message that that will send all around the world about the Iranian regime and the possibility of doing trade and opening up relations with it. I am worried about the signal that is being sent.

Secondly, I am worried about the signal it sends when Iran, as has been rightly said already by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, is so concerned in exporting terrorism and aggression throughout the region. It has a history of doing that in many parts of the region—most of all, at the moment, in the Syrian conflict. The Iranian regime is a key linchpin of Bashar al-Assad in his efforts to fight back against the Syrian opposition. The Iranian regime is the pillar for Bashar al-Assad as he goes into action and counter-attacks the Iranian opposition. We know that during the four years of the conflict, thousands of Iranian, Lebanese and Iraqi Shi’a militiamen have been sent into Syria to help Bashar al-Assad, and Iran has been helping to send them there. There is no doubt about it. It is widely believed that the Iranian regime has been responsible for the successes that Syria has had, resulting in the conflict coming to a stalemate.

It was reported at the weekend that Iran is stepping up its support for Bashar al-Assad, providing elite teams to gather intelligence and train troops. There have been other reports that Iran has been sending specialists in with the direct intention of helping the regime to survive. Analysts believe that this renewed support has meant that Assad feels no need to make concessions at the currently deadlocked talks in Geneva, because he thinks that things are going his way with the support that he is receiving from Iran. It therefore looks slightly strange for Baroness Ashton to be going to Iran to fly the flag when talks with Iran about its nuclear position are taking place in Vienna, and in Geneva roughly the same parties are taking part in talks about Syria, which are deadlocked because of the actions of the Iranians.

I do not think we should be sending a signal about the Iranian regime either directly or indirectly through our EU High Representative Baroness Ashton—not when that terrible conflict is still taking place, when civilians are still losing their lives, and when terrible means are being employed against them. I do not believe that we should be sending that signal at this time.

My third reason for not wanting to endorse the Iranian regime with a visit by the EU High Representative is because of the message it sends to people at home in Iran. I draw a careful distinction between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people, who are a constructive, creative people with a great culture and a great history. There is a big difference between them and their regime. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his speech about the suppression of human rights in Iran. It is a cause that I have been particularly interested in, and I know there are grave concerns about human rights across the whole human rights piece in Iran.

Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I too have been interested in the persecution of Christians in Iran. What he said was absolutely right. People who try to change their faith or who try to promote their faith in any way in Iran are subject to terrible persecution. They are thrown into prison, their homes are raided and Bibles are confiscated. Hopes were expressed that the situation would change with the election of President Rouhani, but, for whatever reason—whether he is sending mixed messages or whether he is being undercut by conflict within the regime—there is no relaxation as far as the Christians are concerned. They are still languishing in prison for their faith, and in recent times we have heard terrible reports of four Christians being sentenced to 80 lashes for partaking of communion wine. That is since President Rouhani came to power.

I simply do not want the High Representative going to Iran to take part in discussions with the regime and endorsing it by visiting when human rights violations are taking place. We should take a much more hard-headed approach. We know that sanctions have been very effective against the regime. They have had a severe effect, and there must be concerns that a premature relaxation of sanctions would send the wrong message to the regime.

Not only is the EU High Representative Baroness Ashton getting ahead of herself, but others more widely seem to be getting ahead of themselves as well. We have seen reports of a French trade delegation of 100 leading businesses visiting Iran. Apparently, there is a German delegation in Iran this week. There are reports of a Greek delegation, led by the Greek Deputy Prime Minister, going to Iran. All that is going on when the talks have barely got going and we have no idea what the final settlement might be. One wonders what signal this sends to the Iranian side about what they need to do to get concessions in return. All the beneficial economic effects and the prosperity that flows to the regime as a result can be used by the regime, giving it more resources to support Bashar al-Assad and all the other activities taking place in the middle east.

I support hon. and right hon. Members in the course they have taken; they deserve our support. I simply ask them and everybody else—I know the hon. and right hon. Members have this in mind—to keep a tight hold on Iran and to keep in mind the objective of ensuring that it does not develop a nuclear capability. I have no doubt that Iran intends to develop such a capability. I am not remotely technically qualified to pass a judgment on how far it is on the road to acquiring one, but there can be little doubt that Iran is seeking to acquire such a capability. The rest of the international community think that. Why would Iran expose itself to sanctions if it did not have that intention in mind?

15:17

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:29

On resuming—

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Mr Clappison, had you finished your remarks?

[Mr Clappison]

As long as it is shown that I was saying that we must make every effort and use every endeavour to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, I will conclude.

15:30

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing this debate. Iran is a topic that often needs a good airing. At this critical time, it is important that we give strong scrutiny to the Geneva accord agreed at the end of last year.

First, may I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am chairman of the all-party group on Iran and have been for the past eight years. I have twice visited Iran—including recently, three or four weeks ago. I have also visited on a number of occasions the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna at the United Nations.

We always have to go back to the beginning on Iran. We have to remember that the nuclear programme for Iran did not start last Tuesday or last year; in fact, it started in the mid-1960s, when the Shah was in charge—funded by the United States, ironically. General Electric came to its aid, to develop the first reactor in the heart of Tehran. Iran has had nuclear ambitions, whether civil or military, for decades. They have been part of its psyche. It lives in a rough neighbourhood; it has rivalries that we can, perhaps, only understand as having similar aspects to those in the cold war and with the Soviet Union; and it is surrounded by ethnically and religiously different economic and military rivals. That has often driven some of its insecurities.

The history of the nuclear programme is long and sporadic and it has jumped, depending on which country has helped Iran. The Russians helped it build a reactor in the past, the United States has done so and I suspect that the North Koreans have, too. Certainly, other members of the international community have stuck their oars in. That is why there is a rather illogical, sporadic and often bizarre civil nuclear programme.

Iran is not the only country in that region to have a civil nuclear programme. The United Arab Emirates is developing one right now, as we speak. Many middle east countries have sought to acquire nuclear technology. The most striking examples are India and Pakistan, which developed in total secrecy a nuclear weapons programme that ended up in actual nuclear weapons. We in the west either chose not to know or did not seem to know.

The process goes on. It is not new. It has, unfortunately, become entwined with the Iranian psyche and its view of itself in the world. However, let us remember that middle east politics is often as much about rhetoric as about action. Throughout the 1980s, for example, at the height of Ayatollah Khomeini’s rhetoric against the country of Israel, Israel sold Iran nearly half a billion dollars’ worth of arms. In fact, Israel broke the UN sanctions on arms embargo to Iran and Iraq in that period. It suited Israel at that stage to ignore the rhetoric and to side with Iran against Iraq, while the west was unfortunately supporting Iraq, by supplying it with some pretty dubious methods.

We have to go forward. In 2001, Iran helped the west bring down the Taliban. We might remember the Lion of Panjshir, Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was the west’s favoured leader of the Northern Alliance—the man who was going to liberate Afghanistan on our behalf. The irony was that he was Iran’s man in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance helped America and Britain in their targeting and intelligence gathering against the Taliban.

Throughout these processes, Iran has stepped forward, sometimes against its nature, but sometimes for its own self-interest, and it has often been rewarded by immediate rejection. The “axis of evil” phrase was used discended on Iran, despite its assistance to the British and Americans in getting rid of the Taliban.

Trust is the problem in much of this, whether in respect of the nuclear programme, human rights or exporting terrorism. The Iranians’ knowledge of Britain’s poor behaviour towards it in the last centuries is better than mine. The Iranians understand that we supported the constitutional revolution in 1906 and then undermined it, when we removed the democratic constitutional revolution, to put in a Shah, and then we moved that Shah when he became too friendly with the Nazis. Then we moved their Prime Minister in the ’50s and put in another Shah. They understand that we—the United Kingdom—play power games and that we are not to be trusted, in the same way that we, quite rightly, have every reason not to trust Iran in the near future.

We have not trusted Iran on its nuclear programme. It has hidden things and has certainly done its best. There is proof that, in 2003 and 2002, it acquired from the AQ Khan network—not funded by Iran, but by one of its regional rivals—military plans for a weapons programme.

Trust is failing on both sides. That has been the real issue. I do not argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon that, really, at the heart of the Geneva accord, the issue is about trying to fix this trust and to see what steps we can take to build together. We will have to stick our neck out to build that trust. That is the problem. I understand; if I was living in Israel right now, I would be worried about that. It is not me under direct threat from Iran. In fact, British national interests and British security are not threatened by Shi’a Islam, but by Salafist Sunnis emanating from al-Qaeda. They are the people who will blow up our trains and tube stations. That is nothing to do with Iran; that is to do with other major players in the region, who are either tacit or have yet to deal with that problem.

If I was in Israel, of course I would be worried and rightly so. But I also recognise that, within Israel, there is a split about the extent to which the Iranians are rational or irrational and how much Iran really wants to do nuclear damage or blow up Israel. Meir Dagan, the ex-head of Mossad—not a boy scout organisation—said on the record that Iran is rational and that he does not think it intends to go to that next step.

Nevertheless, the situation is real and we should look at the facts and the evidence as they are presented. The first things that I look at are the national intelligence estimates of the United States, the first of which, in 2007, was made under George Bush. The estimates are put together by the National Security Council, the CIA and the Pentagon. President Bush was not known as a dove on any areas in the middle east, but the national intelligence estimate produced at the time said, “We do not believe—we believe they did previously—that they are now on the verge of a break-out”. That is an important document. It was dismissed at the time by the hawks, but in 2012, under President Obama, another one appeared that effectively reaffirmed that national intelligence estimate.

[Dr Offord]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s counter-view on some of these issues. It is easy to talk about organisations presenting reports. I have found the 2012 Institute for Science and International Security report, containing information from former weapons inspectors, who disagreed with Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly in 2012 and felt that Iran would have a nuclear capability within months. It is okay to say that certain organisations say that is not possible. Equally, it is valid to say that other organisations contradict that point of view.

[Mr Wallace]

I register the point, but these are not national institutes. This is the CIA and the Pentagon—okay, they do not have the best track record on intelligence, but they never gave the benefit of the doubt to the doves; they always gave it to the hawks. These are major national institutions—Government organisations—that share intelligence with Israel and all the other allies that we have, so they are certainly serious. It is important to look at that fact.

We should not pass over the grand bargain offered by Iran in 2003. The grand bargain was something that every hon. Member in this Chamber would have signed up to tomorrow. It was an offer by Iran to suspend enrichment; to join the additional protocol, with further and more intrusive inspection than even Britain has under the non-proliferation treaty; and to demilitarise Hezbollah. It was even to have gone as far as to recognise Israel, which many countries in the middle east, which may be against Iran but are not necessarily allies, still do not recognise. They may help Israel, but they still have not taken the next step. That grand bargain was rejected out of hand by the White House.

People sitting now in Iran would say, “Hang on, we offered all this and this was all thrown away”. That goes back to the heart of the matter. The trail of trust has been full of missed opportunities on both sides. We really need to try to rebuild it. I commend this Government, the Obama Administration and the P5 plus 1 for sticking their necks out.

I do not mind who visits Iran. I have been to Iran, but I do not approve of what the Iranians do to Christians, Baha’is or other minorities. I condemn that absolutely, but I believe that visiting Iran does not mean supporting Iran. If people criticise or propose policy against a country, it is a good idea for them to take time to visit that country. That is important. I do not sit around and get involved in debates on Israel because I have not been there. One day I might decide to do so, mainly because it affects other middle east policy that I might want to discuss. Going there is important.

[Jim Shannon]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s logic. I might be reading it wrong, but is he saying that we need to go to a country to appreciate and understand it fully? I have never been to Israel, but I would say that I have a full appreciation and understanding of Israel and of how it feels threatened by many countries across the world. I have no less knowledge of Israel because I have not been there. Not going there does not lessen my enthusiasm for the state, which I feel is threatened. Does he accept that?

[Mr Wallace]

I accept that, but I would not support the hon. Gentleman if he criticised people who have visited Israel to find out. I do not think that can be a point of criticism. He is from Ulster, where I have spent a lot of time. In fact, I have sat down with members of the IRA. That does not mean per se that I supported the IRA when we were trying to negotiate a peace deal. People increase their knowledge by going somewhere and understanding it. They do not become a world expert, but they increase their knowledge. When we speak to normal Iranians or see at first hand the split between the Iranian Government, the different Ministries and the different politicians, we understand a bit more. We do not become an expert or an Iranian any more than we would become an Israeli if we went to Israel.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I apologise for not being present for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), whom I congratulate on securing this debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) for allowing me to intervene. I support the thrust of what he says. I have visited Israel with Conservative Friends of Israel, and going there benefits those who go. Any situation that establishes better relations between the west and Iran has to be the way forward if we are to have long-lasting peace in the middle east.

[Mr Wallace]

I totally agree. It is important that we understand that there is a prize to be had: stability, a resolution to the nuclear threat—if there is a nuclear threat—and a chance to build new alliances in the middle east. We cannot avoid the issues in Saudi Arabia, which seem to be ignored.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned apostasy and the persecution of Christians. There are not many Muslim countries in the world that allow Christians to proselytise. Try taking a Bible to Saudi Arabia; Bibles can be taken to Iran. People might not be able to proselytise in Iran, but try going to a church in Saudi Arabia any time soon. We have to realise that there are opportunities.

I will finish so that there is time for the Minister and others. A battle is still going on in Iran between hard-liners and reformers. The reformers are trying to say to the population, “Look, Iran can be successful, but we need to concede certain things. We need to slow the nuclear programme”—or cancel it if there is a military aspect—“and we need to come into the international community. We will address human rights, too.” I met the President’s chief of staff, and I directly pressed him on the Baha’is. Iran needs to show that willingness.

The hard-liners and principlists like isolation and sanctions. The revolutionary guard profits from sanctions, because sanction-busting is very profitable. We have to say, “Here is a chance.” As of today, the Iranians are complying with their Geneva accord obligations. They are reducing the stocks of 20%-enriched uranium. Before the Geneva accord, the Iranians were diverting such uranium to fuel plates. Iran is starting that process, and it is increasing the number of inspections.

We need to judge Iran, day by day and week by week, on where it is going, but please remember that, if we decide to shut out that effort, we will bring in the hard- liners of Iran, who will not be interested in rapprochement or the international community and who will take refuge in a religious extremism that will not help the Iranian people, peace in the region or the countries of Britain and Israel.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate will conclude no later than 4.14 pm.

15:44

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), my north London near neighbour, on securing the debate, which has been a useful opportunity to assess recent events in Iran including, among other important issues, the joint plan of action. He rightly said that the joint plan of action does not resolve international suspicions about Iran’s intentions and merely suspends some of those suspicions for some people. He is right to continue to be concerned about Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and other harmful activity in the region. He, along with the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), rightly underlines that the sense of threat from Iran is still felt particularly acutely in Israel.

As in previous debates on Iran, we have had a good range of contributions from hon. Members offering differing but strongly held views. The speech of the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) was interesting in highlighting some of the history of the relationship between the west and Iran. He noted some of the complexities and the need for nuance in our debates on future relations with Iran.

Such a range of views and the need for nuance is perhaps reflected in the region itself. I am struck that there is clearly an intense debate on the joint plan of action in Israel. In that context, it is worth noting the comments made yesterday by the Israeli Labour party leader Isaac Herzog, who challenged some of the comments by Israel’s Prime Minister, Mr Netanyahu, on the Iranian nuclear deal:

“This is an interim agreement; it isn’t Judgement Day…yet.”

He suggested in a slightly more partisan tone that Mr Netanyahu was encouraging a sense of panic on the joint plan of action that is not necessarily helpful.

The hon. Member for Hendon, in response to an intervention, alluded to Iran’s role in Syria and elsewhere in the region. Perhaps inevitably, it is always a critical time in the middle east, but it feels particularly so at the moment. Iran clearly plays an important role, and its activities in the region have implications for the wider relationship between Iran and the west. The international community, including the UK Government, must continue to do all it can to encourage all the parties in Syria to end the fighting and, in that context, to persuade Iran to influence the Assad regime at every opportunity to cease the use of violence against its own people.

Similarly, Iran’s dismal human rights record has rightly been raised by a couple of hon. Members. There are serious ongoing concerns. If the new regime in Iran takes steps to improve the country’s human rights record, it would send a strong signal on the importance that the Iranian Government attach to co-operation and engagement with the international community. Although President Rouhani has not openly expressed anti-gay rhetoric, unlike his predecessor, Iran’s Islamic penal code still lists homosexuality as an offence punishable by death.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly highlighted concerns about the attitude to other religions and ethnic minorities. It is far from clear, according to Iran’s Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, that political prisoners are being released in the way that the regime has previously claimed.

There has long been recognition in the House and across the international community that we need to grasp the serious opportunities that occasionally come along—they are certainly presenting themselves to us now—to improve relations between Iran and the UK and the west in general. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North highlighted a number of the missed opportunities to do just that. President Rouhani is offering the prospect of seriously improving the relationship between the UK and Iran. In recent months, his Administration’s new approach to negotiations suggests that we should be open to continuing serious engagement with his regime. I pay tribute to the EU’s High Representative, Cathy Ashton, not only for her role in the negotiations but for her willingness to continue to follow through on the prospects for better engagement.

On ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is and remains peaceful, Members will be aware that the first step agreement with Iran commenced on 20 January and continues to be implemented. We are between talks and the E3 plus 3 are meeting again in March for the next round. We should be encouraged that the previous talks were of a constructive nature.

The hon. Member for Hendon rightly raised concerns about Iran’s attitude to, for example, the critical issue of centrifuges. There has been concern that Iran has installed new centrifuges. As the shadow Foreign Secretary expressed in his response to the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Monday, there is concern that Iran is still operating more than 10,000 centrifuges when the interim deal set out a much lower target. What is the Minister’s view on that? There has also been concern about the Arak heavy water research centre. As he has previously said, under the joint plan of action Iran is supposed to fully resolve concerns about that reactor and confirm that no reprocessing will take place there. What is his view on progress in that area?

The deal that has been agreed is a necessary step precisely because Iran has developed an enrichment programme over recent years, despite calls by the international community to stop. That is why the existing substantial sanctions must be enforced and why the comprehensive solution must address all the proliferation concerns on Iran’s nuclear programme. Does the Minister believe that the IAEA has the necessary resources to be responsible for the verification of the nuclear-related measures to which Iran has committed? Will he explain more about the monitoring and validating processes that the IAEA will go through? Maintaining confidence in those processes will be important in helping address the suspicion about the Iranians’ activities. In that way, the necessary trust can be built to achieve the comprehensive solution that will ultimately be in everyone’s interest.

Will the Minister set out what the role of the joint commission of the E3 plus 3 and Iran will be? What stage are we at in the development of the joint commission? Will he set out, as the shadow Foreign Secretary asked the Foreign Secretary to do on Monday, the impact that the sanctions relief has had so far on the Iranian economy? Will the Minister set out the most recent estimate of the benefits that the limited sanctions relief has so far brought to the Iranian economy? Similarly, what impact has the limited sanctions relief had on Iran’s petrochemical exports and the imports of goods and services for its automotive manufacturing sector?

Finally, on a related but nevertheless separate issue, the UK and Iran brought protecting power arrangements to an end last week, which is an encouraging sign of increasing confidence that bilateral business can be conducted directly between capitals, rather than through intermediaries. Iran’s non-resident chargé d’affaires visited the UK this week. Can the Minister provide at least some update on the progress in those discussions? All of us wish the Government and the E3 plus 3 well in seeking to deliver on the comprehensive solution. I hope the Minister will continue to provide regular updates to the House to offer assurance on the progress of negotiations.

15:55

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing the debate and thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Given that this has been something of a question fest, I suspect that my best approach in summing up is not to read through the beautifully drafted piece of English that has been supplied to me, but to try to pick out the questions that have been asked and to go through them as swiftly as I can in the 10 minutes remaining.

In a sense, the debate has highlighted the issue. It would be a bit simplistic to call it a glass-half-full, glass-half-empty debate, but in a sense everyone is occupying the same piece of ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) gave us a wonderful historical tour de force of relations with Iran. There are ample reasons to be extremely cautious and very suspicious. On the other hand, once every so often an opportunity comes around. The question is whether to make that leap of faith and test it, being well aware of all the past problems, the history and the dangers, in the hope of getting to a better place eventually. Alternatively, we can be extremely cautious at every stage to the extent that it impacts on the ability to conclude that final deal. Those are difficult and complex judgments, and there are no right or wrong answers.

The last time the international community had a go at this was when the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was Foreign Secretary. It got to a stage where all the suspicions present in today’s debate were aired, and a combination of the hard-liners in Tehran and Washington derailed the deal. The consequence of that was that the steps towards nuclear production simply continued. Arguably, as a result of not being able to take those bold steps, the situation got worse, not better—I know it is difficult to second-guess these things now. It is absolutely right to be cautious and sensible and to have an eye to history, but we should see on this occasion whether we can test the feelings and sentiment in Iran.

I will try to answer the various questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon asked. He is absolutely correct to say that the interim agreement does not resolve international suspicions. As he will have guessed from my opening remarks, I absolutely agree that it does not. It is merely a first step that buys us the time to move towards further discussions on the issues, of which he raised a great many. A comprehensive agreement will absolutely need to address the proliferation concerns that he set out. Let me be clear: we will not sign a deal if it does not address those concerns. Secondly, he made the point that, through the sanctions relief regime, we have eased the pressure on Iran’s economy for very limited concessions in return.

It is worth saying that the interim deal addresses some of the nuclear programme’s most concerning elements: the eradication of the stockpile of 20% enriched uranium; and Iran being forbidden from installing further centrifuges, which is different from developing them. It also eases the monitoring regime carried out by the IAEA. We and the US estimate the sanctions relief given to Iran to be about $7 billion over the six-month period. That is a relatively small fraction of the $60 billion to $100 billion of restricted Iranian oil funds held abroad and of the $60 billion to $70 billion it needs to finance its foreign imports. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, but there is a sense of proportion in that.

My hon. Friend asked about what are called in the parlance the PMDs—possible military dimensions—of Iran’s nuclear programme. That is very much a concern. He is right to say that they are not addressed in the interim agreement, but they are a key part of the final negotiations that will take place so they will be addressed. Indeed, the joint plan of action makes it clear that the joint commission, composed of the E3 plus 3 and Iran, will work with the IAEA to facilitate the resolution of all those issues.

Fourthly—if I have got the order right—my hon. Friend asked about the sanctions relief enabling the Iranians to fund terrorism, which touches on a point made by several other Members. There is no doubt that Iran’s support of terrorism throughout the region is a malignant force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) mentioned, were there need for evidence, considerable evidence is available—it is a statement of fact—that Iranian support for Hezbollah and directly through the Quds Force has played a considerable part in the conflict in Syria. That is not the only example by any means of Iran’s malign influence in the area; it has been seen recently in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and right around the Arabian peninsula. That will have to be addressed if relations with Iran are to be normalised in any meaningful way.

I guess that the question about the granting of access to the IAEA was driven by the Parchin military facility issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is right that the interim agreement does not allow the IAEA access to Parchin. However, following Iran’s agreement with the IAEA on 8 February about the exploding bridgewire detonators, we hope that we can make progress. Indeed, that will have to be addressed as part of any final and comprehensive agreement.

My hon. Friend asked, perfectly reasonably, about our assessment of whether the Iranian actions at the moment are within the spirit of the JPA agreement. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) asked in particular about the continued production of advanced centrifuges with reduced break-out times and whether that poses questions about Iranian intentions. There is no doubt that we would much rather that Iran had not done that. The IAEA, however, has looked at what it has done thus far and confirmed that it is currently complying with the JPA’s strict terms. As part of the 24 November agreement, Iran has committed not to install or bring into operation any new centrifuges in the main enrichment facilities.

That, however, does not help with confidence-building measures and, as we touched on earlier, there will be a real trust issue if the Iranian Government continue to act in this way. Again, that will have to be addressed as part of the comprehensive agreement.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the concerns that Iran could simply pocket the benefits and walk away from the negotiations. Indeed it could, but, if so, it has a great deal to lose. The Iranian economy is going through the floor and there is real hardship in Tehran. Anyone who looks at this—intelligence agency or otherwise —realises that the Iranian economy is in a very bad place indeed, and the key electoral promise of the Government was to restore the economy, so they have a considerable incentive. Without such an agreement, they can do absolutely nothing to bump-start their economy.

If the deal falls to pieces, no doubt international reaction will be tough and Iran will wear the blame for that. The full sanctions regime will simply be reinstated and it will move backwards very quickly. In an environment in which Iran had toyed with the international community and let it down, it would be difficult to restart talks for some time. My hon. Friend is right that, in theory, Iran could pocket what it has got at the moment and walk away, but that might not be wise on its part. There is no intention whatever to offer further sanctions relief over and above what it has got until it has delivered on the key terms of the agreement.

Let me turn to some of the other questions asked in various contributions. It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked about the power struggle in Iran and he is absolutely right. At the moment, the indication is that the supreme leader backs the regime in the talks being conducted: indeed, the substantive concessions made thus far would not have been possible without his support. However, as we all know, hard-liners who do not wish the process well are operating in the background. The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about whether Rouhani can deliver. Our assessment is that he can, but if we push him too hard, it probably will not take a great deal for that to change. If he cannot show real benefit from the process, that assessment must be called into doubt.

The hon. Gentleman asked about human rights abuses in the country and he is right to highlight them. I have the figures here and the situation is appalling—there are no two ways about it. There have been reports of at least 400 executions in 2013. Iran has the second highest number of journalists in prison in the world. Opposition leaders have been detained for more than two years. Arrests of human rights defenders and journalists continue, as does persecution of religious and ethnic minorities. The Government will continue to hold Iran to account. We are not being soft: more than 80 EU sanctions are designated on individual Iranians and entities responsible for human rights violations.

[Mr Clappison]

May I say how grateful I am to the Minister for his personal interest in and attention to the issue of persecution of Christians in Iran? He deserves tribute for his stand.

[Hugh Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is very kind. One of the curious things about my job is that I end up handling the majority of the correspondence that flows into the Foreign Office. In my first few months, it was noticeable that one of the subjects raised most regularly by Members throughout the House was the fate of Christians in the middle east. In the various visits I have made around the region, I have tried to make a specific point of seeking out Christian leaders to talk to them about what is happening. I had a fascinating couple of hours with the Copts in Egypt—there are between 10 million and 12 million of them—and I will continue to take a close interest as I make my various visits.

To finish my response to the hon. Member for Strangford, he is right that religious freedom is a key part of where Iran needs to get to. That is something that is largely lacking under the current regime.

[Jim Shannon]

I entirely agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) about the Minister’s dedication and interest, which I appreciate as well. In my speech, I mentioned that Rouhani had indicated through Twitter his best wishes for Christians at Christmas time and at times of festival. That is an indication of a leader providing leadership. Has the Minister had any chance of gentle discussion with Rouhani and his Government?

[Hugh Robertson]

The honest answer is no. Contact at ministerial level with the Iranian regime has been restricted to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I think it is appropriate to keep it at that level rather than open the door. There are all sorts of reasons—I was just about to come on to this matter—why we might proceed with some caution, so I have not had those conversations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere made the very good point that it is important not to get ahead of ourselves. I agree absolutely. The Foreign Secretary put it well in the early autumn of last year when he came back from New York. He explained that there had been a change in the atmospherics, but that nothing substantive on the ground has changed at all. That is a good way of putting it and a good way of approaching what we are doing at the moment. There is a clear opportunity but it makes abundant good sense to move forward with caution, acting sensibly and testing the intentions. There is a great prize at the end if we can get there, but we should proceed with caution.

My hon. Friend correctly drew our attention to the lack of progress in Geneva. I sat through the whole of the first day of contributions there, and our assessment was that the key driver behind that lack of progress was the regime’s unwillingness to address the question of regime change. It is a red line that the regime will not cross, and at the moment it is the great barrier. The regime wants to talk only about terrorism, whereas the opposition wants to talk about transitional arrangements. Breaking that deadlock is proving extremely difficult.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North. As chair of the all-party group on Iran he is the resident House expert on these matters, and is certainly the only person here today who has been to Tehran recently. He speaks with great knowledge. He is absolutely right to observe that trust has failed on both sides and that there is a battle between the reformers and the hard-liners. I thank him for acknowledging the benefits of the joint plan of action.

The Opposition spokesman asked about the thousands of centrifuges that have been produced, so I will give him chapter and verse on that. He is absolutely right that the regime has produced a series of centrifuges. As part of the agreement the regime is not allowed to install new centrifuges. The IAEA knows the centrifuges are there and is monitoring what happens to them. I hope that matter is in hand.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about Arak. The interim deal has halted construction there and suspended fuel production for the heavy water facility but the final status of that plant is a matter for the final status negotiations and so is not yet resolved.

The hon. Gentleman asked about resources of the IAEA. Off the top of my head, I do not know exactly how many people it has on the case on the team of inspectors, and I am not sure that that information would be readily available, for obvious reasons. However, if it gives him reassurance, I have been working closely on this matter for the past three or four months and at no stage have I heard a suggestion that the IAEA is short of resources or is unable to conduct the monitoring it wants to carry out.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact of sanctions relief on the Iranian economy, and I have already given some relevant figures. I do not know what impact sanctions relief has had on the automotive sector, but we will send him a written reply on that matter.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the visit of the Iranian chargé, who was just here, from 18 to 25 February. That was his second visit to the UK, and there have been two visits in the opposite direction. When we have the Iranian assessment of what he has achieved and what the issues are, there will be a process in which we will sit down and work out what happens next. The Foreign Secretary has been scrupulous in making a statement to the House every month or six weeks and that is his intention should there be any additional information on that matter.

Broadband (South Northamptonshire)

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

16:14

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams.

Good broadband coverage is not just important for those of us who want to download films and TV shows, do internet shopping or keep up to date with the latest news; it is truly vital for those who work from home and those who run their own businesses. Broadband is a superb investment, which is projected to boost local growth across the country, with a net return of £20 for every £1 spent by 2024.

Often, however, the emphasis is on getting good coverage for towns and cities. I want to make the case that good broadband coverage in rural areas is every bit as important. My constituency, South Northamptonshire, covers 92 parishes—many of them rural—two market towns and a decent chunk of Northampton, our county town. In 2012, Northamptonshire county council undertook an open market review to determine the level of broadband coverage in the district of South Northamptonshire. The council surveyed over 38,000 premises in the district; of those, it discovered that 27,000 were identified as unserved. In 2012, then, about 70% of all premises in the district of South Northamptonshire had no broadband coverage at all.

Overall, I am delighted with the steps that both the Government and Northamptonshire county council are taking. The Government are already investing £1.2 billion to supply people across the UK with access to superfast broadband. The target set is for 95% of the UK to have access to superfast broadband coverage by 2017. The Government have acknowledged the importance of good broadband infrastructure in creating more jobs and ensuring small businesses have they support they need. I am encouraged that 10,000 homes and businesses are getting superfast upgrades each week, with that figure set to rise to 40,000 premises a week by the summer. Finally, I was delighted by the announcement, made only yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, of the allocation of an extra £250 million to ensure that all areas of the UK are able to hit the 2017 target. I certainly welcome the £3.64 million additional allocation for Northamptonshire.

The backing is there. Closer to home, I am glad that Northamptonshire county council has its own excellent plans for roll-out to deliver 90% coverage in the county by 2015. Over 50,000 premises will gain access as a result of the just over £4 million allocated by the county council, together with over £4 million from Broadband Delivery UK and an investment of £3.2 million from BT. The council reports that it now intends to go further than its initial 2015 target and is already talking to commercial providers to revisit the extent of commercial plans. The council has put aside an extra £2 million, and I am sure it will welcome the additional sum of just over £3.5 million allocated yesterday by the Secretary of State.

Northamptonshire county council has one of the most detailed “when and where” maps in the country. Although residents are aware that plans could change, that map provides the best information available on the extent of coverage, by when the coverage will be in place and how the council expects plans to come forward. Of the 27,000 properties in my constituency that were identified as unserved, the council expects that 18,500 will receive access to superfast broadband through its investment, and that of BDUK and BT. The Superfast Northamptonshire project will see another 4,175 premises in South Northamptonshire receive coverage. It is the council’s aim to secure full superfast coverage by the end of 2017.

For all that good news, full access is still a terribly long way off. I regularly receive reports from annoyed and frustrated residents in my constituency who are struggling to gain decent access, or any access at all, to broadband services. Although Northamptonshire county council has a clear and ambitious plan, it is held hostage slightly by private companies that may or may not stick to the commitments they have made.

Broadband should rightly be the domain of the private sector, so there are clear rules about how and where the public sector can intervene, but Grange Park in my constituency is a good example of an area where broadband is a major issue. The majority of the area falls within the commercial plans of BT’s provision. As it has declared a commercial interest, the county council cannot intervene with a solution as that would be in breach of state aid regulations. The county council, parish council and Grange Park residents are pressing BT to deliver on its commercial proposals and to set out a clear timetable. I understand that there will soon be a meeting with BT’s regional director for the east midlands, and I hope that they will be able to move things forward.

The problem in Grange Park is that it is a significant distance from the exchange and around a quarter of properties are served by telephony over passive optical networks—T-PON—which will not support superfast fibre-based services. A solution must be found, but it may not be simple and may be expensive. Residents believe that BT has an obligation, and that it must not step back from its proposed commercial response and transfer the problem back to the county council. A delay in securing good broadband coverage to the area and finding the additional funding, which would be needed if the problem were given back to the council, would be unacceptable.

One resident wrote to me recently explaining the issue. He fears that BT will conclude that it is not commercially viable to change T-PON to fibre to the cabinet—FTTC—which is the infrastructure that is so desperately needed. My constituent concludes that the problem is the lack of competition as BT is the only commercial provider. If Virgin, for example, had existing infrastructure in Grange Park, BT would be fighting to retain business instead of receiving the same revenue for line rental and current broadband services without having to provide any investment.

My constituent also explained that many residents have their own businesses and work from home, and that the problem is so serious for many that they may have no alternative other than to move away if it really will be 2017 or beyond before the problem is resolved. I hope that the Minister will assure my constituents that commercial companies will be strongly encouraged by any means possible to stick to their commitments.

I appreciate that BT is providing broadband speeds of up to 80 megabytes in Brackley, benefiting more than 6,500 properties, and a higher speed copper broadband speed of up to 20 megabytes, benefiting Middleton Cheney and Roade, to name just a couple of villages. By the end of 2014, its current plans will benefit communities in Paulerspury, Blisworth, Pattishall, Silverstone, Blakesley, Chipping Warden, Cogenhoe, Hackleton, Sulgrave and Yardley Hastings. That is great news and hugely welcomed, but it is of no comfort to my constituents in Grange Park, and I urge private providers to ensure they carry out their proposed investment plans.

Towcester is one of the largest market towns in my constituency, but until a couple of weeks ago, constituents were explaining to me that if they were lucky they could receive a connection speed of about 3.5 megabytes, and for some it was no more than 1 megabyte. I am pleased that because of county council investment, 10 new fibre cabinets went live on 3 February. I am delighted that the Minister was able to attend the celebration, and I hope that residents will soon experience the benefits. However, Towcester residents are still having problems with mobile phone signals, and if the Minister has five minutes to sort that out, they would be incredibly grateful.

I want to finish by mentioning the Tove valley community broadband project, which is a fantastic example of a community taking matters into its own hands. Last year, the community-based initiative celebrated its 10th anniversary of bringing an internet service to the Tove valley. Volunteers of the Abthorpe broadband association, led by Eric Malcomson, initially brought a satellite-based service to Abthorpe and later an ADSL system, but the villages now have a broadband service offering speeds of up to 30 megabytes, well above the national average, and an average of 20 megabytes even at the furthest reaches.

In the target area, 50% of households have signed up to the superfast service, well above the critical mass required to make the project financially viable. More than 225 of the 450 households have asked for the service and 208 are already connected. That was completed in less than six months since the service started in May 2013.

The communities of Abthorpe, Astwell, Bradden, Foscote, Lois Weedon, Slapton, Wappenham and Weston have benefited. I am delighted to be a resident of Slapton, so I am a beneficiary. Those connections have been completed and coverage is being extended to Helmdon. All the villages are delighted with the opportunities that connection provides, and what has been done there should be a model for future broadband initiatives in rural areas. It was an honour to be asked to open the project in Abthorpe in June 2013.

I was delighted to attend the 2013 TalkTalk digital heroes awards at the end of 2013 when Eric Malcomson, chairman of the Abthorpe broadband association, won the east midlands regional award. The award celebrates people who use digital technology to help their local communities, and Eric has worked tirelessly to deliver a fantastic service to a very rural area. I cannot overstate how beneficial the service had been to many communities. Tove valley community broadband project achieved a finalist’s position in the fixed rural networks category at the 2013 NextGen awards.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on the work and investment to ensure that even those in the hardest-to-reach places can access good broadband services. I also commend my own county council for its ambitious targets, and for recognising how important broadband is to rural areas. I am conscious that this must not be an attack on private providers. The investment that private commercial companies are providing is vital. However, I urge that that investment should continue and I hope that private companies will work with local councils to agree solutions and suitable timescales to deliver better services to areas such as Grange Park.

I would be grateful if the Minister explained what steps his Department can take to ensure that private companies cannot hold councils to ransom at the expense of good broadband coverage for communities in desperate need of it.

16:26

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

I am pleased to be speaking under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this important debate. She is an assiduous champion of her constituents and their interests, and it does not surprise me that she seeks to draw my attention to the importance of broadband to her constituents.

Before responding to the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, I will give a brief overview of the broadband project as it is developing. Having commissioned research, the Government know that investment in broadband pays enormous dividends in economic growth. A recent study that we commissioned showed that over the next decade every pound invested in broadband will deliver a £20 return investment. That sounds an unusually high return, but it is realistic because broadband is a general-purpose technology, which has an increasingly critical role in the day-to-day running of businesses large and small.

The bulk of that economic impact will come from improvements in business productivity and will safeguard employment in areas that might otherwise be at a disadvantage. There will be a time saving for people who will no longer have to commute, and opportunities for people to participate in the work force. The gross value added attributable to our current programme is about £6.3 billion a year by 2024, with about 20,000 jobs attributable to the programme. I have been told that increased teleworking will save around 10 million hours of leisure time every year, as well as reducing commuting costs.

We invested some £500 million in our original programme to bring superfast broadband to areas where it was not commercially viable, and that money was matched by local authorities. The total sum was around £1.2 billion. As my hon. Friend said, the Government gave Northamptonshire some £4 million, which was matched by the county council and topped up by the telecoms provider BT.

The programme in Northamptonshire, before we announced our superfast extension programme, was designed to achieve 89.2% fibre coverage, which meant that 87.4% of all premises in Northamptonshire county council’s area would receive speeds of 24 megabits and above. Some 228,000 premises in the Northamptonshire county council area will be covered by BT commercially and almost 50,000 premises—48,600-odd to be exact—will be covered by the intervention of the Government and the county council. As my hon. Friend pointed out, 18,500 premises in her constituency will benefit from the programme.

I am pleased to say that, according to my understanding, the programme in Northamptonshire is now two months ahead of schedule. It may or may not have escaped your notice, Mr Williams, that the Government were criticised some months back for the programme’s being delayed. In fact, the more one sees the programme getting under way, the more one sees that it is now beginning to exceed its targets. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, we have so far reached 3,300 premises through the scheme and we should have covered another 2,000 premises by the end of March.

The programme is very successful, not only in Northamptonshire, including South Northamptonshire, but across the country. We are covering more than 10,000 premises a week. We hope to get to a milestone of half a million premises reached some time towards the approach of summer. We hope then to be covering some 40,000 premises a week.

Let me echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend to her county council—Northamptonshire county council. From the very beginning of the project, we wanted to partner with local councils and Northamptonshire county council has stood tall as an exemplar of a county council to partner with. Not only has it match-funded the Government money, but it has proved effective in ensuring that planning barriers were removed and in co-ordinating all the different elements that need to go into a smooth roll-out of superfast broadband. It does not surprise me at all that the programme is already ahead of schedule; a lot of the credit for that has to go to the county council.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the Tove valley community broadband project in the south of Northamptonshire. I echo her comments. That is a hugely successful project, as she said, with more than 50% of the households in its target area having signed up for the superfast service, making the project financially viable. I am pleased to say that Broadband Delivery UK and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have, in principle, approved £118,000 for the project through the rural community broadband fund. It is good to see how the local communities have worked so closely to put together the project, which will bring superfast broadband to Tove valley.

I am delighted with the excellent progress that we have seen in Northamptonshire and I look forward to the continued success of the county roll-out, which will see a further 18,000 premises passed. I am pleased that we were able to find the additional money—£3.64 million —to go to Northamptonshire as part of the superfast extension programme.

Nothing is ever perfect and I take on board my hon. Friend’s points about some of the issues that she is having to deal with in her constituency. I have to say that I have found BT to be a very good partner in terms of broadband delivery roll-out, but I hear what her constituents in Grange Park say, which is that perhaps, in her words, they are being held to ransom by BT, as BT is the only supplier.

However, it is probably worth pointing out that BT often finds itself as the only supplier in areas where other commercial suppliers simply will not compete because it is not necessarily commercially viable. She will not find Virgin Media there because it may not be commercially viable for it to compete in Grange Park. Although one finds a plethora of commercial suppliers competing for the business market, the residential market is less competitive, because, to put it bluntly, it can be less profitable.

My understanding is that in Grange Park, some 650 premises already have superfast broadband as part of BT’s commercial roll-out. A further 193 premises will get it in 2014 as part of BT’s commercial roll-out, and 77 premises in Grange Park will get it as a result of the rural broadband initiative. That still leaves some 700 to 900 premises looking for a solution, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue, and to do so in this Chamber. I promise her now, in this forum, that I will get back to BT, BDUK, and the county council, and work with her to see whether we can make progress on a solution.

I was also pleased to hear my hon. Friend mention mobile coverage. She rightly expected me to solve a number of problems for her in the Chamber this afternoon, so let me see whether I can oblige. I am delighted that we are now seeing the roll-out of 4G—fourth-generation technology for mobile phones. It was a fraught process to get to a position in which we were ready to auction the spectrum, but the spectrum auction went very well and we are now seeing the roll-out of 4G nationwide. That roll-out itself is set to conclude some two years ahead of schedule; the licences require 98% coverage for one licensee by the end of 2017, and my understanding is that all four main operators plan to reach that figure by the end of 2015.

I have to say to my hon. Friend that, according to my understanding, from discussions with the operators when they give indications for specific areas or constituencies of the country, we will see a significant uplift in terms of mobile coverage. Not only will 4G coverage extend mobile coverage significantly, but the roll-out of 4G will also see, as a knock-on effect and knock-on benefit, a significant increase in coverage of 3G.

Mobile coverage, alongside fixed broadband coverage, is an issue of significant concern to the Government. We are actively looking at that to consider ways in which to improve it, because what sums up the whole debate, and why it is so appropriate for my hon. Friend to have secured it, is the recognition over the past few years that good, superfast, digital communication, whether mobile or fixed, is becoming an essential aspect for almost every business and an essential part of our leisure life as well. That is why I am so pleased that the fixed broadband project is going well.

I am pleased that we are delivering in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Nothing is ever perfect and she is right to point out where there are gaps in coverage. I repeat my pledge to work with her, the county council, BT and BDUK to deal with the issues that she has raised.

CE Marking (Structural Steelwork)

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

16:38

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. Most people will be familiar with CE marking. Some goods have had it for years, from kids’ toys to kitchen appliances, from bike helmets to our hot water boilers, among other things. CE marking was introduced as a means to create a level playing field in the internal European market, starting way back in 1988. It is, of course, a consumer protection device to ensure that manufactured goods are made to standards that are harmonised across the European Union.

Recognising the challenges involved in providing a standard certification mark on manufactured goods, it was decided to phase in the introduction over a long period. That has led to different dates set for various goods since 1988 and it is still continuing to this day. The most recent incarnation of the mark was in 1995 and it continues in most product areas without a major problem. However, there is a problem for the Government and steel fabrication industry with the requirement for CE marking on all fabricated steelwork and construction in civil engineering to be in place by 1 July 2014. I want today to draw the Government’s attention to the implications of that requirement.

Let me give some background. The Government have championed the idea that they are a friend of small business, and that is indeed a sensible approach. Just last month, for example, speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses, the Prime Minister announced a plan to scrap 3,000 rules affecting small businesses, saying that he wanted to

“get out of the way of small business success.”

We can all agree with that laudable aim, but the reality on the ground can be different.

It was in that context that I was first contacted by a firm local to my constituency, T&D Cruickshanks, based in Kirkintilloch. Cruickshanks, a third-generation family-run business established in 1948 with four employees, is exactly the kind of small manufacturing business that the Government hold up as an example of an enterprise that they are setting out to support and that we all need to succeed. It is in the spirit of cross-party support for small businesses of that kind and others that I bring this issue to Parliament. Mr Cruickshank is absolutely clear about the impact on his business. Businesses that do not comply with the new CE marking certification by 1 July 2014 will be trading illegally, and Mr Cruickshank is very clear that certifying products involves significant costs for a small business such as the one his family have run for generations.

That focus on the lack of awareness in the fabrication industry of the necessity of meeting the new certification standard has been echoed by another business in my constituency, Highland Galvanizers, based in Cumbernauld. Geoff Crowley, the managing director, is very clear that upwards of 700 companies just in Scotland are unlikely to be compliant by 1 July. Geoff has been at the forefront of efforts to warn of the impending introduction of CE marking on fabricated steelwork in construction and civil engineering, and to make firms and the Government aware of it—it is coming up very fast.

It appears that the steel fabricators, suppliers and manufacturing industry, especially at the small business end of the chain, are largely unaware of what comes into force on 1 July, and are therefore unprepared. The preparation to comply with the CE certification marking, according to my industry discussions, takes perhaps six months. Many have not started. There are notable exceptions, especially the members of the British Constructional Steelwork Association, which has made CE marking compliance a condition of membership and is training its members in becoming compliant with the EU regulation.

In advance of the debate, I asked the Minister a number of parliamentary questions. In his response, he directed me to a 2009 impact assessment. With help from those on the front line in the fabrication industry, I have identified a number of issues about the impact assessment, on which I am sure the Minister will be pleased to respond.

First, the 2009 report relates to the whole construction products directive, whereas today we are seeking to address specifically the subsection that relates to the steel fabrication industry. [Interruption.] Members of the press are looking increasingly fascinated as I proceed. Secondly, the consultation was with larger bodies—trade associations, large companies and the like—which were within easy reach of civil servants. That makes the results unreliable because it ignores the challenges faced by small companies, which are often not members of trade bodies.

The impact assessment estimates the number of businesses affected to be about 18,000 and a total cost to them of £66 million, with an annual cost for maintenance of £12 million. I wonder how those estimates stand now. Will the Minister provide more clarity on the cost of meeting those marking certification standards? Anecdotal evidence from Scottish steel fabricators who have already implemented CE marking is that implementation costs of £20,000 are not unusual for larger businesses, and that quotes from consultants to help smaller fabricators to meet the new standard range from £5,000 to £10,000.

Further to that, the impact assessment, at paragraph 29, removes half of those who might be affected by the new certification standard, because—this is the impact assessment’s own description—half of those who would be affected will have voluntarily become CE mark certified on the basis that they might want to do business abroad. We have to be aware of the impact assessment in that context. Does the fact that business might be certified for another reason mean that that cost should be removed from the impact assessment? Are those calculations accurate enough for hon. Members to make a judgment about the potential implications of the certification and ensuring that the industry across the board is compliant?

The impact assessment recognised that small businesses would be affected disproportionately. We are talking about small businesses that only sell locally and that are not exporters. There is little benefit for them in CE marking in itself. Of course, they are already at a disadvantage compared with larger suppliers in the industry, which can easily afford to absorb the costs of meeting the new standard. That creates obvious financial and compliance challenges for small steel fabricators such as Cruickshanks in Kirkintilloch.

There was clearly some recognition of the potential problems with the new CE standard—an impact assessment was undertaken in 2009—but, five years later, it appears that not much has happened to ensure that small steel fabricators are aware of the requirement, which has to be met by 1 July, and aware of any support that can be given to meet it.

In paragraph 61, the impact assessment asks those consulted how they think the certification standard will impact on competition. Larger companies thought that the impact would be positive, whereas small businesses saw it as negative and thought that the measure would reduce choice and drive smaller businesses out of the marketplace. Paragraph 65 recognised that smaller businesses, particularly those that are not members of trade bodies, would suffer from poorer communications—it is much more difficult to get the message out to small businesses. From the discussions I have had with the Scottish part of the steel fabrication industry in particular, but not exclusively, I think the problem is that many of the small fabricators are simply unaware that the requirement is coming. Some just do not believe it. Some have heard and are hoping they will be unaffected.

I say again that the British Constructional Steelwork Association is doing sterling work in trying to shed light on the requirement and has made compliance with CE standard marking a condition of membership. The Federation of Small Businesses is also alerting its members to the deadline. However, those few bodies in the UK that are authorised to assess and certify companies seeking CE accreditation, such as the Steel Construction Certification Scheme and the Welding Institute, are under-resourced and already booked up beyond the 1 July deadline. That is what I am told.

Since I secured the debate, I have been contacted by a number of small businesses—steel fabricators, welders and the like—across the UK. Organisations that procure large quantities of steel, such as those behind large-scale construction projects, are already beginning to demand that smaller suppliers be CE accredited. There is a real issue in that the vast majority of Scottish fabrication businesses will not be eligible to tender for that kind of work after 1 July, because they will not have met the certification deadline. Local authorities are starting to wake up to that, and I hope the Minister will tell us what action his Department is taking to ensure that local authorities are acting, and what Government guidance and help has been given.

Businesses that recognise that they need to act—that requires having some training and subsequent qualification, putting some administrative procedures in place and having an audit by a notified body—find that there seems to be a lack of available resource. There are few trainers and fewer assessors, and they are booked up beyond 1 July. My understanding is that trading standards has to be responsible for the enforcement of the CE marking standard. What action has trading standards taken to inform those in the industry that the standard must be met? Has trading standards taken it upon itself to offer advice?

I look forward to the Government grasping the matter. There is a significant problem for small businesses—smaller fabricators lack awareness of the requirement to meet the standard by 1 July. The Government have a role to play, and if they believe that small businesses are the engine room of the economy, I hope they engage in a positive and constructive spirit. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is a serious matter. Businesses may not be compliant by 1 July, and all hon. Members should be aware of the potential implications for those businesses and their staff. I look forward to the Minister informing me and those at the sharp end of the industry how the situation will be resolved before 1 July.

16:52

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

Diolch, Mr Williams. Prynhawn da—good afternoon to you. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) on securing the debate. We were not entirely sure what points he was going to raise. I gather from his introductory remarks that he was speaking on behalf of at least two construction steel producers in his constituency: T & D Cruickshanks from Kirkintilloch and Highland Galvanizers from Cumbernauld. We almost had the full set; we did not get a company from Kilsyth, but the fact that two of the three communities in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency contacted him about the matter demonstrates its importance to the firms that he represents.

I have a comprehensive brief to get through, and I believe that it anticipates all the points that the hon. Gentleman made. The area is complex, as I am sure that he realised when he briefed himself up on it. The construction products regulation is European Union legislation, which came into force across the European Union on 1 July 2013 except in the construction steel industry, which has until 1 July 2014. That legislation is applicable across all member states. It is a free trade measure that requires construction products covered by a harmonised product standard to carry the CE marking. The regulation also requires manufacturers to provide robust and reliable information in a consistent way, which benefits industry and reduces potential barriers to trade.

There are four main elements in the regime, which I will outline briefly. First, there is a suite of harmonised technical specifications that exist to establish a common approach across Europe to product standards. Industry is responsible for developing those standards, and business and the British Standards Institution play an active part in their development. Secondly, there is a requirement to affix CE marking and to provide a declaration of performance to accompany the product, setting out how it performs against the essential performance characteristics in the standard.

Thirdly, there are agreed systems to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the performance set out in the declaration of performance, which are called the assessment and verification of constancy of performance—I said that this was a complicated area. Those systems reflect the level of risk associated with the product and the potential for performance to vary. Finally, there is a framework of notified bodies, which are independent third-party organisations involved in the assessment and verification of performance. That package is designed to provide certainty for industry and remove barriers to trade while ensuring that proper safeguards are in place relating to safety.

There are more than 400 harmonised standards relating to construction products. All those, apart from in the area of construction steel, came into force on 1 July 2013. Some in the industry expressed concern about the introduction of those regulations last year. However, we have since discovered that there were significantly fewer practical problems than were feared in the other 399 areas last year.

The standard on structural steelwork is covered by BS EN 1090-1, which deals with products such as piles, columns, beams and stairs. Unlike most other construction products, the CE marking of fabricated structural steel products is not required until July 2014. That means that the industry will have had three and a half years since the publication of that standard to prepare for its implementation. The European Commission gave the industry that additional 12 months’ leeway because it recognised that there were a large number of small steelwork fabricators who would benefit from the extra time. It was anticipated that the sector might need a little more time to adapt and prepare.

The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about how prepared industry should be and whether the changes had been publicised. My Department, which leads across the UK for this area, has been working with a wide range of organisations to ensure that industry is aware and prepared. Both my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have produced a range of information about what is required under the regulations, and there is further information and guidance on the planning portal.

However, industry is also responsible for raising awareness, and trade associations have been at the forefront of that work. I have with me the brochure produced by the British Constructional Steel Association, with assistance from Tata Steel, in July 2013—just as all the other construction standards were being introduced—to publicise further the changes that would be required this year. Larger firms in the industry, such as Tata, have played an active role in raising awareness right across their supply chain. I gather from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks that T & D Cruickshanks and Highland Galvanizers will be involved in the supply chain for larger users of their product.

Trading standards in England, Wales and Scotland will be responsible for providing advice at a local level to businesses, and they will police the regime once it is in place. In answer to a specific question asked by the hon. Gentleman, not only have officials from my Department arranged events for trading standards departments in English councils, but we have done the same for Scottish councils in general. An event was held in Motherwell in April last year to enable Scottish councils to prepare in plenty of time for the changes that will take place this year.

The hon. Gentleman also made some points about costings. I understand that the industry has expressed concerns about the costs of implementation, which principally result from the need to involve a third-party notified body to establish the performance of the product and ensure that systems are in place to maintain performance. The extent of the costs depends on the product type and generally reflects the fabricators’ existing quality systems, how involved the notified body is in establishing performance, and the ongoing monitoring of production.

For structural steelwork firms, the safety-critical nature of the product means that there is not only an initial inspection by the notified body, but subsequent routine checking of the factory production control. Many larger firms will already incur similar costs through their voluntary adoption of third-party quality control schemes. Nevertheless, we recognise that for small firms, such as those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, incurring such a cost could be a more significant additional burden. However, the costs arise as a result of the standards that have been developed by the industry itself and determined as proportionate to the level of risk involved. Of course, some costs may be offset against future efficiency savings resulting from quality improvement—for example, by avoiding mistakes because compliance processes are in place.

Small businesses have clearly made representations about assistance. I can speak for the situation in England, where BIS funds the manufacturing advisory service, which has been running workshops with small manufacturers. It has not only been raising awareness but providing financial assistance in the form of grants of up to £1,000 for consultancy support to help small manufacturers to comply. We understand from the Welsh Government that similar help is available in Wales—in fact, according to the figures I have found, it looks more generous. I believe that no such assistance has been provided by the Scottish Government, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue with his constituency counterpart in Scotland who will no doubt want to raise it in Holyrood.

The other key issue raised by the hon. Gentleman was about whether there is enough time for companies to comply with the new standard. As I have already mentioned, come July there will have been three and a half years for companies to prepare. I understand that there are also concerns about the number of bodies that can provide certification. Currently, six notified bodies are able to carry out the third-party tasks for checking the factory production control systems of structural steelwork fabricators. Officials in my Department are fast-tracking another notified body and will do the same for any other notified body that comes forward—provided, of course, that there is no risk of standards slipping as a result.

The hon. Gentleman said that Cruickshanks and Highland Galvanisers were worried that if they did not comply by 1 July 2014, business would effectively cease and operations would be suspended. There is nothing that any EU member state can do to change that date—that would be unfair to firms in the United Kingdom that have complied with it, and also to the other member states of the European Union single market. However, the policing of the regime from 1 July will be down to local authority trading standards bodies. If they discover that a firm has not complied by that date, or, indeed, if they have been notified already as a result of this debate that some firms anticipate not being able to comply, in the first instance we would expect trading standards to work with such firms and seek an explanation of the problems they are encountering.

At this point in the process, we can safely say that rumours that firms will be closed down are scaremongering. Perhaps this debate will give more publicity to the situation than would otherwise be the case. There is still plenty of time for conversations with trading standards to ensure that compliance problems and sanctions do not arise. Nevertheless, the important point that I want to get across is that all firms must get on with the process. There has been plenty of time for the rest of the construction products sector—the deadline passed last year, since when compliance problems have not been reported to us. We would urge structural steel manufacturers to adopt the same approach.

Regulations are part of an approach that seeks to promote trade and benefit business while ensuring that we have safe construction products. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I would be united on that, as well as on ensuring that small firms in his constituency and elsewhere in the United Kingdom do not find themselves unable to comply. There is still time for conversations with local authority trading standards officers, and with the British Constructional Steel Association itself, to find a clear way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

17:06

Sitting adjourned.