House of Commons

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 9 July 2014

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effects on the economy in Wales of fiscal measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer since May 2010.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

We have announced significant measures to boost growth and support hard-working families. We have cut corporation tax, abolished national insurance contributions for the under-21s and by next April 155,000 people in Wales will have been taken out of income tax altogether.

[Mr Hollobone]

Given that the Chancellor’s decision to cut Britain’s corporation tax rate to the lowest in the G7 is one of the major reasons for Britain’s economic recovery, will my right hon. Friend reject the advice from the shadow Secretary of State that

“reducing headline corporation tax rates does not work”?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Government analyses have shown that high corporate taxes have a negative impact on investment, jobs and growth, and that is why we are reducing the rate to 20% from next April, the joint lowest rate in the G20. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) would appear to be at odds with the shadow Chancellor, who has committed himself to low rates of corporate taxation.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that just 14,000 people have benefited from the tax cut to taxpayers on the highest rate, at an average of £40,000 each, at a time when 75,000 people in Wales are on zero-hours contracts? Does he think that is fair?

[Mr Jones]

By increasing the income tax threshold, we are taking increasing numbers out of income tax altogether. As I said in my substantive answer, by next April 155,000 people in Wales will be out of income tax. I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman welcomed that.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Actions speak louder than words. The real answer to the question was provided by the Secretary of State at the weekend, when he was the only member of the Cabinet who volunteered, as many Opposition Members have done, at a local food bank. Was that because he now agrees with us that food banks have become a vital bulwark against the impact of his Government’s fiscal policies in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

I am proud to have assisted those at the Ruthin food bank over the weekend—I spent four hours with them; they are doing essential work—but, frankly, rather than turning this issue into a political football, I would have thought that the hon. Lady would be far better off supporting the work of the Trussell Trust.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues and others on devolving fiscal responsibility to the Welsh Government.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on the Wales Bill, which devolves a significant package of tax and borrowing powers to the National Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The Bill completed its passage through this House on 24 June, and it will have its Second Reading in the Lords next Wednesday.

[Bob Blackman]

Being in the position to set tax rates and collect taxes will clearly bring a new-found fiscal responsibility, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales should take that as an encouragement to vote in a Government in Wales who will look after their best interests?

[Mr Jones]

I certainly agree with that, and I also believe that it is essential, once the competence is in place, for the Welsh Government to call an early referendum on tax-varying powers to maximise the benefit we are creating through the measures in the Bill.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that people in Wales would be buying a pig in a poke if income tax were devolved without a proper floor being put underneath the Barnett formula? The failure to address that issue has resulted in Wales being short-changed, so if income tax were devolved without the Barnett formula being addressed, it would be a bad outcome for Wales.

[Mr Jones]

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the arrangements that we put in place with the Welsh Government in October 2012, which ensure that if there is any danger of convergence, then the issue will be resolved. I believe that we should all be ambitious for Wales, and we should indeed be looking for a lower rate of income tax in Wales to give Wales the competitive advantage that it needs.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Is it the policy of the coalition parties fully to devolve income tax powers to Scotland, and if so, why does the Wales Bill still include a tax-sharing arrangement in relation to income tax powers, with the lockstep measure for safe measure? Why are the Tories treating Wales like a second-class nation?

[Mr Jones]

We have made it clear that the Scottish powers would kick in only after the next general election and they will, of course, have to be the subject of a manifesto commitment. However, Wales is not Scotland. We believe that the arrangements that we are putting in place are right for Wales. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would support them.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

On devolution, in the last hour there has been an extremely important ruling by the Supreme Court. It found in favour of the Labour Welsh Government in their attempt to preserve an Agricultural Wages Board for Wales and to protect low-paid farm workers in Wales. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise for wasting court time and money on seeking unlawfully to get rid of an Agricultural Wages Board for Wales, and will he commend the Welsh Government on their actions?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the Supreme Court delivered a judgment this morning. We are still considering the consequences of that. Where a procedure exists and there is an issue of doubt, it is entirely right that we should go to the Supreme Court to have the position clarified, and the position has been clarified.

[Owen Smith]

The Secretary of State is trying to present this as a score draw. To be clear, he has lost 2-0. This is the second time he has referred Welsh legislation to the Supreme Court and the second time he has lost. This time he was trying to stop the Welsh Government trying to protect agricultural wages in Wales. I ask him again: will he apologise for wasting time? Will he agree with me that his interference and this ruling show that we definitely need Labour’s proposal of a reserved powers model for the Assembly in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

I do not apologise for taking into account the devolution settlement and seeking clarity where it is necessary. To repeat, we are considering the ramifications of the judgment and will come back to the House in due course.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

3. If he will estimate the average change in disposable income for families in Wales since May 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Wales has had the largest increase in disposable household income of any region or nation of the United Kingdom since 2010. Many households continue to face financial pressures. That is why we continue to introduce practical measures to help people with the cost of living at this time.

[Alison McGovern]

I am not sure that the Minister shared many detailed statistics with the House in that answer. Perhaps he will say a little more. The economies of Merseyside and north Wales are inextricably linked, so what is bad for north Wales is bad for Merseyside. That is why I would like to know just how much damage the Government have done to the incomes of people in north Wales.

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and welcome her participation at Wales Office questions. As I said, the truth is that disposable household income is increasing faster in Wales than in any other region or nation in the United Kingdom. Wages and incomes are not where we want them to be—they need to be higher—but that is because this country is still recovering from the economic trauma visited on it by the Labour party. I am sorry that she has used her question to paint Wales in such a negative light.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Would the Minister care to comment on the recent dramatic fall in the disposable household income of the former Welsh Minister for Natural Resources and Food? Does he agree that, in that instance, the fall in household income was absolutely justified, given the disgraceful dirty tricks the former Minister was employing against other Members of the Welsh Assembly?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister has no responsibility for that matter. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has put his thoughts on the record with his usual assertiveness.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Has my hon. Friend seen the evidence from the Office for National Statistics that, since the election in 2010, the gap between disposable incomes in Wales and in the rest of the UK has narrowed every year? That gap widened in each of the three years before the last election during the tenure of the Labour party.

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There was a huge destruction of wealth in this nation during the last three years of the Labour Government and we are still recovering from that. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the disposable income gap is narrowing. That is because we have a long-term economic plan that is working, and that is working for Wales.

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

Some 46% of the people who work in my constituency and some 33% of the workers who live in my constituency work in the public sector. The figure for the constituency of the Secretary of State is 45%. Today, it was announced that public sector workers have lost £2,500 a year since the last election. What is the Minister doing about that?

[Stephen Crabb]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that his party’s Front Benchers are as committed as we are to the need for pay restraint across the public sector. That is one of the main ways in which we will fix the appalling record deficit that he and his party left the nation. Some 47,000 new private sector jobs have been created in Wales in the past 12 months, and he should stand up today and salute that.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers of the Welsh Government on health care provision in Wales and the English borders.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers of the Welsh Government on health care provision in Wales and the English borders.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

The Wales Office continues to engage regularly with the Department of Health and the Welsh Government to discuss health care provision in Wales and along the border. Our focus is on ensuring that everyone, regardless of where they live, has access to high-quality health services that meet their needs.

[Mel Stride]

Given that the NHS in Wales has had its budget cut by 8%, that waiting times are longer than in England and that it has missed its accident and emergency targets since 2009, does my right hon. Friend agree that the NHS is far from safe in the Opposition’s hands?

[Mr Jones]

That is manifestly clear. While spending on the NHS has increased by £12.7 billion in England, it has been subjected to a cut of 8% by the Welsh Government. As my hon. Friend says, the consequence is that the health service in Wales is not safe in Labour’s hands.

[Stephen Mosley]

A constituent of mine living in Chester but registered with a GP in Wales would have to wait up to 52 weeks for a hip operation. If that same constituent were registered with a GP in England, they would have to wait 18 weeks. Does my right hon. Friend think that is fair?

[Mr Jones]

I do not, and of course people living on either side of the border are entitled to comparable standards of care. I am concerned that long waiting times in Wales are affecting not only Welsh patients but, as my hon. Friend said, those in England.

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

You really would not think the Secretary of State was the son of a north Walian chemist from listening to his answers.

Regardless of which side of the border people live on, obesity is a ticking time bomb in this country. Why do the UK Government not have cross-border talks with the Welsh Government to do something on the issue, rather than constantly talking Wales down? When will they deal with the serious issues?

[Mr Jones]

I am glad to say that when my father was practising, we did not have the type of devolved health care that we are experiencing in Wales at the moment.

The hon. Lady is entirely right—it is necessary that discussions should take place, and they are taking place. I urge her to urge her friends in the Assembly to engage positively with the United Kingdom Government.

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

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a clear relationship between levels of poverty and demand for health care? With 75,000 people in Wales now on zero-hours contracts and a higher number of people in poverty being in work than out of work, is it not time that he got a fair share for Wales by getting the £300 million by which we are under-supported by the Barnett formula and the capital investment needed to deliver the proper health service that we all need and demand in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

If the Labour party recognises the links between poverty and poor health, it is surprising that the Welsh Labour Government have cut health spending by 8%.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

At the moment, patients from Radnorshire and east Breconshire have to travel to Cheltenham for radiotherapy, which is a long and stressful journey at a time when they are particularly unwell. A radiotherapy facility called the Macmillan Renton unit will soon open at Hereford hospital, and it will be an excellent facility for Herefordshire and Powys. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is an example of cross-border health care at its best?

[Mr Jones]

It is indeed, and it also illustrates the extent to which border communities such as those that my hon. Friend represents rely on health care provided in England—all the more reason for proper protocols to be put in place to ensure that that health care is adequate.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

5. What the time scale is for the construction of a new nuclear power station at Wylfa.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

Subject to final investment decisions, construction is expected to begin in late 2019. However, initial ground works have already begun and indications are that Wylfa Newydd remains on course to begin operating in the mid-2020s.

[David Mowat]

The Secretary of State may be aware that Wylfa will generate 10 times as much carbon-free electricity as is currently generated by every offshore and onshore wind farm in Wales. Does he agree that it is vital that we make progress on that project?

[Mr Jones]

I agree entirely, and that is why the generic design assessment for Wylfa Newydd is proceeding apace. We need an energy mix, and we need to ensure that fewer carbon emissions are produced. A mixture of nuclear and wind power will achieve that.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

As someone who has supported new nuclear build in Wales since my arrival in the House in 2001, and this project since its inception in 2008-09, will the Secretary of State join me in stating that the priority now must be to get the skill base and supply chain right, so that we have the jobs and high-quality skills that we deserve in north-west Wales? That means the UK Government working with the Welsh Government, local governments and stakeholders. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to meet me to form a framework for that to happen?

[Mr Jones]

I am happy to commend the efforts the hon. Gentleman has made, and I entirely agree that the new build at Wylfa offers exciting prospects for the supply chain and for education. I am particularly impressed with the work that Coleg Menai is putting in, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman at some future date.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

There is universal opposition across north Wales to building more pylons to carry the electricity, whether from Wylfa Newydd or wind production—that extends to the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and others. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that proper and full consideration will be given to under-sea methods of transmission of electricity from any new sources?

[Mr Jones]

Of course, the difficulty with nuclear generation is that it requires the infrastructure to get it to the markets. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some concern has been expressed about this issue, and where possible underground cabling has distinct advantages. No final decisions have been made, and National Grid is carrying out further environmental and technical assessments.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the progress of the broadband roll-out programme and the effects of that programme on the tourism industry in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

The Superfast Cymru programme, which is jointly funded by the UK and Welsh Governments, is on track to deliver superfast speeds to 96% of premises by spring 2016, and more than 135,000 premises in Wales have already been connected. The Wales Office continues to be in close contact with BT, Ofcom and Broadband Delivery UK as the roll-out continues.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the Minister for his response. Some £120 million of public money has been put into the roll-out of broadband in Wales, yet my constituency of Aberconwy has had no roll-out as yet. That is having a huge effect on businesses, not least in the tourism sector. Does the Minister agree that we need more accountability in the way that the spending of public money happens in the Welsh Government?

[Stephen Crabb]

As I said, we are in close discussions with the Welsh Government, Ofcom, and Broadband Delivery UK about how public money is being spent on the roll-out in Wales. We are aware of concerns that my hon. Friend and colleagues have raised in recent months, and we communicate those to the Welsh Government and take them very seriously.

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

Further to that question, the roll-out in Wales is excruciatingly slow, and that is when connections are available. Is the Minister aware of the latest Ofcom data that show that 10 out of 22 local authority areas are category 5—the worst for broadband? What is he doing to work constructively with the Welsh Government to sort that out?

[Stephen Crabb]

The right hon. Gentleman is right, and we face a significant infrastructure challenge in Wales for our digital connectivity. That is why we are putting in money from the UK Government, partnered with Welsh Government money, for the roll-out of the Superfast Cymru programme. If he has more specific concerns about the roll-out in his constituency, I would be grateful if he raised them with me so that I can take them up with the Welsh Government directly.

[Mr Llwyd]

The Minister is a mind-reader. Last week, Dr Carole Jones of Aberangell rang me because she was completely unhappy about the situation. When she spoke to BT, she was informed that there is no likelihood of high-speed internet reaching Aberangell in my constituency—her area—because it will be too costly. What is the point of pumping in public money from this Government and the Welsh Government if they cannot commit to providing proper broadband services throughout Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the main superfast programme deals with 96% of residences in Wales. We are putting in additional money to look at how we connect the last few per cent. of properties that are difficult to reach, and a Welsh pilot project will be taken forward as part of that £10 million scheme. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but we cannot underestimate some of the geographical and topographical challenges that Wales faces in rolling out superfast broadband.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

7. What steps the Government is taking to improve infrastructure connectivity between north Wales and England.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

As part of our long-term economic plan, we are currently investing in infrastructure at unprecedented levels. Last week, we announced £10 million of investment to upgrade the Halton curve, renewing north Wales’s direct link with Liverpool and improving connectivity across the north-west of England.

[Ian Lucas]

On Friday, I will visit Rossett to see the investment of £44 million by the Welsh Government in the dualling of the Wrexham-Chester line, which was made a single line by the Tories in the 1980s. I welcome the investment announced by the Chancellor last week, but will the Secretary of State tell us when that will happen and when the Halton curve work will be done?

[Mr Jones]

It is clearly intended to proceed as quickly as possible. Connectivity between Wrexham and Merseyside is extremely important. I welcome, of course, the belated investment by the Welsh Government, but there is more to be done, and I think the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed on the need to look at electrification further north.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

The funding of the northern hub in full and the many other transport announcements are incredibly welcome, and show an investment in the north’s transport infrastructure that was barely evident under the previous Government. Having taken four hours to get from Wrexham to Leeds, however, I would like the Secretary of State to make sure that north Wales will enjoy the benefits of that record investment.

[Mr Jones]

The Halton curve is, of course, important in that it connects north Wales with the city of Liverpool, which is the most important economic centre in the region. My hon. Friend is also right that we need to make sure that connectivity is improved across the whole of the north of England.

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

8. What recent assessment he has made of trends in levels of employment in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Our long-term economic plan is working—and it is working in Wales. We are rebalancing the economy to give the private sector confidence to invest and create jobs. In the last year alone, we have seen more than 47,000 new private sector jobs created in Wales.

[Andrew Selous]

Will the Minister update us on what has happened to youth unemployment in Wales under this Government, given that it rose by 75% under the last Government?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; he knows a lot about this issue. There was an appalling increase of more than 75% in youth unemployment on the watch of the last Labour Government. I am pleased to say that in the past four years, we have seen youth unemployment fall by 31% in Wales. We are bringing down unemployment among young people.

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

13. Will the Minister not just accept the success of Jobs Growth Wales—a scheme that actually works? Why will he not implement a similar scheme in England rather than carry on with the failed policies he is currently putting forward?

[Stephen Crabb]

Jobs Growth Wales makes a contribution, and I am not going to knock anything that helps young people in our constituencies to get on the employment ladder. I am concerned, however, that the Welsh Government are still refusing to allow people on the Work programme to access the additional help of Jobs Growth Wales. We need to see the Welsh Government make more progress on tackling that.

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

14. Agriculture is a significant employment sector in Wales, and many people, including the Farmers Union of Wales, wanted the Agricultural Wages Board to be protected. Will the Minister say why he has twice challenged it in the High Court and in the Supreme Court, and how much that has cost the public and the taxpayer?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the devolution settlement is a complicated one, and that it was entirely right for the UK Government to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on this issue. We welcome the fact that the Supreme Court has given its ruling and provided the clarification we needed.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

9. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the potential privatisation of Ministry of Justice shared services and the effect on that body’s offices in Newport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

The Wales Office remains in close contact with the Ministry of Justice on the future of its shared service centres. Central to our discussions is how we secure the future for the work force at Newport.

[Paul Flynn]

The Government reward the failure of the privatiser Steria, which lost £56 million of public money, in order to punish the success of the workers who have saved £120 million of public money. Will the Minister tell us who will decide whether those jobs will be offshored? Will it be the Ministry of Justice or the Cabinet Office?

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has made it absolutely clear that he does not support the offshoring of those jobs at Newport. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that we will take no lessons from him or his party about the interaction of Government with the private sector. We are introducing far more discipline and rigour into our contracts with the private sector providers.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the aerospace industry to the economy in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

The aerospace sector is vital to the economy of Wales, providing more than 23,000 jobs in 130 companies. The aerospace sector strategy sets out how we will work with industry to maximise the opportunities for growth.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the NATO summit which will take place in Newport in September provides an ideal opportunity for Wales and the United Kingdom to showcase before a global audience our aerospace and defence industries, which are a vital part of our economy?

[Stephen Crabb]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the Prime Minister’s key purposes in deciding to bring the NATO summit to Wales was to showcase all that is good about our nation of Wales. It is absolutely true that the defence and aerospace sectors are some of the jewels in the crown of the Welsh economy, and the NATO summit provides an excellent opportunity for us to showcase them.

The Prime Minister was asked—

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 July.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to all who have been involved in the start of the Tour de France in Britain, from the event organisers to all the great cyclists I think that the event has showcased the best of Yorkshire and the whole of what Britain has to offer. I was delighted to see such incredible support throughout the race.

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

[Mr Campbell]

I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the news that he has just relayed.

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is threatening legal action against a family-owned bakery because it would not print a political message on a cake. The requested message was completely at variance with the company’s Christian values. Does the Prime Minister agree that so-called equality is now being viewed by many as an oppressive threat to religious freedom, and that such freedoms should be protected by the introduction of a conscience clause?

[The Prime Minister]

I was not aware of the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I will of course go away and have a look at it. However, I think that a commitment to equality—whether we are talking about racial equality, equality between those of different sexes, equality in terms of people who have disabilities, or, indeed, tolerance of and equality for people with different sexualities—is a very important part of being British.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister welcome—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want the question to be heard. I want all questions to be heard.

[Mrs Spelman]

Will the Prime Minister welcome the President, MPs and choir of the German Parliament, who have come to sing in a joint concert with our parliamentary choir in Westminster Hall tonight to commemorate the centenary of the first world war and the tercentenary of the Hanoverian monarchy?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the German choir. I suspect that, after last night’s result, they will be in rather good voice.

On a serious note, let me say that we properly commemorate the outbreak of the first world war, the key battles of the first world war and, of course, Armistice day as we approach these vital 100th anniversaries. I am absolutely determined that, in Britain, we will mark them in appropriate ways. There will be a service in Glasgow, followed by a number of different events. I think it very important that we learn the lessons of that conflict, and commemorate those who fell.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the way in which the organisers, the cyclists and the millions of fans made the Tour de France such a brilliant success for Britain. I was proud to be watching it on the streets, as I know he was. I was in Leeds with the hundreds of thousands of people who were lining the streets.

All of us have been horrified by the instances of child abuse that have been uncovered, and the further allegations that have been made. All the victims of child abuse are not just owed justice, but owed an apology for the fact that it took so long for their cries to be heard. Does the Prime Minister agree that all inquiries, including those conducted by the police and those that he has set up, must go wherever the evidence leads them—in whatever institution in the country, including our own—to get at what happened?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Child abuse is a despicable crime, and the victims live with the horror for the rest of their lives. It is absolutely essential that—in the two inquiries announced by the Home Secretary, and, indeed, in the vital police inquiries that are being carried out—no stone is left unturned.

The horror of the Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris cases just shows what people were able to get away with. It was almost that on occasion they were committing crimes in plain sight, and it took far too long to get to the bottom of what happened and for justice to be done, and that is absolutely what this Government are committed to achieving.

[Edward Miliband]

On the issue of the 114 missing files at the Home Office, can the Prime Minister clarify when Ministers were first informed about this and what action they took? Does he agree that the review by Peter Wanless cannot be simply a review into the original review, but must seek to discover what happened to the files, who knew what about the files, and whether information was covered up, and that the Wanless review must also have full investigative powers?

[The Prime Minister]

It was a parliamentary question last October that revealed the points about the 2013 inquiry, but what I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is absolutely vital that Peter Wanless, who has an excellent record in this regard and will carry out the review in absolutely the right way, has all the powers he needs. Let us be absolutely clear: if he wants more powers, and if that inquiry wants greater powers and ability, they can absolutely ask for it. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the inquiry must go exactly where the evidence leads. We are determined to get to the bottom of what happened.

[Edward Miliband]

I agree that the most important thing is to clarify what actually happened to the files and why they went missing. I welcome the overarching inquiry that has also been set up by the Home Secretary. Can the Prime Minister say more about the terms of reference of that inquiry? Will he consider the very sensible recommendations made today by Peter Wanless around making the covering up of abuse a criminal offence and ensuring that there is an obligation on institutions to report abuse where it occurs?

[The Prime Minister]

Taking the right hon. Gentleman’s second point first: should we change the law so that there is a requirement to report and make it a criminal offence not to report? The Government are currently looking at that, and both reviews will be able to examine that point and advise us accordingly. I think it may well be time to take that sort of first step forward.

On the issue of the terms of reference of the wider lessons learned review, we are discussing those at the moment; we are very happy to take suggestions from other parties in this House. A number of inquiries are being carried out into specific hospitals, including the Savile inquiries; there is the inquiry taking place within the BBC; and there other inquiries, including into Welsh children’s homes. The main aim and what is vital, as I have said before, is that the Government learn all the lessons of this review. Where the Elizabeth Butler-Sloss review can really help is by having a panel of experts who can advise us about all the things that need to change in all these institutions—for instance the Church; for instance the BBC; for instance the NHS; but also, if necessary, in this place and in Government, too.

[Edward Miliband]

I welcome what the Prime Minister said and clearly cultural change in this is absolutely crucial in all institutions.

I want to turn to another matter: the health service. Last week the Prime Minister said that waiting times in accident and emergency had gone down, but within 24 hours the House of Commons Library had called him out. Average A and E waiting times have gone up. Will he now correct the record?

[The Prime Minister]

What I said last week at Prime Minister’s questions is absolutely right, and if the right hon. Gentleman goes on the website of the organisation I quoted from he will see that. Also, if you remember, Mr Speaker, at the end of Prime Minister’s questions there were some points of order and I said very specifically that

“the numbers waiting longer than 18, 26 and 52 weeks to start treatment are lower than they were at any time under the last Government.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2014; Vol. 583, c. 893.]

That was directly contradicted by the shadow Health Secretary, and I just want to give the figures to the House now so people can see that I got my facts right.

So, in April 2010 there were 217,000 people waiting over 18 weeks; it is now 186,000—lower. In March 2010 there were 92,000 people waiting 26 weeks for treatment; it is now 59,000—lower. And in terms of waiting 52 weeks —52 weeks!—for treatment, in April 2010 there were 21,000 people waiting that long; the figure now is 510—lower.

[Edward Miliband]

It is very obvious that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about what he said on accident and emergency, where the House of Commons called him out. [Interruption.] Let us go to the common-sense definition of what a waiting time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As always, it does not matter how long it takes; the question will be heard, so the braying and the yelling and the calculated heckling might as well cease, as we are just going to keep going for as long as is necessary.

[Edward Miliband]

Let us go to the common-sense definition of a waiting time in A and E. It is not how long someone waits to be assessed; it is the time between arriving at the A and E and leaving it. The number of people waiting more than four hours is at its highest level in a decade. Why does the Prime Minister not just admit the truth, which everybody in the country knows? People are waiting longer in A and E.

[The Prime Minister]

The figures I gave last week are absolutely correct, and they are published by the Health & Social Care Information Centre: the average waiting time was 77 minutes when the shadow Health Secretary was Health Secretary and it is now 30 minutes. The fact is that we can trade statistics across the Floor of the House, but I am absolutely clear that the health service is getting better. There is a reason why it is getting better: we took two big strategic decisions. We said let us put more money into the NHS—the Opposition said that was irresponsible; and we said cut the bureaucracy in the NHS, which they wanted to keep. That is why there are 7,000 more doctors and 4,000 more nurses, and why the Leader of the Opposition has made a massive mistake by keeping a failing Health Secretary as the shadow health spokesman.

[Edward Miliband]

I would far rather have the shadow Health Secretary than the Government’s Health Secretary any day of the week. I will tell the Prime Minister what has happened in the health service. We had a top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for, and it has diverted billions of pounds away from patient care. The contrast we see is between the complacent claims of the Prime Minister and people’s everyday experience. People are spending longer in A and E, and hospital A and Es have missed their four-hour target for the last 50 weeks in a row. While he tries to pretend things are getting better, patients, NHS staff and the public can see it getting worse right before their eyes.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman still has to defend the man who presided over the Mid Staffs disgrace, where standards of patient care were so bad that patients were drinking out of dirty vases because of standards in Labour’s NHS. The point is this: the reason we have been able to cut bureaucracy and the reason we have been able to put more money into the NHS is that we have taken difficult decisions, including having a 1% pay cap in the NHS. Of course, Labour said it would support that, but this week it has decided that it will back strikes instead. I have here the Labour briefing on strikes, which says, “Do we support strikes? No. Will we condemn strikes? No.” There we have it: that is his leadership summed up in one go. Have the Opposition got a plan for the NHS? No. Have they got a plan for our economy? No. Is he remotely up to the job? No.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that British Airways is to cease the link between Aberdeen and London City in favour of increased services to the already well served airports of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dublin? Will he support the campaign to maintain the link, which is vital to the vibrant business economy of the north of Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to look into that issue with the right hon. Gentleman. It is an absolutely vital service, particularly given how strongly the economy in north-east Scotland is performing, with North sea oil and gas.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Q2. Tomorrow, I will be in Carmarthen with striking teachers, nurses and firefighters—the backbone of local communities. Are the Prime Minister’s reported plans to ban public sector workers from withdrawing their labour not just a cynical attempt to silence opposition to his policies?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very clear that I do not think these strikes are right, I condemn them and I think that people should turn up for work. It is a pity we do not have so much clarity on that issue from the Labour party or, indeed, from the hon. Gentleman’s party. Let me give one example. The National Union of Teachers is proposing a strike based on a ballot it had almost two years ago, on a very small turnout of its members. Really, is it right to continue with this situation when the education of so many children is going to be so badly disrupted?

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

Speaking from the Opposition Back Benches on 9 December 2002, the Prime Minister said:

“I find the European arrest warrant highly objectionable”—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 107.]

and my right hon. Friend voted accordingly. I still think the European arrest warrant is highly objectionable. Does the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

We have made a series of changes to the European arrest warrant so that we do not have the problem of people being arrested, for instance, for things that are not a crime in this country. But the question we all have to ask ourselves is, having achieved this vast opt-out from Justice and Home Affairs, which is the biggest return of power from Brussels to Britain, what are those few things that we go back into in order to fight crime and terrorism? On this I think the judgment of the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary has been absolutely right.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Q3. The head of the civil service says that the business case for universal credit has not been signed off. The Department for Work and Pensions says it has. Who is telling the truth?

[The Prime Minister]

The budget for universal credit has been signed off in each and every year by the Treasury and I believe it will continue to do so. The good news on universal credit is that next year we will have one in eight jobcentres rolling out universal credit. I thought we would find that the Opposition were in favour of a system that makes work pay, but we can see today that they have gone back into the hole of being against every single welfare change and everything that is getting this country moving.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

The Safer Internet Centre estimates that up to 30 websites host UK online revenge pornography images, another form of sexual abuse. Does the Prime Minister agree that posting such material must be recognised for what it is—a criminal sexual offence against its victims?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is right. This is an appalling offence and a dreadful thing for someone to do, and it clearly has criminal intent. I am very glad that she is championing this cause, and I hope that having looked in detail at the amendments she is suggesting, we can take up this cause. Part of what she achieved in government—the very good work that she did in office—is making sure that we do far more to deal with porn and internet porn.

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

Q4. If the business case for the right hon. Gentleman’s universal credit proposals is robust, why is the head of the home civil service saying that he has not signed it off?

[The Prime Minister]

What has happened is that universal credit has been signed off in each and every year by the Treasury. I make no apology for the fact that we are rolling it out slowly. We have learned the lesson of the previous Government, in which the right hon. Gentleman played a prominent part, where tax credits were introduced in one go and were a complete shambles.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Q5. North West Air Ambulance has three helicopters and has flown thousands of missions since 1999, one of which saved the life of a friend of mine after an horrific car crash on the M6. The service costs £4.2 million a year to run. There are 27 such air services throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and one of them may soon become a royal air ambulance service. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to those who man the helicopters, saving lives throughout the country, and heap praise on the thousands of people who raise funds every week on wet street corners throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that the helicopters carry on flying and saving lives?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Our air ambulances provide an invaluable service and we should all pay tribute to the men and women who staff and support them, who often have to undertake very difficult landings and take-offs in order to rescue and get people to hospitals. It is right that up and down the country people are giving charitably in order to fund these vital services.

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

I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that dealing with terrorism and violence, and a commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means were fundamental in moving Northern Ireland forward and in taking us from where we were to where we are today. Does he agree that in the Northern Ireland of 2014 republican threats of violence for political gain must not only be deplored, but everyone in government, in governmental bodies in Northern Ireland and in the community must stand up against such threats and commit themselves to fundamental freedoms, upholding democracy and the rule of law?

[The Prime Minister]

All threats of violence in Northern Ireland are unacceptable and should be condemned on all sides. I am very clear about that. What I hope we can achieve in the coming weeks—it will take compromise and brave decisions on all sides—is to get the Haass talks process ongoing again, with commitments from the right hon. Gentleman’s party, as well as from the Ulster Unionist party and from Sinn Fein and the SDLP, to sit down and discuss these things so that we can make some progress. My fear is that if we do not make progress on these issues, we leave space open for extremists on all sides of the debate to start pushing their ideas, which would be deeply unhelpful for the future of Northern Ireland.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Q6. The long-term economic plan is working in my High Peak constituency. Unemployment is down a third in the past year. Summer approaches, and, as tourism supports so many jobs in the local economy, I am walking the boundary of my constituency to promote the area. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider joining me in August for part of the walk. As well as promoting High Peak, I will be raising money for High Peak Women’s Aid, which is a fantastic charity based in Glossop that operates across the whole of the High Peak.

[The Prime Minister]

I wish my hon. Friend well. He makes an enticing invitation. I am a big fan of the Peak district and what it has to offer and its very beautiful countryside. It is notable that in his constituency, the claimant count has fallen by 42% since the election, and the youth claimant count has come down by 39% in the past year. What we are seeing is an economic revival, and we need to stick to our plans to get the deficit down, help people with tax cuts, make it easier for firms to employ people, produce the schools and skills that we need and reform our welfare and immigration system. That is the plan that we will stick to, and it is the plan that is delivering for High Peak.

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

On GP appointments, a 62-year-old man in Eccles, who is a carer for his wife who has Alzheimer’s, sought an urgent GP appointment for her. He was told that it would be five weeks to see her GP, two weeks to see any GP, or he could take her to Salford Royal A and E. If that is the way that the NHS treats a carer of a person with dementia, does the Prime Minister not agree that it is time to support Labour’s plan to give such patients a right to a GP appointment within 48 hours?

[The Prime Minister]

There are 1,000 more GPs today than there were when I became Prime Minister. What we are doing is reintroducing the named GP for frail elderly people, which Labour got rid of. That is one reason, combined with the disastrous GP contract that Labour introduced, why there is so much pressure on our accident and emergency system. We need to learn from the mistakes that Labour made rather than repeat them.

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

Q7. Is the Prime Minister aware that 16 to 18-year-olds in Northumberland who may live 50 miles from a further education college or 20 miles from a high school are facing charges ranging from £600 a year to several thousand pounds a year to get an education, because the Labour-controlled council has reversed the support given by the previous Liberal Democrat administration? Will he deplore that decision and see what central Government can do to promote fair access to education?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, responsibility for transport for education and training rests with local authorities. Clearly, this local authority, now controlled by Labour, has made this decision. Of course we have introduced the £180 million bursary fund to support the most disadvantaged young people and perhaps that is something that his council and these families could make the most of. I certainly join him in agreeing that this is another example of the fact that Labour costs us more.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Q8. It is estimated that each day 179 British girls are at risk of being subjected to female genital mutilation, joining a total of 170,000 in the United Kingdom who have been cut. Next week, the Prime Minister hosts a summit on this issue. Does he agree that FGM is not cultural; it is criminal. It is not tribal; it is torture. Will he please read the report of the Select Committee, which is published next Thursday, and implement it in full so that we can eradicate this horrendous abuse from our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on the work that the Home Affairs Committee has done on that issue. He is absolutely right that this is a brutal and appalling practice that should have no place in the world, and certainly no place here in Britain and it is appalling that people living in our country are being subjected to it. I will study the report closely. The whole aim of the conference, which I am keen on us holding, is to ensure that the two practices of early forced marriage and female genital mutilation are wiped out from our planet.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Q9. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be totally unacceptable to have a statutory limitation on overseas aid without having a similar statutory provision covering defence expenditure to guarantee our NATO commitments?

[The Prime Minister]

We are in the happy position in this country of meeting the 2% spending on defence that NATO members are meant to undertake. When we hold the NATO conference in Wales in September we should be encouraging other countries to do the same and, indeed, to meet some of the new targets for spending on new equipment that can be used in NATO operations, which we certainly meet in this country. As well as doing that, we can also be proud of the fact that we are meeting the promise that we made of spending 0.7% on overseas aid, which is saving lives all over the world. I would not divorce that from our defence spending, because the money that we spend in places such as Somalia, Mali, Nigeria or, indeed, Pakistan is about reducing the pressures of asylum, immigration and terrorism, making our world safer. That is what our defence budget should be about, and I would argue that it is what our aid budget is about, as well.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that with conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, patients can be out of work for years if they do not get the right treatment? The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence should therefore look at the wider benefits rather than just the initial cost of that treatment.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Lady. My understanding is that NICE does carry out that work, but I will look very closely at the particular condition that she raises and perhaps write to her about NICE’s approach to it.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Q10. Businesses across Lincolnshire report growing confidence and lengthy order books, highly skilled workers benefiting from the tax cuts that the Government have introduced and hard-working apprentices enjoying the sorts of opportunities that they could not have had just a few years ago. Does the Prime Minister share my assessment that the shadow Chancellor’s plans for borrowing yet more money while heaping tax on British businesses and making it more expensive for employers to hire young people are no more and no less than a long-term economic scam?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We have to stick to the plan, which involves training young people. We are on track to hit 2 million apprentices trained under this Government, but the very worst thing to do would be to start spending, borrowing and taxing more, which are exactly the proposals made by the Opposition.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Q11. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why it is that the only people who feel that there are no problems in the national health service are members of the Conservative party?

[The Prime Minister]

Every single health system right across the developed world is facing huge challenges and pressures. The pressures of an ageing population, the pressures of new drugs and treatments coming on stream and the pressures of children surviving with conditions that will need to be treated throughout their lives. The question is how we respond to those pressures. Our response has been to fund the health service and protect it from cuts, and to reform the health service, getting rid of £5 billion of bureaucracy so that there are more doctors and more nurses. The figures speak for themselves, because we can see more people being treated. One million more people are being treated every year in accident and emergency, and 40 million more people are getting GP appointments, but that is only because we have taken the difficult decisions that, frankly, Labour has not taken in Wales. That is why in Wales we see longer waiting lists and real problems with the NHS.

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

Should taxpayer money be used to gather information on MPs that is then retained by a Chief Whip or shredded?

[The Prime Minister]

If my hon. Friend is referring to the situation that took place in the Welsh Assembly, which I was reading about overnight, it seems to be a very worrying development. If he is referring to something else, he might have to be a bit less delphic about it and write to me, and I will get back to him.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q12. Will the Prime Minister look into the case of a young mum in my constituency who has a significant spinal injury that has left her unable to walk? Her GP has referred her for an urgent appointment with a neurosurgeon, so could the Prime Minister explain to her, and the whole country, why “urgent” on his watch means a four-week wait lying in pain?

[The Prime Minister]

I will absolutely look at the case that the hon. Gentleman raises. I am always happy to look at individual cases, but the figures I quoted earlier were to demonstrate that the numbers of people waiting 18 weeks, 26 weeks or, indeed, 52 weeks, are not just lower now than when the Government came to office but are lower now than at any time under the last Labour Government. I am very happy to look at the individual case he mentions.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that since 2012, when he promised to increase patient access to innovative radiotherapy, particularly for cancer patients, the number of cancers treated by radiotherapy in some hospitals has actually decreased by 70% and state-of-the-art machines are lying idle because NHS England will not allow doctors to use them? Will he meet me and other cancer cure campaigners, such as Lawrence Dallaglio, to discuss this scandal before more patients are refused treatment?

[The Prime Minister]

I read the report that Lawrence Dallaglio referred to over the weekend and am very happy to meet the hon. Lady, and indeed him, to discuss this. We have introduced the cancer drugs fund, which is not only for drugs, but for innovative treatment. I know that there have also been changes in the way radiotherapy is carried out and in the way the new technology is being used, which might be part of the explanation for the figures she gives, but I am very happy to discuss them in more detail.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Q13. Jobs Growth Wales has been hugely successful in tackling youth unemployment, outperforming similar schemes across the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister therefore join me in congratulating Welsh businesses and enterprises, the Welsh Government, and indeed the young people of Wales, who have made it a success? In doing so, he can end his agenda of attacking Wales at every opportunity. Who knows? He might even get a welcome in the hillside.

[The Prime Minister]

I want to do everything I can to support economic recovery in Wales. That is why, for instance, I think that in September, when the NATO conference comes to Wales—entirely an initiative launched by me—there will be a very strong welcome in the valleys. That will be the first time a serving American President has ever been to Wales, so I am looking forward to it. We are doing everything we can to help businesses in Wales to employ more people and grow the economy.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Q14. If he will meet the chair of the Greater Birmingham and Solihull local enterprise partnership to discuss economic development in Birmingham and Lichfield district; and if he will make a statement.

[The Prime Minister]

I met the chair of the LEP board on Monday when I hosted a meeting in Birmingham to mark the agreement of the growth deal that will see over £350 million invested in Greater Birmingham and Solihull. The projects in the deal will help to create up to 19,000 jobs, allow up to 6,000 homes to be built and generate up to £110 million from local partners and private investment.

[Michael Fabricant]

With unemployment at just 1.5% in Lichfield and Burntwood, and down by over 28,000 across the whole LEP region, does that not demonstrate that the LEP model, bolstered by the growth funds awarded on Monday, is working? How does my right hon. Friend plan to build on that success and encourage the most ambitious LEPs, including Greater Birmingham and Solihull, to promote the local economy still further?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said at the meeting with the LEP, I think that the growth deal is a very big step forward for Birmingham and the west midlands. It will result in more jobs, more investment and more houses. It will see new railway stations and transport links built. I think that we need to be more ambitious about the money we can find in central Government to support these schemes, but I also hope that local councils, including Birmingham city council, will look at every piece of unused brownfield land and every extra bit of development they can put on the table so that these growth deals get ever more ambitious.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

As bribes go, is offering that huge region less than £10 per head just 37 days before the general election not too little, too late?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that we can probably tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and the hon. Gentleman on this issue, as on so many others. This is an excellent deal for Birmingham and the west midlands. If he does not think so, he might want to explain why Sir Albert Bore, the Labour leader of Birmingham city council, said:

“This is good news for Birmingham. A number of major projects will now be accelerated. Transport routes across the city will be much improved… And other money will go into site development that will provide much needed jobs in the city.”

I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to spend a little more time with Sir Albert Bore.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Q15. Tomorrow Britain faces damage and disruption from strikes, none of which has been backed by a majority of union members. Since the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) became the leader of the Labour party, it has taken £13 million from Unite alone, so he will not stand up to the union barons. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that we are on the side of the public, who by 3:1 back a voting threshold for strikes to stop this licensed sabotage?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Frankly, I think the time has come to look at setting thresholds in strike ballots. I mentioned the NUT strike earlier. A ballot is taking place—[Interruption.] Look, I know Labour Members are paid for by the unions, but they might want to listen to this, because it is going to disrupt our children’s education. The strike ballot took place in 2012. It is based on a 27% turnout. How can it possibly be right for our children’s education to be disrupted by trade unions acting in this way? It is time to legislate, and that will be in the Conservative manifesto.

Development Proposals in Barton (Salford)

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of residents of Irlam, Cardishead and Barton wards in my constituency who are concerned about proposals to build on an area of Barton that is in the green belt.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Irlam, Cardishead and Barton,

Declares that the Petitioners strongly oppose the proposals of Peel Holdings to build up to 1,400 houses as well as warehouses in the green belt area at Barton (Irlam ward), which is bound by the M62 (North), A57 (South), Manchester City Airport (East) and Irlam (West); and further that the Petitioners believe that Boysnope Golf Course (an excellent leisure facility for the local community) should not be shut down.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all in its power to prevent this development proposal from taking place.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001351]

Dual carriageway for the A303

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present a petition on behalf of more than 2,000 petitioners calling for urgent upgrades to be made to the A303 at Stonehenge. Members of the Stonehenge traffic action group in my constituency started the petition in response to the long-standing and infamous problems on the A303, which have worsened following the recent closure of the A344.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that urgent action is needed to make the A303 road west of Stonehenge a dual carriageway following dramatically increased traffic levels caused by the closure of the A344; further that the Petitioners believe a bypass road should be created to relieve the village of Winterbourne Stoke and other blighted communities; further that increased traffic has been diverted on to local roads to the detriment of those resident in the surrounding villages; and further that the Petitioners believe that the Government’s feasibility study into improving the A303 must take the impact of disruption on their lives caused by increased traffic into consideration.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to improve the A303 west of Stonehenge by constructing a dual carriageway at the earliest possible opportunity.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001367]

Universal Credit

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

12:36

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Employment Minister if she will make a statement on whether the Department for Work and Pensions’ business case for the implementation of universal credit has been approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

In answering, let me lay out a couple of quick facts about where we are and then deal with the hon. Gentleman’s direct question.

Universal credit is a major reform that will transform the welfare state in Britain for the better, making 3 million people better off and bringing £35 billion of economic benefits to society. Rightly for a programme of this scale, the Government’s priority has been, and continues to be, its safe and secure delivery. This is demonstrated through our approach to date, which started with the successful launch of the pathfinder in April 2013 and has continued with the controlled expansion of universal credit.

On 5 December last year, I announced that universal credit would be rolled out to the north-west and expanded to couples from the summer of 2014, and would then expand to families later that year. That is exactly what is happening. A fortnight ago, we began our north-west expansion. Universal credit is now in 24 jobcentres and will reach 90 across the country by the end of the year. A week ago, we started taking claims from couples. This careful roll-out is allowing us, as we said we would, to learn as we go along, continuously improving the process—unlike so many of the programmes the previous Government instigated which crashed and burned.

In answer to the question, my Department has always worked, and will continue to work, closely with the Treasury on these roll-out plans. As we have made clear in a number of recent debates and answers to parliamentary questions, the Treasury has approved funding for the universal credit programme in 2013-14 and 2014-15, in line with the plan that I announced in December last year. These approvals are given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—such matters are delegated to him by the Chancellor—and are subject to rigorous controls, in line with the recommendations made last year by the National Audit Office.

It has always been the plan, as I set out last year, to secure agreement for universal credit in carefully controlled stages: first for singles, where we have agreed funding with the Treasury and are already rolling out in line with that agreement; then for couples, where we have agreed funding with the Treasury and are already rolling out in line with that agreement; and then for families, where we have recently secured agreement from the Treasury and will begin roll-out later this year. All this was confirmed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in an answer to a parliamentary question yesterday. That set of agreements confirms the approval of the strategic outline business case plans for this Parliament.

The final stage in this process, for which the logical point is now, has always been to approve and sign off the full business case covering the full, long lifetime of this programme, beyond this Parliament. We are in discussions over that, and it will eventually bring £35 billion of economic benefits to society. My right hon. Friend and I will, I am certain, approve that very soon.

[Chris Bryant]

That was a spectacular instance, as Sir Bob Kerslake might put it, of “beating about the bush”. It is a very simple question, to which the answer can only be yes or no: has the Department for Work and Pensions business case for the implementation of universal credit been approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is depressing that this Tory Minister and the Tory Prime Minister cannot tell the difference between an annual budget and a business case. It is pretty straightforward.

On 30 June, the employment Minister—who is disgracefully not answering for herself today—answered that question by saying:

“The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has approved the UC Strategic Outline Business Case plans for the remainder of this Parliament (2014-15) as per the ministerial announcement”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 434W.]

She was referring to the ministerial statement of 5 December, which explicitly runs up to 2017. On Monday, however, she had the carpet pulled from under her feet, as Sir Bob Kerslake answered exactly the same question with gratifying honesty, saying that

“it has not been signed off.”

It got worse yesterday when the Financial Secretary, answering the same question, said that all the Treasury has done is approve funding for the programme for another eight months, while a DWP spokesperson said that the Treasury has

“approved all funding to date”,

as if that was some grand vindication.

The same simple question has now been answered in eight contradictory ways. Not everybody can be telling the truth. There has been so much beating about the bush that it feels as if this House has been misled by a Government engaged in a deliberate act of deception. [Interruption.] The truth is that the Department is relying month by month on handouts from the national food bank. How ironic!

On 5 December 2013, the Secretary of State told the House that universal credit would bring

“a £38 billion economic benefit to society”.—[Official Report, 5 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 65WS.]

I notice that he has just amended that figure to £35 billion. That figure is part of the business case. Has it been signed off by the Treasury, or is he just making things up?

The Secretary of State has told this House on 28 occasions that universal credit has always been on time and on budget; yet Sir Jeremy Heywood said on Monday that the Treasury and the Major Projects Authority had to tell the Secretary of State that his own project was “way off track”. When was he told that? Why did the Secretary of State not tell this House?

I will be honest: we would love to help the Secretary of State implement universal credit, but confession comes before redemption, and as long as he remains in denial he remains beyond help. I ask him once again to be straight with the House: has the business case—the business case, not the budget—for universal credit, which he says will come to fruition in 2017, been signed off—yes or no? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the Secretary of State replies, I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He made no personal attack on any one individual. [Interruption.] Order. I will deal with this—the hon. Gentleman will have to accept my ruling, whether he likes it or not. The hon. Gentleman made no personal attack on any individual Minister, but my judgment, having heard him out, was that he went beyond the line in making an accusation of deliberate deception against a group of Ministers. [Interruption.] Order. I know what I am doing and I certainly do not require any help from the Education Secretary—that would be completely unimaginable. I ask Members to have regard to the way in which they express themselves. The point has been made, the situation is clear and the Secretary of State can now reply.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made the most pompous, ludicrous statement I have ever heard. I know what he did: he wrote it down before he heard the answer. I have made it quite clear and I stand by what I said: the strategic outline business case plans for this Parliament have been approved. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) made that clear the other day, and that is the statement that we stand by.

The next phase, as I said in my statement—the hon. Gentleman might like to listen to them in future—is approved. On the strategic outline business case for the overall lifetime of the programme, that is being discussed right now and we expect approval of that plan shortly. I have said categorically that all the expenditures and the work in this Parliament are approved. The reality is that it is approved. The point he needs to get round his head is that, on the figures he gave earlier—the billions—the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee agree that we need careful controls in place. It is therefore natural that we have sought that approval at each stage. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has approved all of those elements.

I know what this is all about. The truth is that this is about Labour’s failure to come to terms with welfare reform. We had a debate a week ago in which Labour crashed and burned, and we have an urgent question today. Labour Members want to avoid the reality that the Government’s welfare reforms are working and getting more people back to work. We have capped benefits so that no household can receive more than people who are in work. There are more people in work than ever before. Under Labour, youth unemployment increased by nearly a half; under this Government, the youth claimant count has fallen for the past 30 months. The rate of workless households is at its lowest since records began.

I say to the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party that this is the best instance of a man in an ill-fitting anorak dancing on the head of a pin. It is quite pathetic. He needs to think again about welfare reform.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very worst example of how to change any tax and benefits system was the introduction of tax credits by the previous Government, when more than £6 billion of overpayments were made within just the first three years?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Absolutely. The Labour Government—the Labour party needs to own up to this—used to sign off business cases from day one, only to see the programme crash and burn. Tax credits left 400,000 people without money, and their reforms to the health service benefits system were an absolute disaster. We will take no lessons from Labour on how to manage a programme.

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I support the intent of the policy, but I have repeatedly sought assurances on the status of universal credit. On Monday, I asked Sir Jeremy Heywood, Sir Nick Macpherson and Sir Bob Kerslake four times whether the business case had been signed off by the Treasury. There were a number of unscripted pauses, but Sir Jeremy told us:

“I cannot speak for the Treasury.”

Sir Nick Macpherson told us:

“It is signed up, up to a point”,

before Bob Kerslake finally admitted:

“I think we should not beat about the bush. It has not been signed off.”

I plead with the Secretary of State that he should be open and honest with hon. Members rather than hide behind smoke and mirrors to create a false impression that universal credit is on time, in budget and delivering in full its intended objectives.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I respect the right hon. Lady enormously for the job she does, but I say to her clearly that it was on the recommendations of her Committee and the NAO that we instigated—by the way, I think this is the way ahead for all future programmes—a programme in which, at every stage and in every separate part of development, we would have approvals from the Treasury and with the Cabinet Office, which is what is going on at the moment. My point is that the answer that Mr Kerslake, the head of the civil service, gave was correct in the sense, as I have said today, that the overall strategic business case for the full lifetime of the programme is in discussion right now for that completion. However, all the elements that are relevant—the strategic business plan for this Parliament, which includes all the roll-out, all the investments, of which the right hon. Lady will be aware, and the roll-out through to the north-west—have been approved. There will be no further need for approvals this Parliament, so the reality is quite clear: universal credit is on track and is rolling against the plan we set out last year. All those approvals are agreed, and we hope that the final element, which would logically come at the end of the process, will be agreed shortly with the Chief Secretary.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has me convinced about the benefits of universal credit, but will he consider publishing the business case so that the House and the public outside can see the full benefits?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am quite happy to deal with that. I have also said to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee that we are happy to talk through that. We have an invitation from the Committee to come in and discuss it.

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

In April, the Work and Pensions Committee published a report on the progress of universal credit implementation, which said:

“DWP told us that it intended to clarify the impact of the changes to the implementation timetable on the overall costs and savings of the programme in the revised Business Case for Universal Credit, which it has now presented to the Treasury. We recommend that DWP makes its revised Business Case available to this Committee.”

Just two weeks ago, we got the Government response, which said that, no, they would not give us sight of the business case, but that some officials might talk us through it. For my Committee to be able to do our scrutiny role properly, that is not good enough. I join my colleague on the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) in making this plea: why will the Secretary of State not make the revised business case available to the Select Committee?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have said to the hon. Lady that we are happy to sit down to discuss this matter with her. I remind her that no other Government have ever published business cases, but I am happy to consider what she asks.

[Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members today have focused on process because they do not want to confront the reality that the welfare reforms that we have implemented successfully have helped to tackle unemployment—they have got more people into work—and that universal credit is essential in making it clear to people that work pays?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reality is that our welfare reforms are working, and our pensions reforms are working. The truth is that the Opposition have absolutely nothing to say about any of this. Instead, they want to delve and delve into the detail, but that will not tell them anything. Universal credit—started by this Government—will be a great success: it will get more people into work, and it will secure more households with greater earnings.

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

The head of the home civil service clearly has reservations about the full business case for the roll- out of universal credit. Which of those reservations has he expressed to the right hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The head of the home civil service has expressed no reservations, and I do not believe that he has any reservations about these plans. As agreed, the plans will be signed off with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and when they are signed off, I hope that the hon. Member for Rhondda will write me a letter to say, “Thank you very much, indeed.”

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Opposition would do a better job if, rather than asking picky bureaucratic questions, they focused on whether universal credit will improve pay for low-paid people and ensure that work pays?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem for the hon. Member for Rhondda is that his Government left behind a shambles in welfare—people unemployed, long-term unemployment rising, and youth unemployment rising dramatically—and there has never been an apology about that, or about crashing the economy.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s problem is that on numerous occasions over the past three or four years he has given the House and the Select Committee on Work and Pensions different versions of events. He told us that the project was on track and on budget, and he stated to the Select Committee in February that the business case would be approved by April. What is actually going on with universal credit? In what sense is what people are claiming any different from jobseeker’s allowance? Does he know what happens to people whose circumstances change, and is this really universal credit at all?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do know, actually. As we go along, we are developing universal credit correctly and stably, so that it rolls out properly. To repeat, we are rolling it out for singles in the whole of the north-west; couples development is now rolling out; and family developments are to come. Towards the end of this year, we will have rolled out universal credit to the north-west. I must say that that is the right way to do it: to make sure that what we produce is safe and delivers what we say it will, unlike tax credits and other problems that we got from the previous Government. I would like to know what the hon. Lady really thinks about the failure of her Government to deliver any programme correctly or safely.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a central contradiction in the figures from the Opposition? When the PAC last looked at this issue, the Labour Chair said:

“We believe strongly that meeting any specific timetable…is less important than delivering the programme successfully.”

Is it not right that we learn the lessons of the programmes that went wrong under the last Government, and that we get the programme right, rather than rush it?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is exactly correct. That is why, when the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) stood up, I explained to her that we are now doing what the Committee asked for. We are rolling out universal credit carefully: at every check, we make sure with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office that what we are producing works, and the next phase is then approved. We have approved all the roll-out plans for this Parliament, as was said by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West. The strategic plan for this Parliament is exactly what the Chair of the PAC asked for, so we are giving her what she wants.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the business plan include delivering universal credit in Wales through the medium of Welsh, and if so, is that on track and on budget?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The plan does include that. As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, we are working on that to make sure it is deliverable, but the key is that we absolutely plan to do that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I urge the Secretary of State to reject the representations of Labour Members? When it comes to universal credit, all they have done throughout is seek to promote welfare over work at every turn. What will be the savings to the Exchequer and the benefits to the UK when it has been fully rolled out?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The NAO has come out with the figure of £35 billion, which I cited earlier, but the point is that I believe that universal credit is worth more than that. As well as the planning and implementation process, the work we are currently doing will also evaluate the net benefit to the Exchequer and taxpayers, which I believe will be even higher.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State goes on about his record on benefits, but I remind him about the disaster of his PIP—the personal independent payment. Have Treasury Ministers or officials at any time expressed concerns about the financial viability of the business case to him, his Ministers or his civil servants?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the forecast savings to the taxpayer are about £100 million in this financial year, and will be about £200 million in the coming tax year?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I can confirm that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The confusion around the business case will give succour to those in Northern Ireland who have blocked welfare reform and cost the Northern Ireland economy millions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether discussions on the business case to date have shown any reasons why there might not be a further roll-out of universal credit as he has planned, so that we can argue back against those in Northern Ireland who say that we should wait to see the full picture in England and Wales before doing anything in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

There have not been any such discussions, and I hope that he will take that argument back to his counterparts in Northern Ireland and try again to persuade them that the full welfare reform package will benefit Northern Ireland dramatically, as will the universal credit part of that reform.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

It is worth remembering that the tax credit disaster meant that £6 billion was overpaid in the first three years of its operation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when implementing so crucial a change, it is right and proper to take time and to implement it stage by stage?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

What my hon. Friend says is exactly the point I have been making, but which Opposition Members just do not understand. There were too many disasters under their watch; we do not intend to repeat them. We are doing the implementation exactly as the PAC and the NAO recommended.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Once again, I am absolutely staggered at the Secretary of State’s hubris; there are more cover-ups, and everybody else is to blame apart from the Secretary of State. This has been an absolutely unmitigated disaster. UC is dead in the water, and he should go.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is pretty much what the hon. Lady says whenever she stands up on any question to do with welfare. The reality is that she is opposed to absolutely everything that we have done. If it was left to her and some of her colleagues on the Select Committee, they would repeal everything we have done, and welfare would be in the sort of chaos that Labour Members left us when they left Government.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Secretary of State may have seen Labour’s recent four-point plan for universal credit. Points 3 and 4 amount to significant uncosted scope increases, with no benefits applied to them. Given that, does he agree that it might be better for Labour to stay off the whole subject of business cases?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The truth is that the Opposition do not want to talk about any of their welfare proposals because all of them would cost more money and deliver less. If we were to apply a business case to the Opposition, they would not exist any more.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State look at the interesting report by Sheffield Hallam university on the state of the coalfields? It shows that although the welfare reforms might be working in some parts of the country, they are certainly not working in Wales. In the south Wales area that I represent, the share of pensioners living in poverty is about double that in the south-east of England. Welfare reform is anticipated to have a more substantial impact on the average financial loss per adult of working age in south Wales than across Britain as a whole. It is important to look at the variations within the UK, and I would be grateful if he gave them some attention.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Lady knows that I respect her hugely. I am very happy to look at the points that she raises. In Wales, we inherited a peculiarly difficult problem. There were very high levels of unemployment and a very high number of people on incapacity benefit. I believe that our reforms are working. We have seen unemployment fall dramatically and employment levels rise in Wales. Is there more that we can do? Absolutely. My door is open and I would be very happy to discuss anything that she thinks we could do.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggesting that he would like to help the Secretary of State implement universal credit is a bit like his friend, President Putin, offering to help the Ukrainians with their elections—and, I should think, almost as welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the business case has been signed off, we can get back to what really matters, which is discussing how we can allow my constituents who are offered jobs to work as many hours as they like without having to worry about whether they will lose more in benefits than they will gain in salary?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is what universal credit will deliver, and that is why delivering universal credit safely and securely is the key to the plan. The approvals have been signed off. All the work that is being done in this Parliament is approved by the Treasury, and the long-term strategic business case should be approved very shortly as well.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Free school meals are an incredibly important part of the benefits system. A number of teachers have said that some children come back after the summer break noticeably thinner. The Secretary of State promised an announcement on which universal credit recipients would be entitled to free school meals by summer 2011. What is the reason for the long delay, and when will that announcement be made?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The Department for Education is making a decision about the best way to deliver free school meals. People who are eligible for free school meals will be eligible for them under the new arrangements. This is an opportunity to ensure that all those who really need free school meals actually get them. There are often problems in the existing system, so this is an opportunity to reform the system to improve the take-up and the accuracy.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We have seen Parliament at its best over the past two days. There were a couple of points of order yesterday and there is an urgent question today. I say gently to the shadow Minister, who is one of the best shadow Ministers, that he went over the top. The Secretary of State has come to the House and answered the question. It is a shame that the shadow Minister did not listen to the answer before commenting. Does the Secretary of State not think that he has one of the best teams in Parliament, and that his Ministers are of the highest integrity? If one of them had made a mistake, they would have come to the Dispatch Box and apologised.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West, and others have not made mistakes. We have been crystal clear about this matter. I stand by the words that have been used and the statements that have been made, as I said earlier. The hon. Member for Rhondda normally does not listen, but just says what he was going to say, regardless of the answer. I suspect that a conversation with him is a very one-way process.

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

I have been absolutely staggered to hear the Secretary of State defending a system that, as I have heard repeatedly at the Public Accounts Committee, has had very poor planning from day one and at subsequent stages. We are glad that there is a plan to get it back on track, but let us get back to the real question. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), came to this House and said that the business case had been signed off. Either she is not on top of her brief or she was misleading this House, neither of which inspires confidence.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give two answers. First, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West, stated what is factually correct: that the strategic business plans for this Parliament have all been approved. That is an absolute fact. Secondly, it was I who was not happy with the way the development was taking place nearly two years ago, and who instigated the first process through my red team report. That is correct and I stand by that. Working with the Cabinet Office, we changed the plan. The plan is now being delivered exactly as the Public Accounts Committee, on which the hon. Lady sits, wanted us to deliver it, with all the necessary checks and balances. I would have thought, therefore, that she would congratulate us.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Companies in the north-east provide some of the computer and IT support for universal credit, providing welcome jobs there. I have met the staff at those institutions, and they are committed to the project, which is getting people back into work and training, and they are supportive of the slow, careful and measured way in which we are rolling out universal credit, which, after all, is something that the whole House supports.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Again, we hear reason from the Government Benches. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is necessary to roll out the programme carefully so that it works, and so that we do not end up, as we did with tax credits, with 400,000 people not getting any money and going off to food banks and getting food parcels. That is the shambles that the Labour party created. We will not repeat it.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said a moment ago from the Dispatch Box that we should be congratulating him. I remind him that only a few months ago his Cabinet colleague, the Paymaster General, was giving television interviews saying that the implementation of universal credit had been “lamentable” and that a lot of money had been “wasted”. We have also learned of friction between the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions over the withdrawal of the Government Digital Service. Leaked documents at the time said that the DWP might not be

“able to obtain the skills required to replace GDS within the current market at affordable cost”.

Will the Secretary of State tell us how much additional taxpayers’ money has been spent on IT support systems since the GDS was withdrawn?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

There is no additional money. All the money has been budgeted for. The hon. Gentleman said that we would not be able to hire people; we have hired a dramatic number of digital experts. They are working in the Department right now to develop the digital option. He is more than welcome to come and see them and talk to them if he likes. The door is open; we have nothing to hide. If he does accept that invitation, perhaps he will also persuade his hon. Friends to visit the IT. They do not want to visit it because they are pretending that it does not work.

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

When my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and I went to the Harrogate jobcentre recently, universal credit recipients were passionate about the confidence that the new scheme is giving them to get a job, and recruiters were persuasive about how it is making it easier to place people in jobs. Will the Secretary of State ignore the hue and cry from the Labour party and focus on the benefits that universal credit is bringing to the lives of real people?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I always make it my priority to ignore the nonsense that comes from the other side. The Opposition live in la-la land when it comes to the welfare reforms. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is about real people who are trying to get back to work. We are delivering for them right now, and we will deliver even more when universal credit arrives safely and securely.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On Monday, I received an e-mail from the Secretary of State’s office telling me that he would be visiting Wrexham on Monday afternoon. Every week, I meet constituents in Wrexham who are suffering from his incompetence. The only person who is running away from conversations about benefits is the Secretary of State. Will he meet me to hear what is happening in Wrexham in respect of personal independence payments, universal credit and all the other benefits that are falling apart?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I accept that the hon. Gentleman needed to plan that statement. I did visit Wrexham the other day and the jobcentre there. It has a phenomenally dedicated group of people who are doing brilliantly. As a result, unemployment levels in his area are falling. They are falling as a direct result of the welfare reforms that we have brought in. I only wish that he had said the same thing to the last Government. My door is always open. If he wants to come and talk to me about any problem, I will be very happy to see him.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend for the open and frank way in which he has responded to questions about the business plan? Does he agree that the Opposition’s role in questioning business plans is important, and would he like to encourage them to be a bit more zealous in questioning the business plan for High Speed 2?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend always tries to tempt me, but I will resist that temptation and say that he needs to raise that matter with other Ministers who will no doubt come to the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Speaker]

Plenty of people raise it with me, including people who live in Swanbourne.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State needs to understand that when we ask questions in the House, we expect frank, honest and accurate answers from the Government, but that is not what we have had. He suggests that Sir Bob Kerslake did not know what he was talking about when he gave his answers to the Public Accounts Committee. Will Sir Bob Kerslake correct the record, or are we being misled again?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have been absolutely clear—I do not think I could have been clearer—that the strategic business plans for this Parliament have all been approved. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman like to let me finish? What Sir Bob Kerslake was referring to was the overarching full roll-out, including the years beyond this Parliament. I have already said that I and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are about to finalise that, as approved.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State has to accept that there have been valid concerns behind all the questions that have been asked about the feasible delivery of universal credit. There is also real confusion about the differing answers that have been given. Those concerns extend to Northern Ireland, where people are concerned about the implications for hard-pressed families and for local and regional economies. Given the question mark against the overall business case, is it right for the Assembly to be brow-beaten by the Treasury, through threats of cuts to other budgets, into passing the karaoke Bill that would legislate for universal credit?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I believe that the welfare reforms that the Assembly is being asked to pass, which include universal credit, are right. They are already delivering for the rest of the UK, and I believe that there will be net value to Northern Ireland when it rolls them out. I hope that it gets on and does it, and universal credit will be part of that.

Bill Presented

Local Government (Independence) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Chris Ruane, on behalf of Mr Graham Allen, presented a Bill to define the independence of local government; to regulate the relationship between local and central government in England by means of a statutory Code; to require public authorities to act in compliance with the Code; to provide that the Code may only be amended by means of an Order under the super-affirmative procedure, approved unanimously by each House of Parliament or by a majority in each House equal to or greater than two-thirds of the number of seats in each House; to exclude any Bill to amend this Act from the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911; to make provision regarding the powers and finances of local government in England; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 September, and to be printed (Bill 72).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[4th Allotted Day]

Housing Supply

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

13:13

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the Government has failed to tackle the acute housing shortage which is central to the cost of living crisis and over the last four years has presided over the lowest level of new homes being built in peacetime since the 1920s and the lowest number of homes for social rent being built in at least 20 years; further notes the recent reports that housing starts are forecast to fall this year with a large fall in affordable housing starts; and calls on the Government to tackle the housing shortage and commit to increasing house building to at least 200,000 homes a year by 2020, including by boosting housing supply by creating a Help to Build scheme for small and medium-sized builders alongside a reformed Help to Buy, by reforming the development industry and introducing measures to tackle land banking, by bringing forward plans to deliver a new generation of new towns and garden cities and by giving local authorities a new right to grow to deliver the homes their communities need.

We have called this debate because we are in the midst of the biggest housing crisis in a generation. We are not building even half the homes that we need to keep up with demand, and regrettably the current Government are presiding over the lowest level of house building in peacetime since the 1920s. The shortage just keeps on growing. According to figures that I obtained from the Library recently, the backlog of demand since the Government came to power is 500,000 homes, which is equivalent to Birmingham, England’s second biggest city. Individuals, couples and families are being priced out of home ownership, which has fallen to its lowest level since 1987. Average house prices are now eight times average incomes, and in some high-demand areas the ratio is even higher.

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

I recognise that there is a crisis in housing. I am therefore shocked by the lack of ambition in the motion. Not only does it commit to only 200,000 extra homes each year, but it gives no commitment whatever to a target for social homes. We should not be surprised, given that for 13 years the Labour Government presided over year-on-year decline in social housing and an overall decline of 200,000 social homes.

[Emma Reynolds]

I will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman, because in 2012-13 his Government built only 107,000 homes. We are talking about doubling that number. [Interruption.] Actually, the number of social homes has not gone up—I will come to that.

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

I was somewhat surprised by the intervention that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) made. Can my hon. Friend confirm that under the Labour Government, not only were there 2 million new homes, 1 million more mortgage holders and half a million more affordable homes, including 256,000 in the last five years of the Government, but 1.6 million social homes were brought up to standard through the decent homes standard, transforming the lives of millions of tenants?

[Emma Reynolds]

The decent homes programme was one of the Labour Government’s proudest achievements. It transformed the homes and lives of millions of people in council houses. I say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) that in our last year in office, we started 39,000 social homes. In the past year, the current Government started 3,900. I will come later to the affordable homes cliff edge over which they are presiding.

Millions of people across the country face the insecurity of private renting, not knowing whether they will be evicted from one year to the next or even one month to the next. Young people and families are watching as their dream of home ownership, which their parents and grandparents were able to achieve, slips out of reach.

The housing shortage is central to the biggest challenge facing Britain today—the cost of living crisis. We know that on average, working people are more than £1,600 a year worse off under this out-of-touch Government, but the problem is about more than just the pound in people’s pocket. It is about the insecurity that people feel, often in their workplaces and sometimes in their homes, and about the prospects of the next generation, with many parents feeling that their children will be worse off than they are.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentions the impact on families in the private rented sector. As the Education Secretary has slipped into the Chamber, I wish to make the point that another real problem is the effect on children now of the uncertainty that she describes. It has long-term consequences, because children need stability and they need to be able to stay in the same school. If their parents have to keep moving, that stability is undermined and so are their long-term prospects.

[Emma Reynolds]

In fact, academics have conducted interesting research showing that one driver of a child becoming a NEET—being not in education, employment or training—in later life is being shunted around from area to area. That constant churn and change in their schooling means that they do not attain what they need to educationally.

One thing that the Government are good at is making announcements, although I must say that the current Housing Minister is not quite as keen on rhetoric as one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). Ministers come to the House armed with an array of statistics designed to dazzle and to distract from the Government’s real record. I am sure that that is what the Minister will try to do this afternoon. He is fond of telling the House that the Government have delivered 445,000 new homes since 2010, but if we do the maths we see that that is just over 111,000 a year on average—hardly a record to be proud of. In the Queen’s Speech a few weeks ago, the Government promised to increase housing supply and home ownership, but in truth home ownership is falling under this Government.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Since we are talking about statistics, will the hon. Lady welcome the approximately 2,000 new homes that are being built as a result of the previous Conservative administration of Crawley borough council, and will she condemn the same local authority’s current Labour administration for prevaricating on the local plan?

[Emma Reynolds]

When I was last in Crawley I saw the white elephant of the free school there, which was refurbished and then was open for just two years. Apparently, millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was spent on it, and for what good?

We learnt last week that the Minister’s own officials have recently forecast that house building will fall, not rise, this year, but the Minister himself seems to be in two minds about whether forecasts exist. In a written answer, he told my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that no such forecasts exist, before going on to publish his own forecast in that answer—albeit a partial one—claiming that he expected private house building to rise, with no mention of affordable homes. I am curious as to whether his Department publishes forecasts or not. Does the Minister believe they exist? The “Newsnight” leaked document seemed to suggest that they do.

In the same written answer, the Minister acknowledged that the Government are worried about presiding over a “hiatus” in affordable home building, which is probably a neat and euphemistic way of describing the Government’s record. Perhaps he could have been more direct—levels of affordable housing are set to fall off a cliff, and it is an open secret that housing associations are reluctant to bid for the Government’s affordable homes programme. No wonder Ministers are worried.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

When the Work and Pensions Committee visited Bedfordshire in connection with its work on housing benefit, housing associations told us that in order to get grants to build so-called affordable housing—which will be at 80% of market rent—they were required to place some of their existing stock into that category as it became available for rent. This housing is not truly affordable, so what effect will that have on the housing benefit budget in due course?

[Emma Reynolds]

My hon. Friend makes a significant point that I was about to come to. I am sure the Minister will talk about the number of affordable homes that the Government are delivering, but 40% of those were commissioned by the previous Labour Government. Furthermore, “affordable” in the Government’s terms is 80% of market rent. That is clearly not affordable for many families up and down the country—indeed, the National Audit Office has estimated that housing benefit will end up costing the taxpayer £1.4 billion because of the short-sightedness of this Government.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

In Northumberland, significant housing is being built on the former hospital sites at Stannington and Prudhoe, both of which lay idle for the entirety of the previous Government’s time in office. At Prudhoe, 80% of new purchases are made under the Help to Buy scheme and with help from this Government. Does the hon. Lady accept that that regional success is an example of the Government turning things around at local level?

[Emma Reynolds]

I do not accept that because the figures speak for themselves. We are not building even half the number of homes that we need to keep up with demand. That is an appalling record, and not one the Government should be proud of.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

We have one of the oldest district plans in the country partly because there was huge resistance to Labour’s over-heavy housing targets. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that we will be going back to much higher levels? What impact will that have on the district plans that have emerged in areas that have finalised them?

[Emma Reynolds]

No, I am not suggesting that we go back to regional spatial strategies. We will not do what this Government did and throw all the pieces in the air and see where they land. We will largely keep the national planning policy framework in place. Where local plans come forward and are voted on, they can be successful. There are problems in areas where local plans have not been passed, and there is also a problem with not using common methodology in some of the local plans.

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

I welcome this debate and the motion is a step in the right direction. The hon. Lady must acknowledge, however, that the previous Labour Administration’s understandable focus on decent homes meant that they took their eye off the ball for council housing. The last year of the Labour Administration saw just 370 council homes built. Will she explain why the official Opposition do not call explicitly in the motion for a complete lifting of the borrowing cap?

[Emma Reynolds]

We are not calling for a lifting of the borrowing cap, but we think that councils and housing associations have a key role in delivering a step change in the number of houses for social rent—that is real, affordable rent, not the affordable rent that we have seen from the Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Emma Reynolds]

I will make some progress because a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak.

For all their hot air, Ministers cannot escape the truth that, on their watch, the number of homes built for social rent is at its lowest level for at least 20 years—hardly surprising since the first thing the Government did when they came to office was cut the affordable homes budget by an eye-watering 60%. The Government will no doubt try to say that all their success is due to the Help to Buy scheme, and the Opposition are clear that we support help for first-time buyers. Crucially, however, Help to Buy must be matched by help to build if prices are not to rise further out of the reach of families who want to get on the housing ladder.

The Government have announced and re-announced schemes, but failed to deliver. We had the NewBuy scheme, the Build to Rent fund, Get Britain Building— all failed to deliver their targets and all are part of a piecemeal approach by this Government. With such a record of delivery, it is no surprise that the Governor of the Bank of England said recently that housing is the “biggest risk” to our economy.

Unlike this Government, Labour understands the scale of the challenge we face and that real leadership is needed at central and local levels. That is why we have made a bold and ambitious commitment to increase house building to 200,000 homes a year by 2020. Our housing commission, chaired by Sir Michael Lyons and supported by a panel of experts from across the industry, will deliver a road map to help us to achieve that step change in house building. Unlike this Government, we understand that the market is simply not delivering. It is clear that there are deep structural problems in the land market and the house building industry. That is why Labour will take action to reform the development industry, tackle land banking, boost the role of small house builders, give communities the right to grow and deliver a new generation of new towns and garden cities.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned land banking. She must be aware that, particularly in London, a considerable number of houses, newly built flats and other places are being deliberately kept empty on the expectation of a rapid rise in value, so that they can be sold on without the encumbrance of someone living in them. Does she agree that it is a disgrace at a time of housing shortage to deliberately keep places vacant? If she becomes Housing Minister will she intervene to end that disgraceful practice?

[Emma Reynolds]

Land banking is a real problem. It is not just developers who are sitting on land, but middlemen, promoters and agents. The Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, recognised land banking as “pernicious”, and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), also recognised that before he was given his job as Planning Minister.

[Mr Leech]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

It is clear that land banking is an issue. We have set out specific proposals to deal with it. First, we will give more power and flexibility to local authorities to escalate fees where land banking is taking place on land with planning permission, and as a last resort we will ensure that local authorities have proper compulsory purchase order powers so that they can sell the land to developers that want to built the homes we so desperately need.

One key challenge in the house building industry is that it is now dominated by a small number of large players. In the 1980s, two thirds of homes in this country were built by small builders, but by 2012 that figure had fallen to below a third. As the number of small builders has declined and the big firms have grown even bigger by acquiring more firms and land, it has become easier for those big firms to buy up land. As Kate Barker found in her report 10 years ago, it is not always in the interests of big builders to build out sites as quickly as the nation needs. We must get more firms and players into the industry to build homes and provide competition. The high cost of housing is driven by the high cost of land. Often, the cost of land means that only big house builders are able to manage the risks. Let me be clear: big house builders play a crucial role in building the homes our country needs, but we need a much more diverse and competitive industry to deliver a step change in house building.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Let me ask the hon. Lady about leadership in this business. Some 30% of local plans were approved when this Government took office and that figure is now approaching 70%. Does that mean that we can expect much more house building to occur? Furthermore, let me press her on the structure of the building industry. The fact that we have larger and fewer house building companies is hardly a surprise when the Labour party so mismanaged the economy that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be short. Speeches must come after the Minister has spoken, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to use up all his ammunition at this stage.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thought the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) was starting to deliver his speech. I say gently to him that the last global financial crash was not caused by the Labour Government’s spending on schools and hospitals, and for him to tell us otherwise is completely fatuous.

Labour has set out plans to boost the role of small house builders, self-builders and custom-builders, who tell us that access to finance and access to land are the key barriers to getting homes built. We have proposed a help to build scheme, which will help them to access finance through the banks—crucially, to get them building—and on access to land we have said that we will ensure that local authorities allocate land in their five-year land supplies, while giving them guaranteed access to public land.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Lady knows that I have a private Member’s Bill on the subject of affordable housing. In an area such as mine—not a nimby area—the housing stock has more than doubled in the last 40 years, yet the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse. She will be aware that the situation is complicated and requires a more sophisticated answer than simply producing thousands more homes. Does she not accept that we need to look at, for example, controlling the number of second homes, which have increased greatly in areas such as mine? Do we not need to deal with issues such as that as well as simply build more houses?

[Emma Reynolds]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and I know that this is a particular issue in his constituency. I think that this whole debate around second homes is difficult. How do we prove which is someone’s first or second home? Many right hon. and hon. Members here, for example, split their time pretty much equally between London and their constituency. I am not entirely sure that the measures suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be fair or effective. I recognise that the problem is not just a matter of building more homes; it is also about whom we are building those new homes for. That is why it is crucial that the homes we build are truly affordable, which I believe is part of the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill. I agree with him on the key point that it is not just about the numbers; it is about quality, affordability and place making. It is right not to focus only on the numbers, but in my view the numbers are important.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Over the last four years, the problem has been the failure to build affordable homes and social homes. The truth is that what are defined as “affordable homes” are unaffordable to most people on or below average incomes. Sadly, although I have great respect for the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the Liberal Democrats have propped up a Government who have destroyed affordable housing in this country.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am delighted to say that in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Hammersmith and Fulham, we now have a Labour council that is committed to affordable homes and ensuring that developers deliver their fair share of truly affordable homes, particularly in areas of high demand, such as my hon. Friend’s, where average house prices are, frankly, eye-watering. It is different from the situation in my own constituency.

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

I am listening with interest to the hon. Lady’s proposals, but will she outline what additional resources she would attach to them?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am not in the business of making spending commitments in this Opposition-day debate. All I would say is that we recognise that local authorities have a key role to play in delivering the homes we need, and that it was thanks to the reform of the housing revenue account, brought forward by the last Labour Government, that we have seen councils building many more homes than they used to. In fact, Labour councils are outbuilding Tory councils when it comes to affordable homes.

There are also issues to be resolved between local authority areas. Where local authorities are land-locked, as in Oxford, but their communities need to expand due to high demand, the Government’s duty to co-operate is, unfortunately, simply not working. It seems to be a duty to talk and talk, to stall—and then to do nothing. Labour, in consultation with the affected local authority areas, will give communities that need it the right to grow, and we will ensure that local authorities and housing associations have the tools they need to get on with the job of building more homes.

We are determined to ensure not just that existing communities are able to expand; we understand the need to build new communities, too. The Government have said they support new settlements—they have been saying that for four years, but it has taken them four years to do anything concrete about it. Of course we welcome the proposal in the Queen’s Speech for an urban development corporation to support the building of Ebbsfleet garden city, but it is worrying that it seems to have escaped the Chancellor’s attention that he promised 15,000 homes at Ebbsfleet, when his Government had already committed to 20,000 homes on the same site just two years earlier. It would appear that there is not going to be much “garden” or “city” in the proposals for this garden city. A core principle of such garden cities is a commitment to social and affordable homes, yet the Minister with responsibility for planning, in a written answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), said that there will be no such commitment. I am thus left wondering what is garden and what is city about these proposals.

In contrast to this Government’s four years of inaction on new towns and garden cities, we are determined to get going from day one. That is why the shadow Chancellor has already made a commitment that our plans will be supported by a Treasury guarantee. It also crucial that we secure greater institutional investment in housing, including, crucially, in the private rented sector. We are committed to doing so to increase supply, quality and choice in private renting. We must also act to secure a better deal for those 9 million people—couples and families, and including 2 million children—who are renting from a private landlord. Unlike the Government, we are prepared to act to give them much needed stability and peace of mind by legislating to make longer-term tenancies with predictable rents the norm, and banning letting agent fees charged to tenants.

It is regrettable that this Government not only lack determination and leadership, but have taken a piecemeal approach to housing that is clearly not delivering. The numbers speak for themselves. We understand the urgency, commitment and leadership needed to deliver a step change in house building. The next Labour Government will rise to that challenge from day one, delivering 200,000 homes a year by 2020 and providing a home for this generation and the next. I commend the motion to the House.

13:36

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

It is a pleasure to stand here and have the opportunity to talk about a vital part of our economy—this country’s housing industry. The industry is growing in strength and confidence. More homes have been built since 2007—a 31% increase in new homes in the last year alone. Planning consents have reached 216,000 in the last year.

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

On a point of clarification, will the Minister explain the basis of the figures he has just provided to show that more homes have been built since 2007? What is the source of that information?

[Kris Hopkins]

What we do is add up all the numbers of houses that have been built; and more have been built since 2007. As I said, planning consents have now reached 216,000, and the top 10 building companies are at their maximum capacity and are planning to grow a further 15% in the next year.

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

Let me ask the question in a different way. The Minister’s predecessor said that the Government’s target was to build more homes than were being built before the recession—not in 2010, but before the recession. Will the Minister explain in which year of this Parliament the Government have achieved that target?

[Kris Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We have gone through a massive crisis since 2007—I shall say more about it in a few minutes—and responsibility lay solely at the feet of the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was part. We have been picking up the pieces ever since, and we aspire to deliver the houses that the country needs.

The Government’s affordable housing scheme is on track to deliver 170,000 houses as promised, and the houses committed by the previous Government are already delivered, demonstrating that we have delivered some 200,000 houses to date. We are so keen to accelerate the number of affordable houses that we are bringing forward our 2015-18 affordable housing programme and we want to deliver those much-needed affordable houses right across the country as soon as possible.

[Caroline Lucas]

If the Minister is really so keen to build genuinely affordable housing, why will the Government not lift the borrowing cap on local authorities? Why are they so obsessed with worrying about public sector debt levels, given that borrowing for council housing is known to be a really safe investment? Other countries do not include it in public sector borrowing, and we should not do so either.

[Kris Hopkins]

It is clear that the hon. Lady’s party does not care about the economy of this country. It is quite happy to add to the deficit that was created by the last Administration. This Government have taken opportunities to raise the housing revenue account cap by some £300 million, and we look forward to seeing those houses being built.

More council houses have been built in the last four years, under this Government, than were built in the previous 13 years. As a result of the right to buy, some 19,000 hard-working individuals and their families have secured their own homes. That rejuvenated scheme has delivered some 10,000 more homes than was predicted, and we have promised to provide a replacement for every house that is sold. So far, some 3,000 new council houses have been built with right-to-buy receipts.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain why housing associations are being required not only to let newly built homes at 80% of market rent, but to turn over part of our existing stock as it becomes vacant and let it at that level of rent in order to obtain a building grant at all?

[Kris Hopkins]

What is of key importance is for local authorities and housing associations to understand their stock, and to redesign, restructure and, where necessary, rebuild it to reflect local demand. [Interruption.] That is the answer.

So far, receipts from right-to-buy sales have ensured that some £420 million is available for the building of houses. We want councils to build them more quickly, and we are pushing them to do so, but I think that the Government should be extremely proud of the fact that 3,000 new homes have already been delivered as a result of the extra growth that generated those 10,000 sales.

In the Budget, the Chancellor announced that £300 million in HRA funding would be provided so that more council houses could be built. The prospectus has gone out, and we have received some responses. We will keep pushing councils to deliver those houses. Whatever the tenure, whether we are talking about private, affordable or social housing, this Government want to support the housing industry that is delivering it.

One of the tragedies that came out of the 2008 housing crash and the resulting recession, the deepest since the 1920s, was the loss of jobs. Some 250,000 people—a quarter of a million—lost their livelihoods: their wage packets disappeared. Many thousands of small and medium-sized building and construction firms were lost as a consequence of the dying days of the last Labour Administration, and the loss of that capacity—a direct result of the crash—is still being felt today. That is why the Government want to attract more young apprentices to the sector to secure the future of the housing and construction industry. Thousands of the 1.8 million apprentices whom the Government have supported so far—some 14,000 of them in the building and construction industry alone—are now the plumbers, chippies and brickies who are required to build the houses.

We have put together a builders fund worth a quarter of a billion pounds to support those small and medium-sized businesses, and we are ensuring that they can gain access to it so that they can build on smaller sites. A bidding process is about to end, and we look forward to making announcements in the future. We need to increase capacity, and to do that we need skills—the skills that were lost.

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

I wonder whether my hon. Friend recalls a visit that he made on 24 January to Claughton Manor Brickworks in my constituency. It was forced to close in 2009 because there was no demand for bricks, and 35 jobs were lost. It reopened in 2013, and is now at full capacity, employing 38 people and producing bricks for tens of thousands of new houses.

[Kris Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only were skills lost, not only were small and medium-sized businesses lost, but the companies that made the products that built the houses were lost as well. I remember visiting that site and talking to the foreman, who had been in a hut protecting the site for the best part of four years. I saw him on television the other day. The company is thriving. I said earlier that the industry was becoming stronger, and it is. At every level, whether we are talking about attracting young people to the sector or about encouraging investors to invest in the manufacturing of materials for house building, the industry is growing, and we should celebrate that boost to our economy.

We are extending the life of the Help to Buy scheme, thus giving some stability to the industry. One of the main points that have been made to me by its representatives is that they do not want a cycle of boom and bust; what they want is some consistency. They want to see products that will give a long life to house building, and if those products are there, they will invest. Some 1,200 businesses have signed up to the Help to Buy equity scheme, and more than 90% of them are small and medium-sized businesses.

[Jack Dromey]

Dawn frequently breaks to reveal the Prime Minister descending on a building site in wellington boots and a high-visibility jacket. We have heard 70 separate announcements of schemes including New Buy, First Buy, Build to Rent and Help to Buy. Will the Housing Minister explain why his own Department has forecast a 4% fall in new build housing starts next year?

[Kris Hopkins]

The reason the Prime Minister appears on building sites is that he supports the housing industry, the reason I visit them is that I support the housing industry, and the reason the hon. Gentleman and his predecessors could not visit them is that they had crashed the housing industry and nothing was being built. As for leaked documents, I am not going to comment, but what I will say is that every element of our Department seeks—whether through planning, supporting skills or supporting small businesses—to ensure that we have sufficient starts to take advantage of the housing offer that is out there and to enable the housing industry to grow.

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

The Minister still has not explained why we have the lowest number of housing starts on record, and why the number is likely to be lower this year than last year. As well as spreading all the news of the developments that are heartening, why does he not address the real problems that affect house building at present?

[Kris Hopkins]

The reason house building is still a challenge is that the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member broke the economy, borrowed too much, crashed the banking system, and wiped out a quarter of a million jobs. That is why it is taking so long to put house building back on track, but it is becoming stronger.

As a direct consequence of our extending Help to Buy to 2020, we will deliver some 120,000 new homes. Help to Buy will continue to be a success. Some 30,000 homes have already been delivered, 87% of them to first-time buyers, and 91% are outside London. The average house price is about £151,000, well below the average price of a house in this country at the moment.

[Mr Betts]

Does the figure that the Minister has just given apply to the number of homes that will be in the Help to Buy scheme, or the number of extra homes that will be built as a result of it? The two figures are very different.

[Kris Hopkins]

The total Help to Buy figure, covering both guarantee and equity, is some 36,000. I was talking about the number of new homes built, which is 30,000. Those 30,000 houses have been built because businesses have taken up the Help to Buy scheme. Again, this intervention—this building of new homes—is specifically to help hard-working individuals get on the housing ladder. This intervention is there to help people who could not secure a mortgage or get a deposit together, but it is not only helping the hard-working individual; it is also supporting businesses. For every house that is built, a new job is created. The 30,000 that have come directly from Help to Buy contribute to the 1.7 million private sector jobs this Government have delivered.

As much as the small and medium-sized businesses are really important, and as much as the top 10 builders out there are extremely important in terms of capacity, we also need to expand our large-site developments. So far, our large-sites programme has provided some 80,000 new homes, but unlike the last Government with their failed eco-towns, which failed to deliver a single home, we will listen to local councils, we will support local plans, and we will encourage locally led interventions to deliver housing at scale. The garden city proposals were published in April and we look forward to continued discussions with localities about driving out those houses.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Where does the Minister expect those new garden cities to be built?

[Kris Hopkins]

Having put a prospectus out there, I am not going to declare that to you. The key thing is that where individuals come forward—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not use the term “you” in that way. The Minister is not referring to me. I am sure that rule is for the benefit of the House.

[Kris Hopkins]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. The key is that where local authorities come forward, we will enter into discussion with them and hope to deliver that.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my alarm about the words of Sir Michael Lyons on Labour’s review? The Minister has just discussed some of the hard-won commitments the Government have made to local plans and local accountability. Does he share my fear that Labour would return us to the bad old days of strict, authoritarian, top-down control?

[Kris Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The last Government went around the country telling local people what they had to do. This Government have laid out our desire to encourage local plans to come forward—to trust local authorities, to understand their local needs, and to have that dialogue with their public and come back with those approved plans. I will be shocked if Labour is again suggesting that it will dictate from Whitehall what communities will have to deliver.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in the Minister’s view that powers should be returned to local government. In that respect, will he review the permitted development rights that have been imposed on local government, whereby an office block can be converted into housing with no social content whatsoever and no requirement for planning permission? Does he not think it would be better if local government were able to determine what happened to those buildings and the number of social homes that were included in any developments?

[Kris Hopkins]

I disagree with the point the hon. Gentleman makes. The key point is that there are lots of people who are desperate to secure their own home and, whatever the vehicle is, we need to support them in that process.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does the Minister have any interest in homes that are affordable on low and average incomes? In London, the targets the Mayor sets are £80,000 in income for larger properties and £66,000 for one and two-bedroom flats. Does the Minister think those are reasonable figures for affordable homes?

[Kris Hopkins]

I am not going to take any lectures about affordable or social housing. The last Government failed to deliver sufficient social housing at a time of economic boom. They did not build the housing required. They did not address the issue of social need. In the most difficult times, however, this Government have stepped up and are delivering those houses. We need to deliver more, but we are setting about delivering that.

[Emma Reynolds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kris Hopkins]

No, I am going to continue.

The key aim is to expand capacity, and one of the ways we are doing that is by encouraging—right across the country—the private rented sector. Thousands of individuals rent their homes, and the vast majority of them rent their homes from good landlords, but there are a few who are damaging the market and failing their tenants, and that is why this Government have set about introducing powers to pursue those individuals and have put moneys out there for councils to make sure we can pursue and prosecute those individuals who fail their tenants.

[Bill Esterson]

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.

The Minister rightly mentions private renting, as not everybody wants to buy; some want to rent, and some do not have any choice. Does he recognise the impact on children of having to move constantly because of the nature of the private rental market, and does he accept that Labour has very sound proposals on longer-term tenancies to deal with exactly that sort of problem?

[Kris Hopkins]

The key point is that Labour was in power for 13 years and did not address this, whereas we have gone out there and put together a model tenancy that we plan to announce in the near future, and that will address that very issue about extending tenancies, through a negotiation between the landlord and the individual, to give some certainty, particularly for families.

We want to make sure that the private rented sector grows. We want it to be bigger, better and more professional, so that it attracts investors to take a long-term financial view, rather than having the short-term return model currently associated with this sector, which is why we went out there with a £1 billion Build to Rent scheme—a loan scheme. The first round has allocated some £124 million, which will deliver some 16,000 houses, and we are now in contact with further individuals and organisations and will make those announcements in the near future. The bulk of that £1 billion was in round two and we are in detailed negotiations about 16 projects. It is a very important part of the offer to grow and build on the private sector, to challenge poor behaviour, and to make sure we have high-quality private rented houses available.

In conclusion, we are not complacent about the position we are in. We picked up a smashed and broken industry. A strong industry is now emerging, but it has taken time to address and fix the problems left by the last Government—the banking industry issue, the lost jobs and skills, the factories that went to the wall. We are rebuilding the companies that failed and giving them the confidence to come forward and invest. So far, some 440,000 new homes have been delivered, but that is not enough, and we are determined to deliver more. I have to say to the House, however, that regardless of what I have said here today, this will be down to the graft of those individuals on the building and construction sites out there, it will be down to the risk takers who are investing in house building again, and it will be down to the young apprentices who are making a commitment to learning and developing their new career skills. The role of this Government is to support those champions of that industry. Every part of this Government is committed to delivering new homes—the homes that are needed—and I ask the House to reject this motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, instead of imposing a time limit, may I suggest that Members speak for about eight minutes so we can get everybody in?

13:58

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

First, may I draw the House’s attention to my interests as declared in the register?

I have to say to the Minister that his figures are very wide of the mark indeed. The simple harsh truth is that the present Government have the worst record on housing of any Government since the end of the second world war. Fewer new homes have been built in their period in office than in any comparable period of peacetime since the 1920s. On average, over their four years in office the coalition Government have managed to build just 112,000 homes a year. By contrast, the previous Labour Government built 1.8 million homes over their 13 years in office, averaging 145,000 homes a year—not enough perhaps, but very substantially more than we are seeing from the present Government, and I am surprised that the Minister does not have the honesty and integrity to admit that. Even in the depths of recession—[Interruption.] I will withdraw that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before you do, I will just say that we are going to be courteous to each other. This is going to be a very interesting debate, and I know you do not mean that and I see you are going to withdraw it.

[Mr Raynsford]

I ask your leave to withdraw that last statement, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was really just saying that the Minister ought to look at the figures published by his own Department and not exaggerate, or gild the lily, by trying to give us an impression that things are much better than they are. This Government’s record is, in fact, a very poor one: in 2011, they managed just 113,000 new homes; in 2012, they built just 115,000 new homes; and in 2013, they got no further than 110,000. Those are the simple figures and they come from his own Department. All they demonstrate is that the previous Labour Government in their last year in office—in 2009, right in the depths of recession—built more homes in one year than this Government have built in any one year since. We built 125,000 homes in 2009 and the level has decreased to an average of just 112,000 a year over the past four years during which this Government have been in office.

[Mr Leech]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will explain why his party has supported this Government, who have had such a lamentable record.

[Mr Leech]

That is not the point I was going to make. I was going to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept that 200,000 homes per year is not an ambitious enough target. The fact that the motion contains no target for social housing—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have explained that interventions must be short. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he has to help us to get other speakers in. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman got the gist of the question.

[Mr Raynsford]

I did indeed. I say to the hon. Gentleman that given that output is currently averaging just 112,000 homes a year, a target of 200,000 represents a very substantial increase. We can have an academic debate about whether that is enough, but the harsh reality, which his party should not have ignored, is the total failure of this Government to deliver anything near the level required. The output number has to be doubled, and I hope he will support a Labour Government when they are in power—if he is still around—and are delivering to that target.

The Minister, like his predecessor bar one, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), loves to project future increases in numbers, so we hear about 170,000 affordable homes, for example. The right hon. Gentleman used to quote that figure, and we heard it from the Minister today. Let me just give the actual figures on affordable homes started by this Government: in 2010—the third and fourth quarters—they started 10,990; in 2011, they started 25,000; in 2012, they started 20,000; in 2013, they started 24,000; and in 2014—

[Alison Seabeck]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

And in the first quarter of 2014, the Government have started 5,900. Their own records show that, in the 15 quarters for which they have been in power, they have started 86,810 affordable homes. So let us hear no more boasting about unrealistic targets for how the Government are going to start all these homes, given that they have lamentably failed to deliver them.

[Alison Seabeck]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

Of course I give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Just to help, I think the right hon. Gentleman might be on silent meals if he does not give way quicker.

[Alison Seabeck]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he share my concern that the Minister is not here to answer the questions he has just posed on those figures? The Minister did not explain that he was going to leave early.

[Mr Raynsford]

I am very grateful for that intervention, and I suspect I shall be in deep trouble tonight for my failure to give way earlier. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point about the absence of the Minister. I hope he is away for only a short time, because I am sure he will benefit from hearing some of the comments I am going to make in the latter part of my speech.

[Mrs Main]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Main]

I am not married to the right hon. Gentleman, so I thank him even more for giving way. Would he like to explain his party’s figure as to what is considered “affordable, as this varies in different parts of the country?

[Mr Raynsford]

I agree very much with that and I will cover it in the latter part of my speech. My thesis is that we need to have a range of differing types of housing, and only by delivering that will we ensure that we meet the ambitious target of 200,000 homes in the next Parliament.

The price of this Government’s failure to build the number of homes necessary is very much reflected in the second crisis of theirs on housing, which is on affordability. The shortage of sufficient homes has been driving prices up in both the owner-occupied sector and the rented sector. Curiously, the Government have been compounding the problem by driving up rent levels themselves in the social rented sector, because in place of social housing at target rents, which was very much the objective of the previous Government, we are now seeing the Orwellian concept of “affordable rent tenancies” where rent is set as a percentage of the market rents. A level of 80% of market rents in London is simply not affordable. How can anyone suggest that 80% of a market rent of perhaps £400 a week is an affordable rent for a family on low income? That is simply not credible. We need a programme that delivers truly affordable homes, and not just for social rent; in addition to social rented housing, we need low-cost home ownership options, and intermediate rented options for people who can afford to pay more than the social rent and are looking for suitable housing in that category.

A mix of tenures is required—a point I stressed when I was pleased to welcome Sir Michael Lyons to Greenwich earlier this year. He came as part of his inquiry, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) alluded in her excellent introductory speech. I stressed to Sir Michael that we need a range of different tenures in order to expand output. It is well known that house builders—

[Mrs Main]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I just be of help? The right hon. Gentleman has had eight minutes now and I am going to bring the hon. Lady in next. If she wishes to use interventions, she will not mind dropping down the list.

[Mrs Main]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a very pertinent point. I would like to tease out something about the intermediate option that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. Would he like to have means-testing of current social housing tenants? As we know, some of them earn lots of money.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am going to have to help. The hon. Lady was going to speak next. She will not mind going down the list a little bit, because it is unfair to keep intervening. The right hon. Gentleman has already taken nine minutes. I want to get everybody in and these interventions are not going to help when someone knows they are going to speak next.

[Mr Raynsford]

I am grateful for that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will now wind up because I have gone beyond my allotted time. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not answering that very detailed question. Perhaps she will be able to expand on the issue when she makes her speech.

I believe the Government need to look seriously at how they are spending money, because they are spending a lot of money on housing. The housing benefit bill has risen dramatically, despite the Government’s pledge to cut it, because they have been increasingly dependent on high-rent solutions and people have had to be given housing benefit to help them meet those higher rents. The Government have therefore been compounding the problem while talking about reducing housing benefit. At the same time, they have been spending money on the new homes bonus, a scheme for which nobody has yet produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is having any significant impact, despite more than £7 billion being committed to it. Their Help to Buy 2 scheme is highly profligate, with a £600,000 maximum limit and no tie to new homes, and, again, there is a question as to whether it is a good use of money. So I believe the Government are culpable—

[George Hollingbery]

rose—

[Mr Raynsford]

I cannot take any more interventions.

The Government are culpable for failing to provide the homes, for compounding the problems on affordability and for spending money on schemes that are unproven, untested and not delivering value for money.

14:08

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Suitably admonished, I shall keep my remarks brief to allow other colleagues to get in, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I wished to pick up on the comments made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) about what is “affordable”, because in an area such as St Albans house values and land values are so high that it is genuinely difficult for any local authority and any house builder to deliver social housing and affordable housing. That is why I wanted to ask him whether he supported considering some form of means-testing for those currently occupying social housing. I just wanted to throw that into the mix.

My council in St Albans has the second oldest district plan in the country. I brought my council leader, Councillor Julian Daly, to meet the Secretary of State because I wanted my right hon. Friend to have a sense of the pressures on a place such as St Albans. There is high demand to live in our beautiful area. It is very commutable to London. It suffers similar housing pressures to London and has similar prices. The average house price in St Albans is £401,811. That is a massive sum for any young family to afford. The average mortgage repayment in St Albans is £738 or 16.1% of average income.

Another part of the mix, which has not been mentioned today, and about which I put in a plea to the Chancellor, is stamp duty. That has not been considered by the Opposition. In high-price areas such as mine, we have the Help to Buy scheme through which the Government are helping young families and young people to get on the housing ladder. Those people are saving hard for deposits, yet they have to give over a large whack in tax. Stamp duty has not been considered by the House since 2003 and I make no bones about the fact that I am trying to lead a charge on the matter.

Stamp duty means that some people are unable to trade down and free up homes for other couples because their house values have risen so much that they would pay a large amount of tax. It also makes it difficult for expanding families to move up. It is a barrier to fluidity in the housing market and to young people moving. It seems rather odd that we as a Parliament want to get young people on the housing ladder, yet we are happy to take large sums of money off them in areas such as mine. The cost of an entry-level property in St Albans is probably more than the national average house price, so for the many people trying to get such a property in our area, stamp duty is a big deal.

The reason for our having the most out-of-date district plan is not that we have a slovenly and lazy council—far from it. Our planning department is the busiest in the country. A huge number of people want to build in our area, and we have loads of challenges from developers. My council regularly spends large amounts of money fighting off predatory developers. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), smiles at me—I will be making my rail freight point—but it has cost my council millions of pounds to fight off inappropriate development applications.

The reason we have such an out-of-date district plan is that my council, along with other councils in Hertfordshire, was desperately trying to resist the high housing targets that were imposed top-down by Labour. If the Opposition go back to imposing top-down targets, there will be sclerosis in planning departments again. I welcome the fact that the Government have taken by the horns the point that local areas should decide. Local areas know their housing need best.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Mr Love]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

I am not giving way because I listened to Mr Deputy Speaker’s guidance and I am keeping my remarks brief.

The previous policy guidance, which set a housing density of more than 50 houses to the hectare, resulted in places such as St Albans being swamped with one-bedroom flat units, and large five-bedroom houses to pay for them. This skews the market. What we want in areas such as St Albans is to be able to decide whether we need two-bedroom flats or three-bedroom small family houses to suit the needs of the local population.

The Government have gone a long way to implementing localism. It is not perfect, or I would not keep referring—my hon. Friend the Minister is listening to me—to my rail freight point, but I would like to think that we have started listening to what residents want locally. Housing numbers should not be dictated centrally. St Albans was furious with the previous Government’s decision to lump us in with the north London arc, making us vulnerable to inappropriate development, which we have resisted. We are ringed by green belt but we do not have a nimby attitude in St Albans. We wish to deliver affordable local housing for young families, but we also realise that we are part of people’s investment portfolios.

The Opposition should be clearer about what they mean by “affordable” in areas such as mine. If they do not like the 80% calculation, how would they deliver affordable housing in an area where the average house price is more than £400,000? Nobody in St Albans is going to give their land away and a local authority has a duty of care to its residents, so it will not give away its assets and it has very little as a land bank of its own and very few buildings. Labour’s plans sound great, but how would it deliver affordable housing? That is very hard to deliver and the Government are going a long way to try to do so.

14:15

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

We need to build 250,000 new homes every year, probably for the next 20 or 30 years, if we are to address the housing crisis properly. That is the scale of the challenge that faces us collectively. In order to do that over that period, we probably need buy-in to such an approach from all political parties. That is a further challenge. I admitted in the Queen’s Speech debate that the Government whom I supported for 13 years did not build enough homes. The problem is that the present Government are building even fewer.

On average, year by year, fewer homes are being built under this Government than were built under the previous Government. That is a fact, however the Minister tries to dress up the figures. If we are to get that long-term buy-in to building sufficient homes, it has to be through all-party agreement, because the construction industry cannot be turned on and off like a tap. Another challenge is to train and keep construction workers to deliver the homes we need. As the Select Committee report in 2012 said, there is no single silver bullet—we need a range of different measures to provide a range of different homes.

We need the volume house builders to build more, of course. That is a challenge for them as well as for the Government. But we also need other forms of building, including building houses for social rent. We cannot simply build houses at 80% of market rent to help everyone in this country. There are people who not only cannot afford to buy, but cannot afford market rents, so we need a social house building programme as part of the total number.

Let me be clear to Front Benchers on both sides of the House. I support the campaigns of the Local Government Association and of the National Federation of ALMOs to lift the borrowing cap on local authorities. That could build us at least 60,000 new homes, but that does not go far enough. In this Parliament we have had a 60% cut in the funding for social housing. Some, if not all, of it will have to be restored if we are to build sufficient social homes in the future. Whether we are talking about local authority homes—council homes—or housing association homes, we will not get them built without more public money being put in. That is a fact of life. It is uncomfortable at a time of stringency and constraint, but that is a reality and we all have to address it.

Another uncomfortable issue is the right to buy. The Government’s policy envisages a one-for-one replacement. In many parts of the country, such as my constituency, there is no point selling a family home and offering to replace it with a one-bedroom flat. The demand is for family homes. Like-for-like replacement is what is needed, and even that is not sufficient in some areas. If there is an acute shortage of social housing in particular localities, or there is not the land to replace homes that are sold, we may have to give local authorities the powers to restrict the right to buy.

Again, that is uncomfortable. It is not what anyone wants to hear, but it is about true localism and recognising that there are particular circumstances and particular housing markets where the problems are so difficult that that is what we may have to do. That, again, is something that the Select Committee report addressed and the Government dismissed. It is a factor if we are to deal with the acute crisis faced by many people who cannot afford to buy and cannot afford to rent in the private sector.

There are two other issues that I shall address. If we are to build sufficient homes, we all want to see a brownfield-first policy. The Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into the national planning policy framework and we look forward to the Minister coming before us. We may be slightly less harsh on him than some of his own colleagues were this morning in the Westminster Hall debate, which I chaired. If we have a brownfield-first policy, we will have to deal with the question why the proportion of houses built on brownfield sites appears to be declining. It is difficult to know because the figures are available only up to 2011. There is a gap in the figures, which is not helpful.

Perhaps there has been decline because of the problem of paragraph 47 of the NPPF and developers claiming that brownfield sites are not viable. Perhaps it is because we have lost the grants that the regional development agencies used to put in to deal with contamination and other problems on brownfield sites that made them easier to develop. Perhaps it is a bit of both. We face that challenge if we are to get brownfield development going. We must also be honest with people. Even if we build on all the available brownfield sites, we will still have to build on some greenfield sites in this country. We must be honest about that and face up to it.

Then we come on to the further challenge: how do we sign up local communities? The principle of the NPPF is to support sustainable development, which is consistent with the local plan, so putting in place local plans is absolutely vital. There may be some authorities that are dragging their feet, but there are some that are genuinely struggling to get local plans in place. That is what we are finding in our inquiry, and we will produce our findings on that in due course. There are a number of other issues that the Minister will look at in due course; perhaps he will do it when he appears before the Committee.

Let us return to the viability of brownfield sites. Is that an issue that needs to be addressed? It is stopping some local plans being put in place, as authorities are being forced to go back and relook at greenfield sites. What about the duty to co-operate? Those authorities are trying to co-operate, but cannot get a local plan in place because their neighbours will not co-operate with them. How do we deal with that challenge?

Finally, one issue that has come up time and again is the assessment of housing need. Many authorities are unclear about how they should do their sums. The planning inspector could come in at the last minute and say that they have got them wrong and that they should go back and start counting again. Although I am not generally in favour of heavy-handed centralism, should there not be a bit more guidance at the beginning of the process so that local authorities are clear about the numbers they are trying to address, and their local plans are not held up at the last stages?

I hope that those are helpful points that will help to move this matter forward. We must all face up to the fact that over the past 30 years we have had a collective failure to build sufficient homes in this country. If we are to address that collective failure, we need some collective agreement across the House about how we will proceed to build those homes over the next 20 or 30 years.

14:21

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the considered speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I experienced a bit of déjà vu at the start of this debate, as we had the predictable trading of blizzards of carefully selected statistics and political froth, which does nothing to shed any light on this matter. As is often the case, there is, at this point, a coming together, with people trying to find constructive solutions, rather than simply trading selective statistics. People who accidentally stumble on this debate while seeking entertaining daytime television, and who happen to watch this kind of thing, will be left bemused or cold by the trading of figures that we saw at the start.

The obsession with chasing housing build targets and with trying to apportion blame is one reason why there has been, over decades, a complete failure to provide enough decent family homes that are affordable for people in this country. There seems to be an obsession with one rather two-dimensional issue, which is the building of thousands of houses. I have won the MPs’ equivalent of the national lottery by coming first in the private Members’ Bill ballot. On 5 September, providing there are not too many other Members filibustering me out of this opportunity, I will put the case for the further tools that are necessary to advance the interests of affordable housing for families in this country.

This is a bespoke Bill—not one that is off the peg—on which I will seek cross-party support; it is still being drafted. I hope to gain support for it over time. At the moment, it is a veritable Queen’s Speech of a Bill that will probably have to be narrowed down. The issue on which I will primarily focus is the still insufficiently developed intermediate market for housing, particularly in the south, where there is a big mismatch between earnings and house prices. Constructing a new lower rung on the housing ladder of shared equity, shared ownership and mutual housing is necessary to address some of the problems in areas such as mine.

Having listened to the shadow Minister, I want to speak about some of the things that are undermining our attempts to fulfil the desperate need for affordable homes in areas such as mine. They include the proliferation of second or holiday homes. I have tried to advance the case for the introduction of a new use classes order in the planning system, which would cover those who want to convert a property from permanent to non-permanent occupancy. The order would last only for the lifetime of that occupancy, because otherwise there would be a perverse incentive for us all to go for that when we wanted to sell our properties. However, there does not appear to be political support for that at present. I urge both Labour and Conservative Members to look at the impact that that issue is having on areas such as mine, where four times as many properties are sold to second-home buyers than to first-home buyers.

As I mentioned in my intervention on the shadow Minister, we are not nimbys in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The housing stock has more than doubled in the past 40 years, yet the housing problems of locals have got significantly worse. It is not simply building homes that is the issue; we have significantly more second homes and holiday homes in our area and significantly higher housing need. This obsession with building hundreds of thousands of homes is not the answer. We need to be a little more sophisticated in our approach. It is not the case that if we dump a load of homes on the countryside the market will, by magic, ensure equilibrium, and local people will have their housing needs met. I can assure Members that that policy will fundamentally fail in my constituency.

There is also the impact of the spare room subsidy. I do not think I will have time to advance that issue, but there is a principle involved here: if someone is poor, they should not be less entitled to a stable family home than if they were better off. I am not sure that I will be able to advance that principle in my Bill, but I feel very strongly that it is something that has been lost in our obsession.

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

It sounds to me—I hope I have not misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman—as though there is an argument for building council houses again. What does he think about that? We have debated social housing time and again, but it would never meet the requirements of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Perhaps he should think about council house building.

[Andrew George]

Absolutely. I am not quite so obsessed with the issue of whether the property is owned by a council or by a registered social landlord. We have some fantastic housing associations in this country, and we have had some pretty rotten local authorities. What we need is social rented accommodation of a decent standard that meets the local need for affordable housing.

[Mr Cunningham]

rose—

[Andrew George]

Time prevents me from taking another intervention from the hon. Gentleman. One of the unintended consequences of the spare room subsidy is that we will end up with smaller new build properties, and less flexibility for housing associations in meeting the needs of local communities. When I was involved in this sector, before I was elected to this House, I always recommended future-proofing new build estates. For example, if I identified an even demand for two and three-bedroom properties, I erred on the side of three and four-bedroom properties, because of the need to future-proof the estate. At the time of building, the marginal cost of adding another bedroom to a development is almost insignificant; it is tiny. That is why the spare room subsidy is driving policy in entirely the wrong direction, and that needs to be addressed.

Speculative landholdings need to be controlled, particularly in rural areas such as mine, where we are looking for exception sites. How can we do that when people are clinging on to land for dear life? One of the planning system’s big problems is that it is fuelled by greed, rather than need. If we are to meet local housing need, we need a system that forces landowners to use or lose their land. I would like the Government to address those needs.

In view of the time, I clearly need to bring my remarks to a close. I look forward to addressing these issues in private meetings in advance of our debate on 5 September, but people who have shared-equity or shared-ownership accommodation often find themselves stuck because they are unable to buy. The Government need to consider extending the Help to Buy scheme to shared ownership, to enhance that sector and allow for a new lower rung on the housing ladder, particularly in those parts of the country in which there is a bigger mismatch between earnings and house prices.

14:31

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I echo what he said about the bedroom tax, not only because of its effect on those it directly affects, but because of the attitude that it shows to the 8 million people in this country who live in social housing, which is that they are effectively second-class citizens so far as the Government are concerned. I am sorry that so many of his colleagues voted for the bedroom tax, although he did not, which is entirely to his credit.

The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is very different from mine, and I hope he will not mind if I move the subject on to London, where housing problems are writ large and are intensifying. We see that in every indication, from the gap between housing demand and supply—the gap in London is some 30% of the gap in England as a whole—to rough sleeping, which has gone up 75% in London over the past three years; that is more than twice the increase in the rest of the country. It is tempting to say that the problems are too difficult to solve, and that house building should therefore take place in areas where land values are cheaper. I am well aware of that, because the median rent for a three-bedroom property in my constituency is £550 a week, which is more than the average London wage. The average purchase price for any property is approaching £750,000, which is completely unaffordable even for those on several times the average income.

We have to address those problems, including in central London, because Government policy—and certain local policies, too—has intensified them. Local housing allowance for three-bedroom properties has been capped at £340. That is supposed to cover the bottom third of rents, but the valuation office’s up-to-date figures tell us that the lower quartile of rents in Hammersmith for a three-bedroom property is £459. The net effect of the change, and indeed of all the other changes the Government have made to benefits policy, is that it is almost impossible to find any property in the private sector that would be covered by housing benefit. We have therefore had an exodus—a process of social cleansing—that has forced people who, in many cases, have lived in London for generations out of the city, and away from where their homes, schools, jobs and families are.

That was intensified by a deliberate policy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) for mentioning what happened at the local election in Hammersmith, which was a breath of fresh air to almost everyone who lives in the area. There was a deliberate demolition of council properties. Whole blocks of 200 or 300 good-quality council properties were held empty for six or seven years before being demolished to be handed to the private sector. Council properties were sold off as they became empty. Over the past four or five years, 500 homes have been sold that could have been used by families on the waiting list, had the waiting list not also been abolished.

I cannot understand the mentality of the Government or local councils, who want to exacerbate an already serious housing problem. I am therefore delighted that a Labour council came in, and the first thing it did on the day after the election was to cancel the demolitions and the sales. The first thing the council did at the first cabinet meeting was to say, “From now onwards we will again prioritise social rented housing, which for eight years has been excluded from the types of housing that could be constructed.”

I want to be a bit more optimistic, and talk about how we can achieve decent affordable housing in high-value areas. Our local plan envisages 50,000 new properties being built over a 20-year period. That is perhaps slightly over-ambitious, if anything, and somewhat unwise, in the sense that it means demolishing hospitals to build housing on their sites. I think that is somewhat short-sighted.

There are three opportunity areas in Hammersmith and Fulham. One is on the site that will be used for High Speed 2; it is envisaged that 24,000 new homes will be built there. The second is in White City, on the site vacated by the BBC, where it is envisaged that 6,000 properties will be built. The third is in the Earls Court and West Kensington area, where it is envisaged that 8,000 properties will be built. The problem is that under existing policies, not a single one of those almost 40,000 properties will be a social rented home. Clearly that will change with the planning policy, but many planning consents have already been given.

I draw attention to two facts. First, across London, and probably outside London, too, developers are relying on viability assessments, which are confidential documents that are not disclosed to the public, or even to councillors on most occasions. Developers typically say that they can afford to build 5% or 10% affordable housing at 80% market sale or 80% market rent. Every time that has been challenged and taken to the Information Commissioner, the documents have eventually been revealed. In the case of Earls Court, for example, we had to go to not only the Information Commissioner but the first-tier tribunal. It was only at that point that the local authorities gave in. Guess what? The viability assessments did not support the idea that there should be little or no affordable housing in those developments.

Secondly, much of these developments are on public land in the widest sense. If they are not on council-owned land or Government-owned land, they are on land owned by the BBC, Network Rail or Transport for London. If we cannot build decent affordable housing on publicly owned land, we are saying to developers, “In those cases, you can also get away with building 95% market housing.” In inner London, that means that properties are for sale abroad, off-plan. Most properties currently being built in my constituency are advertised on websites in the far east, Russia and elsewhere. One-bedroom and two-bedroom properties begin at £1 million-plus. Those properties are not affordable to anyone, by any means, which is why there is effectively a coalition between those who need social rented homes and those who could afford quite a lot on the private market. All my constituents say to me, “When will the Government act to ensure that houses are built that are affordable for the people who live and pay taxes in this country?”

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

If I am following the hon. Gentleman’s logic correctly, he is arguing for scrapping the ability of developers to vary section 106 agreements on the basis of a project’s financial viability. Is that the Labour party’s policy? Does he not understand that that may well reduce the overall supply of affordable housing?

[Mr Slaughter]

I am asking for the viability assessments to become transparent, open documents, so that everyone can see where the truth lies. I am also asking for Conservative local authorities to stop colluding with developers to drive out affordable housing for their own political, economic and ideological motives. That is what is happening across London, and I am sure outside London, too. I support exactly what Michael Lyons said yesterday at the LGA conference, which is that if local authorities are going to act in that way, there has to be an impetus to build more social housing, and that has to be in addition to any revival in the private housing market.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East that we do not want to change things back to exactly how they were, but the four principles that the Government have relied on need to be reversed. They have cut capital investment in housing, reduced security of tenure and almost eliminated affordability, certainly in London, and now they are refusing to determine on the basis of need how housing should be allocated. That is more than a generational step back. Frankly, those are not housing policies that any Government should support. I hope that when my hon. Friend is Housing Minister, she will reverse them.

14:40

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

It is appropriate that I should follow another London Member, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). At the risk of being criticised—we often rightly are—for being London-centric, London does face specific challenges, so I would like to spend a few minutes talking about that subject, which is close to my constituents’ hearts.

It is worth setting out some context. Since 2001, London’s population, and therefore the demand for housing, has increased by 1 million. That is equivalent to creating a new borough every two and a half years, such is the speed of growth. That means we have to respond to the challenging housing needs with innovation and imagination. To borrow the words of the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who I think struck the right tone when talking about the failure over 30 years, we also need to find some common ground, particularly if we are to deal with some of the challenges in London.

As the Mayor has rightly identified, if we are to catch up and keep pace with demand in London alone, we will need to provide about 49,000 accommodation units every year for the next 10 years. To put that in context, that has not been achieved since 1930, an age when building on the green belt was not an issue and we did not face the challenge of having to develop brownfield sites, which I believe offer a big opportunity in London. It is probably accurate to say that we have been building, on average, about 20,000 units a year over the past 30 years.

We now have a situation, as Members on both sides of the House have rightly pointed out, in which rents and the cost of purchase in London are so disproportionate to the rest of the country that supply is clearly the key. Let us face it: we cannot simply wave a magic wand, whether at local government level, mayoral level or here, but we have to pull whatever levers we have at our disposal to try to help drive the supply solution. I have looked with interest at some of the proposed measures for doing that, and at one in particular, which I will speak about shortly—the housing zones, which were recently announced in my constituency.

So tricky is the problem we face that we are looking at more imaginative ways to provide more housing. The Mayor’s land and development programme is effectively bringing forward surplus public land owned by the Greater London authority to regenerate areas and help provide housing. About 60 live sites are already under way, which will hopefully deliver at least 40,000 homes over the period of their development. There are 20 housing zones—I will outline this later for the benefit of the House—which are ambitious plans to create 50,000 much needed homes. It is crucial, as I think we all agree, to target those on low and middle incomes who are seeking to buy affordable homes as well as those seeking to rent.

A considerable number of empty homes in London need to be brought back into use. Between 2008 and 2012, around 5,000 empty homes were brought back into use, and I am sure that we can do more. We have more funding to bring another 1,100 empty homes back into use. In fact, there are now about 25,000 fewer empty homes in London than there were in 2008. Supplying new homes is crucial, but so is work on decent homes—restoring the stock we have to make them liveable—and restoring empty homes. In my borough we have benefited from £44 million, which we are halfway through spending between now and 2015, just on decent homes alone.

[Mr Slaughter]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will address the point that the Minister would not deal with. The Mayor’s definition of affordable is an income of up to £80,000 for larger properties and up to £66,000 for smaller properties. I realise that that is a maximum, but the hon. Gentleman will have seen the story in the London Evening Standard this week about housing associations such as Notting Hill, which frankly is a disgrace. Pitching the target at those levels, they are demanding for their affordable housing a minimum income of £66,000 in order to qualify.

[Nick de Bois]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I did not quite catch the whole point, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made the point about the steep variation in what is an affordable home. Some regard it as just 80% of market value, which is a lovely description and quite enticing, but we know that that still faces a lot of challenge. However, I welcome many of the Government programmes, such as Help to Buy, that will help to overcome the challenges, particularly on deposits, which are crucial. I happily declare an interest in that regard, having had to help finance one of my daughters when she bought a home. I was lucky enough to be able to do that, but many people are not. The Help to Buy scheme was not around at the time, but I have two more daughters to go, so who knows—I am in trouble now.

I will briefly mention the housing zones. I am grateful that the Mayor and the Chancellor—local government working with national Government—have come together to launch a housing zone scheme across London. They will create 20 zones where home building will be accelerated by working in partnership with boroughs, landowners, investors and builders—all the key stakeholders brought together. They are based on a “something for something” deal, not just a handout. That will enable the GLA to act in concert with the key boroughs and stakeholders so that we can focus resources on sites that will be expensive to redevelop, such as brownfield and former industrial sites. With such policy interventions, we can either drive and fast-track developments that are planned at the moment but facing the hurdles we have all talked about, or stimulate new plans and new sites.

In order to ensure that we see progress on housing zones as quickly as possible, the Government will grant the Mayor the powers he needs—so-called mayoral development orders—to remove planning obstacles. That will accelerate the much needed construction in the zones. The site in my constituency has not, I hasten to add, been formally approved yet. The London borough of Enfield, in concert with Network Rail, has already secured development of a third track up to Angel Road. The development will hopefully be called Meridian Water and be on the very important line between Liverpool Street and Cambridge. That crucial ingredient helped to stimulate developers to show their interest and invest in a site that was once industrial and had gasworks on it, which is very expensive to redevelop. The bid that will be going in for Meridian Water will be effectively to seek assistance in site remediation, some land acquisition and decentralising energy infrastructure.

I will draw my comments to a close, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I can see that that is something you clearly wish me to do. The point is that that fast-tracking will enable us to deliver 5,000 homes at a relatively fast speed, if the scheme is approved, which I am optimistic it will be. That will be critical in achieving the overall challenge that London faces. If it is repeated in 20 other zones, that will make a significant difference. I commend those steps to the House.

14:49

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

I very much welcome this debate. The last two speakers have talked about their own constituencies in London. Clearly, my constituency is not in London, but it is experiencing similar house prices and many of the stories that we have heard this afternoon have resonance in Brighton, Pavilion. The failure of successive Governments over the past 30 to 40 years to build anything like enough homes is a scandal that has been ignored by those in power, who have been busy enjoying the short-term economic benefits of inflated house prices. Those prices have skyrocketed in the past year in a market that is both irresponsible and unfair.

I also welcome the motion tabled by the official Opposition. It represents a step in the right direction, but I am concerned that it is quite vague and I hope that they will fill in some of the gaps during the debate. That is why I have amended the motion, and I will say a few words about that in a moment. I want to focus on the issue of council homes, which have not been built in significant numbers for decades. Instead, hundreds of thousands of them have been sold off cheap. On the failure to build, a recent House of Commons Library note shows the long-term steep decline in house building in England over the past 35 years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. She might have tabled an amendment but it was not selected, and the motion has not been amended. We are dealing with the motion before us and no other.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that I was not speaking to the amendment—perish the thought. I was speaking to the items in the motion—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady said that she had amended the motion, and the problem is that people might therefore think that there is an amendment to the motion. That is all I am bothered about. There will be just one vote.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I sought to amend the motion—devastatingly unsuccessfully —and I will not mention the matter further. I do, however, want to mention the substantive issues in the Opposition motion, as well as certain things that are not in it but have nothing to do with my amendment—or rather, my proposed amendment that does not exist. It was a figment of my imagination.

On the failure to build, a recent House of Commons Library note shows the long-term steep decline in house building in England over the past 35 years. Nearly 307,000 homes were built across all tenures in England in 1969-1970, but the number fell to just 107,000 in 2012-13. There was a minor increase in housing association building over that period, although it amounted to fewer than 15,000 more dwellings being built last year than in 1969-70. What is most striking is that the steepest decline was in the building of council homes, which fell from 135,000 to 1,360 over that same period.

To their credit, the last Labour Administration did attempt to address the chronic backlog of repairs and maintenance left after 18 years of deliberate Tory neglect. It is just a shame that this was done at the expense of building the council homes that were needed. For example, only 60 council homes—a tiny number—were built nationally in 2001-2002. By 2008-9, the figure had gone up, with 490 council homes completed in that year, but that was still fewer than one per constituency. The number of housing association homes was higher, with 14,000 in 2001 and 26,500 in 2008, but the numbers were still woefully low. The current Government are clearly worse; they have cut funds for social housing by 60%. The need for strong solutions to get the council and social housing we need built is an absolute priority in our discussions this afternoon.

I see the reality of the housing crisis every day in my constituency. The chronic long-term lack of housing supply is evident everywhere in Brighton, Pavilion and I am regularly contacted by people in despair and in real housing need. Our local paper, the Brighton Argus published a housing special last Saturday entitled “Can you afford to live in the city?” This was a rhetorical question, because for most people in housing need, the answer is a very clear no: the average price in the city has been driven up to more than £367,000. We have seen a 13% increase in house prices in the last quarter alone. Therefore, it is no surprise that we have 18,000 people on the council’s housing waiting list.

The city’s housing market is fast becoming known as a “mini-London”, with average house prices in Brighton nearly twice the national average. Young Brightonians who do not have rich family backers have no hope of getting on the housing ladder. The combination of stratospheric rent and price rises and policies such as the pernicious bedroom tax—which appear to be designed to push people in need of housing benefit, particularly those with disabilities, out of desirable areas—has created a situation in which people on low incomes and those on average wages are being pushed to the margins.

The motion does not say very much about how the Opposition would achieve the aims that they are putting forward. Those aims are laudable, but where are the means? I would like the unfair restrictions on local authorities to be lifted. Housing associations are allowed to borrow against their assets to build but councils are not, despite being able to do so more cheaply. That makes no sense. We must fully lift the borrowing cap to get council homes built again. Councils suffer unnecessary restrictions. They are bound by prudential borrowing rules anyway, so the cap is arguably unnecessary; it is just stifling the building of local authority homes.

Using the Department for Communities and Local Government self-financing model, a joint report published in 2012 by the National Federation of ALMOs, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Association of Retained Council Housing and many others showed that if the borrowing cap were fully lifted and councils were able to make prudential use of their borrowing potential, they could borrow up to £20 billion over five years. That extra borrowing could enable between 170,000 and 230,000 extra homes to be built.

The main justification for the imposition of borrowing caps on local housing authorities is that the additional debt incurred by councils would add to the overall Government debt, but that need not be the case. The UK is unique in Europe for classifying a wide range of bodies as coming within the definition of “public sector” that is used to measure public debt. No other EU country treats social housing investment in the way that happens in England. There is a strong case for local authority borrowing for housing not to be counted towards the public sector debt. Local authority borrowing for housing would be largely self-financing in any case, and it is transparent and low risk.

I would be the first to admit, however, that lifting the borrowing cap will not be enough on its own to replenish our social housing stock following the giveaway of council houses under right to buy and the failure to build. A significant increase in grant funding is needed if we are to begin to reverse the chronic failure to build the housing that we need. That money would also create the benefit of a multiplier effect, generating jobs, apprenticeships, an increase in tax revenues and reduced welfare spending. Shelter has said that £1.22 billion extra, on top of the current £1 billion of Government grant spend, could be sufficient to get us building enough homes if it was combined with a package of reform. That would certainly be a good start. Serious consideration should be given to channelling some of the huge windfall increase in stamp duty revenues predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility into building new council homes. That would be one way of using some of the tax proceeds from our distorted market to increase social housing supply.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are looking a little fidgety, if I may say so. That indicates to me that you would like me to wind up shortly, and I will do so. However, I just want to mention one other matter, which has not been raised this afternoon. The increase in housing supply that we need must involve housing that people can afford to run, as well as buy or rent. This is an opportunity to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty and the rising cost of living. We must use house building to reverse this Government’s weakening of energy saving, water efficiency and other standards. This Government have acted to prevent local authorities from going further than minimum national standards for energy efficiency, despite those standards looking weaker by the day.

Given the scandal of fuel poverty and the hardship being caused by high energy bills, as well as the urgent need for radical cuts to carbon emissions, new homes must be built to a genuine zero carbon homes standard. The Government’s exemptions for small developments mean that around a third of all homes could be exempted altogether. If the Government were sticking to the original zero carbon homes standard, the situation would not be so bad. Under the original standard, annual energy bills for residents in new homes would be under £300, but the Government are again capitulating to big business, watering down the standards and creating loopholes, so energy bills will be around £800.

In summary, we need sufficient homes, which means lifting the borrowing cap and ensuring that imaginative sources of revenue such as stamp duty funding are properly ring-fenced. It also means ensuring that our homes are fit to live in.

14:58

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Listening to some of the speeches by Labour Members made me feel that they were in deep denial about what happened at the back end of the previous decade, which had a significant, if not catastrophic, impact on the construction industry and the house-building programme. I gently remind the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that it was the previous Labour Government who brought the economy to its knees, causing problems which had such a devastating impact on the construction industry that there was no possibility of providing the houses that were needed. Frankly, it is living in cloud cuckoo land to suggest that there has been no improvement since then. Since April 2010, 445,000 new homes have been delivered. That, to me, is quite an achievement. We have seen a reduction in the number of empty properties, and rightly so. Just over 200,000 planning permissions were granted last year. Those are signs of the beginning of improvements in a market that had been brought to its knees.

Having said that, I agree with everyone who has spoken that it is crucial that we meet the housing needs and requirements of a growing population. My own local authority, Chelmsford, has been extremely good. Between 2001 and 2020, we are being required to provide 16,000 extra homes to meet local demand. The council has been imaginative and innovative in identifying brownfield sites, to start with, throughout the borough and providing new planning permissions for housing on them. Owing to the scale of the housing provision required, it is moving on to greenfield sites in the north-east of Chelmsford, where we are hoping to get a new station as a result of a new almost-ward of just over 3,000 properties, of which 35% will be affordable housing to meet the needs of local people who will benefit from it.

I would like to raise an issue with my hon. Friend the Minister about affordable housing. The main provider of social housing in Chelmsford is Chelmer Housing Partnership. That housing was originally the housing stock of Chelmsford borough council, as it was then. Chelmer Housing Partnership has had an imaginative way of developing its properties since it took them over about 20 years ago. For example, all the houses have had central heating put in, which means that no one comes to my surgeries any more complaining about massive condensation. It has improved the fabric of the buildings, and, through its imaginative policies, is investing in building more housing stock for its tenants.

The other housing associations vary as to the quality of the service that they provide to their tenants, and that worries me. Chelmer Housing Partnerships operates a policy of housing for local people. The problem in Chelmsford—I am sure it is not unique—is that significant numbers of young people are leaving school or university and living at home because they cannot afford, at that stage in their lives, to buy a property. Meanwhile, there is not enough social housing available, because most of the housing associations have a policy whereby half the allocations are for local people and the other half are up to the housing association. A lot of people from outside the borough, often from London, are being rehoused in social housing in Chelmsford. If we had a surfeit of properties, that would be perfectly reasonable, but we have long waiting lists for housing. Realistically, a 21-year-old in Chelmsford who is single, has no children and lives with their parents would be on a housing waiting list for a minimum of 10 years before they might get anywhere near consideration for an offer. I believe that is wrong.

Local housing should, first, be for local people, and if there is then spare capacity, people from elsewhere may certainly be encouraged to go to live there. Chelmsford is a very attractive place. It has two of the finest grammar schools in the nation. It has good communications with London. About 8,000 of my constituents commute by train down to London to work. It is an area with good shopping, and so on. That means that there is constant demand for housing in the borough. We therefore need to look at this issue again, to make sure that local residents who were born there and whose families have lived there all their lives are able to get housing, along with other family members who may wish to come back to Chelmsford to help to look after elderly or ailing family members and parents.

I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister: is there any way of fine-tuning the allocation of social housing to make sure that local people are given greater priority, rather than having to compete with people who have no connection with the area and, in effect, queue-jump? That causes tensions within the community, because people ask why they have to wait so long to get housing when people who have never been there before and have no connections can get an allocation through a housing association and come to live in a very attractive and vibrant city.

15:05

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having yet another debate on housing, and I hope there will be many more between now and the next election.

There is clearly a housing crisis facing very many people in this country. Basically, the problem is that 200,000 new households are being created every year through population growth or people choosing to live alone. New house building comes nowhere near to meeting those demands. Thus the shortage is dealt with by rising property prices, rising private sector rents and greater demand on social housing—or, at the other end of the scale, increasing homelessness, rough sleeping, overcrowding, underachievement in schools, and desperate poverty among many people who deserve somewhere decent to live.

I hope that we can look at this debate on the basis of the needs of the entire population. I am particularly concerned about those who are really up against it in inner-city communities such as the one I represent. I am very proud to represent an inner-London constituency. It is a place of growing division, I am sorry to say, because of the housing situation. House prices are rising very fast. The number of owner-occupiers is now well below 30% and falling fast. The number of council properties is increasing only as far as the council is able to find land to build and develop council housing, which is the most secure and affordable form of housing available to people. The remaining provision comprises the private rented sector, which has limited regulation and tends to be very expensive.

The strategy adopted by this Government, through the Department for Work and Pensions, on limiting the local housing allowance but not controlling rents means that large numbers of private tenants, who are often in work—as well as some who are not in work but have right of access to the local housing allowance—cannot afford to remain in those properties and are therefore decanted out of the area. That is happening not just in central London but in the central and more expensive parts of every town and city in the country. Frankly, there is a process of social cleansing going on. That is the effect of the overall housing shortage and the very great increases in costs associated with it.

I have raised with the Minister a specific concern about the development of new properties in former industrial or office buildings under what are known as permitted development rights. The Government decided that they would lift the planning restriction applied to permitted development rights on former office buildings. That means that a local authority has no control over what happens to a former office building, which can then be converted into housing. In some cases, it might be entirely appropriate to convert an office block into housing if there is no longer any requirement for an office block or likelihood of anybody wanting to use it as such. The problem is that if the local authority has no say in the matter, it has no opportunity to try to protect local employment, as it might sometimes wish to protect. Moreover, the local authority has no power whatever to insist that a proportion of the dwellings created are available for social rent. I do not like using the phrase “affordable rent,” because most of the “affordable” rents in London are not at all affordable to anyone on an average income or below.

Yesterday, the all-party group on the private rented sector had a very interesting meeting about access to housing for under-35s. We took evidence from Crisis, the National Union of Students and a company called Essential Living, which is backed by $200 million of equity funding from American pension funds and is very keen on developing the larger-scale private rented sector in London. It says that at some point in the future it wants to develop some kind of affordable rented model, but it is very unclear what that model is. It has bought into an office block in my constituency called Archway tower and turned it into, I think, 120 flats marketed at people earning more than £80,000 a year. It does not require local authority permission to do that; it is only building control and any external work to the building that need to be passed by the local planning authority. Requests have been made of the company to contribute to the social needs of the area by providing a proportion of those properties for social rent. Its responses have been polite and well informed, but the answer has always been the same: it says no, it will not do it.

When I say to the Minister, therefore, that there is a need to intervene in the development of the private rented sector, I do so not only because I want to see the continuation of the diverse mosaic of London’s communities, but, quite simply, for the sake of the survival of the economy of this very big city, which, indeed, will affect that of other very big cities. I pray in aid the London chamber of commerce statistics on the numbers of people who are finding it difficult to afford to buy or rent anywhere to live in London. There is a growing problem of labour shortage, and the same applies to other parts of the country.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I am rather puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s comments about his constituency. Given the paucity of greenfield and urban exception sites available to build new estates in boroughs such as Islington, I would have thought that he would welcome permitted development rights, to enable the cumulative release of more housing of all types and perhaps even affordable housing for his constituents and people across London.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have been listening very carefully. I did not say that I was opposed to the conversion of vacant office blocks or industrial premises into housing. My point is that if there are jobs to be protected—this could apply anywhere in the country—the local authority should at least have a say, so that a rational decision could be made. Secondly, any development has to have a sense of social responsibility, so at least a proportion of those properties should be available for affordable social rent rather than market rent, which is completely unaffordable for the majority of people in my constituency.

When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope he will reflect on the ways in which permitted development rights are actually militating against the housing needs of those people who are most desperately in need of somewhere safe, secure and affordable to live.

15:13

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who made some interesting points about the particular demand for housing in London. It has already been said in this debate—but it needs to be reiterated—that London is the key to the national housing supply. There is a chronic shortage and it is having a ripple effect, not only in the south-east, but more widely.

I suppose the situation is an echo of developments after the war and during the post-war era, when the so-called London overspill moved out from the slums of many parts of the metropolis into the bright new housing provided, among other places, in Swindon. I have the pleasure of representing estates that were very much part of that London overspill planning. Indeed, many of those Londoners still live in the houses they occupied in the 1950s and ’60s. The 1950s were a time of mass house building in this country, presided over by a Conservative Government and a Conservative housing Minister, Harold Macmillan. As the result of a pledge at a Conservative party conference, 300,000 houses were built every year in the early 1950s.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman’s history is very interesting, but will he confirm that it was under the Wilson Labour Government that house building actually reached its peak?

[Mr Buckland]

The hon. Lady is talking about 1968—the year of my birth. I agree that house building reached its peak at that time, but I also remind her that in the immediate post-war era, between 1945 and 1951, about 700,000 houses were built, which is only just over 100,000 a year, and that Aneurin Bevan’s record on housing does not match that of Harold Macmillan.

It is important to make such points, historic though they may be, because neither of the main parties in this House can claim a moral authority when it comes to house building. It ill behoves the hon. Lady and her party to make intemperate criticism of this Government when the previous Labour Government’s public house-building record speaks for itself as poor. The year 2008-09 saw the lowest level of house building since, I think, 1923, which is hardly a record of which the Labour party can be proud. If Labour’s record was so poor then, why on earth should we believe its pledges now about house building from 2015? Please forgive me, but, to be frank, I am sceptical of those claims, though I am sure they are well-intentioned.

Swindon is a town that continues to grow—it now has in excess of 200,000 people—and we have delivered house growth for much of the past 30 to 40 years: first, in the form of the London overspill estates, such as Park North and Park South, and then through developments in the ’70s and, indeed, the ’80s in west Swindon, which comprise the constituency that I have the honour of representing today.

We are no strangers to, or shy of, house building, and we continue to do it. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who has responsibility for planning, is familiar with the Wichelstowe development in my constituency. It is one of the biggest developments in the country and it continues to be rolled out. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and the Government for contributing £800,000—nearly £1 million—to allow a joint venture to be set up, which will enable the local authority, Swindon borough council, together with a private partner, to start developing homes specifically geared towards retired people who wish to downsize and live in homes that, while they do not meet the criteria of sheltered housing, are designed with the needs of older people in mind.

I am talking about homes with fewer bedrooms but larger living accommodation and that are adaptable for the disabilities that sometimes come with old age. That detailed work has been commissioned by the local authority. It has identified a growing ageing population in Swindon who will need that type of housing, and I look forward to the joint venture being set up in the early part of next year and to houses being delivered in Middle Wichel. A new Waitrose supermarket has been opened on the site, which is welcome. We already have shops and infrastructure, which I hope will match the housing to be built there. I am delighted that this week’s announcement of local growth funding has earmarked more than £20 million for the development of infrastructure to facilitate the development of Wichelstowe, which will include the enhancement of junctions 15 and 16 of the M4. That is vital if Swindon is going to be able to sustain the housing expansion expected of it.

In recent years, planning and development have not had the best of reputations. Accusations have been made that developers have land-banked. Until a few years ago, I think there was a case to be made, but the evidence is shifting. My recent experience of the granting of local planning applications is that developers are, in fact, keen to get on site and start developing. I am no longer as convinced as I was about the accusations of land-banking. I have read the detail of the Opposition motion and think that they are a little behind the curve when it comes to the real evidence. They are quite right to be concerned about land-banking—I do not approve of it at all—but I think the evidence is moving against them as the economy picks up and construction development continues.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about land banking. Is there not a huge difference between using the fiscal system to encourage developers not to bank land, and the Opposition proposal to appropriate land in an arbitrary way?

[Mr Buckland]

That leads on to my point. I have concerns about proposals that address non-existent problems. The Opposition proposal could make the situation worse—poorly prepared and considered developments could go ahead, but that is not what we want, and certainly not in Swindon.

Development problems concern not only those of us with an interest in housing, but everybody who wants quality of life. I deal regularly with what I call speculative planning applications, which fall outside the line of development as agreed by local plans and do not capture the consent of local people. Although I was delighted that the old top-down regional spatial strategy was abolished—the number of houses being imposed on my area was excessive—we are in a transitional period between the abolition of the old regime and the adoption of a new local plan. There has been an over-reliance on the five-year land supply argument. That causes a problem for growing towns such as Swindon—it is very difficult to argue that we have such a supply.

My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of those problems, but the message on development and new homes must go out loud and clear. In Swindon alone, 238 new homes have been purchased through Help to Buy, and under the affordable homes scheme, just under 1,000 homes have been delivered. Real progress is being made. The Government are sowing the seeds of a renaissance in housing development. The proposals in the Opposition motion are ill-conceived and do not address the issues properly, and they would cause more problems than they seek to solve.

15:22

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

I start by making my usual declaration of an indirect interest, which relates to the entry in the register of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford).

I agree with the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on the need for a mix of new housing, including housing for people who are retiring. However, I disagree with his assessment of the housing crisis and the figures. In 2009, in the depths of the recession, which was caused in America and ultimately affected countries globally, Labour built—completed—124,980 homes, which is more than we have seen in any single year under the current Government. We need to have that on the record.

We face a housing crisis, with too few homes being built. In parts of the country, mortgage levels are racing ahead. Rents are rising, and the availability of homes for those in the highest housing need does not meet demand. Homelessness and rent arrears are rising because of Government polices such as the bedroom tax. The housing benefit bill is not falling, but rising. All the Government’s policy changes, which were clearly based on sums written on the back of a fag packet, are failing. Their decision to come into office and throw all the cards in the air—it did not matter whether the Labour Government’s policies were starting to work, even with the problems faced in the recession—was injudicious, unwise and ideologically driven.

The Government and the Minister seem to be burying their collective heads in the sand. It would be nice if the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), were on the Front Bench to listen to hon. Members’ contributions, and particularly those from Government Back Benchers. Some of their contributions have been thoughtful—the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) made a sensible and interesting contribution about the problems in London.

House builders have been given quite a lot of freedom by planning changes. I am disappointed, because when I was shadow Housing Minister, house builders frequently told me that, when conditions were right, they could step up to the plate, and build quickly and in numbers, but that is not happening. There are a range of complex reasons, some within the control of house builders, and some that are not, which the Government ought to address to expand the number of new homes being built.

The evidence appears to show that we are likely to have a fall in housing starts. The Home Builders Federation briefing to hon. Members says that that could be

“as a result of affordable housing starts reducing in the transitional period as the current affordable housing programme comes to an end and before the new commences”.

I would have expected the Government to have had a decent transition to ensure that that reduction does not happen, but the Minister was not clear. He threw in a number and said, “We are going to bring forward money from the 2015 to 2018 programme in order to deal with it and everything will be okay,” but he was completely unclear about how much and where. All such questions were left hanging in the air.

We have a problem about where value sits in a housing development. That is a big issue. The Government should be putting their hands up and saying, “We are not doing enough.” They should stop pretending that everything is rosy, when in fact it is shocking. We have the lowest level of house building in peacetime. Young people are finding it difficult to find a place to rent, let alone buy. In the south-west there is a shortfall of some 36,000—that is the difference in the past three years between housing completions and demand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said from the Opposition Front Bench, help to build is an interesting concept and would take us in the right direction.

The Government’s complacency and, at times, arrogance, needs to be challenged. The figures that were bandied about by the former Housing Minister, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) were fanciful. He made the allegations and assertions repeatedly in the House, and I have advised his office that I will talk about him today. He repeatedly made the claim that the Government would build more homes in five years than the Labour Government had built in 13 years, and fell foul of the UK Statistics Authority and the Information Commissioner. An article in The Independent on 7 June 2013 highlighted internal e-mails from officials that confirmed that the figures the former Housing Minister had used were not correct, and that Labour had built 500,000 affordable homes while in office, which was almost double the figure being pumped out at the time by the Tory machine. Is it any wonder that the voting public wonder what on earth to believe?

Government Members repeatedly quote figures on the number of social homes that are based on a subtraction of right-to-buy sales, which serves an interesting purpose from their point of view, but is incredibly misleading. That is from a Conservative party that wholeheartedly supported the sell-off of social housing. Both Labour and the Conservatives have failed to build using the proceeds of those sales. A number of Opposition Members have put their hands up to that. One of those parties—the Conservative party—did so wilfully, and one believed that the priority was getting the assets, or the housing stock, back up to a decent standard, because the previous Conservative Government had let it rot, which is not wise with valuable assets against which we might want to borrow for further investment. That was incredibly poor housing management from an ideologically blinkered Tory Government.

The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley mentioned right-to-buy sales of about 10,000 and the delivery of 3,000 new homes, but that falls well short of the one-for-one provision promised by the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, or even like-for-like provision.

In Plymouth, despite the best efforts of the Labour council, there is still a shortage of homes to buy and to rent. The city council has been extremely imaginative in looking at self-build and eco options, as well as at making good use of brownfield sites. We also have one of the largest regeneration schemes in the country, begun under the previous Labour Government, which is transforming the area. However, Shelter has highlighted problems in our region. Some 80% of UK properties are too expensive for new buyers. That figure rises to 94% in the south-west, and to 99% in Exeter. The managing director of a large company linked to property sales in Plymouth, James Clarke from Lang and Co., has said that it is not selling to first-time buyers, but to second or even third-time buyers, as first-time buyers are not coming forward.

We have heard about the bank of mum and dad, but it simply is not available to most young people in low-income areas such as mine. We should also consider some of the other pressures. People are living longer in their homes; those homes are not being passed on through inheritance; and the money and equity in those homes are being used up for care purposes. That money is not therefore coming back into the housing market.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East very clearly set out Labour’s priorities and how we will deliver the house building that we need. Effectively, a number of ducks have to be got in a row before we can get such numbers, including land parcelling and construction skills. This Government are simply not getting their ducks in any sort of a line; frankly, they are shooting them one by one as each of their housing policies fails. We need a change of direction, and a change of Government.

15:30

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on securing a debate on this exceptionally important subject.

It is less than a year since we in this country were talking about a sclerotic housing market, in which people were not confident and housing was not being built. Now, almost every time the Governor of the Bank of England opens his mouth, we are talking about a housing bubble. We have gone from one to the other inside 12 months, with no intervening period of sanity, despite the ever-present, predictable and long-run need to have a roof over one’s head. One might have thought that that indicated a systemic flaw in our housing market.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the Government’s failure to build houses. I want to point out the very simple fact that Governments do not build houses. They can get in the way and make building houses easier or more difficult, but they do not build them. House builders build houses, in response to demand from tenants who wish to rent, and from buyers who wish to buy. At least, that is how it is supposed to work. We do not have a national shoe service, yet everyone in the Chamber is wearing shoes. The supply of shoes rises to meet demand, and the same is true of chairs. We do not feel the need to have a national chair service, yet we all have chairs to sit on when we need them.

That suggests that we need to deploy another factor, something that is not yet fully available: the energy of the people who want houses or somewhere to live. Rod Hackney, the Prince of Wales’s architectural adviser, said:

“It is a dangerous thing to underestimate human potential and the energy which can be generated when people are given the opportunity to help themselves.”

That is why I formed the all-party group on self-build, custom-build and independent house building. It is why I was so delighted that when Kevin McCloud addressed the group only a few weeks ago, both the Minister with responsibility for planning—my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—and the shadow Housing Minister were able to attend.

For that reason, I was also delighted to take some all-party group members, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), and people from several local authorities and housing associations, including the excellent Saffron Housing in my constituency, to look at Baugruppen, or building groups, in Berlin, where more than 5,000 dwellings have been created from the bottom up by more than 300 groups. I am sorry that the Minister with responsibility for planning and the shadow Housing Minister were not able to come, but the Department for Communities and Local Government sent some officials, and I know that the Minister will hear more about the visit. It was interesting to see both affordable rentals provided by Genossenschaften—so-called housing co-operatives—and, in some cases, housing for purchase. Most of what we saw was affordable housing, which shows that with imagination, drive and energy from the bottom up, more can be achieved.

I have not drawn first prize in the lottery of life, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has, but I drew prize No. 4, so on 24 October I will introduce—I hope, with the support of all parties—the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill. I keep calling it an Act, but the Public Bill Office reminds me that I have to get it through the House of Commons first.

[Mr Simon Burns]

And the Lords.

[Mr Bacon]

And the House of Lords. I will briefly mention the three things that I hope the Bill will do. First, it would impose a requirement or duty on local authorities to keep a register of people or community groups, whether they want to rent or purchase, who are interested in bringing forward or acquiring land for what in Berlin are called self-organised projects. Secondly, when bringing forward housing initiatives in local plans, local authorities would have to take account of and make provision for the needs of people on the register. Thirdly, they would have to do something in the affordable space, so that people with affordable obligations can meet them, or at least part of them, as a result of people’s contributions from the bottom up.

15:34

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I am the tail-end Charlie again; that is the position that I like to have in these debates.

What an interesting debate we have had this afternoon. Yet again, the Opposition think that the glass is half empty. They need to look at the whole of the country. They need to look at beautiful South Derbyshire. In 2012-13, not only did we build twice as many houses as the average constituency across the country, but a third of those were affordable houses. South Derbyshire district council, which has been Conservative-led for the past seven years, has been building new council houses. How is it able to do that? By managing the housing revenue account very successfully. All those things are possible when an area has a council that cares about its people, understands value for money and does not waste money. Of course, that Conservative council has not put the rates up for four years, either.

Another reason why this glass-half-empty Opposition debate is astonishing is that they are talking only about new builds, and not about bringing properties back into use. The most imaginative scheme has come from a charity that looks after ex-service people. It has bought two rows of houses in the north-east for £1 a street. The houses are being brought back into use by the people who will live in them. That is not costing the public purse anything. Everybody had written off those houses because they are up in the north-east and stuff does not happen up there. That is not good enough. It is time that the Opposition decided to play a better and bigger part in solving this problem.

There are lots of empty homes in our country. Councils that are using their initiative are not just putting the council tax on empty homes up from 50% to 80%; they are charging 100%, then 110% if the home is still empty the next year, and 120% if it is still empty the year after that. That can go up to 140%, because we want homes to be brought back into use. That is not about restricting people or taxing them out. The council wants the homes to be brought back into use, so it says to the people who own them, “Do you want tenants? Our council housing people will organise tenants for you.” That is done at private rent prices and can involve short-term lets, three-year lets or whatever they want. Innovative councils are bringing empty homes back into use.

I will finish on that point, because I think that Madam Deputy Speaker wants to move things along. I find it so depressing that, as usual, all we get is a mithering, miserable debate from the Opposition. Where are the Opposition Members? Yet again, there has been speaker after speaker from the Government Benches, because we are proud of what we are doing on new housing and on bringing properties back into use. We are proud that we have really good-quality builds, such as the one that the Minister with responsibility for planning, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), kindly came to see in Melbourne in South Derbyshire. We are proud of what we are doing. I say to the Opposition: for goodness’ sake get a grip. Start cheering on what is good about this nation, and stop knocking it.

15:38

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are in the midst of the biggest housing crisis in a generation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) finds it miserable that I am pointing that out, but many people in my constituency and across the country are suffering. Under this Government, house building is at its lowest level in peacetime since the 1920s. Since May 2010, the backlog in demand has reached 500,000.

Today, we have heard the latest stats, and clever words from Government Members that are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) said, designed to dazzle, and to distract from the Government’s poor record. There was certainly an attempt to distract at the start of this debate, but there was not much dazzling. The number of announcements the Government have made about housing is about the same as the number of homes they have built. The impact that the housing shortage is having on the financial security and the hopes and dreams of millions of people across the country is rightly a concern for this House.

In a typically excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) showed how the Government have totally failed on housing. For his sake, the whole House was relieved when he gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). She was keen to intervene because she is proud of his record. Millions of people live in decent homes because of his focus on improving the housing stock, and we should pay tribute to him for that. The Government of which he was a member built 2 million new homes, including, as he said, half a million affordable homes.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, spoke powerfully about the contrast between the approaches of the current and previous Government. The current Government’s first decision on housing after taking office was to cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. The number of homes built for social rent fell to 7,759 last year—the lowest number since records began, and a fall of 75% from 2009-10, the last year of the Labour Government. The number of affordable homes built fell last year to the lowest in at least five years; that represented a fall of 32% from 2009-10. Overall, home ownership fell to its lowest level in 25 years—it is lower than in any year under the last Labour Government. The latest English housing survey showed that the proportion of homes lived in by owner-occupiers had dropped to 65.2% from 71% in 2003. It is at its lowest level since 1987.

Many Members have raised the issue of affordability. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said that house prices in her area are not affordable. I agree that we need to deliver more affordable homes, and different types of homes. I reassure her that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East said, we do not intend to impose housing targets of the type that she fears, but of course we want people in all areas of the country to think about the relationship between house prices and the availability of houses. That is as important in the hon. Lady’s community as it is in mine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) called for all-party agreement on increasing house building and on the need to build social homes. He has done much work to build that cross-party agreement through his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) spoke of his private Member’s Bill on social housing. I know that the shadow Minister will talk constructively with him about that Bill. He talked a great deal of sense about the bedroom tax, which he opposed, and he highlighted its consequences. Of course, his party is accountable for that policy, and we have used Opposition days to give it many opportunities to overturn it, but it does not take the opportunities that we present.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) spoke about the deliberate demolition of council properties in his area, and why voters at this year’s local elections rejected that social cleansing so comprehensively. I pay tribute to him for highlighting the issue so consistently in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about the same issue—what he sees as social cleansing—but he also mentioned his concerns about the need for reform of the private rented sector.

It is clear that the Government are failing. House building is at its lowest levels in peacetime since the 1920s, and the number of completions has been lower in each year of this Government than in every year of the last Labour Government. The Government cannot continue to claim otherwise. The number of homes built for social rent is at its lowest for 20 years, home ownership is down, and millions are facing insecurity in the private rented sector as house prices rise faster than wages. The Governor of the Bank of England says that housing is the biggest risk to our economy, and the Opposition recognise that risk. That is why we are putting policies in place to tackle the housing shortage that is so central to the cost of living crisis.

I came back this morning from Bournemouth, where I attended part of the Local Government Association conference. I spoke to a lot of Labour councillors; many of them were familiar faces, but there were many new faces, following our success in this year’s local elections. Many of them told me proudly about the homes that they are building for their communities. Councils such as Southwark, York, Exeter, Leeds, Nottingham, Ipswich and Stevenage are all using the new financing agreed under the Labour Government to push ahead with building more council houses. Overall, five times as many social homes are being built in Labour authority areas as in Conservative ones. Of course, I welcome Conservative councils that are building—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire spoke about how her council is building homes and bringing others back into use. Of course we want to work with councils of all political types to bring forward new homes across the country, but it is clear that Labour councils are already showing the commitment that the next Labour Government will show.

In contrast to the current Government’s failure, we will tackle the housing shortage. We recognise that there are deep structural problems in the land market and the house building sector. As the number of small builders has declined and the big firms have grown even bigger, it has become easier for the dominant firms to buy up land. The truth is that to get the number of houses built that we need, there has to be a change in how the housing market works, but Ministers have simply failed to acknowledge that.

We must get more firms into house building to build homes and provide greater competition, because as we know, the high cost of housing is driven by the high cost of land and the shortage of housing supply. That is why Labour set out plans to boost the role of small and medium-sized house builders and get them building again. We have proposed a “help to build” scheme, which would help small and medium-sized builders to access finance through the banks. Those builders tell us that access to finance is a key barrier to getting homes built, and we will help them overcome it.

Access to land is another key barrier. That is why we have set out plans to ensure that a higher proportion of small sites are allocated in local authority five-year land supplies, and we will give them guaranteed access to public land. The system is not releasing enough land for housing development, and by the time land is given planning permission it is often prohibitively expensive. That creates an incentive to bank land, rather than build on it.

According to documents written by the Minister’s Department and obtained by “Newsnight”, there are 9,000 sites with planning permission to build 350,000 new homes that have not yet been started. Under the current system, however, there is little that local authorities can do about land banking. That is why we would create greater transparency by ensuring that developers register the land they own. We will also give councils and communities the power to charge developers escalating fees for sitting on land with planning permission, to incentivise them to either build or release the land to someone who will. As a last resort, we would give local authorities the power to compulsorily purchase land, so that they could assemble the land and we could make progress.

The purpose of those measures is to address the imbalance of power between local communities and developers. There are also issues to be resolved between authorities. Where local authorities are landlocked but their communities need to expand, the Government’s duty to co-operate is nothing more than a duty to talk and talk. In my area—in Corby and East Northamptonshire—the two neighbouring district authorities have worked well together. There is a huge amount of house building—indeed, both Ministers on the Front Bench have been to see it—and Corby is set to double in size by 2020 because of that co-operation between neighbouring authorities. We need to have that all around the country, and that is why we will give communities the right to grow.

After four years of promises but inaction by this Government, we welcome the proposal for an urban development corporation to support the building of Ebbsfleet garden city. We are disappointed, however, that the Minister says there will not be a requirement for affordable housing. Garden cities can offer a considerable amount of social and affordable housing; that is part of the principles behind them. Labour is determined to bring forward plans to deliver a new generation of new towns and garden cities as part of fulfilling our commitment to build 200,000 new homes a year by 2020. The right to grow; use it or lose it on land banking; reform to the housing revenue account; backing small and medium-size builders; tackling empty homes; reforming the private rented sector; scrapping the cruel bedroom tax—those are serious measures to bring about the step change that we need to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance of having a good home. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

15:47

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

This has been an illuminating and at times arresting debate. We have witnessed a near domestic in the household of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has tantalised us with talk of an amendment that seemingly never was, and the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) had, I fear, the absolute opposite of his desired effect because it made us all want to move to his constituency and put ourselves on the list of the excellent Chelmer housing authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) spoke movingly about the particular issues facing areas that are attractive to people who want second homes. He sits next to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who will have similar issues in the beautiful end of the country that he represents. I hope that both my hon. Friends will be able to explore the potential for community land trusts to provide a form of housing for sale that can be secured in permanence for people on typical average local incomes.

I believe that the best contribution in this debate came from the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. He enjoined us all to recognise that we as a country, one Government after another, have been building too few homes for 30 years. He urged us to put aside debates about statistics—endlessly tedious debates, I might add—and instead to focus on a long-term cross-party strategy to correct our common failure. It will be hard—not least because the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) fired quite a few political bullets over the Dispatch Box in his winding-up speech—but I am going to try to follow the injunction of the distinguished Select Committee Chair. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman makes the point that this is the first time I have tried to do that. I feel that is a little harsh. But I promise not to do it again.

To build houses, we need a few basic things. As everyone has pointed out, the first thing we need more than anything is land. I am delighted that this Government have done the hard work of reforming planning policy to create the national planning policy framework, and I am even more delighted that the Labour party has agreed not to scrap it and to continue to work within that framework.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) is about to leave his seat, let me say that I am very pleased that the Mayor of London and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have announced housing zones, working on ideas drawn up by the excellent organisation, Shelter, to bring forward brownfield sites in areas of desperate housing need. I look forward to a successful housing zone in my hon. Friend’s Enfield constituency.

I am delighted that the Chancellor is spearheading the right to build—a proposal included in the Budget—which is intended to provide small blocks of land for thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who would rather not rely on a big house builder, but want to get on, hire a local builder and an architect and build themselves a house—and they often find that they can get it built a good deal cheaper, too. Again, I am glad that the Opposition have indicated their support for this initiative.

Proposals to bring forward land, then, are the first key step. I believe that this Government have done a lot, although it is taking a long time to come through—longer than any of us would have wanted to deliver the houses we need. It is right and proper that we have that as part of our long-term strategy.

The second thing we need is lots and lots of different institutions building homes. Sadly, as a result of the crash—I shall not get into the debate about where it came from; there was a crash and it was one of the worst this country has ever faced—where 5,000 firms were building between one and 10 houses a year in 2007, a few years later, there were fewer than 3,000 such firms. We have thus seen a collapse in the small and medium-sized builder market.

Every Member has talked about the falling off of council house building. I do not believe that any of us should be ideological about this issue. I want as many institutions that have the money and want to build houses to be able to do so. That is why I welcome the relaxation of the HRA borrowing cap announced by the Chancellor, for which bids are now being sought.

We need institutions to be able to get working capital in order to buy the land and to carry the land on their balance sheet while they are working through the planning process. That is why the Government have introduced a builder’s finance fund, and I am glad that the Opposition also have proposals to provide finance for small and medium-sized builders. In that long-term strategy, as well as a common approach on bringing forward land, there can be a common approach on ensuring that as many institutions as possible and as many individuals as possible are able to get on and build houses.

In addition, we need people who want to buy houses to be able to get mortgages. I am afraid that that is another thing that was entirely devastated by the crash. It was devastated perhaps for good reasons, with the banks, having over-extended themselves by lending people too much money off slightly flaky asset values and having gotten themselves into terrible problems, having to retrench and pull back their balance sheets to rebuild their equity reserves. As a result, for love nor money, people could not get a 95% mortgage—unless their daddy was very rich, in which case the mortgage probably was not needed in the first place. That explains why this Government have brought forward Help to Buy.

I know that the Opposition like to snipe about Help to Buy, but there is no question about it. Every house builder in the country will say that they are building again because they have people to sell to who are able to get mortgages. That is why I trust that once the heat of the election has subsided, the Opposition will acknowledge that Help to Buy is a key part of the long-term strategy for house building.

Notwithstanding my attempts to be bipartisan and ecumenical, I shall be urging my hon. Friends to oppose the motion. My reason for doing so is simply this: in the Opposition motion, there are some glib proposals, which I hope might work, but I fear that Opposition Members have not thought them through and that they might do more harm than good.

There is the proposal, simply named, for a “right to grow”. We heard a complaint about the duty to co-operate—the complaint that it involved endless conversations—but, when challenged on whether the “right to grow” meant a right just to impose, the Opposition said “No, of course there will be consultations.” What are consultations? Consultations are exactly the conversations that are happening as a result of the duty to co-operate. The boroughs surrounding Oxford have got together with the city of Oxford to produce a joint housing market study, so that they can understand jointly what their needs are and decide jointly how they will meet them. That is the duty to co-operate in action. Either we continue that approach, or we become more heavy-handed and we impose. I think it important to be honest: the right to grow certainly sounds more like an imposition, and I fear that those who apply it will find that they are building resentment, not houses.

I am troubled, too, by the glib approach to garden cities. The Government have been very clear about the fact that they are dying for local authorities to come forward with proposals for large new settlements which we could help to fund with a mixture of guarantees and other support, and which would deliver substantial amounts of new housing. We have made that plain for many, many years, but I have to say that we have not been overwhelmed with proposals as yet. The one place from which we did receive a proposal is the one place where we are providing that support: Ebbsfleet, where both local authorities want a garden city and absolutely see the need for it, and where we have responded by arranging for an urban development corporation to provide it.

The Opposition policy on garden cities means one of two things. Either it means that local authorities are invited to come forward with proposals for new garden settlements, in which case it is precisely the same as the Government’s current policy, or it means a proposal for Sir Michael Lyons—or some other distinguished gentleman or lady—to get out his red marker pen, look at a map of England, and start drawing his own maps of where those garden cities will go. It must be one or the other. Either it is a voluntary process in which local authorities—

[Emma Reynolds]

It is in between.

[Nick Boles]

Oh, it is in between! Everything is “in between” when the detail becomes awkward, but the detail is the responsibility of Government. We cannot smoosh around the words and hide among the vagaries when we are in government, which is why that policy, too, is a dangerous one.

There is also the proposal to confiscate land from builders who do not build. There is nothing more frustrating for any of us than to see a site that has had planning permission for a while not being built out, but it is important that we ask ourselves what the fundamental reasons are for that. Usually, it is because the site will not make money if it is built out and sold on now. We must also ask ourselves this: what will be the result of our saying to builders “We are going to force you to build out, or else we will take the land away from you”? I fear—and not as a result of any ideological prejudices—that there will be fewer applications for planning permission and fewer houses for which development is proposed, and that we will have made the problem worse.

The Chairman of the Select Committee is right. On either side of the House, we have not yet succeeded in solving this problem. We must work together to establish a long-term strategy in order to do so, but I do not believe that the proposals in the Opposition motion will achieve that, and I therefore urge the House to reject it.

Question put.

15:59

Division 34

Ayes: 235

---

Labour: 223
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 291

---

Conservative: 247
Liberal Democrat: 43

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1: injunctions to prevent gang-related violence) Order 2014, the Ayes were 274 and the Noes were 203, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Technical and Vocational Education

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

16:15

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the previous Government rescued the idea of apprenticeships and quadrupled apprenticeship starts; furthermore believes that a transformation in vocational education has eluded Governments for decades; therefore believes that the UK needs a new settlement for those young people who do not wish to pursue the traditional route into university and the world of work; and further believes that in order to achieve a high status vocational education system that delivers a high-skill, high-value economy the UK needs a new Technical Baccalaureate qualification as a gold standard vocational pathway achieved at 18, a new National Baccalaureate framework of skills and qualifications throughout the 14 to 19 phase, the study of mathematics and English for all to age 18, for all large public contracts to have apprenticeship places, new employer-led apprenticeships at level 3 and new technical degrees.

This motion is further testimony to the Labour party’s belief that education offers the surest means to deliver social justice, economic competitiveness and a route out of the fearful isolationist impulse adopted by the UK Independence party and increasingly by the Conservative party. Labour wants a skilled Britain, not a little England. In just under a month’s time, we shall mark the 70th anniversary of the Education Act 1944. The Minister for Skills and Enterprise likes to compare himself with the young Winston, but that Education Act was the product of a slightly more heroic coalition—a genuinely cross-party one-nation moment to broaden the focus of education and extend its emancipatory power to all classes. This, along with the national health service that the Conservatives tried to block, was to be the centre point of the post-war new Jerusalem. As Winston Churchill said, it would be a society in which,

“the advantages and privileges which hitherto have been enjoyed only by the few, shall be far more widely shared by the men and youth of the nation as a whole.”

Yet the sad truth, at least as far as education is concerned, is that we are still waiting for this new Jerusalem. In post-war Germany, Ernest Bevin implemented a new era of technical and vocational excellence, but in Britain, Rab Butler’s plans were stymied at birth and the technical school’s roots of the tripartite system never truly materialised.

Our ambition in office is to right that wrong and to do what this Government, with their narrow focus on free schools and curriculum tinkering, have signally failed to achieve. We do so because our economic future depends on it. Our shortage of technicians, engineers and skilled apprentices is hindering growth and a more balanced economy.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I am slightly disappointed by the partisan note in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The truth is that apprenticeships were ignored by generations of politicians. The previous Government, to their great credit, started the process of rehabilitation. The present Government have continued the work. We should celebrate that consensus and that spirit of shared endeavour and not score party points.

[Tristram Hunt]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work with the engineering sector. The fact of the matter is that we are not delivering the results. The Royal Academy of Engineering forecasts that the UK needs an extra 50,000 STEM technicians and 90,000 STEM professionals every year just to replace people retiring from the work force. Similarly, new nuclear capacity could boost the UK economy by an estimated £5 billion and create more than 30,000 jobs, but the sector needs thousands of new recruits a year.

If we want to build a high-skill, high-wage economy, we need to build a recovery that delivers for working people. We need an education system that marries the vocational with the academic, and values what people can do alongside what they know. The modern workplace demands non-routine analytic and interactive skills. Businesses want employees who are innovative, flexible, creative team players. Sadly, that has not been the focus of Her Majesty’s Government. At exactly the point when we need a long-term economic plan, there is absolutely nothing in sight.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

Talking of which.

[Mr Newmark]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the number of people not in education, employment or training went up by a third under a Labour Government?

[Tristram Hunt]

We have a proud record of tackling unemployment and youth unemployment. We championed the delivery of young people into work with a future jobs fund which this Government scrapped when they came into office. As this week’s CBI—

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

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

I would have thought the Minister would want to listen to what the CBI has to say. This week’s CBI survey found that 58% of businesses are not confident that they will have enough highly skilled staff available for their future needs, which is up from 46% last year. [Interruption.] I know the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) is keen on maths, so let me tell her that that is a rise of 12% in a single year under this Government. The Government’s focus has been on tinkering with the curriculum, undermining teaching and introducing a mishandled free schools policy.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that simply converting short-term vocational training programmes under the apprenticeship brand only damages that brand? What employers want are highly skilled, highly motivated individuals to ensure that we have a world-class work force.

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend speaks of what he knows, and he is absolutely right about the devaluing of apprenticeships under this Government, which I shall come to.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I know my hon. Friend agrees that the lack of skills is one of the biggest impediments to our development as a country. Skills are essential to the prosperity of this nation. Does he agree that it is a great shame, and says everything about this Government, that the Secretary of State for Education is not in the Chamber for this essential debate?

[Tristram Hunt]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, and normally I would be 100% behind him and seek to knock it out of the park, but on this occasion the Education Secretary has organised an international conference of educators here in the UK, which is not a bad place for the UK to be. However, my instincts are with my hon. Friend.

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

I urge my hon. Friend to continue making party political points, because they are rather good. Will he add that too many Government Members have no history of further education or technical colleagues, as I do? I did my A-levels at Kingston technical college.

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend is exactly right.

Talking of political divisions, the Government’s focus, as we have seen, has been not on the vocational demands of our education system but on tinkering with the curriculum and a free schools policy. At the Skills Minister’s favourite school, the Swedish private equity free school IES Breckland, which he has supported so much, Ofsted discovered “inadequate” teaching, poor behaviour and declining student literacy levels. The Swedish for-profit model that the Government were so keen to import has been exposed and discredited in the Skills Minister’s own backyard—responsible for one of the biggest falls in educational standards anywhere in the world.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman broke away from his overly partisan tone when mentioning the Secretary of State, who apologises for not being able to be here. My right hon. Friend made it clear that if the Labour party had made this the first and most important debate this afternoon, he would have been here at the Labour party’s request. He would have liked to have been here, but the Labour party chose to make this the second debate, and therefore he cannot, and so I shall be responding for the Government.

[Tristram Hunt]

The record will note that the Skills Minister did not want to defend IES Breckland and the free schools policy.

We are beginning to see a widening attainment gap, but it is on vocational education where the Government’s negligence hits hardest. The Government are failing young people who want a gold-standard technical education, and they are not securing our skills base.

Let us be clear about the Government’s record. The number of apprenticeship starts by under-25s has fallen by 11,324 since 2010. The number of STEM apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds has fallen by more than 7,000 since 2010. Too many apprentices in England are existing employees, not new job entrants, and too many are over 25. Let us add to that the Government’s scandalous destruction of careers advice.

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

The hon. Gentleman’s motion refers to the United Kingdom, but he will know that in Scotland vocational education and skills development is devolved and the cross-party Wood commission is looking at that very issue. Does he intend to overrule what has been proposed in the Scottish Parliament in favour of his proposals, or did he just get a bit confused when drafting the motion?

[Tristram Hunt]

We will devolve our skills budgets to a regional, local level in England, because we believe that those decisions are best made locally.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very talkative, but what practical steps has he taken? How many skills and apprenticeship fairs, such as the one I held in Redditch on Friday, have he and his Front-Bench team held in their constituencies?

[Tristram Hunt]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she has done to promote skills in Redditch. I have seen some great schools there that are combining vocational and academic work, such as the RSA academy, and I know how important that is.

Sadly, this Government have undermined careers advice. Thanks to their reforms, prisoners now have more access to careers advice than school pupils. In 2013 the Education Committee raised its concerns about

“the consistency, quality, independence and impartiality of careers guidance now being offered to young people.”

Similarly, Ofsted has found that only one in six schools offer individual careers guidance from a qualified external adviser. For the Labour party, this is a matter of both social justice and economic efficiency. For those young people without the networks and internships, decent careers guidance is essential. Similarly, the complexity of navigating a vocational technical course, mixing an apprenticeship with further education provision, demands decent advice and information. All the colleges I have visited, from Dudley to Chichester, Manchester to Tamworth and Lambeth to Stoke-on-Trent, complain that they are not being properly promoted to potential students.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the creation of university technical colleges across the country, including the one that is due to be built in my constituency? At the same time, apprenticeship places have more than doubled since the general election and youth unemployment has fallen by more than a third. Does he welcome those three things?

[Tristram Hunt]

The hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading the Adonis review, as we look forward to more university technical colleges opening under the forthcoming Labour Government, but we must keep a watch on the quality of provision in UTCs and ensure that they are rolled out appropriately.

The coalition Government’s third mistake was an overly restrictive approach to syllabus reform. I agreed with much of what the Wolf report said about cutting the number of semi-vocational qualifications with over-inflated GCSE equivalents. I also think that it is absolutely right that pupils from working-class backgrounds in Stoke-on-Trent and elsewhere have full access to academic courses, but the current balance within the Progress 8 attainment measures can often seem out of kilter if we want young people to pursue engineering, design and technology, and art.

Similarly, the destruction of practical learning in the curriculum is very worrying. From geography to physics, the move to a more knowledge-focused curriculum, although important in some respects, has seen a withering away of skills, whether field trips, speaking skills or project work. This Government are undermining a powerful component of English education.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I recently had the pleasure of taking my hon. Friend to visit the BRIT school in Croydon, which is sadly the only state school of its kind anywhere in the country. It has a very strong relationship with the music and performance industry. Does he agree with the young people we met there that the Government’s downgrading of vocational qualifications downgrades their hard work and their futures?

[Tristram Hunt]

I absolutely agree; dance, drama, art, design and creativity are among the most successful components of modern English in our culture and economic competitiveness. We need an education system that will promote and inspire that. Sadly, however, Ofsted, to which I would have thought the Ministers would have paid some heed, has stated:

“too many school leavers are not well-enough equipped scientifically with practical, investigative and analytical skills.”

That cannot be in the long-term interests of this country.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am slightly worried about the hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition Benches who seem to have been overtaken by mass amnesia. Does he not remember that the Labour Government presided over an entire generation of 16 to 24-year-olds who are now likely to have fewer skills than their grandparents? We are the only country in the western world where that is the case. Will he apologise for that?

[Tristram Hunt]

The hon. Lady should worry no more, because in 10 months’ time we will have a Labour Government delivering a sustainable education and skills policy.

Our motion talks of

“a new settlement for those young people who do not wish to pursue the traditional route into university”.

Let me lay out the Labour party’s ambition for Government to deliver equal status for vocational qualifications from school to university and beyond, to provide clear routes for highly skilled technical or professional careers and to have a dynamic, modern education system that will ensure that Britain can compete as an innovative, productive economy. We shall start with technical baccalaureates for 16 to 19-year-olds, in order to provide a clear, high-status vocational route through education. That is a Labour policy. The tech bacc will include quality level 3 vocational qualifications and a work placement to provide a line of sight through education into employment.

Our next policy is to ensure, unlike this Government, that all young people continue to study English or maths to the age of 18. These are the most essential of all 21st-century skills, and getting them right is fundamental to future career prospects. That does not mean asking young people to redo their GCSEs over and over again. Rather, it means ensuring that applied, functional and useful English and maths will help them to succeed with their careers. We will have slimline English and maths courses designed to complement a student’s core programme of study.

Furthermore, we think that English and maths should be part of an ambitious national baccalaureate framework for all learners. Alongside core academic or vocational learning in English and maths, we want young people to undertake a collaborative project and a personal development programme, which would nurture the character, the resilience and the employability skills of all our young people. Much of the tech bacc route will be delivered through further education colleges.

[Mr Sheerman]

My hon. Friend will recall that the Skills Commission inquiry into pathways at 14, chaired by Mike Tomlinson and Ian Ferguson, strongly recommended GCSE papers in practical English and practical maths. Does he think that that would be a good way forward?

[Tristram Hunt]

We want an education system in which those young people who wish to pursue technical and vocational pathways have a grounding in English and maths that will allow them to succeed in their own fields, and in which there is a much greater interrelationship between the academic and vocational pathways. That kind of qualification would provide exactly that.

This Government have hammered further education provision. They can find £45 million for a Harris free school in Westminster, but they have done that by slashing funding for further education learners and sixth-form colleges. That is a scandalous set of priorities. We will work with FE providers to improve teaching and to ensure that colleges focus on local labour markets. Our highest performing FE colleges will become institutes of technical education with a core mission to deliver Labour’s tech bacc and the on-the-job components of apprenticeships.

I have laid out the Government’s mendacious record of spin and subterfuge on apprenticeships. We will deal with the devaluing of apprenticeships by introducing a universal gold standard level 3 qualification lasting two years. We will ensure that every firm that wants a major Government contract offers apprenticeships. We will also ensure that employers are involved in the development of apprenticeships by giving them support over standards and funding.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

On apprenticeship figures, would the hon. Gentleman be interested to know that, according to the House of Commons, apprenticeship starts are up by 62.8% in Hexham? Indeed, apprenticeships are up significantly in every single one of the 29 seats in the north-east of England,.

[Tristram Hunt]

The fact is that the number of starts for under-25s has gone down by 11,400. Ministers can rebadge their apprenticeships and reconfigure the figures as much as they like, but people in the country know that on apprenticeships, this lot are not to be believed. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman may be making points that are not amenable to those on the Government Benches, but he must be heard, no matter what he wants to say.

[Tristram Hunt]

I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a national baccalaureate might enable the Minister to learn about character, self-control and resilience in these kinds of situations. If he wants to pursue life-long learning, that is an ambition Labour Members absolutely pursue.

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

I am trying to conclude.

The culmination of our vision for young people on a technical or vocational pathway is our new plan, announced by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, for technical degrees. These courses will be designed by some of our best universities and our leading employers, teaching people the skills they need to prosper in the new economy. Currently, just 2% of apprenticeships are available at degree level. For the first time, those who have excelled in vocational education and training—those who have gained a first-rate tech bacc and completed a level 3 apprenticeship—will be able to take their aspirations further. For the first time, young people will have the chance to earn while they learn at university, with a degree that provides a clear route to a high-skilled technical or professional career.

At the next general election, we have a choice between a Labour party determined to equip an outward-facing Britain with the skills and education it needs to succeed and, on the other hand, coalition parties tinkering with the curriculum here and there, increasing the number of unqualified teachers, and promoting for-profit schooling. It is a choice between more young engineers and more IES Breckland free schools; between a modern curriculum focused on thinking and doing, building character and creativity and harnessing the aspirations of all young people, and the narrow exam-factory model of recent years; and between a low-wage, low-skill, business-as-usual race to the bottom and a high-skill, high-innovation economy that works for all. Only one party is offering this country an economy and an education system fit for the punishing demands of the 21st century. I commend the motion to the House.

16:34

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

We heard a regrettable tone from Labour in opening this debate. Before going into the details of the radical reforms of vocational education that we are undertaking to promote apprenticeships and to strengthen vocational qualifications, it is worth going through a couple of points of detail.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) stated that the number of apprenticeships for those under 25 has fallen by 11,000 since 2010. He refused to take my intervention, probably because he knew I was going to point out that figures show that since 2010 the number of apprenticeships for those under 25 has risen by 49,000. He mentioned careers advice but forgot to mention the new National Careers Service, which has 3,700 careers advisers who have in the past year delivered 1 million pieces of careers advice. He did not even know that education is a devolved area of policy and talked about education across the UK. On the withering away of skills in science, according to Ofsted that is precisely the legacy we were left by the Labour party. On degree-level apprenticeships—I take this one as a personal compliment—he was critical of their representing only 2% of apprenticeships. I introduced degree-level apprenticeships this time last year, and under Labour there were no degree-level apprenticeships. Perhaps now we know why the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) left the Chamber halfway through the opening speech—it was to go and cross off another name from his list of leadership challengers.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because the shadow Education Secretary would not do so when I tried very hard to get in earlier on. I listened very carefully to the shadow Education Secretary and heard a lot of top-down stuff, but very little about business. Why would he be so afraid of talking about business? Is it because his party is the anti-business party?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is certainly true that Labour is the anti-business party, but it is much more worrying that the Labour party seems to oppose our reforms to bring the world of education and the world of work closer together. We are undertaking the most radical reform of vocational education in Britain for a generation. We have swept aside thousands of qualifications that employers did not value and replaced them with clear tech awards, tech levels and the tech bacc, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned and which starts in September. We have boosted apprenticeship numbers—there are record numbers under this Government—and introduced higher-quality apprenticeships that reflect the modern economy, and strengthened the requirements for English and maths.

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

I have raised this point before, but I think it would be useful to do so again. The Minister is currently consulting on changing the apprenticeship rules, and 400 businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises in the north-west, have responded by raising very serious concerns about the future for apprenticeships under his proposals. Why will he not address their legitimate concerns and ensure we can have those apprenticeships in the future?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we have to ensure that the reformed apprenticeships are super simple, especially for small businesses, but representatives of 500,000 businesses wrote in support of the principle of the reforms and that is why we are going ahead with them.

The reforms are starting to pay off. Standards are starting to rise. Youth unemployment, which rose 40% in the first decade of this century under the Labour Government, is falling—it is down 10% over the past year—and is lower than it was at the election.

[Mr Newmark]

I would almost like two bites of the cherry by asking a question about youth unemployment as well, but I will not do so. The shadow Education Secretary said that our performance on vocational courses was lamentable, but is my hon. Friend aware that the proportion of 16 to 19-year-olds studying at least one of the post-16 level 3 vocational courses available—[Interruption.] I am actually delivering the facts, which might be helpful. Is my hon. Friend aware that that proportion rose from 100,000 under Labour to 185,000 under this Government?

[Matthew Hancock]

I will have to add that to my list of erroneous facts from the Labour party that need sorting out.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

Does not a more measured view of the history tell us the following: in 1997, fewer than 20,000 people completed apprenticeships, but by the time the previous Labour Government had finished, 285,000 people were starting apprenticeships each year? That number has continued to grow, but there are legitimate concerns about an increasing number of late starts and a smaller proportion of youthful starts, and those are the issues we need to address.

[Matthew Hancock]

That intervention was rather better than the whole speech given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. It is absolutely true that modern apprenticeships were started by the great Lord Hunt of Wirral in 1994 and they grew. Under this Government, they have doubled in number and the latest figures show an increase in the proportion of apprentices who are under 25, which I welcome. More apprenticeships are good news, but we have to make sure that they are also of a high quality.

[Steve Rotheram]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Hancock]

I will take this intervention, because I think I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say.

[Steve Rotheram]

I hope not. When I was first elected in 2010, I took on an apprentice who has turned out to be an absolutely fantastic employee. How many of the Minister’s colleagues on the Tory Front Bench have put their money where their mouths are and taken on apprentices?

[Matthew Hancock]

Plenty have done so, including me. I went out to recruit one apprentice and came away with two because the applicants were so good. They are both absolutely brilliant. There are many more in the Department—there are now 58 apprentices in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I recommend an apprentice to everyone.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

It might help my hon. Friend to know that, as an employer, I took on an apprentice under the Labour Government. The course he was required to do and the apprenticeship bore no relationship to, and were a disaster for, each other. Quality as well as quantity has improved in recent years, which is a point Labour Members always forget.

[Matthew Hancock]

That is certainly true. I want to address an important point sensibly made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). He asked whether too many apprenticeships are short courses and whether they are not high enough quality. It is true that the Government inherited a system in which apprenticeships could be less than six months. That was wrong, so we have said that every apprenticeship must be for a minimum of a year. We have increased quality while increasing the number of apprentices.

It is good news for the nation that the Opposition have accepted their failure in office—the wording of their motion shows that they forgot half the population— and now back our reforms. Some say that imitation is flattery, and I suppose they are right. On Sunday, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central called for a new elite grade of master teachers. That sounds like a good idea, and we have them. They are called specialist leaders in education—top teachers who get dedicated training and share their expertise with other schools. There are 3,800 of them in England. By next year, we will have 5,000.

On improving reforms and driving up standards, the hon. Gentleman mentioned technical degrees, which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) described yesterday. They sound like a good idea, and we have them. More than 200 colleges already teach technical degrees. It is called higher education in further education. I suggest he goes around the country and has a look.

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

May I return the Minister to the subject of apprenticeships? Apprenticeships need to be of a decent length, but they also need to be high quality. There have been steps forward on both, but the other vital element of a successful apprenticeship is that it should be income transformative—it should lead to a significant increase in the market value of the person doing it. Has he looked at any mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure that, however worthy in concept apprenticeships are, they are held to account for delivering true market transformation of income expectation for the people who take them, young or old?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. The evidence shows that apprentices on the existing scheme increase their lifetime earnings, but we are not content to rest, so we are redesigning apprenticeship standards. Four hundred employers from different sectors of the economy are engaged to ensure not only that the training is rigorous, which is important, but that it responds to the needs of employers and gets people into higher-paid jobs. We want to ensure that the money that we, on behalf of taxpayers, put into subsidising apprenticeships, is well spent and that we get value for it. Ensuring that the money helps people to get higher-paid jobs is a vital part of that reform. I welcome any suggestions on how to entrench that link between what is taught to apprentices and the needs of employers. That can lead to higher pay for young people, which is what the policy is all about.

[Mr Newmark]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have joined-up thinking in government? The Chancellor’s proposal, working with the Million Jobs campaign, to abolish national insurance for young people who get jobs, saves employers about £500 a year, and gives them the extra impetus they need to hire a young person.

[Matthew Hancock]

As my hon. Friend may well know, I am an enormous fan of the work of the Million Jobs campaign. The idea that we should not require national insurance from those who employ young people under the age of 21 is such a good one that the Chancellor put it in the Budget.

[Bill Esterson]

I am happy to withdraw my earlier remarks about the Secretary of State’s absence.

On quality and ensuring that apprenticeships do the job needed for the economy and for the individuals involved, does the Minister accept that we need the same approach as in Germany, where vocational and academic qualifications are of the same quality and have the same status? Does he agree that we need to offer apprenticeships in businesses of all sizes? That happens in Germany, but is it really happening in this country? I do not think it is.

[Matthew Hancock]

It was gracious of the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks about the Secretary of State.

In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the number of apprenticeships has gone up by 118% since the election, so I know that he is a supporter of apprenticeships. Of course we must ensure that we drive up their quality. More than half of apprenticeships are in small and medium-sized enterprises, so they can be got in smaller businesses. An important part of the reform is to ensure that they work for small businesses as well as large ones, and that is happening at the moment.

The crucial point is that apprenticeships are based not only on the needs of employers, but on the basics, especially the key vocational skills of maths and English. We are strengthening maths and English at primary and secondary school, but it is shocking that, despite recent improvements, 40% of pupils do not get GCSEs at A* to C in English and maths by the age of 16. It is a national scandal that nine out of 10 of those who do not reach that basic standard by 16 do not achieve it by 19 either.

Under Labour, Britain was the only major country where young people were less numerate and literate than their grandparents, and we became one of the few major countries that did not insist on continued studies of maths and literacy for those who did not get such qualifications the first time around. We are ending that scandal. From September, all students will for the first time have to continue studying maths and English if they do not get a good GCSE, which will improve the life chances of millions.

[Mr Steve Reed]

I am sure that the Minister understands that it is important for many young people who do not gain the qualifications they need at school to be able to go back to college to get them later on. Will he therefore take this opportunity to apologise for trying to impose on Croydon college the largest cuts in the country for 18-year-olds in further education, despite the continuing high levels of unemployment in many parts of the borough?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman mentions unemployment in Croydon. In his constituency, it has fallen by 29% over the past year, and the number of apprenticeships has increased by 170% since the election, so he should be saying thank you very much. As for the difficulties of managing a tight budget, whose fault is that? It is the fault of the Labour party, which left us with the biggest deficit in modern peacetime history.

[Mr Sheerman]

I apologise for having made a political point earlier. People outside the House are worried about the fact that we get into an argy-bargy between the two parties. [Interruption.] Come on. Surely there must be commonality of purpose in doing something for the young people in this country who do not go down the higher education route. Will the Minister please now give his attention to the further education sector? As hon. Members from either side of the House who care about this know, we must galvanise the FE sector to deliver what we want.

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely, and I am happy to work with the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), who spoke so powerfully earlier. It is a great pity that the Front-Bench spokesman’s speech was one of unremitting negativity and, crucially, that it was based on an utter misunderstanding of what is happening in vocational education. The reforms we are pushing through are about driving up standards, having higher expectations and ensuring that more young people have the chance to achieve their potential. Instead of saying that 50% should go to university and not caring—indeed, forgetting—about the rest of them, we are making sure that all young people get the chance to succeed.

[Guy Opperman]

Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), I have hired and trained an apprentice, who I have retained for the past four years. She is outstanding and has been a great success.

To take the Minister back to what he said a moment ago about education funding on a difficult budget, is it not fantastic that the fairer funding formula has been readdressed so that—in these difficult times—Northumberland, for example, will from next April have an extra £10 million for schools that have been so underfunded for so long?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course it is. Furthermore, in the 16 to 18 sector, instead of providing funding on the basis of how many qualifications young people take, we are providing it on a per pupil basis, with extra support for those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. That has strengthened the funding for those who take fewer qualifications, and it provides an incentive for FE colleges and schools to do what is right for the young person.

The second part of our reform is about strengthening qualifications and having clearer pathways through tech awards, tech levels and the tech bacc. People must know that, instead of the mushy muddle that went before, we have strong and clear vocational pathways that are endorsed by employers.

The third and final strand is apprenticeships. In the previous Parliament, there were just over 1 million apprenticeship starts. We are on track to deliver 2 million apprenticeships over this Parliament. We have doubled the number of apprenticeships and driven up quality. There are stronger English and maths requirements. Apprenticeships now have a minimum duration of a year. Employers have been given the pen to design apprenticeship standards. We are reforming funding so that the training that apprentices receive follows the needs of employers.

As apprenticeships become more stretching, we are, for the first time, introducing traineeships for young people who need extra help with work experience, maths and English so that they have the skills and behaviour that they need to hold down an apprenticeship or a sustainable job. We are reforming the advice that young people receive so that they can be inspired by work experience, and we are ensuring that there are more mentors. We are reforming league tables so that schools are rewarded not only for exam results, but for where their pupils end up to take account of whether they get to university, get into an apprenticeship or end up not in education, employment or training. That change never happened in 13 years under the Labour party.

It is rapidly becoming the norm across the country that when young people leave school or college, they go into an apprenticeship or go to university. Our job is not to set arbitrary targets, but to ensure that there are high-quality options in both those areas. We must bring together the worlds of work and education, and break down the apartheid between academic and vocational education to give all young people the skills, knowledge and behaviour that they need to succeed. This task is vital. Yes, it is part of our long-term economic plan, but it is more than that—it is a battle for social mobility and a moral mission for social justice. The Government know that social justice is about earned reward and that jobs are created by endeavour, not handouts. There can be no higher justice than economic opportunity for all. That is our policy and these are our tools. We are ending the previous Government’s decade of neglect for vocational education so that every young person can reach their potential.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. To continue the Minister and shadow Minister’s theme of equal opportunity, rather than imposing a formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches, I thought that I might experiment with a voluntary limit and see whether Members can behave courteously. In order that everyone who wishes to speak has an equal opportunity so to do, it would be helpful if Members limited their remarks to seven minutes. If that does not work, I will impose a time limit.

16:54

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the shadow Secretary of State called for this debate, because we have to make education and skills this country’s No. 1 priority. The biggest question that we face, as a country, is how we can bring new, better-paid and more secure jobs to places such as Dudley, which have lost their traditional industries. The only way our country will pay its way in this century, let alone prosper, is by equipping the British people with the skills that they need to compete. There is no more urgent priority or task.

Children who are at school today will spend their adult lives working with technologies that have not yet been invented, and that we cannot even imagine. On average, those who leave school today will have more than a dozen jobs over their lifetime. The key thing that they have to learn is how to adapt and acquire new skills. However, the CBI’s education and skills survey in 2013 found that nearly a third of employers were dissatisfied with school leavers’ basic literacy and numeracy. Too few students have good English and maths GCSEs by the time they reach 18.

Germany has three times as many apprentices as the UK. The number of young apprentices—those who are under the age of 19—is falling, as is the number of apprentices in information technology and construction. It is good that the Minister has introduced degree-level apprenticeships, but they account for less than 2% of apprenticeships.

Britain is also falling behind our competitors in basic numeracy and literacy. In basic skills, we now lag behind not only countries such as Finland, South Korea and Germany but even Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. England is the only country in the developed world where the generation approaching retirement is more literate and numerate than the one entering the work force.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

And when did that happen?

[Ian Austin]

If I may say so, that is a narrow party political point. I believe that the last Government took many great steps in education and skills, and if the hon. Gentleman bothers to listen, he might discover that I am saying some things that he and his party’s Front Benchers actually agree with. He ought to sit down, listen carefully and then perhaps contribute later to a serious debate about what I am saying should be the No. 1 priority for every political party.

We should agree as a country—all parties, Government, schools, universities, the teaching profession and businesses—clear long-term targets to transform education and ensure that we have the skills that we need to compete. We should set an ambition for Britain to produce the best-educated and most highly skilled young people in the world. Someone is going to do that, so why can it not be us? We have to drive up standards in our schools and get behind head teachers and teachers who are working to improve standards. If we recruit good teachers, motivate them, set high aspirations and tough targets, focus on standards and discipline and make the kids believe in themselves, the sky is the limit.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that companies such as Jaguar Land Rover need highly skilled and highly qualified technicians? Fairly recently, they were having difficulty recruiting them. If we cannot get people with high skills and technological qualifications, how will we expand our manufacturing base in the west midlands, for example? Does he agree that that is critical to the area?

[Ian Austin]

I completely agree. That is a critical issue, particularly in the black country, where we are getting the new engine plant. It is fantastic that Jaguar Land Rover is sponsoring a university technical college, and skills are crucial not just for JLR but for all the people in its supply chain.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman and I both represent parts of Dudley. Does he agree that we need better matching of skills and employers? The black country local growth deal, signed this week, will bring significant investment to both Halesowen college and Dudley college in his constituency; it will go a long way towards addressing the issue that the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) mentioned.

[Ian Austin]

I welcome every penny that will be spent on improving the facilities at Dudley college. It is fantastic that we will get a new construction centre to go alongside the new manufacturing centre that is being built, the new sixth-form college, and the new college buildings that the shadow Secretary of State visited a couple of weeks ago, which were funded entirely locally, rather than by central Government.

Research by the Sutton Trust shows that bringing the lowest-performing 10% of teachers in the UK up to the average would make our country the third best-performing country in reading, and the fifth best in maths—subjects in which we currently fail to make the top 20.

We need to recruit and train a new generation of head teachers. Ellowes Hall, a comprehensive school in my constituency, has gone from fewer than four in 10 students getting five good GCSEs a few years ago, to more than eight in 10 doing so today. They are kids from the same families, and largely with the same teachers, but what has changed is that there is a brilliant new head teacher, Andy Griffiths. We need to find new ways of identifying, recruiting and training head teachers and improving the quality of teaching. We should expand Teach First massively, and I commend the shadow Secretary of State’s proposal to introduce a new master teacher status, inspired by education reforms in Singapore. We should find new ways of enabling popular, well run and financially sound schools that are consistently over-subscribed to access the funding they need to expand, so that parents can send their children to the schools they want to, not ones that they would prefer them not to have to go to.

We should expand Lord Baker’s brilliant work on university technical colleges. Unfortunately, our bid for a UTC in Dudley was not successful, but undeterred, Lowell Williams, the brilliant principal of Dudley college, is working with local employers and Aston university to open Dudley Advance, a new technology and manufacturing centre that will soon be open to help students of all ages get new skills and jobs. We should aim for all apprenticeships to provide level 3 qualifications and to last for two years, and insist that every firm that wants major Government contracts provides apprenticeships. We need higher education, and a university campus in every town. It is a scandal that Dudley is England’s biggest town with no university campus.

People say to me, “Look Ian, what’s the point of going to university when there aren’t the jobs afterwards?”, but they are completely wrong. More than 94% of students who graduated from the university of Wolverhampton in 2013 are in work or undertaking further study. Three out of four were working in graduate-level professional and managerial jobs earning graduate-level salaries, with 60% earning between £15,000 and £30,000, and more than a fifth earning between £30,000 and £60,000. Scores of its students have gone on to set up their own business. Under Vice-Chancellor Geoff Layer’s leadership, Wolverhampton is achieving its ambition to be the university of opportunity, contributing to the local economy and economic regeneration, providing the skills and knowledge our economy needs, helping local businesses grow and succeed, setting up new businesses, and creating jobs and wealth in the black country.

Despite accounting for just 7% of school pupils, those from independent schools represent seven out of 10 High Court judges, more than half our leading journalists and doctors, and more than a third of MPs. Just five public schools send more pupils to Oxford and Cambridge than 2,000 state schools. I therefore reiterate my call for Ministers and those on our Front Bench to take up the Sutton Trust’s open access proposals.

In conclusion, let us agree as a country to make education the No. 1 priority, and to have the best-educated young people in the world. Let us support teachers and heads in improving schools. We need more technical colleges, more apprentices, and more people studying for technical qualifications. Let us open up the best schools in the country to the brightest students, whatever their background. Better schools, better skills, better jobs—that should be our rallying cry for the 21st century.

17:07

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

What an excellent list of characteristics that was, and it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). I welcome today’s theme, because too often we focus on the part of our education system in which there are the fewest problems—the more academic routes. We should spend more of our time on the vocational routes that the majority of the population go through, which, as hon. Members have said, are harder to navigate. Those routes need to be made more navigable, and need to be linked closely to the needs of employers and the long-term earnings potential of the people who take them, whether they are young or not.

The Education Committee will soon launch its dedicated inquiry into apprenticeships and traineeships for 16 to 19-year-olds, so this debate is of particular interest to me and the rest of the Committee. Too often, vocational courses have been the Cinderella element in our education system, and denied the limelight given to academic qualifications that are sometimes perceived as more glamorous and socially transformative. This is a timely opportunity for the House to discuss how to change that.

Under the previous Government, getting as many young people as possible into university sometimes appeared to be an end in itself, regardless of whether that was necessarily a good deal for those young people, employers or wider society. I do not think that Ministers then thought of it that crudely, but that was the message that went out. It is important that we get the message right, so that the next generation has the right signals to make choices that will make the biggest difference to them.

It is regrettably true that overall, youth unemployment rose by 40% under the previous Government, and it did not go down in the boom years. That challenge was not new to the Labour Government, but there was a long-standing problem. Other countries such as Austria, Germany—famously—and the Netherlands had the same social problems and challenges, but managed to have fewer people ending up in unemployment, but even in the boom years we had high numbers of people in unemployment.

When I sat on the Children, Schools and Families Committee in the last Parliament, I used to challenge Ministers and ask them what counted as educational success. Was it the PISA—programme for international student assessment—tables, for example? One crude proxy would have to be ensuring that the educational system did not leave anyone completely behind, trapped in poverty for life and without a job. That is exactly what we had. It is so important for whoever is in government after next May that we get this right.

It is a priority to work out how to improve the offer made to the hundreds of thousands of young people who take vocational courses and enter the workplace every year. As I say, if anything, they face greater complexity than those who take academic courses. The Government inherited a remarkable 3,175 equivalent qualifications on offer in schools for 14 to 16-year-olds alone. As Alison Wolf reported, some of them were not worth the paper they were written on, so it was right to change that.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does the Chairman of the Select Committee recognise, however, as Alison Wolf did, that the most widely used qualifications, such as BTEC first and BTEC national, were valuable and necessary to the overall panoply?

[Mr Stuart]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, whose expertise and interest in this issue is of long standing and dates from long before he came to this House. He is, of course, right in what he says, but in too many cases, institutions were putting young people on courses that they may or may not have known were of limited value, but that were in fact of little or no long-term value, because it suited the interest of the institution, rather than the interest of the young people. That is why it was right to look carefully at that problem.

When Professor Wolf published her review, she warned:

“The staple offer for between a quarter and a third of the post-16 cohort is a diet of low-level vocational qualifications, most of which have little to no labour market value…Among 16 to 19 year olds, the Review estimates that at least 350,000 get little or no benefit from the post-16 education system.”

That was a pretty terrible inheritance, with more than a third of a million people being educated at great public expense, with no benefit to themselves or the country as a whole. Both literally and metaphorically, Britain cannot afford to continue to fail young people in that way, and it is to the Minister’s credit that a considerable amount of work has been done, including the commissioning of the Wolf report.

Almost 100 university technical colleges and studio schools have been established. I hope there will be a Humber UTC in the not-too-distant future, and I know that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) is working hard, championing it. I hope there will be involvement from companies such as Able UK, Total, Centrica Storage, Tata Steel and Clugston.

The Government have published a new 16-to-19 accountability framework, the headline measures of which focus on pupil progress, attainment, retention and destinations. Elsewhere, as others have commented, the apprenticeships programme has had rocket boosters put under it. It has been lengthened, and there have been improvements to quality.

Returning to the question about the number of apprenticeships raised by the shadow Secretary of State, if there are fewer 16-to-18 apprenticeships, more of them are a year long or longer; a year is now the minimum length. Overall, I do not know—I hope our inquiry will find out—whether the package for 16 to 18-year-olds is better than it was, in respect of quality and long-term impact. Whatever happens, we need to keep wrestling with the question—that is why my Select Committee will look further into it—of how to get more people in the young age group on to high-quality apprenticeships, particularly in view of concerns raised about the way in which some employers were training people who were already in their employ. Morrisons was criticised for some pretty short-term apprenticeships in supermarket skills that were unlikely to have been income-transformative—a point I raised earlier.

I am mindful of the time, so I shall try to conclude. I hope that we will keep focusing on vocational qualifications. It is the route that most people in this country follow. It is therefore the route that this House should focus on. Notwithstanding the excellent personal experience of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the truth is that Members of all parties have little personal experience of the further education sector and associated sectors. That is all the more reason why we need to focus on them, read about them, conduct inquiries into them and make them better. Our problem as a nation has not been the way in which we have educated the academic elite; it has been the fact that we have failed to make decent provision for a decent education, whether academic or vocational, that gives people an entitlement to the riches of our civilisation and access to the jobs market. Whoever is in power after next May, I hope this House will remain focused and determined to serve the part of the population that has most often been let down historically.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members are tending to get As in rhetoric and Ds in arithmetic. Six minutes from now is 5.21 pm.

17:15

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The debate is timely: timely because it is about opportunity and life chances, and timely because the discussion about opportunity and life chances in this country has become tied up with the discussion about immigration and our place in the world. It has been argued that opportunity will somehow be enhanced and pressure on public services will be eased by our keeping out workers who were born overseas, whatever steps that would require in terms of Britain’s place in the world.

The debate takes place against the backdrop of the publication of two important reports that shed light on that argument. The first—published a couple of weeks ago by the Education Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—is entitled “Underachievement in Education by White Working Class Children”. The second, published yesterday, is the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on the labour market impact of EU migration. I want to say a word about both reports.

According to the Education Committee’s report, the proportion of white children receiving free school meals who attain the benchmark standard of five good GCSEs including English and maths is only half the proportion of white children as a whole. Among other ethnic groups, the gap is much smaller. Among children from an Indian background it is just 15%, and among children from a Chinese background there is almost no attainment gap at all. Indeed, Chinese children receiving free school meals are, at this stage, the highest-achieving of any group at school—except for Chinese children who are not receiving free school meals, and even then the gap is tiny. So the attainment gap between children from low-income families and better-off children does not affect all children equally. Although there is an attainment gap, the fatalistic argument that deprivation can be used as an excuse to explain away educational failure does not hold up, because deprivation has such contrasting effects among different groups.

While the Education Committee’s report may give us cause for despair, it also gives us reason for hope. There is hope because the report draws attention to things that make a difference. It found that how highly a school is rated by Ofsted makes a “dramatic” difference to the performance of pupils. Just 25% of children receiving free school meals at a school that is rated “inadequate” will get five good GCSEs, but in schools that are rated “outstanding”, the figure is 50%. The more “good” and “outstanding” schools an area has, the more opportunity it will be providing for the children who need that opportunity most. The issue is urgent for cities such as Wolverhampton, which last year was judged by Ofsted to have a lower proportion of children attending schools rated “good” or “outstanding” than any other area in England. I believe that changing that situation should be the absolute top priority for the city that I represent.

In fact, despite that harsh verdict, there is hope and there is excellence in Wolverhampton. Holy Trinity Roman Catholic primary school in Bilston, which has twice as many pupils on the pupil premium as the national average, recently received an Ofsted report which states:

“This is an outstanding school. School leaders and governors are relentlessly focussed on securing the very best for their pupils. From the moment they start in the nursery, children achieve exceptionally well...by the time pupils leave in year 6 they are extremely well prepared for their next stage, educationally and personally...pupils eligible for the pupil premium make phenomenal progress and outperform all pupils in the school and all pupils nationally”.

Holy Trinity is a success because from the brilliant head, Carroll McNally, down, failure is not accepted. The school has the highest ambitions and wants the best for its children, and if Holy Trinity can do it, other schools can, too.

Let me turn to the Migration Advisory Committee report. Not only did that report show that migrants add £22 billion to the public purse, are less likely to be in social housing than UK-born citizens, and pay in more than they take out in benefits, but it stressed that the difficulty faced by some UK workers was lack of skills and qualifications. People are shut out of the labour market because employers do not feel they are equipped to take part in it and do the jobs that are there. That is the heart of this: not blaming others, but increasing the life chances of children born here.

The debate on these issues is a debate between the politics of grievance and the politics of hope. Constant attacks on Britain’s openness to ideas, people and talent from around the world do not add a single job to this country. They do not add a single qualification. They do not help a single young person. They provide someone to blame, but they do not provide anything else. We should be the champions of hope: give young people a chance, not an enemy; give them an opportunity, not a target for blame; and let us have passion for achievement in all parts of the education system, from the top to the very bottom.

17:21

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

It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who made a very thoughtful speech. Indeed Members on the Opposition Back Benches have made very thoughtful contributions, but I have to say that stands in stark contrast to the partisan tone struck by the shadow Education Secretary, on a subject where strident partisan points should not be made, because if we strip away all the bluster, most of us are on the same page.

The shadow Education Secretary did make one correct point, however: there is a looming need to have more people going into STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—careers. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) made the important point that for too long—for generations—we have undervalued apprenticeships and further education. I congratulate the last Government on having started to right that, and this Government have built on it.

Let me highlight one example of why I think there is a growing skills gap. In civil and electrical engineering, a large section of the current work force will retire in the not too distant future, and with the vast investment in infrastructure that is coming in the railways, road building and utilities, we are going to face a significant gap if we do not inspire and encourage more people into those careers.

The Government have done much to boost apprenticeships and vocational education. I will not go through all the points my hon. Friend the Minister made, but I want to highlight the £1,500 grant to employers to take on apprenticeships. That is doing a lot to encourage more employers to take on apprentices where they may have been reluctant to do so in the past. Specifically on the transport side, the new proposed High Speed 2 skills academy is absolutely the right thing to do to boost the number of people going into that sector. I am just disappointed that the excellent bid from Milton Keynes to be the host of the new skills academy has not made the shortlist, but I wish the remaining towns and cities in the process all the very best.

I wish to make three points, which I hope are constructive. First, we can talk about specific qualifications and the specific nature of the careers advice given to young people, but beyond that I think there is a need for a cultural shift. For too long we have allowed ourselves to get into the situation where, for too many young people, going straight from school to a campus-based university course is the automatic next step. I do not want in any way to diminish the importance of that step for the people it is right for, but it is not the right answer for everyone at that time. We need to get into schools much earlier than we are doing to explain to young people that when they finish their school career they have a range of options, be it university, an apprenticeship or some other form of vocational learning. Above all, we are talking about a cultural shift, and we need to put all these options on an equal footing.

My second point relates specifically to apprenticeships. I have talked to a large number of employers in my constituency who take on apprentices, and one of their concerns is about the level of mentoring available to young people. As employers, they can provide the workplace learning, and the colleges they are associated with can provide the educational side of things, but young people often need a mentor to help them through their training. Small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, do not always have the ability to release their staff to help the apprentices. If a large cohort of engineers are about to retire, could we not set up a voluntary mentoring scheme whereby their skills and experience could be very profitably used to help coach and guide these young people? There are some of these schemes in the country, but it is a piecemeal situation at the moment, so I urge my Front-Bench colleagues to examine ways in which such a scheme could be developed. I am discussing with the excellent principal of Milton Keynes college a way in which we might do that locally in Milton Keynes, but this could be a national thing, too.

I am conscious that I am in the last minute of my time, so I shall briefly mention my third point, which is about the need for flexibility in moving from technical qualifications into higher education. That happens at different points in people’s careers. I am on a bit of a sales pitch here, because we already have an excellent mechanism to deliver that—the Open university, in my constituency. I urge everyone to look at the engineering degrees it has on offer. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I hope we can move forward with a consensual and constructive tone in this debate. Let us not have some of the nonsense, partisan points which were made earlier.

17:27

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

In a lecture to the RSA in January, I set out the case for employer co-sponsored degrees, so I am delighted by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party’s announcement of his backing for new high-level technical degrees that, as he said, would be delivered in partnership with industry, co-funded and co-designed by employers. In the furore around the £9,000 tuition fees, not so much attention was given to an early decision of the coalition to close down Labour’s work force development programme. After just three years, it had created 20,000 co-sponsored degree programmes a year, with an average employer contribution of nearly £4,000. The scheme was different from other higher education funding, because instead of having central allocations, employers and universities had to bid for funds. That element of competition created the incentive to design courses that employers really wanted to help pay for, and employer contributions could be varied according to ability to pay and the course on offer. We need something like that, and more of it, today.

At the moment, we have a persistent degree-level skills shortage in parts of the economy, but we also have record numbers of students going to university. However, a third of graduates are not working in graduate jobs five years after they graduate. They are up to their neck in debt, but higher education has not delivered what they expected. The problem is not that we have too many graduates; it is the mismatch between supply and demand, which arises because employers have too little influence over the process. As the CBI said last July, we need more partnership-based provision, with greater business involvement in colleges and universities, as well as to boost apprenticeships. But the market in “learn while you earn” models, such as higher apprenticeships and more flexible degree programmes, is underdeveloped.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Denham]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but I do not have long.

[Mr Byrne]

My right hon. Friend is being characteristically modest in understating the influence he had on the announcement that was made yesterday. Is he as concerned as I am that the number of people who had the chance to study for foundation degrees, HNCs and HNDs in a full-time role has fallen by 40% since 2010?

[Mr Denham]

I shall come to that point.

There are other reasons why we need the change. The welcome expansion of higher education has had a less welcome aspect, in my view. Universities have increasingly concentrated on the most expensive model of higher education—the full-time honours degree studied away from home. More than ever before, higher education is a one-shop deal for 18 and 19-year olds. Our graduates are the youngest in the OECD. There are two consequences. With an uneven schools system, such as that described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), there is no chance of young people competing equally at 18, so social mobility suffers. At the same time, there are fewer and fewer routes for the later developer, the student from the weak school and the young person whose family did not value education, and mature and part-time numbers are shrinking.

Technical degrees have been spoken of as an additional route for the 50% of young people who do not go to university. I will be frank and suggest that they would be a better route also for a minority of those currently entering higher education. In the proposals that I set out earlier this year, I showed how those could be delivered without student debt and with better value for money for the taxpayer. If we recognised that employed students do not need maintenance, and if we made the cash available not as debt cancellation, but as subsidy to the employer, we could create the finance for a good co-sponsored degree. I look forward to my own party’s development of the idea.

Businesses will contribute, as they have done in the past. If they can educate an employee whom they have chosen, on a course that they have helped design, which is delivered full-time, part-time, on site or by distance learning, according to their business needs, at times that suit their business, the cost of contributing to the education of the graduate will be much less than the typical recruitment costs of employing a new graduate, let alone the typical retention costs when the business or the graduate finds out that they have made the wrong choice.

I hope my party retains at least the flexibility and the competitive elements of the work force development programme. Not only did they help to ensure that both employers and universities worked in effective partnership, but they will avoid the need to create cumbersome structures to design and validate new degrees. The Wolf report was in part a comment on my time as a Minister. What Professor Wolf said, rightly, was that the genuine attempt to create employer-led bodies to design qualifications, which was shared by all sides, had not worked in delivering the qualifications that we needed. The innovative effort should go into ensuring that SMEs, not just the major employers, have sufficient voice and weight to negotiate with universities.

In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced huge new funding to take the cap off university places. As things stand, that will all go to three-year degrees studied away from home by young people. Putting that money, or some of it, into the type of technical degrees now being discussed might be a much better use of the money.

17:32

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said that today’s debate was timely. I could not agree with him more. Yesterday I visited the brand new CEMAST centre in the brand new enterprise zone in my constituency. CEMAST stands for the Centre of Excellence in Engineering, Manufacturing and Advanced Skills Training, and there could be no more powerful emblem of this Government’s commitment to the high-end skills training and vocational training that we desperately need in this country. Nine hundred students will start at that college in September. It is the most fantastic educational environment that I have seen in a long time.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the Wolf report. It is worth dwelling on some of the facts that we all know very well: one in five young people leave school with qualifications so poor that they cannot progress any further through the system; half of all young people fail to achieve good passes in English and maths; and too many students at 16 find themselves standing on a cliff-edge with no options for progress, many of them flitting for years between low-grade occupations and low-grade educational offerings that are unlikely ever to help them find a job that they really want.

I am delighted that the Opposition education spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) acknowledged that under the previous Government qualifications that meant nothing to potential employers were widespread. There were more than 3,000 so-called equivalent to GCSE qualifications on offer to 14 to 16-year-olds. They could get a BTEC level 2 extended certificate in fish husbandry, worth two GCSEs; a level 2 certificate in nail technology services, which I would find quite valuable, worth two GCSEs; or a level 2 diploma in horse care—I am allergic so I probably would not be too keen—worth four GCSEs. Those courses were not valued by employers and were not preparing young people for life; they were simply bundling them over the five A to C GCSE line. Those young people were given false credentials and, criminally and crucially, false hope.

Perhaps the most damning indictment was the finding that young people were deliberately steered away from qualifications that might stretch and reward them and towards qualifications that could be passed easily. Sadly, the result was that, while the rest of the world was making progress, we were falling behind. Between 2000 and 2009, the OECD average for those not in education, employment or training fell, while in the UK, it went up. England is now the only country in the developed world where pensioners are likely to have better skills than those aged 16 to 24, which is obviously incredibly sad.

I do not want to be partisan on this matter—we have already had too much partisan comment—but when Labour talks about a high-skill, high-wage economy, we should remember that on its watch, one in five young people were left with no skills, no wage and no future. Thankfully, however, Labour has now seen the light. It wants more people doing apprenticeships, so it must welcome the fact that under this Government we have had a record number of apprenticeships. It wants a new technical baccalaureate, so it must be excited by the prospect of the technical baccalaureate that comes into place in two months’ time. It also wants more people taking the vocational equivalent to a degree, so it will be thrilled at the number of under-25s taking higher apprenticeships.

On the Government Benches, the skills gap in this country is not the source of a press release; it is a call to action. By investing in 2 million apprenticeships and replacing low-value vocational qualifications with new tech levels that are backed by employers, this Government are taking decisive action. What we now need is even more employer involvement in education. According to a recent CBI survey, 85% of businesses now have links with some type of school or college. That is fantastic news, but that number needs to be even higher, because businesses know better than anyone else what businesses want. As a bare minimum, they are looking for employees who are numerate, literate and employable.

We must always remember that our schools are preparing children for the world of work, and a failure to provide them with the necessary skills to flourish in this world is to hold them back from achieving their true potential. That means a hard-headed focus in schools on what employers really value.

In the motion, the Opposition note that a

“transformation in vocational education has eluded Governments for decades”.

That might be the closest we ever get to an apology from the Labour party for its woeful failure to prepare our young people for the modern economy. This Government are transforming vocational education, but there is more to do. If we stick to the plan, we can ensure that our young people have the skills they need to face the future and to succeed.

17:37

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. There have been some good contributions already this afternoon. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) is consistent in reminding us, as he was when I was a member of the Committee, that we spend a lot of our time focusing on those students who succeed at whatever they do. It is right and proper to focus on students who sometimes find it more difficult to succeed. I hasten to add that those are not necessarily students in vocational and technical education, but we often neglect that area as well. His laser-like approach to keeping up that consistency is very important.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), in a powerful contribution, reminded us of the need to dispose of the politics of grievance and grab the politics of hope.

In the 1990s, I was running the then Conservative Government’s technical and vocational education initiative in the north Lincolnshire area. I mention that because it is a reminder that this country has been grappling with technical and vocational education for a long time. In fact, that was one of the best initiatives that came out of the Thatcher Government, as it used carrots to incentivise change. It put forward many of the things that we now take for granted in our education service.

Whenever we look at education in the UK, we always ask which areas of the world have performed better in relation to technical and vocational education. In fact I put that very question to the Business Secretary this week. The answer was the one I expected: Germany. In some ways, the German football team, as we saw last night, is a metaphor for how Germany gets things right. Over time, Germany ruthlessly puts things together in a cross-party way that engages across generations and across parties, whereas too often we flip-flop around instead of building on the positives.

I do not accept that things were disastrous in 2010, because they were not. We had had the biggest investment in education for a generation, building on other investments, such as the one under the previous Conservative Government. Politicians, educationalists, students, parents and others took education to a different place, where it was performing far better than before. That does not mean that everything was right and rosy, but the secondary curriculum at the end of that period was delivering better outcomes for young people than ever before by using a mix of vocational and technical qualifications, such as BTECs, alongside the necessary and appropriate increased rigour on maths and English. We saw schools, on a two-year lag, beginning to improve on their number of five A* to C grades with maths and English, by changing the culture of aspiration, which makes a profound difference to performance.

The Government have built on certain things effectively, and I welcome their commitment to furthering the delivery of apprenticeships. I welcome the introduction of destination monitoring and the increased rigour and focus on maths, English and science, but frankly the move to prioritising things such as the EBacc will have negative consequences because, as the Chair of the Education Committee said, it is not the area to which we need to be paying attention. We need to be focusing our attention on what we are discussing today.

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

The hon. Gentleman has just praised Germany, but in Germany all students study EBacc subjects to 16.

[Nic Dakin]

I taught in Sweden, which has a similar baccalaureate system up to 16, but it has far greater breadth than the narrowness of the EBacc. The problem is that the EBacc could have been a good vehicle for taking things forward if it had been a proper curriculum developed with careful thought, instead of focusing on certain things that will have consequences. School timetablers only have so much curriculum time, and if we narrow that down by producing more geography and history students, it will have consequences for other things.

[Elizabeth Truss]

That is precisely what the Progress 8 measure is all about. It is about ensuring that students are studying EBacc subjects, as well as important technical, arts and creative subjects. That is precisely what they do in Germany, of which the hon. Gentleman is a big champion.

[Nic Dakin]

I have another quick point. We need to have greater “earn while you learn.” In countries such as Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark, 52%, 48% and 49% of young people respectively earn while they learn, whereas in our country the proportion is down at 22%. Why do we not set a target of being in the top three of that table? There is a lot of evidence that work experience, which the Government have taken out of the key stage 4 curriculum, is beneficial for job readiness and furtherance into jobs. I will leave it there, because I am aware that other Members want to contribute.

17:46

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Everyone deserves the opportunity to get on in life and reach their full potential. A strong system of vocational education equips young people with the skills they need to succeed and is a crucial aspect of building a stronger economy and a fairer society. The renewed focus on apprenticeships over recent years is warmly welcomed by almost everyone. They provide real opportunities for young people to get a job in a vocation of their choice, providing the skills they need for a fulfilling career.

Employers value apprenticeships enormously, as they provide the skills needed for growth and increased workplace productivity. With the greatest expansion of apprenticeships since the 1950s during this Parliament, I am pleased that the Government are continuing to aim high by setting a target of 2 million by 2015. Importantly, employers have a growing voice, which means that the apprenticeships on offer are increasingly of world-class quality, providing young people with the skills that employers are looking for and providing the country with the work force we need to build our economic future.

Of course, not all young learners are apprentices. Many young people take part in vocational education exclusively through college provision. There has been extensive debate about the need to promote excellent teaching in our schools, and we also need to ensure that learners in vocational education are supported by great teachers. Achieving that is challenging, because vocational teachers must not only have strong pedagogical skills, but be fully up to date with practices in their vocational area.

Last year’s report by the commission on adult vocational teaching and learning highlighted the value of industry experts getting involved in vocational teaching and curriculum development. Since then, the Education and Training Foundation has commissioned the development of a Teach Too initiative, which will bring industry experts and those involved in vocational teaching and training closer together. It will help to gain a better understanding of current practice and build on it to lead towards a national framework for Teach Too. I encourage Ministers to see what can be learned from the initiative as it progresses. I also encourage Ministers to consider what more can be done to encourage industry secondments to FE colleges, which offer a low-risk means for colleges and employers to engage industry professionals in teaching and learning. The Education and Training Foundation might be well placed to conduct work in that area too.

One area of Government policy that has seen industry and education partnerships blossom is the university technical college programme. I am delighted that this September Norfolk UTC will be opening in my constituency. It will specialise in the skills needed for the energy and high-value manufacturing sectors, both of which are important drivers of growth in the East Anglian economy. Employers are involved in shaping the curriculum so that courses meet the needs of local industries and provide routes for young people to go on to employment, training or university. Places at Norfolk UTC are in high demand, and I hope that in due course the UTC programme can be further expanded at a sustainable pace.

I would like to point to a further challenge: how we can best ensure that young people are fully aware of their options from school. It is meaningless to create education and career paths if young people do not know about them and do not have the support they need to access them. Ofsted has highlighted that too many young people are left to wade through the frequently confusing array of options available to them with no real idea of what skills they need or the path most suitable for them.

[Mr Stuart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need many more employers to go into schools and help embed careers in the curriculum, perhaps by helping with science practicals in sixth form? There are all sorts of ways that employers can embed careers in the curriculum by getting involved in teaching.

[Simon Wright]

I agree 100%. At the moment, too few schools value vocational qualifications or the needs of the 60% who do not go to university, and we do not start learning about careers in school at a young enough age. At the same time, there is a perception gap among industry, education providers and learners about employment markets.

I welcome the strengthened statutory careers guidance for schools announced earlier this year and the proposal for a UCAS-style system to provide a single route for 16-year-olds. We need to consider how we can further strengthen the role of Ofsted and how school destination measures will fully support vocational and technical education routes being treated with equal esteem as academic education.

Finally, I want to emphasise the contribution of city deals and local growth deals, supported by local enterprise partnerships and local employers, who know better than Whitehall what skills their area needs. In Norfolk and Suffolk, a LEP-wide skills programme will maximise employer involvement and investment and increase apprenticeships and graduate internships, as specified in the region’s city deal, which was confirmed last year. This week the New Anglia local growth deal confirmed that colleges in the region, including Easton college, which is just outside my constituency, will benefit from additional investment, enabling the building of a new construction training centre and new agri-tech laboratory areas to accommodate employers’ needs.

A transformation in vocational education is under way, and we need to be undeterred in our determination to continue the progress that has been made. The quality and status of vocational qualifications has improved; the number and standard of apprenticeships has increased considerably; and employers, professional bodies and providers are working to ensure that training reflects our future skill needs. Most importantly, the foundations for a stronger economy are being laid while giving every young person the opportunity to gain the skills they need to get on in life.

17:50

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

People like you and I, Mr Speaker, who are interested in history will remember that about 50 years ago Harold Wilson made his great “white heat of technology” speech. I recommend that Members read it, because it leaps off the page. He was talking, as Leader of the Opposition, about how Britain must transform itself in order to be a place where all of us could share in a good life. I came into politics to secure the good life for the people of this country and, in particular, my constituents. Re-reading that speech—I had not looked at it for many years—I found it remarkable how he was looking at the changed social and economic structure. He said that there would not be any room for unskilled and semi-skilled people in our country, that a production line in Detroit could make a car with no human intervention at all—automation was coming.

Harold Wilson said what a pity it was that only a tiny number of people, who were usually from posh backgrounds and going to elite institutions, were going into higher education. He said that 10% of people, instead of 5%, should be going to university, and that we should have universities in every major town and city. Of course, before long we had the expansion of the polytechnics. Interestingly, his message started a bipartisan view of upskilling our country; there was little demur about it. There is a bit of old-fashioned stuff in the speech: the Soviets had just put a man into space and shocked everyone, and his allusion to Soviet science does not ring true today. However, he was right to say, “This is our country and its social and economic structure is changing fast.”

During my time in this House, the social and economic structure of the country has moved very fast—we can all see that. Now, fewer than 10% of people make anything, while 30% are in public services—health, education and local authorities—and 60% are in the private sector, with 1% in agriculture. That means that most people are working in the private sector. If they are looking after people—at the bottom end or the top end, young people or old people—they will be on the minimum wage or minimum wage plus. That also applies to people in retail and distribution. There are some very good jobs in the private sector. Cross-hatching that, most of the jobs are in small and medium-sized companies, not the big companies.

When I left school, I went to work in the chemical industry and worked for ICI—a big company. I had an intensive year at Kingston technical college to get my three A-levels because I was a naughty boy and dropped out of school at 16. After getting a scholarship to the London School of Economics, I had the wonderful experience of being able to get into a growth area. As a young person seeking employment, people took the time to give me advice about what I should direct myself to. They not only estimated my capabilities but said what one could earn in different professions. Too often, we do not tell young people what their future is.

We need more bold recommendations on a bipartisan level. Why cannot we go back to sharing policies? None of us have got it right on vocational and technical education. The former Labour Government put in a lot of effort, leadership and resources. We did not get everything right, but we had some success. The current Government have not had all successes, although it is absolutely true that they have made some improvements. However, there are some radical proposals that no party has listened to, although Labour is moving towards them. We should not have unemployment under the age of 25. We should be like the Dutch. Why should any young person up to the age of 25 not be in education or training, or in a job with training, getting valuable work experience? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that we should not allow young people to live on a little bit of housing benefit in the shadow land—that is no way to grow up. We all need to grasp that there should be no unemployment or idleness under the age of 25.

Anyone without maths and science as part of their background is never going to make it. I applaud the maths hub launched by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). We absolutely need that.

In the last few moments of my speech, I want to make another radical proposal: I want a citizenship service. People who go to university are too young and some young people remain idle for too long, so we need a citizenship service for everyone, including those at university.

The only way any of us will get what we want is by reinvigorating the further education sector. There are more than 350 FE institutions and we all have one not too far from our constituencies. We can have university technical colleges and all sorts of new-fangled things, but FE colleges will deliver the numbers we need. They have to be given that push and the resources. A lot of young people who have failed in other education pathways go to FE colleges and they need the best help available. The quality of FE maths teaching is deplorable, so let’s do something about FE.

Finally, let us not forget the parents. No one has mentioned the parents yet. A child’s parents can back them, put them up and wipe away their tears if they are being bullied at school. We learned last night that a supportive mum and dad can compensate for horrible bullying. There is something wrong when a reasonable percentage of people in this country do not get that family support.

17:56

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the passionate contribution of the former Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

To be honest, I was a tad surprised that Labour called for this debate, given that its record on the subject is quite mixed. I am, however, of a charitable disposition and I wish to be charitable now because I agree with certain things in the motion. It admits, for example, that the previous Government failed to transform vocational education in this country. We can also agree that credit should be given across the board to Lord Hunt for his work back in the 1990s and to Ministers in the previous Labour Government who increased the number of apprenticeships. I think we also agree that there is a need to study maths and English for longer and to place greater emphasis on the technicals.

There are, therefore, things that we can agree on, but I cannot agree that this Government have failed in the same way as the previous one in their attempts to reform apprenticeships and vocational and technical education. Their changes have transformed tens of thousands of young people’s lives. I guess that the problem for the Labour party is that it is in a negative spiral—it sees only the negative in everything at the moment and seems to want to talk down the country and young people. I find that very disappointing.

I am very proud of what this Government have achieved. They have transformed our educational system and the opportunities within it, driving up aspiration both in my Reading constituency and nationally. We have done that by recognising that vocational and academic education are two sides of the same coin—that vocational and technical education is every bit as valuable and necessary to the prospects of this country as academic education.

Let me tell the House about the transformation taking place in my constituency in Reading. It would be fair to say that, before 2010, this was an area with limited educational options for young people. In 2010, it was represented by an underperforming community school and an unsatisfactory college run by Thames Valley university.

My desire, supported by the Government when we finally had the levers of power, was to create what the Education Act 1944 originally envisaged for the UK but never implemented, namely a tripartite structure of education: academic, technical and vocational—all with parity of esteem and all offering something different to fit the aspirations of young people.

The first stage in engineering such a major change is to get investment, and this Government, in difficult times, have put their money where their mouth is. Bringing together business, the university, the college and others, we managed to persuade Lord Baker and the Government to back Reading university technical college, specialising in computer science and engineering. Reading UTC is rooted in the needs of local employers, which the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention in his speech yesterday. We deliberately set out to match the needs of local employers, to build them their work force of the future. That is why big companies such as Cisco, Microsoft and Network Rail got behind the bid and supported the UTC, but long-standing smaller local companies such as Peter Brett Associates are also deeply involved and committed.

The UTC’s only focus is on providing high-quality education, but it does it in a different way that is much more hands-on and technical. It does not try to pretend, as Labour has for years, that that can be achieved without the fundamental building blocks of learning. Therefore, it runs what it terms as basic academic courses for those who may have struggled with English, maths and computer science at another school.

The UTC concentrates on building strong relationships with business, because it understands that, without business confidence in the qualifications it offers, it will not succeed, and young people will not thrive. Businesses see that the UTC offers young people something unique—something that will allow them to stand out in the jobs marketplace. Parents see their young people gaining confidence as they gain in-depth knowledge of their specialism.

Having seen the impact that the UTC has made in the eastern part of my constituency, I am proud to support Lord Baker’s aspiration that many more UTCs should be invested in throughout the country. The local community school, which had drifted for years, suddenly sat up and took notice when it saw a world class UTC on its doorstep. That led to a new management team and new investment from the local education authority. Bulmershe school in my constituency is now on an upward and impressive trajectory.

Reading college, which runs a range of important vocational courses, has raised its game, and was recently awarded a good rating by Ofsted, with some elements of outstanding. It also recently announced funding for a solutions lab, which will bring together businesses, FE colleges and students to shape curriculums so that they are aligned with the needs of technical-based businesses in my constituency and the Thames valley. Its assistant principal described Labour’s old system as like

“being handcuffed to a set of qualifications to drive funding”,

whereas he welcomed the new system because it allows the college to provide a study programme that is crafted by the needs of learners, and not with funding in mind.

The final piece of the jigsaw in east Reading was an outstanding Wokingham-based school, Maiden Erlegh, which agreed to imprint its DNA on a free school from September 2015. It is nothing short of a revolution in my constituency in the provision of high-quality education for young people, whether vocational, academic or technical.

Labour failed in office to understand that equality between academic and vocational routes cannot be enforced by Government diktat. Setting up yet another body or qualification does not work by itself. The important thing is that qualifications are respected by business and the wider public. People can and will vote with their feet, as they did under Labour, if they think a qualification is not valued.

18:03

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I warmly welcome the motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), in particular the acknowledgment in it that

“a transformation in vocational education has eluded governments for decades”,

meaning Governments of both the main parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) spoke powerfully and mentioned Germany. I have used this quote in a previous debate but it is worth repeating. Tim Oates, who is one of the foremost experts in the country on the subject said that, in the 1940s, we devised an excellent system of technical education and exported it to Germany, where it has thrived ever since.

Youth unemployment is one of the biggest challenges we have faced in this country for many years. In Germany, youth unemployment is below 8%. In this country, it has fallen in recent months, which is welcome, but it is still above 18%. Overcoming that is crucial to achieving the politics of hope, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) spoke so powerfully. This is not a new problem, but a long-term and intractable one. In 1984, the youth unemployment rate was 20%. It fell modestly in the first 10 years of the previous Labour Government and in 2007 was 14%, but that is still far too high.

We know that half of young people in Germany undertake apprenticeships, whereas the number undertaking technical and vocational courses and apprenticeships in this country is far lower at about 32%. We need a change on the supply side, as the motion sets out, with more and better vocational qualifications that are fit for purpose, but we also need a change on the demand side, with a cultural change in our attitudes to vocational education in this country.

The Edge Foundation does brilliant work in this area. Earlier this year, it did a survey of 2,000 18 to 35-year-olds, some of whom had followed an academic route and some a vocational route. About two thirds of those on the academic route felt that they had been supported by their school, whereas only one third of those on the vocational route gave that response. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) talked about parents. About half of those following the vocational route felt that their parents had encouraged them, whereas three quarters of those who followed the academic route felt the same.

We therefore need to achieve a cultural change involving independent advice and guidance in schools. The shadow Secretary of State spoke about that, and we must get it right. Some schools do get it right, and we should praise them. In the Budget debate, I spoke about Cardinal Heenan school in my constituency, which has done some fantastic work. I visited another Liverpool school last week, Calderstones school, which does a lot of work to ensure that from when students arrive at the age of 11, they are thinking about their options for the future, so that when they are 16 they make the best choice for them, including those who follow a technical and vocational path.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only careers guidance but work experience is vital as a way of trying out different types of work and different professions?

[Stephen Twigg]

That is absolutely vital, and I welcome the fact that it is integral to what is set out in the motion.

It is crucial that advice is personalised to the individual student. I want to warn against us getting into a position where we have to choose between the forgotten 50% and widening participation in higher education; we need to do both. I am proud of the fact that the previous Labour Government expanded higher education, but we did not do enough on vocational education.

I am working with schools in Liverpool to encourage more of the most academic young people to consider applying to top universities, including Oxford and Cambridge. I want to put on the record a tribute to Calderstones school, which I have already mentioned, because that comprehensive school in the heart of Liverpool gets a lot of its young people to go to Oxford or Cambridge. I want to mention Elle Shea, the head girl of St John Bosco school in my constituency, who has an offer of a place at Cambridge university. There are still not enough young people from low-income families getting into our top universities, but we should not have to choose between saying that and saying that we are passionate about the forgotten 50% and want to improve technical and vocational education; we need to do both.

The motion draws on the excellent work done for the Labour party during the past two years by Chris Husbands, from the Institute of Education in London, on how we can best strengthen the status of vocational and technical education. I particularly welcome the proposal for a national baccalaureate that seeks to put alongside fit-for-purpose qualifications, whether academic or vocational, concepts such as extended projects, personal development and an emphasis on character, resilience and employability. Those things matter, and it is very welcome to have such an emphasis in the motion.

I want to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) said about the new forms that higher education will take. I particularly welcome the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday for new technical degrees.

Let me finish by making a point about how we can take this matter forward. In my opinion, the Husbands review for the Labour party worked because it engaged with all those who have an interest in the area. They have all been mentioned in this debate—the further and higher education sectors, businesses and other employers, and young people themselves and parents—and it is important for their voices to be heard. Getting the national framework right is absolutely critical to the success of this work, but as several hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, in the end it cannot simply be imposed from on high; it is in our communities that it will make a real difference.

In Liverpool, I certainly pay tribute to the extraordinary work, yes, in our schools and further education colleges, but also what is done in partnership between businesses or other employers and the mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, and Liverpool city council in particular in delivering more high-quality apprenticeships. We can say things in the House and the Government can set a framework, as they should, but if we are to transform life chances, in the end the differences must be made on the ground in our communities.

18:09

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have taken part in an education debate, so I was pretty shocked by the tone and content of the speech by the shadow Secretary of State. He implied that vocational qualifications required an overhaul. I would argue that the quality of vocational education in this country has risen under this Government, and that the policies that are in place will only continue to improve.

Vocational education plays a vital role in equipping young people with the skills that they need to thrive later in life. The introduction of university technical colleges, which were conceived by a Conservative Secretary of State for Education and Science, Lord Baker, will undoubtedly mean that practically minded students have the opportunity to train for careers in well resourced and appropriate environments, without the vital skills that are taught in comprehensive schools being neglected. What is most encouraging about the education that UTCs offer is that they teach students the practical and administrative skills that they will need to survive in their vocation.

I look forward to the opening of the manufacturing college in Derby in September 2015. Given that world-class engineering firms such as Toyota, Rolls-Royce and Bombardier are based in the city, it is clear that the college is well located to offer a comprehensive and hands-on technical education. By academic year 2015-16, 300,000 students will be able to receive a top-quality vocational education in a UTC. I am proud that the Government are so committed to ensuring that the colleges are a success.

Another education facility in my constituency that I am very proud of is Broomfield Hall, which is part of Derby college. It offers a range of land-based, public service and sports courses. They are incredibly popular; there are 500 full-time students enrolled on land studies courses, with a further 800 people studying them part time. The college now offers foundation degrees in animal care; that is a great way for students who do not wish to take A-levels to get into university to study for a career in zoo-keeping or veterinary nursing. The college feels empowered to offer a greater range of courses in a larger variety of subjects. It is obvious from that example that, contrary to the Opposition’s belief that vocational education in this country needs to be overhauled, colleges feel motivated by the policies of this Government to diversify and improve the quality of the qualifications that they offer.

Like Broomfield Hall, the university of Derby has extended the range of courses it offers to include BTECs and foundation degrees in subjects such as business, management and civil engineering. As at Broomfield Hall, the vocational qualifications are extremely popular, with 930 people currently studying for them. I am pleased to say that as a result of the focus on running courses that are attractive to employers, the employment rate among Derby graduates within six months of course completion is 4.6% above the national average of 92%. That again illustrates that higher education institutions in this country are following the Government’s lead and providing high-quality and well-regarded vocational courses.

A vocational college that I hope will come to Derby is the proposed High Speed 2 skills academy. The Government see the landmark HS2 project as a means of offering high-quality vocational education. If the college was located in Derby, its students would benefit from a diverse range of employment and training options because of the excellent engineering firms that are located in the city. Given its proximity to the proposed HS2 route, they could expect to receive on-the-job training. It is clear from the focused vocational education that the skills academy will offer that its students will be fully equipped to head straight into a career in the railway industry. I am pleased that the Government have harnessed that opportunity.

The Government have been keen to encourage the uptake of apprenticeships. They have taken steps to increase the quality of the schemes that are offered, which has done a good deal to increase the value that employers give apprenticeships. In addition, the Government have tried to make apprenticeships more attractive as further education options for school leavers by introducing the apprentice minimum wage, which has given more employers the support they need to take on apprentices. That focus on vocational education has led to an unprecedented uptake of apprenticeships, with 1.8 million starts since 2010.

Given all the hard work that the Government have put into that initiative, it seems absurd for the Opposition to criticise a number of apprenticeship policies that have proved successful. In my constituency alone, there are a number of examples that show that the Government’s policy on vocational education is working. The motion denigrates the fantastic work that individual colleges do to offer their students the skills they need to thrive in a working environment. Institutions such as Broomfield Hall and the university of Derby now feel able to offer foundation degrees. The Opposition claim that the quality of vocational education is not up to standard, but that is obviously not representative. The increased uptake of apprenticeships is further evidence that what the Government are doing is positive. I am concerned that any effort to divert us from the work that has already been done will only harm the great progress made.

18:16

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). I find myself wishing that you had put us on the clock, Mr Speaker, because I care so much about this matter that I feel I may rattle on. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) promises me that he will cough vigorously at about the six-minute mark. I commend the Opposition Front Benchers on securing the debate. We do not spend enough time thinking about what happens to young people who do not choose to follow an academic route post-16.

I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), because in Darlington students do exceptionally well up to GCSE—as well as those just about anywhere else in the country. Yet given those GCSE results, far fewer than we would expect go on to do A-levels and attend university. Very few attend what we have loosely come to term the “top universities”. I will not stop encouraging people from my constituency to go to those universities until we achieve parity with other parts of the country.

In my constituency, there is a sixth-form college and an FE college. I attended one of them, and I visit the other often. When I look at the curriculum on offer and the number of students taking each course, I find that we train more hairdressers per head of population in Darlington than just about anywhere else in Britain. I am not against hairdressers at all—I am a big fan, and in fact I wish I could use them more often. However, it strikes me that there is no incentive in the system for colleges to offer more STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—and train more technicians. If we want them to do that, they will have to stop doing something else. Some of our colleges have invested heavily in training people in subjects such as hairdressing, beauty therapy, travel and tourism, but they are not leading people into the types of jobs that they hoped for.

I find that it is easy to persuade 15-year-old girls to study hair and beauty, particularly when they are not getting any information, advice and guidance at school that is worth having. Instead, we need to find a way of incentivising FE colleges to restrict the number of students that they recruit to some courses, and expand the number that they recruit on to others that are much more in demand from local employers. We have not cracked that yet. One way of doing so that we might want to consider is payment by results—I hesitate to use the term, because my expertise is more in the field of justice, in which payment by results has been a mixed bag. In education, however, there may be a way that would help colleges to divest themselves from some forms of activity and to invest in others, and until we crack that we will not change the investment behaviour of some of our colleges, which is what we need to do.

Pathways into further education are confused. We know there is no information, advice and guidance worth having—the CBI has stated that advice and careers guidance are on “life support”—but there is no standardised application process or single source of information, and it is difficult for a young person to choose in any sensible way between different providers and courses. So many different funding options, routes and types of qualification are available that it is confusing. Young people are not making decisions in their long-term best interests; they are sometimes enticed to make decisions that may be in the best interests of their local college.

I would like some thought to be given to having a single pathway into FE, just as we do for university. There is a well organised, well established application process for university, but nothing like that for FE. Once we have such a process, we will get some kind of support, and understanding and appreciation of what is on offer, from parents. Parents are key to this issue, and the real test of how successful apprenticeships or vocational qualifications are will be the confidence that parents have in them.

One or two colleagues have mentioned that they went to an FE college. That is great; where we went does matter. Where we send our children, however, will really demonstrate the success or otherwise of these measures. Do we have the confidence to advise our children not to do A-levels or go to university, but to take a risk on some of these other qualifications? I hope we do, and that they are good enough and of a high enough standard for us to have the confidence to advise our young people to make that choice.

Some Government Members have been very pleased with themselves and their Government, but I encourage them not to count their chickens before they are hatched, because the proof of whether these measures work will be seen a long way into the future. This is about parents, confidence, people from working-class backgrounds doing A-levels, and those from middle-class backgrounds studying for vocational qualifications.

18:22

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on a good speech and on her recent engagement. I hope she enjoys her party; I gather that she will celebrate after this debate.

I am pleased to be returning to the topic that I raised in my maiden speech—vocational training—because like the hon. Lady I feel passionate about it. Vocational training, properly delivered alongside academic training, will undoubtedly drive economic growth. That growth has already started, but vocational training will help it to build and gain the momentum that we need for the longer term. Between 2012 and 2020, it is estimated that we will need 830,000 science, engineering and technology professionals, and 450,000 science, engineering and technology technicians. That is a huge challenge, and I think that the Government have performed outstandingly in ensuring that we meet it.

I welcome the steps taken. The new high-quality tech awards that will run alongside GCSEs, the new tech levels that run alongside A-levels, and the new tech-baccalaureate are very much to be welcomed; I am only sad that we do not have time today to consider exactly how they will work. A significant amount of employer involvement in those courses is absolutely what we need; I think that will be agreed on by Members across the House.

Interestingly, the move to get business and education closer and closer together has almost gone viral, and I am pleased that my council came to me today to talk about how it and the education authority can work to develop projects that will bring together business experience with what is happening in the schools that they are responsible for. That I applaud. For me, however, the crown has to be the 100 studio schools and UTCs that have been opened, and it is no surprise that UTCs have formed a large part of this debate. They are a fantastic concept, introduced by this Government. They integrate technical, practical and academic skills. By 2016, 30,000 students will be undertaking courses in them. They specifically address some of our key skills shortfalls in engineering, manufacturing, health sciences, product design, digital technologies and the built environment. Youngsters will be able to get access to the latest research and to real-life employer projects.

I am particularly proud that Lord Baker and the education team have approved my UTC—the South Devon university technical college, which will be based in Newton Abbot and is due to open in 2015. It will provide 15 state-of-the-art engineering and science workshops and laboratories, along with a great deal of input from local sponsors. It is to their credit that Centrax, Galliford Try, South West Water, the Environment Agency and WaterAid are all playing their part in designing the curriculum, and in providing and, in some cases, funding some of the tools and equipment that are crucial to make these courses live. As has been said, to be real, we must have hands-on experience, not just work in the classroom. I am pleased, too, that Exeter university and South Devon college—two outstanding educational institutions—are involved. This course will lead to apprenticeships, degrees and all sorts of job opportunities.

The apprenticeship revolution, which this Government have put a rocket behind, is something that I very much welcome. I shall not dwell on the subject, because we have already heard a lot about the successful doubling of apprenticeship starts since 2010. I am pleased that Newton Abbot has had 3,450 starts since 2010, which is a 60.7% increase on where we were at the last election.

The next steps will be even more important, and it is to their credit that the Government have listened to some of the more forward-thinking additional proposals. First, there is Lord Young’s report, “Enterprise for all”, which sets out the steps he believes we should take to get even further integration between business and education to ensure that our youngsters really have the capability to think about going into business. Then there is the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, who has given his support to “An Education System fit for an Entrepreneur”, a report by the all-party parliamentary group on micro-businesses, which I chair. That is the way forward. All these steps taken by the Government are far-sighted. I look forward to seeing how they will introduce all these measures. All power to the Government’s elbow. They have a great record, and I would encourage them to continue to deliver in the same vein.

18:27

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

ATMs and self-checkouts have already taken over jobs that we assumed would always be there. It is difficult fully to take in the potential structural change that will come from driverless vehicles and 3D printers, let alone from cleaning robots and Amazon drones delivering what is left and cannot be transmitted through the ether. More and more markets become more contestable, and more and more things can be offshored. We will never again make T-shirts cheaper than China can.

As we look to the future, we need to focus not only on high-value sectors, but on areas where we have competitive advantage. Those are things for a debate on another day, but we need to note that those two forces—technological change and globalisation—are accentuating the hollowing out of the labour market that we are already seeing, with more jobs at the bottom of the scale, more at the “knowledge economy” top and fewer in the middle. That has serious implications for social mobility and progression.

We know that the way in which those forces impact on people will depend on whether the particular job is enhanced by technology and the computer or competes with them, and there are major social justice questions attached to that. There will, of course, always be jobs that have little or nothing to do with technology—in care, retail, hospitality and so forth. For all employment sectors, however, we need a significant improvement in skill levels in the economy.

What skills will be required? We are going to see a merging of the academic and the vocational, the intellectual and the practical, and a further emphasis on some skills that we are not used to considering in either group. The Wolf report was right to talk about the primacy of English and maths—the skills for which employers look before all others. We need more attention, as the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, on character and resilience skills and on workplace skills. They are not the same thing but they overlap. Character and resilience skills are about what is in you—self-belief and the ability to set realistic goals, for example. Workplace skills are primarily about how people interact with others—customer empathy, including the ability to smile and make eye contact, teamwork, organising tasks, leading and motivating others. At the intersection of the two are perseverance and the ability to bounce back, which is, of course, so important throughout life.

Our success as an economy will depend on how we adapt to those new realities, and on how quickly we adapt. One benchmark is probably South Korea, whose story of change is dramatic. The youngest people in its work force have materially better basic skills than those approaching retirement. It is a shame that this country must currently contend with the opposite position.

I fear that a great error in the first decade of this century was the overriding obsession with the “five-plus C-plus” target for GCSEs. I say that not just because this is an Opposition-day debate and this is what happens in the House of Commons, but because we owe it to young people not merely to file recent history, but to learn from it. The system found increasingly clever ways of helping schools and helping itself—the system as a whole—to find their way up the league. Half-courses, double awards, modularisation, early sits and retakes all helped, but the daddy of them all was “equivalents”, which helped to perpetuate the diet of low-value qualifications. The 350,000 young people of whom Alison Wolf spoke were let down by courses with little or no labour market value, and that in turn contributed significantly to the terrible rise in the number of young people who were not in education, employment or training.

The other big target was the 50% target for the number of people who should go to university. The Opposition now talk about the “forgotten 50%”, but we only talk about that 50% because of the first 50% target which they introduced. Actually, I am not sure that 50% is a bad target. I think it is the rest of the sentence that we need to look at. The target should be not just about the proportion of young people who go to university, but about the proportion who finish university courses that will be of use to them later in life. An increasing number of those courses—degree courses—will be vocational, and many careers that used to involve a vocational route straight after school have themselves become “graduatised”. The number of people embarking on undergraduate degrees more or less matches the number of occupations that now require people to have degrees and did not do so previously.

I rather welcome what the Opposition have been saying about tech degrees. I think that that is a direction of travel that we see on both sides of the House. However, it is the Government who are grasping the nettle and doing what it takes. The importance that my right hon. and hon. Friends attach to vocational education and training is exemplified by the fact that the Wolf report was commissioned at the very start of the Government’s tenure, before the completion of some of the other reforms that we have had plenty of opportunities to debate in the House. I think it right to move away from that “one target that trumps all others”, the “five-plus C-plus”, and towards measures that reward and value the progress made by all young people, whatever their abilities. I also think that we should take into account not just the results those young people achieve at the end of their time at school or college, but where they go after that, and where they end up.

This Government are determined that all qualifications will have rigour, because with rigour come respect and value. I welcome tech levels that involve local employers, and I welcome the tech bac, including the core maths qualification and the extended project. I also welcome the massive increase in the number of apprenticeships—it is up 86% in my constituency—the higher apprenticeships fund and the huge growth in UTCs. This goes further than that, however. It is about employers being in control of apprenticeship training budgets, it is about more young people studying maths after the age of 16, and it is about getting 3D printers into schools and enabling more young people to study coding and app design.

You are indicating that I should stop at this point, Mr Speaker, so I shall do so. Let me end by saying that, as we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, this is a matter of social justice and economic efficiency.

18:34

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is very knowledgeable about educational matters, and to speak in this important debate. I enjoyed the rhythm of the shadow Education Secretary’s speech, liberally laced as it was with quotations from Sir Winston Churchill, but the speed with which he rattled through his speech did on occasion remind me of Churchill’s observation about Ramsay MacDonald: he had the great ability of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought. Notwithstanding that, however, there is some startling honesty in Labour’s motion because it says that it believes that

“transformation in vocational education has eluded governments for decades”,

so clearly Labour takes its share of the blame for any failure to deliver the sort of vocational education and qualifications that we want to see in our country.

For far too long, far too much stress and pressure have been put on the traditional route through A-levels and into university. Parents have for too long been left with the impression that, unless their children go to university, they have failed. Schools and teachers have been left with the impression that, if they do not get their students into university, they have failed, and the students themselves have been left with the impression that, unless they pass their A-levels and go to university and find a room in a hall of residence, they, too, have failed. That is a corrosive narrative that has undermined the importance of the vocational qualifications that R. A. Butler envisaged in 1944. As the shadow Education Secretary said, on 3 August we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of Royal Assent to the 1944 Education Act.

It is important, therefore, that we focus anew on vocational qualifications, and I am pleased and proud that the Government are focusing on expanding the number of apprenticeships—the figure is 1.8 million since 2010—that they have introduced the higher apprenticeships fund, which will create 10,000 places for state-of-the-art degree level apprenticeships, and are introducing the technical baccalaureate at the end of this year. I am pleased that Labour appears to be supporting that proposal, but I hope it has a less bumpy ride than the English baccalaureate had. I see the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is in his place. In 2011 he said that the EBacc was a measure to be praised because it might reverse the decline in children studying languages, but by 2012 he was saying that education could not be improved by the EBacc reverting to a system that was considered out of date 30 years ago. I rather hope Labour will not flip-flop on the tech bacc as it appeared to flip-flop on the EBacc.

[Stephen Twigg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman as we do not have much time, but what I will do is say that if I am wrong he should write to The Guardian, and make sure he has lots of spelling errors in the letter, which will ensure it is published.

I am very pleased by what the Government are doing with the tech bacc, because in my town we suffered terribly in the recession. A large number of young people found it difficult to find work and did not get the qualifications necessary to find work, so it is going to be important. When Labour left office in 2010, the main source of vocational qualifications in Tamworth was South Staffordshire college, which the shadow Education Secretary visited earlier this year. Now we have a sixth-form and Tamworth enterprise college, which together provide BTEC courses on everything from construction to IT. South Staffordshire college offers 33 courses and 24 apprenticeships, ranging from veterinary husbandry to bricklaying. That college has a 97% pass rate and a 91% satisfaction rate among students, so it is doing really very well. It is no wonder therefore that Jaguar Land Rover and JCB are recruiting in Tamworth and BMW has come to set up in Tamworth, bringing over 100 skilled and professional jobs. So I welcome what the Government are achieving.

My hon. Friends on the Front Bench should be pleased. They should be pleased that Labour appears to be supporting much of what they are trying to achieve. Labour appears to want to get aboard this vessel because it thinks it is rather a good one. Unfortunately for Labour, however, I fear that vessel has sailed, carrying my constituents to a better and brighter future, and all the shadow Education Secretary can do is wave from the quayside.

18:39

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) made the first Back-Bench contribution to it and said that the debate was urgent and important. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), who said that we do not spend enough time in this House debating the subject of today’s motion. It has been an important debate because it has revealed that, on the future of vocational education and on the basic question of how our constituents are going to learn what they need to earn their way out of today’s cost of living crisis, there is no long-term plan. There is nothing long-term and nothing short-term; there does not appear to be much of a plan at all. The Chair of the Select Committee is not in his place, but we have heard some powerful calls today for a new cross-party consensus on the content of this debate, and I hope we can achieve that today. Therefore, I hope that the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, who is talking away from a sedentary position, will not divide the House today and that the motion will go through with full support, because that cross-party consensus, now and for the long term, is something this country desperately needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) started this debate with a candid admission that the problem we are talking about is decades old and decades deep. Indeed, Lord Percy reported to the Government shortly before the Education Act 1944. His Committee said that

“the position of Great Britain as a leading industrial nation is being endangered by a failure to secure the fullest possible application of science to industry… and…this failure is partly due to deficiencies in education.”

That was the position we found ourselves in again in the 1970s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) pointed out, and we find ourselves there again today. So I am pleased that the Select Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), is going to look at this in detail. A new consensus is needed, and the business community is saying that to us loud and clear.

Labour left this Government strong foundations. I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) felt that there were errors made between 2000 and 2010—no doubt there were—because some awfully strong foundations were left, too. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) put it well when he said we rescued the apprenticeship system from the state of complete collapse that we inherited in 1997, rebuilding schools and school standards, rebuilding further education colleges all over this country and rebuilding our university system. Labour Members are very proud of those achievements, and what we needed in this Parliament was a Government who were determined to build on those foundations and create a strong, new, wide path for vocational education from 14 through to 21 and above. I am sorry to say that instead we have the kind of chaos that means that at the age of 14 pupils can look forward to passing through systems regulated by Ofqual, Ofsted, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, the Education Funding Agency, the Skills Funding Agency and the Higher Education Funding Council. It is a dog’s breakfast; it is a complicated situation that is not delivering the skills we need.

That is what business is saying to us clearly. When I left business school in America, I was clear that the UK was the only country where I wanted to build my business. Thousands of firms want to bring work back to this country, but let me tell hon. Members what KPMG said a few weeks ago. It said that the ability of manufacturers to bring jobs back to Britain is being crippled by the lack of available skills. Mike Wright, the head of Jaguar Land Rover, said the following not too long ago:

“We are not educating nearly enough skilled apprentices or graduates to replace those retiring from manufacturing roles.”

Lord Adonis has said that skills are now the “single biggest impediment” to economic growth. The Migration Advisory Committee, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) referred to, made an important contribution to this debate yesterday. The MAC has added more than 100 different roles to the shortage occupation list over the past three or four years. Firms have had to sponsor in 282,000 people from abroad because they could not get the skills they need here in this country. So my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North is absolutely right when he says that a better deal for vocational and technical education is crucial if we are to regenerate significant parts of our country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East made a powerful speech and the point he drew our attention to is that we do not just owe it to the business community; we owe it to our constituents, too.

Training up to degree-level skills unlocks a life in which people can earn over £100,000 more over the course of their career than if they had only two A-levels. If we want to transform life chances for everyone in our constituencies, we need to build a better system. I hope our motion today is the basis of that new consensus. [Interruption.] The Minister for Skills and Enterprise is chuntering away. Let me tell him where I think he is getting a few things wrong.

A new, stronger system must start in schools. I am sure that, like me, he is slightly worried that there has been a 16% rise in unqualified teachers in my children’s classrooms. I am sure that he is concerned, like me, that when we say that people should be able to study English and maths up to the age of 18, that is not the policy of the Education Secretary. The Minister gave us a new piece of information this afternoon about 1 million bits of careers advice being distributed to our children. I was not quite sure what that meant, but I do know that the CBI has said that the careers service is “on life support”. That is not a system fit for the future.

Those lucky enough to graduate to a further education college confront colleges that have seen a £700 million fall in their funding. That has weighed heavily on those aged 18 studying in FE colleges. For those going on to study in further education beyond the age of 19, funding has fallen by 22%. The Minister for Skills and Enterprise made great play of apprenticeship numbers. He wanted to make the point that apprenticeship numbers have risen since 2010, and of course they have. But, like me, he will be worried that over the past year apprenticeship numbers for the under-25s have fallen by 11,400. He will be concerned about the fall in apprenticeship starts in his constituency, and so will the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss).

The Minister for Skills and Enterprise should take great care in the changes that he proposes and he should listen hard to small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the country that say that putting apprenticeship funding wholesale into their hands through the PAYE system could be a disaster that sees apprenticeship numbers fall off a cliff. He needs to listen carefully to that.

Earlier this week the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), announced the final stage of our proposals. It was not the Minister for Skills and Enterprise who introduced the chance for apprentices to go on and study at the highest level of skill. That was a change that was made many years ago, and it is not acceptable that just 2% of apprentices go on to study degree-level skills. There has been a 40% fall in the number of people studying for HNCs, HNDs or foundation degrees. That is not the way to empower apprentices and enable them to go on and study to degree-level skills, and it must change.

We know that there is a big appetite among young people for a vocational path to the highest level of skill. That is why it is now harder to get an apprenticeship in this country than it is to get into university. It is now harder to get into BAE Systems’ apprenticeship programme than to get into Oxford. It is harder to get into Rolls-Royce than to get into Cambridge. These are brilliant programmes and if we are to create more chances like that, we must introduce the kind of proposals for a technical baccalaureate that have been discussed. We must give people the chance to study English and maths through to the age of 18. We must raise the quality of further education across the board by introducing institutes of technical education.

We must radically increase the number of apprenticeship opportunities, crucially using the power of public procurement to increase the number of opportunities. Finally, we must put more resources into the hands of employers so that, with universities and colleges, they are able to use that buying power to expand the opportunity to study technical degrees to the highest level of skill. This is a proposal that was pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) when he was in office. It was a tragedy that the work force development programme was shut down. It was popular with employers, with students and with universities and colleges, too.

I finish on the point underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East. We need to offer our young people a chance, not an excuse and not a target. The hon. Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for Beverley and Holderness were among those who called for a new cross-party consensus. If we on the Labour Benches sound partisan, it is because we are passionate about transforming the life chances of the people whom we represent. We have a simple belief that the world around us is changing in a way that it has never changed before. There is a new competitive threat to this country from rising economies in the east. If we want to live better than others, we will have to be better than others, and that means giving us a skills system that gets everybody, not just some, to the very highest level of their potential. Only in that way can we offer a future that is optimistic and ambitious. Only in that way can we be a country that is full of hope and not a country that is facing fear.

18:50

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

There is nothing more vital to the future of our country than the education and skills of our young people. I find myself in violent agreement with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). They are absolutely right that it is the No. 1 priority for our future competitiveness, social mobility and outcomes as a nation.

As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) pointed out, education and skills are becoming more and more important over time as our world is transformed by technology and globalisation. We will not be dividing the House on this motion, because we realise that the Opposition acknowledge their failings over previous years, and that they back our direction. Indeed, they back many of our policies, such as the technical baccalaureate and the availability of more degrees from apprenticeships, and also our reforms in English and maths.

We need to ensure that every qualification, whether it is academic or vocational, is demanding, rigorous and a route to employment. Many Members today commented on the vital importance of English and maths. As the Secretary of State said, those are the most important vocational subjects, which is why we care passionately about ensuring that all children achieve. We are setting up maths hubs, so that all children can master maths. There will be 32 hubs across the country, which will learn from those high performing countries in east Asia that so many hon. Members have talked about this afternoon. In those countries, all children, regardless of their background or whether they are boys or girls, perform very highly.

We are putting in new grammar, spelling and punctuation tests at age 11, and double-weighting English and maths in the performance tables to make sure that every child is literate and numerate by the time they leave school. Students who do not secure good passes in GCSE maths and English will continue to study those subjects until 18 so they can earn those vital passports into future careers.

In addition, we are introducing a new mid-level maths qualification, which students on both the academic and vocational route can study. The core maths qualification comes into being next year, but we have some early adopters—179 colleges and schools. All seven of our tech bac trail blazers will be trialling core maths from this September.

Until now, 40% of students who got a C at GCSE and who wanted to continue with maths did not have an option to do so. Those students will now be able to maintain their confidence and competence in maths. They will be able to apply maths in real-life situations and use statistics, which are so vital in so many jobs today. The core maths qualification is part of our technical baccalaureate, which is our way of ensuring that technical and vocational qualifications are world beating.

The Chairman of the Select Committee talked about Alison Wolf’s report. He used some of the quotes that I was going to use in my speech. Essentially, her report showed that too many young people were fobbed off with qualifications of little market value. What we are doing is ensuring that all the qualifications that students study are of high value.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) talked about how we have transformed vocational education. We have introduced technical awards, which are genuinely equivalent to GCSEs, and tech levels, which are backed by employers and will help students get jobs in occupations such as engineering, computing, hospitality and accountancy. We are ensuring that the tech bac is taught across some of the 50 new university technical colleges, which many hon. Members have praised.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) pointed out, we are hugely expanding apprenticeships. There will be 2 million apprenticeship starts over the course of this Parliament, which is a record for our country.

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister gives way with characteristic generosity. I know she will be concerned by the fall in apprenticeship starts in her constituency—apprenticeship starts were down by 150 between 2011-12 and 2012-13. Is she as worried as I am that small and medium-sized enterprises, no doubt in her constituency, are concerned about some of her colleague’s proposed changes?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Apprenticeship starts are actually up in my constituency since 2010, and we are seeing record levels across this Parliament. One of the most important things, as many hon. Members have talked about, is the quality, as well as the quantity, of apprenticeships, and it is important that employers are engaged.

My hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) talked about the importance of ensuring that young people are doing the right courses and taking on the right apprenticeships in areas of huge demand, such as STEM. Our Your Life campaign, which has been launched by industry and will go forward to students and young people this autumn, is all about encouraging more young people, particularly girls, to consider future careers in technology, engineering and business. I met some fantastic young women at the Big Bang fair who have taken on apprenticeships at Jaguar Land Rover. They are passionate about what they are doing, and we want to see more of that, because too many young people are not necessarily taking the choices that will help them to get great jobs in the future. The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) pointed that out and made some very good points.

As early as 2004, before the great recession, youth unemployment was on the rise—it was up 40% in the first decade of this century. The reality is that the basic skills that many Opposition Members bemoan were not being taught properly in our schools, and the reality is that many young people were let down by not having basic literacy and numeracy skills. The sad truth is that those young people were let down by low expectations and devalued qualifications.

Our reforms are working. There are 135,000 more young people in work, education or training than this time 12 months ago. Long-term youth unemployment is down by 25,000 on last year, and the number of young people claiming out-of-work benefits has fallen every month for the past 23 months. It is time for Labour Members to acknowledge the changes, reforms and progress that we have made. All young people will now be able to work towards GCSEs in maths and English until they are 18, and all young people now have an opportunity to take the apprenticeship route or the university route. We are expanding the opportunity for students and apprentices to study degrees. We are working more closely with employers, and more and more employers are coming into schools to talk to young people about the fantastic opportunities that are available.

I am afraid that both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Education, in their announcement yesterday, failed to talk about the fantastic progress that has already been made by employers, colleges and schools in bringing together business and qualifications. We have fantastic things going on, and it is a shame that Labour Members seek to be miserablist, rather than positive. [Interruption.] Miserable is the word. Why do Labour Front Benchers not learn lessons from the excellent contributions of their Back-Bench Members, who have talked about optimism, hope and a new future, rather than complaining about the reforms that we are already undertaking?

Although the shadow Education Secretary talks about technical degrees, baccalaureates and employer-led apprenticeships, the Opposition do not seem to realise that we are already doing that and young people are benefiting. Under this Government our young people are getting the opportunities they deserve, and they are gaining the skills to get on in life.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that the previous Government rescued the idea of apprenticeships and quadrupled apprenticeship starts; furthermore believes that a transformation in vocational education has eluded governments for decades; therefore believes that the UK needs a new settlement for those young people who do not wish to pursue the traditional route into university and the world of work; and further believes that in order to achieve a high status vocational education system that delivers a high-skill, high-value economy the UK needs a new Technical Baccalaureate qualification as a gold standard vocational pathway achieved at 18, a new National Baccalaureate framework of skills and qualifications throughout the 14 to 19 phase, the study of mathematics and English for all to age 18, for all large public contracts to have apprenticeship places, new employer-led apprenticeships at level 3 and new technical degrees.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 12 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

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

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order, 1 July),

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a total of £300 million in respect of compensation of EU Emissions Trading System and Carbon Price Floor in each case to Aylesford Newsprint Limited; Celsa Manufacturing (UK) Ltd; DS Smith Paper Ltd; GrowHow UK Group Ltd; INEOS Chemical Grangemouth Ltd; INEOS ChlorVinyls Limited; Kimberly Clark Limited; Outokumpu Stainless Ltd; Palm Paper Limited; SABIC UK Petrochemicals Ltd; Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK Limited; Tata Steel UK Limited; and UPM-Kymmene (UK) Ltd.—(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

19:00

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

I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of residents of Irlam, Cardishead and Barton wards in my constituency who are concerned about proposals to build on an area of Barton that is in the green belt.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Irlam, Cardishead and Barton,

Declares that the Petitioners strongly oppose the proposals of Peel Holdings to build up to 1,400 houses as well as warehouses in the green belt area at Barton (Irlam ward), which is bound by the M62 (North), A57 (South), Manchester City Airport (East) and Irlam (West); and further that the Petitioners believe that Boysnope Golf Course (an excellent leisure facility for the local community) should not be shut down.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all in its power to prevent this development proposal from taking place.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001351]

19:02

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of more than 2,000 petitioners calling for urgent upgrades to be made to the A303 at Stonehenge. Members of the Stonehenge traffic action group in my constituency started the petition in response to the long-standing and infamous problems on the A303, which have worsened following the recent closure of the A344.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that urgent action is needed to make the A303 road west of Stonehenge a dual carriageway following dramatically increased traffic levels caused by the closure of the A344; further that the Petitioners believe a bypass road should be created to relieve the village of Winterbourne Stoke and other blighted communities; further that increased traffic has been diverted on to local roads to the detriment of those resident in the surrounding villages; and further that the Petitioners believe that the Government’s feasibility study into improving the A303 must take the impact of disruption on their lives caused by increased traffic into consideration.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to improve the A303 west of Stonehenge by constructing a dual carriageway at the earliest possible opportunity.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001367]

Navitus Bay Wind Farm

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

19:02

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise to address the House in this Adjournment debate. It is four years and two weeks since I stood in exactly the same place and made my maiden speech, which was in an Adjournment debate on student visas. I was pleased on that occasion to make significant progress with the Government afterwards. I hope that the same will be the case today. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responding and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), is in his place.

This is not a debate about the Government’s energy policy or about their renewables policy; those are debates for another day. This is about a particular proposal to build a wind farm off the Dorset coast. It is appropriate that we are debating it while councillors from across the country are enjoying the Local Government Association’s annual conference in Bournemouth and the stunning views from the wonderful conference facility. I recently conducted a survey on the proposed wind farm and have brought with me a small sample of the responses. They show overwhelming opposition from my constituents and others, and for good reasons.

I wish to discuss the potential impact of the Navitus Bay wind farm on England’s only natural world heritage site, the Jurassic coast, designated by the Government and UNESCO in 2001. That status, under article 4 of the world heritage convention of 1972, obliges the Government to protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations the sites identified as being part of the cultural and natural heritage. A proposal for a wind farm of up to 194 turbines, each of up to 200 metres in height, is currently before the Planning Inspectorate for evaluation. It will be sited within full view of the Jurassic coast and its main visitor centre at Durlston castle. As part of the planning process for this proposal, DCMS submitted an environmental impact assessment to UNESCO. I wish to address the response of UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature to that environmental impact assessment.

In its comments on the environmental impact assessment, the IUCN raised a number of concerns about the potential impact of the proposed wind farm on the Jurassic coast world heritage site, particularly regarding the unique processes that shape the Jurassic coast and contribute to its outstanding universal value. If this outstanding universal value is compromised and the natural erosion processes on the coast are affected, the reason for the site’s designation as a world heritage site would be threatened. The IUCN notes, too, the potential for the proposal to affect the protection and management of the property. It states that

“in particular, the adequate protection of the wider setting of the property, recognized by the World Heritage Committee to justify at the time of inscription the lack of a defined buffer zone, will be compromised.”

As such, the IUCN said that

“any potential impacts from this project on the natural property are in contradiction to the overarching principle of the World Heritage Convention as stipulated in its Article 4”

as

“the completion of the Project would result in the property being presented and transmitted to future generations in a form that is significantly different from what was there at the time of inscription and until today.”

The first of a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister is this: what is his response to IUCN’s conclusions, and how will the Government meet their obligations under the convention to protect the setting of the site, as well as its listed outstanding universal values?

UNESCO does not make hollow threats. In 2011, there were plans to site a three-turbine wind farm development 10.5 miles from the shore near Mont St Michel in Brittany. As this threatened the setting of the world heritage site, the French Government acted to exclude wind farms from a buffer zone around the site. They were right to do so, as UNESCO is not afraid of removing a site’s designated status. The Elbe valley in Germany was removed from the list of world heritage sites in 2009 following the construction of a four-lane bridge in the valley which meant that

“the property failed to keep ‘its outstanding universal value as inscribed.’”

My colleagues would not expect me to say this, but my second question to the Minister is this: will he follow the French example and take action in England to protect the setting of our only natural world heritage site for future generations, thus avoiding the fate that befell the Germans?

I believe that if the Jurassic coast were to lose its designated status as a world heritage site, the tourism economy throughout Dorset would suffer drastically. Over 30 million trips were made to Dorset in the past year, some 5 million of which included the Jurassic coast, and evidence suggests that visitor numbers have increased since the Jurassic coast’s designation as a world heritage site. Given that Navitus Bay’s own research shows that 48% of people visiting the area cite the sea view as a reason for doing so, and that IUCN

“considers that the impact of the Project on the visitors’ experience and appreciation of the property in its wider natural setting is likely to be significant”,

it is by no means a leap of the imagination to say that the proposed wind farm will have a significant impact on tourism numbers.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

The fact that there are many Dorset MPs in the Chamber today shows that we fully support the compelling case that my hon. Friend is making. My constituents are very worried about this proposal and the impact that it will have on the local economy.

[Conor Burns]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I salute his dogged determination in opposing this plan and, indeed, that of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who are sitting behind me. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) would be present, except that he is on manoeuvres on Salisbury plain as part of his Territorial Army activities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who is my parliamentary neighbour, knows about the vital impact on Bournemouth and the conurbation. Tourism is Bournemouth’s second most important sector of the economy after financial services and it is worth about £475 million to the town annually. It directly supports 8,500 local jobs, with a further 2,000 jobs indirectly dependent on visitors. Across Dorset as a whole, tourism is worth in the region of £1.7 billion annually and supports in the region of 47,000 jobs.

Given that 20% of summer visitors surveyed by Navitus Bay—they were surveyed by the development company itself—said that they would be unlikely to visit Bournemouth during the five-year construction phase and 14% said that they would be unlikely ever to return, the development would have a major impact on our tourism economy and change the nature of our town and conurbation.

May I, therefore, ask the Minister another direct question? Given the importance of tourism to Bournemouth and Dorset’s economy and the Government’s commitment to our long-term economic plan—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] I am not surprised that my colleagues expected me to say that—what steps will the Minister take to ensure that this damaging proposal does not go ahead?

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and fighting, as we all are, this cause. Does he agree that what is surprising is that it is not as if there is nowhere else to locate this wind farm? The Crown Estate identified eight other sites totalling about 225,000 sq km that would be nowhere near the land and that certainly would not damage this fantastic site. Why on earth did the Crown Estate choose this most special site, which we are trying to protect?

[Conor Burns]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The development company was given a vast area to put the wind farm and my hon. Friend will remember that in our initial meetings with its representatives, we told them that we would not oppose it if it was not visible from the shore, if its visual impact did not deter visitors and if it did not damage the world heritage site. All the company had to do was push it further out within the area given to it by the Crown Estate, but it did not do that.

I want to turn to some of the criticisms of the submission process, starting with the independence of the environmental impact assessment. I agree with the IUCN that it would have been more appropriate for DCMS to have commissioned an independent environmental impact assessment, rather than use one prepared by the proponents of the scheme—the Navitus Bay development company. In the words of IUCN,

“this raises questions on the credibility and objectivity of the assessment.”

I have heard some of the arguments made by Navitus Bay to discredit IUCN’s comments, including that they were merely interim and are not aligned with other impact assessments. Could that be because other impact assessments have been provided or commissioned by Navitus Bay itself? Is this a case of, “We’re right, because the documents we have written say so”?

Then there is the question of the appropriateness of the guidance used. The IUCN notes that the guidance used by Navitus Bay for its assessment was not the most appropriate possible. Rather than using the IUCN world heritage advice note on environmental assessment, Navitus Bay used the International Council on Monuments and Sites “Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties”, which is adapted to cultural heritage. According the IUCN, it did so despite being aware of the IUCN guidance, which is referred to in the environmental impact assessment.

IUCN claims that by adopting the other guidance rather than the IUCN advice note, Navitus Bay failed to adhere to all eight world heritage impact assessment principles. Notably, IUCN believes that Navitus Bay failed to adhere to the principle that

“reasonable alternatives to the proposal must be identified and assessed with the aim of recommending the most sustainable option to decision-makers, including”—

crucially—

“the possibility of the ‘no project’ option”.

Why did the DCMS not commission an independent environmental impact assessment?

Did the Minister or any of his current or previous colleagues in the Department approve the letter to UNESCO of 17 February—sent by Leila Al-Kazwini, the DCMS head of world heritage—that takes for granted the evidence provided by Navitus Bay regarding the impact of the proposal on the Jurassic coast while dismissing the concerns of, among others, the steering group for the world heritage site itself?

Sixthly, given those criticisms, does the Minister have confidence in the environmental impact assessment submitted by his Department but created by the Navitus Bay development company?

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this important debate. Does he share my concern that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport did not issue a formal response to the UNESCO letter of 2 May? That letter contains some powerful arguments. Surely they merited a response from my hon. Friend the Minister. Instead, according to a parliamentary answer I received from him on 23 June, that letter was passed to the planning authorities as part of a process. Is that not most unsatisfactory?

[Conor Burns]

My hon. Friend makes a very important and valid intervention. One reason why I attempted to secure the debate was so that the Minister has the opportunity to explain the Department’s thinking. He also has the opportunity to explain to the House that this is not simply a matter for the Department of Energy and Climate Change or the planning inspector in Bristol, but a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has a vital, and indeed legally binding, obligation to do all it can to protect that world heritage site, and, as it says, to pass it on intact to future generations. I look forward to his response in a moment.

I conclude as I began. This is not about the Government’s energy policy, renewable energy or subsidy. Hon. Members have different views on those. The debate is about a proposal that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends fundamentally believe is the wrong proposal in the wrong place. Its demerits vastly outweigh its merits. The Government can achieve all their energy ambitions and still say no to the application. My hon. Friend the Minister of State now has an opportunity to tell us what he is prepared to do to assist us. It does not just affect us in Dorset. As things develop, it could affect Hampshire Members—I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) is sitting on the Front Bench. The New Forest would be torn up to allow energy to get into the grid.

This is very serious. I say without exaggeration that it is possibly the most significant issue in Bournemouth and the conurbation, and Dorset more widely, in a generation. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, can assure us and our constituents that he is with us and will do what he can to protect that fantastic bit of England.

19:17

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

I am grateful for the chance to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and thank him for promoting me to Minister of State ahead of the reshuffle. I hope that the Whip in the Chamber will pass on that recommendation. My hon. Friend mentioned the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth, so I shall use this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Merrick Cockell, who is standing down as chairman of the LGA. He has been a fine servant to the LGA as well as to Kensington and Chelsea council.

Let me respond to the pertinent points my hon. Friend has made about the Jurassic coast, the world heritage site and the potential impact of the Navitus Bay development. It is important to note that several colleagues are in the Chamber—my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Poole (Mr Syms), and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and the Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), who may well wish to involve himself in the debate in future, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West said about the potential impact of the wind turbines on the New Forest West constituency.

As I have said, my hon. Friend has made a number of important points. Let me try to deal with them as effectively as I can. He asked six direct questions, and I shall try to answer them in the course of my speech. I will start with the letter from Kishore Rao from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, but let me first set out the framework of my remarks. It is important to state that a process has to be gone through in considering the planning application for Navitus bay. That approach is effectively quasi-judicial, which means that one’s personal opinion must necessarily come second to the opinion of experts and to the process itself.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the letter was from the IUCN, which is a UNESCO advisory body—IUCN advises on natural heritage sites, but it is not UNESCO—so the letter does not give UNESCO’s opinion on the world heritage status of the Jurassic coast. The proposed wind farm development has not to date been examined by the world heritage committee, so neither the world heritage committee nor UNESCO has an official view on the potential impact of the Navitus bay site on the world heritage site. Currently, the world heritage property is not considered by UNESCO to be under threat, and it is not in immediate danger of losing its world heritage status.

My Department, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is responsible for acting as the UK state party on all world heritage matters and for liaising with the UNESCO world heritage centre. The IUCN submitted its comments to UNESCO, and they were forwarded to the DCMS on 2 May. It is our responsibility not to respond to the IUCN, but to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate is made aware of its comments, and we passed on the IUCN’s comments to the Planning Inspectorate on 7 May.

The IUCN letter referred to the effect of the wind farm on the world heritage property and its setting, and such views will be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate alongside those of English Heritage, which is a statutory consultee.

[Mr Chope]

Is it not correct that the letter that arrived on 2 May was deliberately sent in advance of the Government’s decision to refer this application to the Planning Inspectorate, and that the letter urged—and, indeed, pleaded with—the Government not to refer the application to the Planning Inspectorate because it had not passed the first hurdle?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is not the IUCN’s role to say whether a letter should be passed on to the Planning Inspectorate. My reading of the letter is not the same as my hon. Friend’s, but I will re-read it to double-check his point, and I will respond to him by letter if necessary. As I have said, our responsibility is to pass the letter on to the Planning Inspectorate so that the IUCN’s views are taken into account.

As well as the views of the IUCN, the Planning Inspectorate will take into account those of English Heritage, Natural England, and of course the world heritage site steering group, plus all other representations made to it as part of the planning process. Natural England has made representations about the effect of the proposals on the natural beauty of the coast, as has English Heritage about the effect of the wind farm’s setting on listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments.

It is important to stress that the Jurassic coast is a world heritage site not on the basis of its natural setting, but on that of its unique geological interest. In addition to the world heritage site, there are two areas of outstanding natural beauty and two stretches of heritage coast. The need to protect the natural beauty of those areas and the effect of the wind farm on them will be considered as part of the planning process, as indeed will the cultural heritage. All such representations are publicly available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.

I will touch briefly on the UK marine policy statement, which is the framework for preparing marine plans and taking decisions that affect the marine environment that is required by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The marine policy statement identifies the social, economic and environmental factors that should be considered in the preparation of marine plans. Those include the seascape.

This proposal is classed as a major infrastructure proposal under the terms of the Planning Act 2008. Its determination is subject to the overarching energy national policy statement and the renewable energy infrastructure national policy statement. The Planning Inspectorate has to assess the wind farm proposal in relation to those provisions and under the national planning policy framework and other relevant planning policies.

It is important to stress that heritage protection policies and nature conservation policies are reflected in that guidance. It includes the recognition that heritage assets can be affected by offshore wind farm development, either directly through the physical siting of the development or indirectly through the impact on the marine environment. The guidance includes a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets. The more significant the heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of conservation. The setting of heritage assets can contribute to their significance. National planning policy is clear that applications for renewable energy schemes should be approved only if the impact on the local environment is or can be made acceptable. The guidance states that local concerns should be listened to.

Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to talk about the environmental impact assessment. My understanding is that it is normal practice for the developer to pay for the environmental impact assessment. However, it is still an independent environmental impact assessment. It is not the job of the DCMS or any other Department, as far as I am aware, to pay for the impact assessment or to commission another one if it has not been paid for adequately by the developer. There is no suggestion that the environmental impact assessment is not independent. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West made his point effectively.

[Richard Drax]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vaizey]

I thought that that point might provoke an intervention.

[Richard Drax]

I am incredulous about what the Minister has just said. If Navitus Bay has paid for the assessment, how on earth can it be independent?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am not the planning Minister, but as far as I am aware, it is normal practice for the developer to pay for the independent assessment. The assessment is still independent and is effectively done at arm’s length from the developer.

The Planning Inspectorate has received many representations and will convene a preliminary meeting, where the process for the consideration of the application will be set out and questions about it considered. The inspectorate will have six months to carry out its investigation of the application, which will be undertaken by way of hearings and the consideration of written representations. It will consider all the important and relevant matters that are brought to its attention. It will then report and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West put a number of points to me. First, he suggested that I follow the example of the French. He should be aware that that is something which I try to do on many occasions. I am one of the people in the Chamber who has some admiration for the French in general, although not necessarily for their Government or policies. The case of Mont St Michel was unique, as is every case in which a world heritage site is considered. It is impossible to read across from one case to the other just because they both involve a world heritage site and an offshore wind farm. That does not make the two cases identical. However, that example from my hon. Friend is a reminder of the power that UNESCO has and of the need to be vigilant about world heritage sites.

English Heritage has advised me on world heritage sites in the past. For example, I wrote to oppose the development of Elizabeth house, which is just across the river, because of its impact on the setting of this august building. Indeed, English Heritage took the Government to court and judicially reviewed the decision of the planning Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), which did not make him particularly happy. That example shows that English Heritage is prepared to make a stand when it has a genuine view that a world heritage site is under threat. Unfortunately, from the perspective of my hon. Friends who are here this evening, that is not currently English Heritage’s position in this case. Its current advice is that the offshore wind farm would not have an undue adverse effect.

I stress that I have heard the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West has made, and if I was in his position, I think I would be making similar points. I am not across the specific details of the planning application such as whether the wind farm could be put in a different part of the zones that the Crown Estate has designated, but I certainly encourage him to enter negotiations with the Crown Estate and the developers to see whether it could be moved. Although the process is of course independent and quasi-judicial, and although there are objective considerations to be taken into account to do with the designation of the world heritage site, common sense and simple corporate responsibility surely dictate that the Navitus developers should sit down with my august friends who are here this evening and discuss alternatives.

[Richard Drax]

The site was chosen because it is the closest to land, and it is all about the money. The other sites are far further out and would cost the company many millions of pounds more. Whatever negotiations we enter, there is no way it will change its mind.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. As I said, I am not close to the planning application itself and do not know the technical considerations that Navitus has made. Clearly money, and the return on capital that it hopes to achieve, will be a factor, but as I understand it the Crown Estate is the landlord. It should be encouraged to enter a dialogue with my hon. Friends, who represent their constituents’ and the nation’s interests so ably on the matter, and I hope it will do so.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend will know that the Crown Estate gets money only for developments within the 12-mile limit. If the wind farm were pushed beyond the 12-mile limit, it would not get any money for it. That is why it is not in favour of doing that.

[Mr Vaizey]

The Crown Estate is free to grant planning permission for individual developments, and I am sure that it will take into account its wider responsibility and its relationship with local communities and stakeholders in deciding how it wishes its estate to be developed. I believe that it should sit down with my hon. Friends and local stakeholders and discuss the merits or otherwise of the proposal.

To return to my role and that of the DCMS, I hope that I have emphasised that we are not shy in coming forward when we think a world heritage site is under threat, even if it involves disagreeing with colleagues in other Departments, because we put the interests of world heritage sites first. As I understand it, the professional advice from English Heritage and English Nature is that although they have some concerns about the impact on some historic buildings, they do not state that the current proposal for the offshore—

19:33

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

Division 33

Ayes: 274

---

Conservative: 228
Liberal Democrat: 38
Democratic Unionist Party: 7

Noes: 203

---

Labour: 193
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Liberal Democrat: 3
Conservative: 1
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 9 July 2014

Home Department

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Offences Against Children: Internet

[Andrea Leadsom]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps she is taking to work with police forces across the country to protect children from online sexual exploitation.

[Official Report, 7 April 2014, Vol. 579, c. 119W.]

Letter of correction from Norman Baker:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on 7 April 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Norman Baker]

The Government is committed to preventing online child abuse. Details of the Government plans to strengthen the protection of children from online sexual exploitation were published last summer in the Action Plan of the National Group to tackle Sexual Violence Against Children and Vulnerable People. Copies will be placed in the House Library and can be found at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230443/Sexual_Violence_against_Children_ and_Vulnerable_People.pdf

The Child Exploitation Online Protection Command of the National Crime Agency (NCA-CEOP) is the UK's national law enforcement agency committed to preventing and tackling the sexual abuse of children both online and offline. In 2012/13, NCA-CEOP safeguarded and protected 790 children, an increase of 85% on the previous year.

The NCA-CEOP Command works closely with all 43 police forces in England and Wales, Police Scotland and PSNI.

In January 2013, the police created a National Child Sexual Exploitation Action Plan which sought to improve the police response to all forms of CSE both online and offline. Each force has now completed a benchmarking exercise, allowing them to understand and improve their capability to deal with CSE.

HMIC are close to completing an inspection into the policing of online sexual exploitation and should be publishing their findings in the near future. This will help us identify best practice and also where the service needs to improve to deal with the proliferation of indecent images on the internet and grooming.

The correct answer should have been:

[Norman Baker]

The Government is committed to preventing online child abuse. Details of the Government plans to strengthen the protection of children from online sexual exploitation were published last summer in the Action Plan of the National Group to tackle Sexual Violence Against Children and Vulnerable People. Copies will be placed in the House Library and can be found at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230443/Sexual_Violence_against_Children_ and_Vulnerable_People.pdf

The Child Exploitation Online Protection Command of the National Crime Agency (NCA-CEOP) is the UK's national law enforcement agency committed to preventing and tackling the sexual abuse of children both online and offline. In 2012/13, NCA-CEOP safeguarded and protected 560 children, an increase of 41% on the previous year.

The NCA-CEOP Command works closely with all 43 police forces in England and Wales, Police Scotland and PSNI.

In January 2013, the police created a National Child Sexual Exploitation Action Plan which sought to improve the police response to all forms of CSE both online and offline. Each force has now completed a benchmarking exercise, allowing them to understand and improve their capability to deal with CSE.

HMIC are close to completing an inspection into the policing of online sexual exploitation and should be publishing their findings in the near future. This will help us identify best practice and also where the service needs to improve to deal with the proliferation of indecent images on the internet and grooming.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 9 July 2014

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

Local Plans (Public Consent)

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts, for a debate on a subject in which I know you have a particularly keen interest. I must say that there is no tumbleweed today; looking around me, I can see that my Conservative colleagues have a clear interest in this subject as well. I will try to give the short version of my speech. I had planned lengthy remarks, but if I was to say everything I have in mind I would consume my colleagues’ time.

I begin by outlining two key problems. First, land for development is extremely scarce in Wycombe, and there is real public anger at the prospect of building on all of High Wycombe’s reserve sites, which would further burden the inadequate infrastructure, especially our roads. Secondly, there is an obvious, acute need for more homes, especially those that people, particularly young people and families, can afford. In some cases there is a real sense of despair; I am thinking particularly of one working father I talked to with a family of four who will not only struggle to buy a home locally but might find himself facing the prospect of a Bank of England cap on the mortgage he would need.

There is a real problem of despair among those who do not own homes, and there is also a clear need for public consent. We need to find a way forward because the current approach is failing for three key reasons. First, collaborative democracy is inherently unlikely ever to meet policy makers’ aspirations. Secondly, a duty to co-operate is not the right way to co-ordinate decision making and works against localism. Thirdly, the crux of the matter is that the current system leaves individuals and families facing the imposition of costs without adequate recompense. I am going to say something about each of those points.

I rather regret that I cannot put a map in Hansard, but I will try to describe the problem in High Wycombe. It is surrounded by an area of outstanding natural beauty, apart from where the M40 emerges to the south-east, where it is green belt. That creates enormous pressure on development land—indeed, the district, which is larger than my constituency, is 71% AONB. There are four reserved sites in Wycombe: Abbey Barn north, Abbey Barn south, the Gomm valley and Terriers Farm, all of which are highly prized by local residents and would be served by roads that are already heavily used. We are short of school places and our hospital is already falling short of public expectations, having lost services; it is no surprise that the public have concerns.

Among all that, I have been very impressed by the commitment of Wycombe district councillors to represent their electorate and mine, as well as by the cool-headed professionalism of the planning officers. They are operating a system that they have been given, with all its complexities, uncertainties and, crucially, areas of discretion. They are determined to be constructive and certainly not to abdicate control to the Planning Inspectorate and developers, which is how they perceive things. They have explained clearly that, under their current proposals, most of the Gomm valley and Abbey Barn north in particular would remain undeveloped. Nevertheless, people remain concerned.

Turning to the results of a quality assurance survey about the local plan, I observe that of the 3,800 survey packs sent out, only 550 people replied. That tells me that non-participation remains a crucial problem. Nevertheless, about a third of people had seen the council’s leaflet on the local plan and read some of it, and 71% felt that new homes were needed locally. Aside from talking to local families, I have experience of talking to residents’ groups and finding out just how irate they are about the notion of their lives bearing specific costs without adequate compensation—and, it turns out, without adequate opportunity to participate.

The Government’s approach is an implementation of the collaborative approach to planning described in the Conservative party’s Green Paper, “Open Source Planning”, which was available online to download before the election—I did so and read it. Another thing I would observe about non-participation is that, given that the Green Paper very much explains what the Government have been doing, it is surprising that there has been so much controversy about the presumption of sustainable development—it was clearly articulated that a Conservative-led Government would implement that. It says something about non-participation in democracy that even the most interested campaign groups nationally appear not to have read the Green Paper.

I challenge the notion of open source consent. Without going off on too much of a tangent, as a software engineer who has participated in open source software projects, I observe that open source software is entirely voluntary—if someone does not wish to use it, they can do something else—and the incentives to participate are strong. In contrast, the land use planning system involves coercion and imposed costs, and there is no exit from it. The whole open source metaphor has been flawed.

The Green Paper said:

“Our conception of local planning is rooted in civic engagement and collaborative democracy as the means of reconciling economic development with quality of life. Planning issues drive members of the public to become engaged in local political campaigning and decision-making. Communities should be given the greatest possible opportunity to have their say and the greatest possible degree of local control. If we get this right, the planning system can play a major role in decentralising power and strengthening society—bringing communities together, as they formulate a shared vision of sustainable development. And, if we enable communities to find their own ways of overcoming the tensions between development and conservation, local people can become proponents rather than opponents of appropriate economic growth.”

We can see how that approach fed into our manifesto, the “Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”, and then into the national planning policy framework, but I want to argue that it has failed. I am very sorrowful that it has, but I would like to explain why by describing some local experience.

The residents of Daws Hill have strong incentives to participate in local neighbourhood planning. The Daws Hill site is bracketed by RAF Daws Hill to the east and Wycombe sports centre to the west. The sports centre is going through a major redevelopment, and more housing will be built on RAF Daws Hill because it is a brownfield site. The residents formed a neighbourhood forum and set out in good faith to participate in the system that the Government had set out. However, the council ruled that neither of the two developments of interest to residents could be considered by the neighbourhood forum. There was a judicial review and an appeal, and the council was found to have acted properly within the law.

The chairman of the neighbourhood forum said:

“Having encouraged participation in local development through the formation of a neighbourhood forum, as set out in the Localism Act, the forum now finds that the local planning authority has the discretion to restrict its area, it appears, for whatever reason it chooses.

“In our opinion, this makes a nonsense of the legislation, which is supposed to be there to encourage participation.

“It's not surprising we feel aggrieved at the outcome of the legal process. We are struggling to see any advantage in participating in local affairs.”

I am dismayed that that happened, because I stood on a platform of radical decentralisation of power, which I very much expected we would deliver. People have wasted their time, money and energy—the outcome has been everything that open source planning was not supposed to be.

Elsewhere in High Wycombe, people are not participating to any great extent. Across the district there were about 1,700 responses to the local consultation; I have about 75,000 electors. In the rather unfortunate jargon of public policy theory, people are “rationally ignorant”— it is just not worth the effort of participating in these matters because they are complex and tedious. The process of information gathering, discussion and decision often produces unacceptable results that people are forced to accept. That is the problem with public choice factors. In reality, the public either have too few incentives to get involved or have found that in practice the system excludes them from the involvement that they want: the power to avoid having costs imposed on them.

Another active local group, Penn and Tylers Green residents society, which is most concerned about the Gomm valley, provided this eviscerating judgment on the national planning policy framework:

“The NPPF seems to us to be a disingenuous mixture of high-sounding intent and contradictory assertion. It identifies planning as aiming to achieve ‘sustainable development’, a term which, because it defies succinct interpretation, has come to mean popularly, ‘the importance of building houses’.”

Notwithstanding the Government’s honourable intent, we now have council, not community, power. Land use planning remains a complex and specialist subject, so Wycombe’s local plan was produced by planning officers, not residents bravely taking control of their own lives. Planning regulations remain so complex that specialist expertise is required even to work out whether a proposal is permitted development, about which I will talk more in a few moments.

It also turns out that the process of electing councillors every four years does not persuade people to accept the costs imposed on them by the plans and decisions of officials. The process followed is certainly lawful but it cannot be said to be democratic, given that the electors do not have the opportunity to discard the plan if they do not like it. I suggest that we see, by harsh experience and by reading the Green Paper, that the NPPF and collaborative democracy in planning have turned out to be an opportunity to comply enthusiastically with the goals set by authority, which is, I am afraid, the freedom to obey.

Regarding the duty to co-operate, if collaborative planning has not worked at the local level, what of collaboration among planning authorities? Whenever decision making is decentralised, a problem of co-ordination arises. The duty to co-operate was bound to bring different plans into conflict, and such conflicts were bound to be difficult to resolve.

I understand from planning officers that the burden of co-operation is now simultaneously slowing down delivery, as authorities communicate with the constellation of organisations indicated in the NPPF, and making planning less accountable to local people. How is public consent for a local plan to be obtained when it is bound to be the product of an opaque process of collaboration between many individuals working for many official bodies?

I understand that moves are now afoot to ask local enterprise partnerships to co-ordinate local planning authorities. When the chief executive of our LEP told me that a particular problem was that there were now so many economic plans that people could not reconcile them, I asked him, light-heartedly, “Are you saying that what we need is a strongman, with the power, authority and vision to resolve the plans and impose the solution on everyone?” He said yes, but of course I was parodying Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”; it seems that, once again, life imitates literature, if not art.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I will certainly not be quoting Hayek back to my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he share my concern, however, that there is a lack of joined-up thinking among neighbouring councils? For example, Northumberland and Newcastle councils act differently in relation to the green belt on their border. Does he agree that that sort of problem needs the overarching view that he is so enthusiastically endorsing?

[Steve Baker]

I do. One of the problems is that the valuation of things such as the green belt is subjective—different people will have different opinions about different pieces of land. Some green belts are not especially high in quality. Around Wycombe, as I have said, most of it is AONB, but it is probably true that some of what is just green belt is not especially high in quality. Where it is poor in quality, people will value it differently. When elected representatives are involved at a local level, it is not surprising that they are unable to agree a valuation of land.

That is the point I want to make. When it comes to co-ordinating plans among decentralised decision makers, only the price system can promise to reconcile those differences, through voluntary and mutual adjustment. It is precisely because only the price system can co-ordinate human action that economic planning by authority always falls short of people’s ambitions for it.

I turn to what I propose the Government should do. In the short term at least, we must inevitably continue to attempt to make planning by authority in land use function without doing too much harm. I therefore ask the Government to take three short-term actions.

First, the Government should take the time to deliver a genuine simplification of the existing rules, so that complexity does not undermine public trust in the system. For example, I understand that permitted development can now be farcical in practice. I looked at the website, and to me it seems that some of it can be simple. In practice, however, people find it so difficult to decide whether something is permitted development, and are so afraid of the consequences of being fined if they get it wrong, that, in practice, they often end up applying to the planners for a certificate confirming that permission for the development is not required. That is absurd. A solution has been put to me. It essentially involves abolishing permitted development and making things simple: if there were no response within an eight-week period, the development would be allowed to go ahead.

Secondly, the Government should ensure that the duty to co-operate is not allowed to produce a creeping reinstatement of unaccountable, unelected regional government through the LEPs. I endorse everything that the Conservative party has said about regional government; I do not want to see it reinstated through LEPs.

The Government should narrow the range of bodies among whom co-operation is required and state clearly that local planning authorities must resolve differences among themselves without adjudication by authorities of broader scope—notwithstanding the wise comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). If necessary, the test on the duty to co-operate should be relaxed to avoid reinstating the failed concept of regional government.

Finally, I ask the Minister to confirm the view he set out in his letter of 3 March 2014 to Sir Michael Pitt, chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate, regarding inspectors’ reports on local plans. The Minister says, in the letter:

“The special role of Green Belt is also recognised in the framing of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which sets out that authorities should meet objectively assessed needs unless specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. Crucially, Green Belt is identified as one such policy.”

What I understand from that is that authorities are not required to consume green-belt or other protected land to meet those objectively assessed needs. That is critical for a place such as High Wycombe; although the housing need is clear, it is also clear that the place is surrounded by AONB. I am looking for the Minister to confirm that that is his view.

I turn to reserve sites and one of the difficulties of the NPPF. The reserve sites are all in close proximity to the communities they serve, special to the adjacent communities and local in character. Under the NPPF, they could be designated as local green space and managed as for the green belt. Will the Minister confirm that that could be done, in which case local councillors and planners would have the discretion to decide whether to do so, to protect those areas? After scrutinising the documents and considering the sites, which I know well enough, I am absolutely sure that that is the case. It would mean that we have local power, at least at council level, over those sites.

In the longer term, the crux of the matter is that the development of land imposes costs on other people. The fundamental reason why local plans are failing to attract public consent is that compensation for such so-called “externalities”, as the literature puts it, is provided to councils as the embodiment of community, not to the people affected. People simply have inadequate reason to consent and every reason to object. What is necessary to achieve public consent in land use decisions is what economists call “internalising the externalities”—that is, making developers cover the costs that they impose on others when they wish to proceed.

In the long term, it cannot be right to leave young people and working families facing a housing market with too few homes whose prices are too high. It is perfectly plain that more homes must be built, and built at reasonable prices with widespread public consent. There is extensive literature on how to deliver such a system through common-law property rights and market mechanisms. For example, “Liberating the Land” by the Institute of Economic Affairs provides a good survey. Its ideas include: covenant protections and deed restrictions, combined with affordable land use tribunals; tradable development rights; strengthening the law on nuisance; and various restraints from economic forces. National protection in law could be retained for AONBs, green belts and places of historic value.

I do not doubt that such a system would have its own difficulties, but it would offer a promise of a way forward, in which people had genuine power to say no and every incentive to say yes. We must abandon command-and-control economic planning in land use, and instead find ways to meet the laudable goals of the present system in a way that is realistic about public participation, incentives and the efficiency and effectiveness of bureaucratic processes. We certainly must not continue to preach market capitalism, only to practise socialism in land use before blaming inevitable failure on the market.

There is a clear way forward. In the short term, planning inspectors should accept local plans that meet the aims of the NPPF by protecting designated land, even if that means not building the full quantities of homes identified as being objectively needed. This is necessary to establish public confidence in the democratic legitimacy of the system. In the longer term, policy should give real power to the public, which means the power to say no, combined with proper incentives to say yes, including due compensation, without the public having to acquiesce to costs imposed by other people, including the long-term costs of losing beautiful, highly valued land.

Democracy is government by consent. Only when the public do not face costs without compensation will our system of land use control meet that aspiration.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I have just done a quick tot-up of those who wish to speak. We have about 50 minutes before the Front-Bench spokesmen come in. So, just as a guide, that means about six minutes each for the eight Members who are standing. Can we take account of that, please? I will not impose a time limit at this stage, but I have given clear guidance to ensure that everyone can get in and have their say.

09:50

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

As always, Mr Betts, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing this debate and I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible.

Local planning is, without a shadow of doubt, the single most controversial issue facing Romsey and Southampton North. Planning is incredibly difficult for local councils, the elected Member, council officers and, most importantly, local residents. The constituency is split between urban and rural areas, but that makes no difference in planning terms; wherever you are in my constituency, planning is simply difficult and controversial. It is very hard to balance the competing issues of housing need with an entirely justifiable desire to protect green fields, countryside locations and—just as importantly—the character of urban areas.

I will use Bassett, on the edge of Southampton, as an example of where urban planning pressures are every bit as complicated as those of greenfield sites. The drive by developers to squeeze additional properties into back gardens and to demolish family housing and replace it with blocks of flats, as well as the continued spread of houses of multiple occupation, turn Bassett into a classic example of where garden-grabbing has continued apace. However, it is not all bad news. I commend the work of local councillors, particularly Les Harris, who has worked tirelessly with local residents on the Bassett neighbourhood plan. Bassett has been designated as a neighbourhood area in its own right, and in the autumn there will be a referendum on the plan. It is a perfect example of a community coming together to identify problems, and potentially using the planning system to its advantage. Obviously, I hope that the referendum will be supported and that the people of Bassett will have a defining say in the future of their own area.

Elsewhere in Romsey and Southampton North, the situation is less happy. The revised local plan comes before Test Valley borough council in the next few weeks, and there is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting green fields and meeting the demand for new homes. What is very sad is when one part of a wider community is set against another, and a determination to protect one greenfield site is at the expense of others. I do not pretend that there are easy answers—there are not—but I am quite convinced that planning officers and councillors continue to work extremely hard to identify the least worst options. The reality is that all the options would impact green fields or woodland, and all would have an impact on roads, schools and services. Whether it is in Whitenap, on the edge of Romsey; in Great Covert, between North Baddesley and Valley Park; or in Parkers Farm in Rownhams, there are some very difficult choices to be made.

Of course, I would prefer to see greenfield sites remain undeveloped. They not only add to local amenity but provide valuable agricultural land, and importantly they can act as sponges to soak up rain when it falls in massive quantities, as happened in Romsey at the start of the year. I have long argued in favour of a brownfield-first policy; more green belt for Hampshire, which has virtually none; and powers to enable those who have sat on brownfield land with extant planning permission for a generation to be obliged to bring it forward for development.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has made some important points about collaborative planning and why it is so hard to bring forward a plan that everybody is content with. Undoubtedly, the experience of southern Test Valley shows why it is critical to have a robust adopted plan, because until one is in place developers will continue to make speculative applications for land in local strategic gaps and in the countryside.

Public consultation is crucial but, as my hon. Friend said, too few people take part and it tends to be only those directly affected by a specific development who participate. In Romsey, there has been a fantastic effort to involve more of the community, and Romsey Future is an exciting project that aims to ensure the town’s future as a thriving market town. Many other bodies, including the Romsey Forum and the Romsey and District Society, have been proactive.

It is a huge frustration for local residents that localism has not delivered what they hoped it would. My hon. Friend concluded with an interesting point on “internalising the externalities”. I am not sure what it would take for residents of Romsey to view development adjacent to them as a good thing. However, we have to find a way to square that circle, because until we do we will continue to see community set against community and not the local co-operation that we all want.

09:55

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on setting out the case. The Minister will have noticed that there are a dozen or more Conservative MPs here, and it will be interesting to see how many of them speak in support of his policies, because in the last debate that we had here on this subject not one Conservative MP did.

The simple fact is that, as the hon. Member for Wycombe has pointed out, the Government are not delivering what the Conservative party said in opposition, and I will cite—

[Steve Baker]

That is not quite the point I made. The party is delivering what it set out in its Green Paper; it is just not achieving the intended effect.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Whatever it is, the general public are not exactly dancing in the streets. The public consent for local plans is the issue we are debating, and the Minister is personally culpable for what he approved in north Colchester not that long ago. He approved it despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government personally visited the area to see it for himself. I got a Transport Minister to come down and see the existing congestion in the North Station road area, and despite that this Minister rubber-stamped a plan, knowing full well that the land had never previously been zoned for housing. How the plan came through the system is one of those great mysteries of life, but it did. Myland community council, the only parish council area in my constituency, was opposed to it.

Councillors across the borough ganged up and shoved the housing allocation on one area, so it could be argued that the public consent came from the democratically elected local borough council, but there was not public consent in the area affected. It is an area that has had massive new development, and it now faces the prospect of having an additional 3,000-plus houses on a roundabout that is already a quart in a pint pot. I have to tell the Minister that the situation is not resolved by adding another pint or two.

Indeed, only this Monday the Colchester Daily Gazette reported that around £2 million of public money will go towards a project to encourage commuters to car-share, use public transport, or cycle or walk to work instead of driving through the North Station road roundabout. Even before a brick is laid, public money is having to be spent and it will not sort out the mess that is already there, let alone the problems caused by having the additional housing on two sites, one the site of a former psychiatric hospital—allegedly, it is a brownfield site, but some brownfield—and the other on virgin open countryside. All that will come into this area.

There is another problem. Because the section 106 agreement did not produce sufficient funds for a primary school in that area, the local authority is now going to expand a proposed school that is yet to be built, over and above what was originally intended. Far from it being a community school, it will become a destination school.

Those are two direct results, Minister, of a decision made by you, for which you are culpable as the Minister responsible.

I now move on to a second development, which is causing great worry. A local authority wants to build all its housing allocation, or a large part of it, on the border of another local authority area. I will end my remarks by asking the Minister and his officials to investigate urgently what Tendring district council is playing at in wanting to build a large proportion of its housing allocation immediately on the eastern border of urban Colchester, which will create an urban sprawl going eastwards. I urge the Minister and his officials to look at that urgently, because Tendring district council is putting its housing allocation where the local people in Colchester do not want it. The people in Colchester will have no say in Tendring district council’s housing allocation.

09:59

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing this important debate on public consent for local plans. As ever, his take on it was challenging, original and stimulating.

I think that we all accept—we know—that we need more housing in this country, and we need it urgently. The Office for National Statistics projection is that 232,000 net additional homes are needed per year to satisfy demand, although now it is a bit more than that because the target has been missed for a number of years, so a backlog has built up.

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, demand is not all driven by immigration. Without any net migration, the net additional demand would be 149,000 per annum. There are various reasons for that—smaller households; no one has a lodger; students going away to university; divorce, and so on—but, of course, the biggest single factor is that people are living longer, which is positive. We need to get that message out more often.

I should like housing demand to be more re-balanced across the country. The recent regional growth figures are encouraging: over the medium term what has happened in Leeds, Manchester and elsewhere has been strong and, in the fullness of time, High Speed 2, and perhaps even HS3, will contribute to that further. However, these things cannot be decreed and they do not happen immediately. We cannot escape the fact that the south-east will continue to over-index on housing demand for quite some time.

It is for those reasons that, in my constituency of East Hampshire, the average first-time buyer is almost as old as I am; the average home costs over £320,000, and the median house price is 10 times median earnings. We know that to maintain the vibrancy of our towns and villages we need to have a mix of age groups and we need new people coming in.

We certainly need to promote the primacy of brownfield land, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said. It is also true—we need to get this message out more often, too—that both nationally and in East Hampshire there is not nearly enough brownfield land to satisfy demand. I received an answer to a written question from the Minister yesterday, which, with my rough maths, suggests that brownfield sites could satisfy 4% or 5% of demand for housing over a 15-year period.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point on brownfield sites. I welcome the Government’s announcement this week on the local enterprise partnership funding, which will unlock a key brownfield site in York, on the edge of my constituency.

Is not the key point that we have to ensure that brownfield sites come forward more quickly? Actually, that is what green belt does. We always talk about green belt as protecting the character and setting of communities, which it does, but it is also important for driving urban regeneration. We must not forget that.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend puts the point about prioritising brownfield land well, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North. I cannot really talk about green belt, because we do not have any in East Hampshire, so, unfortunately, green belt protection does not really help us.

In general, people accept the need for more housing and for places for their children and grandchildren to live, but I rarely meet anybody who wants large-scale residential development to happen next to them. Often, people who use the term “nimbys” do so because it has not yet happened in their back yard. It is just part of human nature that people do not want large-scale developments to be built next to them.

In that context, I support local plans and neighbourhood plans. We can never make everybody happy, but the local plan plus neighbourhood plan process gets about as close as possible. However, plans alone are not enough; do-ability also has to be demonstrated, which is why the five-year land supply is logical. Once a process is set there must be insistence that it is followed; otherwise there is a risk of legal challenge from developers saying that there is restraint of their trade.

There is a big issue around public consent for local plans while they are still in process. In East Hampshire, our local plan is not finished and the five-year land supply is not in place, but applications have been proceeding apace and East Hampshire district council has been approving apace. Neighbourhood plans are in progress in a number of places, including in Petersfield, which is getting quite close to having a referendum, and in Alton, Four Marks and Medstead. I pay tribute to the volunteers who are doing an outstanding job on those neighbourhood plans, although I will not name individuals, because there are many of them.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am a keen supporter of neighbourhood plans. How much involvement have the plans in my hon. Friend’s constituency attracted and how much interest in them there has been, more widely, in his constituency?

[Damian Hinds]

They have attracted a huge amount of interest in Petersfield and Alton. I have attended public sessions where masses of people have come along and taken part. That has been an interesting and exciting confidence-building process.

A particular issue in my constituency has divided people. Part of my constituency is in the South Downs national park and part is outside. People in a town or village that is deemed sustainable, to use the terminology, and is just outside the national park may consider themselves to be at risk of development. That happens in Alton and Liphook and is a particular problem in Four Marks and Medstead. To hit the local plan target for a settlement in Four Marks and part of the parish of Medstead, 175 homes need to be built by 2028. The council has already permitted 151; there are applications pending for a further 322 and applications for a further 181 are waiting to be submitted. Of course, not all those applications may be approved, but multiples of the requirement for that settlement could be in place in, say, the first third of the plan period, rather than over the full 15 years. In that context, there is a danger of confidence in the plan process being eroded.

My big ask to the Minister is for more recognition of in-progress plans. There should be guidance on plans that are well progressed. Where per settlement plans—in our case it is called the interim housing statement—measure up to the overall local plan requirements, where local authorities are approving housing comfortably ahead of the pace required to meet the 15-year target and where numbers are already fast being approached in individual settlements, it should be possible for those settlements to defer applications for a reasonable period, to complete plans and carry public consent with them.

There are two further aspects. First, in respect of clarity on infrastructure, I realise that statutory requirements are involved and sometimes the process takes time, but authorities ought to be allowed to take time to pace applications. Secondly, with regard to incentive moneys, it should be made clear that at least some of that should be ultra-local, to maintain public support.

10:07

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Planning Minister. It was a great pleasure, during my time at the Department for Communities and Local Government, to work alongside him, so I understand some of the issues that he faces.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing this debate on a subject that is of great concern to many of our constituents, as can be seen from the turnout in the Chamber. My hon. Friend raised many points that are relevant to Fylde, but I wish to focus specifically on local plan matters relating to my constituency.

The Localism Act 2011, of which I am a great supporter, was warmly received by communities in Fylde. Upon its introduction there was a clear intention to move away from the previous Government’s imposed top-down approach to planning that was driven by the regional spatial strategy. When Fylde borough council set about developing its own local plan, it accepted from the outset that this would result in a considerable number of new homes being built across the borough. However, during the process the council found itself frustrated on a number of key points.

First, when arriving at the total number of houses necessary for the 15-year plan period, the council found itself required to meet the previous housing numbers shortfall, despite having a new housing moratorium placed on them by the previous Government. As a result of this previous shortfall, many believe that the number of houses now required to meet Fylde borough council’s needs is greatly inflated and distorted. In a ministerial statement in March, my hon. Friend the Minster said that councils that had been under a housing moratorium could take this into account if struggling to meet their five-year housing supply. For the record, Fylde borough council is currently sitting at 4.5 years, with a number of plans in the process that could quickly take us to the five-year threshold. However, when Fylde borough council raised this with officials, it was informed that it would be unable to use the previous moratorium as part of its calculations. I have sent a letter to my hon. Friend, asking for urgent clarification on this issue. I would hate to think that the Planning Inspectorate is failing to follow his wise ministerial guidance.

Secondly, the Fylde local plan has been out to consultation, and the council is working to adjust it to take on board the often valid suggestions put forward by local communities. In the village of Warton, the local community has been exemplary in how it has embraced the local planning process. In the draft local plan, it was proposed that Warton would receive up to 1,400 new homes, which would have in effect doubled the size of the village, and that rightly caused great concern at a local level. However, the way in which the village responded truly embraced the core principles of the Localism Act 2011 in a way that I hope the Minister would appreciate. A number of public meetings were held and every home was leafleted to seek their opinions, culminating in a local referendum. While at times passions ran high, the primary focus was to find the correct long-term housing solution for the community.

As a result of the people of Warton’s hard work, it is my understanding that Fylde borough council is looking to reduce the number of new houses in Warton to somewhere in the region of 600. To reassure the Minister, the council has identified other areas in the borough that it believes are more suitable for taking up the balance of the houses proposed for Warton. I believe that that approach reflects the core principles of the Localism Act 2011. To my disgust, I have learned that developers want to ignore all that work and are proposing to put in planning applications to take the number of houses in Warton to more than 1,400. It appears that developers are using the lack of a five-year housing supply as a loophole to ram through applications against the intentions of the council and the wishes of the local people.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I am listening to what my hon. Friend is saying with great interest. We have similar situations in High Peak. Does he agree that the situation is causing a belief to fester among our constituents and residents that all these housing targets are being more centralised, as opposed to decentralised to the local authorities, as we are trying to do?

[Mark Menzies]

Sadly, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The aims of the Localism Act are not being delivered on the ground, and that is one of the areas of great frustration.

Developers know that if the council’s planning committee refuses applications for 800 homes in Warton, they can go straight to the Planning Inspectorate to appeal. We have seen that on a number of occasions across the borough. I have been informed that each appeal costs the council tax payers of Fylde something in the region of £50,000 plus costs and is done in the almost sure-fire knowledge that the Planning Inspectorate will bow to the developers’ demands. That ignores the views of democratically elected Members, local planners and, above all, the local community, which has worked tirelessly to come up with sensible alternatives. I hope the Minister will agree that that makes an absolute mockery of the principles of the Localism Act. If that approach is allowed to continue, we will end up with not a local plan, but a mishmash of planning decisions that have been railroaded through by developers and speculative land agents. I am not prepared to sit around and let that happen in Fylde.

The example I have given relates to Warton, but the same could be said of developers in Wrea Green, Staining, Wesham, Kirkham and now, as I have learned in the past week, Lytham St Annes. The problem is that each scheme is examined on its own merits by the Planning Inspectorate, rather than as a joined-up plan. As a result, there is a real danger of infrastructure failing to keep pace with development. The approach is unsustainable and could lead to a vast array of problems in our communities.

Developers need to understand that the Government have reformed planning policy to ensure that the UK’s housing and development needs are met in the future. It appears that some developers are starting to abuse the aims of the legislation. The planning Minister needs to understand that the Planning Inspectorate must work better with local councils. If the Planning Inspectorate fails to recognise the changes borne out of the Localism Act 2011 and continues to dance to the tune of developers, it should not be surprised if there is a groundswell of Members demanding that it be reformed. The subject is important for my constituency and I wish the Minister well in his endeavours, but it is important that he takes on board the concerns.

10:13

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) for introducing the debate and making many sensible points. The previous speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), touched on what I want to say right at the end of his speech, when he talked about the Planning Inspectorate perhaps not reflecting the Government’s intention. On 24 October last year, I held a debate in this Chamber that was well attended by a number of Members, each of whom made their own different points. My point then was that planning policy needed to be clarified. On the one hand, the Government were saying that we have to have loads more houses, but on the other, they were saying that we need to protect the green belt and such areas. The Minister, to his great credit, listened carefully to that debate and some while after that called a number of us together to present the clarification of the policy, particularly on unmet need and the impact that that could have on the green belt. He said that the green belt should take precedence. He also clarified the duty to co-operate when he said that it was not necessarily a duty to agree, if that meant that the green belt would be compromised. He made very many other clarifications, which were extremely useful.

My concern is on the extent to which the guidance is being followed by the Planning Inspectorate and the local councils that are putting together plans and joint core strategies in my area. To give an example of the problems in Tewkesbury, we have a great deal of green-belt land, many areas of outstanding natural beauty and an awful lot of flood-risk areas. Tewkesbury’s assessed housing need for the next 20 years is 10,900 houses, yet it is proposed that it will take 18,900. A lot of those houses will be built on the green belt, which I believe to be contrary to Government policy. I have taken that up with the local councils, and they fear that the inspectorate, which will look at the plan and say whether it is sound, will not follow the Minister’s guidance. That is what they genuinely feel. At this stage, it is difficult to say who is right, but the councils, although they do not want to build on the green belt or in flood-risk areas, feel that they might have to do that.

There are various recent inspectors’ reports—there was one just last week in Somerset—where the inspector appeared to disregard consideration for the green belt. I say “appeared”, because it was a rather confusing report, and much confusion surrounds the decision. In my area, there seems to have been a compromise on an area of outstanding natural beauty in an appeal that was allowed on a development of 50 houses in the village of Alderton. That does not sound like a lot, but it is a significant increase on the number of houses it has. Although it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, the inspector seemed to say that where there is unmet housing need, the AONB might have to be compromised. I believe that to be contrary to the Government’s policy. They have clearly said that unmet need should not outweigh any significant harm that might be caused to the green belt or other such areas.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly support my hon. neighbour’s view that local councillors in all three councils have in effect been bludgeoned into voting for a very unpopular joint core strategy for Gloucestershire, because of the fear of the inspectorate, but it is not just about AONB and green belt. The only request for local green space status in the entire JCS area is at Leckhampton, in my constituency. It is supported by me, the Leckhampton Green Land Action Group and in great detail by Leckhampton and Warden Hill parish council. That request has not been so much refused as completely ignored by the joint core strategy team, thereby defying every consultation on the subject in the local area for the past 10 years, in which development has been universally opposed. I want the Minister to look specifically at that case, but I strongly support the points that my hon. neighbour is making.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

When the Government came to power they got rid of the regional spatial strategy system of planning, and that was welcomed. That was a good move. We introduced the Localism Act 2011, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) correctly said, people feel let down. They feel that the 2011 Act and the principle of localism have not delivered and do not look like they will deliver what people want.

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

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. One thing that I have lobbied hard for is the introduction of a new community right of appeal, which would give local people a real opportunity to have a say and would rebalance planning and deliver localism in the same way we have delivered an improvement in the planning process. Does he agree that that is a good idea?

[Mr Robertson]

Yes, I certainly would agree. We need to give more power to people, and that was suggested by the title of the debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe introduced. Local people feel that they are being ridden over by developers and that there is further confusion in the planning system. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to simplify, to ensure consistency and to clarify, certainly in my area, what the duty to co-operate actually means. More work needs to be done. He rightly referred to the letter from the Minister to Sir Michael Pitt, which said that green-belt land can be removed in the local plan process only in consultation with local people, and I must say that local people do not want that to happen. If it does happen, it is not because local people want it to happen. They believe in localism and welcomed the Localism Act 2011, but they are not convinced that it is delivering for them. It is better not to have a policy than to have one that goes on to disappointment.

My constituents are not opposed to development. I work every day to bring jobs to my constituency, as I am sure that all hon. Members do, and with those jobs must come housing. In 2007, my constituency was under water due to flooding. People lost their water supplies for three weeks and many people had to live in caravans for over a year. We had such devastation, which was threatened again earlier this year—the Prime Minister came to see the situation—and we do not want houses built in the wrong areas. That is what my constituents would want me to say today.

The Members present are almost exclusively Conservative. We have one Labour Front-Bench spokesperson and a couple each from the DUP and the Liberal Democrats. I probably should not say this publicly, but if we do not clarify the policy and sort it out, the Conservative party will lose votes. I want the Minister to take that on board. That is not the reason to sort the policy—there are many others—but it sounds like a pretty good one.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that we have a six-minute limit on speeches. If Members keep going over that, the Minister will have less time to respond.

10:21

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) for securing this important debate. I will try to be brief, because I know that many other hon. Members are keen to speak.

I want to discuss my constituency and some of the impacts that the policy is having. The most recent consultation period of our local plan has concluded. The plan has been developed over several years and caused a great deal of concern and anxiety among local residents, who feel that it has not made sufficient provision for associated infrastructure. There is significant apprehension about environmental impacts; air pollution is already a significant problem in Warwick, which celebrates its 1,100th anniversary this year. There is also great concern that the number of houses planned is excessive.

Office for National Statistics figures released at the end of May have significantly altered the estimated population figure on which the plan is based. Population growth is now estimated to be less than previously thought. An increase of 15,000 rather than 21,000 has been predicted, a reduction of more than 25%. If the new population figure is taken into account, the number of houses required for the plan should also reduce dramatically.

I understand that, as a general rule, public policy cannot continually be revised and updated as new statistics come to light, but it is important to take them into consideration if they have such a clear impact on existing proposals. There is evidence that the current population assumptions, prior to the publication of the ONS figures, are based on a period of unusually high migration. Does the Minister agree that Warwick district council must take the new information into account in the development of the plan? That is the only way in which we can restore confidence in the process. The figures, which have been brought to the council’s attention, will, I hope, be taken into account when they revise the current version of the local plan. If they are not, given this information and local residents’ sincere concerns, it will be a breach of what we are discussing here today: public consent for local plans.

I appreciate that planning is difficult, especially when new information comes to light, but can we not agree that we need to give residents the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the planning process? Only genuine engagement with residents can produce a plan that local people feel they have ownership of and ensure that the plan does not ignore their opinions.

Local residents’ views should be integral to the planning system. With so much of the community clearly opposing the plan as it stands, I hope that all those involved will seriously consider the significance of the objections. The decisions of Warwick district council and other similar local authorities will have long-term effects. I hope to see a consensual, sustainable solution that will be beneficial for our local community and the needs of all our futures.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.

10:25

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing this important debate. I must say that I am a little more positive than him about the Government’s planning policy; the issue is more that we have failed to grasp the changes in the policy and to use them in the town halls of this country.

The Government have come a long way towards injecting democracy, kicking and screaming, into the top-down, target-driven planning regime of the previous Government. The Localism Act 2011 and the national planning policy framework combined formed a strong first attack on the problem. They enshrined the importance of community buy-in as a central tenet of strategic and long-term planning, gave back powers to local councils and local communities and ended the top-down targets regime.

That said, it seems that the changes may have taken a little while to sink in at town halls, with many councils initially looking to opt for figures and equations taken from the inflated top-down targets of the regional spatial strategies rather than grasping the nettle and coming up with new approaches to determine housing need. As disappointing as that is, it is at least understandable. Outside council chambers, planning is a multi-million pound industry and developers are able—and more than willing—to outspend taxpayer-funded local councils in legal consultations, planning inquests and court cases, including at Glebelands and Jotmans Farm in my constituency.

With that in mind, it is entirely probable that local council planning departments are unwilling to be innovative and to break the established mould until another council had been successful, for fear of an expensive legal challenge by developers. I also fear that officials, councillors and perhaps even the Planning Inspectorate became quite comfortable with the old defence that, “The Government are forcing this on us; there is nothing we can do.”

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that threats are made to planning committee members—that if they do not approve schemes, they will be challenged by the developers?

[Rebecca Harris]

Absolutely. I hear that said regularly. The costs of court cases are waved at councillors who are responsible for public funding. It is a permanent threat. On balance and given that backdrop, however, the Government’s planning reforms have fared pretty well, particularly since the superb guidance update and the accompanying letter that the Minister wrote to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year.

Small districts and boroughs such as Castle Point have traditionally suffered the most in development plans, as their comparatively dense populations create big needs that put immense pressure on infrastructure and the precious little undeveloped green space on urban peripheries—no matter if there are larger districts with a higher ratio of undeveloped green space in urban communities within commuting distance.

If the big unit developers have their way with the green belt in Castle Point, it will be an unmitigated disaster, and not only for the environment—it will just not work. Developers too rarely deliver what they promise. They land bank, speculate on markets and cause distress and uncertainty to local residents, who see large swathes of undeveloped land swallowed up in a development plan only to see it sit there for years until the market is right. That is precisely what happened at the development between The Chase and Kiln road in my constituency, which was included in the last development plan in the 1990s and where construction began in earnest only two years ago.

The updates and clarifications on the NPPF issued by the Minister in February give more weapons to local councils to defend local plans from aggressive developer interest and allow them to be shaped more by engagement with local residents and therefore to achieve popular consent. We need to grasp what the updates offer local communities. They make it clear that the green belt does not have to be sacrificed in local plans and give more scope for local councils to bring forward the smaller and sometimes grotty brownfield sites that blight local neighbourhoods for redevelopment instead. That policy direction is well complemented by the Chancellor’s recent announcement, during his speech at Mansion House, that several hundred million pounds will be put in funds to help local councils bring forward brownfield sites.

I have stood in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber on a number of occasions to discuss how small brownfield sites not only are more likely to be realised for development faster, but put less strain on infrastructure. They are more likely to benefit the local economy by using local builders, solicitors and estate agents and by being marketed to local people. I am pleased by the updates brought in by the Minister earlier this year, making it easier for councils to have local plans based on such sites.

I thank the Minister for the strength of the policy updates, but I have a further, specific reason for thanking him. He supported me in my request for a representative from the Planning Inspectorate to visit Castle Point and explain to councillors and officers in blunt terms that they did not have to include undeveloped and locally treasured green belt in their new local plan if they could make, support and explain a case for why they thought it more important to preserve such spaces than to meet their purely statistical housing projections.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on this fantastic debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) is absolutely right that the policy of public consent for local plans, when it works, can work well. Unfortunately, in Labour-run Kirklees council, we do not have a local plan; there is not even an emerging local plan. What advice can the Minister give my constituents, who are now seeing a free-for-all? Furthermore, a Lib Dem councillor voted for the Lindley Moor development in the north of Huddersfield, which was completely against residents’ wishes. That was a casting vote, so my constituents are feeling frustrated.

[Rebecca Harris]

Castle Point council is due to consider the public consultation responses to its emerging local plan and to take account of the policy updates. Although it is purely up to the elected councillors of Castle Point to make decisions on the local plan, I anticipate that much more brownfield than previously anticipated will be proposed for development, which can only be a good thing.

The Government have faced a mammoth task to inject real democracy and a commitment to community engagement into the system. They have shown commitment to the challenge and made significant progress, which should be applauded. Few residents would disagree that we need to build more houses, but only through democratic engagement and buy-in will that happen—and, I believe, happen more quickly—in such a way as to cause the least detriment to existing householders.

10:31

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing the debate and on his interesting and thoughtful speech.

The question that we are discussing is not whether we need more houses; clearly we do. The continuing undersupply of houses not only disadvantages young people, who need somewhere to live, and makes houses relatively unaffordable, but is a risk to the economy, as the Governor of the Bank of England has made clear. For all those reasons, we need to preface everything we say with the recognition that more houses are needed.

The question instead is how those houses are to be provided and whether a top-down planning system will be enough to provide them—and in a way that takes the public with it. Perhaps a system based more on incentives would deliver the houses. My argument, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, is that we need to move to a system based more on incentives, turning our back fully on the top-down approach. We attempted to do that, in part, in the Localism Act 2011, and the principle that power should be given to local people and communities is surely the right one. My plea today is that we keep faith with that localism, because it can deliver the additional necessary housing.

I want to give one example: that of a small village in my constituency. On the edge of the South Downs national park and in beautiful countryside, it now faces the potential prospect of fracking and airport expansion, on top of the continuing pressure on housing. The parish as a whole has only 458 people, with 226 in the core village itself. For years, the village has seen speculative development applications as a threat and has resisted them.

Recently, however, the village sat down as part of its neighbourhood planning process and decided for itself—overwhelmingly, in a referendum—to provide for 50 new houses. That decision was taken by a village with a total population of 226, because villagers decided that they wanted more affordable houses. The number of new homes was not imposed, given to them or required—they chose it. Local people overwhelmingly endorsed the move.

That powerful process of neighbourhood planning can turn the incentives around, so that instead of local people confronting what they do not want the whole time and resisting development, they instead ask themselves what they do want and what is necessary for their children. The process has been shown to have worked. Kirdford was the second village in West Sussex to have passed a neighbourhood plan; Arundel was the first, but those two were among the earliest neighbourhood plans in the country to have gone through by referendum. That is a testament to that policy, to its power and to the Localism Act, the principles of which I support.

Localism, however, can be undermined. It is undermined when the Planning Inspectorate charges in, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) so eloquently described, adhering to an outdated set of rules or acting under orders—probably a mix of the two—and decides to impose still higher numbers of houses, or houses in a place that local people have not chosen in their proposed neighbourhood plans. Furthermore, in doing so, the inspectorate completely undermines any local support for the development proposed.

People then ask, “Where is this localism that we were promised?” We were all giving up our time—volunteers in the case of neighbourhood plans drawn up by parish councils—and spending a huge amount of it consulting with local people about where housing should go, winning around public support, but then seeing the whole process undermined, or even blown up, by idiotic decisions from the Planning Inspectorate, rewarding greedy, speculative development applications.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many developers simply want to push as many houses on to sites as they can, for their own financial ends and irrespective of what that will mean to the community? Developers do so because they believe that they can get away with it.

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I have two suggestions for the Minister. He is listening, and I am grateful that he came through my constituency last week, sweeping past the village of Kirdford, which I have described, in his large ministerial car—

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

I have tried to bite my tongue for a long time in the debate, but I feel the need to point out to my right hon. Friend that I was driving my own car, without a driver or a private secretary. I was on my way to Chichester. Furthermore, on the A3 on the way back I had a tyre blow-out; I had to change the tyre myself.

[Nick Herbert]

The lesson to the Minister is clearly either to take public transport or to be driven around in an enormous ministerial car. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for coming to my constituency, then to Chichester, to meet local people and to hear for himself about the problem.

My suggestions are, first, to strengthen the process of neighbourhood planning—to make it easier, not harder, for local communities, to give them more support and to make the process less bureaucratic. Secondly, we should tackle the overweening power of the Planning Inspectorate. The inspectorate is out of control and it is defying localism. People do not want orders from a quango in Bristol. If we are serious about localism, we must deal with that.

The Conservative manifesto stated:

“To give communities greater control over planning, we will abolish the power of planning inspectors to rewrite local plans.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said that if the Planning Inspectorate was not given new marching orders, hon. Members might decide for themselves that those marching orders should be given. I propose amendments to the Infrastructure Bill to send a clear signal to the Planning Inspectorate that what it is doing is undermining localism and support for local housing, and that that must stop.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I thank Members for helping us get to the wind-ups on time.

10:39

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing yet another important debate on planning.

The gist of the arguments that have been put forward today is that if we are to get the homes we need, we must have more involvement from the community in making local plans, as housing needs to be delivered in a way that secures consent. I totally agree with that.

I remind hon. Members of just how many homes we need. On current projections we know that we need to build upwards of 200,000 houses per year, but we are achieving a rate that is much lower, with just 112,000 homes completed in the year to March 2014. This year we know that there have been only 117,000 starts in the private sector and 22,000 in the social sector. That is simply not enough to keep up with demand. We have 1.8 million households on council waiting lists. This year the number of housing starts in the affordable rented sector fell to only 16,000, as contrasted with 54,000 in the last year of the Labour Government.

I hope all hon. Members would recognise that there is a significant housing shortage that needs to be addressed. Nevertheless, we all accept that we need more consent in the system. We have heard that from the Minister as well, who has said that he wants

“locally arrived at, co-operative solutions to difficult problems, rather than having top-down Government imposition of solutions… We all deserve to have our voices heard and we all deserve to be part of that solution.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 243WH.]

The problem for him is that that is not really happening in practice.

I want to take up a number of comments made by Government Members today. The hon. Member for Wycombe was very clear on the need to have public consent and a collaborative democracy. That means more community control over what happens and a more effective system of neighbourhood planning. I was a bit confused about whether he was suggesting that we get rid of local plan making all together. I do not think that would be a sensible way forward, but clearly something needs to be done to make the current system reflect local needs better.

The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) has had a positive experience of neighbourhood planning, but noted her concern that land banking makes it difficult to secure consent and that local people do not feel that localism is delivering for them. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) reminded us of the importance of finding appropriate sites and funding associated infrastructure. That is important in securing consent. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) talked about the need to rebalance growth across the country. I could not agree more, given that my north-east constituency desperately needs economic growth.

The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) said that we need to take on suggestions from local people about which sites are appropriate. I agree that that is necessary if we are going to get the long-term solutions to our housing need that we all want to see. He mentioned difficulties with the Planning Inspectorate, and was backed up on that point by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who said that a number of decisions by the Planning Inspectorate have been inappropriate. I will leave it to the Minister to respond to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury about whether he will do anything to make the Planning Inspectorate change its mind. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) said we need ongoing reviews of local plans, which is an interesting suggestion.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) was unusually positive about the current system—she must have given the Minister a moment of light relief in our debate. The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) asked the key question: how will houses be delivered in a way that takes the public along with the development that is needed? He also stated the importance of putting neighbourhood planning at the heart of the system.

All those points have been backed up by the way in which some constituency issues are finding their way into the media. There have been a number of headlines recently—I am sure that the Minister is aware of them—saying things such as “Planning decisions cast doubt over government’s localism agenda”, “Government ignores local residents’ concerns” and “Ministers ignore concerns over out-of-town retail plans”. My favourite is “Government takes ‘nuclear option’ with new planning laws”—essentially, a criticism of the way that the current system is operating.

Something is going wrong if the Minister is espousing localist credentials but local communities feel that they are being let down and their opinions ignored. There are a couple of reasons for that and a couple of things he could do. We are relying on a plan-led system when so few plans have actually been adopted, and few of those adhere to the NPPF. That puts a huge problem at the heart of the system and means that many inappropriate sites are being put forward for development because local plans are not in place. Also, where neighbourhood plans exist they need to be strengthened, so that more attention is paid to them and local people feel they have a much greater say over which sites are appropriate. That is what we are trying to get at today.

Lastly, we agree that consent needs to be put at the heart of the planning system, which is why we have set up a commission under Sir Michael Lyons to see how that can be delivered. I hope the Minister pays attention to what that commission says when it reports in September.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I am sure that there is no truth in the rumour that local residents were putting down tacks in advance of the Minister’s car approaching.

10:46

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am used to facing your inquisition and find my current position a more comfortable one to be in. Although it is more comfortable with respect to you, it is slightly less comfortable with respect to my cherished colleagues, who are familiar faces in debates such as these. They represent their constituents eloquently, passionately and with total conviction.

The difficulty is that in a sense it is of no comfort or consolation to those constituents that although they are suffering from intense problems, others are beginning to be able to make the system work. It is of no consolation to the residents of Fylde to know that in many other parts of the country, because residents there have managed to get a local plan in place, local decisions are being made and adhered to, not overturned by planning inspectors. Nor is it of any consolation to the people of Daws Hill to hear that in other parts of the country there are now 1,000 communities working on neighbourhood plans, nor that there have been 20 referendums on neighbourhood plans, all of which—20 out of 20—have shown the overwhelming support of local people for plans that, as in the community of Kirdford in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), are for quite significant housing growth. It is of no consolation to people to hear that things may be working elsewhere.

The responsibility for the Government is to create a system that applies to everyone and every area, in which every community and every council knows what its responsibilities are.

[Steve Baker]

The crucial thing about Daws Hill is that the two developments that bracket it were excluded from the neighbourhood forum. I have every confidence that if those two areas had been included the residents of Daws Hill would have been full and keen participants in the process.

[Nick Boles]

I fully understand the frustrations of the residents of Daws Hill about that decision. It is unfortunately the case that the council is the duly elected planning authority. It is democratically accountable and therefore it is with the council that the ultimate decision lies on which areas are to be designated.

I believe that every single contribution to the debate started with an acknowledgement of the desperate need for housing. The debate was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker)—I congratulate him on doing so—and so perhaps he will forgive me if I point out that in Wycombe, which is certainly not untypical in the south of the country, the affordability ratio stands at 9.6 compared with 6.45 nationally. That means, very simply, what the father of four told him: the average price of a house in the lower quartile—the lower quarter of available houses—is 9.6 times the average income in the lower quartile of earnings, so someone who is not particularly well paid would have to spend nearly 10 times their salary to buy a house.

Now, as we know, the Governor of the Bank of England has, entirely responsibly, clarified that mortgages of more than four times income should be rare. We also know that mortgage lenders require a deposit, and the Government have put in place the Help to Buy scheme to make it possible for people to get mortgages on 5% deposits. However, there is simply no way that that gentleman, or many like him, will ever be able to afford to pull together nine or 10 times the average income without huge support from somewhere else. This Government are not willing to stand by while housing and home ownership become the preserve of the rich and those with wealthy parents, and we have to act.

[Anne Marie Morris]

The Minister is making some good points about the need for housing, but he is making none about the need for local people to have a say about where that housing is. Does he not agree that a community right of appeal, not a third-party right of appeal, might well put the Government on the side of responsible communities?

[Nick Boles]

If my hon. Friend is a little patient, she will allow me to say how the planning system absolutely gives people the ability to decide where developments should go.

I would like to start by explaining where the concept of objectively assessed need comes from. In every constituency, there are people who would like to buy a house or a flat. They might move several times, because they currently rent, and rental leases are often relatively short. They might not even get on the electoral roll or, indeed, be living in the area where they would ultimately like to buy. Who represents them in this democracy? Who represents them in local residents’ meetings deciding how many houses the community is willing to accept? We need to represent them; that is why a national Government are elected. That is why Governments have a responsibility to tell local councils, “Yes, you should decide where you are going to meet your development needs, but, no, you don’t decide whether you meet them.” We do not allow local councils to say, “We do not want to provide enough school places”—we require them to provide enough places. We do not say to the local national health service, “You decide whether you want to provide enough doctors and hospital beds”—we say, “You have to work out how and where you are going to meet your needs.” It is simply the same with housing. We represent those who do not have a vote in these public meetings and have not voted for the local councillors, perhaps because they do not live in the area yet or are not even of voting age. I take that responsibility very seriously, and I make no apology for that.

[Steve Baker]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for mentioning affordability in Wycombe, and I am acutely aware of it, not least because it affects me too. However, it is precisely because I agree with the imperatives he has set out that I think we should move to an incentives-based system that produces consent.

[Nick Boles]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because it was much the most challenging and stimulating of his very challenging and stimulating speech. I hope he will be pleased that there is a pilot of development benefits, which the Chancellor announced in the Budget, and we are working on exactly how it will work. The idea that it is not just the local council that should receive income and revenue streams from development is controversial in our planning system. The council has traditionally always received such income, whether through section 106 agreements or, as happens now, through the community infrastructure levy and the new homes bonus. What has not happened before is that the benefits go directly to householders. That happens in the Netherlands and other parts of continental Europe, and it seems to secure a level of consent that, as hon. Members have eloquently explained, we still do not manage to secure, even with local and neighbourhood plans. That is why the Government are undertaking this pilot, and I would very much welcome my hon. Friend’s thoughts about how it should operate, because we are devising it at the moment.

On that subject, we have decided to allocate to neighbourhoods that put in place a neighbourhood plan—I remind my hon. Friend that 1,000 communities are working on them—25%, uncapped, of all revenues from the community infrastructure levy. That will go to the community—to the parish council—to spend on community assets, community facilities and improvements to community amenities, as the community determines. That will not be decided by the council or a Minister—it will be decided by the community. That is a proper reward for the intense and usually entirely unpaid work people in places such as Kirdford and Bassett put into their neighbourhood plans.

[Martin Horwood]

In my urban constituency, I represent people on the housing waiting list, as well as some of the poorest areas in south-west England. The truth is that, if all the housing planned for the Cheltenham area went ahead, and it was all social housing for rent, people would be able to have three houses each. Massively more housing is being planned for our area than required by natural population growth. The developers have no interest in making it all social housing for rent—that is what Cheltenham borough council is doing in the urban areas, on brownfield sites. However, the developers have said quite explicitly to their investors in the City that they want traditional market housing; they want expensive commuter homes on greenfield sites that are cheap to build. In many areas such as ours, demand is insatiable. House prices are high because we have good jobs and good schools. Our towns have often grown enormously over decades, but that does not bring down house prices.

[Nick Boles]

I am sure we would have been happy to hear a full speech from the hon. Gentleman, because he has a lot to say in representing his constituents. It is, of course, very much open to him to make such points at the examination in public of the local plan, which I know he has some difficulties with.

I want to conclude by, in a sense, warning hon. Members and, indeed, those they represent to be careful what they wish for as they approach the next election; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) referred to the simple matter of planning becoming an election issue. I say that because the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) and the Labour party is dramatically less localist than what we, albeit with problems—one step forward, half a step back—are trying to achieve.

The hon. Lady referred to the review the Labour party has commissioned from Sir Michael Lyons. Let me refer to an article from today’s Guardian—I am sure she will agree that The Guardian is a bible of wisdom—which quotes his speech to the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth yesterday. The article says:

“Speaking to the LGA in Bournemouth, he said a Labour government would not be abandoning the current national planning policy framework that requires councils to make land available, and if anything it would be turning the screw on councils. He said: ‘We are breaking eggs to make omelettes. The backlog is so serious here that we have to do everything we can.’

His remarks suggest the National Planning Inspectorate will, if anything, have a bigger role in ensuring houses get built.”

The British people have a choice. It is not a choice of whether to meet our housing need and to offer the next generation what I suspect every Member of Parliament in this room enjoys—the ownership of their own home. The choice is whether we try to work with local councils and local communities, giving neighbourhoods incentives to work out what new houses they will build, or whether we allow Ministers in a Labour Government to impose decisions on them. I know which choice I will be making next May.

Health Provision (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight a number of concerns I have about the provision of health care in my constituency. I want to cover three main issues: the challenges facing my local clinical commissioning group; the provision of renal services to my constituents; and the difficulty in recruiting GPs in Kent in general and my constituency in particular.

Sittingbourne and Sheppey are covered by the Swale clinical commissioning group, which is the smallest CCG in Kent, if not in the country. Because of the way the management component of its budget is allocated on a per capita basis, its size puts Swale at a financial disadvantage compared with larger CCGs. That is a huge challenge. The Swale CCG faces a number of other challenges, and to highlight those I will explain something of the demography of Sittingbourne and Sheppey.

The population pattern of NHS Swale CCG is broadly similar to that for the rest of Kent and Medway, but in contrast to other areas it has a slightly larger proportion aged from birth to four; and a 68.1% increase is predicted in the population aged 65-plus, from 2011 to 2031. That includes, in the 85-plus group, an even greater predicted increase of 142.3%, from 2,600 to 6,300. In 2009 it was estimated that only 5.8% of the population in my constituency came from a black or minority ethnic group. However, that proportion has gone up over the past five years. In addition, the proportion of Gypsies and Travellers living in Swale is higher than in many other areas. Those things are all challenges.

In comparison with the population profile of England the NHS Swale CCG area has proportionately fewer people aged 80-plus, at the moment, but more people aged 60 to 69; and proportionately more young people under the age of 19. However, there is also a pattern of outward migration resulting in proportionately smaller age cohorts between the ages of 20 and 44. With the overall ageing of the population and predicted demographic change there will be an increase in the risk factors relating to increased chronic disease and, importantly, multiple morbidities. Life expectancy from birth in Swale is 79.3 years—the lowest among the eight Kent CCGs. That compares with 80.9 years for Kent and Medway as a whole. Within Swale there is a huge, 10-year gap between the highest and lowest life expectancy. In some more affluent areas the life expectancy is 84 years, while in our more deprived areas it is just 73.8 years. Indeed, Swale is the third most deprived district in Kent and is ranked 99 out of the 326 districts in England.

As to deprivation at the practice level, none of our GP practices is in the 40% least deprived category, but eight are in the 20% most deprived category. A number of areas in Sittingbourne and Sheppey are in the bottom 20% quintile on the national deprivation scale. That level of deprivation has been identified as contributing to lower life expectancy. The bottom 20% of the population also has a greater prevalence of preventable diseases such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancers. In addition, people in long-term deprivation have a higher risk of poor physical and mental health.

Deprivation is also associated with unhealthy behaviour such as higher smoking rates, alcohol misuse and decreased physical exercise. Health and social effects resulting from long-term deprivation including unemployment can last for years, and possibly a lifetime, because of the accumulation, through chronic stress, of factors that trigger the premature onset of chronic diseases. Thus demographic change and relative deprivation are likely to drive an increase in chronic disease, unless primary and secondary preventive measures are systematically put in place.

To add to the long-term challenges, the population of Sittingbourne and Sheppey is growing rapidly. That rise in population, the level of deprivation in my constituency, and the need to address health inequalities, were recognised by NHS England when it set the budgets for 2014-15 and 2015-16. Swale was one of 82 CCGs nationally that received an allocation above the 2.14% basic increase for all CCGs. For 2014-15 we have been allocated a 2.63% increase, compared with the average of 2.59% across Kent and Medway. That increase equates to an extra £3 million, for which we were grateful. However, I do not think that it properly reflects the challenges facing Swale CCG as it tries to square an ever widening circle of health inequality.

Swale CCG is doing its best, and working with other CCGs and health trusts it is implementing a two-year and five-year plan to transform services in the Sittingbourne and Sheppey areas. One of the key areas of work is the implementation of the Better Care Fund, under which money will be transferred from acute care to community care. The vision is to provide better care in the local community, which will reduce the need for hospital treatment. In Swale steps are already under way to transform health care. They include integrated primary care teams, which involve community nurses working with GP practices in a partnership approach to improving health care. Integrated discharge teams in Medway Maritime hospital and Darent Valley hospital, which, by the way, are not in my constituency, enable patients to leave hospital sooner by putting the support in place that they need in the community. Work is also being done with our rapid response services to provide support to patients with an acute crisis, to enable them to be managed safely in the community.

Improved dementia services will be helpful. Swale has been allocated two additional dementia nurses, bringing the total to five. They work with GPs and primary care teams to identify the support required by people with dementia. That multi-agency approach is making it possible to provide a more proactive response for people with dementia, and it links in with the enhanced services remit to which GP practices in Swale have signed up for over-75s. Of course the number of over-75s is predicted to rise dramatically in my area, so we will need more resources to cope.

In addition, changes are being planned to primary and community care and a consultation is commencing now on devising a new system for people in Swale and neighbouring areas. That consultation will consider how the out-of-hours service can be better integrated with walk-in centres and minor injury units to provide 24/7 care, with better joined-up care for local people, which will support a reduction in the number of people attending accident and emergency. Links are being built with the acute hospitals to facilitate that community-based approach.

To transform health care locally Swale and neighbouring CCGs are implementing whole-system change and have recognised that further support is needed to make it successful. Swale CCG would like support for several initiatives to enable the work it is doing to be completed to the highest quality. One of those is significant training and development for all health and social care staff, to help them adapt to the new health landscape and their roles and responsibilities, and support more clinically demanding care. Another is better engagement of all organisations in the health and social care economy, to ensure that they are signed up to the principles and vision of the transformation, and to break the silo mentality of provider organisations.

Finally, the CCG would like support for a more realistic expectation with regard to quick results, because whole-system change will take years to implement and CCGs should not be penalised, as they are under the current system, but incentivised with new payment mechanisms. Realistic expectations about the pace of change should be supported by transition funding to support the changes that are planned, which will take time to implement and embed. That will make it possible to provide support for the development of new services before the old ones are scaled back. Swale CCG is doing its bit, but it needs help.

The second health issue I want to raise relates to renal services, particularly the delivery of dialysis treatment. I have been campaigning for some time for a dialysis satellite unit to be set up in one of my two local community hospitals. I have some very sick patients who must travel to Canterbury, Maidstone or Medway for dialysis treatment. One very elderly patient who needed daily dialysis was so sick by the time she returned home from her treatment that she was unable to visit the renal unit the following day.

I will continue to campaign for a full-scale satellite dialysis unit in my constituency, but in the interim I am discussing with NHS England the installation in one of our local community hospitals of a bank of home dialysis machines that could be used by kidney patients who are suitable for home dialysis but, because they live alone or have insufficient room in their houses, are unable to make use of the service.

I appreciate that setting up a bank of supervised home dialysis machines in a local hospital will not help all renal patients in my constituency, but if only a handful are saved from having to make long and sometimes uncomfortable journeys to a distant hospital, it will be a worthwhile exercise. Local NHS England managers have so far been extremely helpful and are undertaking a feasibility study that I very much hope will prove that such a scheme is feasible. I wanted to raise this matter today not only to put on the record my thanks to those managers for their help, but to urge Ministers to consider making funds available so that similar units can be set up in all hospitals that do not have dialysis units.

I would like briefly to highlight my concerns about the difficulty of attracting GPs to our area. One of the problems is that because Sittingbourne and Sheppey is relatively close to London, it is difficult to attract young doctors because many of them prefer to work in the capital rather than to move out to the sticks. In Sittingbourne and Sheppey, the problem is becoming acute in some areas where practices are short of GPs and struggling to cope with a rising number of patients.

Swale has one of the highest patient headcounts per doctor in the country, and that will be made worse over the next three years because one in three of our GPs is expected to retire during that period. What steps can Government take to ensure that those GPs are replaced so that my constituents will continue to have access to a doctor and that waiting times to see a GP do not continue to rise?

11:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate. He demonstrated his masterly understanding of the health challenges in his area and deep knowledge of and concern for the more deprived parts of his constituency. I thank him for that. His constituents will be grateful to know that he has such a handle on those issues.

Before I respond to some of the particular issues that my hon. Friend highlighted, I want to highlight the excellent work carried out every day by those who work in the NHS, not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but in mine and throughout the country. I hope we can always take the opportunity in a health debate to put on the record our thanks to hard-working NHS staff for everything they do in our constituencies.

I turn first to renal policy and particularly my hon. Friend’s local campaign. End-stage renal failure is an irreversible and long-term condition, and he was right to highlight the problems caused by more and more people living with long-term conditions, particularly when combined with other long-term conditions. It results from chronic kidney disease and needs regular dialysis treatment or transplantation.

Since 1 April 2013, NHS England has been responsible for securing high-quality care for dialysis patients as part of its specialised commissioning responsibilities. It has established a clinical reference group specifically for delivery of renal dialysis services, which brings together clinicians, commissioners and public health experts with dialysis patients and carers. It has published service specifications for both home dialysis and hospital and satellite dialysis, which my hon. Friend described. The specifications are important because they define clearly what NHS England expects to be in place for providers to offer safe and effective services. They are there to ensure equity of access in a nationally consistent, high-quality service for patients everywhere.

NHS England has recently consulted on amendments to a range of service specifications, including for renal services and dialysis. Those updated specifications are expected to be published later this year following consultation this autumn. My hon. Friend will take a great interest in that because it is obviously directly relevant to the campaigns in which he is engaged. I know that he has had meetings, and the feedback from NHS England is constructive about the excellent way in which he is engaging with it, and I am glad to hear that.

My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a satellite dialysis unit at Sheppey or Sittingbourne community hospital, but I gather that to date it has not been possible to provide such a unit because there is concern that not enough people in the area need that service. However, he is rightly pressing local NHS officials on that. One issue that comes into the calculation about setting up such a unit is the safe level of staffing to meet patient need, as well as viability and efficiency. Those are important calculations to ensure that any service meets needs.

[Gordon Henderson]

The point about what I am trying to achieve is that renal services are trying desperately to get more people into home dialysis, because that is an inexpensive way of providing dialysis. All I am suggesting is that when patients cannot have it at home because they live alone, it should be available at the local hospital. I do not believe the cost should be too much of a factor.

[Jane Ellison]

That is a fair point and one that my hon. Friend has raised in the discussion. NHS England is exploring the possibility of a self-care unit in the area. Such units have been developed in a few places around the country and, as he outlined, those units are particularly useful for people who can get themselves on and off machines or bring carers with them to help because they tend not to be staffed units. It is similar to home dialysis but, as he rightly said, can be used by people whose homes are not suitable for that.

I encourage my hon. Friend to continue the discussions. I met local NHS officials yesterday and encouraged them to continue to keep in regular touch on the matter. I understand that the area director for Kent and Medway will write to my hon. Friend shortly following his recent meeting. I would be happy if he kept me informed of how the discussion goes because I am interested in it.

My hon. Friend rightly highlighted in great detail a particular challenge with local funding. Obviously, the Government have protected the overall health budget for the NHS in England and NHS England in turn has ensured that every clinical commissioning group in England will continue to benefit from stable real-terms funding in the next two years. Reflecting changes in population around the country and better targeting is key. Something that often comes across my desk as public health Minister is the challenge of getting that right where there are pockets of deprivation, particularly deep deprivation, in areas that might not flash up on the radar when looking at how resources are meted out. We want the NHS to be in a good position to offer the best services to patients where they can do the most good and meet need. Responsibility for CCG allocation rests with NHS England, but the Government’s mandate to NHS England makes it clear that equal access for equal need is at the heart of the approach to allocation.

NHS England’s decisions in December last year mean that over the next two years every CCG should receive real-terms funding growth. The purpose of doing that for the next two years instead of just one was to try to provide stability and certainty so that local commissioners can plan services. The sort of issues that my hon. Friend highlighted and the long-tem problems associated with deprivation, such as co-morbidity, over-indexing on smoking and so on, need stability of commissioning because they need long-tem consistent intervention in many cases to ensure that we are meeting patients’ needs. That means that every CCG will receive cash growth in funding of at least 3.9% over the next two years, and those with the fastest-growing populations will get more. Swale CCG’s funding allocation increase of 2.63% in 2014-15 is just above the national average and its increase of 2.05% in 2015-16 is just below the national average. That real-terms growth was given to all as a minimum of 2.14% in 2014-15 and 1.7% in 2015-16.

In order that the issue is looked at objectively, free from political considerations, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 made how health funding is allocated between different areas a responsibility of NHS England. NHS England has taken an evidence-based approach that balances the demands of growing populations and looks at historical underfunding, which is probably one of my hon. Friend’s great concerns, and at maintaining stability.

NHS England has also decided to leave the weight given to the inequalities indicator unchanged at 10%. The new indicator has less variation in it than the old indicator when looking at variation across CCGs, and it is now able to pick up pockets of deprivation within CCGs. That adjustment should favour my hon. Friend’s area for the very reasons that he outlined, and NHS England has accepted the advice it has been given by an independent committee that that is a better measure of inequality for this purpose.

NHS England’s consultation on the impact of the new formula earlier in the year did not have an inequalities weighting at all, which led some people to jump to the wrong conclusion, but it does not reflect the final decision, which is to include an indicator of inequality with a weighting of 10%. They are finely balanced judgments, particularly around the progress of the pace of change towards the right amount for a particular area.

[Gordon Henderson]

While the Minister is talking about the funding and the formulas, I point out that there is an anomaly, which goes back to the dialysis treatment. The CCG is not responsible for the commissioning of dialysis, so it cannot control where the patients go, but it is responsible for funding the transport of those patients to the hospitals. It seems a bit of an anomaly that the CCG has no control over where the patients go, but is expected to fund the transport. I wonder whether that could be looked at.

[Jane Ellison]

It is a fair point, and I will ask the NHS team in my hon. Friend’s area to consider that as part of his ongoing discussions with it. As I said, getting the funding formulas right is not a perfect science, but the new formula is more responsive to pockets of deprivation. However, he has highlighted some challenges around smaller CCGs in a fair way.

My hon. Friend also highlighted issues and concerns about GP recruitment, and I know he has raised them before. A number of GPs in Swale are due to retire in the next few years. That is a challenge we see elsewhere in the country, and it has also been reported that Swale has a higher ratio of patients per GP than some other areas, so we recognise that that is a potential challenge. GPs work hard and do a vital job, so we are all concerned about making sure that we have the right number of GPs in our area. At a national level, despite a decrease in headcount, there has been a small increase of 1.2% in full-time equivalent GPs since 2012, and the number of practice nurses and other practice staff has also grown. My hon. Friend talked about the great public health challenges, such as co-morbidities, and there are many things that practice nurses increasingly deliver and their interventions can be extremely effective.

However, we recognise that the work force need to grow to meet rising demand. In our mandate to Health Education England, we have required it to ensure that 50% of trainee doctors enter GP training programmes by 2016. The Government will also be working with NHS England, Health Education England and the professions to consider how we improve recruitment, retention and return to practice in primary and community care. That is something that my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), is very closely considering and is engaged in active discussions on.

I understand that the Kent and Medway area team from NHS England are working closely with the local CCGs, GP practices and HEE to improve the overall recruitment and retention levels of qualified doctors entering general practice as a specialty. I also understand that Swale clinical commissioning group has set up the north Kent education, research and innovation hub, which met in June and is meeting bi-monthly. The hub will be looking, at a local level in particular, at what needs to be done to address expected shortages. That is right because, with the best will in the world, these things cannot be solved with a grand plan in the centre. We also need to address some of the local issues and some are very granular with regard to what can help to attract GPs to particular areas. It is right that that is being done at a local level.

In the few minutes remaining, I want to touch on proposals for out-patient care, because, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey highlighted the value of early intervention and community health services, and of keeping people well in their own homes. In particular, as well as being good for individuals, that takes pressure off A and Es. We do not want to see routine conditions presenting in A and E at an acute stage, so it is really important that we get out-patient care right.

Proposals in my hon. Friend’s area include consolidating services into six co-ordinated out-patient clinics from the current 15 sites. The benefits of that include value for money from modern facilities and equipment, a wider choice of appointment times, and a greater ability to perform enhanced diagnosis—the Government have made early diagnosis a real priority; far too many conditions are still being diagnosed at an acute stage in A and E, so early diagnosis is critical. A greater proportion of his local population will also be within 20 minutes of an out-patient appointment, which is important. The East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust is working with the NHS Canterbury and Coastal clinical commissioning group in consultation. A public consultation on out-patient services was completed in spring this year. I know that my hon. Friend will have been very engaged with that and that those proposals have now been brought forward.

A number of other workstreams are in place to address the issues that my hon. Friend outlined. I encourage him to talk with the public health directors in local authorities. The public health lead now sits in local authorities, and I am seeing some great innovation around the country from local authorities and directors of public health to address some of the really deep-seated challenges that he outlined. Many of the figures that we are seeing for public health are going in the right direction at a population level, but they often mask what is happening with smaller sub-groups of the population, for whom the figures are not moving in such promising directions. That is exactly what my hon. Friend was describing, so along with all the other people he is engaging with, I encourage him to make sure he engages with directors of public health and, in particular, the local Public Health England teams.

My hon. Friend should ask them what they are seeing in areas around the country that is really working. Some of the places I have visited, with similar demographic challenges and similar public health challenges, are piloting interventions that are really effective. One of the great opportunities of more devolved public health is that it gives rise to local innovation, and we see that imaginative approach being brought to bear by people who really know their populations. However, one slight challenge is how we identify good and emerging best practice and ensure that we get it promoted more widely. I encourage my hon. Friend to ask questions of his local public health specialists, and in terms of the population challenges he faces, he should ask about things that are being piloted elsewhere that might effectively be brought into his area.

I end by congratulating my hon. Friend again on being a really effective champion with regard to the local health challenges his community face. It is great to see a constituency Member with such a grasp on the range of challenges. I often respond to debates on the reconfiguration of bricks and mortar, but understanding the deep health challenges that a particular population face, and doing so at a granular level, is also really important in how we shape services for the future, so I congratulate him on that. His constituents have a great champion in Parliament for their health needs. I am very happy to continue to engage with him, and I encourage NHS England in his area and his CCGs to continue the constructive dialogue that they have had—and continue to have—to provide the best services to his constituents.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Srebrenica Massacre Anniversary

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr William McCrea in the Chair]

10:55

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I very much welcome the opportunity to mark this week’s annual Srebrenica memorial day in the United Kingdom. First, I declare for the record that I visited Bosnia in February as part of a visit arranged and funded by the Remembering Srebrenica charity, which, as the Minister is aware, is supported by the UK Government.

Just over a week ago, we marked the 100th anniversary of the key event that prompted the descent into the outbreak of world war one. It was appropriate that, when we visited Sarajevo, our city tour passed the spot where Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. That reminded us, first, that Bosnia is a country at the heart of modern European history and, secondly, that it is one that, sadly, has known conflict and strife over a prolonged period, both before and following the momentous events of world war one. The scars of conflict often remain for generations. Our visit was not only about commemorating the dead, but about how we could build a lasting legacy, both in Bosnia and at home, that would work to heal those scars and prevent further conflict.

It is heartening to witness the strong cross-party support, evidenced by the hon. Members present, for the excellent work of Remembering Srebrenica, together with the financial and diplomatic assistance provided by the Government. Last night, along with colleagues, I had the pleasure of attending the memorial event at Lancaster house, at which the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina was present, along with the Mothers of Srebrenica. A similar event is being hosted on Friday this week by the Scottish Government in Edinburgh.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady secured this debate. It is very heartening to see people across the political parties taking an interest in it. She has highlighted the commemorative event last night at Lancaster house. It was addressed by President Izetbegovic and attended by Baroness Warsi, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Minister and many others.

The hon. Lady also highlighted the fact that there will be a commemorative event in Edinburgh this week, hosted by the Scottish Government Minister Humza Yousaf. Does she agree with me that this instance of Governments, politicians and charities such as Remembering Srebrenica, doing tremendous work, is a model? Would it not be helpful for other European countries that have pledged to mark the tragedy in Srebrenica to look at what is happening across the nations, regions, towns, cities and communities of the UK to mark this important date, and to try to follow that model in the years to come?

[Ann McKechin]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who accompanied me on the visit in February. Following the passing of the resolution by the European Union in 2009, and given the problems within Europe—I will touch on those later—it would be very helpful for other countries to look at the good practice being followed across the United Kingdom. I know that the delegation will also be visiting Cardiff and Birmingham as part of its week of visits to see the good work being done by the charitable sector and by central and local government across the country.

Srebrenica’s fate in July 1995 continues to haunt us as the starkest failure in Europe’s history post-world war two. It was not, of course, the only massacre in the long and bloody war, which lasted more than four years, following the collapse of Yugoslavia, but it was by far the largest and most calculated in its planning, its execution and in the subsequent attempts at cover-up.

Following months of constant siege and the failure of the Dutch UN peacekeeping force to safeguard the population, the Bosnian Serb forces took control of the town on 11 July 1995. A day later, on 12 July, women and children were evacuated from the town while Bosnian Serb forces began separating out all men between the ages of 12 and 77 for

“interrogation for suspected war crimes”.

The night before, about 15,000 Bosnian Muslim men had attempted to escape from the town and were shelled and shot at as they fled through the mountains. It was basically a walk of terror and death, which for many of them lasted over five days. In the five days after the Bosnian Serb forces overran Srebrenica, more than 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed. Many of the bodies were buried in hastily dug mass graves, but following the unintended release of US satellite photographs showing the location of a number of the sites, a gruesome and chaotic reburial was organised, scattering body parts in many cases over multiple sites in the heavily wooded hills surrounding the town.

As we discovered on our visit in February to the International Commission on Missing Persons, it was only after the possibility of using DNA technology just over a decade ago, and the taking of tens of thousands of samples from the surviving family members of those who were massacred, that substantial numbers of the victims could be properly identified and interred with the respect and dignity that they deserved.

Nineteen years after the massacre, a number of Bosnian Serb leaders have been indicted for war crimes at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The two most prominent—Radovan Karadzic, the former President, and Ratko Mladic, the military leader—remain on trial to this day at The Hague.

In February, I travelled to Bosnia with five fellow Scots: the Very Reverend Lorna Hood, who was then moderator of the Church of Scotland; the Church’s director of communications, Seonag MacKinnon; the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson); Sergeant David Hamilton from the Scottish Police Federation; and David Pratt, the foreign affairs editor at the Sunday Herald. We were met with warmth and friendliness at all our meetings, including with the Grand Mufti and the remarkable Mothers of Srebrenica, who have fought so hard to ensure that their dreadful loss does not vanish from our memories. However, there was an overwhelming sense that this was a country and people too long stuck in an uncomfortable limbo, relying on a bare ceasefire agreement that halted the killing but has failed to address the main problems that the country faces. The presidential palace had been firebombed the week before our visit, and protests were continuing, as we witnessed on our visit.

The Dayton agreement was never designed to be a permanent solution. Twenty years later, that agreement has institutionalised the factionalism that over the years has led to the current political impasse. In my role as vice-chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which has worked extensively in the region for many years, I am only too aware of how the current overloaded bureaucracy throttles political progress and leaves many in Bosnia giving up hope of finding a better alternative.

Understandably, attention in the European Union during the past few months has focused on the emerging conflict in Ukraine, but I argue that there is a clear need, post the May European Union elections, for a much greater focus on finding a long-term political solution for Bosnia.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Does she agree that it is important that we keep Bosnia and Herzegovina high on the agenda? Obviously, as chairman of the all-party group for Bosnia and Herzegovina, I have visited it many times, and I visited previously with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I will visit it again in a couple of weeks with Lady Warsi to do some refurbishment of a rape crisis centre outside Sarajevo. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that we keep up these visits and that we make them as often as we can, to ensure that Bosnia is high on the political agenda?

[Ann McKechin]

I entirely agree. I know that the hon. Lady has done a lot of good work personally in this area, both in her current position and in her work previously with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

When a country comes off our TV screens and out of our newspapers, it is all too easy for us to forget and think that the situation has been solved, but that is not what is happening in this case. I visited Croatia the year before, and the difference in tone and approach that I witnessed in Croatia and Bosnia was stark. That drove home to me the need for us to ensure that this issue is a foreign policy priority.

While I was in Bosnia, I met a senior female member of the Social Democratic party, one of the Labour party’s sister parties. She stressed that the engagement of the international community was vital in creating the necessary momentum and support for change in the political process.

The Westminster Foundation, as the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) is aware, has been working to encourage the development of secular political parties, particularly in work with young people and women. I believe that the encouragement of a secular political landscape should still be a key part of the United Kingdom’s contribution.

[Angus Robertson]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me on another potential benefit, in addition to those she has mentioned, of greater international interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina? I am sure she is as shocked as I am by the repeated voices that one hears from Republika Srpska denying holocaust, appearing to justify ethnic cleansing and opposing the idea of Bosnia and Herzegovina thriving as a state with a place for all peoples and offering a better future for all regardless of their faith or ethnic background. Does she agree that it is important to shine a light on the darker recesses of extreme politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure that it can move towards a better European future for all in that country?

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman touches on a point that the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina raised in his speech to us last night at Lancaster house. All political parties and leaders in Europe, particularly in this region, are beholden to do what he describes as they address conflicting views. The understandable reaction of the Bosniak population to the threatening tone and manner that has been adopted is one of great concern. It is important that the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union clearly state that such language and tone in the debate are completely unacceptable.

As the hon. Member for Moray is aware, we met the Grand Mufti, who spoke about the long history of links among the country’s faith groups—Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic and Jewish. However, outside Sarajevo and its main towns, those links are becoming increasingly threadbare, with little direct contact between the different communities. The current structures have encouraged separation. Young people attend separate schools, and they grow up with little or no contact with their Bosniak, Croat or Serbian neighbours. Economic stagnation, overwhelming and corrupt bureaucracy and high unemployment have meant that many have already left. The prospect of European Union membership since the global recession appears even more distant, and the lack of political will to change has led to despair, which we have witnessed in this year’s protests.

Constitutional amendments to break down administrative silos are one thing and an economic plan with outside support is another, but the lack of any proper grass-roots reconciliation process after such a long period is probably the greatest challenge that needs to be addressed if one nation is truly to emerge from the grim civil war. I note that since our visit, there have been a few encouraging signs of communities trying to come together outside the established but separate networks, and I hope that the Minister can give us some indication of how the Government hope to assist that process over the coming weeks and months.

In our conversations with the Mothers of Srebrenica, there was strong criticism of the International Criminal Tribunal. The delay in apprehending key figures, which we all know about, and the length and cost of proceedings, contrasted uneasily with the original claims that justice would be achieved for the victims and their families. The tribunal was the first of its kind, and undoubtedly, despite the acknowledged problems, it was an important step forward in setting international standards.

The Mothers of Srebrenica spoke eloquently about the failure, domestically and internationally, adequately to attend to the equally important need to provide justice locally. Few cases have been taken against those who directly carried out the dreadful murders over many agonising hours or undertook the burials and reburial of the victims. We learned that at least one of the direct participants in the massacres is currently employed at a senior level in the local regional government, which covers the town itself. We were frankly astonished to find that the Serb population is still using a school that was a site of one of the massacres, where many hundreds were killed.

We all need to learn the lessons about what has happened in Bosnia when we consider our current and future work in post-conflict states. International tribunals will, of course, continue to play an important part in justice, but truth and reconciliation at the grass roots is equally important in giving people permission to move on without disrespect to those who have lost their lives in such dreadful circumstances. Our meeting with the impressive International Commission on Missing Persons, established in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, reinforced the fear that too little attention was being paid to the increasingly open genocide deniers, whom the hon. Member for Moray has mentioned. The ICMP still faces regular challenges by Bosnian and Serbian politicians about the probity of its evidence.

The ICMP maintains the world’s largest DNA laboratory system dedicated exclusively to identifying missing persons. It works worldwide and is currently assisting in parts of the middle east afflicted by conflict. I am sure that its workload will continue to grow, given current events in the region. The focus of much of its work over the past 18 years in the former Yugoslavia has been to produce consistent, incontrovertible evidence to counter those who seek to deny. The ICMP’s record speaks for itself: 70% of the 40,000 missing from the Yugoslavian conflicts, and almost 90% of those reported missing from Srebrenica, have now been accounted for.

As a Glasgow MP, it was a great pleasure to meet Adam Boys, the ICMP’s director of international programmes, who is originally from Glasgow and has worked in Bosnia for many years, together with Dr John Clark, who has been the chief pathologist for the International Criminal Tribunal and who lives a few hundred yards from me in Glasgow. The UK Government have been a consistent and strong supporter of that work from the outset, and I hope that we can be confident that that support will continue.

As the Minister is aware, the charity Remembering Srebrenica is holding a series of events across the United Kingdom this week to commemorate the anniversary, as well as organising visits to Bosnia for young people so that they can become advocates in their local communities. The charity’s work and obvious passion have been rightly commended by many Members, and it has made many friends in Bosnia.

In an age when xenophobia and racism can all too quickly spring up, and where people are regularly urged to retreat behind domestic borders, it is essential that communities throughout the United Kingdom have the opportunity to learn more about the history that surrounded events in Srebrenica and why that history is relevant to their lives. The chair of Remembering Srebrenica, Dr Waqar Azmi, who conducted last night’s commemoration, pointed out:

“If the xenophobic claims of ethnic superiority could prevail amongst white, indigenous people who are assimilated and have lived together for hundreds of years, what chance do ethnic minority communities have in Europe?”

That is a question that we all need to address. It is vital that we do not forget why a country in our own continent fell into such a disastrous and brutal civil war. The sad truth is that the cost of conflict can continue for many decades after the guns stop.

We need to invest politically and financially in a process that embeds reconciliation and provides local as well as international justice. If we have not succeeded so far, we must be determined to keep trying. The 7,000 men and boys who died in July 1995 deserve nothing less.

14:48

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing this debate, which is timely in many ways. As she rightly says, we have to remember the circumstances surrounding the events at Srebrenica, and coming as it does 100 years after the events in Bosnia that led to the outbreak of the first world war, the anniversary of those events is particularly timely and ominous.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

My visit to Srebrenica was probably one of the most moving experiences in my life, and the relative peace and tranquillity of the area belies the horrors that happened there. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the first world war, and we all notice that on the memorial plaques in our own constituencies, the same names appear over and over again. From the list of names on the memorial in Srebrenica, we see just how many people lost a large number of relatives from the same family. Does that not serve to show the real horror that occurred in those few days?

[Martin Horwood]

That is absolutely true. It is in the nature of genocidal attacks to be targeted at particular communities, and in those communities the losses—not only on a large scale but at the level of individuals and families—can be almost unimaginable. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out.

The events that led to the outbreak of world war one in the Balkans were in many ways characterised by their unpredictability. The emerging, growing Serb state was covertly attempting to destabilise the Austro-Hungarian empire and had calculated that helping assassins to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand would not precipitate a whole-scale catastrophe for Serbia. That was a miscalculation, and Austria responded by issuing Serbia with an impossible ultimatum. Unexpectedly for Austria, that drew in Russia, which led to the involvement of Germany, France and, ultimately, this country.

The unpredictability of events was part of the July crisis that led to the outbreak of the first world war; what is almost more horrifying about Srebrenica is its very predictability. There was not only the massacre of those few days in July 1995; there had been a siege for years before and people had been starving to death. Ethnic cleansing had been happening in hundreds of villages around the region as part of the strategic attempt to establish a Serb republic. The humanitarian disaster was already looming, even before the massacre, and the international community was well aware of it.

More than two years previously, in April 1993, UN resolution 819 was passed, establishing Srebrenica and its immediate area as a safe haven in the Yugoslav conflict. The people of Srebrenica were assured repeatedly that they were absolutely safe and that the UN troops, with Dutch and French commanders, would stand by them. I know that those commanders have come under intense scrutiny in the subsequent decades, but it was clear that they were trying to secure close air support at the time of the massacre. On one astonishing occasion, that support was refused because someone had filled in the request on the wrong form.

The implications of the massacre in Srebrenica and the way it was handled by the international community were significant not just for Bosnia but for the United Nations system and the whole international community. I think it was in 1999 that Kofi Annan’s report on the UN’s performance had to accept that, along with the international community as a whole, the UN bore huge responsibility for what happened in Srebrenica. In a way, the ghosts of Srebrenica would haunt the United Nations for many years to come.

After that came the development of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. It was first and foremost an obligation on sovereign Governments and those in power in various regions to protect their own citizens. The development of the idea of the responsibility to protect gained ground not only because of what happened in Bosnia but because of what happened in Rwanda only about a year before, and because of what subsequently threatened to happen in Kosovo when NATO intervened to try to avoid a further humanitarian disaster. The emergence of the idea of the responsibility to protect—that the international community could not simply stand by and let events happen with such terrible consequences—has helped to shape the whole international system ever since.

It has, however, taken some time for the responsibility to protect to be used explicitly in UN resolutions. It was used in UN resolution 1970 on Libya in February 2011 —one of the rare occasions on which there has been consensus in the UN, the political will to act and the knowledge of an emerging humanitarian disaster—and mentioned again in UN resolution 1996 on South Sudan, but those are isolated examples.

It is difficult to achieve the necessary political unanimity, especially now in a Security Council that has become broadly polarised between the western permanent members on one side and China and Russia on the other—they are now much more reluctant to license what they see as western intervention following what they saw as the west going too far in Libya. We must ask ourselves serious questions about whether the international system is still working and about what reforms to the UN system might be needed in order to uphold the responsibility to protect.

It is now quite a long time since Srebrenica, and it is beginning to fade into people’s memories; or at least it is outside Bosnia—it is still very real in the minds of people in Bosnia, as Members have said. We must remember Srebrenica, just as we must remember Rwanda and the other occasions on which the international community failed to protect ordinary men, women and children and allowed intolerable massacres to take place.

We must decide how we are going to reform the United Nations, how we are going to bring together the international community to be able to take action, and how we can generate the political will to say that sometimes we do have to take action and there does have to be military intervention. With hindsight, we tend to celebrate the intervention in Kosovo and think of it as justifiable. In generous moments, most people would say that the invasion of Afghanistan—the NATO and allied intervention there—was justified and has established something of a stable state, although there are people who will question that.

However, what I see as a much more freelance action in the invasion of Iraq is clearly much more questionable. That did enormous damage to the ability of the international community to take action, because it was done on a much more unilateral or bilateral basis, principally by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair on our part. That undermined the potential for international action in subsequent international crises and has terminally damaged the reputation of that kind of intervention. In the vote on Syria last summer we saw the shadow of Iraq hanging over the debate to a large extent. The fear of getting embroiled again was still very much alive.

Nevertheless, we must remember the Srebrenicas, the Bosnias and the Rwandas. We have to work out how we can intervene effectively as an international community and learn the lesson of what happened in those dreadful days. When it comes to the situation now developing in Syria and Iraq, the lesson is that although action and mistaken interventions have consequences, so too does inaction. There was inaction in failing to support an effective political settlement in Iraq that did not alienate the Sunni population to the extent that they welcomed ISIS with open arms when it appeared to be liberating them. There was inaction in failing to support the democratic forces in Syria to the point where they were a credible opposition to President Assad and an alternative to the extremist jihadi elements there. Inaction, as well as action, has its consequences.

The ultimate lesson of Srebrenica is that inaction sometimes has terrible consequences. We need to work out the ground rules and the overarching strategy, as well as the international community’s response and the framework for that response. That way, when these events start to develop—not when they are unpredictable like the first world war, but when they can be seen years in advance, developing in front of all our eyes and the glare of the international media—we must be able to take action, or otherwise see more deaths like those at Srebrenica.

In conclusion, I welcome what the hon. Member for Glasgow North said about xenophobia and racism. We are living in difficult economic times, and in such times it is always easy to blame those who speak differently or look different from ourselves. We have seen elements of that in British politics and in politics across Europe in the recent European election campaign, but we must guard against that kind of xenophobia and racism. Ultimately, it is only through tolerance and reconciliation that we can prevent these kinds of disasters from taking place.

14:58

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate and on the content of her speech. She set out what happened, but also the lessons to be learned and, like the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), told us what we should be watching out for, especially bearing in mind what is happening across Europe.

Members might be aware that I am the chair of the all-party group on commemorating Srebrenica. I want to commemorate the anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. My interest in Bosnia and Yugoslavia arises from having worked for the United Nations mission in Kosovo between 2000 and 2002, just after the NATO bombing of Serbia. While I was in Kosovo, I had the opportunity to speak to different people and heard about the genocide from some of the victims’ family members.

The background to the massacre is the break-up of the former Yugoslavia in the ’90s, which, as we all know, led to the conflict. That war sparked numerous atrocities and attempts at ethnic cleansing, such as the mass rape of women, which the United Nations has said can be described as a war crime. Studies have shown that something in the region of 20,000 to 50,000 Bosniak Muslim women were raped by Serb forces and abused for many months.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said earlier, many atrocities occurred. I think about 100,000 Muslims in total died in the whole Yugoslav conflict, but the reason why we are concentrating on Srebrenica is because of the way it happened—its deliberate manner and the fact that people were taken into this particular area, a UN safe haven. This was not a situation, such as that in Libya or Iraq, where one does not know what is happening on the ground and difficult decisions have to be made as to whether to go in without knowing what the consequences might be; here was a clear case of a group of 8,000-odd men and young boys deliberately being taken into a safe area. What makes it even more horrendous, and it reminds me a bit of what happened in Rwanda, was that there were—I stand to be corrected—Belgian, Canadian and Dutch troops there who were supposed to protect those people, but failed to do anything about it. That is what is truly shocking. It was not a case of, “Shall we intervene?”; they knew that people were being massacred, and they stood by and did nothing.

So far, we have not had an apology from those countries, saying, “This is what our armed forces failed to do.” There has been no apology from anyone. As has already been mentioned, everyone knew what was happening there. Years before the massacre, people knew what has happening, and everyone failed to protect the victims. One thing that is sometimes forgotten is that it was not just a case of 8,000 people being massacred in one go, but the failure of people who should have been there to protect them.

[Martin Horwood]

To be fair to the Dutch commander, Colonel Karremans, by the accounts I have read, I think he was committed to try to protect Srebrenica and the people there. It was the failure of the UN to deliver close air support, which he repeatedly requested, that effectively doomed his troops. His troops did engage with Serb forces at times. They had had hostages taken and were in a difficult position—almost impossible militarily. It was the failure of the overall UN command to deliver air support that doomed his mission.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

That may be one explanation given, but I think the hon. Gentleman would find that most people who were there would not agree with that version of events. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is a former colonel who was in Bosnia at the time. I happened to talk to him a couple of days ago. He was there just before the massacre. He said that he had asked for British troops to remain and said that they should not be taken away, but regrettably, they were removed. Apparently, he passed on his sentiments—as we have all come to know, he is clear in his views and would express them forcefully—that it was not right that those other forces should be there. He gave an example of the Belgian logistics team asking for British troops to protect them while they carried out a logistics operation. What were the Belgian troops doing to try to protect their own? They had to call the British Army in to protect them. I think it is quite well known internationally that some armies and forces are much braver and more willing to do things. [Interruption.] I know that I am verging on controversial territory, but some forces perhaps tend to take the path of least resistance. That is exactly what we saw in Rwanda.

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

As someone who has been there, does the hon. Lady think that, whatever the rights and wrongs of Dutch or NATO troops, for any European who saw the Serbs separate men and boys from women alarm bells must have been set off about the past of this so-called civilised continent we live on?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

That is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman puts it even better than I have. That is the point I am trying to make. It was so obvious what was happening. Everyone knew. I would go as far as to say that people turned a blind eye to what was happening. It was like, “We couldn’t care less about these people.” Exactly the same happened in Rwanda as well, where troops from certain countries also turned a blind eye, and a whole load of massacres took place there.

The world at large needs to know what happened, as do the continent of Europe and people in our country. It is regrettable that although it was a few years ago that the European Parliament passed a resolution to say that the anniversary should be appropriately commemorated in all European countries, only in the last year or two have commemorations taken place. The first commemoration happened last year in Lancaster house, and this is the second year. I organised a book of signatures yesterday in the Members’ Cloak Room, and I am pleased to say that 160 hon. Members signed the book in one day. Obviously, people in this House understand and appreciate the matter.

I know that the Department for Communities and Local Government has been doing some work and has contributed some money to allow such events to happen, but the matter needs to be taken even more seriously. Councils and organisations throughout the United Kingdom need to be aware of it, and we should ensure that people know about it. First, it is a way of recognising what has happened. Secondly, it is a reminder of what can go wrong. After the second world war and the genocide of the Jewish people, we thought that such things could not happen again—certainly not in mainland Europe—only to find, just 19 years ago, that such things did occur again.

[Stuart Andrew]

Last night at Lancaster house, one of the most striking sentiments I heard was one of the mothers saying, “I am not going to say ‘never again’, because people said that after the second world war, and here we are; we suffered it again.” We all say those words, but they are not good enough, are they? We need far more action.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree. I was there at the memorial service. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

I want to pick up on something the hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said about attempts to prevent such things from happening again. I declare an interest, although I am sure it is completely irrelevant, because it is not because I am Muslim that I am making this point, and many colleagues and friends have made this point already. At the moment, in our country—I do not think for one minute that it will lead to that sort of level—if we look at media coverage in television, the newspapers and front-page headlines, 99.9% of the coverage is anti-Muslim. A lot of the media publish complete lies on their front pages. For example, there was the Muslim plot to kill the Pope—a complete lie. There was also the story about Muslims wanting Muslim toilets at public expense—a complete lie. It goes on and on.

Independent research carried out by a number of universities has shown that the constant negativity, the made-up stories and the media not telling the truth, or not putting things in context, has given a lot of people a bad understanding of Muslims and their religion. All religions have questions to answer, and there are things in all of them that can be looked at, but concentrating on one group of people and telling lies about them is really wrong.

A recent survey showed that 33% of people think Muslims are not really right for this country, that their religion is not appropriate and that they do not belong here. I feel very offended, because, although I was not born in England, I was brought up here, and this is my country. There are 3 million Muslims out there, but they are all being slated because of the actions of a few.

A lot of people in some parts of this country have never come across a Muslim, a black person or an Asian. Any information they have about a particular religion, group, culture or community will come from what they read in the paper. The images and information they have will be formed by that, as opposed to by meeting people.

In that respect, it is great that we have free speech and a free press, but people should show some responsibility. This hatred perpetuated towards particular groups leads to events such as those in Bosnia or in the second world war. If we look at some of the information and literature put out by the Germans and the Nazis, we see that the words used against the Jewish people were very similar to those being used against Muslim people in this country. In Bosnia and Yugoslavia, a lot of hatred also built up against different groups.

That is why responsibility has to be exercised by not only our media, but our political leaders. Some of them have said things that perpetuate the image of Islam as being somehow inconsistent with the British or the western way of life. That is a wrong narrative, and it needs to be addressed.

I hope I am forgiven for digressing slightly, but it is important to mention this issue, because hatred against a particular group does not just happen overnight. Somebody does not suddenly say, “Right, tomorrow we are going to kill this group of people.” Good, decent people are subjected to certain images and ideas, they get caught up in the frenzy of it all and atrocities happen. I am sure some people in Bosnia now think—years later, when they have had time to think about things—“God, what did we do?” People get carried away; the human mind is very susceptible. That is why we have to be careful.

The Government have done some good work on this issue, but I ask the Department to do even more. If the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister could be at next year’s holocaust memorial event, that would certainly send some messages.

15:13

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I want to speak briefly, because it is important that people reading the debate realise there is all-party support for the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) and for what she has done today.

This is an important debate, partly because it is a memorial debate—there is not much we can do about these incidents, but we can talk about them. Often in our debates, we ask for finance, for something for the health service or for education. Occasionally, however, it is right that we in the House of Commons remember what happened in the past, even though there is little we can do about it. In that way, we can, I hope, draw some lessons.

I have been to Sarajevo and stood at the corner where Franz Ferdinand was shot, and it is extraordinary to be at that place, which is on the cusp of history. Oceans of print have been written about what caused the assassination and the catastrophe that engulfed Europe in the years following. A lot has also been said in the debate about the responsibility of the Dutch and the Belgian troops—what they did and did not do—but we miss the point if we focus too much on that.

Ultimately, what happened was not the fault of the Dutch or the Belgian troops; it was the fault of the people who conducted the massacre—they were the evil ones. The debate is important because it acknowledges that, somewhere in our human condition, there is a streak of evil, which can spring up in the most unlikely places and in all people. The point of this debate is surely to affirm a very simple principle, which I can articulate and then sit down: we are all part of one humanity.

15:15

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I would certainly like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) for securing the debate. I was saddened to hear about her conversations with the Mothers of Srebrenica and about their criticisms of the delay in apprehending perpetrators. As she rightly says, that sits badly with the original claims about achieving justice for the victims and their families. I was genuinely shocked to hear that one of the direct participants in the massacres has a senior job in the regional government and that a school that was the site of one of the massacres is still being used as a school. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that truth and reconciliation in affected communities is so important in giving survivors permission to move on with their lives.

As we have heard today, 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys lost their lives in a criminal, genocidal frenzy. Women and girls were brutally and systematically raped as an act of war. It is almost impossible to begin to understand what the justification for that could be—I find it completely incomprehensible. These things happened in Europe, just 19 years ago.

Let us remind ourselves a little of the background. In his well considered and measured speech, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly took us back to UN Security Council resolution 819, which designated the 30 square miles around the town of Srebrenica as a United Nations safe area. The resolution condemned Bosnian Serb attacks on the UN peacekeeping force, their interception of humanitarian assistance convoys and their deliberate actions to force the evacuation of the civilian population. It demanded the immediate withdrawal of Bosnian Serb forces from the area surrounding Srebrenica—a relatively small town—and requested the safe transfer of wounded and sick civilians. It required both sides in the conflict to demilitarise the town, but this they failed to do.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations requested additional military support, which was not forthcoming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) passionately recounted, the failure of United Nations member states contributed to the inability to maintain the safe area.

Srebrenica fell to Serb forces on 11 July 1995, prompting a stream of refugees to the UN bases at Potocari and Tuzla. A mortar and tank attack on the UN base made it undefendable. By the end of the day, the Bosnian Serbs were in control of the whole area. On arriving, they began to separate off all the men and boys aged between 12 and 77. A column of 15,000 people fled towards the town of Tuzla, but it was pursued and shelled. A thousand of those who were fleeing were killed that day, but over the following 72 hours the captured Muslim men and boys were marched to killing fields for execution.

Nineteen years on, some of those responsible have been brought to trial and held to account for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; but reconciliation is a complex process that takes place within communities and across generations. It takes time, honesty and determination to achieve it. As I prepared for today’s speech I recalled a similar debate earlier in the year for Holocaust memorial day. I, like many others, remembered how after the second world war we said “Never again,” and set up the United Nations to promote international peace and security; yet we have still witnessed outrageous atrocities around the world.

In the days immediately following the Srebrenica massacres this House met and heard accounts of the events. MPs discussed the role of the United Nations peacekeeping force, the circumstances in which the UN force fled the safe zone it had created around Srebrenica, and what provision was to be made for the thousands who had been displaced and who were in need of urgent help. Srebrenica showed us that the United Nations needs access to effective military capability, and needs to demonstrate willingness to act. Srebrenica was one of six UN safe areas. Those who were gathered in the designated safe haven around Srebrenica had, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East said, the right to expect that the United Nations would keep them safe.

In 2010, on the 15th anniversary, President Barack Obama said:

“This atrocity galvanized the international community to act to end the slaughter of civilians, and the name Srebrenica has since served as a stark reminder of the need for the world to respond resolutely in the face of evil.”

It is clear, with hindsight, that the international community should have intervened in Bosnia before Srebrenica. We should have been more resolute in our actions, once there, and should have provided the protection we were there to ensure. The Opposition have made clear our support for a strengthened United Nations that can intervene and uphold its commitment to maintaining international peace and security.

On Friday, when we mark Srebrenica memorial day and remember the victims and their families, we must renew the pledge of “Never again,” and renew our commitment to educating the present and future generations, so that history does not continue to repeat itself. I congratulate the Government on their commitment to remembering Srebrenica, and on their focus on fighting the forces that drive genocide. Last year’s funding of £170,000 was a welcome and important step. It established the UK’s first memorial day, created a dedicated online archive, and sent community leaders on visits to Srebrenica. The £800,000 that the Government have pledged for this year and next year, which will be matched by the charity Remembering Srebrenica, will ensure that the project develops and reaches further into our communities. With 750 young people visiting the area to learn the lessons of Srebrenica, we will be better placed to challenge intolerance at home and abroad, and to understand its extreme consequences.

I warmly welcome the work of the charity Remembering Srebrenica, and commend its founder Waqar Asmi’s commitment to creating a cohesive society for everyone. I also commend the charity’s aim of encouraging everyone in our society to learn about the consequences of hate and discrimination. It is critical that we should understand the horror and the legacy of events in July 1995, not just for the renewal of our pledge of “Never again,” but so that we can strengthen our communities to challenge prejudice and division, whatever their nature. All of us in the Chamber today recognise the importance of that work. It is vital to continue to remember such heinous atrocities of deep-seated xenophobic sectarianism. That drives a determination to foster resilient, inclusive and respectful communities here and abroad.

I know from his blog that the Minister has visited Srebrenica and I look forward to hearing the reflections he will no doubt recount in his response, but I want, if I may, to draw on something he said in his piece, about the phrase “ethnic cleansing”, which suddenly became part of everyday news-speak. Those two simple and mundane words express an amoral political intent to cleanse a country or area of human beings: a genocide of communities because of their difference. Yet such simplistic terms cannot possibly convey the true horror of war and genocide. The only true lexicon of war and genocide must be the real stories of the victims and their families, and I will give voice to a couple of those stories now.

One is the tragic story of Hasan Nuhanovich, who survived because he was an interpreter, first for Canadian UN troops and then for the Dutch troops. He describes events on 11 July when thousands of people, mostly women and children but also men and boys, fled the town and arrived at the UN base. Some were allowed in but the gate was then closed and a hole in the fence was sealed. That left about 5,000 to 6,000 people inside the base and 20,000 people outside. He heard the killing, screams and shots, and then the UN base fell to mortar and tank attacks. He says:

“The UN told me to tell the people to start leaving the base in groups of five—they didn’t say anything else.”

The people were hoping and thinking that the UN was in charge and would know what to do, but when they reached the gate they saw Serb soldiers standing there, pushing the men and the boys away from their sisters, wives and children. There was a separation taking place right there outside the gate. People realised at that moment that they were not going to any safe place; the Serbs were going to take them away.

Hasan concluded:

“My family was among the last ones to stay inside. I tried to keep them inside the base for as long as possible. But they were forced. Three UN soldiers came inside with three UN military observers and looked at my family and told me, ‘Hasan, translate to your family, tell them to leave right now.’ I was crying. My brother, who was 19, was sitting on the chair. Of course, my parents knew what was going to happen. But they were behaving in a different way; they actually tried to calm me down—they felt that if I start panicking, I would cause trouble for myself. If their elder son, myself, could remain inside the base, could stay alive, let’s at least try to do that. They knew my brother was going to be killed, they knew they were going to be killed. All the time as they were walked out of the base, my parents told me, ‘Hasan, stay. You can stay. Your brother will be with us; he will be OK.’ I was walking behind them, screaming and saying, ‘I am coming with you.’ But my brother turned around, and he started screaming right at my face: ‘You are not coming with me, you are going to stay inside because you can stay.’ And that was the last time I saw my family.”

Hasan has since discovered what happened to his mother. She killed herself with broken glass rather than submit to rape at a police station.

On the excellent Remembering Srebrenica website, I read the story of another Hasan, who at the age of 19 was part of the column desperately fleeing Bosnian Serb forces on foot, through the woods, away from Srebrenica. His story is terrifying and raw with the horror of the events he witnessed, but at the end he tells us that in 2009 he took a job at the memorial centre and has settled to raise a young family of his own. He tells of the pain of having to recount his story to visitors several times a day, but he is happy to do so, he says, because

“now, finally, someone is listening.”

Those who survived endured the most excruciating and traumatic experiences. Mevludin Orich lay for nine hours in one of the killing fields, playing dead while Serb troops patrolled the blood-soaked field, finishing off anyone who showed signs of life with a pistol shot to the head. He heard an old man plead, “Please don’t do this to us, children, we haven’t done anything to you,” but the old man was also shot.

Lying on top of Orich was his dead cousin, Hars. At one point, Orich saw a Serb soldier walk towards him. The soldier paused to shoot a man in the head, and then continued to walk toward Orich. Orich closed his eyes, but the shot did not come. Close to midnight, the shooting stopped and the Serbs left. Orich managed to shake off his cousin’s body, stand up and head into the forest. To do so, he had to climb over the bodies of the dead and the dying. That type of scarring and traumatising experience is bound to haunt the survivors, their families and their communities for decades, even generations, to come.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I have been to Srebrenica and Potocari to see at first hand the devastation left by the events of 1995, and I have spoken to many of the women and their children who survived that atrocity. Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the biggest remaining issues for many of the families involved is closure, because there were many situations where the acts were so despicable that the bodies and remains of family members have still not been obtained, and so are unable to be buried in the cemetery in Potocari?

[Lyn Brown]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the things that shocked me when considering the idea that reconciliation is happening in Srebrenica in Bosnia and nearby was the lack of detail about where these mass graves are. There might be another 100 mass graves out there. The gentleman I just spoke about—the second Hasan—needs to know where his dad and brother are because he wants to be able to bury them, but he cannot do so. Until such knowledge is out, reconciliation is hard.

I say to the first Hasan that we are listening and that is what today is about. Reconciliation will help to mitigate, to some extent, the trauma and the scars of people in this community, but for many of them what they lived through will be with them forever; it will pass down through generations, as events reverberate.

We can all agree in Westminster Hall today that Srebrenica was a very dark day for Europe, when once more it was consumed by a cloud of deep-seated xenophobic sectarianism, and innocents were yet again brutally murdered and mercilessly slaughtered in the name of nationalism. We have to find a way to rid ourselves of the cancer of intolerance and discrimination, and we must create a United Nations that is capable of fulfilling the noble mandate that it was given. The people of Srebrenica had a right to expect protection; the international community failed them. We must see, we must know and we must remember Srebrenica. And we must learn.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

I think we all agree that the debate so far has been very moving. I call upon the Minister to respond to it.

15:33

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

First, I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), as I often do in these debates. As usual, she delivered her speech powerfully and in an emotionally charged way. I thank her for doing so because this is an occasion when it would be very easy to talk about diplomacy, and the rights and wrongs of what happened 19 years ago and earlier, but it is what happened to the people in those circumstances that counts. I thank her for speaking in the way that she did.

It is customary on these occasions to thank the initiator of the debate, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), so I do that both in the customary sense and in the sincere sense. I do so not only because I am the Minister responsible for the Government’s work in this sector but because it is something that, as a Minister, I find incredibly moving and powerful, compared with some of the other things that I have to do. In addition, it is an issue that has interested me for a long time.

Both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) reflected on the events that took place in the 1990s. With the possible exception of yourself, Dr McCrea, none of us who have taken part in this debate were MPs at that time. I was a young councillor—I was in my mid-20s—in Bristol, watching the TV coverage night after night, from the original invasion of Croatia and the bombardment of Vukovar by the Yugoslav national army, as it was at that time. I then saw how events unfolded in Bosnia and then, of course, in Kosovo in 1999. I felt angry and impotent that all this was happening in our European family of nations.

I will not stray into discussing the culpability of any of the troops on the ground, as some colleagues have done; for a start, that is probably beyond my remit. What I will say, however, is that we ought to remind ourselves that troops on the ground—whether they were from the UN or from the nations that were referred to—are responsible to democratic Governments. Perhaps it is the politicians of that era who should have been spoken of in condemnatory language, and I will stray no further than that in going beyond my remit.

The Department for Communities and Local Government gives significant amounts of money—the hon. Member for West Ham mentioned the £970,000 that our community integration budget has put into the Remembering Srebrenica events, both for last year and the next two years—and staff in the Department make a big personal commitment. There is a ministerial commitment as well. Those who were at Lancaster house last night would have heard all three Ministers who have an interest in this issue—the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Baroness Warsi and myself—speak from different perspectives. The three of us do not always agree on everything, but we are committed to this project, both for what it says about Britain in Bosnia—the project is very much appreciated in Bosnia itself—and for the effect that it can have on the next generation of community leaders and politicians in this country.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North opened the debate by mentioning Sarajevo and its resonance this year. When I was in Bosnia in April, I, too, stood on the corner where Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. The generation of politicians who put together the League of Nations after world war one said, “Never again”; the generation of politicians after 1945 who put together the UN said, “Never again”; and no doubt our predecessors back in the mid to late 1990s said, “Never again.” Well, “never again” does not happen by accident; it happens by tough, grinding diplomacy.

I will stray slightly beyond my remit again, Dr McCrea, to say that, as a passionate Europhile within the Government, I think we sometimes need to remember that it is a major achievement of the European Union that conflict has not broken out among its member states. Moreover, apart from Albania it is the former Yugoslav republics that are still queuing up to join the EU. Of course, Slovenia and Croatia are already in. A couple of years ago, I went on a Westminster Foundation for Democracy visit to Macedonia with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) to help Macedonia with its preparations to become a member of the EU, and one day—I hope soon—Serbia and Bosnia will join that European family of nations as well. Then, perhaps, “never again” will actually have achieved a diplomatic outcome.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) mentioned commemorating Holocaust memorial day in the UK. She also said, in respect of the second world war, that all the attention tends to be given to the holocaust and asked about what is happening next year. In 2015 it will be both the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz—the hon. Member for West Ham has not been to Auschwitz yet, but I went many years ago, and we will renew the agreement to go together at some point soon, before that anniversary—and the 20th anniversary of events in Srebrenica.

I represent the Government on the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and I assure the hon. Member for West Ham that we are thinking carefully about the significance of both those anniversaries and making sure they get all the appropriate attention from the Government, the royal family and—they more important than the politicians or other leaders—the survivors. The survivors of the holocaust are now smaller in number and many of them are quite old and frail, so we need to ensure that it is done in an appropriate setting for them, too.

Let me turn to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and our commemoration of Holocaust memorial day each year. Some of us spoke in the annual debate in January in the main Chamber, and most hon. Members were careful to ensure that we talked about all of the genocides that have taken place, which, with the exception of the holocaust, have sadly all happened in the lifetimes of all hon. Members in this Chamber: the unravelling of Yugoslavia; Rwanda; Dafur; the events taking place in South Sudan, and Cambodia.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I agree. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we need to disseminate that information, particularly to our schools, to ensure that it is firmly embedded in our education system, so that youngsters learn about these atrocities and can learn from the mistakes of the past?

[Stephen Williams]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to stray again from my remit, but I have done it once, so let me do so once again, this time into the territory of the Department for Education.

Having visited schools, as I am sure all hon. Members do, I have spoken to history teachers—and to history admissions tutors at universities, in the days when I was the Lib Dem higher education spokesman—who tell me that children do learn about the holocaust and the Nazi period, although perhaps too much. I think they also need to learn about world war one, which is highly relevant over the next four years, and about the other genocides that have taken place in the lifetime of their parents. I am sure that every responsible history teacher and citizenship teacher in the country will ensure that they do so in the next 12 months.

Hon. Members mentioned closure, and the hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned the important work of the International Commission for Missing Persons. Many powerful memories will stay with me from my visit to Bosnia, and the visit to the ICMP in Tuzla will certainly be one of them. Adam Boys, a Scotsman, is doing the archaeology of warfare—forensic science—digging up mass graves that contain not whole bodies, but dismembered bodies.

Such was the planned nature of what took place in the mid-1990s, it was not just a massacre; there was an attempt to cover it up by physically separating the bodies with bulldozers—I am being graphic—and scattering the remains over a wide area, deliberately, so that the crime was to some extent physically covered up. The remains of the people were thought at the time impossible to identify. Of course, now, through advances in science, it is possible to identify them. Many people are now getting that closure, but sadly it is often closure from the match of a DNA blood sample—the laboratory in Tuzla has blood samples donated by all surviving relatives who wished to do so, to be matched with a missing male relative—with a piece of a ribcage, the bone of a hand or part of a skull, not to a whole body. However, at least at that point a burial of partial remains can happen and some closure is afforded.

Every day, remains of parts of new bodies are being discovered and individuals are identified. However, there are still thousands of unidentified, unaccounted-for deaths in Bosnia, so the ICMP’s work will need to continue for many years to come.

[Ann McKechin]

Just on that point, the Minister will be aware, from his visit to the ICMP offices—I also visited and was moved by the warehouse where the remains yet to be identified are still kept—that it is now working in the middle east. It has already been to Libya and, given the events that are occurring as we speak in Syria and Iraq, it is likely that this type of work will be required on an even larger scale. I hope that the Government consider supporting this venture, allowing it to expand, because it will provide in future years the closure that it has provided to the victims in Yugoslavia.

[Stephen Williams]

That point was forcefully made to me at the time by Adam Boys, but continuing the funding is a matter for other parts of Government. The British Government have been one of the main supporters of the ICMP—that is certainly acknowledged—but sadly its work will probably be needed for many years, not just in the former Yugoslavia, but in other conflict areas.

The hon. Member for West Ham, who leads for the Opposition, mentioned the Remembering Srebrenica project—a £1 million commitment by the Government—and also Dr Waqar Azmi’s Ummah Help charity, which helps to take delegations of young people to Bosnia, specifically to Srebrenica. It is curious that the Department of Communities and Local Government does that, but we do it for two reasons. First, people from all over the world live in our major towns and cities, which, as a Liberal, I celebrate. In my constituency casework there are still refugees, mainly from Kosovo rather than Bosnia, and I am sure that there are people living in West Ham, Bolton and Bristol who are directly touched by what is happening. The effects of other conflicts are felt by families in our country. It is right that we support that reflection and understanding.

Secondly, we ask people who go on these delegations—the plan is to take some 800 people to Bosnia in the next two years—to use that time and apply the lesson of history that they will have learned in Bosnia in their own communities when they return to the UK. The 75 people who have been out on these delegations so far are all now feeding back their pledges about how they are going to make Tower Hamlets, Newham, Luton, Birmingham, Bolton, Blackburn and other places more cohesive and harmonious places to visit. The most obvious thing they are able to do is organise their own Remembering Srebrenica events throughout the country this year, and 16 events are taking place, in addition to the official events in London, Cardiff and Edinburgh that have been mentioned.

On Sunday evening, I attended an amazing event in Luton, which was organised by the five young people who were on my delegation in April. They made their own powerful speeches; two of the mothers, who I will mention shortly, spoke; and Ed Vulliamy, who was an ITN journalist at the time but now writes for The Guardian, gave his perspective as a British witness who was there. That powerful event was followed by an Iftar event, this being Ramadan. Several other events are taking place, including many organised by the police, including the police in Hertfordshire, City of London, Greater Manchester and Northamptonshire.

The practical reason why we are funding the project is so that people can learn the lessons of what so easily can happen. Several Members referred to that. Let us not forget that this is a place where the winter Olympics took place and where, when I was growing up, better-off friends went on holiday. I would still like to go to Dubrovnik on holiday. It was a civilised part of Europe, albeit a Communist dictatorship, where people had co-existed for a long time, and it unravelled very quickly. We must learn the lesson that community cohesion does not happen by accident. It is the responsibility of us all in public life to constantly work at it and nurture it in our constituencies and communities across the country. That is why it is right that a significant amount of British taxpayer’s money goes into that programme—not just to appreciate the lessons of history, but because it has direct practical application in making our country a better place.

The hon. Member for West Ham, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who was with us earlier, mentioned that ugly phrase, “ethnic cleansing”. While the practice had been around for a long time, the phrase came into use during that conflict. We all remember Martin Bell, who compered last night’s events in Lancaster house, speaking about it. It shows how we can use phraseology to obscure an awful practice, and it is right that the hon. Member for West Ham used graphic language to bring to life what actually took place.

To add some of my own reflections to those of other Members, on my visit we were hosted in Srebrenica itself, by its mayor. He must have been a decade younger than me. He was the only person from his class in school to survive that massacre. Imagine that happening to any of us. We are all of an age where we possibly have school reunions. Imagine if someone’s school reunion was just them; the only person left from their class. That was the experience of the mayor of Srebrenica. The person who looked after him at the time was our guide for the whole visit, Mohammed, who was a couple of years older than the mayor. He guided the future mayor up into the mountains. A lot of people survived by fleeing into the forests and the mountains, pursued, shelled and shot at by the Bosnian Serb army, trying desperately to get to the safe haven of Tuzla. Members will be familiar with those awful scenes at the Potocari battery factory of people behind barbed wire pleading to be saved. I am not sure whether it is the same Hasan as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for West Ham, but the Hasan who guided us round that battery factory lost male members of his family. The most awful thing of all is that he lost his twin brother.

Opposite that battery factory where people sheltered is the Srebrenica memorial cemetery, where 8,372 marble obelisks stand as a physical memorial to the men and boys who were killed. The youngest had not yet entered his teens and the oldest had not quite entered his 80s, and there were all ages in between. On the memorial we saw in Sarajevo, on every single line—it was in alphabetical order and there were no Stephens to be seen—was the year 1966, which is the year I was born. In trying to comprehend the scale of the deaths that took place in a few short days, those sorts of things bring it home.

What really brought it home to me, and the most powerful memory of all—this remarkable group of people has been mentioned by several Members—was the Mothers of Srebrenica, a group of women of all ages who have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the rest of Europe never forgets what happened in their homeland. While they are called the Mothers of Srebrenica, they are widows and people who have lost a brother, a nephew, a father or a grandfather. The scale of male bereavement is all-embracing. Some lost 40 or 50 male members of their family. I have quite a small immediate family; others might have larger families. Imagine someone losing just about every male relative they know—that brings home how they have suffered. The hon. Member for West Ham was right to point out that some of these people have suffered not only with their bereavement, but with the physical and sexual abuse that they had from the Bosnian Serb army that murdered their menfolk.

How do we get something from this issue? That is what we should reflect on. The Government are putting investment into the visits, so that all the young people, police and other community leaders going to Bosnia can come back to Britain, having learnt the lessons. I will end my speech the same way I ended my speech in Lancaster house last night. Learning the lessons of history, thinking about what a reasonable parliamentary occasion this has been and going to the events are all very well, but none of that counts for anything unless we all pledge, just as we are asking the young people to pledge on these visits, to look at how we can make all our constituencies better places. That is my challenge to myself, to Members and to everyone else.

15:56

Sitting suspended.

Humanitarian Situation (Iraq)

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Westminster Hall

16:12

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I am grateful for the debate, because it is timely, and I am glad that the Minister is present.

I care very much about Iraq. I have been involved with it since the late 1970s, when I met some Iraqi students who had left Basra and Baghdad for Cardiff. They opened my eyes to the brutality of the regime of Saddam Hussein and I campaigned against its abuses—first through an organisation called CADRI, the Campaign against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq. Many Members of this House were members, as well as exiled Iraqis such as Hoshyar Zebari, who is now the Foreign Minister of Iraq, and Latif Rashid, a former water Minister.

In the late 1990s, I was involved in setting up an organisation called INDICT, which campaigned for Saddam and other leading members of the regime to be prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide through an international tribunal set up by the United Nations. Later, we campaigned for prosecutions to take place in individual countries that had an international jurisdiction with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that did not happen, despite our best efforts. I went to many countries and we interviewed many Iraqis in exile, but only one country almost went through with the process, and that was Belgium. At the last minute, however, the Belgian Parliament changed the rules of the game.

The evidence collected by INDICT of the crimes that had taken place and of the direct involvement of certain members of the regime was subsequently used in the war crimes trials in Baghdad, some of the sessions of which I attended. Over a number of years, as the special envoy on human rights in Iraq for both Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), I went to Iraq about 26 times in all, and at times when it was quite difficult, but I have many friends there. The idea was to help the Iraqis after 30 years of a brutal regime; we tried to explain the niceties of human rights and what they meant in practice.

I still have friends in Iraq. I was last there 18 months ago, when there was a stand-off between the peshmerga of the Kurdish regional Government in Kirkuk and Mr Maliki’s Iraqi forces. They did not actually clash, but it was certainly a stand-off.

I also meet people from the Iraqi Parliament regularly at the Inter-Parliamentary Union; I always look out for them and we spend some time together. The women in particular need to be commended for their bravery. I will not name anyone, but one woman doctor is a Member of Parliament and she has stayed in Baghdad the whole time. She still practises as a doctor, but she is also active as a politician. Since the start of the recent conflict, she has been sending me messages regularly about their concerns in Iraq. I pay tribute to the bravery of such politicians, because it cannot be easy always to be surrounded by about 30 bodyguards—each MP has about that number, which illustrates how dangerous and difficult the situation is.

Since January this year, the surge in violence between armed groups and Government forces has resulted in an estimated 1.2 million internally displaced people in central and northern Iraq and an estimated 1.5 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, according to the UN.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing the issue to us for consideration. The Christians in Iraq are under particularly serious pressure. They are centred around Mosul and the plains of Nineveh, but the takeover by ISIS has had a detrimental impact on them and they are threatened, because of their religious views, with crucifixion, beheadings, bomb attacks, beatings and loss of property. Does she agree that we must always ensure that religious persecution stops and that religious freedom wins?

[Ann Clwyd]

Certainly. In fact, the last time I was in the Kurdish area, about 18 months ago, I went to a conference of all minority religions—there are not only Christians, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, but many other religious groups as well. The conference was supposed to bring them all together. I also met various groups individually, some of which wanted to set up territories of their own, although I think that they have been persuaded that that is not a good idea. We need to ensure safety for all the minorities of Iraq.

The attention of the world is focused on the terrorist group called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIS or ISIL. Inside Iraq, however, the group is only one part of a larger revolt that has been years in the making. Although there is some co-ordination between ISIL and other Sunni groups fighting in northern Iraq, ISIL is only part of the revolt. Anger against Nouri al-Maliki and the behaviour of the Iraqi Government has been building for almost eight years.

The Maliki Government reneged on their promises to build an inclusive Government with the Sunnis and went after moderate Sunni leaders as soon as American troops left. It is regrettable that the Iraqi Parliament has had to adjourn again until the middle of August. It did convene, but has adjourned because it could not agree on the election of a new Speaker.

Iraqi army and police crackdowns over the past year in cities—including Falluja and Madain—have been part of the escalating Sunni-Shi’a tit-for-tat violence that has plagued Iraq for over a year. In one incident in April 2013, dozens of Sunnis were killed by Iraqi security forces in the town of Hawijah during what had been a peaceful protest. As a former US official in Iraq, Ali Khedery, wrote in the Washington Post on 3 July, the US policy during the crucial years following the 2008 Sunni awakening was to place its faith in Maliki to build an inclusive system rather than supporting other political actors.

The international community should support a process in which all political stakeholders could be brought together to review the political process and devise a whole new formula for the sharing of power and resources in Iraq. More specifically, it should step in and play a role in helping solve the real problems in Iraq by encouraging a unity Government. In the end, the involvement of other countries, particularly those supporting only one side or the other in the conflict, can only destabilise the region further.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on raising this important issue. Like her, I have real knowledge of the region, having served in the no-fly zone over northern Iraq in a previous career as a Royal Air Force officer; last year I returned there, invited by the Kurdistan regional Government. She is absolutely right that the international community needs to support the area.

Some 100,000 refugees from the Arab south and 260,000 refugees from Syria are being supported by the Kurdistan regional Government, and there are now half a million extra people displaced from Mosul and Anbar. I welcome the £5 million of funding that the Department for International Development has brought forward in support, but the right hon. Lady is right that we need the whole international community to stop the crisis from becoming even worse and prevent the complete splintering of the country.

[Ann Clwyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I was partly instrumental in setting up the no-fly zone: I visited Kurdistan when I was shadow International Development Secretary, and then came back and spoke to John Major about what I had seen—Kurds fleeing over the mountains from helicopter gunships and so on. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman took part in the no-fly zone.

The numbers are horrific. The armed conflict in Iraq has spread from Anbar to Mosul and into parts of central Iraq. With sectarian clashes growing, already nearly half a million Iraqi citizens have been displaced from Anbar province. After the ISIL takeover of Mosul and large areas of northern Iraq, perhaps half a million refugees fled from Mosul, many of whom took refuge in areas controlled by the Kurds. There are reports that many are now returning to Mosul because they feel that they have no other choice and that the city is relatively calm at this moment.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate and commend everything she has done by way of her engagement with Iraq over the years, which I greatly respect. I agree with her about the importance of engaging others in the region, but faced with the humanitarian catastrophe that looms and given the suspicion of Governments, including external Governments, is there a particular role for non-governmental organisations, including those from Britain? How far will they be able to get effective relief to people in the very difficult circumstances of the conflict on the ground?

[Ann Clwyd]

That is the challenge. I have no easy answers. I was about to spell out those challenges, in fact. One is access for humanitarian organisations to people in need—we know how difficult that has been in Syria, for example. There is also the scale of need in reaching all those requiring assistance. I will be highlighting both those issues as I go along.

Humanitarian organisations’ access to people in need continues to be a significant problem due to the multiplicity of actors. On one side, it involves liaising with the Iraqi armed forces—especially the security forces—Shi’a militia and the Kurdish peshmerga. On the other side, it involves armed opposition groups including Ba’athists, tribal militias and members of the former regime and military, along with ISIL. In addition, there may also be forces from other states such as Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to liaise with.

Access for humanitarian agencies to areas of Iraq under ISIL control is difficult. Humanitarian organisations have limited dialogue with ISIL because of a lack of familiarity with its chain of command, and so often have to get authorisation from different leaders and groups to ensure safe access. So far deliberate obstruction does not appear to be the problem; it is more the time that needs to be taken to establish proper channels of communication, particularly with extremist rebel groups and actors. There are, however, established contact points with the Sunni tribes already, which is helping with gaining access.

Thousands of displaced Iraqi civilians are stranded at checkpoints separating the areas controlled by the Kurdish regional Government and the rest of Iraq. At first, civilians who fled the ISIL-controlled areas were being allowed to enter Iraqi Kurdistan, but in recent weeks and days, access has been severely restricted by the KRG. Some of those who fled are seeking refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan while others want to travel southwards to the capital and beyond. The former are mostly Sunni Muslims who fear air strikes by Government forces and their allies, as well as the possibility of further brutality by ISIL. The latter are mostly Shi’a Muslims from the Turkmen and Shabak communities who are trying to flee southwards to Government-controlled areas of Iraq where the majority of the population is Shi’a and where they feel there is no risk of an Islamic State takeover.

With the withdrawal of the Iraqi army from northern Iraq, the KRG have gained control of the disputed oil-rich town of Kirkuk and other areas. In recent days they have announced plans for a referendum on independence—a move fiercely opposed by the Iraqi central Government. Regardless of the political wrangling between Baghdad and Erbil, it is absolutely imperative that civilians displaced by the conflict are granted refuge in and safe passage through KRG-controlled areas. I ask the Minister, what representations are being made in that regard? What assistance has been and will be offered to the Kurdish regional Government to help them respond to the needs of the displaced in areas under their control?

Although Iraqi and international political discourse both seem largely out of step with the rapidly changing reality on the ground, the sectarian dimension of the conflict is becoming more marked by the day and Iraq’s diverse communities are struggling to grapple with the new reality. They increasingly wonder where and how they can be safe. For example, in both Turkmen and Shabak communities there is now division among Shi’a and Sunnis. Turkmen Shi’a are trying to flee to the Shi’a stronghold in the south, but the Turkmen Sunni are not even contemplating going there: they are staying put in the north, terrified of Government air strikes against areas controlled by ISIL.

A woman whose relatives—two young children and their parents—were killed in an air strike in Tal Afar on 22 June stated:

“We are not with ISIL, but when the government bombs ISIL we are in the middle and when we get killed nobody cares”.

One man, a father of eight who had just driven nearly seven hours from Sinjar, taking a long detour to avoid Mosul and his home town of Tal Afar—both now under ISIL control—told Amnesty International:

“We do not want to stay in Kurdistan; we just want to pass through to get to the road southbound to Baghdad and on to Najaf in the south”.

Many Shi’a Turkmen and Shabak civilians have alleged that their Sunni neighbours are co-operating with the Islamic State, while Sunni Turkmen and Shabak have accused Shi’a members of their community of being linked to pro-Government armed Shi’a militias. No general evidence is provided to support such polarising narratives, but perception can be as important as reality, poisoning relations between communities and adding fuel to an already inflamed situation.

Minorities in Iraq, including Christians, Yazidis and others, feel particularly vulnerable, and rightly so. The Islamic State referred to its Yazidi hostages as “devil worshippers” in one of its recent videos. That and the abduction of two Christian nuns in Mosul on 28 June are just two examples of a string of recent incidents targeting minority groups. Members of Iraq’s majority communities do not feel safe either. Indeed, most of those killed and displaced in this conflict were from the Shi’a and Sunni majority communities, who happened to be a minority in a particular place at a particular time.

Increasing speculation about a possible three-way split of Iraq into Shi’a, Sunni and Kurdish states or entities is raising serious concerns about the further massive population displacement that is likely to ensue. Minorities are very concerned about whether, if that came to fruition, their communities would have a future in Iraq. Iraqi leaders and would-be leaders and their backers in the international community must act responsibly and work towards finding solutions to the current crisis that will ensure that members of all communities are protected and their rights respected.

The recent wave of fighting has also led to many people being detained by the Iraqi security forces and armed groups. It is becoming very difficult to track detainees as areas of control fluctuate and detainees are often moved. Amnesty International has recently spoken to released detainees from the Yazidi community who were captured by ISIL, as well as to family members of those still held by the group. At least 24 Iraqi border guards and soldiers were captured by ISIL last month in north-west Iraq. Some were released later, but the rest are being held by ISIL across the border in north-east Syria. The captives are among scores of minorities who have been targeted in a spree of sectarian detentions and abductions carried out by ISIL in recent weeks.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. I gently urge the right hon. Lady to bring her comments to a conclusion as the Minister has only nine minutes in which to respond.

[Ann Clwyd]

I will attempt to do so, Dr McCrea, as soon as I can. I am obviously not very good at timing myself. I have several questions that I am sure the Minister will be able to answer.

A recent Guardian report states that ISIL has been looting antiquities from the region and selling them in the international marketplace. That happened previously after 2003 when many of Iraq’s antiquities were looted; I understand that many of Syria’s antiquities have also gone. Some $36 million of antiquities, up to 8,000 years old, were allegedly taken from the al-Nabuk area alone. Given that the UK is an important antiquities market and to stop funding for terrorist organisations and impoverishing Iraqis of their heritage, should the Government not ensure that “blood antiquities”, like blood diamonds from conflict zones, are not sold here?

Many families are in need of water, food and shelter, and want to feel safe. I hope that the international community will react with generosity, as it normally does, when the UN asks for funds. I know that the UN does not have enough money—it never does—for such things, but this situation is urgent because people are already dying and the situation may get worse.

16:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this important debate, and I acknowledge her deep and long-serving experience and wisdom in the matter. It is quite something, and I learned several things from her speech.

I will give a short introduction and then immediately answer some of the points the right hon. Lady raised. With so little time left, I will not get through everything I wanted to say.

As we have heard, on 8 June in Iraq’s northern province of Ninewah, heavy fighting between the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and the Iraqi security forces led to casualties and mass displacement among the civilian population. The UN estimates that 650,000 people have been displaced, not including an estimated 500,000 people who had fled previous fighting in Anbar province. Some are in hotels and some have been temporarily housed in tented settlements, but most are staying with families. All want to go home. As fighting continues and access to some areas is incredibly challenging, it is difficult to know how many people are affected, but we know that the mass displacement and long-term disruption to the lives of millions that we have already seen in Syria are now affecting Iraq.

I want briefly to say what the Department for International Development has done. I am pleased to be able to say that the UK was the first country to send a team on the ground, deploying three DFID experts, to Erbil in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The team’s rapid assessment from the field meant we were able to announce on 13 June, three days after the capture of Mosul, an initial £3 million of support to displaced people. That included £2 million via the rapid response facility mechanism to non-governmental organisations in the region—the right hon. Lady asked about NGOs—to provide clean water and sanitation, essential medicine, women-friendly hygiene kits, basic household items, and a further £1 million for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to establish camps and provide dedicated protection teams to identify and assist vulnerable people, including women and girls. The right hon. Lady knows of my interest in women and girls and their protection.

The Prime Minister has since pledged an additional £2 million of emergency humanitarian relief to help the tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqis in serious need. This second package of support will provide emergency medicines, including polio and measles vaccines, food and basic shelter to women, men and children affected by the crisis. It will also enable aid agencies on the ground to trace and reunite families who have been separated while fleeing. That funding is in addition to the £292 million that DFID has allocated to support refugees fleeing from Syria. Some of that support had been in Iraq, and now Iraq itself faces a humanitarian crisis.

The right hon. Lady asked some specific questions. In terms of the politics, the walkout of Sunni and Kurdish representatives from the new Parliament last week was extremely worrying. The Iraqi Government must urgently demonstrate unity and co-operation, but I am sad to say that I see no sign of that. Political unity is the single most important factor that will counter the threat from ISIL, bring about an end to the conflict and stop the worsening humanitarian situation. It is essential that all parties involved in the political process reach the necessary decisions and compromises to form a broad-based, inclusive and representative Government who respond to the need of all Iraq’s different communities.

Humanitarian access is a major problem in areas that are controlled by ISIL. However, our humanitarian partners and the International Committee of the Red Cross inform us that some aid, including vital medical assistance and the provision of clean water, is getting through. Humanitarian actors are adjusting their programmes as the conflict continues to evolve, but it is very challenging and clearly we are not reaching everyone.

In terms of what else we are doing and representations, the UK Government are undertaking considerable political and diplomatic efforts to stabilise the region and to promote unity among those who support a democratic Iraqi state. In the KRG areas that the right hon. Lady asked about, we are working closely with the British consulate in Erbil and engaging directly with the Kurdish Government. We will provide a technical expert to the Kurdish Government to help them plan and manage the response to those who are displaced in the KRG.

On minority groups, our field team have met displaced minority groups, particularly those who have fled Mosul. As the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, Christians and Turkmens are concerned about their safety and are likely to settle more permanently in the Kurdish areas, and our support will reach those people.

I was going to say quite a lot about women and girls, but I think time will run out on us. Going forward, one thing I did not raise—because I am skipping parts of my speech to get to the end—is that the Saudi Government have given $500 million to the appeal, so it is a fully funded appeal. Although it is very positive that, thanks to Saudi generosity, the UN appeal is now fully funded, needs related to the displacement and interruption of critical services in Iraq will not be resolved quickly, even though we have a fully funded appeal. We will continue to work with humanitarian partners to ameliorate the suffering of those Iraqi women, men and children enduring terrible hardship on a daily basis. In addition to financial support from DFID, we are also providing technical assistance to support the UN and the Kurdish Regional Government effectively to co-ordinate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the affected populations.

As well as addressing the short-term humanitarian needs, we are undertaking a great deal of effort on political support to help resolve the crisis and promoting political unity among those who support a democratic Iraqi state—

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. We now move to the final debate on caste discrimination, which Mr Adam Holloway will be leading. I just mention to Members that the sitting will conclude at 5.12 pm.

Caste Discrimination

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Westminster Hall

16:42

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I thank the Minister for allowing me to ruin her afternoon. I am sure she had other things that she would have preferred to be doing.

Why are we having this debate? I went to the Brandon Street gurdwara in Gravesend a few months ago, and I was amazed by the strength of feeling over a petition on caste discrimination. Since then, I have been around the country with my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who is the Prime Minister’s diaspora champion, and I visited Leicester, Southall and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). I did not realise that quite so many people in the UK suffer because of “traditional”—if that is the right word—caste systems originating in south Asia.

According to a survey on one of these castes, published by the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance, 58% of Dalits—that is to say the untouchables, the Chamars, or whatever else people want to call them—believe they face discrimination because of their caste. Much more interestingly, 80% believe that the police would not understand caste discrimination if it was reported to them. Some Dalits are being ignored for promotion. They are victims of humiliation or harassment and sometimes they face being fired.

Is there a form of hidden apartheid within our shores? After some brave and necessary moves by our Home Secretary to outlaw such things as forced marriage, can we really continue to excuse ourselves for not putting people who practice this casteism on the wrong side of the law?

There has been a timeline to this. In November 2009, the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance published its report, “Hidden Apartheid—Voice of the Community”, highlighting lower-caste experiences of caste discrimination. Between April 2009 and April 2010, during parliamentary debates on the Equality Bill, Dalit organisations sought to persuade parliamentarians to include caste as a new protected characteristic.

On 1 October 2010, the Equality Act 2010 came into force. The caste power found in section 9(5)(a) of the Act allows amendment by ministerial order

“to provide for caste to be an aspect of race”.

In December 2010—I am halfway through these dates now, by the way—an independent research report asked for by the last Government was published by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It suggested that caste discrimination and harassment were falling outside the Act. The coalition Government are still considering that report.

In August 2011, Amardeep and Vijay Begraj, a married couple—he had been working in a solicitor’s firm as a manager, and she had been working as a solicitor—came before the courts. The argument was that he, and I think she, as well, had been fired because their union, being from different castes, had not been approved of. The Home Secretary then publicly considered whether to add the caste system to the equality law.

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

Many of my constituents attend the gurdwara in Gravesend to which my hon. Friend referred, but more still are members of the Ravidassia community in Strood.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. Two Members are standing.

[Mr Holloway]

I was so interested in what my hon. Friend was saying—that is what happened there. I am sorry, Dr McCrea.

[Mark Reckless]

My understanding was that the Government had given a commitment that it would bring in this order, so why has it not happened?

[Mr Holloway]

The Government will tell us in a moment, which is part of the reason why I have called this debate.

On 1 March, the Minister present made a statement. She announced that the Government were thinking of taking an educational approach to this and would use Talk for a Change. However, the NIESR criticised that, saying that it only raises awareness and does not assist people being discriminated against by their employer, nor by such things as day care centres.

The Government then asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review and make recommendations. In April 2013, the Minister was asked to sign the ministerial order and on 29 July, the Government published their caste discrimination legislation timetable. It will run up to and beyond the 2015 general election. On 5 February, the Begraj tribunal was abandoned, because the judge recused herself when she was told by a third party that a witness in the case had had their home smashed up by an unknown group. On 28 February, the EHRC published its two reports on the matter and called on the Government to add in the necessary protections on caste.

Let me just give a brief outline of caste in the UK. According to the 2011 census, about 4.5 million in this country are of south Asian origin. Of those, about 20% are from the untouchables, the Chamars, the Dalit community—I think it is about 860,000 people.

What is the Hindu caste system? Who are these 1 million Dalits in the UK and where do they fit in? Imagine a pyramid and at the very top, there are the gods, and then there are four castes. The top caste, the elite, are the Brahmins; these are the people who traditionally were the priests. Then there are the Kshatriyas; they are just below the Brahmins and were traditionally the warriors and the kings. Below them, there are the Vaishyas, who were the merchants and the farmers. Below them, at the bottom, there are the Shudras, who were the servants. Below even them, by this narrative, right at the very bottom—sometimes not even included in pretty pyramids like the one I have here in my notes—are the Dalits. They are known to some as the handlers of filth, or the untouchables.

This really is happening in the UK. After lunch, we were looking on Twitter. People can have a look themselves. They should look for “Brahmin for life”, “Jat for life” and “Brahmin boys look out for each other”. There are even dating websites. There is nothing wrong with that, but what about www.brahminmatrimony.com or this from www.asiansinglesolution.com? X is an

“Attractive, down to earth, caring, Hindu Brahmin girl with strong values and morals”.

As previously mentioned, 80% of the Dalits in the survey said that they did not believe that the police would understand if caste-based discrimination was reported to them.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend called for this debate. Does he share my concern at what I would characterise as the nonchalant, “Who cares?” ignorance of discrimination being pursued by the current Government’s policy in this regard? Somehow they believe that the discrimination that he has just spoken about will magically end at the workplace—that somehow because there is discrimination protection outside, we do not need to have any protections inside the workplace. Does he not think that that is nonchalant?

[Mr Holloway]

I will come on to that, and I know that the work that the Minister is doing also applies to it.

There has been recent court action. There was the successful case of Tirkey v. Chandok, in which the claim for caste discrimination was allowed. However, these are just what I think are called first instance decisions and are not binding. According to Swan Turton Solicitors, there was a conflicting ruling in an earlier case, Naveed v. Aslam, in which the tribunal rejected any claims for caste discrimination. It was stated that the reason was that the Government still had not exercised their power to amend section 9(5)(a) of the 2010 Act.

The simple fact is that at present, if a person in the UK is harassed because of their caste in places of employment or education or where they receive public services such as health and social care, there is no legislation in place to protect them. Let us not overstate this, but in the past few weeks I have repeatedly come upon people who have said, for example, that they feel like they are looked down on by members of what would be traditional castes. People have told me of their disapproval of inter-caste marriage. I have heard anecdotes about some people not having had the choice of marrying the person whom they would like to marry. I have even heard about people who have not felt welcome at certain places of worship.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I know that he is very well respected in the south Asian community in his constituency, which neighbours mine. Will he comment on what I have found? I do not know whether my experience is similar to his own. I am talking about just how shocking the caste system and discrimination within it can be. We see classism existing in every community, but this goes way beyond that to create a great deal of friction between different groups of people. Most concerns come from within those communities themselves.

[Mr Holloway]

That is a great point. What my hon. Friend is talking about is the fact that in our areas we have a lot of Sikhs, and of course among the central tenets of the Sikh faith are tolerance, equality and so on. I know that the Sikhs, certainly on our shared patch, are working on it, but this occurs far more widely across the south Asian communities in our country.

What is the reason for saying that we need some sort of legislation? It is as I have suggested. In the area of employment, there is the example of a manager of a bus company in, I think, Southampton who had to deal with a demand from someone that his shifts be changed so that he would not have to work with someone of a lower caste. Twenty per cent. of Dalits felt that they had been informally excluded from social events, informal networks and so on.

In the area of health, the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance reported a few cases. One related to an elderly woman who was being looked after. Her carer, who was from a “higher” caste, found an icon indicating that the person she was looking after was from a lower caste, and the son of the bedbound woman found that his mother had not been washed for a number of days. We have had examples of physiotherapists refusing to treat people of lower caste. In the area of marriage, we have heard of the Begraj case. We have heard of people feeling unable to marry outside their caste.

What could legislation do? It could send the message that castes have never existed in Britain and really should not. It would protect people in workplaces, schools, hospitals and so on.

The Government’s commitment on these issues has been welcomed by victims of caste discrimination and forms just one part of the wider reforms being put forward. The Home Secretary has outlawed forced marriages, which are, as she rightly put it,

“a tragedy for each and every victim”.

Female genital mutilation is also illegal in this country. I am not sure, therefore, that we can necessarily use the argument that we might upset certain people in the south Asian community.

I forewarned the Minister of these three questions. First, the Government have published a timetable for caste discrimination legislation. Why does it run up to and beyond the 2015 general election? Secondly, will the Government involve the relevant groups and communities in their preparation of the public consultation document? It would be very good to see the involvement of some of those groups in that consultation. Finally, in plain English, when will the consultation document be published; does the Minister expect any further delays?

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

The Minister will start her winding-up speech at the latest at two minutes past 5. She will have 10 minutes in which to wind up the debate.

16:56

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will be very brief so that the Minister will have plenty of time to reply. First, I pay enormous tribute to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) for securing this debate, for the way in which he has spoken on this subject today and for his willingness to grant me a few minutes of his time. I am very grateful for that.

I am one of the trustees of the Dalit Solidarity Network and a member of the all-party group for Dalits, the chair of which is Bishop Harries, a Member of the House of Lords. Together with the director of the Dalit Solidarity Network, Meena Varma, I have been to the United Nations in Geneva to raise issues of Dalit discrimination in India and many other places, but also, clearly, in this country.

I will briefly put on the record the enormity of the situation. Around the world, 260 million people are Dalits —scheduled castes. They suffer grievous discrimination, terrible poverty, appalling levels of crime committed against them and, in most of India and Nepal and other places, appalling standards of living. Every week, 13 Dalit people in India are murdered. Five Dalit homes are repossessed every week. Three women are raped every day. Eleven Dalits are beaten every day. A crime is committed against Dalit people every 11 minutes in India.

The Ambedkar constitution is an excellent document. Dr Ambedkar was himself a Dalit. It absolutely outlaws discrimination and has some provision for protected employment for people of the scheduled castes. It is a very effective document, but raising these matters with the Indian Government or the Indian high commission is extremely difficult; they are quite resistant to having good discussions about it.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, discrimination also exists in this country. There are roughly 1 million Dalit people in Britain. As a result of both the case that he brought up, which was one that we raised in Geneva at the UN Human Rights Council, and the debates that took place in advance of the Equality Act 2010, we are in a situation in which we are relying on the Government now to introduce regulation to put it on the face of the law in this country that it would be illegal to discriminate on the basis of caste.

In getting to this position, the Government of the day in 2010, the then Labour Government, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) as the Minister leading on the Bill, accepted an amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that required the Government to undertake research on caste discrimination in this country. That research demonstrated clearly that there is serious discrimination, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said, in terms, that the British Government had an obligation to introduce the legislation. The Minister, I am sure, will tell us that consultations are taking place. I agree with consultations; everything should be consulted on, but there should be a limit to the time in which that is done. I am very disappointed that, at the moment, the introduction of the regulation will take us past the end of this Parliament and into the next Parliament. I would like to see something done in this Parliament and I hope that the Minister will give us good news on that.

My final point is that it is never popular to stand up for people who have been grievously discriminated against. I am really pleased with the way in which a number of Members have raised the matter today. Discrimination is wrong in any circumstances and against anybody, and people should be treated with dignity and respect. Our purpose today is to get into British law that clear declaration; at the same time, that will give us the moral authority to talk to others about it. I hope that the Minister will agree to introduce regulations quickly. Above all, I hope she will agree to attend a meeting with the members of the all-party group, which I am sure others could also attend, so that we can have a longer discussion about the matter. The time has come to act and not delay.

17:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr McCrea. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) for securing the debate, and I thank other hon. Members who made important contributions.

The Government have always said that there is no place for unlawful discrimination or prejudice in society. That applies to caste-related issues as much as it does to race, religion or belief. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) drew attention to instances of caste hostility and prejudice in our society, and I would like to make it clear how much the Government sympathise with people in such situations. The experience of such antagonism and exclusion from one’s own community must be incredibly distressing. My hon. Friend and others have urged the Government to press on with introducing legislation to make caste discrimination unlawful, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.

Many hon. Members will recall caste being debated during deliberations on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill last year. It was the will of Parliament that a duty be imposed to make caste an aspect of race for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and we are well aware of that duty. However, we are also aware that during parliamentary debate on this matter, speakers from all the main parties acknowledged that caste was a particularly sensitive and complex area. Some have suggested that caste legislation should be easy to introduce, but that is simply not the case. There are a number of complexities, and there is no general consensus on caste in the UK, even among communities that are most affected by it. Some have campaigned long and hard for the introduction of specific caste-related legislation, but others—who are equally well informed—do not believe that caste discrimination exists and consider that legislation is, therefore, unnecessary. That does not negate the duty on the Government and the votes in Parliament last year, but it means that we need to prepare a consultation document which, as far as possible, commands the confidence of the relevant groups.

In July 2013, we set out our timetable leading up to the introduction of caste legislation. The process was thorough and detailed, and it was designed to ensure that future legislation was fit and proper. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has been helpful in taking the initiative forward. To start the process, the EHRC commissioned some independent research into identifying a possible definition of caste. The research was also to consider which of the current exceptions for race would apply equally to caste, and to identify whether any new caste-specific exceptions should be included in legislation. The research was intended to inform the contents of the Government consultation that was due to be issued in spring 2014. However, although the EHRC duly published its initial research reports in February 2014, two issues arose earlier this year that have had significant implications for the public consultation.

The first was the unanimous agreement that whatever we did, we did not want to entrench people’s identification with a specific caste within society. That is why a review clause was included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to allow for future consideration of any caste provisions to make sure that they remain appropriate and necessary. That clause cannot be exercised until at least five years after the Act comes into force, which it did in May 2013. The EHRC had originally intended to commission a second research phase that would establish much-needed baseline data that could be used as a starting point for consideration of whether caste legislation was doing its job and stopping unlawful discrimination. Unfortunately, on further consideration the EHRC felt that that research would not be possible and that it might be intrusive and ruin good relations in communities. We have discussed those problems with the EHRC and we are now deciding how best to establish baseline data. We are conducting a feasibility study on the matter.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

I am sorry, but I have no time and I have got a lot to talk about, so I will push on.

The second issue concerned a recent employment tribunal case, Tirkey v. Chandok, in which the tribunal found that caste already had legislative protection because it is inherently an aspect of the ethnic origins provision of race in the Equality Act. I want to make it clear that the finding of a single employment tribunal does not set any legally binding precedents for other tribunals. However, the decision reopens concerns that have been debated in Parliament about the extent to which the Government must recognise links between domestic equality law and our international obligations, the relationships between those obligations and future provisions covering caste discrimination, and how such provisions might be framed.

We believe that we need to address those two developments—the Tirkey case and the lack of baseline data—as thoroughly as possible for the purpose of the public consultation. We need to assess the feasibility of any further research into caste discrimination, given the limited success that previous researchers have had in producing clear, generally accepted evidence. We also need to assess the consequences if higher courts were to take the view that caste discrimination is already unlawful under the Equality Act, which might call into question the use of further, specific provision. That is why we have announced that the consultation will have to be put back until the autumn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham has asked me to deal with three questions, which I will go into in a little detail although not in the order that he mentioned them. He asked whether the Government would involve the relevant groups and communities in the preparation of the public consultation document. Many groups have recently had the opportunity to take part in the research commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which was published in the “Caste in Britain” reports. The Government have studied those carefully. I also look forward to the groups responding to the consultation and commenting on our proposals.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

No, I will not; I have very little time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham asked me to confirm when I expected the consultation document to be published, and whether I expected any further delays. We anticipate that the consultation will happen later in the autumn. I am as anxious as he is to get on with it, and I do not expect any further delays.

The final question my hon. Friend asked was about why the timetable goes beyond the general election in May 2015. We set the timetable purely and simply because we felt that that was a sensible amount of time in which to do the job properly. It is a complicated and sensitive matter and we have to be careful. At the end of the day, we want to get it right. The process includes two full public consultations followed by debates on an affirmative order; it will take some time to do that exercise correctly.

I accept that the delay will disappoint certain Members, and others, but our duty to the public is to ensure that any legislation that the Government introduce meets the mandate given to us by Parliament. In this case, we need to ensure that legislation would provide thorough and proper protection for all those who need it and that the ongoing need for and merits of that legislation can be thoroughly and properly evaluated. To do that properly may take a while, but it is essential to get the detail of such important matters right. I hope that hon. Members present, and others, will have the patience to wait until we are able to consult fully later on this year.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

Yes, I will now, and with pleasure.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very grateful. If I may, I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a direct question. She has talked through many reasons for delay; if the issue was discrimination based on gender or race, would she personally be as comfortable about the arguments for delay that she has presented today for those suffering discrimination based on caste?

[Mrs Grant]

All I can say is that I believe that any form of discrimination is absolutely unacceptable and I will seek to deal with it as quickly and effectively as possible. That relates to caste, colour, race or any form of discrimination, because it is abhorrent and I know how much hurt and damage it can cause.

Question put and agreed to.

17:12

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

Wednesday 9 July 2014

Chair of the National Audit Office (Appointment)

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

I am today pleased to announce, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that, following a selection process, the Lord Bichard KCB is the successful nominee for appointment as the next Chair of the National Audit Office, to succeed Professor Sir Andrew Likierman at the end of his term, from 1 January 2015.

In accordance with the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, Her Majesty the Queen by Letters Patent appoints the Chair of the National Audit Office. Her Majesty’s power is exercisable on an address of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister will, with the agreement of the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, on a date to be arranged, move a motion of this House that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint the Lord Bichard KCB to the Office of Chair of the National Audit Office.

Eighth Statement of New Regulation

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

The Government are today publishing the eighth statement of new regulation. This statement reports on regulations within the scope of the “one-in, two-out rule” which are expected to come into force between 1 July and 31 December 2014. The eighth statement shows that the sum total of Government deregulation from January 2011 to June 2014 is reducing the net annual cost to business by around £1.5 billion.

The statement also reports on over 150 red tape challenge measures expected to come into force. These include the scrapping of around 50 pieces of redundant legislation, the introduction of over 100 regulatory reforms and EU measures which are implemented by UK regulations.

In parallel, Departments are each publishing a summary of the regulations they intend to introduce.

I am placing copies of the statement in the Libraries of both Houses.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council will be on 14 July in Brussels. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will represent the UK.

There are both agriculture and fisheries items on this month’s agenda.

The Italian presidency will outline its work programme for the next six months.

On agriculture, there will be a policy debate on organic farming and further discussion of Council conclusions on the future of the dairy sector, which may be adopted.

On fisheries, there will be a presentation by the Commission on a consultation on fishing opportunities for 2015 followed by an exchange of views.

There are currently two any other business items:

Fisheries protocols with Morocco and Mauritania

Food control and food fraud.

Historical Role of UK Companies in Supplying Dual Use Chemicals to Syria

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Following Syria’s accession to the chemical weapons convention (CWC) last year, and as part of the process to eliminate its chemical weapons (CW) programme, Syria provided a confidential declaration to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which lists a number of states from which it obtained supplies of goods used in its CW programme.

The information in Syria’s declaration is classified under the terms of the CWC. However, I wish to inform the House that a review of our own files suggests that there were a number of exports of chemicals to Syria by UK companies between 1983 and 1986 which were likely to have been diverted for use in the Syrian programme.

These exports were:

several hundred tonnes of the chemical dimethyl phosphite (DMP) in 1983 and a further export of several hundred tonnes in 1985;

several hundred tonnes of trimethyl phosphite (TMP) in 1986;

a smaller quantity of hydrogen fluoride (HF) in 1986 through a third country.

All these chemicals have legitimate uses, for example in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. However, they can also be used in the production of sarin. DMP and TMP can also be used for the production of the nerve agent VX. That is why the export of such goods is strictly prohibited under the UK export regime introduced since the 1980s and progressively strengthened.

From the information we hold, we judge it likely that these chemical exports by UK companies were subsequently used by Syria in their programmes to produce nerve agents, including sarin.

Some of the companies involved no longer exist. Furthermore, some of the chemicals in question may have been sourced by a UK chemical trader, rather than produced in the UK.

The review of our records also confirmed an export of ventilation fans by a UK company to Syria in 2003. The fans were not controlled goods. Following an enquiry by the exporter, officials considered the export under licensing procedures, and insufficient grounds for refusal were found. Syria appears to have diverted these fans for use in a chemical weapons facility.

In the early 1980s, the exported chemicals were not subject to any international or UK export controls. However, knowledge of these exports, and growing concerns that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was developing a chemical weapons capability, helped prompt the introduction of tighter controls, both in the UK and internationally.

The export of goods (control) order was amended to control DMP in July 1985, and TMP and HF in June 1986.

There has been a complete overhaul of export control legislation, policy and practice since the 1980s, designed to ensure that such exports could not happen today. The UK operates a robust export control regime, and takes international obligations on this issue very seriously.

Key instruments and legislation include:

The chemical weapons convention. The Chemical Weapons Act 1996 implements the provisions of the convention which imposes specific controls on the transfer of certain chemicals including DMP and TMP.

The development of the Australia Group, of which the UK was an original member in 1985. As a matter of routine, all changes to the Australia Group control lists are reflected in UK national export controls. It controls trade in HF as well as DMP and TMP.

The Export Control Act 2002. Replacing legislation passed in 1939, the current legislation provides for controls on the export and brokering of listed goods and technologies, in addition to controls on unlisted items where it is believed they may be intended for use in weapons of mass destruction programmes.

Furthermore, the EU has developed EU-wide controls on the export of dual-use goods, including chemicals. Our ability to control exports is underpinned by the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, adopted by the UK in 2000 and updated in March 2014. The criteria set a clear basis for the assessment of export licences. This is undertaken on a case-by-case basis taking account of all available information.

Today, the UK is playing its full part in the international effort to eliminate Syria’s programme. As the House is already aware, the UK is accepting 150 tonnes of B precursors from the Syrian chemical stockpile for destruction. I can today also inform the House that in addition to those chemicals, a further 50 tonnes of the industrial chemicals hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride will also be destroyed in specialised commercial facilities in the UK. We expect the ship transporting all these chemicals to arrive in the UK next week. The Members of Parliament in whose constituencies destruction will take place have been informed.

Overseas Territories: Economic and Environmental Development

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I would like to inform the House of three important developments that will benefit the British overseas territories and British overseas territories citizens. This Government set out, in our 2012 White Paper, a vision for the overseas territories to be vibrant and flourishing communities. We established a joint ministerial council, bringing together UK Ministers and territory leaders and representatives, to drive forward implementation of our strategy.

I am delighted that from 9 June 2014 the European Union has agreed visa-free travel to the Schengen area for British nationals who are not citizens of the United Kingdom (this includes British overseas territory citizens, British subjects, British overseas citizens, and British protected persons). This decision will enable nearly 300,000 British nationals from the territories to travel freely on British overseas territories citizen passports in 30 countries in Europe. British overseas territories citizens can already visit the UK without visas. Most British overseas territories citizens are also British citizens. The EU’s decision reflects the successful conclusion of three years of negotiations involving the UK Government, territory Governments and the European Commission.

I am also pleased to inform you that United Kingdom Trade and Investment (UKTI) has made arrangements to provide their overseas market introduction service (OMIS) to companies located in the overseas territories from June 2014. This service is chargeable and assists companies to access the right international contacts or partners, find the best way to do business in a market and help to penetrate new markets. UKTI experts can also advise on local conditions including competitors, regulations and accessing and influencing decision makers.

Finally, I am pleased to announce that the third round of the Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund, known as Darwin Plus, was launched on 22 May. This initiative currently supports 29 projects in the territories to a value of approximately £4 million. In all of this, the UK Government remain committed to the development of strong and sustainable local economies, with flourishing communities, and setting world standards in our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environments in the overseas territories.

Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

In my statement to the House on 7 July I announced that I was establishing an independent inquiry panel of experts in the law and child protection to consider whether public bodies—and other, non-state, institutions—have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. I undertook to report back when the inquiry panel chairman and terms of reference for the review have been agreed. I wish to inform the House that I have now appointed the right hon. Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE to chair the independent inquiry panel. Baroness Butler-Sloss brings with her many years of experience in the field of child protection and law, and I am confident that she will deliver the thorough, robust and independent review that I have promised.

To ensure that the terms of reference for the inquiry are sufficient to deliver the robust review which is required I have asked that Lady Butler-Sloss agree the final terms of reference with the full panel, when appointed. The inquiry will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of other members of the panel and I shall provide a further update in due course.

Presumption of Death Act 2013

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy, Lord Faulks, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

I am pleased to announce that I have made a commencement order, “The Presumption of Death Act 2013 (Commencement and Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014”, bringing the remaining provisions of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 into force on 1 October 2014.

Grand Committee

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 9 July 2014.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:58

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond) (LD)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the House the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:58

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

My Lords, I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They make consequential and supplementary changes to primary legislation to support the clarified definition of money purchase benefits in Section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011.

A further, and more detailed set of regulations, The Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional, Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014, deal with consequent changes to secondary legislation. These were laid before Parliament on 3 July 2014. Both sets of regulations will come into force at the same time as the clarified definition in Section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011.

The clarified definition of money purchase benefits will ensure that only benefits which cannot develop a deficit in funding can be money purchase benefits. Noble Lords may be familiar with the decision of the Supreme Court in 2011, in the case of Houldsworth and another v Bridge Trustees Ltd, that certain benefits which could develop funding deficits or surpluses could still fall within the definition of money purchase benefits.

While this decision concerned two specific types of benefit structure found in a particular scheme, it created widespread uncertainty in the pensions industry. That was because the decision could also be interpreted as covering other types of benefits and place these outside the protection of the regulatory framework for benefits that are not money purchase, even though they had the potential to develop funding deficits.

Section 29 of the Pension Act 2011, which has retrospective effect, and the supporting regulations remove that uncertainty. Where in the past decisions have been made by schemes that are in keeping with the clarified definition, the retrospective effect of Section 29 will ensure they remain valid, despite the fact that those decisions may be incompatible with the Supreme Court’s judgment. Where decisions have been made that are inconsistent with the clarified definition there is transitional provision in the regulations so that schemes will not need to unpick past decisions. Going forward, however, it is important that the trustees and managers of schemes know what action they need to take in respect of benefits they have previously treated as money purchase, but which do not meet the clarified definition. That will ensure that their members are protected.

In particular, these regulations amend Section 84 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to provide an alternative method for trustees or managers to revalue certain types of benefits known as cash balance benefits. The cash balance method allows the sum available for a cash balance benefit for a deferred member to be revalued by any method that is applied to the benefits of active members where it cannot be calculated by reference to the salary.

The regulations also include decisions made by the board of the Pension Protection Fund that relate to benefits affected by the clarified definition as matters that are reviewable under Schedule 9 to the Pensions Act 2004. That will ensure that during the transitional period, where the board has exercised discretion as to whether to treat benefits as money purchase benefits, that decision can be challenged and subject to a formal review process.

The Government have worked closely with the pensions industry to identify the type and number of schemes that will be affected by the clarified definition of money purchase benefits. The majority of schemes will be hybrid schemes—that is, they will contain a mixture of money purchase and non-money purchase benefits. Hybrid schemes make up about 2% of the estimated 40,000 private occupational schemes in the UK which include money purchase benefits—that is, approximately 800 schemes.

I commend the Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014 to the Grand Committee and ask its approval to implement them.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this technical debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the defined benefit superannuation scheme of the General Medical Council, so unfortunately I know nothing about money purchase schemes. I did try, honestly—I took home the 36-page judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, and read it carefully until Germany scored the second goal. I still do not understand the noble and learned Lord’s reasoning, but I am sure that it is sound.

I hope that the Minister can help me. I understand that we are dealing with two sets of statutory instruments. The department deserves credit for taking on board the suggestion made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of teasing out the negative from the affirmative. That is always good practice. However, I do not know where the transitional regulation, Regulation 1711, comes from. I assumed that it would have been sensible to have taken these together because they talk about the same thing and are all part of a piece. However, I may have missed something and the Minister might be able to put me right on the procedure that is involved.

This is a small but important issue and anyone who looks at it will be reminded of the ineffable complexity of our pensions system. I have to say that although this is the right thing to do and I am content with the regulations, they form another layer of complexity—because they have to. If money purchase is not defined in this way, it would leave a terrible amount of uncertainty. If people do not understand a valid, watertight description of money purchase, chaos will ensue. Lots of schemes could get into even greater difficulties in the future.

We always have to be careful about retrospective provision. These regulations go back to 1 January 1997. I understand perfectly why and, in the circumstances, that is justified, but, as I say, we must always be careful about retrospective provision. However, I think this is the right tactic. It is not perfect because retrospection never is, but the stated case is accepted, certainly as far as I am concerned. Clarity is the order of the day, as much as we can achieve it in pension provision.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Some of these things are imponderable because the data are not available in money purchase schemes to the same extent as in defined benefit schemes, but the number of affected schemes has been listed as being around 800. Is there an update on that figure and is there now a better definition? Has the number gone up or down since these matters started to be drawn up by the department? I also want to try to understand what the costs of non-compliance would amount to. What is the worst that could happen? If everything that can go wrong does go wrong, what would happen to hybrid schemes such as these which involve money purchase in a way that we have to change through these regulations?

As the chairman of a superannuation scheme myself, the key and overriding priority of a trustee is to protect the members’ benefits. Are there any circumstances where benefits afforded to members could be prejudiced by these changes? I have looked at the very helpful Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 19 explains the provisions of,

“transitional measures to assist affected schemes in three ways”.

The first bullet point talks about,

“retrospective protection so that schemes do not have to revisit past decisions”,

and goes on to conclude that,

“there is very likely to be no detrimental material impact on member benefits”.

That is a nuanced subordinate clause, and perhaps it has to be so. I would rather have the truth than be given a more definitive statement that was easier to understand and more reassuring. However, that is a key question for me. If I could be given some reassurance on that point, I would be even happier than I am at the moment.

Finally, I think that the consultation was exemplary. I looked at the document very carefully and the department did everything it could. The consultation was responded to well and those who did respond are experts who know the exact consequences of these changes. For me, that has lifted a great deal of concern and apprehension about the effects of these changes. These regulations reflect circumstances that no one could have foreseen and the Government have responded to them in the best way they can. The situation is still a bit fuzzy at the edges, but I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the appropriate officials who understand these things will monitor the position so that we can be assured in the fullness of time that the assumptions we are making of very little or no loss of benefit to individual members are found to be what happens in practice in the future.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a trustee of both the Santander and Telefónica pension schemes.

This statutory instrument has been on a rather interesting journey. In part it supersedes draft regulations published in May, which were withdrawn and subsequently divided into two in order to separate provisions required to go through affirmative procedure from those required to go through negative procedure. It has therefore been a little confusing to try to anticipate the affirmative provisions to be relaid in the form of a pared-down instrument, as this SI was not laid until last Thursday. Having said that, I appreciate that dealing with the uncertainties and complexities that flow from the Supreme Court decision in Bridge cannot have been straightforward for the Government. I compliment the drafters of the Explanatory Memoranda and the impact assessment, who tried to provide clarity as to what the Government intend and why, in what to most normal people would seem a rather dense and complex set of requirements.

The two regulations have separate Explanatory Memoranda, but they share a common impact assessment, so one can assume that certain key assumptions and conclusions underpin both orders. I refer in particular to the fact that, having considered the consultation responses, the department has changed its policy on retrospection for non-compliant schemes. Decisions taken by schemes between 1 January 1997 and the coming into force of Section 29 will be validated, except in two limited circumstances that relate to winding up and employer debt, where there is a risk to members’ benefits.

The department has been persuaded that it would therefore be unduly burdensome to require schemes to revisit past decisions, which could give rise to expensive administrative costs that could deplete scheme assets and therefore the ability to fund members’ benefits—that is the argument put by the Government—and that the impact of members’ benefits of revisiting past decisions since July 2011 would be negligible. In summary, the Government are persuaded that with two exceptions, Section 29 will come into force only with prospective effect; there will be retrospective protection for schemes and past decisions will be validated.

However, in coming to that view and giving that retrospective protection to decisions made, the department is unable to quantify the impact of the regulations on schemes likely to be affected. There are no data available at an industry-wide level. The consultation did not elicit sufficient data at scheme level to allow the department to produce reliable estimates of the impacts on schemes and on members—and indeed, on employers. The department engaged further through the pensions regulator’s annual survey and the wider pensions industry to enable some quantification of costs and benefit. However, insufficient information was forthcoming.

A question must be, therefore: are the Government right to be persuaded, and indeed confident, that except in the defined limited circumstances that they have identified, there is negligible risk to members’ benefits in validating decisions taken by schemes before the coming into force of Section 29? Should there be more exceptions to the retrospective validation? How do the Government give themselves the level of confidence they need to give that retrospective validation? I will illustrate my concern with reference to a couple of examples.

The very important rules which govern any attempts to change pension rights or entitlements are detailed in Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995, popularly referred to as “Section 67 rights”—an often quoted phrase because of its protected nature. During the course of the consultation on the regulations arising from the Pensions Act 2011, stakeholders advised the department that there could be schemes which had inadvertently changed their benefits from non-money purchase to money purchase; for example, by removing a guarantee from a cash balance scheme because of their interpretation of the law in force at the time. In doing so they may not have secured the members’ consent as is required.

The department has taken the view that schemes should not be required to revisit these decisions and that it would deem that the requirements of Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 had been satisfied where the actuarial equivalence requirements were met before such a scheme modification took effect. But those actuarial equivalence assumptions may not hold good over the longer term, and the issue remains that a guarantee or some other right has been removed without consent. The Section 67 requirements have not been met and the beneficiaries may be worse off.

16:15

We have little information on these breaches and yet the regulations amend the requirements of Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995. Traditionally, Governments, including this one, have been reluctant to override Section 67 rights—for good reasons—but appear to be doing it in this instance. Does the Minister not agree that this could be seen as a worrying precedent, particularly by those who are concerned that members’ Section 67 rights are not tampered with, prejudiced or undermined?

Another example arises from the regulations modifying the retrospective application of winding-up legislation to schemes that have made decisions on a basis incompatible with Section 29, which gives the definition of the distinction between money purchase and non-money purchase, such that wind-ups that commence before the coming into force date are not required to be reopened unless the winding-up is under way at commencement in limited, prescribed circumstances.

The impact assessment refers to non-money purchase members who have taken early retirement as a class of member that could benefit from requiring schemes to revisit past winding-up decisions, but then adds:

“Even these members could only benefit where the amount of money available increases to a level above the Pension Protection Fund minimum, but below their full entitlement”.

The impact assessment is in effect saying that because the revisiting of a wind-up decision would increase such members’ benefits only to a level above the PPF level of compensation and not back to their full entitlement, that in itself is an acceptable reason for wind-up decisions not to be revisited. I ask the Minister: is taking such a subjective view of the value of the lost benefit an acceptable premise for giving retrospective protection to schemes?

Turning to the exact content of the order before us today, it is clearly understandable why it should not apply to the Imperial Home Decor pension scheme. It is also understandable why the list of matters relating to decisions made by the PPF that are subject to review should be extended to include directions made about whether any benefits affected by the Section 29 definition should be treated as money purchase benefits for the transitional period.

On that point, some DC schemes will have to totally “flip”—a word I have borrowed from the department—to being DB schemes that cannot qualify for access to the PPF before 1 April 2015 and whose members will not be covered by a protection regime during this period. This could, I assume, put the Government in breach of their obligations under Article 8 of the European Union’s relevant insolvency directive. I ask the Minister: if the employer supporting such a flipping scheme were to become insolvent between July 2014 and April 2015, what action would the Government take to protect those members in line with their obligations under the relevant directive?

Finally, on the matter of cash-balance benefits, which are non-money purchase benefits based on a promise in relation to a pot of money accumulated, the requirement to revalue the benefit for members who have left the scheme is in line with the annual revaluation order and can be complex—as was that sentence, try as I did to make it less complex. Basically, there was an entitlement to have benefits revalued in line with a certain order, and I accept that that requirement can be complex.

I agree that it seems sensible for the Government to provide clarity in the regulations to allow for a cash-balance method of revaluation based on a more simple formula, for which the order makes provision —in effect, a flat-rate formula that provides for active and deferred members to be treated in the same way. However, I remain concerned on this retrospective point. There are schemes which have had revalued deferred benefits in a way which is incompatible with the Section 29 definition. Some members may consequently receive lower-value benefits. I accept that it may be possible that some receive higher-value benefits as a result. However, this is another instance where retrospection protection is given to revaluations which have not been compatible with the Section 29 definition.

I understand the complexities, and trying to construct this speech so that it did not sound too complex was a challenge in itself. I remain concerned at how the Government accord themselves a level of confidence at which they can say that, in giving this retrospective protection, the disregard on members’ benefits is negligible.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake has made an exhaustive study of this complicated matter. I certainly do not have her kind of in-depth understanding. I came this afternoon because I am interested in what happens to members of DB schemes who have been concerned that the various changes would threaten the safety of their benefits.

As we have heard this afternoon, there have been quite heavy assurances from the Government that the protection of members is paramount to them; that is of course important. We have already heard that there have been assurances on retrospection. The changeover in some schemes from non-money purchase into money purchase can give rise to uncertainty and a lack of assurance among the people receiving it. I am therefore interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to my noble friend, who has raised these points sharply and with great clarity. It is necessary when you are making adjustments in pension benefits in whatever area to make sure that people who are on the receiving end are confident that what they have been paying for and supporting all their lives will be safe. That is terribly important.

We understand that the Government have given assurance both in relation to protection under the ECHR, which is important, and to general protection as well as protection of some means of challenging if people feel concerned and are not happy about what is happening. I await with interest what the Minister has to say in response to the issues which have been raised, which are very pertinent in the circumstances.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations and for explaining how we got to this place, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for some very good questions, and my noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Turner for raising some significant concerns.

There has rightly been a long consultation on this issue, and it is right that the Government have taken the time to listen to a wide range of voices, particularly regarding the retrospective nature of the changes, the significance of which has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and others. While on one level these are very technical changes—I say to my noble friend Lady Drake that, being a relatively normal person as far as pensions are concerned, if in no other respect, I found that “complex” did not begin to describe my emotions—sadly, I felt the same way as Brazil when I was reading these. None the less I confess that the questions I am asking the Minister are quite genuine and I will find the answers fascinating, because I certainly do not pretend to understand the exact implications of what is happening here.

As my noble friend Lady Drake explained, the original draft SI was withdrawn after being challenged by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It has been replaced by two orders: this affirmative draft instrument and a negative instrument, the Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional, Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014, to which I shall refer from now on as the negative instrument, if noble Lords will bear with me. Those two orders are completely intertwined. Indeed, the Government issued a single impact assessment covering both. Therefore I hope that the Minister will forgive me if some of my questions end up straying into that territory. I simply want to understand the settlement that the Government reached, and inevitably the ground is split in practice between the two instruments.

On commencement, my noble friend Lady Drake explained that these regulations will apply primarily with prospective effect, with the exception of two limited circumstances relating to winding up and to employer debt where there is a risk to member benefits. However, there will be retrospective protection for the affected pension schemes, with earlier decisions effectively being validated. The key effects of that of course—as has been mentioned—are on schemes that switch from being money purchase to defined benefit, with all the significant regulatory, governance and funding implications that that switch carries. There is also the effect on wind-ups and administration and the impact on employer debt. The Government originally intended that the provisions should all be retrospectively applied, but changed their position on consultation. The Government response to the consultation on the definition of money purchase schemes says at paragraph 50:

“However the Department has been persuaded that, where there is negligible risk to member benefits, it would be unduly burdensome to require schemes to revisit past decisions. This would give rise to expensive administrative costs that could deplete scheme assets and therefore, the ability to fund members’ benefits”.

Paragraph 51 continues:

“Nevertheless, where there is a real risk to member benefits, it is right that the legislation provides that employers fund a scheme deficit if a scheme is underfunded on wind-up, or if the scheme is unable to put in place a recovery plan”.

The response goes on to explain that in practice the transitional regulations validate the actions of trustees or managers in respect of those non-money purchase benefits, except in limited circumstances.

If that is the basis of the transitional protection that is being offered by the Government, can the Minister tell the Grand Committee a bit more about the basis of their assessment? The impact assessment says that,

“there is insufficient information available to accurately estimate the number of schemes affected by these regulations”.

It goes on to say that there are approximately 40,000 private occupational pension schemes in the UK that include money purchase benefits, of which about 2% are hybrid schemes.

The impact assessment says that during the consultation the department held four stakeholder forum events, with more than 100 stakeholders in attendance. It had 95 responses to the consultation document. The department also made direct approaches to relevant organisations, including employer representative bodies. As my noble friend Lady Drake mentioned, it also went out and made direct attempts to get data, in order to better understand this. However, paragraph 25 of the impact assessment says:

“Despite these efforts the Department is unable to quantify the impact of the regulations on the schemes that are likely to be affected. There is no data available at an industry-wide level and the consultation did not elicit sufficient data at scheme level to allow us to produce reliable estimates of the impacts on schemes, employers or members”.

However, the Government were obviously given a pretty clear steer by the industry that the consequences of retrospection would be significant, because the impact assessment says at paragraph 30:

“The Department have taken into account the strongly expressed views of those in the industry. Having carefully considered these responses, the Department is persuaded that this change to the policy”—

as was quoted—

“will not appreciably increase risk to members’ entitlement or make any material difference to members’ pension outcomes, given the protections put in place through these regulations”.

My noble friend Lady Turner said that she was pleased the Government were able to give assurances that members would not find their benefits being affected. However, I have to ask—along with my noble friend Lady Drake—how the Government can be confident that the risk to members’ entitlements is negligible and will not increase appreciably, when they are unable to quantify even the number of schemes affected, never mind the number of members, and when they do not seem to have been able to gather any data about what the quantum of that effect might be. I understand that they are in a difficult position, but I wonder what degree of confidence the Government have, and therefore what degree of assurance the Minister can offer the House through this Grand Committee, that these regulations will have the effects that the Government believe they will.

16:29

I look next at timing. The plan is to give a reasonable period for effectively newly DB schemes to comply with existing legislative requirements. It is proposed that 2015-16 will be the first year that the PPF levy will apply to them. They will not have to appoint actuaries until October. The effective date at which assets and liabilities are valued is within 12 months of coming into force, and valuation must be completed within 15 months. I understand the rationale for the first two, on the levy year and the actuaries, but can the Minister explain why the Government felt it necessary to allow 27 months for affected schemes to comply with existing funding requirements?

Despite having read all three instruments, the Explanatory Notes and the impact assessments, I have ended up being unable to work out if there are any losers and, if so, who they might be and what they might lose. Can the Minister shed any more light on that? Which groups of beneficiaries have the potential to lose out as a result of these changes and the decision on retrospection and transitional protection? My noble friend Lady Drake gave some interesting examples, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to her. I would also be grateful for any further light he can shed on that.

Then there is a question of the definition of money-purchase benefits. The Government introduced a new definition in Section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011. That new statutory definition will not come into force until the regulations are in force, but it will then apply retrospectively from 1 January 1997. As I understand it, that means that benefits that have been administered and communicated to members as money-purchase benefits will become defined benefits. If so, that raises a number of questions. Will the trustees of a newly DB scheme have to pursue former employers who left without paying a Section 75 buyout debt, or whose debt was calculated without regard to the formerly DC assets and liabilities? Will trustees of a newly DB scheme have to revisit past valuations to ensure that they pick up former DC assets and liabilities and include those assets and liabilities in future valuations, even though that could add materially to the costs?

If members of a new DB scheme were told that their contributions to a DC scheme brought benefits which would get top priority were the scheme to wind up, and that these benefits would now be reduced due to a deficit on the DB scheme, how should any claims from members be addressed? On the Pension Protection Fund, what assessment have the Government made of the impact on the PPF levy going forward?

Finally, trustees of newly DB schemes will need to decide how they will administer the scheme between now and when the new statutory definition comes into force. They are in a strange position: their scheme is currently a DC scheme, but they know that it will probably become a DB scheme with effect from 1997. Obviously, it is welcome that these regulations provide a degree of clarity, but can the Minister elaborate on any advice that his department has offered or is offering on these issues? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, a number of questions have been asked. I have counted 19, which compares to the five that were asked when these regulations were scrutinised in the other place. I am sure that that is a reflection of the quality and expertise, if not the viewing habits, of the members of the respective committees. I confess that at one point last night I was not sure whether the scoreline reflected the football match I was watching or the judgment of the Supreme Court which happened to be open on my lap at the same time.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

That was 4-1.

[Lord Bates]

At half time.

There are many questions and I want to try to address as many of them as possible to get the responses on the record for people to scrutinise. First, my noble friend Lord Kirkwood asked how many schemes were affected by the clarified money-purchased benefits definition. It has not been possible to quantify the exact number of the affected schemes as trustees and scheme managers are only required to make detailed reports to the pensions regulator on benefits that they consider to be non-money purchase. Schemes are not required to provide detailed reports of benefits that they consider to be money purchase, so any information held by the regulator here is self-reported by the scheme on a voluntary basis.

We consulted extensively on this point, and the regulator has also tried to secure additional data. However, stakeholders have been unable to share with us the detailed scheme-level data because that information is sensitive and restricted. A small number of consultation responses indicated the size of the scheme and the potential costs involved. However, the information is not representative of all the schemes affected, and cannot be reliably used to produce an aggregate estimate. The DWP continues to work with the regulator to identify and communicate with effective schemes to establish more comprehensive data on how many schemes are to be affected.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood also asked whether with the new definition the Government are adding costs and increasing the administrative burden on the schemes. I can assure my noble friend that that is not the case. Although the clarified definition is retrospective to 1 January 1997, in most cases the regulations modify the retrospective application of regulatory legislation so that schemes will not need to look back at events where benefits could fall into a category affected by the Bridge judgment or the clarified definition in Section 29. The clarified definition will mean that the member benefits are protected. The transitional measures will bring schemes into compliance, are proportionate and bear in mind the risks and the burdens on members, schemes and employers. We believe that that is the sensible approach, precisely because the Government want to minimise the additional requirements on schemes without jeopardising the protection of the scheme’s members.

My noble friend also asked why the Government insisted on a change of definition, and asked whether the Supreme Court decision was wrong. The Supreme Court judgment concerned two specific scheme benefit types: benefits which provided a guaranteed pot, otherwise known as cash balance benefits, and pensions in payment from schemes derived from money purchase benefits, both of which the court decided could be money purchase. The decision meant that some guaranteed benefits from outside the regulatory regime conflicted with the Government’s view of what constituted a money purchase benefit.

Why are the regulations not together? The department’s advice was that both sets of regulations would be debated together subject to the affirmative procedure. However, following comment from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the department decided to split the regulations. However, we expect that because both sets are closely linked together, the discussion will encompass transitional arrangements for both regulations.

I have addressed the question of why there are two separate regulations, but I will add one additional point. It has been necessary to divide regulations in that way because the primary legislation under which the regulations have been made—Section 33 of the Pensions Act 2011—provides a different parliamentary procedure for regulations which amend primary legislation. I appreciate that that procedural requirement has not made discussion and debate in this area easier, but I am happy for this debate to encompass both sets of regulations, as it has already done. On why the clarified definition of money purchase benefits is retrospective to 1 January 1997, the Government have decided on retrospection to that date so that the effect of the clarified definition coincided with the inception of key pension protection legislation. Provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 largely came into force in April 1997, hence the chosen date, but retrospection was set up on 1 January 1997 as the financial assistance scheme eligibility began for schemes which started winding up from that date. However, since the Pensions Act 2011 was passed, we have no evidence that any of the schemes in this position would have been affected by the Bridge Trustees judgment or Section 29.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether there was a pre-existing requirement to have benefits valued consistently with legislative requirements in the past. Some schemes may have valued in a way that was not consistent with those requirements. Evidence from the consultations showed that members’ benefits which here are affected by Section 29 and the regulations might have been revalued by the application of notional interest or investment return. It is possible that this would have been less than revaluation in accordance with statutory requirements. However, we had to balance the protection of members against avoiding administrative complexity for schemes. Evidence suggested that the cost of applying revaluation arrangements would outweigh the benefit to members.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also asked what the new cash balance method was. The new cash balance method is based on an existing flat rate method, which requires deferred members to receive any increases that they would have received if they had still been active members of the scheme. She also asked why there is no requirement to revisit the scheme if it is wound up. If the scheme is still being wound up at the time that the regulations come into force and is underfunded, trustees will be required to revisit an employer debt before the regulations come into force. If the scheme has completed winding up when the regulations come into force, there is no scheme in existence to unwind; all the assets of the scheme have been dispersed. The regulations therefore do not require a scheme that has completed winding up to be unpicked.

A question was asked about why schemes newly eligible for the Pension Protection Fund will not be treated as such until 1 April 2015. That date marks the beginning of the first full levy year after these regulations are planned to be in force. The delay will allow the schemes time to correctly determine whether they are eligible for the fund and to carry out the necessary valuations on which the first levy bill will be based. It also ensures that schemes will not be required to pay the levy in respect of past periods. It would not be fair to other levy payers to provide protection for an earlier period for a scheme that has not paid any levy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the question of flipping. The department’s consultation exercise did not identify any scheme that will become newly eligible for the Pension Protection Fund that has a sponsoring employer likely to become insolvent in that small window of time. If such an event does occur, the Government will give consideration to the most appropriate way of protecting scheme members. It would therefore not be fair to other pension protection levy payers to protect the members of a scheme in respect of a period of time when the scheme had not paid into any levy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether once the regulations are in force it would still be possible to change the scheme benefits without member consent from one form of non-money purchase arrangement to another with a lesser benefit promise. A change of this nature—a detrimental modification under Section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995—would still be subject to a requirement that the value of the members’ rights or benefits was not less than before the change. If this requirement were not met, the change would be subject to being made void by the Pensions Regulator.

The noble Baroness also suggested that there were insufficient data for the Government to be able to conclude that there will be a negligible effect. Section 67 will continue to apply except in very limited circumstances where schemes have changed benefits from cash balance to money purchase. This circumstance is catered for in the negative set of regulations, which require the actuarial calculation between cash balance and benefits collected in the money purchase schemes to be maintained. In addition, the trustee approval and reporting requirements must have been satisfied.

The point was made that retrospection makes these regulations too complex. The clarified definition, when in force, will be retrospective to 1 January 1997. Retrospection to January 1997 is needed to protect the position of schemes that had taken decisions in accordance with the clarified definition in Section 29—that is, not in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment—but for schemes that have acted in accordance with the judgment, these regulations modify the application of regulatory legislation with retrospective effect and for the transitional period where necessary. The regulations cover the many different types of pension arrangements that currently exist and which could have been affected by the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of Section 29.

16:45

I shall come shortly to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked how many schemes would be affected during the transitional period. The negative regulations contain detailed provisions to cover the transition from compliance with money purchase regulatory requirements; for example, Regulation 68 provides for the schedule of payments to remain in place until a first schedule of contributions is prepared.

On the noble Baroness’s point about advice for scheme members, we are working with the Pensions Regulator to provide information for trustees to cover that area. The noble Baroness asked who could lose out, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Schemes may face additional cost. We believe that we have taken a more balanced approach, to ensure member protection.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about commencement, retrospective protection for schemes, decisions being validated and how the department decided on these. It is correct that the Government have been unable to quantify the full impact. However, we have gathered data on the practices of affected schemes. Where schemes have provided benefits affected by Section 29, those benefits would have been treated as money purchase and would have been subject to fixed-rate and notional revaluation. Those benefits would not have been subject to transfer or in a scheme transferring to the Pension Protection Fund. They would have been paid in full. Therefore, we concluded that the measure was unlikely to have any detrimental effect on members.

On why 27 months are being given to comply with the existing funding requirements, this applies only to schemes that wholly flip from money purchase to defined benefit or hybrid schemes with money purchase benefits in them. They are treated as if they are a new scheme under the existing legislation and will have 27 months to take a revaluation and to put in place a recovery plan, if required, in accordance with the scheme funding requirements. However, this applies to ongoing schemes. If the scheme is a hybrid scheme and already undertaking scheme funding, it would carry over its responsibility for the existing scheme funding cycle. These measures were put in place to allow ongoing schemes enough time to undertake complicated and detailed actuarial evaluations required for scheme-funding purposes. Schemes that have been treated as money purchase will continue with their existing schedules of payments for contributions in respect of member benefits until a scheme funding contributions schedule is enforced within the 27-month period.

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about protection for people in defined benefit schemes and possible movement across. I can confirm that members of defined benefit schemes will still be subject to existing protection under their schemes.

I am grateful for the points that have been raised in this debate in relation to the regulations and more widely to the more detailed and linked regulations, the Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional, Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014. The two sets of regulations are inextricably linked in that, together, they support the clarified definition of money purchase benefits in Section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011, and it is right that we consider them together.

For the vast majority of schemes with benefits affected by the clarified definition of money purchase benefits, the two sets of regulations will be helpful and provide much-needed clarity about what is and is not a money purchase benefit. They will facilitate everyday decisions made by trustees and managers in running a pension scheme by setting out how and from when the existing legislation relating to benefits that do not meet the clarified definition of money purchase benefits must be applied.

Many in the pensions industry agree that clarity was needed following the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bridge Trustees and others. The Government have consulted widely and extensively with the industry and others in developing these regulations. By and large, the provisions within them have been welcomed. In the case of a small minority of schemes where representations have been made that these changes should not apply, the Government have worked closely with individual schemes in order to understand the reasons why. The Government are sympathetic to such representations and, as far as possible, easements have been made through transitional arrangements to facilitate such schemes to comply with the new requirements.

The Government also recognise that some trustees and others may have had a different understanding of money purchase benefits in the past. That is why the Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional, Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014 made detailed transitional provisions so that in the main such past decisions will not need to be revisited. The fundamental point here is that pensions law has a range of provisions that exist to protect members with pension benefits against the risk that their scheme is not able to meet the pensions promise. These include the statutory regulation of funding and the backstop of the Pension Protection Fund if sponsoring employers become insolvent and the schemes are underfunded.

Money purchase benefits fall outside this legislative protection, and that is why the Government have always taken the view that the term “money purchase benefits” should not refer to benefits where there is no risk of a funding deficit. For example, it is not appropriate to reopen the decisions made in relation to schemes that have completed their wind-up some years before or to require schemes to comply with scheme funding requirements going back in time. Further, it would not be practical to revisit past levy bills or valuations on re-entry into the Pension Protection Fund, as it was determined. If the Government had not acted following the judgment, members would have found that their schemes were unable to pay their benefits, but they would still not have been eligible for help from the Pension Protection Fund. It could also have led to anomalous results where the assets of schemes in wind-up were distributed. Similarly, if any scheme were to be exempted from the provisions in either set of regulations going forward, their members would not be protected. It is paramount that all members have the reassurance that their pensions will be protected if there is a risk of a deficit in the funds that they support.

It is also important that members, trustees and the wider pensions industry are clear about what the definition of money purchase benefits actually means in practical terms. These regulations provide that protection for members and give much-needed clarity about what action is going to be needed. At the same time, they provide transitional measures to ease the schemes and employers into the regulatory regime where they have previously not considered it to apply. For example, schemes that have not previously complied with scheme funding requirements are treated like new schemes and given 27 months to put in place appropriate scheme funding requirements which aim to ensure that the scheme is able sufficiently to fund benefits that have been guaranteed to members.

These draft regulations make modifications to the existing primary legislation to provide supplementary and consequential measures—

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, this may be an appropriate moment to intervene because I want to push the Minister on a couple of points. I have been trying to anticipate when he would be coming to the end of his remarks.

Perhaps I may go back to two points. First, Section 67 rights under the 1995 Act are pretty important rights that get people rather excited. The concern I was trying to express was that this seems to set the precedent that you can provide retrospective protection for schemes that have breached Section 67 rights and obligations. What level of assurance can the Minister give that this is not a precedent that could be used for undermining the strength of Section 67 in the future by giving retrospective protection?

Secondly, in terms of how this retrospective protection applies where schemes have breached Section 67, I should point out that the Government do not know which schemes have done this. They have just heard about this from the industry, so they are giving a sort of blanket assurance without knowing the number and type of breaches of Sections 67. If they do not meet the actuarial equivalence terms, it is not clear whether they will have to go back and redo it.

Thirdly, if they did it inadvertently, they probably did not do any actuarial equivalence exercise at the time. Is it therefore being said that they can do one with hindsight now, and can look back and say, “Had that been applied at the time”? It is quite important to get clarity on this Section 67 point, because there are lots of disputes and case law around it. It tends to get people who are interested in members’ benefits quite excited if there is an attempt to compromise it in some way.

On the flipping schemes, which are not protected in terms of access to the PPF until April 2015, I note that, as was said, if you have not paid the levy then the liability if your employer goes insolvent should not go to other levy payers. However, the issue is that it is a government responsibility, because the Government are obliged under the EU directive. I was looking for as firm an assurance as possible that, if an employer with a scheme that has to flip from DC to DB goes into insolvency before or up to April 2015, the Government will not walk away from giving some kind of protection to those schemes with DB benefits the members of which may now be caught outside the protection regime; hopefully there are none or, if there are, they are very tiny.

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful for those additional points. Let me try to answer them as best I can. It might be helpful if I wrote to the noble Baroness and shared those responses with the Committee. I realise that they are important issues.

To respond to the specific issue of Section 67 rights, the appropriate regulation is Regulation 8(3)(b). The Government believe that the protection is not undermined, because there must have been an actuarial equivalence. If they do not meet the actuarial equivalence requirements, they will have to go back and unpick them. In fact, the regulations introduce a new protection for members, which underpins the benefits. However, as I said, I shall seek further guidance on that and write to the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee.

These draft regulations make modifications to existing primary legislation to provide supplementary and consequential measures to support the coming into force of the clarified definition of money purchase benefits in Section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011. I hope that I have set out for the Committee the rationale for these regulations and have responded to the matters raised. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies (Abolition of Food from Britain) Order 2014

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

17:00

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Abolition of Food from Britain) Order 2014.

Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Committee, 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to introduce the Public Bodies (Abolition of Food from Britain) Order 2014. First of all let me explain why the Government have proposed to abolish the public body, Food from Britain. The rationale for this is quite straightforward and I can assure noble Lords that I am not actually abolishing all food from Britain, which might be a little more controversial than this order.

The Government have made a commitment to reduce the number of unnecessary public bodies. In July 2010, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defra announced proposals to reform a number of departmental public bodies. These included Food from Britain, which—if I can use inverted commas throughout—was set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1983. It operated between 1983 and 2009, focusing mainly on the promotion of UK food and drink exports. In 2008, the Food from Britain Council took the decision that the body should be administratively wound down, following a reduction in its grant in aid by the previous Administration. Food from Britain ceased its activities in March 2009. All the staff were made redundant and the body vacated its former offices in 2009. However, Food from Britain was not formally abolished at that time.

Although the legislation which provides for Food from Britain remains in force, the Government continue to have a legal obligation to publish annual reports and accounts. Despite having no activity to report, the cost of preparing and publishing the reports is in the region of £3,000 a year. Formal abolition of Food from Britain will eliminate this unnecessary cost. The Public Bodies Act 2011 provides the legislative mechanism for the Government to carry out reform of public bodies. Food from Britain is listed in Schedule 1 to that Act. This enables the Minister to lay an order under that Act to abolish it. This order, when made, will dissolve Food from Britain in law by repealing the legislation which first established it.

In accordance with the requirements of the Public Bodies Act, a UK-wide consultation was carried out in the autumn of last year. Having carefully considered the consultation responses, it is now proposed to repeal the legislation which provides for Food from Britain by an order under the Public Bodies Act. Ministers in the devolved Administrations have given their consent to the abolition of Food from Britain, as required under the Act. As Food from Britain is effectively defunct, its abolition will have no impact on jobs. However, it will remove an unnecessary public body from the legislative framework and will reduce costs to the taxpayer. Abolition of Food from Britain is a legal tidying-up exercise, but I can assure noble Lords that the Government are firmly committed to strengthening the UK food and drink industry.

The agri food and drink sector is already the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, supporting 3.6 million jobs and adding £97.1 billion to the economy. British food and drink is known throughout the world for having the highest standards of quality, safety and traceability. By increasing food and drink exports, the sector can grow further. My honourable friends the Defra Ministers have made it a priority to promote British food and drink at key international trade shows, and negotiate to remove trade barriers and open up new markets overseas. In 2013, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at Defra, Owen Paterson, visited China on two occasions to support UK produce and to negotiate market access. Last week, he was in the USA to discuss the opportunities the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership offers for our producers and exporters. My honourable friend the Farming and Food Minister George Eustice also visited the Gulfood trade fair in Dubai, in February, to promote UK food and drink. In 2013 Defra opened 112 new overseas markets for animals and animal products, increasing exports outside the EU by £179 million to £1.35 billion. Some 54 new markets have been opened in 2014.

UK Trade and Investment provides both potential and active food and drink exporters with a range of advice and assistance to help them take advantage of new markets, including providing funding to attend international trade fairs; organising international “meet the buyer” events; running GREAT week events in priority markets worldwide; and offering a range of seminars and advice.

In October 2013 Defra and UK Trade and Investment launched the UK Food and Drink—International Action Plan at the Anuga trade event in Cologne, the world’s largest food and drink fair. The plan sets out how the Government are working closely together with the industry to promote trade, break down barriers, open up new markets and champion what is great about British food and drink. The export action plan outlines, among other goals, an ambitious target jointly agreed by the Government and industry to add £500 million to the UK economy though assisting 1,000 UK food and drink companies with their international growth by October 2015. That is a 400% increase in support for the sector.

I hope that it has been helpful to give this explanation about the rationale for the abolition of the body entitled Food from Britain and the continuing support that the Government are giving to the food and drink sector. I commend this order to the Committee.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I remember Food from Britain very well. It appeared just before the introduction of milk quotas and has not quite been able to outlast quotas over the last 25 years. I declare my farming interest in a dairy farm.

I thank the Minister for her introduction and explanation of the order before the Committee. I am very happy to support the order to abolish the organisation Food from Britain. However, it is interesting to put it alongside the quota regime in its timing and duration. Agriculture has an almost universally recognised leadership as an industry for its productivity and efficiency improvements since the Second World War. Farmers are very good at producing, especially when working with science. However, they are somewhat less good at marketing their produce. Food from Britain represents one of the many and continuing ventures into marketing assistance.

As ever thus, as a non-departmental public body Food from Britain was brought to a close by the withdrawal of funding. Can the Minister say whether these organisations ought to have sunset clauses included in their set-up legislation to complete the administrative processes. However, it seems rather extravagant that the Ministry should agree with its order to pay £3,000 a year for a nil return from a defunct organisation.

The Explanatory Memorandum is excellent in explaining the tidying-up operation regarding pensions and the transfer of functions to other bodies. The legacy of Food from Britain is a good one. UK Trade and Investment, together with the Food and Drink Exporters Association, have collaborated to produce the UK Food and Drink—International Action Plan—although the Food and Drink Federation contends in its consultation submission that it was only the desire to tidy up administratively that led to this progress. Once again, sunset clauses would be a catalyst for improvement. The local and regional food marketing organisations also do an excellent job in these times of localism and evolution to local people and local funding.

Regarding the explanations in the memorandum concerning the protected food name scheme, I will ask the Minister one or two questions. Can she clarify Defra’s role under the scheme? Is it devolved? If it has a presence within Defra, is that as a proactive support to companies, regions or organisations in their plans for recognition, or as a certifying body to organisations in their applications for recognition at EU level—or, indeed, something else? Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum underlines that the legal ownership right to the name “Food from Britain” and the domain name, foodfrombritain.com, remain with Defra. That this is retained may signify that Defra recognises that it still has some value. Ministers may well have used the name Food from Britain in championing British food at international trade shows. Does Defra have any plans for the name, Food from Britain? Has it considered licensing the name for a fee or for a length of time, or even considered selling it? Does it intend to add value to UK food by the use of this name in any way?

While agriculture still needs marketing improvements, I am content that Defra has made the case for the abolition of Food from Britain. In conjunction with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I am happy that the abolition of Food from Britain will make a small contribution to improving the exercise of public functions.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had hoped that I had seen the last of this Room when I left the Government. I find it the most depressing place to work in the whole Palace of Westminster, but I wanted to come today to say a few words and, it turns out, to set the record right.

I am a great believer in Ministers being accountable to Parliament for the decisions that they take. There was never an opportunity to be accountable for this decision, which I personally took early in 2008. Defra was in real trouble. So bad was it that we had to revisit the budget for the year that we were in. The rationale had absolutely nothing to do with food policy. The fact is that I had to find in the area that I was responsible for some £4 million or £5 million of cuts.

I always said that I did not agree with top-slicing to cut budgets, because you end up cutting good things to protect the bad. I was always in favour of saying, “Let’s stop doing something”. I think that I was presented with three or four options—I have not been back to check because this is from memory. There were a couple of serious animal health issues that I had to keep in the budget. This body was a prime candidate for being cut—I did not want to do it, but I could not conjure up £5 million.

We looked at the effectiveness of the body. We have seen from the way in which the Minister has presented the overall issue of food—the phenomenal, record-breaking level of exports—that this is the biggest manufacturing industry that we have. It is very important, although I do not want to go down that road. But if this body appears on a list of quangos cut by the coalition on the basis that “We’re having a bonfire”, that is a lie that would be challenged and I do not want to start a row. As the Minister knows and as the memorandum says, the body ceased activity in 2009. All the staff were made redundant. It had nothing to do with the coalition Government. The fact is that the mechanism for winding it up was not there. I am just amazed that it took five years to get us to this point. In fact, I suspect that the memorandum before us has cost £5,000 to put together, let alone the money that has been spent on accounts for no reason.

This discussion also gives me an opportunity to say that, although I had representations from some of the regional groups, I owed an enormous debt to the chair of Food from Britain, who I recall was the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for the positive way in which she operated in this area. We had discussions about it. She went back to discuss it with the council and got the decision. I put it on record that she made my job a lot easier, because there was no great row about it ceasing activity.

The Explanatory Memorandum mentions that no one wanted to take over the work of Food from Britain because of TUPE. I do not want to make a big thing of it—I rang the office of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, yesterday to give notice of this—but I recall that there was a peculiar arrangement with certain members of staff about their salaries. However, the fact that we were going to abolish the body meant that we did not have to go down that route. The pension payments were substantial—they were a few million pounds—so it probably took a couple of years before the savings started to accrue to Defra.

While this has taken a long time to do, it is good that it is now wrapped up. I do not know what has happened with the rest of the Public Bodies Act and all the big organisations, but it is amazing that this should have happened with such a tiny body. By the way, I freely admit that I do not recall consulting any of my devolved colleagues on this. This was a straightforward matter about Defra running out of money and needing to cut something on the basis that we were not going to top-slice. We got the agreement of the council to wrap itself up.

17:15

While the food industry has gone from success to success, my one caveat relates to the regional organisations involved in the promotion of exports. I was reassured at the time that we could rely on the regional assemblies to help to fund them. Of course, one of the first things that the coalition Government did was to abolish regional operations. I know that the consequence of that has been a shortage of funds. I read only the other week that the body in the Midlands, with its headquarters in Shrewsbury, has decided to close because of a problem with the funding arrangements.

As far as the food industry is concerned, I do not think that this made the slightest bit of difference. I have explained the reasons for the abolition of the body. I was a bit surprised when Hilary Benn decided to make the announcement, because usually Secretaries of State want to make the big good-news announcements and leave it to the juniors to make the negative statements, but he was quite content to issue the Written Statement. Given that we had to find £5 million, the reality was that we either had to do this or we had to cut something to do with serious animal health issues. I do not think that there were any great discussions about where the body sat within the food industry. It had outlived its usefulness in many ways, which I think is probably another factor. As I say, this gives me the opportunity to thank the council, particularly the chair, who made the job of the Minister responsible for chopping it that much easier.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have contributed to this mini-debate on the order to abolish Food from Britain. I thank them both for their support. As they made clear, the order removes what is effectively a defunct body that has not operated for more than five years. It is excellent to have the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, contribute on the back story and I hope that historians will take note of what he said. It is clear from what both noble Lords have said that the body’s removal will have no impact on UK food and drink exporters but will save the taxpayer around £3,000 a year.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is right in his reference to the name: Food from Britain is indeed a rather wonderful name. I assure him that Defra owns the legal rights to the name and to the website domain name. There are no plans to use the name or the domain name, but he may be reassured to know that we own them.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, wonders why it took so long to abolish Food from Britain. The kernel of that is perhaps in what he said—the body was so small that it fell down the order of priority. As he will note, primary legislation was formally required to abolish the body; it would have to repeal the Agricultural Marketing Act, which set the body up. I note with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said about sunset clauses and how useful they might be in certain circumstances. However, they were not built into the legislation on this body, so we took the earliest opportunity to abolish it by including it in the Public Bodies Bill, which, as noble Lords know, was introduced in late 2010. Defra then had to prioritise which bodies should be abolished first. Given that this one no longer operated in practice and was, as the noble Lord noted, smaller, it came later in the process. We also, of course, needed to co-ordinate the process, including the UK-wide public consultation and the devolved Administrations.

Defra has, so far, abolished 51 non-departmental public bodies and it now has very few left to abolish. These are mainly defunct or non-operational and include Food from Britain, but I am very glad to be bringing the order forward to such acclaim this afternoon. I thank noble Lords again for their support and the time that they have taken to consider the order, which I commend to the House.

Motion agreed.

Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

17:21

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

My Lords, this order concerns an amendment to the Patents Act 1977. The change will allow medicinal product assessments to be carried out without risking patent infringement. This will benefit patients by giving them earlier access to new medicines. It will also reduce a legislative burden on business, and encourage our important life sciences sector to run clinical trials in the UK. The life sciences sector is of significant economic importance to the UK. It generates turnover of more than £50 billion and accounts for over 6.6% of gross value added in the UK manufacturing sector. Exports of pharmaceuticals and medical technology accounted for 11% of UK goods exports by value in 2012.

I will explain the background to the order. In 2011, the Government committed to ensuring that the intellectual property system supports the life sciences sector. Removing the risk of patent infringement when assessing a new medicine will do this. This measure delivers on that commitment. Under current UK law, the regulatory regime for new medicines and the patent system are at odds with each other. The regulatory regime requires a company to demonstrate that a new medicine is safe for patients by carrying out clinical trials. Under the patent system, that company may be sued for using a patented drug in the trial. Of course, that does not make sense. The development of new medicines is critical for public health and the pharmaceutical industry plays a key role in meeting this challenge.

Pharmaceutical companies spend large amounts of money developing new products. In 2012, the industry spent more than £4 billion on research and development in the UK. However, only a small proportion of drugs in development ever reach the marketplace. Stakeholders have told us that it can take seven to 10 years to get approval to sell a new product. In addition, the success rate for early-stage studies can be as low as 18%.

Some drugs developed by pharmaceutical companies are combination products that combine a number of drugs into a single pill, which increases patient compliance. I will explain. Many patients have to take a number of pills several times a day. It is easy to forget to take some of them. Combination products make it easier for patients to follow their doctor’s orders by reducing the number of pills they need to take each day. These products often combine a new drug with an existing patented medicine, and it is the safety of the combination that is assessed in a clinical trial. In addition to clinical trials, tests called health technology assessments may be needed before a product can be recommended for use by the National Health Service.

To summarise: many of the tests that are carried out on new drugs require them to be compared to an existing medicine, which may be patented. The patented medicine could be used as a comparator or could be part of a combination product. The infringement risk is particularly high if the patented medicine that needs to be used is not actually for sale. When this is the case, the company carrying out a trial must first make the product.

There is even some legal uncertainty in the UK as to exactly which activities in this area are infringing and which are not. Because of this risk, companies often carry out expensive and time-consuming legal assessments to determine whether it is safe to run a clinical trial in the UK or whether they should run a trial elsewhere. One company said that it spends up to £135,000 assessing the risk of infringement for each product in development. The infringement risks, and resulting costs, do not exist in many other member states of the European Union. In fact, the United Kingdom is one of only eight member states where clinical trials may infringe a patent.

The UK is in direct competition with countries such as Germany and France as a location for clinical trials work, as well as countries outside the EU, such as the US. With its narrow legal framework, the UK is at a competitive disadvantage as a location for trials and, consequently, as a manufacturing location for the final medicine. This is clearly undesirable. We want companies to be able to prove that their new medicines are safe and useful, without fear of possible legal action. This will allow them to bring new treatments to market as efficiently as possible. We also want UK patients and the economy to benefit from trials being run here. One large pharmaceutical company said that, due to current UK law, it may decide to run a particular trial abroad. This trial is for a disease which is prevalent in the UK, and there would be a clear benefit to both the company and patients for the trial to be run here in this country.

European legislation already allows trials for generic medicines to be run in the UK, to show that they are the same as the patented product of which they are a copy. This means that, as things stand, different classes of medicines and different types of trial are treated differently in UK law. This cannot be right. This legislative reform order seeks to address these problems by clarifying one of the existing exceptions to patent infringement. The change will specifically exempt from patent infringement those activities which are undertaken for the purposes of a medicinal product assessment. The change will allow data from trials run in the UK to be used for assessing medicines in any country.

The Government consulted on the changes. The overwhelming majority of responses agreed with the proposals. Responses also suggested that they will improve the desirability of the UK as a location for trials.

It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that patent law achieves an appropriate balance between protecting the rights and interests of patent holders, and the wider public interest in new medicines coming to market as quickly as possible. To maintain this balance, commercial use of a patented product after obtaining regulatory approval or a health technology assessment recommendation is not covered by the amended exception. Someone who has completed successful trials and wants to commercialise a patented medicine in combination with their own product will still need the patent holder’s permission to do this.

The draft legislative reform order was laid before Parliament on 6 May and is made under Section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. This allows a Minister to make an order which reduces burdens resulting directly or indirectly from legislation. As I have previously explained to noble Lords, under the current legal provisions, companies often carry out expensive legal assessments before running trials in the UK. It is these cost burdens which will be removed by the order. The changes will also remove the cost to a company of a clinical trial being delayed by legal challenges. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act also requires that certain conditions are met before an order such as this can be made. Exempting medicinal product assessments from patent infringement cannot be achieved by non-legislative means.

The changes contained in the order will apply only in limited circumstances. They will not allow the commercial exploitation of a product containing a patented component without the agreement of the patent holder. In any case, a company that wishes to avoid the risk of infringing a patent in the UK may simply choose to locate the trial in a country where the risk does not exist. A patent holder cannot prevent this. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the conditions of Section 3 of the Act are met.

Finally, it may be helpful if I briefly summarise for the Committee the benefits of this order. It will remove the risk of patent infringement when companies are assessing the safety of medicines, and this will make the UK a more desirable location for clinical trial work and help to support our life sciences sector. This in turn will bring economic benefits to the UK and new medicines to patients more quickly. I commend the order to the Committee.

17:30

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction of this order. It is an important one and I recognise the case that is being made. I should like to cover three issues because in essence I do not have any objections to what is being proposed; indeed, quite the reverse. I compliment the team responsible on a good job well done because it was a joy to read the order. I understand fully what is being done and therefore my questions are really rather trivial, which I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear.

It is good to see that the LRO system is working well. It was introduced by the previous Government precisely for the sorts of purposes that are being envisaged today. There are hurdles in the way of its use, but they can be jumped over easily in the way that has been expressed today, and I understand why the LRO route has been taken. I have already touched on my second point, which is that this is a well-explained document which I enjoyed reading.

The issue as I understand it is that it is unfortunate that the way in which the original exception for research set out in Section 65(2) of the Patents Act 1977 has been to some extent subverted by judge-led changes in the sense that what the document refers to as a very “narrow interpretation” of that in terms of what constitutes research has been brought forward. My first question turns on this issue. I wonder whether the Minister has thought about reforming the Patents Act 1977 so as to introduce a broader definition of “research”. In saying that I am minded to think about other areas where the narrowing of what constitutes research may cause problems. One can see where this is going: research is obviously done for experimental purposes related to the subject matter of an invention, and that is a clear and important definition. However, we live in the real world where people who are doing what is called research do it in an applied environment in which one may be testing the efficacy and effectiveness of what was originally discovered or developed. I worry slightly that we might be stumbling down a cul-de-sac in terms of other policy areas in the future. I think that the Minister is in a good position to reflect on that and give us his thoughts. Having said that, I think that the LRO route is the correct one, but I would be interested to know what arguments were used within the department, if they can be shared with us, as to why it was taken.

I understand the noble Viscount’s position on ensuring that clinical trials, field trials and health technological assessments can be carried out in the future without any risk of infringing a patent. He explained with care what the benefits would be not only to UK pharma, which we obviously support, and to UK plc in terms of economic developments but, more importantly, to future patient health that will benefit from new medicines and technologies that preserve lives and extend people’s ability to enjoy a good life.

My questions, apart from the principal one that I have already asked, are really about the consultation process; I was intrigued by the worries that seemed to be behind the idea of not one but two consultations. Governments are pretty bad at consulting. They do not like to do it; it slows things up and sometimes they get results that they do not want, so perhaps the Minister can reflect and let us know why, in October to December 2012, the same sort of questions were repeated that were asked in June to July 2011. One consultation would seem to be enough; two seems somewhat otiose. I am interested to know whether there is an answer to that.

Secondly, despite the fact that this is an important change and obviously one that will have good economic and, indeed, health outcomes, why did it take so long from the decision arising from the Plan for Growth report to get to this point—which is, after all, July 2014? Given that, as I understand it, the consultees were ranked in the tens rather than the hundreds or thousands, one would have thought that things could have been done better. Was there a particular issue that needed to be resolved, given that the consultation seemed to go well and the results were very clear?

My third and really very trivial point—which the Minister may dismiss and not answer—is that I have a slight whinge about consultations involving very small numbers being summarised in a numeric rather than qualitative way, so that on page 7 of explanatory document we initially get a response to the informal consultation that talks about “almost unanimous agreement” and the “majority of responses”. Given that we are talking about—as I think it says in the note—something like 16 responses, I find the terms “unanimous” and “overwhelming” a little underwhelming. That approach is taken again in paragraph 2.12 on the second, formal consultation, which refers to the “overwhelming majority” of responses. In this case, in notes 26 and 27, we again discover that there were 16 responses. I wonder whether they are the same ones that came up with an “overwhelming” figure. It is a trivial point, but I think you demean the quality of the response if you try to overclaim for what was happening. It would have been interesting just to see the formal responses that the Government got, even though the number of respondees listed later on in the document shows that very few actually did respond. However, the responses clearly were of very high quality and allowed for a decision.

To conclude, I simply wish to record that this is a very good document. It is well expressed and the right route has been chosen for it. The reasons for it have been so well explained that I have no wish to delay further the implementation of the order.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his general support for this particular order. I note, and thank him for, his complimentary comments on its drafting, which will be very much appreciated by the officials involved. A number of questions were raised, although I may not be able to answer all of them. I also have questions of my own that I will answer myself in the process, which may help to round off this short debate.

The first question raised by the noble Lord concerned the definition of research and its scope. That was a fairly strong question and I will write to him with an answer. The second question was about the consultation. He will know that he mentioned that there were two consultations required; needless to say, they were to try to clarify the exact scope of legislative change and to gather evidence from industry. It is fair to say—and the noble Lord may have read—that there were issues in trying to get enough evidence. We were determined to push the evidence base and that is why we needed to go for the second consultation. It was a challenging process but that may give him an answer which satisfies him.

However, I want to raise a point that was made in the other place concerning the Regulatory Reform Committee, which had raised concerns about the lack of monetised evidence for the change. That links in with the consultation. We have considered very carefully the points made by the RRC and we did the best that we could to obtain evidence from the industry and apply the current guidance. We note, however, that at the end of the day the RRC recommended that the order be approved, although I imagine that it would be in its gift not to approve it.

A further issue that was raised in the Commons and which I thought might be helpful for the noble Lord and for the Committee is whether a patentee can have access to data generated on their own drug. The aim of the legislative change is to remove the need for companies to carry out assessments of infringement risk prior to running clinical trials. For this reason, it is entirely possible that the patent holder will not be known. To require sharing of data would simply replace one burden with another—that is, replacing assessing the infringement risk with identifying the rights holder. That would go against the aim of simplifying the patent landscape in relation to clinical trials. However, clinical trials regulation will require clinical studies to be properly acceptable.

I should like to answer a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, concerning the Patents Act, which needs to balance the rights of the patentee with benefiting legitimate research. To define the term “research” in legislation—this comes back to the point that I was going to write to him on, and I believe that I will still write to him—may cause some difficulty in the future. We have attempted to clarify the research exception in a proportionate way to target a specific problem. However, I will write to the noble Lord with a fuller answer.

I think that there were a couple of other questions. I will revert to Hansard, which no doubt in its usual way will report accurately what the noble Lord said, and I will then respond to the final question, if not two questions, that he raised. In the mean time, I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

St Helena

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:42

Asked by

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the opportunities for the economic benefit and the enhancement of the lives of the citizens of the Island of St Helena consequent upon the expected opening of the new Department for International Development-funded airport in 2016.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I am delighted to have been able to secure this debate to discuss matters relating to St Helena.

It was precisely 50 weeks ago that I was privileged to visit St Helena on a second occasion. It was a privilege to go once but an immense privilege to go a second time. The reason for that visit was that the CPA had been invited by the governor to find people to conduct a seminar on governance for the newly elected councillors. As well as me, there was the honourable Tim Crookall from the Isle of Man, Deputy Barry Paint from Guernsey and Joyce Watson, a Member of the Welsh Assembly, and we had the tremendous benefit of a clerk, John Grimes, who is the former Head of Governance of the National Assembly for Wales.

We were there for the governance seminar but had been there for eight days or so, during which we became thoroughly aware of the prevailing issues on the island. We kept being asked, “Are you going to produce a report?”. We were asked that so many times that we discussed it among ourselves and said, “Well, we had better do it”. So we did produce a report, which went beyond observations about the seminar, covering the position of St Helena at that time. A year on, I think it is appropriate to see where we are.

We were delighted to visit the airport construction site and to see what an immense task it is. I certainly congratulate the Government on the important and early decision to build the airport and on the current news, which is that it is on time and on budget. It is always gratifying to hear news such as that about a big construction development, and that development is well over half way.

I am surprised that, 32 months after the signing of the contract and with the work more than half done, we still have no knowledge of any air service, where it will go, how often and at what cost. I am aware that tenders are out, but I am not clear even on what the preferred route of the air service connection is. Indeed, what are the suggestions for the future of freight to the island?

There is a further complication in what is to become of the Ascension Island link. The Wideawake agreement—named after the airport at Ascension—was renewed on 1 October 2008 for five years. It is a very important link, currently by sea, for Saints to go to Ascension for work, and to go on further to the Falklands for work. We do not yet know about any renewal of that link. I find it strange that the US and the UK, which are friendly nations, are having difficulty securing a further agreement. It would be interesting to see whether the Minister has anything to tell us about that.

The new airport will bring clear benefits to islanders in terms of communication and people being able urgently to get to hospitals that can do work beyond what can be done on St Helena. There is also the economic benefit for the island of what I call “sensitive tourism”, for which there is a need for more hotel accommodation. A year ago, we were made aware of three propositions: the luxury Shelco development; the renovation of a fort overlooking Jamestown; and Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Main Street, Jamestown, right in the heart of the town. I wonder what the progress is on those developments. Is there not a problem that hotel developers do not yet know what the air links are going to be? I have looked on the internet and it is clear that you can now make bookings for exotic places in 2016. People who want to go to exotic places often think ahead quite a long way. Is there not a difficulty for St Helena, since we do not know where, when and at what cost aeroplanes will start?

On the Sunday evening when I was in St Helena, I attended the evening service at the Baptist church. The minister’s text on that occasion was, “Is your destiny sealed, secure and irrevocable?”. That is quite an interesting text for St Helena today. I am not certain that that question can be answered. Is the Department for International Development using its best endeavours at this very important time?

Since we were there 50 weeks ago, I have looked at every release on the St Helena Government website, which is very interesting. One of the features is the comings and goings of various people—people completing a term of three years and going back to the UK, new people coming and so forth. There seems to be a problem with vacancies. I am aware of one very important vacancy, which may now just about have been filled: that of the head of Enterprise St Helena. When we were there 50 weeks ago, we were made aware that the person then occupying the post was about to leave and only now has an appointment been made. Yet it seems that that job is absolutely crucial at this stage. I wonder whether DfID is using its best endeavours.

On the subject of employment, employment opportunities and the comings and goings, is DfID using its best endeavours to encourage the indigenous population and to train people up so that we are not constantly having to get people from the UK who do two or three years and then go back home again, with those who do not like it going home sooner? It would be useful to hear what is happening on that front.

Finally, we have the United Kingdom Government and the important Department for International Development on the one hand and, on the other, the St Helena Government and their arm’s-length agency, Enterprise St Helena. Are the rights, duties, responsibilities, obligations and expectations of each clear? I look forward to the wise words of colleagues who will follow and to those of my noble friend in responding to the debate.

17:51

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland—now a considerable authority on the affairs of St Helena—on having secured this debate and on the germaneness of his wording in concentrating our minds. On 31 October last year, I intervened during the gap in a debate, initiated by my noble friend Lady Hooper, on the overseas territories. Today I seek to return to the questions I raised then. It is a pleasure and a coincidence, rather than motivations of egocentricity, which cause me to direct anyone interested in these issues to col. 1787 in the Official Report of that day, in which I alluded to a forebear of mine becoming Governor of the island in precisely the year 1787.

These issues are about how, when tourists arrive at the airport, they can be encouraged to recommend the experience to others through the fruits of improved conservation of both local natural history and Georgian buildings. I did not seek to be plaintive, but I did indicate that I had hitherto had difficulty in finding out how well meaning citizens in this country could assist in this project. The device I deployed through last year’s intervention was extremely successful in that it provoked responses from a worthwhile posse of interested and interesting correspondents. I have spent part of the seven and a half months since then becoming an octogenarian and the rest of the time seeking to put my affairs in order to respond to these intimations of mortality. However, I fear that I have consequently been guilty of discourtesy in not responding to each and every one of these very useful correspondents. I hope that if any of the writers pick up this debate too, they will regard my participation in it as evidence of my continuing interest.

I was especially grateful to the director of the St Helena National Trust for a long e-mail about the trust’s background and functions. I have been tempted to quote from it passim and verbatim but I felt that would be presumptuous without his authority. I would be happy to show the text to those noble Lords interested in the affairs of St Helena hereafter. However, I emphasise that there is no link between the St Helena National Trust and the National Trust in the UK, though both are members of the acronymic INTO, the International National Trusts Organisation, which is based at the National Trust in this country. This long and helpful e-mail, which embraced both the natural heritage and the built environment, went on to furnish an attachment from the St Helena National Trust on the immediate future of the built heritage on St Helena. This is, in the short term, my principal interest and I will return to it to ask a specific question of my noble friend who is replying for Her Majesty’s Government. However, I shall first seize the opportunity to make brief reference to the natural heritage in order to indicate its attractiveness. This comprises, inter alia, the very significant and tiny world populations of the critically endangered wirebird, the spiky yellow woodlouse, the black cabbage tree, the he and she cabbage trees, and other very special fauna and flora, and their natural habitats. I am not going to dwell on them, save to say that great attention has already been paid to them; however, I should declare an interest as a trustee of MEMO, which acronymically derives from the Mass Extinction Monitoring Observatory.

I return to the issue of the built environment, where there is a drawback from the lack of the assignation of responsibility for St Helena’s built heritage to any government department, office or institution. This is a discouraging first impression in the context of the terms of this debate and the concerns for tourism; for it implies no responsibility for these structures, nor yet support for their maintenance. To shine a searchlight on this dilemma, the small NGO that I mentioned is in receipt of a £17,000 annual grant from the St Helena Government, while the two core staff alone require almost £30,000 per annum in salaries. This shortfall’s cure lies with the 4,000 souls on the island and those who come to visit, who are the subject of this debate.

On a more cheerful note, after the initial six-week training exercise last year for Six Saints under Henry Rumbold MBE—a redoubtable heritage stonemason with form on Fountains Abbey and the Prince’s Trust—all six have been assured of their certification within the UK’s NVQ3. In that regard, I should declare another interest as having been a long-term president of COTAC. I am looking forward to hearing whether these skills have been successfully engaged on site. In that regard, the attachment to which I made earlier reference is constructive. There are 967 historic structures recorded in the St Helena Historic Environment Register, with new discoveries daily still to be properly recorded. All these buildings would respond to the care of Mr Rumbold’s six charges and, even more, if intact, would make a lively contribution to the island’s economy.

I am not in a position to report on progress on the Governor’s own initiative in this area, but I will cite the opportunities available to clarify what could be achieved. This is, to some extent, a laundry list: replacing the mass concrete fill of inner courtyard at Plantation House with locally cut island stone flags, repointing the upper storey of the Essex House frontage—the lower storey was properly repointed with a lime mortar four years ago, and completing the partial restoration of Lemon Valley Lower Farmhouse, which was the site for the Six Saints’ training last year.

In parallel, there are structures not in daily public use that need to be brought back into management in a planned programme, which, again inter alia, could be deployed towards tourist use as weekend and short-stay holiday accommodation for island visitors and tourists—which is relevant to this debate. Access, water supply, litter prevention, sewage works and day-to-day control would all help to minimise vandalism.

To identify specific target projects, I refer to Broadway House, which is now let to the trust—the NGO I mentioned—High Knoll Fort’s two major wall collapses, and urgent attention needs to be paid to Munden’s structures that are now slipping away. I shall mention a few more: Bank’s; the steps and railings of the Ladder; Ladder Hill Fort; Munden’s walls and paths; Man and Horse signal station; the Wharf Buildings and mortuary, and the Papanul wreck’s salvaged contents. I have tolled this requiem towards collapse in order the make the point that there is a ready-made programme available to the skills already locally acquired if financial means were available.

This brings me to my question for my noble friend. The 4,000 souls on the island and the present level of tourists will not be enough to capitalise on this opportunity, so the responsibility comes back to us. I have been advised that tax-advantageous devices are being devised to encourage heritage and conservation disciples in this country to make a contribution, which is what prompted my interest in the debate last year. Therefore my query to the Minister is whether Her Majesty’s Government are taking an interest in this domestic venture as regards a conduit, and if so, what progress has been made and in how long a future timeframe.

17:59

[Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this important and timely debate. Last month, a ceremony was held at the airport site in St Helena to mark the construction of the airport terminal building. His Excellency the Governor of St Helena opened the ceremony with a speech to the invited guests. In his speech the governor praised the airport construction company, Basil Read, for the marvellous work it is doing. He said:

“Over the past two years when asked about the biggest challenges of my job I have always said that the least of my concerns was construction of the airport. Why? Because it was clear from early on that Deon de Jager and Basil Read were up to the job”.

Other speeches by St Helena officials also praised the airport construction company, Basil Read, and the company’s island director, Deon de Jager, for keeping the project to schedule, budget and specification. It is reassuring to know that the St Helena airport project is proceeding to its completion without any problems serious enough to cause significant delays. That is good news; it is a government project which is not overrunning on cost or timescale.

Our Government were right to decide to build the airport. Currently, St Helena has an odd sort of society made up of grandparents and grandchildren, with the intermediate generation earning a living off-island because there is next to no economy on St Helena. In 2016, there will be the prospect of a tourism industry that may eventually lead to the island becoming self-supporting economically, which will save the British taxpayer tens of millions of pounds each year.

St Helena has many attractions for tourists, some of which we have heard about already. They include Napoleon’s Longwood House, which is a little bit of France on a UK island; 1,100 shipwrecks; spectacular birds and abundant varieties of fish; endemic species of flora—I understand that it is hoped that the St Helena ebony will be made the national flower; the unique St Helena wirebird, which is a kind of plover, which we have already heard about; Jacob’s Ladder, with 699 steps, for those who are a bit fitter than me; Jonathan, the giant tortoise who lives in the grounds of the governor’s residence, Plantation House, who is reputed to be 200 years old and to have met Napoleon; and a golf course with horizontal trees. There is also plenty of history about the appalling slave trade in which the island played a part.

It is vital that we keep it in mind that the airport itself is only the foundation for the hoped-for economic development of St Helena. The goal is to transform St Helena from a small and remote community that is dependent upon grant-in-aid from Her Majesty’s Government to an island which, in time, can become self-sustaining based on a thriving tourism economy. To achieve that goal, the airport is one part of several interrelated and interdependent developments to which my noble friend has already referred to and which are all needed in order for St Helena to achieve at least some degree of economic independence. The airport will, of course, need aeroplanes flying in and taking off. The passengers carried by those aeroplanes will need somewhere to stay. A further aspect directly related to that crucial interdependence between airport, airline and tourism accommodation is the securing of a new shipping service to bring bulk cargo to St Helena. That is needed because the Royal Mail Ship “St Helena”, which the noble Lord and I both travelled on and which has been the lifeline to the island for the past 25 years, is due to be taken out of service after the airport opens.

Each day the airport buildings rise higher from the dust of Prosperous Bay Plain. However, the other vital components remain very much in the early stages of development. The governor of St Helena acknowledged the magnitude of the task ahead in his speech at the ceremony I referred to earlier. He said:

“The more complex, less easy task, is preparing St Helena to be able to benefit from new economic opportunities. But we can do it”.

The acting head of economic development exhorted her listeners,

“to rise to this opportunity and that means all of us working together to grow our economy. To do this we must put business first. This means we must encourage business development, and we must encourage entrepreneurs, both local and overseas”.

With a mere 19 months left before the airport is due to open, progress on developing some parts of the infrastructure for St Helena’s new tourism-based economy have remained virtually static while other parts started to move very late and continue to move slowly. I understand that the first stage of the tendering process for the contract to operate an air service to St Helena will not be completed until 17 July, with the contract scheduled to be awarded in February or March 2015. This gives the successful tenderer no more than one year to successfully complete the job of attracting an adequate number of passengers to a new air service flying to a new and little-known tourism destination.

Beyond that, the technical clearances and ticketing arrangements all have to be resolved at the same time. To attract the number of tourists envisaged, which it is estimated may reach 30,000 a year, there will need to be flights from Europe—the UK and France in particular—as well as from Africa. I hope that the Minister will be able to report significant progress on this, including which airlines have expressed an interest—BA, South African Airways or Atlantic Star, perhaps? When does she anticipate a contract will be signed? The earlier it is signed, the better. This contract-signing could unlock significant inward investment once investors can be assured that flights really are going to arrive.

The other main consideration is accommodation that offers a quality of service for the high-value, low-volume sector of the tourism market that St Helena is aiming to attract. Tourists will need somewhere to stay and so far I understand that no hotel development has started. With completion of the airport just 19 months away, we need to get a move on to build at least one.

Last week at the meeting of the St Helena group, I met two councillors from St Helena—Les Baldwin and Gavin “Eddie Duff” Ellick—who told us that the St Helena Government have set up a company called St Helena Hotel Development Ltd. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about this. Is the contingency amount for the airport project going to be used to build a hotel? That would make some sense because it could be argued that the hotel is part of the total airport project. In which case, will Basil Read build the hotel? It is already on the island and has a successful track record. Is the Minister able to tell us the situation with Shelco’s plans to build a top of the range eco-hotel? Lastly, I understand that the first stage of the tendering process for the contract for a shipping line for bulk cargo to serve the island after the airport opens will be completed later this month. This contract is scheduled to be awarded in April 2015.

The islanders who are in contact with me are very enthusiastic about the future. I hope the Minister will give credible assurances that Her Majesty’s Government and DfID believe that, as my noble friend Lord Shutt sometimes puts it, “they have all their ducks in a row”.

Finally, many Saints live and work on Ascension and in the Falklands. What progress has been made with the USA over using Ascension as the divert runway for St Helena and on operating a shuttle service between the islands? This would open up the possibility of commercial flights from St Helena and Ascension to the Falklands, thus providing a more complete package for adventurous tourists. In the longer term, have the Government thought about a south Atlantic federation of overseas territories linking St Helena with the Falklands, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha?

18:09

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for initiating this debate. Building the airport, which is scheduled for completion in 2016, will be a catalyst for change in the island. It provides great opportunities for growth and jobs, but without proper investment the cost of failure will be high. As is common to small islands, St Helena is dependent on importing even basic items. It has a limited economy focused on less than a handful of sectors, a large public service, and as we have heard, hundreds of Saints have left in the last decades to seek opportunities abroad.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jones, reminded us, there is no doubt that we need to support and develop sustainable enterprise if St Helena is to be weaned off that budget support of around £25 million to £30 million a year. This Government reviewed the postponement of the project when they came into office and concluded that, provided certain conditions were met, the best long-term solution from an economic and financial perspective for both Her Majesty’s Government and St Helena was to construct the airport.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said the airport was on time and on budget, but I would be grateful if the Minister would update the Committee on the progress in meeting the specific conditions, not least on handling the risk of cost and time overruns. One other key condition in that decision was for the St Helena Government to implement the reforms needed to open up the island’s economy to inward investment and increased tourism. The opening of the airport, as we have heard, will clearly have a substantial effect on visitor numbers to St Helena, but in the absence of accurate data it is difficult to forecast precisely what the numbers will be. I know both Her Majesty’s Government and the St Helena Government have commissioned a number of studies into the potential demand for travel following the airport opening.

As we have heard, current tourist accommodation on St Helena is severely limited. Meeting the visitor targets relies on the expansion of island resources and hotel capacity, but the infrastructure required to maintain a vibrant tourist industry is not just reliant on hotel rooms—important as that is. I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the specific elements of what a successful tourist industry needs to be.

I also refer to Horatio Clare’s excellent article supplied in the Library brief for this debate. He highlighted that without the Caribbean’s beaches or climate, even locals are a little unsure about what a tourist might do on St Helena. One said:

“A mix of walking, fishing, diving, heritage, Napoleon and wildlife”,

which agrees with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said. Even that mixture requires investment, with support to heritage sites and wildlife protection. It also means investment in skills to ensure that the island has people who are qualified to maintain its natural sites of scientific interest, which will be an incredible attraction to the sort of tourists that we seek.

Internet connections are also vital to develop new industries, especially in supporting tourism. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said, the Government are investigating funding and construction options with the aim of completing a hotel around the time of the opening of the airport. We have heard about the development agency that is seeking to work with selected air providers to develop and implement a marketing plan. However, that is all difficult while we do not know who the air supplier is. It will be very difficult to square those things together.

From what I have read in the briefing, it appears that a game of chicken and egg is being played out between the development body and the group of investors with ambitions to build the hotel discussed in this debate. Enterprise St Helena wants the developers to commit to building their hotel so that it can attract airlines. The developers—Shelco—say that the agency should produce an airline before it begins work on the hotel. We have to break that cycle somehow. The Minister wrote at the end of last year that there is an expectation that an agreement will be reached with the airline in early 2015. Like other noble Lords, I would appreciate an update for the Committee on what progress is being made.

As the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, time is clearly running out on this issue. In January, the Minister reported that passenger numbers for the airport over its first five years would be 14,000, of which 10,200 would be leisure visitors. In May, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who I am pleased to see here, said that the UK Government expect tourism to be the driver of growth on St Helena once the airport opens. In June, the Minister said in a Written Answer that Enterprise St Helena, the development agency, is leading plans to develop the tourism industry and accommodation. In parallel, ESH is working with local businesses to ensure that the island’s tourist attractions are developed and accredited to international standards. I cannot stress the importance of the points that the noble Lord raised on this particular case.

However, it appears from newspaper reports that there is a little scepticism locally about the projected figures for tourists and the speed at which the necessary infrastructure can be developed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for letting me have sight of the report he referred to from last year’s CPA visit to the island following the general election. For me, an important element of that delegation was that it also embraced representatives from the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Wales. As a point of interest, my own family is from Bermuda so I am familiar with small, remote islands. Some are more beautiful than others, as they say.

When I was at the T&G—the Transport and General Workers’ Union—I also had responsibility for establishing a forum of union membership from the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar. As I said, such territories have many challenges in common. Sharing experiences is important not only to address the issue of isolation—which is an important factor of development in St Helena—but also for looking at how to develop best practice and new opportunities, and see common ways forward, as we saw from the excellent report produced. I am glad it was produced. It highlighted a range of options, not least not to restrict yourself to tourism as other industries need to be built upon.

To conclude, could there be renewed focus in the department to encourage exchanges on best practice, support and information with other Crown dependencies, specifically—obviously, in the case of St Helena—on the development of tourism and new employment opportunities. Could such exchanges embrace the full range of stakeholders in those societies?

18:18

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Shutt for initiating today’s debate and for his keen interest in St Helena. In this debate and through other channels he has rightly been a champion for this project and consistently highlighted the very considerable barriers to the development of one of our most isolated overseas territories. I thank other noble Lords who participated in this debate for their contributions, knowledge and engagement.

As noble Lords noted, we took decisive action to address the constraints of St Helena in November 2011 by approving the construction of an airport that would bring to an end 500 years of isolation. I thank my noble friends Lord Jones and Lord Shutt for their tributes to this decision. For the first time in the island’s history, it will be possible to travel to St Helena in less than a day, opening up this beautiful island to the world and providing opportunities for economic development and the enhancement of the lives of its citizens. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said about the special beauty of many islands, and it is clear that St Helena has much to offer. It is an unspoilt island of dramatic beauty, biodiversity and heritage, as we have just heard. From its fantastic marine wildlife to its diverse landscapes and unique endemic flora and fauna, the island that hosted Napoleon until his death also played a big part in the emancipation of slaves on the south Atlantic trade route. It is one of the most remote inhabited islands in the world and has the potential to attract visitors from around the world.

My noble friend Lord Shutt clearly appreciates, as do other noble Lords, the scale of the challenge for the island’s small population to turn the opportunity that has been granted to them into a reality. I know that when he visited the island in 2013 as leader of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association team, he will have seen at first hand the scale of change needed to transform a community that has been in receipt of budgetary assistance from the UK for over 40 years into one that takes control of its own future. I know that his work was greatly appreciated by the new council.

The airport will impact on every aspect of life in St Helena. With construction work on the airport now at its peak, we have already seen a reverse in the population decline which has had such a marked impact on the social and economic life of the Saints, and which my noble friend Lord Jones so graphically made clear. The continual outflow of the most economically active Saints to employment in the Falklands, Ascension and the UK reduced the population from 5,500 in 1995 to around 3,800 at its lowest point. The airport construction project has seen the population rise again to over 4,500, with the creation of more than 350 jobs for Saints. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others have made clear, the challenge will be retain those Saints once the construction has been completed and to harness the skills they bring to help build up St Helena’s long-term economy. DfID is working closely with the St Helena Government to put in place the building blocks that are required to deliver economic growth. The St Helena Government, with funding from DfID, has established Enterprise St Helena, an arm’s-length body tasked with driving private sector-based growth, helping local businesses respond to increased tourism demands, and stimulating local and overseas investment to ensure that the island is ready to capitalise on improved access.

Securing investment in a new and untested market presents significant challenges. While air access is coming soon, currently it still takes three weeks to visit the island, time that few potential inward investors can afford. Nevertheless, progress has been made. A local developer has completed the construction of eight new rooms in Jamestown, and only last week an inward investor announced the development of 20 wood cabin lodges aimed at the big game fishing market, with construction to commence this year. These are small beginnings, but they are significant in the context of St Helena and are likely to encourage others. Enterprise St Helena is also exploring options for the development of a hotel in Jamestown, building on the island’s unique heritage, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others, by converting Georgian buildings that are currently being used as government offices into a small, 40 to 65-bedroom hotel. The initial design is under way and the St Helena Government are actively pursuing funding options. DfID is working very closely with Enterprise St Helena and the St Helena Government to support their efforts.

I was asked a number of questions about accommodation and I shall provide some fairly rapid updates. There are currently 41 service rooms on the island, 30 with en-suite facilities. In addition to that there are a number of self-catering establishments, which bring the number of rooms up to 113. Many, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, indicated, may not be at the standard expected by modern travellers at the moment.

I was asked about St Helena Hotel Development Limited. That has been set up to try to kick-start hotel development in Jamestown. Initially it will be wholly owned by the St Helena Government. If plans proceed, shares will also be issued to investment partners. The St Helena Government would look to divest their entire shareholding over time. Clearly, as noble Lords indicated, access, constraints and uncertainties over air services make it challenging to attract private sector investment, but early interest has been shown by two hotel groups. However, both have put plans on hold due to uncertainties in visitor numbers. I have just mentioned the chalets, though, and the plans for Jamestown. DfID itself has no plans to provide funding for hotel development, and it would not be appropriate to use airport contingency funds for a hotel.

I was asked about Shelco. It has revised its proposals to bring forward the development of a 35-room boutique hotel and golf course, with the aim of having it up and running by the time the airport opens. Funding remains an issue, and Basil Read would need to tender for any work that it wanted to undertake.

I was asked about the proposed hotel developments in Ladder Hill and Jamestown. Both Protea Jamestown and Mantis Ladder Hill have put their proposals for hotel development on hold for the reasons that I have given, but the St Helena Government are currently exploring funding options for a medium-sized hotel in Jamestown.

As to when it will be possible to book holidays in St Helena and whether that could happen already, it is of course possible to book the accommodation that I have already mentioned through the tourism office. My noble friend is clearly a forward thinker, way beyond anything that I consider, I am afraid, but we note what he says. He always was extremely well organised.

DfID also supports Enterprise St Helena to offer a range of business advice, training grants and small capital investments to local businesses in the sectors of tourism, hospitality, agriculture and fisheries. We are seeking to give St Helena the opportunity to develop further. It cannot be DfID’s role to undertake each role of that development itself. As my noble friend Lord Shutt indicated, there is mutuality here: DfID is investing in the airport and other areas, and we hope to see a necessary response within the island, including in the conservation skills that my noble friend Lord Brooke has mentioned. Obviously we take the points that he makes very seriously.

Securing air services to support tourism and to maintain access for Saints to travel to and from the island is a key requirement for achieving economic development. Twelve potential service providers have registered early interest, and a formal call for expressions of interest was issued on 12 June.

However, the airport will not just bring economic development. Economic growth on St Helena will mean more jobs and prosperity on the island, reuniting families of Saints who have previously had to travel overseas to find employment. It will mean the potential for faster evacuation in medical emergencies, and easier access to education overseas.

My noble friend Lord Shutt pointed to the difficulties of recruiting staff on the island. He is of course right. DfID is providing £2 million this financial year to provide staff to fill short-term specialist positions that cannot be recruited locally. We support long-term positions in key areas on the island.

My noble friend Lord Brooke highlighted the range of work that could productively be carried out on the island. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about a range of skills. Enterprise St Helena, working through the education directorate, has established or is establishing training programmes leading to qualifications covering a wide range of skills. I have a list here. The ones they might be particularly interested in hearing about are building and construction, hospitality and catering, leisure and tourism and environmental conservation. I can go into further detail about them, should the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in particular, want more on that.

My noble friend Lord Jones asked about a South Atlantic federation. That is very interesting, but it is not currently under consideration. He has lobbed it in, so no doubt people will consider it.

I shall answer some specific questions on the airport as rapidly as possible. I was asked whether it will be possible to fly directly from Europe. The length of the runway on St Helena, unless we flatten St Helena, will not support direct flights to Europe. Johannesburg and Cape Town in South Africa are the nearest international hubs with excellent direct links to most European cities. The current tender for air services will look at all options.

Prequalification questionnaires for the air service are due to be submitted on 17 July. More than 12 potential service providers have downloaded the documents—of course, one of them may have been my noble friend Lord Shutt—and currently five have indicated that they will respond. At this stage of the tender process, it would not be appropriate to name airlines. The current target date for signing a contract for air services is March 2015, but that will depend on the nature of the response received. It is intended that air services to St Helena will be operated on a purely commercial basis and that that should be achieved as early as possible. However, it is recognised that this may be challenging in the early years, and air service providers have been invited to put forward proposals for any required research.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about risk. The fixed-price, lump-sum contract with risk transferred to the contractor is the arrangement. The airport is now 60% complete and to date is on time and to budget. There is also a temporary jetty at Rupert’s Bay.

Wideawake Airfield on Ascension, as noble Lords will know, is a military airport operated by the US to military standards. It would not be possible to meet minimum civil aviation standards, but we expect that the US will agree to the use of Wideawake as a nominated alternative for flight planning and for domestic services between St Helena and Ascension only. We work very closely with the United States on that.

There will be a limited amount of air freight, and alternative arrangements are being made for sea freight. In fact, the St Helena Government have commenced a tender process to secure post-airport shipping to the island and are expecting to receive expressions of interest this Friday, 11 July.

This is a long-term investment trying to ensure that this dependent territory is less dependant in the future. The business case depends upon not rapid development but slow growth over 25 years. I was asked about the value of cross-learning between islands and development. That is absolutely right. The Joint Ministerial Council is an obvious vehicle for putting that into practice, as is the Overseas Territories Consultative Committee.

The airport is key to the economic development of the island. These are challenging times for St Helena, but they also carry the promise of a brighter future made possible by this airport investment. Noble Lords have very effectively laid out the challenges that St Helena faces and how this new opportunity could and should unlock a transformation of the island and its people in the way we all wish to see.

Books

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

18:34

Asked by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of books in promoting a civilised society.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, about 450 years ago Michel de Montaigne said:

“When I am attacked by gloomy thoughts, nothing helps me so much as running to my books. They quickly absorb me and banish the clouds from my mind”.

Montaigne was a great example of a man who tried to live what he believed. He was tolerant, even when sorely provoked. He was hospitable to strangers, even though he lived in a time of feuds and war. He was always a prolific writer and reader, even while councillor and legal adviser to parliaments and kings. His essays are as vivid and relevant today as when he wrote them some 450 years ago. His diaries and essays reach out to me across the centuries.

That is the point of books. They can reach across centuries and national borders and promote comprehension of other cultures and other nationalities. Books are increasingly important, being reflective in our age of instant reactions. Books take us beyond ourselves to a wider humanity. I passionately believe that books promote understanding, tolerance and reflective attitudes in societies. Noble Lords will be able to recall many intolerant regimes which have destroyed tablets or scrolls or books as one of their first acts of aggression before turning against their own people or other people. Noble Lords have only to look at the list by Index on Censorship to see that the world is still not free from that sort of tyranny against the written word.

We in the UK have a terrific tradition of free speech and a free press. That freedom has relied on the book trade to nurture authors, their ideas and the books they write. I am sure that other noble Lords today will speak of how important this is to a number of matters, such as education, the role of libraries and other important issues. I will concentrate on the part that the Government can play in keeping that proud tradition of a vibrant, creative book trade.

It is a time of great change in the book trade. Much of that change comes from the move from print to digital. That move offers opportunities, but it also comes with enormous risks. There is a lot to be positive about. The book trade is worth £3 billion a year to the UK, and the quality and range of British writing is recognised around the world. Forty percent of publishing industry revenues are derived from exports, a bigger proportion than in any other country. The UK is the largest e-book market in Europe.

The past 20 years have seen a huge rise in the number of book clubs, literary festivals and creative writing courses. Book prizes highlighting all the new writing are sponsored by imaginative parts of the corporate world, such as Costa, Baileys and of course Man Booker, so the corporate world is playing its part. The National Literacy Trust’s 2013 study of children’s and young people’s reading was sponsored by the international law firm Slaughter and May. The appetite for reading is very healthy but—and this is a big “but”—the money made by authors has fallen by some 30% in the past decade. As a former bookseller, I am really sad to say that the number of independent bookshops in the UK is now fewer than 1,000. That is down by 500 over the past few years. Publishers face a dramatic challenge in the rise of self-publishing.

The book trade as we have known it is metamorphosing. The Government have a part to play in ensuring that the outcome is a continual flowering of creative talent. There are four practical ways in which they can help.

The first is with copyright. As I have said, it is a time of rapid change from print to digital. There are pressures to relax or ignore laws on copyright, which would be a really bad move. Happily, the Government have already made a move in the right direction. In March 2013, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, announced £150,000 of government money to fund the innovative Copyright Hub, the development and growth of which he said could add £2.2 billion per year to the UK economy by 2020. The hub will support open and competitive markets for copyright licences, present a more efficient online marketplace and cut costs for businesses. Importantly, it will simplify copyright licensing for customers—that includes everyone from the public to schools. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that further disruptive changes to copyright law at both UK and EU levels must be resisted? Can he update us on how the Copyright Hub’s development is progressing?

Secondly, author incomes have fallen in real terms by about 30% in the past 10 years, so fair contracts are incredibly important. Oddly, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 excluded intellectual property. Given how valuable the creative industries are to the UK, surely this is an urgent issue for UK plc as well as for authors. Will the Minister see whether the Consumer Rights Bill offers an opportunity to remove this anomaly and to provide fair contract protection to authors and other IP creators?

The third issue has been on the table since I was a bookseller in the 1970s and the 1980s. It is the threat of removal of zero-rated VAT on books, which is still a live issue. No Government since the Second World War have elected to tax books, but there is now some pressure—I think coming from the European Commission—to end 0% VAT on printed books. Are the Government committed to maintaining zero-rated VAT on print books? What about e-books? They attract a 20% VAT rate, but a couple of other EU countries which really value their books, France and Luxembourg, have unilaterally reduced the rate of VAT on e-books. Will the Government follow their positive policy and reduce VAT on all books, e-books included?

The fourth issue is the rise of Amazon, which has a big share of print sales but almost a monopoly—around 90%—in the e-book market. As we know, it has a disgraceful attitude towards paying its taxes—that is a slightly different issue. Given that Amazon has a 90% share of the e-book market, will the Minister ask the Competition and Markets Authority whether that constitutes a monopoly and, if so, to act accordingly?

There are therefore several practical things that the Government can do, but they need to be aware that they are one of the main drivers in the attitude and framework surrounding books. They are doing lots of positive things; for example, the involvement of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills with the Creative Industries Strategy, which it has just developed. The Department for Education has certainly created a debate around books, with the slightly negative comments from the Secretary of State about Steinbeck and Harper Lee. He is perhaps a little misguided in thinking that there is not a place for a globalised attitude to literature. Although UK writers should always have a special place in our literature courses, I would hope that our children are studying literature from China to Colombia to Russia.

The Government set an attitude, and perhaps the most negative is that of the right honourable Chris Grayling about books for prisoners. The support for the Howard League for Penal Reform and the English PEN campaign on this issue goes far beyond people who normally worry about prisoners. I very much look forward to hearing the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dholakia with all his experience of rehabilitation, and to what he will say in greater detail about this issue. Indeed, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have chosen to speak today and who will share their perspectives on the critical issue of the role of books in our society.

18:45

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Miller on raising this important question. I declare an interest as someone who has spent his academic career writing and editing books.

Books are fundamental to a civilised society. They are the means by which knowledge is transmitted in a tangible form. As my noble friend has already indicated, they are at the heart of a free society. As Dame Rebecca West put it:

“God forbid that any book should be banned. The practice is as indefensible as infanticide”.

Good books are a way of nourishing the mind and the human spirit. As Thomas Carlyle said:

“A good book is the purest essence of a human soul”.

The context in which he said it is pertinent: it was in a speech in 1840 in support of the London Library.

Books, then, are crucial to promoting a civilised society. I am not sure that the Government need to devote resources to reach that conclusion. I am much more concerned by what, if anything, flows from that in terms of the actions that the Government should take that they are not already taking. Is not the value of books obvious? Well, I am not sure the value is as obvious as it was. There is a challenge to get people reading books. As my noble friend has already indicated, the internet is both a resource and a threat. It is a resource because of the availability of books through this medium. People can read e-books conveniently when travelling without the need to carry heavy printed books. Sales of e-books are increasing significantly, but the market remains dominated by the printed word.

Although the printed book remains dominant, we are seeing a threat from the internet—or an opportunity. It is a challenge as well because it facilitates the growing demand for instant gratification. It also provides a myriad of distractions. It is a challenge to book reading, which requires the investment of time. The danger is that people will come to rely on digests rather than absorb themselves in the real thing. Given that, what action can Government take? My noble friend has already dealt with copyright, author’s income—I have a particular interest there—and VAT. I shall not repeat her points but merely commend them to the Government. I just want to add a couple of suggestions in the light of our discussion. Book reading should be seen as a necessary component of education policy, but its importance, as my noble friend indicated, should not be seen as confined to the Department for Education. It is as important to BIS and Culture, Media and Sport as it is to education in terms of creating the creative workforce that is essential to our society.

In terms of education policy, there is a notable debate about the content of the national curriculum, but not so much attention is given to the form in which it is delivered. The Government need to be alert that books remain at the heart of any educational establishment. Schools should be encouraged to ring-fence budgets for purchasing books, be that in hard copy or electronically. I am not entering the controversy as to which books should be used. Rather, the emphasis should be on ensuring that students are exposed to a range of texts and encouraged to explore for themselves.

The other suggestion that I have relates to primary education. We know that pupils are disadvantaged by coming from family backgrounds where there is no history of reading and from homes where there are no books. There would be no harm in a campaign to encourage all new parents to expose their children to books, but there should also be leadership by government in encouraging primary schools to place a particular emphasis on book reading and indeed, making books available for young children to explore, if only for the purpose of their seeing them and becoming familiar with them. These suggestions stem from the view that we cannot take the value of books as simply given. We need to ensure that their value is recognised and that we do all we can to encourage young people in particular, of the benefits they will accrue from devoting time to a good book, or better still, a great many good books.

18:49

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for securing this debate. I wonder whether I should declare an interest here by virtue of the fact that I happen to be the author of at least nine or 10 books and the editor of about a dozen. I do not know whether that disqualifies me from speaking about the subject—but I shall, nevertheless, persist.

Books, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, play an indispensable role in creating and sustaining a civilised society. They are the repositories of thought. I do not think we fully appreciate the fact that, compared to television or radio and many other means of communication, books play a unique role. Books are the systematic statement of an individual’s real thinking, spread out over a large number of pages after careful thought. They also force the reader to engage in a dialogue with the author. Unlike television, where the images come and go and I have no time to pause because its immediacy simply overwhelms me, a book allows me to go back and forth, carry an idea with me, sleep on it and return to it a bit later. A book, in other words, is the repository of the dialogue between the reader and the author and, by implication, within the reader himself. Having read the book, the reader wrestles with the ideas in the new world to which the author has introduced him or her, and feels enriched. That is something that a radio or television programme simply cannot do. A book has a certain solidity. It is outside “me”, and therefore a book can be shared collectively in a way that a radio or television programme cannot. A book creates a world. It creates a public; a world in which we all share in common and which binds us into a community.

I say all that boring philosophical stuff not to make out a good case for books but simply to show that a civilisation from which books disappear and in which thoughts are communicated only through images or sounds is a civilisation that will be deeply impoverished. That may partly explain a paradox. We seem to think that as civilisation marches on with more and more technology, the human mind is becoming more sophisticated. The opposite thesis, I think, is more true. Because we are dependent on technology and because our thought processes are conditioned in a certain way, our brain capacity, our cognitive capacity, declines. That is why, in the past 100 years, we have not produced a Shakespeare, a Beethoven or an Einstein. All the greats who shaped our civilisation, who shaped modernity, are conspicuous by their absence.

It needs to be explained why there is progress in every sphere of life and yet, when we come to the fundamentals, the deepest forms of thought, we do not seem to be able to measure up to our ancestors. Forget Plato, forget Aristotle; even a Kant or a Marx would do, but we do not seem to have any. I think that that may have something to do with the fact that the solidity of the process of thinking that a book generates seems increasingly to be absent.

Having said that, I recognise that historically the book cannot remain what it is. Increasingly, it is difficult to define what is a book. Then I saw the title of the debate, and there are two things to be said about it. The first is about the phrase, “civilised society”. Coming from India and being constantly told by our colonial rulers that we are barbarians and uncivilised, the words “civilised society” rang alarm bells in my mind, just as did the word “book” because I was not quite sure what “book” referred to. Is an e-book a book? Is a blog or a series of blogs a book? Increasingly, publishers predict a future in which “physical” books—that word itself is disturbing—as we know them are likely to disappear. That worries me for all kinds of reasons, but that is not what I want to talk about. As of now, we have e-books, which, happily, sell about 80 million, compared to 393 million physical books; they bring in about £320 million, as opposed to £2.3 billion for physical books.

A physical book has an aesthetic appeal. It has what is beautifully called a jacket. We project anthropomorphic categories onto a book. A book has a jacket, a shape and an appearance which an e-book by definition cannot have. That appearance seduces us into reading it. It draws us into its own world. Therefore a book is not merely a repository of thought, it also has an aesthetic quality and is a cultural artefact. My worry is that if we are not careful—or even if we are very careful—there is a danger that books might disappear. Either they will be replaced by blogs or they might not be written at all.

They might not be written for two reasons. First, increasingly in the academic world a book is equal to three or four articles. Why not write an article instead of writing a book? I am told that there is an increasing tendency not to write big books. Secondly, it becomes very difficult for publishers to pay the author because people can read their books on a Kindle or in many other ways; publishers do not make money and they have nothing to give to the author. Increasingly, the recent phenomenon where an author can earn his or her livelihood simply by writing books may not be the case. In that case, why write books? If it cannot be your source of livelihood, only two things can happen. You will write or you will do other things while writing. That is what has happened throughout history. Shakespeare was doing his own things, Charles Dickens was a journalist. Therefore I suggest that we must find some ways in which the love of owning books can be encouraged in our children.

18:56

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those offered to my noble friend Lady Miller for securing this debate. Let me consider one issue and one issue alone: prisons and books.

The process of rehabilitation requires a number of initiatives and fundamental to this principle is ensuring that inmates are better prepared to face the outside world upon their release. The most disturbing aspect of the recent developments is the prison policy which bans friends and relatives sending books into prisons for prisoners to read. This change was made last year as part of the Government’s revision of the incentives and earned privileges scheme in prisons. The change means that friends and relatives in the outside world can no longer send small items to prisons, and this includes books. As a result, prisoners can access books only if they borrow them from prison libraries or if they buy them from their prison earnings. Both these options have serious restrictions and limitations. The Chief Inspector of Prisons drew attention to the restrictions on times at which prisoners can gain access to libraries. In addition, prison libraries are run and financed by local authorities. My noble friend made a substantial point that many of the libraries are now closing down, and there is less and less expenditure on books.

It is very difficult for most prisoners to buy books out of their prison earnings. The earnings amount to about £8 or £10 per week, out of which they have to buy their toiletries, stationery, stamps, phone cards to ring home and other items. Do we genuinely expect the prisoner to spend £8 out of £10 to buy a book to read?

There are a number of powerful reasons for reversing this unfortunate ban. First is the damaging effect on the literacy and education of prisoners. The poor rate of literacy among prisoners is well known, as is the research showing that poor reading ability is strongly correlated with difficulty in obtaining jobs on release, and with reoffending. The experience of literacy tutors shows that prisoners are more likely to be motivated to practise and develop their reading ability if they are able to read material on subjects in which they have particular interests. This is where reading material sent in by relatives can play a very important role.

The facts are just as unfortunate for better educated prisoners who want to pursue vocationally linked courses of study which can provide them with a positive alternative to their continuing life of crime. In a recent survey of the incentives and earned privileges scheme published by the Prison Reform Trust, one prisoner said:

“I am about to start a distance learning course. A friend of mine has done all these courses and is fully qualified and was going to send me all his books but we can’t have books sent in anymore”.

The rationale behind preventing prisoners from receiving books which can help them with educational courses is almost baffling, but the rationale behind preventing prisoners receiving books for leisure reading is also doubtful. I shall explain. In many prisons, inmates can spend around 16 hours a day in their cells, and it can be as much as 20 hours a day. Limiting the opportunity for prisoners to read in these circumstances is unreasonably punitive. Moreover, there is a real risk that it will have an adverse effect on prisoners’ mental health and emotional well-being. At a time when the number of suicides in prison last year reached an all-time high, this is a very disturbing development.

The Government have rightly received strong criticism from many quarters for this policy. In the face of this criticism, the Government have belatedly started to advance an argument which says that parcels containing books could be used as a way of smuggling drugs into prisons. This was not part of the original reasoning which the Government put forward when they established that change. It is true that many prisons have a drug problem and most drugs are brought into prisons—and I speak from experience, having been on a board of visitors in my younger days—by visitors, by prisoners returning from temporary release and by a minority of offending prison staff. It is noteworthy that the Prison Officers’ Association—a tough body which is as concerned as anyone about drugs in prisons—has said that attempts to smuggle drugs in parcels are rare and that the systems for security checks on parcels were working well before the ban was introduced. The Government’s argument therefore does not stand.

I hope that the Government will think again and acknowledge that they have made a mistake in prohibiting prisoners from receiving books from their families and friends. It is not too late to reverse this change, which is likely to worsen behaviour in prisons and increase reoffending rates.

19:01

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for the opportunity to talk about the importance of books within our culture.

Proper contact with books starts in the home or in schools, and if not in the home then it should certainly begin in schools. My daughter, who is now nine, has been lucky in the two primary schools she has been to—one private, one state—in that they both have decent libraries and librarians, one full time, the other coming in twice a week. But more than this, in both cases the library is located at the geographical centre of each school, not off to one side where it can be lopped off or forgotten about. It is a place through which children have to pass at least twice a day, and for primary school children, in particular, there is then this immediate contact with books. The Libraries All-Party Group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in the title of its recent report put together by the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, calls the library:

“The Beating Heart of the School”,

which is exactly what the library should be.

I am not someone who believes that it should be a choice between the internet, e-books or hard-copy books. They all do different things and should complement each other. The internet is great for focused research on a specific topic, up to a point, but a school library enables a pupil to expand their horizons in important, less predictable ways. For example, a good teacher or librarian will say to a pupil, “You’ve read this—now try this”. The adventurous and browsing elements which good school libraries enable are greatly underrated in the development of a child’s interests. Books can and should be at the very heart of this process.

My child is lucky at her state school but, unhappily, this is not the case everywhere. I find it extraordinary that school libraries are not compulsory at a time when we as a society are so concerned about literacy; the link between school libraries and literacy is one of the things which the Libraries All-Party Group report recommends that the Department for Education thoroughly examine. It is clear that there is a crisis, with threats to the continuing existence of libraries and librarians. For example, the DfE school workforce data for England show a reduction of 280 librarians within a two-year period. The report also cites the 2010 UK national survey of school libraries, showing a 7% fall over three years in the number of primary school libraries with library space. The same survey showed that while relatively few primary schools had a designated school librarian, 90% of them accessed support via the schools library services. However, because that is often a traded service to schools, some schools are choosing to no longer use those services when money is tight.

A major problem is the lack of comprehensive data about the number of school libraries and librarians. One of the other recommendations that the report makes is that the DfE should ensure that that information becomes part of the annual data submission for schools. Nevertheless, the current evidence, however patchy and anecdotal, suggests that this situation is continuing to worsen.

A good school library should be represented in all areas: fiction, non-fiction, arts and sciences. Art books have traditionally had a special place in school libraries, in part because of their visual immediacy, and art teachers continue to use books as a vital resource in classes. This raises another issue: libraries need to be kept up to date. In the case of art, this means purchasing catalogues of new exhibitions. As the National Society for Education in Art and Design told me this week, “It is almost a given that teachers will supply their own up-to-date art books in schools”. Indeed, one teacher told me that she has spent more than £500 a year on visual resources, such as books, DVDs, posters and art magazines. It is admirable that art teachers are so passionate about their subject and their pupils’ engagement to make these outlays—if, of course, they can afford to do so— but it is a sad reflection on the amount and system of school funding that libraries or departments cannot purchase these books that can then be made available to pupils in the long term.

Every pupil at primary and secondary school level deserves access to a good school library. I hope that the Government will take steps to reverse the current trend and ensure that this becomes a reality.

19:06

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when I saw this debate going down, I thought that it would be a good idea to make a speech. Indeed, one of my noble friends said, “Why don’t you speak about books, you can talk about dyslexia again”. Looking at this, I realised that my attitude towards books is not quite the same as other people’s because I am severely dyslexic. I have had access to much of the heavier, deep literature of the 19th century in an audio format. What is a book? I had a think about it. It is not a piece of paper but a pile of knowledge either edited or put together in a whole. That is my attitude towards it.

The audiobook fulfils that function of knowledge. True, having someone who reads it well is a help but it still fulfils that function. It brings things together and allows you access to knowledge. Whether or not we like it, in our society there is a great deal of snobbery about books. Anybody who does not have access to a book or who does not read is regarded as below the salt intellectually. Regardless of whether or not you understand the words that you read, reading them is regarded as a great thing.

The new format, the audio component, has been incredibly popular for a long time. The growth of the audiobook started in the 1970s and many of us have lots of audiobooks that we are now told are fit only for recycling because they are on tape—maybe that is just in my household. But the idea that a book can be accessed in various formats is one that we should take care of.

On the subject of libraries, the huge amount of effort that goes into them to make sure that literature is in audio format—in most libraries—is something, in the accessing of literature, to which I believe that the Government should pay attention. The link between being literate and accessing literature is no longer absolute. You do not need the intermediary of another person to read to you; the capacity to get at it is there. In our society, that is very important. It is an asset to everything else that you do.

On emerging digital technology, the idea that you can access any book via these means is now a reality. It affects many of the ways in which we have been assisting people who have learning difficulties or sensory impairment. I hope that the construction and control of the digital world, and the interrelated way in which we reward people who produce books, are brought into the whole discussion about books. If there is intellectual snobbery around books, it is because this is how we have conveyed ideas, particularly complicated ones, to our society.

I hope that when my noble friend replies he pays some attention to this and shows us how we are going to make progress. We should not ignore that part of it, and my noble friend did not do so when she started this. She said that a book in a digital format is probably easier to access straight away than one in written format—you can still do it but digital is easier. If we make sure that is worked in, we will expand the basis of ideas, discussion and thought. We may even be able to remove the exclusion of those who have bad technical reading skills.

Literacy may be a value to society, but the idea of study, knowledge and the interaction of knowledge is more valuable to society again. Looking at the way new technology works, we can expand the basis of those who can get into a book—that lovely package of ideas and thoughts, good or bad, well done or not. We now have the capacity within society to make sure everyone can access this. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will have given some thought to how audiobooks and e-books can be made more accessible to society as a whole.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Popat (Con)]

If you cannot be here at the beginning of the debate, you cannot speak in this gap period. My apologies.

19:11

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for tabling this debate and for giving us the opportunity for a very thoughtful and passionate discussion about an issue which we all take very much to heart. Unlike some of the debates that I have to speak on, I very much enjoyed doing the preparation for this one. Noble Lords have identified so many ways in which books can be life-changing. They can inspire, educate, amuse, challenge and elevate. For me, reading books is special precisely because it is a one-to-one personal thing and cannot be replicated. What you take out of a book is very different from another person reading the same one. I cannot imagine a world without books.

In the short time available, I will mention three threats which will affect the centrality of books in our lives. First, nothing epitomises better our understanding of the importance of books in society than our fantastic library services, where access to books is free. We should be proud of the fact that our library network has flourished for more than 150 years and remains unrivalled in the world. This free access has been embraced by working class movements from the moment that the printed word became mainstream and I am very pleased that, for example, the Working Class Movement Library in Manchester is still going strong. Books became vehicles for big ideas and social visions as well as new ways of thinking about truth and beauty. I can still remember the thrill of getting my first library card as a child and the excitement of the weekly visits to choose a new book. The thrill of having and holding that book felt like a rite of passage into a secret adult world.

It is, therefore, very frustrating to hear the extent to which the service is under threat at the moment. UNISON has estimated that nearly 500 libraries are being closed, privatised or run by volunteers on a reduced service. The truth is that once that service is closed we will not get it back and another celebrated feature of our cultural heritage will be gone for good. What steps is DCMS taking to ensure that a comprehensive network of libraries is retained so that future generations can benefit from access to the civilising power of books in the way that we have done?

Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked of all the positive developments in book reading but, sadly, the size of the printed book market slumped in 2013 to an 11-year low in terms of both volume and value. As she pointed out, many much loved independent bookshops are closing around the country, with almost 550 going out of business in the past 10 years. This has to be a concern. We know of at least two main reasons for this: first, as noble Lords have pointed out, the domination of online purchases through Amazon; and, secondly, the growth of the digital e-book market in which Amazon also has a major hand via the Kindle. It already controls 41% of all book sales in the UK.

I do not pretend that there are any easy answers to these trends but there have to be deep concerns about intellectual property and diversity when a single operator can become dominant in the market in this way. Already, there are worrying signals. It is alleged that, in renegotiating its contract with independent UK publishers, Amazon is now insisting on the right to print books itself if publishers fail to provide adequate stock. Can the Minister say whether any discussions are taking place to protect us from exploitation by this market dominance? As I think the noble Baroness said, should not this issue be referred to the competition authorities? Would it benefit from a Europe-wide investigation?

Finally, we face the challenge of the reading habits of the next generation. We know that the incidence of children reading regularly for pleasure is more important than either wealth or social class as an indicator of success at school. However, alarmingly, just over a quarter of children in a National Literacy Trust survey said that they read outside school, and one in five said that they were embarrassed to be caught with a book. I suppose that is the opposite of the snobbery to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred. Even more alarmingly, a survey in 2011 showed that three in 10 children in the UK do not own a single book of their own, with boys being even less likely to own a book than girls. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a passionate case for school libraries. I think that is part of the solution. However, it is clear that, without a better education strategy, we are in danger of losing the civilising impact of books for good. Therefore, I would be grateful to hear from the Minister whether the department has a book strategy. What are its plans for extending the love of reading? How does it plan to protect our future access to the freedom of ideas contained in all the great works of fiction and non-fiction?

19:16

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. It has been an exceptional one which has highlighted how books are central to all our lives. Like all speakers in the debate, I come to it as a great supporter of books and, indeed, bookshops. I am afraid that I probably have far too many books cluttering my house but they are much loved and much enjoyed. This came to me very vividly when I saw a photograph in the newspaper only last week of a man in Ukraine rescuing his books from his burning house. I also reflected on how totalitarian regimes have suppressed and destroyed books, fearful of the power that they represent. Dreadful massacres have, alas, often been accompanied by the destruction of books. The dark age and destruction of civilisation that, alas, our continent has seen all too much of, contrasts with the age of the enlightenment that is represented by the book.

Books at their best are a source of information, knowledge, thought and pleasure for all age groups. As my noble friend Lady Miller said, they cross international boundaries and promote understanding and tolerance. My noble friend Lord Norton referred particularly to free speech. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, referred to the unique role of books in his thought-provoking speech. Unlike him, I do not see this age as marking the beginning of the demise of the book. I think that we will value books increasingly as we go through the technological revolution and that many people will continue to treasure them. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to the challenge and elevation that books bring to us. Indeed, I think that books for children have a special significance. They undoubtedly transform the life of a child and thereby contribute to the shaping of our society in the future. The noble Baroness was right to talk about the excitement and thrill we experience when we first start reading and continue to do so.

My noble friend Lord Norton referred to how essential reading is. Its development should be nurtured from an early age. Parents, family members and the home environment are essential to the early teaching of reading and in fostering a love of books. Clearly, there are parts of the community where that does not happen, and therefore schools are essential in developing the habit of reading books. The Government are committed to encouraging all age groups to read more.

A number of noble Lords referred to the curriculum. The new national curriculum for English aims to make sure that all pupils develop the habit of reading widely and often both for pleasure and for information. Teachers are encouraged to promote a love of reading and to inspire their pupils to choose and read books independently for challenge, interest and enjoyment. The Department for Education has strengthened the English curriculum and the support offered to schools to help children. There is now a phonics screening check for six year-olds and a greater focus on grammar, spelling and punctuation, with a new test for 11 year-olds, along with a strengthened requirement in GCSEs to use accurate spelling and punctuation. There is increased support for pupils in Year 7 who have not achieved level 4 in reading at key stage 2, as well as a greater focus on reading for pleasure, requiring pupils to study a range of books in order to develop a lifelong love of literature. All children deserve to be taught a rich curriculum that encourages extensive reading both in and out of school. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, referred to school libraries. I agree that the library should be at the heart of the school and well placed to help provide a love of reading. The Government fully support school libraries. It is a matter of choice for the head teacher, but we very much encourage the part that school libraries play in schools.

Adult literacy must also be addressed. BIS supports a wide range of different and flexible types of provision so that adults can learn in the way that suits them. This includes learning in the workplace, in community settings and through traditional college courses and using technology and online learning. BIS is ensuring that good-quality English and maths provision is at the heart of traineeships and apprenticeships to put people in a better position to take up an apprenticeship or other job. It will be piloting a new scheme supporting 18 to 21 year-olds on jobseeker’s allowance to ensure they can improve their English and maths to help them find and stay in a job. In addition, it is offering bursaries of £6 million in 2014-15 for maths, English and special educational needs teachers to attract more graduates. It is terribly important that we ensure that, in looking after children and young people, we also think about provision for adults so that their reading skills, and therefore their opportunities to read books, are much enhanced.

Outside the school curriculum and adult learning, a number of organisations that receive public funding, such as the Reading Agency and Booktrust, also deliver programmes to children and adults. The Reading Agency receives public funding from Arts Council England and runs a number of programmes to support people and develop an interest in literacy. Its programmes are targeted at specific age groups. For children, this includes the summer reading challenge, chatterbox and reading activists programmes. For adults, programmes include the six-book challenge and reading groups for everyone. All these programmes are developed and run in partnership with public libraries.

Booktrust, a UK-wide charity, is receiving £6 million this year from the Department for Education to assist delivery of a number of programmes aimed specifically at getting parents or carers reading to their children and to build children’s own love of reading. Its initiatives include the national flagship programme, Bookstart, which gives free books to all children at two key ages before they start school. This means around 3.8 million books are distributed to children up to the age of four. Booktrust delivers its programmes in partnership with children’s centres, health visitors, schools and local authorities.

Let us not forget the important contribution of the National Literacy Trust. The trust is a national charity dedicated to raising literacy levels in the UK. It works to improve reading, writing, speaking and listening skills in the UK’s most disadvantaged communities with the focus of its work on families, young people and children. Only last week, the trust unveiled new research revealing that children’s enjoyment of reading had increased for the first time in eight years. The latest figures show that 53.3% of children enjoy reading. However, that is not the sort of figure that we should be satisfied with. We obviously all have much more to do in this regard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, quite rightly referred to the importance of public libraries. The service has a central role to play in spreading the book-reading habit and provides access to a range of free reading material. It is indeed a treasure house of all kinds of books. There remains—I do not deny it, and indeed none of your Lordships will do so—the issue of the gravity of the economic situation in this country, but we still have a strong library service in England, with some 3,181 public libraries. Those libraries remain very popular and a large number of people visit them annually. There were 238.9 million physical library visits and 222.4 million book issues in 2012-13 in England. This is a service that is not just a repository of books in the traditional paper form. The public library service is adapting, as it should, to the changes in digital technology, and we have seen the number of e-books being issued increase by 80% in recent times. My noble friend Lord Addington referred to audiobooks. These are available and can be accessed from public libraries. Moreover, the public lending right was recently extended to the loan of audiobooks as well as e-books.

I was particularly struck by what my noble friend Lady Miller said about the book trade. The statistics for the UK show that book clubs, festivals and so on comprise the firmament of the love of books and of reading. The extraordinary success of book festivals is an indication of the place of the book in our national life. My noble friend also raised a number of points about copyright, and indeed my noble friend Lord Younger would wish me to stress how strongly the Government support the efforts being made by the creative industries to simplify the licensing of copyright material through the Copyright Hub. In terms of progress, phase 1 of the hub was launched in July last year and provided information for those seeking copyright material. Much work needs to continue on that, but because it is a detailed subject, perhaps I may write to my noble friend.

As I have said, the Government fully recognise the importance of authors, and this is why it is so helpful to extend the public lending right to e-books for onsite lending. We have a problem, because of current EU copyright law, about remote lending at this time, but that is also a work in progress. Although I will write more fully, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Miller raised the issue of Amazon. This is of course a matter for the Competition and Markets Authority, but there is more that I would like to say on that.

My noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Dholakia mentioned books in prisons. I will write more fully on this subject, but I will say that the Government have not banned prisoners from having access to books. There is library access for every prison, and indeed prison library budgets have been protected. Moreover, as has been said, prisoners may also use their own funds to buy books. The Government’s policy is about restrictions on sending items into prisons, not specifically books. There have always been restrictions on what can be sent into a prison, and this policy simply seeks to ensure that there is greater consistency across all prisons in terms of their security. However, I will write more fully about this issue.

I was struck by what is involved in the creation of a book: the writing, the production, the author, the publisher, the literary agent, the printer, the illustrator and the photographer. All these are part of what make up books, and I am very conscious of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. I looked at the number of books in his entry, and it is very considerable. It is a great privilege to reply to this debate and I wish that we had longer to discuss these issues. I hope that I have been able to set out what the Government, public bodies and charities—I particularly congratulate the charities on the part that they are seeking to play—are doing. As far as I am concerned, a civilised world without books is unimaginable.

Committee adjourned at 7.29 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 9 July 2014.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Tax: Aggressive Tax Avoidance

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:08

Tabled by

[Lord Barnett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their definition of aggressive tax avoidance; and what specific examples they can instance.

[Lord Peston (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Barnett, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have taken a wide range of actions to tackle all forms of tax avoidance. The general anti-abuse rule, which this Government introduced, specifically seeks to tackle abusive tax-avoidance schemes. HMRC has provided examples of the arrangements that will be captured under this rule in its very detailed published guidance. A further example of aggressive tax avoidance is detailed on the front page of today’s Times.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, the reason that your Lordships are stuck with me and not my noble friend is that he is very ill indeed, and I know that all noble Lords will wish to send wishes that he recovers quickly.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Peston]

In particular so that he can occupy his usual place and ask some really difficult questions.

In so far as I understand this subject at all, is it not the case that aggressive tax avoidance leaves companies making enormous sums of money and millionaires paying lower rates of tax than those with average or around average incomes? Does this not bring the whole tax system in our country into disrepute? How urgently are the Government trying to deal with aggressive tax avoidance, with a view to punishing those who do it?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, first of all I ask the noble Lord to pass on my good wishes and, I am sure, those of the whole House to his noble friend.

The Government take this issue extremely seriously. We have invested additionally in this area more than £1 billion over the spending review period, and taken on another 2,500 staff to work on it. The compliance yield that flowed from this work in the past year was £23.9 billion—the highest ever—and we have increased the number of people being prosecuted for tax crime to 2,600 in this Parliament, which has resulted in 2,700 years of jail sentences.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, at the G8 meeting last year—it is now the G7—the Prime Minister led on the question of tax avoidance by the multinational companies that we all know, such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google. They seem to do significant business in the UK but pay very little tax. What progress has been made in that area?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the work in that area has been carried forward by the OECD, which produced a comprehensive 15-point action plan. Work on all those points is now under way. The first deliverables, on transport pricing, are due in September this year. At the EU level, noble Lords will have seen that the EU is currently investigating the tax position in Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands, specifically with Amazon, Apple and Starbucks in mind.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I do not wish to be misunderstood, but is it not the case, generally speaking—there is evidence to support this—that when tax rates are lowered, more revenue flows into the Treasury?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there is very extensive academic literature about the so-called Laffer curve, and I suspect there are very different views on it in your Lordships’ House. It is undoubtedly the case at the extreme ends of the curve that if you tax very highly the rate falls of because people find ways of avoiding it, and if the tax rate is very low the rate falls off simply because the rate per taxable unit is so much less.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, is it not correct that the principal weapon of aggressive tax avoidance is misuse of allowances that are permitted for various reasons? The complexity of that system is so great that it is extremely difficult to analyse transactions to see whether or not they comply with these particular conditions properly.

[Lord Newby]

The noble and learned Lord points to a very important problem. There are over 1,000 tax allowances, all of which have been introduced individually for very good economic development reasons. The problem is that they are now very complicated. Some tax advisers have been extremely creative at finding ways to use these allowances, which were developed for perfectly good reasons, to enable people to avoid their tax.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, is the term “aggressive tax avoidance” not just semantics? Tax avoidance is tax avoidance, whether aggressive or not. By doing this we are encouraging complexity, which is to the benefit of sharp-witted accountants and lawyers. Tolley’s Tax Guide is now 20,000 pages long. I suggest that the Minister should have two ambitions: first, to have the tax book the same length as War and Peace at 1,200 pages. Secondly, he should take up the suggestion of the noble Lord who said that we need to ensure these tax-avoidance schemes are referred to the Treasury first of all to determine whether they are tax avoidance. That would eliminate the complexity.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, at the start of this Parliament, we established the Office of Tax Simplification. It has done useful work in reducing the body of tax law, although clearly it has a long way to go. On the work that has been going on to tackle tax avoidance schemes, I think that the tax avoidance industry has got the message; the number of potential avoidance schemes notified to HMRC fell by 75% in the two years from 2010.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay is absolutely right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—the two things go together. When I was Chancellor some years back, I reduced tax rates substantially, eliminated a whole range of allowances and indeed abolished some stupid taxes altogether, and the result was a great increase in revenue. However, is there not another point? If, after you have done that—which I commend to the Government—there is still a real problem with avoidance of a particular tax. Is there not a case for abolishing that tax and replacing it with another one that is less easy to avoid?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I think that that is easier said than done.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether the Government refuse to grant contracts to the companies and individuals that are engaged in this ludicrous and anti-social avoidance?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I think that there have been a number of cases in recent times where companies have lost contracts because they have been behaving in an unreasonable way, and that is a very good principle.

Finance: Fiscal Devolution

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:16

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in considering the proposals for fiscal devolution set out in the London Finance Commission’s report Raising the Capital.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have recently devolved a range of responsibilities and funding through the Localism Act 2011 and they have decentralised local government finance through the Local Government Finance Act 2012. Any further fiscal devolution to sub-national authorities in England would represent a significant change to the existing tax landscape, with potentially significant legal, economic and constitutional implications.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will no doubt have read the report issued this morning by the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee, which says that it supports the principle of fiscal devolution and found no evidence opposed to it. He will also be aware that the major cities of this country apart from London—Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and all the other core cities—all agree that they need to see bolder fiscal devolution if they are to invest for their longer-term growth. Is it not time for the Treasury to undertake an economic analysis of how the full suite of property taxes could be devolved to England’s great cities in line with the recommendations of the CLG report and the London Finance Commission report and the devolution being delivered in Scotland and Wales?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the first point that the noble Lord makes is summed up very well in the introduction to the report to which his Question refers, in which Tony Travers, who chaired it, says:

“Devolution and localism face little opposition apart from national politicians’ cautious approach to constitutional change in Britain”.

That sums up the position very well, and I think that there has been considerable movement under this Government. I will take back the noble Lord’s second point to my colleagues in the Treasury.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that every political party during his adult lifetime has fought elections on the basis that it wants greater devolution of power to the regions or the cities and then, when it gets into power, it finds a reason not to do so?

[Lord Newby]

I am afraid that there has been a very chequered history of attempts to devolve power—within England, at least. This Government, by devolving half the income generated by business rates, have begun a process. The growth deals announced at the beginning of this week—under which, over a period, £12 billion will be devolved to local enterprise partnerships, whereas it would otherwise have been administered by central government departments—is a big move towards greater devolution. I suspect that in the next Parliament there will be much more pressure to do more.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, if London benefits with its high property values and other advantages, does that not inevitably mean that other parts of the UK will not benefit? How does one prevent that sort of fiscal competition, which surely cannot be to the benefit of less favoured areas?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the principle that operates if one is devolving tax revenue to a lower tier of government is that the amount of tax devolved is subtracted from the amount of grant which that tier of government would otherwise be getting. Therefore, at the start of the process at least, there is no net shift of revenue from one area to another.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government consider allowing our cities to raise their own municipal bond funding, as is the case in the US and as was the case in this country in the greater days of our cities? It has only had to be done through gilts since after the Second World War.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there are obviously strong arguments which would enable cities to raise more funding. Those have been resisted by the Treasury under successive Governments. As they are moving towards drawing up their manifestos, I am sure that all the parties are considering whether they want to change those long-standing practices.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, rather than more piecemeal devolution, is the time not now right for a more comprehensive and coherent look at devolution throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, so that we have a sensible system, and that some kind of commission—a constitutional commission or royal commission, under a wise and experienced chairman—should be set up as soon as possible?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I was waiting for the last part of that sentence. I am sure that all noble Lords will bear the noble Lord’s expertise in mind, should a commission be established. I think that, once we have the outcome of the Scottish referendum, all parties and all people who are interested in constitutional change in the UK will want to revisit the issue. The exact way we do it is also something that I think all the parties are thinking about as they draw up their manifestos.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government seem to be extraordinarily complacent about the response to increasing demand from our great cities for increased powers. The Minister said that it was all too complex, and then his noble friend from the Liberal Benches produced the usual note of cynicism that people never fulfil their promises when in government. I assure the Minister that we intend to have a thorough examination of the powers to allocate greater resources to our cities and regions, very much in line with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am always pleased when the Labour Party rethinks its policies. However, the premise of the point that the noble Lord raised was misguided. This Government, through the city deals, has devolved significant funding to the major cities for the first time. As I said earlier, with the growth deals which we announced at the beginning of this week, £12 billion is being devolved to the LEPs from what were central government allocations. This is a very big shift of economic and social decision-making going down to the cities and regions.

Health and Social Care Act 2012: Risk Register

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:23

Asked by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish the Risk Register drawn up for the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

The Government’s position has not changed since the noble Lord asked the same Question last December. We are not proposing to publish the risk register. This decision is based on the principle that Governments and their civil servants need to be able to consider the risks associated with policy formation in private. It remains our view that a full and candid assessment of risks and their mitigating actions should be carried out within a safe space.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, the logic of that is that no risk register should be released to the public and I do not believe that is the Government’s policy. Given the Secretary of State for Health’s recent encouragement and support for NHS whistleblowers, and as the original risk register was released into the public domain by a whistleblower, what would the Government do if the continuing cover-up was then blown by a whistleblower before the next general election?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would expect me to say that hypothetical situations are not in my domain, and that is true in this case. The Government’s position is that there is a balance to be struck between transparency of activity in government and the safe space required for effective policy-making. That is why, in November 2011, I laid out for this House a comprehensive list of the areas covered by the transition risk register, but also why, at the same time, the Government decided to withhold publication of the register itself.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend will well remember the concerns of my party on this issue in 2012. I wonder whether he considers now, two years after the Act, that even if the private advice of civil servants should retain protection, the factual information in the register could now be published. That would enable everyone to monitor how the Act is working against what was predicted in 2012.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, it is possible to monitor how the Act is working without publishing the risk register. It is quite true that the transition to the new commissioning system is over. However, the risk register related expressly to the implementation of the reforms and the system is still bedding down. Therefore, we are still of the view that it is inappropriate to publish the register.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as professor of surgery at University College London and chairman of UCL Partners. At the time of its Second Reading, the Minister was kind enough to indicate that the Health and Social Care Act would enjoy post-legislative scrutiny after three rather than five years. Does that remain the intention?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I undertook to publish an assessment of the implementation of the 2012 Act within three years, so the noble Lord is right. News on that front will be forthcoming very shortly.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Referring to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, methinks the Lib Dems are trying to rewrite history. They underpin this dreadful change that the 2012 Act brought to the NHS and they bear responsibility for the shambles that it has caused. I am very confused by the approach of the Department of Health. It has berated the National Health Service for not being open and transparent; in fact, it published a league table of those who are good and those who are not good. The NHS bodies are required to publish risk registers, so why should it be different for the Minister’s own department?

[Earl Howe]

The Government of which the noble Lord was such a distinguished member took the same approach to risk registers. Of course, transparency is an important principle in health and care. It is important to drive up performance and expose institutional failure, and I believe there is a revolution taking place in the level of transparency and access to health and care information. I am sure we are agreed on that. The point that I sought to make earlier is that when it comes to policy-making within government, Ministers and civil servants are entitled to some safe space, so the principle of transparency has to be moderated to a certain extent. That is the balance that we have struck.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that a recent independent Commonwealth Fund report said that Britain had the best and safest healthcare system of all the 11 wealthiest nations? Since we know that the NHS is the biggest organisation and business of its kind in Europe, with all the opportunities for it to go wrong, is this not an extremely telling assessment of the real situation?

[Earl Howe]

I agree completely with my noble friend. The Commonwealth Fund report covers the period from 2011 to 2013—exactly when we were in the middle of reforming the NHS. The findings of the report were a credit to all those working on the front line of the healthcare system throughout that period of change.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is right to refer to that report, which I believe was based on 2011 figures. Does he accept that it is not politicians who are entitled to see the risk register but the public, particularly when the coalition Government promised separately and together that there would be no top-down reform of the health service? Are the public not entitled to know what regard this coalition Government have to the public’s need to know? The public want to know if the risk register identified risks post-2011.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The public are entitled to know the areas of risk identified by the Government at the time that the transition risk register was drawn up. That is exactly why I laid out for the House a comprehensive list of the areas covered by the risk register on 28 November 2011. That was a full list, which nevertheless did not disclose the actual content of the risk register. That is the balance that I believe any Government are entitled to strike. The public are therefore in a position to judge how well the system has done.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that one of the unarguable costs of the reorganisation has been the number of people previously employed by the health service as administrators who received their redundancy settlements and pay-offs but were subsequently re-employed by the health service? Will he tell the House how much this has cost—the initial redundancy settlements, the subsequent salaries that are being paid and the number of people involved? If he does not have that figure to hand, and as he will not publish the risk register, will he at least make available in the House the precise figures of the cost to the taxpayer of this aspect of the reorganisation?

[Earl Howe]

I am certainly happy to write to the noble Lord with whatever figures I have on that front but, of course, those who were made redundant as a result of the reorganisation received payments of no more and no less than they were entitled to under their contracts of employment. There are more than 19,300 fewer administrative staff in the NHS than there were when we came to office, but more than 16,300 more clinical staff, including 7,400 more doctors and 3,300 more nurses.

Health: Cancer

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:31

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the number of National Health Service patients treated for cancer by stereotactic ablative radiotherapy has fallen since April last year.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, before NHS England began commissioning specialised services in April 2013, many local arrangements that were in place were outside recommendations issued by the National Radiotherapy Implementation Group, the NRIG. Since April 2013 a consistent national policy has been in place, backed by robust clinical evidence. In line with this evidence, the number of SABR indications commissioned has reduced. It is important to ensure that treatments commissioned are supported by robust evidence of their benefit to patients.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

I thank the Minister but, as recently as February this year, I asked him a question on another form of very specifically targeted radiotherapy. He replied that access would be guaranteed to innovative radiotherapy. My Question today relates to another innovative form, one that targets the particular cancer without damaging the surrounding tissues. Can the Minister explain why the figures have fallen and whether these machines, which are very valuable, are being left unused? If they are, is it because of the lack of people being trained to use them? Do we have enough skilled staff to allow patients to benefit from what is greatly improved radiotherapy?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there is no shortage of investment in radiotherapy and no barrier, indeed, to clinically appropriate access to radiotherapy. A lack of trained staff to operate the machines is not the reason that the use of SABR has fallen. The reason is that the clinical and commissioning decisions have been taken to reflect the evidence of what is clinically effective for certain cancers. That is why clinicians are no longer commissioning this form of radiotherapy for cancers which do not respond adequately to that form of treatment.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Do the Government recognise, though, that there are times when commissioning has to invest to save and has to support evaluation while a treatment is ongoing, and that the new forms of stereotactic radiotherapy have very good local control rates? For example, in lung cancer the rates have improved from 20% to 30%, with 15 to 20 treatments, to about 70%-plus with only three to five treatments. For patients to be treated nearer home, the costs saved to other parts of the care system need to be considered in the commissioning decisions, where you have better local control and lower knock-on healthcare effects.

[Earl Howe]

Yes, my Lords. Radiotherapy, particularly of this kind, is highly cost effective when it is clinically indicated. In fact, SABR is available in eight radiotherapy centres in England. The number of centres providing this treatment is increasing, with over a quarter having equipment capable of delivering the treatment. Current evidence supports treating only a small number of patients with this treatment: that is, in early-stage lung cancers for patients who are unsuitable for surgery. That is about only 1,000 patients a year.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware of a pledge made by the Prime Minister last October that this kind of treatment would be available to cancer patients who needed it. He will also be aware of a statement by Mr Lawrence Dallaglio, who was asked by the Government to help in this. He described it as a “national disgrace” that NHS England reneged on a deal to fund these cancer treatments. Is the noble Earl absolutely certain that the reason the number of treatments has fallen is due entirely to clinical reasons?

[Earl Howe]

Yes, my Lords: that is the advice I received. It goes hand in hand with other advice around other forms of radiotherapy treatment that are increasing very dramatically. For example, intensity-modulated radiotherapy is a similar form of radiotherapy for different types of cancer—head and neck cancers, principally. The use of that radiotherapy has grown very considerably, partly as a result of considerable investment by the current Government.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, this treatment works for patients caught very early in the stages of their disease. Is NHS England working with GPs to increase the number of people who they suspect have cases that will respond to this treatment getting into these centres in the first place?

[Earl Howe]

Yes, my Lords. One of the measures we took some months ago was to enable GPs to refer patients directly to diagnostic centres when cancer was suspected, thereby accelerating the pathway towards effective treatment if cancer is diagnosed. The signs and symptoms campaign is specifically directed at not only patients but also clinicians, including GPs.

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the important research carried out over the past 30 years at Southampton University’s centre for immunology to create a treatment based on stimulating the immune system? I appreciate that that is not on all fours with the Question, but it has the same parallel advantage of not causing the debilitating side-effects that traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments can.

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend draws attention to yet another area of research which may well prove very beneficial to cancer patients. I am not aware of the particular study she mentioned but I shall gladly look into that.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:38

The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed as a money Bill, and read a first time.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Green Deal) (Amendment) Order 2014

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:38

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That the draft order laid before the House on 4 June be approved.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on Monday 30 June.

Motion agreed.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1: injunctions to prevent gang-related violence) Order 2014

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:39

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the draft order laid before the House on 9 June be approved.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.

Motion agreed.

Adoption and Children Act Register (Search and Inspection) (Pilot) Regulations 2014

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:39

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11 June be approved.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.

Motion agreed.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2014

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:39

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the draft order laid before the House on 12 June be approved.

Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.

Motion agreed.

Universal Credit

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, I should like to repeat as a Statement the Answer given by the Secretary of State to an Urgent Question in the House of Commons earlier today.

“Universal credit is a major reform that will transform the welfare state in Britain for the better, making 3 million people better off and bringing £35 billion of economic benefits to society. Rightly for a programme of this scale, the Government’s priority has been, and continues to be, its safe and secure delivery. This has been demonstrated throughout our approach to date, which started with the successful launch of the pathfinder in April 2013 and has continued with the controlled expansion of universal credit. On 5 December last year I announced that universal credit would be rolled out to the north-west and be expanded to couples from the summer of 2014, and would then expand to families later that year. That is exactly what is happening.

A fortnight ago we began our north-west expansion—universal credit is now in 24 jobcentres and will reach 90 across the country by the end of the year. A week ago we started taking claims from couples. This careful rollout is allowing us to test and learn as we go along, continuously improving the process. My department has always worked, and will continue to work, closely with the Treasury on these rollout plans. As we have made clear in a number of recent debates and answers to Parliamentary Questions, the Treasury has approved funding for the universal credit programme in 2013-14 and 2014-15, in line with the plan that I announced in December of last year.

These approvals are given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—such matters are delegated to him by the Chancellor—and these approvals are subject to rigorous controls, in line with recommendations made by the National Audit Office. It has always been our plan to secure agreement for universal credit in carefully controlled stages. First for singles, where we have agreed funding with the Treasury and are already rolling out in line with that agreement; then for couples, where we have agreed funding with the Treasury, and are already rolling out in line with that agreement; then for families, where we have recently secured agreement from the Treasury and will begin rollout later this year.

All of this was confirmed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the answer to a Parliamentary Question yesterday, and that set of agreements confirms the approval of the strategic outline business case plans for this Parliament. The final stage in this process has always been sign-off of the full business case, which covers the full lifetime of this programme, and will eventually bring £35 billion of economic benefits to society. My right honourable friend and I expect to agree that shortly”.

15:43

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. It was an interesting history lesson, but it did not shed as much light as I would have liked on the Question that was asked. We have been very supportive of the principle of universal credit, but the enormous problems that his department has been having in implementing it are sorely testing our support. If the Minister is to maintain cross-party backing for universal credit, a project to which I know he is personally committed, then we need rather more transparency than the Government have been able to offer during the process hitherto.

On 30 June, the Employment Minister, Esther McVey, said that the Chief Secretary had approved the strategic outline business case for universal credit. On Monday, the head of the Civil Service, Sir Bob Kerslake, said to the Public Accounts Committee:

“We shouldn’t beat about the bush. It hasn’t been signed off”.

I ask the Minister two simple questions. First, Esther McVey and Sir Bob Kerslake cannot both be right: which of them is? Secondly, can he assure the House that universal credit is, and always has been, on time and on budget?

15:45

[Lord Freud]

I acknowledge that in this House there is a supportive atmosphere towards universal credit. The contrast between the dialogues that we have in this House and another place is marked, and always has been marked, and I appreciate that.

On transparency, this programme is subject to an enormous amount of public challenge—whether from the NAO, the PAC or the Work and Pensions Select Committee. A lot of information is available. A couple of weeks ago, I committed to ensure that Peers got more precise information. I am getting a programme going for that, so I hear that and understand it.

On the apparent difference between my colleague, Esther McVey, and Bob Kerslake, they are both right, because they are answering slightly different questions. The first was about the strategic outline business case plans for 2013-14 and 2014-15. I went through in my Statement how they have been approved. Bob Kerslake was answering a question about the entire lifetime. As I said, that has not yet been approved, but we expect to have that cleared up and approved shortly.

15:48

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, several noble Lords were able to visit the jobcentre in Hammersmith this morning to see for themselves how the programme is being rolled out. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank officials from DWP and those at the jobcentre who were able to brief us so fully and to say how impressed we all were by how it is working—in particular, we were impressed by the coaches, who were able to give so much care and attention to individuals. Can my noble friend confirm that other noble Lords across the Chamber will be able to visit the jobcentres where universal credit is being rolled out to see it for themselves in a similar way?

[Lord Freud]

One thing I want to ensure is that I can get as much information to noble Lords as I possibly can. I am pleased to say that I have extended an invitation, which has been accepted, to arrange for a group of opposition Peers—as many as the noble Baroness would like to bring; well, not quite as many as that; we could not fit them all into Hammersmith; but enough to fill the room with a little standing room—to go through what is happening on the ground and the process.

One thing that I am keen to show the noble Baroness, which we saw this morning with a small group, is access to the work coaches to see how they work with clients in an entirely different way—in particular, to try to help the most vulnerable, whether it is looking at how they budget or various other things that they will need to do under universal credit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, Mr Duncan Smith insists that UC is on time, on track and on budget. I fear that it is not. None of the monitoring bodies—the Treasury, the Major Projects Authority, the NAO, the DWP Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, Sir Bob Kerslake—believes that. To paraphrase Sir Jeremy Heywood, the project remains well off-track. We want this to work. Will the Minister, whose integrity we entirely respect, give us the facts and the future plans rather than recycle the empty bluster of the Secretary of State?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is a very large programme and the way we are doing it is quite responsive. What we have is a test and learn process. That is not just an empty phrase. It is a very large process, based on a live run-out of many tens of thousands of people, which feeds into how we build a fully digital interactive service that we are building at the same time. We will make changes to the process. That is what it is about. It would be silly to do all that work without being responsive. We learn lots of things. One of my jobs is to try to understand what we are finding out and then make those changes. There will be changes. Having said that, we announced a rollout process in December and we are, to my pleasure, managing to get it out to time with those plans. The next stages, which are towards the end of the year, are really important—moving on to families, bringing in childcare and going to that digital place. By the end of the year we will have a working test bed of how a fully interactive process will work. I am not saying it will not change after that, but I am saying that we are doing what we were planning to do.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to redouble his efforts, as he has undertaken to do, to maintain cross-party support for this transformational programme which is so important to the future of our country. I am as impatient for implementation as anyone, but I exhort him to do this carefully—as he is doing—even if it means that the programme slips a little. It is better that it works properly than it is rushed and done wrongly. Does my noble friend agree that there is an advantage to keeping some flexibility in the funding of the scheme? Passported benefits, childcare costs and the local support services framework are all massively beneficial, and the Treasury should be persuaded to invest more money so that the programme is even more effective in future.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are indeed trying to get that flexibility. One can look at our very intensive dialogue with the Treasury—going through point by point and milestone by milestone—in two ways. One can look at it as pretty onerous, and it is. On the other hand, it gives one a chance to look at what we should be doing next and changing it. One example is on the support system delivered locally—in the jargon, the LSSF. We were able to go to the Treasury and get more money put into that process quite recently because it could see how valuable and important that was.

Not locking everything down early and having that dialogue works. Frankly, you do not know what you are going to find out or what you are going to need to do when you have a major programme. Having that understanding from the Treasury of what we are doing and keeping it well-informed so that we can make those changes as we go along does work.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, most people are not yet eligible for universal credit. Can the noble Lord give the figures for how many people at the moment are subject to benefit sanctions and what is the current delay between agreeing that someone is eligible for a benefit and their actually receiving payment? Are these two factors not responsible for a good deal of destitution?

[Lord Freud]

In the universal credit build-out, we are fully aware that there is a gap between claim and payment. There is also a gap in the present legacy systems. We have set up a system of advances so that people can get the cash flow to match the differences. Alongside that, where there is, to use the word of the noble Lord, “destitution”, or immediate crisis, we are setting up the local support framework working with local authorities. They can get some of that support to people and are far more efficient at doing that than a bureaucratic central system would be.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Committee

15:55

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 1: Creation of office of Service Complaints Ombudsman

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “is”

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the effect of this group of amendments is to say that a person may not be appointed as the ombudsman if that person has been a member of the Regular or Reserve Forces at any time in the five years prior to the date of appointment. The Bill lays down that,

“A person may not be appointed as the Ombudsman if the person is … a member of the regular or reserve forces”.

The present system has been described by the Service Complaints Commissioner as being not efficient, effective or fair. Indeed, in her most recent annual report the commissioner says that,

“for the sixth year running I have been unable to give … an assurance that the system is yet working efficiently, effectively or fairly”,

and that delay remains the principal reason for unfairness in the system. If we are to have a new system with a service complaints ombudsman with enhanced powers, it is surely vital that, if service personnel are to have a level of confidence in the new system which they do not have in the present arrangements, the ombudsman is seen not only to have greater powers but to be truly independent of those whose actions he or she might be investigating, and of those to whom he or she would be making recommendations.

In that context, it is surely also relevant that the ombudsman will, as I understand it, have the power to seek judicial review if the Defence Council rejects the recommendation. That situation will not be achieved if the person appointed as the ombudsman is perceived to be too close to the Armed Forces establishment and too much ingrained with the culture of the Armed Forces, or one arm of them, and their way of doing things to be perceived as being truly independent. We have had an independent Service Complaints Commissioner with insufficient powers and an unwieldy system. What we do not want to move to is a Service Complaints Ombudsman with greater powers and a more streamlined system for complaints but lacking the perception of being considered truly independent. That will be a risk not just if the person appointed is,

“a member of the regular or reserve forces”,

who would rightly be debarred under the current provisions in the Bill, but if the person appointed had recently been a member of the forces, who would not be debarred under the Bill as it stands.

One amendment in this group proposes that a person who,

“has been a member of the regular or reserve forces”,

should not be eligible to be appointed as the ombudsman for a period of five years after leaving the Regular or Reserve Forces. If the concern is that this would reduce the pool of potential applicants, I suggest that is the wrong priority. The principal concern should be to appoint someone who is not only truly independent but perceived as being so. If it is seriously to be suggested that we might not be able to find an independent ombudsman in whom we could all have confidence from outside the ranks of those who have been a member of the Regular Forces or Reserve Forces in the last five years, I suggest that we have a real problem over the future of this new position.

A detailed knowledge of the culture of the Armed Forces and how they operate and function that could come only from having recently been on the inside is not, I suggest, an essential qualification for being the ombudsman. Rather, the essential qualifications are to be of an open and independent mind, with an ability to weigh up evidence and facts, sort out the salient from the irrelevant, come to reasoned and measured conclusions and be able to question and challenge, as well as to be determined not to be deflected or obstructed by anyone, whatever their level or rank, and to desire to see that justice is done, whether that means upholding or rejecting a complaint.

I hope that the Minister will understand the purpose of the amendment and what it is seeking to achieve. As I see it, the Bill as it stands could mean that a person was appointed to this post the day after they ceased to be a member of the Regular or Reserve Forces, and I am not sure that, from the point of view of being perceived to be truly independent, that is the road we should even contemplate going down.

16:00

The new section in Clause 1 also says:

“The Ombudsman holds and vacates office in accordance with the terms of his or her appointment”.

Perhaps the Minister might feel able to take the opportunity to say a bit more about what may or may not be envisaged regarding the ombudsman’s terms of appointment, as referred to in that new section in Clause 1. Is it envisaged that it will be a fixed term for a period of years? How long is being envisaged? Is it being envisaged that it should be a renewable term or a single term of some length?

I will move my amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably and perhaps to say a bit more about what is intended under Clause 1 and about the phrase,

“The Ombudsman holds and vacates office in accordance with the terms of his or her appointment”.

I beg to move.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I understand all that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said about perception, but it is the reality that concerns me. I believe that all the points that the noble Lord has made about the danger of having someone who has just left the ranks of the Armed Forces may be there, but I would like to put the other side.

If we adopt the amendment that the noble Lord has suggested, we are limiting the choice. He may be right that it would be best to have someone who had not left the Armed Forces more recently, within the previous five years, but should we, in primary legislation, reduce the options that are available? If there were someone who had left the Armed Forces, say, two years before the appointment was made and that person was the admirable person for that position, should we, by passing this amendment, cut off the possibility of choosing the right man or woman for the position?

Although I welcome the suggestion that the Minister might give us a little more information about the terms of appointment and the like, which would be most useful, if the noble Lord’s amendment were to be passed we would be limiting choice, and that would be a poor thing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group would require there to be a gap of five years between a person ending their service in the Regular or Reserve Forces and becoming eligible to be appointed to the post of Service Complaints Ombudsman. The provision in the Bill requires simply that, to be appointed to the post, an individual is not currently a member of the Regular or Reserve Forces nor of the Civil Service. The service complaints process is in place to deal with a wide range of matters that can give concern to our personnel. For those concerns to be addressed and resolved, it is essential that everyone who might wish to use the process has confidence that it will deal with complaints in an impartial and professional way.

The need for the system to be fair, effective and efficient is already well established, and is the basis in the Bill for the ombudsman’s annual assessment in the ombudsman’s report as to how the process operated during the preceding year. In creating the new role of ombudsman, those principles of impartiality and professionalism are also the characteristics that everyone will expect to see the postholder display. Crucially, postholders must also be demonstrably independent of those whom they seek to hold to account for the way in which complaints have been handled.

That is why the ombudsman is outside the chain of command and has access to Ministers when the ombudsman considers it is necessary. The ombudsman will also be able to approach the chain of command at any level and on any issue, should there be a need to do so. The ombudsman will continue to be accommodated outside the defence estate to reinforce the independence of the role and the ombudsman will recruit its own staff in line with prevailing Civil Service recruitment guidelines. The Bill includes a new provision as a further mark of the role’s independence and security of the postholder’s tenure, in that the postholder’s appointment will be subject to appointment by Her Majesty.

The ombudsman will be a post that is of public interest. As such, the recruitment activity will include a pre-appointment hearing by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, once a candidate selected by the interview panel has been approved by the Secretary of State. This was introduced for the Service Complaints Commissioner post for the same reasons.

In reviewing the terms that will apply to the ombudsman post, we have considered the length of engagement of other similar posts and, to answer the noble Lord’s question, we have determined that when the next recruitment campaign is run the tenure will be extended to five years. To answer his other question, the term will not be renewable. This will give any future ombudsman sufficient time to familiarise themselves in the role and then become fully effective, which would not necessarily be the case if the term was shorter. Having looked at how other ombudsman institutions in the public sector are set up, we are aware that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has a seven-year non-renewable term. By keeping this aspect of the ombudsman appointment in the terms of appointment rather than in the Bill, we retain the flexibility to increase it in the future if experience shows that that might be beneficial.

The skills and experience that are needed for this post are those expected for any high-profile oversight role, with the additional challenges in the short term of transforming the current role of the Service Complaints Commissioner to that of an ombudsman. Proven analytical skills and the ability to make sound judgments and recommendations on the basis of evidence, along with a proven record in change management, will be key. Individuals can acquire these skills in any number of ways and it is for applicants to show how they have demonstrated them in practical terms that will be of benefit in this role.

We are clear that, on taking up the appointment, the ombudsman should not be a serving member of the Regular or Reserve Forces, nor of the Civil Service, so that the independence of the post and postholder is not in question. We do not, however, limit ourselves, as the amendment would, to those who may have left service during any particular period. Our aim is to get the best candidate for the job and to be in a position to encourage applications from as wide a field as possible. To put in an arbitrary bar would disqualify otherwise excellent candidates with potentially relevant and recent experience, a point that was well made by my noble friend.

As part of the recruitment process for posts of this nature, the recruitment consultants who are running the campaign will scrutinise closely the information provided by applicants, and will compare it to the required skills and experience that have been set out in the advertisement for the post. The consultants will also work closely in the run-up to and during the campaign with those who will be interviewing the applicants and recommending the candidate to Ministers for their approval. As has been the case in the past for the Service Complaints Commissioner, the ombudsman interviewing panel will include a mix of military and Civil Service personnel who know the complaints process well and have a clear understanding of the environment in which the ombudsman will be operating. This helps the consultants to understand in more detail the role that they are recruiting to and the benefits and disadvantages that certain areas of previous experience might attract.

The period since a potential candidate left the service might not necessarily be an issue. What may be of relevance is the role and function they carried out and the length of time they were in the service. For example, an individual who served for only a short period but who prior to joining up had experience of particular value to the ombudsman role may be an especially strong candidate who should be given serious consideration. Each candidate is therefore considered on their merits and always with the need for the chosen candidate for the post to be, beyond question, independent of those whom they will be holding to account.

As part of their checks, the consultants will clarify any potential issues that arise that they feel might raise any real or perceived doubts as to an applicant’s independence from the Armed Forces if an applicant were to go on to become the commissioner or, in future, the ombudsman. They will also look for any possible signs that an applicant might not otherwise be acceptable or might bring the integrity of the post into question, which might include, for example, whether they have been or are currently the subject of a complaint. The selection panel chaired by a public appointments assessor must also satisfy itself that all candidates can meet the Standards in Public Life principles and that they have no conflict of interest that would call into question their ability to perform the role.

There is undoubtedly a fine balance to be struck between having some relevant knowledge of the way that the services operate and being completely new to their ethos. The Armed Forces operate in a unique employment environment. Their need for strong discipline is among the factors that make them such an effective fighting force on operations. It can be difficult for someone who is unaccustomed to the way in which that discipline is instilled and maintained readily to understand how this environment differs from the civilian workplace and, indeed, how that might transfer to the way in which complaints are viewed and how the services handle them. By the same token, we need and want a fresh pair of eyes to look at our complaints process and determine what is fair, effective and efficient in the way that we deal with any complaints that might arise within that unique environment.

If an applicant for the ombudsman post had only recently left the Regular or Reserve Forces, we would still want to consider such an application. The checks and balances that we have in place as part of the rigorous recruitment process—and our need to ensure that the postholder is seen as independent—give us the flexibility to consider as wide a range of applicants as possible for this important role and to secure the best possible candidate. These amendments would lead to good candidates being excluded arbitrarily, and for that reason I must resist them. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

Will the Minister clarify a point he made? I think he said that a panel will make the appointment. If I understood that correctly, did he say that the panel would recommend a candidate or candidates to those who would make the final decision?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I think the answer is one candidate. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord know.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that and for his response. I noted that he said that the intention was for a non-renewable five-year tenure. Obviously, one would want to reflect on that. Personally, I can see some advantages in having a lengthy period of tenure that is not renewable, because then the occupant of the post may not be tempted in their decisions to do things that might lead to the contract being renewed at the end of the period. One could see the advantages of that, but I stress that that is an immediate personal response to that point.

Obviously, I am sorry that the Minister did not feel able to go any part of the way towards the objective that the amendment sought to achieve. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, said that we should not exclude people in primary legislation. Of course, a response to that is that we should not enable somebody who left the Regular and Reserve Forces the previous day, metaphorically speaking, to be appointed to this post in primary legislation. Perception is very important here. The reality is that the proposed legislation that we have in front of us enables an appointment to be made of somebody who has literally just left the Regular and Reserve Forces. I am sorry that the Minister did not feel able to make any movement at all on that. From the nature of the response, the Government obviously do not feel able to say that there should be any minimum period before anybody from the regulars or the reserves should be able to be appointed to this position.

However, I am grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive nature of his reply. I want to reflect further on it and on the points he has made and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendments 2 and 3 not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

16:15

Clause 2: Reform of system for redress of individual grievances

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

4: Clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“( ) If the family of a person who has died during the course of his or her service thinks that his or her relative or partner was wronged in any matter relating to his or her service, the family may make a complaint about the matter.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief, not least because I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, although he may not make exactly the same points, will make very similar points. On the issue of service complaints, the Bill refers to,

“a person subject to service law”,

who thinks that they have been wronged. It states:

“If a person who has ceased to be subject to service law thinks himself or herself wronged in any matter relating to his or her service which occurred while he or she was so subject, the person may make a complaint about the matter”.

However, it goes no further than that.

At Second Reading my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde raised the issue that when a service man or woman has died without making a complaint there appears to be no room for a family member to pursue a complaint on their behalf. There would seem to be powerful reasons that when an individual’s family or friends have information or evidence to suggest that a member of their family was treated unfairly in their service life, they should be able to take steps to find out the truth, and to be in a position, if needed, to make sure that a complaint that is going through the procedure at the time that the member of the services died can continue.

At Second Reading a number of noble Lords made reference to the case of Anne-Marie Ellement and the investigation conducted by the Royal Military Police which led to a decision being made that no charges should be brought. However, when it came, a long time later, to the inquest, it found that the lingering effect of an act of alleged rape, which was described as work-related despair and bullying, had contributed to that person’s death. There was a feeling that the information about the working and living conditions that the person endured would not have been available had it not been for the lengthy procedure in that case to get a second inquest.

Surely we ought to have a process that would enable issues such as that to be raised by the family on behalf of a member of the services who has died, whether the death occurs before a complaint has been made when evidence comes to light that indicates that a complaint could be pursued, or whether it occurs when a complaint is already going through the process but has not been finalised. Surely giving family members the opportunity to ask for a complaint to be investigated is both just for families and an opportunity for learning and improvement. I think I am also right in saying that the prisons ombudsman has discretion to investigate complaints made by the family members of deceased individuals. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on the issue covered in this amendment and in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I will speak to Amendment 5, which covers very much the same ground as that just covered by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, I think that it is perhaps more succinct than his amendment. I do not think that it is necessary for the family to think that a person has been wronged. If there is a complaint, the relatives, next of kin or personal representative should be able to pursue it.

If a wrong has caused the death, the problem with the coroner’s inquest is that those proceedings are not instituted by a member of the family or next of kin but by the coroner himself. That may take time and cause delay. It seems to me that it is appropriate and would avoid a great deal of hurt for the next of kin or personal representative to be able to take the complaint to the ombudsman. That would deal with the situation where a person has died as a result of the wrong but, of course, if there is some other issue, the coroner will have no part in it at all. There again, it should be open to the next of kin to make the application, and to do it in as prompt a manner as possible. A point of principle is involved here and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, both the amendments in this group deal with an issue that was raised at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. That issue is whether the family of a deceased person should be able to bring a complaint on their behalf or to continue a complaint where it was made before the person died. It is clear that there is support across the House for allowing complaints to be made or continued in such circumstances.

The first amendment in this group would allow the family of a person who has died during the course of their service to make a complaint if they think that the deceased person suffered some wrong in relation to their service. The second amendment, in the names of my noble friends, covers slightly different ground in that it also deals with the situation where a complaint has been made and the complainant then dies. In such cases, it proposes that the next of kin or personal representative can continue the complaint.

The Bill provides for a complaints process that enables serving or former members of the Regular or Reserve Armed Forces to complain about any matter that has arisen as part of their service. That right is subject to certain conditions, such as bringing the complaint within a given period. Certain matters are excluded from the complaints process because there are other, more appropriate, avenues available to deal with the issue raised—for example, a service complaint cannot be made about a matter that can be the subject of an appeal under the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act or is a decision of the Security Vetting Appeals Panel. The service complaints process allows military personnel to raise matters that relate directly to them and where they will have a clear understanding of what they would wish to see happen to redress the wrong that they believe they have experienced.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, complaints can be brought on a wide range of issues. The type and number of complaints varies from year to year and between the single services, with the majority tending to be about the broad range of terms of conditions issues. Bullying and harassment complaints accounted for 10% of all complaints in 2013 for the Royal Navy, and 43% for the Army. As might be expected, complaints that have the potential to have an adverse effect on career prospects and on pay tend to be the greatest in number. In 2013, such complaints accounted for 89% of all Navy complaints, 50% in the Army and 54% in the Royal Air Force.

For the complaints system to be fair, it has to give equal consideration to all parties who may be involved. That means that the person making the complaint and anyone else who might be implicated in it, or otherwise affected by it, should have the opportunity to put their case. For example, a complaint about whether someone was entitled to a particular allowance may include allegations that someone sought to falsify facts so that their eligibility was in doubt or that someone deliberately misled them about their eligibility. A complaint about harassment might hinge on the intentions behind comments made or on the actions of either the complainant or the person who is alleged to have harassed them. There may be issues of what was considered acceptable behaviour by both parties. There may be witnesses to the alleged behaviour who need to be involved. For any process to be fair, and for there to be confidence in it, all the parties involved must be able to put forward their own version of events and be able to challenge the version presented by others. That is the natural basis of justice. It is particularly important where reputations or future careers may be affected.

In dealing with any complaint, it is important not to lose sight of the implications for the individuals involved. We must not allow a rigid and inflexible process to override the rights of those involved. Any system must be sensitive and adaptable. A person does not make a complaint lightly. Raising a complaint means that something is causing the individual great concern, whether it is their annual appraisal and its implications for their pay and career, the condition of their property, or bullying and harassment. Complaints may also raise issues with wider implications for the services. Tackling complaints quickly and sensitively therefore has benefits regardless of the nature of the complaint. This need for sensitivity, however, is crucial where a person has died, whether or not his or her death has any connection to an existing or potential complaint.

It may also be helpful to give an example of how a service has responded when an issue has arisen in the course of other proceedings, and the potential complainant is deceased. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the tragic case of Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement. Her family, with the support of Liberty, secured a new inquest into her death earlier this year. The coroner presiding over the inquest concluded that Corporal Ellement had been the subject of workplace bullying. The Army had already decided before the inquest that consideration needed to be given to any action it might take, depending on the coroner’s findings. To that end, the Army was able to act quickly to put in place an internal investigation after the judgment was known. That investigation is looking at what happened in this case and whether any action should or can be taken against individuals. The investigation is made difficult by the fact that the person against whom these dreadful acts were perpetrated is sadly no longer able to give her own account of events, while those against whom any allegations have since been levelled cannot challenge fully the record of those events. It is, however, a strong reflection of the seriousness with which the Army takes its responsibilities in situations of this kind that, in this particular instance, it recognised the need to act early, and that it is doing so now.

It may be helpful if I give an example of a case in which the complainant died before their complaint had concluded. Noble Lords will understand that, in doing so, I must be very careful not to identify inadvertently the individual who was involved, so I will not give any specific details. Such situations are mercifully very rare, but when they arise we must respond sensitively and in the interests of justice for all parties.

16:30

At the time that the complainant died, his complaint was still in train. He was seeking compensation as redress, and, in considering whether the complaint could properly progress to a conclusion, the chain of command gave very careful thought as to whether details of the matter complained about could be determined without the personal involvement of the complainant. The circumstances of the complaint were also an issue: the matter complained about was closely linked to the eventual cause of death. This was therefore likely to be an emotive issue for the bereaved family. The decision was taken to proceed, as the facts could be determined by documentary material. These are difficult situations for all concerned, and I hope this example gives an indication of the thoughtful and sensitive way that the chain of command can and does approach them when, unfortunately, they arise.

It is in everyone’s interests to try to rectify a problem that can affect an individual’s morale or sense of injustice, whatever the cause of that sense of dissatisfaction may be and however it may come to someone’s attention. Where families are bereaved, these feelings can be heightened and their need and the services’ desire to reach a satisfactory outcome can become all the more pressing. Therefore, the value in seeing what can be done to take those concerns seriously, to learn lessons for the future and to bring some form of resolution to the family cannot be underestimated. Moreover, learning from any experience that can give existing and future personnel confidence that the chain of command takes their welfare seriously in the widest sense can, of course, only be to the good.

I hope that these examples demonstrate how the sorts of cases covered by these amendments would be dealt with in real life. In such cases, we would expect a pragmatic and sensitive approach to prevail. Although it is clear that cases involving a deceased service man or woman must be treated seriously and with respect, and that the family of the deceased have a right to know that the issues they raise will be seriously considered, the place to do this is not through the formal service complaints system. For the service complaints system to be fair, and for all of those involved to feel that it has treated them as such, it must involve all parties: the person making the complaint and those who are accused of perpetrating the wrong.

It is for that reason that I must resist these amendments. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Perhaps I may speak to Amendment 5 now, because I do not propose to move it today. The second example given by the Minister makes my point, because that is a situation where a death may have been caused by the matter complained of and the complaint had been lodged—so we understand—prior to the decease of the complainant. No doubt it will be dealt with sensitively, but under the Bill the Defence Council would be entitled to say, “You can’t maintain it any further. The person has died and that’s an end of it. Under this Act, we are not going to take it any further”. The question of whether to continue with a complaint after somebody has died should not be in the discretion of the Defence Council; it should be in accordance with the Bill. It would be for the personal panel of persons appointed by the council or the council itself to determine the complaint if it were maintained, and of course it would hear the evidence.

The evidence would not be as effective from the point of view of the complainant’s personal representatives if the original complainant could not give evidence. However, that is just a matter of evidence; it is not a question of principle. As in the case to which the noble Lord referred, it might be possible to maintain a complaint on documentary evidence or, indeed, through witnesses who would have been called by the complainant in the first place in support of the complaint.

I regret to say that I do not think that the Minister’s answer deals with the point that has been raised, and I shall consider the position for Report.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his very full reply, for which I am genuinely grateful. The overall impression that I get is that the response is that, if there is to be an investigation in these circumstances, it will be done through, rather than outside, the chain of command. I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue but my immediate reaction is that I find it a little difficult to believe that there is no role at all for the Service Complaints Ombudsman to play, bearing in mind that the ombudsman also has to make a decision on whether a complaint can or should be pursued. Perhaps there should be a little more confidence in the ability of the Service Complaints Ombudsman to handle the matter in an appropriate way. I would hope that somebody appointed to that position would be able to do that.

However, I note, and am grateful for, the Minister’s full response. I wish to leave this in the context that we will clearly wish to consider the Government’s response carefully before deciding whether to pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 33, leave out “three” and insert “six”

[Lord Rosser]

The purpose of the amendments in this group is to find out from the Government why they have decided that the time limits referred to in new Part 14A, introduced under Clause 2, are deemed appropriate. The amendments suggest that they should be longer. However, at this stage the purpose, as much as anything, is to find out why the Government have decided that, for example, in new Section 340B(3) under new Part 14A the reference is to a period of three months, and in new Section 340D(3) there is a reference to six weeks. New Part 14A refers to time limits relating to the day on which the matter complained of occurred. The question is: what does that mean in the context of, for example, a matter, which is the cause of a complaint, that happened over a period of time? Does the time referred to in, for example, the two parts of new Part 14A to which I have referred apply from when the first incident occurred or from the date when the last incident occurred if the complaint has occurred over a period of time? If it is from the date of the last incident, will the earlier incidents also be considered, even though they may be well outside the time limit?

It is also possible that someone might feel they have suffered a wrong but did not realise it for some time because it is only from talking to others that it emerges that, for example, they have been treated very differently and without any obvious explanation. In those circumstances, it might not be possible to raise a complaint within the time limits laid down because the individual was not aware, within those time limits, that they had a potentially justifiable complaint. There may be other circumstances that make it difficult for people who feel they have a complaint to meet the time limits laid down. They may, perhaps, be stationed abroad or in hospital.

It would be helpful if the Minister could say why the time limits provided for in Clause 2 were deemed the most appropriate. What would happen in the kind of circumstances to which I referred? I am again asking the Minister to clarify the point, because I am not quite clear of the circumstances, if any, in which the ombudsman could decide to take a complaint outside the time limit. What discretion will the ombudsman have in that regard? If the ombudsman feels that there is good reason why things were not done within the laid-down time limits, will they have complete discretion to decide that the time limit can be extended? There appear to be references in the draft regulations—frankly, I have not had a chance to fully grasp everything that is in them—to shorter periods of time than those mentioned in the Bill. However, I stress that I am not clear whether what I am looking at in the draft regulations actually relates to the time limits laid down in the Bill. Our Amendments 6A and 8A simply say—in relation to page 3, line 3, and page 4, line 18—that:

“Service complaints regulations must not foreshorten or have the effect of foreshortening the period referred to in subsection (3)”.

I fully accept that I may have misunderstood parts of the draft of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations—I mean that quite genuinely—but Regulation 7(2) on page 3 states:

“The Ombudsman must not consider an application under paragraph (1) made more than four weeks beginning with the day the complainant is notified of the specified officer’s decision”.

There is also a further reference on page 5, in Regulation 12(2), to the ombudsman not considering,

“an application under paragraph (1) made more than four weeks beginning with the day the complainant is notified of the decision”.

I am simply concerned that if they do relate in any way to the times laid down in the Bill, that would appear to be a foreshortening; hence these two amendments which would prevent that happening. However, I accept that the Minister may well say that what I have picked up in the draft regulations does not refer to the same things as are referred to in the relevant clauses in the Bill. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that there is nothing in these draft regulations that foreshortens in any way the timescales laid down in the Bill. It would also be extremely helpful if the Minister could say why the Government feel that the time limits in the Bill are the most appropriate and what discretion the ombudsman will have to deal with matters that are not raised within those limits. Will it be a complete discretion or not? I beg to move.

16:45

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the first amendment in this group would extend from three to six months the period in which a former or serving member of the Regular or Reserve Forces can bring a service complaint. The second amendment would extend from six to 12 weeks the period in which a complainant can submit an appeal about a decision taken on their complaint.

The third and fourth amendments seek to ensure that regulations do not foreshorten periods referred to in the Bill within which a complaint can be made and an appeal can be submitted. The time taken to deal with a complaint from the point at which it is first raised by the complainant with their chain of command, through to their being given a final decision, can be crucial to perceptions that the process is fair. If a complaint is particularly complex and means that a large amount of material needs to be gathered or witnesses interviewed, the time taken may be long, but the parties will most likely consider it to be proportionate and necessary for the interests of justice to be served. In other cases, an informal approach, such as through mediation or a quick discussion to sort out a minor confusion, can be equally as effective in delivering an outcome with which those involved can declare themselves content because it has given them a satisfactory result.

The time allocated in the process for the complainant to formulate their complaint can also be an important factor in whether they consider that the process is working for or against them. If the process gives them only a short time in which to put together their complaint, to gather their thoughts or any material they might need, they may feel that they are being rushed unnecessarily into making a complaint and that they would have been better prepared and would receive a better hearing if they had been given longer. If, on the other hand, they are given too long to prepare, there is a risk that the facts become less clear or are forgotten.

As in any aspect of a complaints process, the procedures should not focus solely on the needs of the complainant, but consideration must also be given to those who may be being complained about. If the period in which a complaint can be made is too long, they may be unaware that they are going to be complained about, so do not capture information or their recollections while still fresh. Fairness must therefore extend to them, especially if there may be consequences for their reputation if they are the subject of a complaint that they have behaved improperly. The time limit in the Bill for making a complaint is the same as that under the current system, which is three months. It is a period that is neither so short that the individual could not corral the facts and put together their complaint nor so long that those details will be forgotten. To extend that period to six months would risk the very problems arising that the current time limit is designed to avoid.

The same considerations influenced the provisions in the Bill for the time limit for making an appeal. At the point that the complainant is considering whether to appeal a decision that has been made on their complaint, they will have a keen sense of what it is that they are not satisfied with, whether that is about the decision itself or the way in which it was reached. The process of setting out the reasons for their appeal should therefore be a relatively quick one, compared, for example, to setting out the original complaint. As ever, there is a balance between the need to keep the process moving on and giving individuals time to gather their thoughts. A lengthy period of uncertainty on whether or not a decision will be appealed can also have consequences for any other party to the complaint, especially someone who has been complained about. For these reasons, extending the time limit for making appeals to 12 weeks is considered to be counter to the principles of fairness. Fairness also requires, however, that there should be the ability to react to unforeseen circumstances. Timescales are therefore not hard and fast, which would give the impression that there is simply a process to be followed without the chain of command being able to take a more pragmatic and sensitive approach when individual circumstances require.

I circulated an initial draft of the regulations on 9 July. As noble Lords will see from these, there is scope for those in the chain of command who are dealing with a complaint to extend both of these time limits if it is just and equitable to do so. It may be, for example, that an individual gives notice that they would be unable to respond by the time stipulated because of a personal matter, such as a bereavement, leave, training or operational commitments, or because they are about to receive medical treatment. In such a situation, it would be just and equitable to agree a new timescale but, again, one that is aimed at moving matters on as quickly as possible, with due consideration to other parties.

There is a similar provision in the new procedures in the Bill for making applications to the ombudsman which gives the ombudsman discretion to extend the time limit set out in the Bill within which complainants must make their applications—this was a point that the noble Lord asked about. The draft regulations show that the intention is that the ombudsman would be able to apply the same test to extend the time limit application if the ombudsman considers it is just and equitable to do so. As these are procedural matters, just as in the case of making an initial complaint and in making an appeal, it is right that this is spelt out in regulations rather than in the Bill.

There are two further safeguards in the Bill that aim to protect the complainant from someone in the chain of command who takes what they consider to be an incorrect decision not to extend a time limit. These are at the point at which that decision would prevent a complaint from entering the system or from progressing to an appeal stage. Under a new right, the complainant can approach the ombudsman at both junctures if they wish to have those decisions independently reviewed. If the ombudsman finds that the chain of command was wrong not to extend the time limit on just and equitable grounds, the ombudsman’s decision is final, and the complaint or appeal will be returned to the chain of command to proceed as normal.

We gave very careful consideration to these timescales and compared them with those under other procedures which, though not directly comparable, provide a useful benchmark about what is considered reasonable. In respect of matters before employment tribunals, for example, the time limit for making a claim is three months from the first incident complained of, and in respect of discrimination claims within three months of the latest incident complained of.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the time limits start to apply when there is a series of related complaints. I cannot read the writing on this, but I will write to the noble Lord on that.

The third and fourth amendments are also resisted. The Bill sets out minimum periods within which a complaint can be made and an appeal submitted. As such, neither of these can be foreshortened by regulations. For the reasons I have set out, we judge that these time limits are fair and reasonable, especially taking into account the important safeguard that they can be extended where it is reasonable to do so or reviewed by the independent ombudsman.

On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I think he has confirmed that there is nothing in the service complaints regulations that will foreshorten or have the effect of foreshortening the time limits referred to in the Bill. The Minister has also explained why the time limits that are in the Bill have been felt to be appropriate and related them either to existing time limits or time limits that exist in other situations. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Amendment 6A not moved.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

7: Clause 2, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) The belief of the officer to whom a service complaint is made that the complaint is not well founded does not render the complaint inadmissible.”

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, this amendment was drafted before I had the chance of seeing the draft regulations. It was, in any event, a statement of the bleeding obvious, as one might say, that the officer to whom the complaint was made could not make up his own mind as to whether it was factually correct, well founded or anything of that sort. I would have hoped for a favourable response from the Minister in any event. However, I now see that the draft regulations flesh out the grounds given in proposed new Section 340B(5)(c). Why that is done in regulations and not in the Bill I do not know but those three grounds are well confined and I am quite satisfied that the fear that I had was ill founded. Nevertheless, I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, we degrouped Amendment 20 and will move it in its place.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, Amendment 7 would make it clear that a service complaint could not be rendered inadmissible by the officer receiving it simply because he believed it was without merit. It may be helpful if I explain the role of the specified officer on receipt of a service complaint. His or her role will be to decide whether the complaint is admissible in accordance with new Section 340B. The officer will not consider the merits of the complaint at all at this stage. That is not possible under the Bill as the appointment of a person or panel of persons to decide whether the complaint is well founded can take place only after the admissibility decision under new Section 340C. The officer’s function at the admissibility stage is to see whether, first, the complaint is about a matter excluded from the service complaints system in regulations made by the Secretary of State, secondly, whether the complaint is out of time and, thirdly, whether the complaint is inadmissible on other grounds specified by the Defence Council in regulations.

Noble Lords will have seen the initial draft regulations prepared by the department which cover, among other things, the other grounds of inadmissibility. It is proposed that those grounds are that the complainant does not allege any wrong, or that the complaint is a repeat of one already brought by the complainant and being considered in the service complaints process, or one that has already been determined.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee helpfully reported on the Bill in advance of Committee, for which we are grateful. It drew attention to the powers conferred by new Section 340B(5)(c) on the Defence Council to specify additional grounds of inadmissibility and concluded that those powers were too widely drawn. My department responded to the committee, explaining what these regulations are intended to cover and made reference to the initial draft regulations that are now available to Members of the House.

Now that noble Lords have seen what is intended here, I hope that some of their concerns about the scope of this provision will have been allayed. There is no intention to use this power to rule out broad categories of complaint. That would run counter to the clear policy behind the Bill to consider all wrongs in relation to a person’s service, subject to very limited exceptions. In any event, I have asked officials to explore whether anything further might be done in relation to the scope of this power. That will be done before Report stage.

The role of the receiving officer at the admissibility stage is quite limited and is strictly focused on the matters set out in the Bill, as will be amplified in the regulations in due course. There is no power for a complaint to be declared inadmissible on its merits at this stage. If a receiving officer declared a complaint inadmissible on merit grounds, the complainant would be able to apply for a review of that decision by the ombudsman. In the circumstances, we would expect the ombudsman to overturn the inadmissibility decision and the complaint would proceed. The ombudsman’s decision on any such review will be binding on both the parties. That is provided for in Regulation 7 of the initial draft service complaints regulations. In the circumstances, I must resist Amendment 7 and ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition and statement that this subsection will not be used to extend the grounds of inadmissibility. No officer who receives a service complaint should be under any misapprehension that he is entitled to decide the merits himself before putting it to the panel or Defence Council, who are the proper people for deciding whether it is well founded. I am quite sure that, with that clear statement of policy, there will be no problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Amendments 8 and 8A not moved.

17:00

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

9: Clause 2, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) The Ombudsman may, after advising the Secretary of State, investigate any matter deemed to be in the public interest on—
(a) any aspect of the system mentioned in section 340O(2)(a);(b) any matter relating to the Ombudsman’s functions under this Part;and make a report to the Secretary of State.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, proposed new Section 340O in Clause 2 provides that the Secretary of State may require the ombudsman to prepare and give to the Secretary of State a report on any aspect of the system mentioned in subsection (2)(a), relating to the complaints system, and any matter relating to any of the ombudsman’s functions in new Part 14A. These powers appear in the proposed new section about the ombudsman’s annual report on the system for dealing with service complaints. It is not clear whether proposed new Section 340O(6) relates to what the Secretary of State may require the ombudsman to include in the annual report, or whether it could also include the Secretary of State calling for an additional report at any time on a particular issue from the ombudsman outwith the annual report. Perhaps the Minister, either in his reply or subsequently, will be able to clear up that point.

Whatever the answer, the reality is that the Secretary of State for Defence has never asked the present commissioner to report on a particular area of concern that she or the Secretary of State may have, outside her normal annual reporting cycle. The Commons Defence Select Committee reported last year that the present commissioner had told it that if she were to report on particular areas of concern, she would look at cases of bullying, which include assault, and issues to do with mental health, and access to services, race and the handling of those cases. The Select Committee went on to report that during visits to units the commissioner had been informed of issues that would not come to her as complaints but on which she thought some work needed to be done. The commissioner told the Select Committee:

“That is what I would do, and that is I think what ombudsmen do. They have this broader view, whether they be the health service ombudsman, parliamentary ombudsman or the Children’s Commissioner, who today has powers to do research and inquiries. They can pull together in an informed and responsible way evidence across the piece and put it forward in a way that is very valuable to the organisation that they oversee”.

The Select Committee went on to say that it believed that there would be value in the commissioner being able to undertake research and report on thematic issues in addition to the annual reports. It said that the commissioner’s experience on these issues should be utilised.

The effect of Amendment 9 is to seek to give the Service Complaints Ombudsman the power, after advising the Secretary of State, to investigate any matter deemed to be in the public interest on any aspect of the system that is mentioned in proposed new Section 340O(2)(a), relating to the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of the system, and any matter relating to the ombudsman’s functions under new Part 14A. That would mean that the ombudsman would be able to report to the Secretary of State on wider and thematic issues if the ombudsman felt that this was desirable and in the public interest.

The purpose of the amendment, which I hope it achieves, is to give the ombudsman rather wider powers to be able to report on thematic issues—not to appear to be dependent on the Secretary of State asking for such reports but for the ombudsman to be able to make that decision. There has clearly been support for that not only from the present Service Complaints Commissioner but from the Defence Select Committee. I should have thought that there would have been a view that it would be helpful if the ombudsman could make reports on such issues where the ombudsman felt that it was in the public interest and would make a contribution to improving an existing situation which the ombudsman did not think was entirely right or appropriate and needed addressing. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a favourable response.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I shall speak to Amendment 10, which is in my name and that of my noble friends. I follow very much the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I think that the first paragraph of my amendment, which states that the ombudsman,

“shall investigate any matter referred to the Ombudsman by written direction of the Defence Council”,

puts clearly the Defence Council’s power to give such a written direction. I find the power given in proposed new Section 340O(6) to be slightly confusing. It is under the heading, “Annual report on system for dealing with service complaints”, but it is not at all clear that that is a wide power for the ombudsman to investigate something beyond the preparation of a report and the points on which the ombudsman makes a report in that document.

The ombudsman should have a clear power to investigate matters referred to him. Under paragraph (b) of my amendment, I argue, as has the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that it is in the public interest that the ombudsman should on his own motion, after advising the Defence Council,

“carry out an investigation of any allegations of systemic abuse or injustice if it appears to him to be in the public interest”.

We have qualified that by saying that there should be compelling circumstances. It is not that the ombudsman could justify investigating anything. It may very well be that, in the course of the investigation of individual complaints, it will come to the attention of the ombudsman that there is a culture of abuse or bullying in a particular area. He may well feel that he would have to investigate that on his own initiative, and not await instruction, following his annual report, from the Secretary of State.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, this has the support of the committee that has looked into it, and I hope that the Minister will be open to amending the Act—if not in the precise words that I have put forward, then certainly in the spirit of my amendment.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, perhaps I may add just a few words to those of the noble Lord and my noble friend. I spoke about this at Second Reading and gave examples of the Canadian authorities. The words “compelling circumstances” were taken exactly from what the Canadians do—to give the ombudsman the power so that he or she can, in compelling circumstances, do what my noble friend Lord Thomas has described. I hope that the Government will consider examples from overseas which we can incorporate into our legislation.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, these amendments would extend the ombudsman’s authority to conduct investigations beyond those matters raised by complainants about the handling of their case to a much wider range of matters, based on the ombudsman’s judgment of issues that are in the public interest. In the second of these amendments, the ombudsman would also be able to investigate the merits of individual allegations. As such, the second amendment in particular represents a significant development in the role of the ombudsman, which it is right that we have debated, as we seek to improve on the way the complaints system operates through the increased oversight afforded by a reformed commissioner role.

Observations on the way the current complaints system has operated since its introduction in January 2008 have focused primarily on the concerns that, in too many cases, the time taken to reach a conclusion is too long. While it is possible for any complaint to take longer than would reasonably be expected, particular concern has been expressed about complaints that involve bullying and harassment, where the consequence of delay can be more keenly felt and which by their nature have a more damaging effect on relationships, and in some extreme cases, on an individual’s health. The current Service Complaints Commissioner covered a range of issues in her annual reports, including delays. For example, in this year’s annual report she has made recommendations that aim to increase the services’ understanding of what the numbers and types of complaints can tell them about the effectiveness of the training they conduct in values and standards and the need to treat everyone with respect. Wider recommendations of this kind might strictly be considered to go beyond the operation of the current system or the exercise of the commissioner’s function, in that they aim to reduce the number of instances of poor treatment by one colleague against another, making a reality of the services’ zero tolerance of bullying and harassment, for example. Recommendations by the commissioner serve a wider aim however, which is to encourage individuals to speak up when they experience such behaviour, as they see that good can come from it, ultimately, if behaviour is changed.

The commissioner is able to make such comments and recommendations under current provisions in the Armed Forces Act 2006 that are replicated in the Bill before us. The focus for the ombudsman will be to provide strengthened and independent oversight of how the complaints process operates. It will hold the chain of command to account for the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency with which it discharges its responsibilities.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister said—I think I heard him correctly—that the ability of the ombudsman to undertake the kind of reports and investigations that we are talking about is already contained in previous legislation and is replicated in this Bill. Which are the parts of the Bill that say that the ombudsman can do what we are seeking in this amendment?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I hope I will come to that point later in my response. The commissioner is able to make such comments and recommendations under current provisions in the Armed Forces Act 2006 that are replicated in the Bill before us. The focus for the ombudsman will be to provide a strengthened and independent oversight of how the complaints process operates. It will hold the chain of command to account for the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency with which it discharges its responsibilities, and through its investigation of individual complaints, the ombudsman will provide a valuable source of lessons that will provide resolution for the individual, and which will also support the Defence Council in its role of delivering a better complaints process.

The service chiefs are clear that the system has not been operating as efficiently as it should and accept the criticism that I referred to earlier, that too many complaints are taking too long to resolve. They are also clear that in taking forward reform of the system, it should continue to be the chain of command that investigates complaints and works with complainants to find a solution that they are satisfied with. That way confidence in the chain of command’s ability to treat them fairly will increase, encouraging more people to speak out when they are unhappy so that, ultimately, we maintain the highly effective fighting forces of which we are rightly proud.

17:15

The ombudsman will undoubtedly be in a position, as the commissioner is now, to spot where patterns may be arising in particular types of complaint across all three services and bring their observation to the attention of the chain of command or, if necessary, to Ministers. The ombudsman will be outside the chain of command and have access to whichever point of entry to the services or the Ministry of Defence they deem necessary, depending on the seriousness of the matter that has come to light or the need for speedy escalation or visibility. Having identified a matter of this nature, there may be any number of ways in which any further investigation should or could be taken forward by the appropriate authorities.

While it will remain the principal function of the chain of command to investigate complaints, other investigative means available to the chain of command such as service inquiries might also be appropriate, while other matters may have to be passed to coroners or the police. There is a risk that an ombudsman with a wider remit to investigate matters of their own volition, notwithstanding whether they must first notify the Secretary of State of their intentions, could overlap with these other jurisdictions and cause confusion and difficulties.

New Section 340O in the Bill before us includes a broad scope for the ombudsman to use their judgment when determining what to include in the annual report. It also enables the Secretary of State to ask the ombudsman to prepare a report on any aspect of how the complaints system has operated, or on the exercise of their functions. To that end there is considerable and, in our view, sufficient scope to seek the ombudsman’s input to any wider inquiry or investigation that might be conducted by other relevant bodies, drawing on the ombudsman’s specific experience of the fairness of how the complaints system has operated and of dealing with potential cases of maladministration. The ombudsman’s scope for raising issues of concern also extends to the provisions made in new Section 340L for the ombudsman to make recommendations as a result of finding maladministration. Such recommendations could relate to systematic issues, as well as remedying the maladministration of justice in connection with the complaint at hand.

I hope that answers the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend. We looked at the ombudsmen within the public sector in the UK and, to answer the noble Lord’s question, we did not look at models from overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked where the ability to make comments and recommendations under the Armed Forces Act 2006 is replicated in the Bill. The answer is: in new Section 340O(2)(c) and new Section 340O(6).

This group of amendments would extend the ombudsman’s remit beyond that required and against provisions that already offer sufficient scope for the ombudsman to raise wider issues in appropriate ways, as they see necessary, and to provide an input to investigations or inquiries conducted by other appropriate bodies, as would other specialised bodies. On that basis, I must resist the amendments and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 9 and my noble friend not to press Amendment 10.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply on Amendment 10. I understand him to be saying that it would be possible for the recommendations on an individual case to include a wider overview of the problems that the ombudsman saw. For example, suppose that in a particular unit there were some five or six individual complaints about an initiation ceremony that went far too far. Presumably, according to what the Minister has said—I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—the recommendations from the ombudsman in each individual case could get stronger and stronger that these matters must stop and must be investigated and dealt with properly. I hope that I have understood the Minister correctly. If I have, then I shall not be moving my amendment.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, responds, I should say that I misunderstood my brief. My noble friend Lord Palmer asked me about Canada, and the answer that I gave relates to Canada, not to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked. With regard to Canada, we looked at ombudsmen within the public sector in the UK but did not look at models from overseas, so we did not look at the Canadian model.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I am a little confused about the Government’s stance. On the one hand, part of the answer appeared to be—maybe I misunderstood it—that to give the ombudsman the powers suggested in the amendment could cause conflicts with other inquiries and investigations. Having said that, I got the impression that the Minister was saying that those powers were already there in the existing system, whether under new Section 340O, which deals with the annual report, or in new Section 340L, which deals with reports of investigations. I was rather getting the message that, on the one hand, it would be unacceptable because of possible conflicts but that, on the other hand, the powers were already in those two parts of the Bill to which the Minister referred.

The heading of new Section 340O is:

“Annual report on system for dealing with service complaints”,

so it is not dealing with reports outside the annual report or with something separate. It is interesting that the Secretary of State, who has the power to ask the ombudsman to prepare a report on any matter relating to the ombudsman’s functions, has never chosen to do so, as I understand it, hence our amendment saying that the ombudsman, having advised the Secretary of State, and it being perceived to be in the public interest, should have the ability to do so. That is, the ombudsman should not be dependent on the Secretary of State asking them to prepare such a report, because the Secretary of State has apparently never done so.

One finds it a little odd that, if the power is already there for the present commissioner to do this, one does not get the impression that the commissioner felt that the power was already there when one reads the commissioner’s evidence to the Defence Select Committee. The commissioner proceeded, in fact, to give a list of topics on which a wider report could have been written, which—this is the inference—she might have been interested in doing. That does not suggest that the commissioner felt that the existing legislation already gave her the power to produce the kind of reports that are referred to in the amendment.

In view of what I regard as potential slight confusion over the reply, in that on the one hand it seems to be saying that it is undesirable but on the other it is saying that the power is already there, I will want to read closely what the Minister has said before considering whether to pursue this issue any further. However, I am genuinely grateful to him for his comprehensive reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Amendment 11 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 11A

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

11A: Clause 2, page 8, line 1, at end insert—
“( ) The Ombudsman must not proceed with the investigation until the Ombudsman is satisfied with the information and evidence received.”

[Lord Rosser]

This amendment, which is fairly straightforward, relates to the provision in the Bill that gives the ombudsman the power to require a person to provide documents for an investigation. However, the draft regulations appear to provide that if the documents are not received the ombudsman may proceed with the investigation and preparation of a report. Of course, the alternative remedy available to the ombudsman is to go to the High Court if the documents required are not forthcoming. The purpose of putting down this amendment is to seek to clarify two points. First, can the Minister confirm, either now or subsequently, whether the word “may” that has been used in the draft regulations —that is, “may proceed with the investigation” without having got the documents—means that and will not be interpreted as “must”?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether the position of the ombudsman in respect of the power to require documents is not weakened if it is already written into the draft regulations, and thus generally known, that an investigation can proceed without the ombudsman having got all the documents that are required? Why did the Government deem it necessary to put that into the draft regulations? Are they saying that the ombudsman could not have decided to start an investigation without all the documents sought without this specific provision being in the regulations? Unless the answer is that the ombudsman could not start an investigation, on the face of it, it does not seem particularly helpful to put in the regulations that documents that have been requested and required but have not been produced will not stop the ombudsman starting the investigation. That does not seem to be exactly encouraging those who have been asked to produce documents to do so.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I hope that I will get an answer to the noble Lord’s two questions. If not, I shall write, but I am fairly optimistic that I will be able to get an answer.

This amendment would ensure that the ombudsman’s investigations can proceed only when the ombudsman is satisfied with the information and evidence received. This may be considered desirable to ensure that the resources of the ombudsman are used efficiently. It may also be desired that the ombudsman may proceed with investigations only when they have all of the information and evidence that they need in order to do their job effectively. Otherwise, it might be argued that they could come under pressure to conclude investigations in the absence of all of the evidence that they need.

Under new Section 340I(1) in the Bill, it is for the ombudsman to determine whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation. Under new Section 340I(4), the ombudsman may make such inquiries as he or she thinks appropriate. Under new Section 340J, the ombudsman also has broad powers to require a person to provide documents or other information in their possession and has the powers of the High Court in respect of the attendance and examination of witnesses and the production of documents. The effect of this amendment, perhaps inadvertently, would be to limit the discretion of the ombudsman to carry out his or her investigations. It is very important that the ombudsman has all of the information required in order to carry out their role effectively, and the Bill provides for that.

Regulation 6 in the draft Service Complaints Ombudsman investigation regulations permits the ombudsman to proceed with an investigation and prepare a report under new Section 340L, whether or not they have all of the information that they have requested. That is a permissive provision, so that the ombudsman does not have to proceed with an investigation in the absence of information, but they can do so if that would be the fair thing to do, bearing in mind the need for efficiency and effectiveness.

The noble Lord asked whether the word “may” means that, and the answer is that it does. He also asked whether it weakens the position of the ombudsman’s power to get documents, and the answer is that it does not do so in any way.

I must resist this amendment. It is right that the ombudsman retains discretion on whether to proceed with an investigation in all the circumstances of the case based on the information and evidence put before them. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

16:54

[Lord Rosser]

I will withdraw the amendment, but are the Government saying that, without that provision in the draft regulations stating that the ombudsman may proceed with the investigation and the preparation of a report under Section 340L of the Act if the documents or other information is not provided within that period or not provided under paragraph (b), the ombudsman would not have the power to proceed with an investigation without having got those documents?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I do not have an immediate answer, but I will write to the noble Lord on that.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11A withdrawn.

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Lord Boyce]

12: Clause 2, page 8, leave out lines 5 to 24

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, at Second Reading the Minister gave us reassuring words about the importance he attaches to the command chain, and that was good to hear. However, I believe that new Section 340K undermines this principle and could be seen to be violating the integrity of the command chain. I have particular difficulty with the argument that this power is necessary because ombudsmen in other organisations have it. The Armed Forces are different, and the Minister does not need reminding about the emphasis given to this in the Armed Forces covenant, especially because other organisations do not have an equivalent of the Armed Forces Act and its inherent disciplinary processes.

If the ombudsman detects obstruction, the Defence Council and the command chain on his or her instruction can issue an order to any person deemed to be obstructing to comply. The failure of that person to comply would be an offence. New Section 340K may be a safety net or a last resort in case such a procedure does not deliver what the ombudsman wants. If so, it might be helpful if that were stated. I welcome the Minister’s comments on this. I beg to move.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, has explained, it is a probing amendment—because of the importance that must be vested in, and allowed to, the chain of command. I do not need to rehearse in this Committee that importance. The chain must run, and be allowed to run, seamlessly from the highest legal authority, the Defence Council, down through the ranks to the most junior serviceperson.

Since the major part of this Bill is to amend the Armed Forces Act 2006, this should ensure that service personnel involved in a complaint are to be subject to a single disciplinary statute, and are not, as in matters considered to be human rights, dealt with by separate and potentially conflicting legislation. I welcome that.

However, my concern with new Section 340K is that it allows the ombudsman to opine that a serviceperson is in contempt for some obstruction or act, to certify the obstruction or act, and to refer the person directly to a civilian court for investigation. In other words, the ombudsman is given a power of command over the individual even though he—the ombudsman—is not, as the Minister stated, within and does not form any part of the chain of command. It is argued that this contempt-dealing power is normally vested in an ombudsman, although not invariably. Be that as it may, the Armed Forces are, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, has said, dealt with differently in legislation. No other public servant is treated in the same statutory way as are members of the Armed Forces.

Surely a better approach, which would cover the issue of contempt and retain the position of the chain of command, would be for the ombudsman to report the individual and the perceived contempt to the Defence Council. The council would then instruct the individual to comply with the ombudsman’s requirement and, if the individual did not, it would be a blatant case of failing to obey a lawful command and could be dealt with accordingly.

Allowing the issue of contempt to be taken direct to a civilian court could lead, because of the lack of detailed knowledge of the Armed Forces by the court, to protracted, time-consuming and more expensive consideration of the issue. Surely it is important to the legislation’s aim to speed up resolution of complaints that steps are taken, where possible, to avoid delay and not slavishly to insert and rely on drawn-out procedures, as would be the case with new Section 340K. Bearing in mind the authority invested by new Section 340M in the position of the Defence Council to an ombudsman’s report about a complaint, it would seem acceptable and a more timely solution to the problem faced by an ombudsman of a potential contempt of his authority if that contempt were dealt with through the Defence Council. I urge the Minister to consider this approach and be minded to offer an alternative to the current new Section 340K on Report along the lines that I and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, are suggesting.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, it will be within many of your Lordships’ memory that I take a particular interest in those occasions when we are discussing the particular interests of sections of the community. We very often have a discussion when the whole debate seems to be by lawyers about what should happen on the law. Similarly, I am concerned when the debate becomes a debate by members of the Armed Forces about what should happen in the Armed Forces. As a non-member of the Armed Forces I support the concern behind this, for two reasons.

The first is not a military reason at all. It is that I dislike very much the concept that, because somebody else has a power, it has automatically to be put into this legislation. That, of course, is an argument that has been used. It seems to me to be almost always a false argument. Indeed, if it is to be here it should be argued that it is right here, not that somebody else argued about it and said it was right somewhere else. There is much in our legislation which has got in because people have never really debated it but merely said, “Well, every time we have a Bill of this kind, we always put this in”. New Section 340K extends the way in which the ombudsman would work to an unacceptable extent.

I do not understand why it would be better to do it this way than in the way noble Lords opposite have put forward. The Government must explain why going through the Defence Council would not be just as good as doing this. If one went to the Defence Council, one would not open oneself to the concern that is here. It is not the most important thing in the world; the pillars of the temple will not come down if we do not make a change here. All the same, we ought to be very careful about making it difficult for the chain of command in the Armed Forces to be clearly a chain without any interference. There is a mechanism for avoiding that and I hope very much that the Government will look at it and see whether there is any real reason for insisting on this format, which may be all right somewhere else but is not necessarily right here. The only reason I intervene is that I think it is important for somebody who is not in the Armed Forces to say that they think this is valuable.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

As someone else who is not in the Armed Forces, I point out that there is no point in giving to the Service Complaints Ombudsman the powers set out in new Section 340J of requiring a person to provide documents and other information unless there is some sanction. All that new Section 340K does is to put into the Bill the normal sanction that arises in these cases. I draw to the attention of those who have tabled the amendment that the measure does not refer to service personnel but to “a person”. That person could be a civil servant in the Ministry of Defence or a person who has nothing to do with the Armed Forces at all but just happens to have witnessed a particular event, and whose information as a civilian witness would be very helpful to the ombudsman in determining precisely what has gone on. If you are going to give the ombudsman the powers to call for papers and witnesses, as one rightly should, there has to be a sanction attached.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interest as I am still a serving TA officer, albeit not very active these days. This is the only area of concern that I have with the Bill and I urge my noble friend the Minister to pay very careful attention to it.

I certainly do not regard this as a probing amendment. I do not understand why the ombudsman would not be able to ask the Secretary of State to get on to the chain of command to get the documents, or whatever information is required, released. The Service Complaints Commissioner made it quite clear to us in a recent meeting, for which we were grateful, that she was perfectly happy as regards her access to Ministers. As the noble and gallant Lord said, Ministers can direct the chain of command to release the information. However, a problem could arise with these arrangements if compliance with the ombudsman’s request interfered with current operations to some extent, especially if staff effort had to be diverted from current operations to meet the ombudsman’s request. I hope that my noble friend can meet the concerns of noble and gallant Lords in this regard. I agree with the argument made by my noble friend Lord Deben. It is fine to make legislation consistent provided that no adverse implications can arise from that. I believe that could be the case if this provision is included in the Bill.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Craig, for tabling Amendment 12 as it has provided us with the opportunity to debate this very important issue, particularly as regards the chain of command.

Amendment 12 would remove new Section 340K from the Bill. New Section 340K provides that the ombudsman will have the backing of the powers of the courts if someone unlawfully obstructs him or her in carrying out an investigation or does something which would count as a contempt of court. The effect of the amendment would therefore be that the new ombudsman would have no enforcement powers to back up their general power to require the provision of documents or other information not in their possession or control. That lack of enforcement powers would apply in respect of all persons whether they are members of the Armed Forces, civil servants or, indeed, anyone else who may have relevant information in relation to an investigation.

When investigating the actions of a public authority, any independent body, whether it be an ombudsman, tribunal or court, needs to have appropriate powers to carry out its function effectively. This includes a power to get all the information it needs to investigate and scrutinise the actions of the public authority. The power needs to be backed up with enforcement provisions when co-operation is not forthcoming from the body or individuals under investigation.

The Service Complaints Ombudsman is no different in this respect. Powers of compulsion, such as those provided in new Section 340K, are a common feature of ombudsman legislation. For example, similar provisions can be found in respect of the Pensions Ombudsman in Section 150 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and in respect of the Ombudsman for Wales in Sections 14 and 15 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005. The reason for that is not because it is envisaged that these powers will be used regularly but because without them there is no effective way of compelling people who are required to help with the ombudsman’s investigations to do so. They may be reluctant to assist the ombudsman for a variety of reasons. The power to require the production of evidence, backed up with powers of compulsion, is therefore necessary for an ombudsman to operate effectively, and this ombudsman is no different.

17:44

The real issue that has been raised therefore seems to be whether such a power should apply to the Armed Forces. This is on the basis that the chain of command can issue lawful orders, and they should be the basis of securing the production of documents or other information for the ombudsman rather than using contempt of court. The concern is that giving the ombudsman these powers will undermine the chain of command, and therefore should be resisted. The difficulty with that argument is, first, that there may be legal arguments to be had about whether lawful orders in fact cover a matter such as this. We do not want that in a reformed system that is intended to be more effective and efficient than the current one. Secondly, and more fundamentally, this would leave the power of enforcement with the body under investigation by an independent ombudsman. That is unacceptable as a matter of principle.

The Service Complaints Ombudsman, while being in a unique position in terms of investigating the handling of an internal employment-type system, is not unique in terms of the powers he or she needs to do their job effectively. Members of the Armed Forces are already subject to powers of compulsion in other types of investigation or legal proceedings, including other ombudsmen, or if they are required to give evidence or produce documents in response to a claim for judicial review. These powers are therefore not new, and are not new in the context of the Armed Forces.

Finally, as I noted at the beginning, removing this provision in its entirety would mean that the ombudsman could not compel the production of relevant evidence or information from civilians or former members of the Armed Forces over whom the chain of command has no ongoing authority. The provision is therefore necessary for these categories of persons, but no more so than in relation to serving members of the Armed Forces. It is not anticipated that the power of compulsion would be used in anything other than exceptional circumstances. These would be powers of last resort. We would expect the ombudsman to give those in the chain of command every opportunity to comply with reasonable requests for information. It would be able to resist such a request if, on advice, it considered that there were lawful reasons to withhold information from the ombudsman. That is provided for in proposed new Section 340K. If the chain of command were to refuse to provide information or evidence, we would expect that decision to be elevated to the very highest levels in the organisation, given the potential consequences for non-compliance. However, if there was no lawful reason to withhold the information, it is only right that the ombudsman should be able to enforce their power to get the information that he or she needs by referring the matter to the High Court. The court would then inquire into the matter itself, taking any evidence that was deemed necessary.

My noble friend made some important points about the chain of command and proposed new Section 340K. Those who attended the Peers’ briefing on the Bill on 2 July will have heard the very strong assurance given by the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff that the Chiefs of Staff were fully behind the Bill in its entirety, including proposed new Section 340K. The services therefore accept the need to have a power of this sort in the Bill, and I assure the noble and gallant Lords that Ministers asked searching questions, and we were satisfied that the chain of command at the highest level was quite happy with the Bill.

I hope that this will give reassurance that the provision is necessary for the effective operation of the reformed system. Without it, we could not reasonably argue that we had created an effective, independent ombudsman to oversee the operation of the service complaints system. On that basis, I urge the noble and gallant Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am sure that the Committee can understand why the chain of command might be unwilling, without compulsion, to release information. However, if Ministers directed the chain of command, including civilians, to release information, can my noble friend envisage circumstances in which the chain of command would not release the information?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but I cannot give him an immediate answer that I would be happy with. I will come back to him.

[Lord Boyce]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response to the amendment. I will study what he has said. I am not entirely comfortable, but I take comfort from his comment that new Section 340K would be used only in exceptional circumstances for those in a military chain of command. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, makes a perfectly fair point that people involved in the Armed Forces but outside the chain of command may be required to disclose things. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

13: Clause 2, page 8, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) The recommendations of the Ombudsman may include a recommendation for the payment of compensation to the complainant or, in the event of his or her death, to family or personal representative.”

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I think that I am pushing at an open door here, because in his response on Second Reading the Minister said that the recommendations of the ombudsman may very well include the payment of compensation. I could not resist having a confirmation of that position in Committee, because I think that compensation, where appropriate, is a very reasonable remedy for complaints that may be advanced by a complainant. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this amendment would add to new Section 340L a specific reference setting out that the ombudsman could recommend the payment of compensation if, having investigated a matter raised by a complainant, it were to find that there was maladministration in the way that the complaint was dealt with by the chain of command that has, or may have, led to injustice that should be rectified.

The Bill provides that the ombudsman may make any recommendations that it considers appropriate. The ombudsman has wide discretion in all aspects of the new powers that are provided for it in the Bill. This discretion is an important element in assuring Armed Forces personnel that the ombudsman is independent, without which they will see no benefit in approaching it and no value in its investigations. The reforms that the Bill provides for in the complaints process itself are aimed at making it possible to reach a final decision on a complaint more quickly while still being within a system that is fair in the widest sense. Together, the creation of a strengthened oversight role in the form of the ombudsman and the shortened process are designed to increase the confidence of service personnel in the chain of command and in the process. If they lack that confidence, complaints will not be raised and matters of concern cannot be addressed, which can ultimately have a detrimental effect on unit cohesion and effectiveness.

The draft regulations, which were circulated to noble Lords, would to a limited extent apply procedures to the way in which the ombudsman would deal with applications made to it by complainants, how it would conduct its investigations if it accepted applications, and how it should respond when producing reports on those investigations. It is right that the Bill provides a framework for how the ombudsman will exercise its functions, and that the regulations provide some further detail to the options that should then be available to it. However, it does not follow that there should be a specific reference to a particular form that a recommendation may take, either in the Bill or in the regulations.

In that respect, it must be remembered that a serving or former member of the Armed Forces can make a service complaint about a very wide range of matters. They may also make an application to the ombudsman about any number of possible variations of a complaint of maladministration—a term that itself is deliberately not defined, in common with all other ombudsman legislation. Maladministration covers traditional grounds of judicial review, such as procedural impropriety and irrationality, but also wider concepts such as excessive delay, failure to give adequate advice, or rudeness.

While the complainant will be asked to set out what form they think the maladministration has taken in their case, it will be open to the ombudsman, having gone on to investigate the case, to find that another form of maladministration has in fact occurred. From a more practical point of view, it is therefore not possible to provide in the Bill for every permutation of likely recommendation that the ombudsman might make. That is why the provision in the Bill leaves it open to the ombudsman to make such recommendations as it considers appropriate, and it is why this amendment is resisted.

Any recommendation should, however, be reasonable and proportionate based on what the ombudsman has found and the degree of injustice that has or may have been suffered. If the ombudsman therefore considers that compensation of a certain value is appropriate, the Bill also provides that the ombudsman gives reasons for the findings in its report and for the recommendation made.

The amendment also refers to the ombudsman’s ability to recommend the payment of compensation to family or a personal representative in the event that the complainant dies before the complaint has been concluded. All recommendations made by the ombudsman are to be considered by the Defence Council, which must decide how to respond. The Bill provides that a recommendation can be rejected, in which event reasons must be given in writing to the ombudsman and to the complainant. Alternatively, the Defence Council must write to them both setting out the action, if any, that it has taken in response to the ombudsman’s findings and to any recommendations that the ombudsman has made. It is open to the Defence Council to decide that a complaint should be reconsidered to whatever extent it considers appropriate, based on those findings and recommendations. A payment of compensation may be the outcome of any of these courses of action and, where that is appropriate, any payment will be made to the complainant’s estate if the complainant has died.

If in taking forward any action in response to the ombudsman’s recommendations it is necessary to have the personal testimony of the now deceased complainant, the chain of command will need to consider carefully what, if any, further action can reasonably be pursued. That will be particularly important if the complainant’s personal testimony is key to the matter proceeding fairly.

There is a need to preserve the independence of the ombudsman, to give our personnel confidence in the ombudsman’s office, and to give the ombudsman the flexibility that it needs to be able to make recommendations that address the varied nature of complaints that can be brought his way. In the light of that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am most grateful to the Minister for his very full explanation and for his confirmation that recommendations can involve the payment of compensation to the estate in appropriate circumstances if the complainant has died. In the light of that, I have pleasure in seeking to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendment 14

Moved by

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

14: Clause 2, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
“( ) accept the findings of the Service Complaints Ombudsman,”

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Amendments 14, 15 and 16 are concerned with the action following receipt of a report by the Defence Council. At Second Reading, I was very concerned to draw a distinction between the findings of the ombudsman and the ombudsman’s recommendations.

New Section 340M(1) deals with the way in which the Defence Council must consider a report and give its response. If it decides to reject a recommendation, it must give reasons in writing for that rejection. What it does not state is that the Defence Council cannot second-guess the findings of fact on the merits of the ombudsman. The purpose of my amendments is to obtain from the Minister an assurance that the Defence Council cannot interfere with the findings of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, although of course it may consider the recommendations. It has full discretion as to what to do, having regard to the finances involved and the justice of the case.

New Section 340M(1)(c) simply says,

“where the Council decide to reject a recommendation, notify the Ombudsman and the complainant, giving reasons in writing for the rejection”.

My view, which I urge on the Minister, is that it should be quite explicit that the Defence Council can modify instead of reject the recommendations. It can decide to accept the recommendations in part, and simply reject a part with which it disagrees. All that can be dealt with by an assurance from the Minister from the Dispatch Box that that is the intention of the legislation. I beg to move.

18:00

[Lord Rosser]

I have one or two comments to make on this group of amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am waiting to find out whether the Government’s view is that the Bill as it stands gives the Defence Council the right to reject the ombudsman’s findings on maladministration as opposed to the ombudsman’s recommendations. The Bill refers to the Defence Council deciding what action,

“to take in response to the findings”,

of the ombudsman, but it is not quite clear how the Defence Council could decide not to accept the findings without carrying out a separate investigation of its own.

The amendments also refer to rejecting or modifying the recommendations of the ombudsman. We will listen to the Minister’s response with interest, just as I have listened with interest to the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, put forward. On the one hand, one could say that being able to modify a recommendation might then lead to the Defence Council accepting it rather than rejecting it in totality, which I think is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has made. On the other hand, I suppose that one could argue that being able to modify a recommendation rather than either accepting or rejecting it, and having to explain why if the latter, could be interpreted as meaning that the Defence Council can effectively write its own recommendations on the findings of the ombudsman. That might be seen as rather weakening the objective of the ombudsman making recommendations and the Defence Council then having to decide yes or no, rather than being able to rewrite bits of them. As I say, we await with interest the Minister’s response on that.

It could mean that the Defence Council could modify only parts of a recommendation that it found, for example, inconvenient, and then announce that it would accept the rest. If the provision is for a straight rejection or acceptance, the Defence Council will know that it has to produce some pretty convincing reasons if it is to reject the recommendations in totality. It will also know that, if it is unable to modify them, it may well have to put up with parts that it simply finds inconvenient. We await with interest the Government’s response, as there are two ways of looking at the amendment and its implications.

The reality is that the Defence Council will have to show itself willing to accept the ombudsman’s recommendations if service personnel are to have confidence in the new arrangements. If the Defence Council starts rejecting recommendations because it does not particularly like some parts of them, it will raise questions about the effectiveness of the new arrangements and could lead to pressure in the future—a pressure that is already there anyway from some quarters—for the ombudsman’s recommendations to be made binding under a future defence Bill.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, Amendment 14 would make the ombudsman’s recommendations binding on the Defence Council and would mean that the Defence Council had no choice but to accept the findings of the ombudsman in all cases. Amendments 15 and 16 aim to clarify the powers of the Defence Council in responding to recommendations from the ombudsman —to make clear that the Defence Council can reject or modify a recommendation.

It is our intention that the findings of the ombudsman in its investigation report will, in effect, be binding on the Defence Council. The Defence Council would be able to judicially review those findings if it considered them to be irrational or otherwise flawed on other public law grounds. However, we do not anticipate that happening, and expect the Defence Council to accept the findings before going on to consider any recommendations that the ombudsman may have made in the case.

There has been recent judicial consideration of the legal status of both findings and recommendations in relation to the local government ombudsman. While that consideration related to a different ombudsman, we anticipate that a court would apply those principles to the legal status of the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s findings. As such, we do not consider that it is necessary to make specific provision for this in the Bill. That is, again, in common with other ombudsman legislation.

While we accept the importance of the point being raised, and agree with it in substance, it is considered unnecessary to make specific provision for it in the Bill. The amendment is resisted for that reason.

Turning to Amendments 15 and 16, it may be helpful if I explain in more detail the role of the Defence Council when considering and responding to the recommendations of the ombudsman. The first, as I explained in my closing speech at Second Reading, argues that the recommendations will clearly have some legal effect. The Defence Council will not be free simply to reject the recommendations because it disagrees with them. It would need to have very good, cogent, written reasons to do so, such as where the implementation of the recommendations in full was simply unworkable or where significant resource implications may be involved. It is right that the Defence Council should be able to reach a final decision on matters covered in any recommendations made by the ombudsman.

Given that starting point, the focus of the Defence Council in most cases where the ombudsman has made recommendations will be to decide precisely how it will respond. That may be simply a matter of implementing the recommendations by, for example, making an appropriate apology to the complainant. It may be that the person or persons who made the final decision in the internal process will be asked to reconsider a particular piece of evidence to see whether that would have affected the outcome of their decision. There may be some cases in which the failings identified by the ombudsman are such that a full reconsideration at the final stage of the complaint process is required. That may involve the appointment of a new person or panel of persons to hear the complaint again or, for example, to hold an oral hearing to test some crucial evidence.

This is all provided for in new Section 340M. The Defence Council will not need to modify the recommendation open to it. It would simply decide to reconsider the complaint in a way that suitably responded to the recommendations after careful consideration. I hope these points I have made answer the questions of my noble friend. As such, the amendments are unnecessary, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, again I am very grateful to the Minister for making clear that which I believe to be the case, and I am happy to withdraw my amendment and not to move the other two.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.

Amendment 17

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

17: Clause 2, page 11, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) an assessment of the adequacy of the resources of the Ombudsman’s office to fulfil his or her functions.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to make an addition to page 11 after line 25, which sets out the matters that must be covered in the annual report by the Service Complaints Ombudsman. We are proposing that there should also be a requirement for an assessment of the adequacy of the resources of the ombudsman’s office to fulfil his or her functions. I believe it has already been indicated that there will be an increase in the number of staff that the Service Complaints Ombudsman has—this has been compared with the staff of the Service Complaints Commissioner. If memory serves, I think the figure that has been mentioned is an increase from nine to 20, but I may be wrong on that.

Clearly, a key part of the ability or otherwise of the ombudsman’s office to be able to carry out the duties and responsibilities it is given under the Bill will be the resources available to it. We have already discussed today the issue of whether the ombudsman should be able to undertake thematic reviews—or already can do so under the clauses in the Bill before us. If the ombudsman is able to go down that road of carrying out that kind of review, and if that is to be done effectively, then clearly that has implications for resources. Resources can be both financial and human.

In the context of this amendment about resources, I also raise a point with the Minister that I accept may well need a subsequent response in writing. The Bill sets out the areas that the ombudsman will cover. I am not entirely sure at the moment whether that also covers the Royal Military Police, in respect of complaints both made by the police about its own working environment or whatever other issue it might be and that might be made by service personnel about the activities of the Royal Military Police or how it carried out its role. I am not clear whether those issues are ones that the Service Complaints Ombudsman would be expected to investigate. If they are not, I am then not quite clear on who deals with, for example, issues that service personnel wish to raise about the way they believe the Royal Military Police conducted its affairs in relation to those service personnel. I would be grateful for a response but accept that I may have to wait for a reply in writing.

Put simply, at the moment, the full extent of the role that the ombudsman could have is not entirely clear. Of course, that will also depend on the amount of resources needed, whether financial or human, and on the number of complaints that come in. I do not suggest that suddenly the situation will be such that morale will plummet and everyone will put complaints in. However, if people perceive the Service Complaints Ombudsman to be somebody to whom it is worth making a complaint, that might encourage some people to do so who currently would not make a complaint because they do not think much of the present system. That might have an impact on the workload of the ombudsman.

I rather hope that the response I get back will not be that there is no need for this because it is already covered in the Bill in the previous matters referred to in new Section 340O. I appreciate that that refers to,

“the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness”,

of the system,

“the exercise by the Ombudsman … of the Ombudsman’s functions”,

and,

“such other aspects of the system mentioned in paragraph (a) … as the Ombudsman considers appropriate”.

However, there is then the question of whether the ombudsman believes that the resources are sufficient to carry out that role as effectively as the ombudsman believes it should be. There are a number of uncertainties about what workloads are likely to be. Other issues about what the ombudsman’s report must cover are written into new Section 340O, too, so there cannot be an objection to writing this in. I would have thought that writing into the Bill specifically that it should also cover whether the ombudsman believes the resources are adequate to enable his or her office to fulfil their functions is entirely appropriate. I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to exercise some caution. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has made some good points, especially about possibly increasing levels of demand on the ombudsman, especially in the number of complaints. However, the ombudsman will never have completely adequate resources and may well not be able to do everything that they want. Ombudsmen will have to prioritise their activities. I can think of no Defence Minister in the last 22 years of my service in the House of Lords who would deliberately underresource the ombudsman.

18:15

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to make specific reference in new Section 340O to the requirement for the ombudsman to make an assessment in their annual report of the adequacy of the resources available in exercising their functions. This new section in the Bill requires the ombudsman to provide the Secretary of State with an annual report which he must lay before Parliament. The report must comment on the fairness, efficiency and effectiveness with which the system has operated during the preceding calendar year. It must also cover the exercise of the ombudsman’s functions during that period. Additionally, the ombudsman may include in the report any other aspect of either of those elements, as the ombudsman considers appropriate. These are clearly fundamental to any report from the ombudsman and an important product of their oversight role.

The ombudsman’s assessment of the system and the role they play in it can ultimately have a significant impact on the extent to which our personnel and the public at large have confidence in the complaints system and, as a result, are prepared to engage with it to address the concerns they feel. As with other specific areas of the ombudsman’s role, such as their power to conduct investigations, the Bill leaves it to the ombudsman’s discretion about what other issues they feel are pertinent to how the system has operated in the preceding calendar year, and how they have been able to exercise their functions. As in all matters, these will differ from one year to the next and it is right therefore that the ombudsman should be able to judge what is relevant and worth including in their annual report.

The same provisions apply to the current Service Complaints Commissioner. She has varied the issues covered in each of her annual reports, depending on what she has experienced during the report period. Those reports have included comments on the adequacy of the resources that have been made available to her office. My noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, commented at Second Reading that it was important that the new arrangements provided under the Bill are properly resourced. We set out in the impact assessment that accompanied publication of the Bill that we are working with the Service Complaints Commissioner on the changes that her office needs to enable it to convert to the new task of the ombudsman’s role. That will require additional resources and personnel with different skills. As we made clear in the impact assessment, we anticipate increasing the number of staff from the current nine of the commissioner’s office to 20. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with those numbers.

The noble Lord asked me about the Royal Military Police. Two days ago, I wrote a two-page letter to him on this subject, which he may not have received. I think this goes into some detail in answering him.

[Lord Rosser]

I am aware of it and grateful for the letter. I was rather hoping that the noble Lord would refer to it, so it is on the record in Hansard.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The letter is very detailed. Rather than reading out the main points from the Dispatch Box, I would rather refer to the letter. The discretion available to the ombudsman in Section 340O, to include such aspects of the exercise of their function as they deem appropriate, is considered sufficient to cover any eventuality that may arise, without the need to make specific reference to resources, as this amendment proposes. For that reason, I must resist this amendment and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Rosser]

My immediate reaction is to say that I want at some stage to have that on the record in Hansard. I appreciate the Minister’s lack of enthusiasm for standing up to read it all out now, so I am not wondering why he is not doing that, but I may have to consider whether to table an amendment on Report to achieve that. We are always extremely grateful—and I mean this—for the letters that the Minister sends and the care that he takes to respond to questions raised. I appreciate his approach and the assistance that he provides, but I think that some letters ought to be on the record in Hansard, so I may table an amendment on Report with the purpose of getting that one on the record.

As for the rest of the amendment, I hinted that under the wording of the Bill the Service Complaints Ombudsman could probably comment if they felt that the resources that they had were inadequate—or even if they were adequate, because an assessment of the adequacy could mean that the ombudsman says that everything is fine. I do not share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that an ombudsman would never consider what they had to be adequate—that was what I inferred from what he said. After all, if an ombudsman were to announce that resources were inadequate, they would have to submit some justification in the report, which would be, or be in, a public document. The very fact that they had to write it down and could be questioned on it might make them think very hard whether they were being reasonable in their approach.

I included the provision because I think that there are uncertainties about what the workload will be. There is the issue of the wider-ranging reviews and whether they are already encompassed in the Bill; there is the issue of the number of complaints that may come forward if people have real confidence in the new arrangements. It did not seem to me to be unreasonable to include as a requirement an assessment of the adequacy of the resources. After all, if the ombudsman is entirely happy, it is a one-sentence response: “I consider that my resources are adequate”.

[Earl Attlee]

My concern is that if the ombudsman feels that there are adequate resources, the ombudsman needs to say nothing, but if the ombudsman cannot meet all the demand and has to report on that, he or she is bound to say, “I cannot meet all the demand”, but he or she may still be an effective ombudsman, although not meeting all the demand.

[Lord Rosser]

I do not particularly disagree with what the noble Earl says—that you could still be effective without meeting all the demand. I am not sure that that knocks my view that it should be a requirement that the ombudsman makes a comment on the issue of resources within the annual report.

However, I do not seek to turn this into a major issue, as it is clearly not. It has been an interesting discussion and I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Financial assistance for benefit of armed forces community

Amendment 18

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

18: Clause 4, page 12, line 40, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the extent to which the criteria listed in subsection (5) have been met.”

[Lord Rosser]

We move now to Clause 4, which deals with the issue of financial assistance for benefit of the Armed Forces community. It sets out that the Secretary of State can give financial assistance. Subsection (5) states that financial assistance can be given subject to conditions, which are then set out in paragraphs (a) to (e). We are talking about future funds. Some of what has been given so far has come from the LIBOR fund, which, one assumes, as time goes on, will dry up completely, as it is coming from activities which financial institutions should not be undertaking. One would hope that, in future, that source will dry up for the right reasons.

However, there will still be provision for funds. The documentation that we have had refers to the Ministry of Defence developing proposals to manage the enduring £10 million per year funding for future Armed Forces covenant commitments. It also discusses the process for assessing how money under this particular clause will be distributed and how the decisions will be made. From comments that we have heard, our feeling is that there are those who think that it has not been entirely clear how LIBOR funding has been allocated and spent and therefore how any future funding would be allocated. We have picked up comments that it has not been clear whether those in receipt of LIBOR funds have had to demonstrate their performance, that the criteria for how such funding has been allocated has not been very clear, and that it has also not been clear whether the money allocated has led to some of the intended improvements. That may or may not be the case. The purpose of this amendment is simply to provide that the Secretary of State will publish an annual report on the extent to which the criteria listed in subsection (5) have been met—that is really about what financial assistance has been given and whether the conditions laid down in Clause 4(5) have been met. Those are quite important conditions. They include,

“the purposes for which the assistance may be used”—

and—

“the keeping, and making available for inspection, of accounts and other records”.

That is another important issue and important check on how the money is being used and whether there is proper control and accountability. Bearing in mind that this is going to be in the Bill and that Clause 4(5) sets out some specific conditions, it does not seem unreasonable to say that the Secretary of State should publish an annual report on the extent to which those criteria have been met. We are talking about not inconsiderable sums of money. I hope the Minister will feel able to go down that road.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 19, which is in this group, is a probing amendment. It has largely been answered by the helpful background note circulated last week. My amendment is an additional aspect to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

This additional funding is a most welcome contribution to the benefit of the Armed Forces community. To the initial government grant of £30 million has been added, as the noble Lord mentioned, £35 million from LIBOR fines for Armed Forces covenant projects, and a further £40 million from LIBOR fines for a veterans’ accommodation fund. From 2015, there will be the enduring Armed Forces covenant fund of £10 million per annum. Applications are considered regionally, with the funding administered centrally by the MoD. These are very significant amounts and, as with any such funding, it is important that as little resource as possible is spent on administration and as much as possible goes direct to the people or projects to be funded. It is also important to avoid unnecessary duplication.

18:30

Currently, the central panel comprises,

“MoD representatives … the Treasury, representatives of the Covenant Reference Group including the devolved governments and selected service charities such as the Families Federations and either the Confederation of Service Charities or a cluster lead”.

Will this composition be retained for the enduring £10 million a year funding? If the panel details are not to be included in primary legislation, what assurances can my noble friend the Minister give that the Armed Forces, their families and welfare organisations will continue to be involved in funding decisions, the merits of which they will understand better than most? Can my noble friend clarify for the record the possible ambiguity in the use of “person” in lines 5 and 20. In the first three clauses of the Bill, “person” is taken to be an individual and the impression may be given that under Clause 4 individuals can apply direct to the Secretary of State for assistance. However, the guidance notes for the two schemes indicate that applications are for projects rather than individual hardship cases. It would be helpful if my noble friend could clarify the definition in this context. I look forward to her reply.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments. I shall try to tease out issues around process and demonstrating effectiveness for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the composition of the panel and what a “person” is for my noble friend Lady Garden.

The proposed amendments would affect Clause 4, which deals with financial payments to charities and other organisations that support the Armed Forces community. As my noble friend the Minister made clear at Second Reading, this Government have made a commitment to all those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown and their families. This commitment takes the form of a covenant. The Armed Forces covenant has two key principles: that those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services; and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved. This obligation involves the whole of society. It includes voluntary and charitable bodies, private organisations and the actions of individuals in supporting the Armed Forces. Recognising those who have performed military duty unites the country and demonstrates the value of their contribution. This has no greater expression than in upholding this covenant.

Over the past four years, the Government have committed £105 million to deliver on the commitments of the covenant—£55 million has been distributed through the community covenant grant fund, which strengthens ties and understanding between the Armed Forces and the wider community, and through the £35 million LIBOR fund, which backs projects supporting the broader aims of the covenant. A further £10 million of community covenant funding and a final £40 million veterans’ accommodation fund is set to be distributed this year. We are also developing proposals for the management of the future Armed Forces covenant fund, which is set at £10 million per year from 2015 onwards.

Organisations working with the Armed Forces community are based throughout the United Kingdom and we want them to benefit from these funds, wherever they are located. However, the use of covenant funding is currently constrained by two pieces of legislation. Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 confines payments to local authorities in England and Wales and Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 limits financial assistance to charities and other benevolent institutions that provide a direct or indirect benefit to England. We have temporarily navigated around these constraints by making payments under the appropriation Act. However, this is not a long-term solution. Clause 4 therefore enables financial assistance to be given to organisations that support the Armed Forces community, wherever they are based.

The Secretary of State is already required to produce and lay before Parliament an annual Armed Forces covenant report under Sections 343A and 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which I believe satisfies the intent behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in respect of the obligation to report publicly. As noble Lords will know, the Armed Forces covenant report is about the effects of membership or former membership of the Armed Forces on service people, specifically in the fields of healthcare, education and housing, and in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine. Clearly, then, it could and does cover the areas in which we currently provide financial assistance under the community covenant and LIBOR funds and the veterans’ accommodation fund.

Throughout the most recent Armed Forces covenant report, published in December 2013, the Secretary of State provided examples, including figures, of how financial assistance was provided to the Armed Forces community, reflecting the twin principles of the Armed Forces covenant. It is intended that the 2014 report will similarly detail how financial assistance has been provided throughout the year. Further to that covered in the annual report, the financial assistance provided by these three funds is also subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny of government expenditure.

The National Audit Office has access to annual reports and to date has not expressed any negative views on how Armed Forces covenant funding has been allocated, the propriety of the financial assistance that has been provided or the rigorous scrutiny and governance processes that support it. This is provided by regional panels for community covenant schemes, and a central cross-government panel for the Armed Forces covenant (LIBOR) fund and the veterans’ accommodation fund. The scrutiny and governance processes have been explained in detail to noble Lords in the financial assistance brief that was circulated to all Peers recently. In addition, the management of funding for Armed Forces covenant schemes is also subject to the established governance procedures set out in Managing Public Money, a publicly available Treasury document that provides guidance on all aspects of how to handle public funds.

The enduring £10 million per annum that the Government have approved for Armed Forces covenant commitments will be specifically ring-fenced for these activities only. Work is currently under way to develop plans for the new fund and how it will be managed. Expenditure will be reported on both in the MoD’s annual report and accounts, for which the department’s Permanent Secretary is held personally accountable by Parliament, and in the annual Armed Forces covenant report that the Secretary of State is legally required to produce. The National Audit Office will also scrutinise both documents. In addition to the comprehensive governance framework described above, funding for Armed Forces covenant schemes is also subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Anyone, if they wish, can submit a request to receive information on Armed Forces covenant funding.

A combination of all the activity described will continue to provide the assurance that any financial assistance that is provided under the Armed Forces covenant meets the criteria listed in Clause 4(5) of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, which we are currently debating.

I shall now address Amendment 19. It is essential that the money allocated to the covenant meets the aims of the Armed Forces covenant. Noble Lords will have seen the briefing note that was circulated recently, which set down proposals for how the community covenant grant scheme, the £35 million LIBOR fund and the veterans’ accommodation fund have managed the allocation of funding.

For each of the previous schemes, it has been essential that applicants meet a tightly defined set of conditions, including a clear demonstration of how they meet the aims of the Armed Forces covenant, a clear demonstration of how a project will benefit the Armed Forces community, a clear demonstration of the need and associated benefits, a clear demonstration of how the project will provide value for money and confirmation that the project will not generate any profit. Even where an application meets these terms, a final decision is subject to the agreement of a board of experts.

Funding for the community covenant grant scheme is administered regionally. This reflects the aim to focus on local initiatives, based on a local assessment of need. Bids are first considered by the local joint civil/military partnership board, or where this is not established, the local authority and military signatories of the community covenant, before being referred to the regional grant panel. The membership of the regional grant panel consists of a chair with a rank equivalent to colonel or brigadier, a member of each service with a rank at least equivalent to major, one or two external members from organisations—the Families Federation, for example—the local authority or charitable partners, and a regional administrator, who is the secretary.

Where bids exceed a set level, currently £70,000, these are referred to a central panel for consideration. This includes a representative from HM Treasury and members of the Ministry of Defence Armed Forces covenant team, representing the Chief of Defence Personnel. Applications to the £35 million LIBOR fund and the veterans’ accommodation fund have been administered centrally by the Chief of Defence Personnel. The board that considers applications to these funds includes representatives of the MoD, which chairs the panel, and the Treasury, representatives of the Covenant Reference Group, including the devolved Administrations and selected service charities, such as the Families Federations and either the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations or a cluster lead. There are already in existence boards that oversee and manage the distribution of the financial assistance for the Armed Forces community. A detailed explanation of all of these arrangements is widely available through the gov.uk internet site, but I hope I have demonstrated that there is already in place a rigorous governance process to ensure that funding attributed to the Armed Forces covenant is managed effectively.

With regard to the more recent £10 million LIBOR fund, the MoD is currently developing proposals for how the future fund will be managed. If possible, we will bring additional rigour to the process through the appointment of a professional grant-management organisation. This will ensure professional expertise and independence in the grant-making process. This is very much work in progress but I assure noble Lords that the criteria for applications and the rigorous scrutiny process will be retained, and will include a representative panel of experts who can ensure a continued focus on the principles enshrined in the Armed Forces covenant. The priorities for the future fund will also be agreed each year through the Covenant Reference Group.

Furthermore, as set out earlier, the Armed Forces annual report, which the Secretary of State is required by Parliament to produce, will also explain in a transparent way how financial assistance has been distributed to the Armed Forces community through the year in line with the Armed Forces covenant’s twin principles. Most notably in this regard, it is the right of the independent members of the Covenant Reference Group to express their unexpurgated comments in the report. This in itself will provide significant scrutiny of how the funding is allocated.

Approval of the legislation in Clause 4 will give the MoD the flexibility and agility that it needs to provide financial assistance to the Armed Forces community anywhere in the world. The intention is that the schemes should remain discretionary, as opposed to being placed on a statutory basis, but subject to the established governance procedures set out in the document that I mentioned earlier, Managing Public Money. As we continue to strengthen and improve this process, it is essential that we are able to retain sufficient flexibility over the composition of future decision panels, bringing in expertise and specialists.

My noble friend asked for clarification on matters of governance and I hope that she is satisfied with what I have outlined. She also asked for clarification of what a “person” is. The term is technical. The word “person” relies on the definition of the word used as a general tool of statutory interpretation, provided in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, where a “person” is stated to include,

“a body of persons corporate or incorporate”.

These can be companies and unincorporated associations.

While in theory any individual could apply for financial assistance, they would not meet the criteria for any of the current schemes or the terms laid out in Clause 4. It is also most unlikely that an individual could apply to the Secretary of State for financial assistance simply to benefit themselves. The requirement is for the person to undertake activities which are for a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose, and in such circumstances the individual would not appear to be undertaking any activity other than spending the money for their own personal needs.

18:45

In future, it might be possible to agree a scheme to include an element of hardship to which an individual may apply, but there are currently no plans to do so. We must recognise that funding is in place to support the principles of the Armed Forces covenant for the next 25 years and the terms of the legislation are designed to allow flexibility over how that money may be spent in future.

I hope I have been able to satisfy noble Lords about the actions that the Government and the department are putting in place through this Bill. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I thank my noble friend for such a comprehensive definition of a person.

[Lord Rosser]

I, too, thank the Minister for her reply. As I understand it, the response to my amendment is basically that the issues I raised in it are likely to be covered in the annual report on the Armed Forces covenant.

[Baroness Jolly]

Yes.

[Lord Rosser]

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Amendment 19 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed.

The Schedule : Service complaints: consequential amendments

Amendment 20

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

20: The Schedule, page 14, line 14, after “340A(4),” insert “340B(5)(c),”

[Lord Rosser]

I think the Minister may have already given part of the reply to this amendment when we were discussing Amendment 7, but if he was—I thought he was—I have to say that he caught me unawares, so I did not really follow, and I will probably be asking for an element of repetition.

As the Minister knows, this amendment was prompted by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of the Bill. The effect of our amendment, if it has been tabled correctly, is to make sure that the regulations referred to in new Section 340B(5)(c) would require an affirmative resolution. In fact, that does not appear to go as far as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggested, if we have read correctly the conclusion it reached, because it refers to the provision in new Section 340B(5), which states:

“For the purposes of subsection (4), a service complaint is not admissible if … (c) the complaint is not admissible on any other ground specified in service complaints regulations”.

The argument of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is that this is an extremely wide-ranging power under which it would be open to a Secretary of State, now or in future, simply through regulations to decide that things that one might have thought acceptable to be the basis of a complaint would no longer be in that category and would be regarded as inadmissible. In its report the committee says:

“In our view the powers are potentially very significant in that they allow additional restrictions to be imposed on a person’s right to have a complaint dealt with under the new redress procedures. At the same time the powers conferred by section 340B(5)(c) are very wide: they contain no limits on the kinds of matters which might be specified in the regulations as grounds for a service complaint to be inadmissible. Given the importance of the power and its potential to limit the right to bring a service complaint, and the lack of any restrictions on the matters which may be specified under the regulations, we consider the delegation of powers conferred by section 340B(5)(c) to be inappropriate”.

I read into that that the committee would probably not feel that our amendment was sufficient; indeed, it might suggest that what should be proposed should be the complete deletion of new Section 340(5)(c). However, we have tabled the amendment in this form, saying that it should go through the affirmative procedure. Clearly, the committee’s concern was that even if nobody could have any exception to the regulations, when they come out—I hope that I correctly anticipate that nobody will have any great exception to them—nevertheless, the power is there for some Secretary of State to do something in the future which could lead to matters which one might feel should be the subject of complaint being no longer admissible, simply through regulations. That really is a very wide power indeed.

I will wait with interest to hear the Minister’s response in the light of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s views on the very wide-ranging powers within the clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, some of my answers on Amendment 7 are obviously relevant to this amendment but I shall not repeat what I said earlier. Amendment 20 is aimed at providing a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny of any Defence Council regulations made in respect of inadmissibility grounds. At first glance, it may seem inconsistent to make the Secretary of State’s regulations specifying matters which are excluded from the service complaints system subject to the affirmative procedure, but not the Defence Council’s regulations on grounds of admissibility. There is a distinction to be made between excluded matters and grounds of admissibility, although they are closely linked. Excluded matters, as can be seen from the initial draft of the service complaints miscellaneous provisions regulations, will include, as now, matters which are subject to alternative dispute mechanisms or involve decisions of independent persons, such as judge advocates or the service police.

The two additional grounds of inadmissibility which we are proposing to include in the draft service complaints regulations have emerged during the operation of the current service complaints system over the past six years. They are grounds related firmly to the fair operation of the service complaints system itself, and are, in our view, relatively uncontroversial. There is no current intention to expand on these grounds, but the Government wish to retain some flexibility here to be able to add to the list if other grounds of a similar type emerge which are impacting on the overall effectiveness of the system, without impacting on the rights of complainants to make service complaints.

Given the distinction between excluded matters and grounds of inadmissibility, we are of the view that it is appropriate for them to be dealt with in different sets of regulations and for those regulations to be subject to different parliamentary procedures. The former go to more fundamental matters, carving out small classes of complaints from the system, so it is appropriate for them to be dealt with in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and subject to the affirmative procedure. That is the same as now in respect of the equivalent regulations. As the additional grounds of admissibility relate broadly to procedural grounds for exclusion they should properly be covered in the Defence Council regulations dealing with the internal complaints system, and there is no reason for this aspect alone to be made subject to the affirmative procedure. As was noted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it should be remembered that the current Defence Council regulations are not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny at all. As I have already indicated, we will reflect on this provision before Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, observed that the power in new Section 340B(5)(c) is very wide ranging. As I mentioned in responding to Amendment 7, I have asked officials to consider what more might be done to limit the scope of the power. In the light of that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply. In the light of the fact that he indicated further consideration is being given to this issue, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Schedule agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

House adjourned at 6.56 pm.