House of Commons

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 11 March 2015

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

1. What progress she has made on her consultation with the Electoral Commission on the transparency of donations and loans to political parties in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The whole House will have been deeply saddened by the passing of Lord Molyneaux of Killead. James Molyneaux was a distinguished second world war veteran and a fine parliamentarian who served Northern Ireland with great distinction for more than four decades, both in this House and the other place.

We are committed to ensuring the maximum transparency in party funding in Northern Ireland that the prevailing security situation allows, and progress has been made in detailed discussions with the Electoral Commission on finalising the new arrangements. I have spoken with the electoral commissioner, and I am confident that the necessary draft legislation will be ready to lay early in the next Parliament.

[Naomi Long]

I add my condolences and those of my party to those expressed by the Minister to the family, friends and former colleagues of Lord Molyneaux.

During the passage of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, an undertaking was given here that last October the security situation would be reviewed again with a view to lifting the secrecy pertaining to party political donations. What progress has been made in that regard?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is right that during the passage of the Act we discussed a review of the security situation and amending the measure accordingly. It is our aspiration to have full transparency in Northern Ireland, as we do in Great Britain. At the moment, our judgment is that the security situation does not warrant it and that we cannot take that risk, but we will keep the matter under constant review.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

While looking at the transparency of donations to political parties, will my hon. Friend ask the National Crime Agency and the Chief Constable, when they are investigating organised crime, especially things such as fuel laundering in the border area, particularly South Armagh, to look carefully at the destination of funds arising from organised crime, given that the people taking part in crime—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I was indulgent towards him in not taking account of the fact that he has Question 8, but the substance of his question just now has nothing to do with Question 1.

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

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, KBE, who served in this House as the Member for South Antrim from 1970 until 1983 and then from 1983 to 1997 as the Member for the new constituency of Lagan Valley. He is fondly remembered by my constituents. He was the consummate parliamentarian and provided strong leadership in very dark days in Northern Ireland. He will be fondly remembered and missed by many, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

The Secretary of State and the Minister will be aware that Sinn Fein raises millions of pounds by various means each year for its electoral campaigns. There is a clear disparity in political party funding in Northern Ireland, yet Sinn Fein Members continue to draw hundreds of thousands of pounds in allowances from this House, despite not taking their seats. When will the Government address this disparity?

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is a matter for the House, not me. It was last determined in 2006, and I would not wish to trespass further on the prerogative of the House.

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

2. When she plans to make a progress report on the Government’s economic pact for Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

3. When she plans to make a progress report on the Government’s economic pact for Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

An annual progress report on the economic pact was published last July. The range of items so far delivered include improvements to business access to finance; funding projects secured from the Green Investment Bank; the continuation of 100% assisted area status for Northern Ireland; and a record year for inward investment following the G8 and follow-up investment conference.

[Mr Bain]

With one in six people in Northern Ireland on low pay and intergenerational poverty remaining stubbornly high, should not the Government be getting a move on to raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour and get as many people as possible on to the living wage to make this a recovery in living standards for all the people of Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said he would like to see increases in the minimum wage. We are cutting taxes for those on the lowest incomes. We have cut taxes for 670,000 people in Northern Ireland, and those on the minimum wage have had their income tax bills halved. We have also seen unemployment in Northern Ireland fall for the 25th consecutive month—it has fallen by 1,700—giving many more people the security and reassurance of a pay packet.

[Mrs Glindon]

Will the Secretary of State meet the Northern Ireland union leaders, as I did recently, so that she can understand the frustrations of squeezed teachers, bus drivers and health workers, and praise their vital work rather than condemn them for being forced to vote for industrial action?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have met trade union groups on various occasions, including in Northern Ireland, and I am of course hugely supportive of the work done by our public servants and our front-line workers. It is important that the whole public sector takes part in the austerity programme, and the Government are doing everything they can to put our public finances right to ensure that we can continue to provide the best possible public services for the country.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

What impact does the Secretary of State think another round of stalemate at Stormont will have on measures to attract investment and encourage growth in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

There is no doubt that the announcement by Sinn Fein on Monday was a significant setback for the Stormont House agreement, but it is inevitable that there will be bumps in the road with agreements of this nature. That has been the case in the past. I will be working hard to get things back on track and to help the parties get this matter resolved. Political stability is, of course, crucial when it comes to attracting inward investment. That is one of the many reasons why we need to press ahead with implementing the Stormont House agreement.

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

Does the Secretary of State accept that people in Northern Ireland and those who observe the Northern Ireland political scene are stunned, bewildered—and, indeed, angry—at what Sinn Fein has done in reneging on its agreement on welfare reform, without any good reason whatsoever? Does the Secretary of State wish to spell out now from the Dispatch Box the implications for corporation tax and other issues of the Stormont House agreement not proceeding? It is clear that Sinn Fein is putting its own narrow party interests ahead of vulnerable people and the entire community in Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said, this is a serious setback. I believe that Sinn Fein’s change of mind is unhelpful and hugely disappointing. As I have said, however, the task now is for the Northern Ireland Executive parties to continue their efforts to implement the Stormont House agreement. I hope to get the party leaders together as soon as possible to discuss how to resolve this welfare question, but the Stormont House agreement will not be reopened; we need to press ahead with implementation. The corporation tax question is difficult. It is expressly linked with the resolution of welfare reform. The Bill contains a commencement clause, and there is no question but that this welfare issue must be resolved. The Executive must fulfil their obligations under the Stormont House agreement before the commencement clause can be operated. In the interim, the Government propose to continue with the legislation and to complete its parliamentary progress, because we are determined to implement the agreement fully and fairly. Let me be clear: Northern Ireland will not get these devolved powers until the Stormont House agreement has been implemented.

[Mr Dodds]

It is important now that people in Northern Ireland, this House and everybody looking at the political scene are clear that the responsibility for the current crisis lies squarely with Sinn Fein, which is reneging on its commitments clearly made and openly expressed in the Stormont House agreement. Will the Secretary of State be clear that she will not take this blanket condemnation or blame approach, but focus on the problem—Sinn Fein?

[Mrs Villiers]

I will indeed focus on the problem. The right hon. Gentleman is right that this current setback is the result of the actions of Sinn Fein, which is, as I have said, hugely disappointing and unhelpful. To be honest, it was a significant surprise, too, given the enthusiasm with which the Deputy First Minister and Sinn Fein were promoting the agreement. Now I think we all need to work together to try to get this sorted, because it would be a huge step backwards if the Stormont House agreement were to be jeopardised. It would potentially plunge us back into the sort of budget and political crisis with which we were grappling last year.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

May I, on behalf of my party, associate myself with the tributes paid to Lord Molyneaux of Killead, and convey our condolences to his family, friends and colleagues?

Given the need to create economic and political stability in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State prevail on the Chancellor to reduce VAT on United Kingdom tourism products in next week’s Budget? That would have important financial consequences for the tourism industry in Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Villiers]

Let me also take the opportunity to associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the distinguished record of Lord Molyneaux. He was indeed a very distinguished parliamentarian over many years, and this is a sad loss to Northern Ireland.

The Chancellor is well aware of the campaign for the tax change that the hon. Lady would like to see. Tax reductions are difficult because the imperative must be repairing the public finances, but the Chancellor has relieved tax burdens on business by reducing corporation tax, introducing an employment allowance and, of course, helping people into work.

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

May I associate my party with the comments that have been made about Lord Molyneaux?

As the Secretary of State has said, economic progress and political stability in Northern Ireland are inextricably linked. Does she agree that the unravelling of the Stormont House agreement would be an unmitigated disaster for economic and political confidence in Northern Ireland, and that now is the time for responsible leadership which accepts the need for a reformed welfare system that mitigates the impact of cuts on the most vulnerable while also being affordable and sustainable?

[Mrs Villiers]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Now is the time for level-headed consideration of how we can resolve this matter. In the autumn, Northern Ireland faced a budget crisis that was so serious that the very sustainability and future credibility of the institutions was at stake, and we were looking over a cliff at the possibility that devolution would collapse altogether. Returning to that position would be a huge step backward. The Stormont House agreement was a big step forward, and it is vital for all parties to work to ensure that it is implemented fully and fairly.

[Mr Lewis]

Does the Secretary of State intend to convene urgent all-party talks in an effort to put the Welfare Reform Bill back on track? By what date must the Bill be passed, if the Executive rather than civil servants are to set next year’s budget in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I expect to meet the five party leaders in the coming days. I hope to do so tomorrow, but that will depend on when the First and Deputy First Minister return from New York.

It is vital for progress to be made on welfare reform. That is a key part of the Stormont Castle and the Stormont House agreements. I will press for such progress, not least because without it the Northern Ireland Executive’s budget will become unsustainable, which will hugely impair its ability to function effectively.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

4. What assessment she has made of the current political situation in Northern Ireland.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

7. What assessment she has made of the current political situation in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The political situation suffered a setback on Monday following Sinn Fein’s withdrawal of support for the Welfare Reform Bill. It is very important for the Stormont House agreement to be implemented fully and fairly, including all the sections on welfare and budgets. I will continue to work intensively with the Northern Ireland parties to resolve the impasse.

[Fiona Bruce]

What does the Secretary of State consider to be the wider political implications of Sinn Fein’s withdrawal of support for the welfare proposals?

[Mrs Villiers]

The political implications are very serious. They put in jeopardy corporation tax devolution, a financial package of about £2 billion in extra spending power, and a fresh approach to the past which is designed to produce better outcomes for victims and survivors. All that is under threat as a result of what has happened this week, and I will do all that I can to retrieve the situation so that the Stormont House agreement can go ahead.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Does the Secretary of State agree that Her Majesty’s Government must take resolute action against Sinn Fein over its irresponsible and selfish behaviour, which is jeopardising the Stormont Parliament and everything that has been achieved in Northern Ireland so far?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, the approach taken by Sinn Fein is hugely disappointing and dramatically different from everything that it has been saying over the past few months. I am urging Sinn Fein to change its approach. It is vital that we have a responsible and realistic approach to welfare. The welfare reform package agreed under the Stormont House agreement is a good one, a generous one and a fair one, and therefore it is vital that it is implemented.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

May I wish all my friends in Northern Ireland the very best for the future? People often take for granted the peace and stability that has been secured in Northern Ireland since the 2007 agreement, but that was won only after conflict, terror and hatred going back centuries, through very difficult negotiations. It took dedicated skill and constant strong leadership by the Labour Government to achieve it. Does the Secretary of State accept that maintaining that progress requires nurturing by this Government and by any Governments to follow?

[Mrs Villiers]

I do accept that. This Government will continue to do all they can to support and nurture that political settlement. That is a message that all parties need to hear, including Sinn Fein—that we should not take risks with political stability in Northern Ireland, because the consequences could be very grave.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise that it is not just Sinn Fein, but their lapdogs in the Social Democratic and Labour party who have blocked welfare reform in Northern Ireland and put the Assembly in jeopardy? Will she spell out the consequences for corporation tax, the economic package and the long-term sustainability of the budget in Northern Ireland as a result of that irresponsible behaviour?

[Mrs Villiers]

If this question is not resolved, if the welfare reform legislation remains permanently stalled, obviously the rest of the Stormont House agreement does not happen. That includes the financial package and the devolution of corporation tax, but we are not at that point yet. It is important to work intensively, and in the meantime the UK Government will do everything we can to continue to implement the agreement.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State will be at pains not to feed the sense of impasse that surrounds the Stormont House agreement. She knows that there were two elements to the understanding on welfare reform—one was the understanding about the amount of money from the Executive’s budget that could mitigate measures; the other was the degree of leeway within the welfare spending. Has anything changed in the lines from the Department for Work and Pensions that have given rise to the allegations that Sinn Fein is making against the Democratic Unionist party?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to do all we can to keep the situation as calm as possible. Unfortunately, episodes of this kind are characteristic of the implementation process of agreements. It will be helpful for as many facts as possible to be made clear about how the welfare reform programme will operate in Northern Ireland and how the top-ups will operate. It is a generous package, and once the details are clear I hope everyone will be convinced of that.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

At this, the last Northern Ireland questions before the election, there is an air of some melancholy. Who knows where we will meet again or on what side of the Dispatch Box? May I ask the right hon. Lady what, in her three years as Secretary of State, in which she has been unfailingly courteous, she would consider her proudest—her finest—achievement?

[Mrs Villiers]

Up to Monday, I would have said the Stormont House agreement—[Interruption]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) asked a question. I want to hear the Secretary of State’s answer, and she is entitled to have her answer heard.

[Mrs Villiers]

Up until Monday, I would have said the Stormont House agreement. I think that is still the greatest thing that I have contributed to and it is still on the road. We have had a bump on the road, but the Stormont House agreement will carry on. The other thing of which I am proud is the progress that we have made towards devolution of corporation tax. I do not want to see that thrown off course by events that have taken place this week.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

5. What further steps the Government plan to take to resolve outstanding issues relating to flags and parades.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

9. What further steps the Government plan to take to resolve outstanding issues relating to flags and parades.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The Stormont House agreement identified a clear way forward on parades and flags. [Interruption.] The Government will continue to work with the five parties in the Executive on the implementation of all the provisions of the agreement, including on these issues. [Interruption.]

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, although I must admit I had trouble hearing it. Unrest around the parades has an unsettling impact on the community, on local businesses and on tourism. What steps are the Government taking this year to try to ensure a peaceful parade season?

[Mrs Villiers]

I urge everyone involved in parades or parades-related protest to ensure that all activity related to parades and protest is both peaceful and lawful and that the determinations of the Parades Commission, as the lawfully constituted authority, are complied with. I continue to have a series of meetings to try to find a way forward on the parading impasse in north Belfast.

[Rosie Cooper]

In Belfast, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) recently said that securing the peace process and a strong economy went hand in hand. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will she support the Heenan-Anderson commission to ensure that people at the margins are not drawn to violence on issues such as flags and parades?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that politics and economics are intertwined in Northern Ireland. Political stability is crucial for a successful economy. I note the Labour commission on this, but I think the crucial thing is to stick to the Government’s long-term economic plan, because that is delivering economic recovery in Northern Ireland.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise the feeling of injustice in the Unionist community on the issue of parades? In my constituency we have waited 16 years to get a return parade—a church parade. When are we going to get a resolution?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am very conscious of the concern felt in the community in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is crucial that the Parades Commission’s determination needs to be abided by, but it is also important to press ahead with a reformed and devolved system of parades adjudication, as envisaged by the Stormont House agreement.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to reduce the cost of living in Northern Ireland.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

10. What steps the Government are taking to reduce the cost of living in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Cutting income tax, freezing fuel duty, welfare reform, dealing with the spectacular deficit we inherited and keeping interest rates low are practical examples of how this Government are helping hard-pressed families in Northern Ireland.

[Nic Dakin]

Labour has set out clear plans to raise the national minimum wage to at least £8 by 2020. What is the Minister doing to tackle low pay, when one in six people in Northern Ireland are in low pay?

[Dr Murrison]

I thought the hon. Gentleman would have started by welcoming the Government’s efforts to reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland—17,000 extra jobs in the private sector over the past year alone. If he was listening, he would have heard the answer to his question from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier

[Alex Cunningham]

The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action estimates that introducing the living wage would see 173,000 low-paid employees receive an average gross pay rise of £1,300 a year. Will the Government look at strengthening the living wage to help Northern Ireland, which has the lowest private sector pay in the UK?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, have seen the Institute for Fiscal Studies incomes report published earlier this month. It marked a major milestone, for it is now clear that average incomes in Northern Ireland are back from the pit they were in prior to Labour’s deficit crisis. The IFS further forecasts that incomes will rise above inflation in the year ahead, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister recognise that the Democratic Unionist party’s long-term economic plan to see household taxes at their lowest and a freeze on the regional rate on household taxes for five years is working? However, this Government could have a direct impact by reducing energy costs for employers and consumers alike, and they should address that immediately.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his characteristically formidable fashion, and I am sure he will welcome the freeze on fuel duty, which will mean that by the end of this Parliament a tank of petrol will cost £10 less. He will also welcome inward investment to Northern Ireland, which I know he feels very strongly about given what has happened in his constituency, with, for example, Kainos, Randox, WhiteHat, Revel and PricewaterhouseCoopers. They will be creating 800 jobs in Northern Ireland—high-quality jobs—in the year ahead.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

8. What recent progress has been made on the status and operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I welcome the vote in the Assembly that will enable the full operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are afforded the same protections from serious and organised crime as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Robathan]

When the NCA is up and running in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend speak via the Chief Constable to ensure that the agency investigates the destination of funds from serious and organised crime? Many of the serious and organised criminals in the border area are the people giving funds to the IRA, and it is important that those funds do not fund political parties.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I know that the full implementation of the NCA in Northern Ireland is a welcome step. I pay tribute to the Justice Minister and others for securing that result, and I know that they will bear down on all the perpetrators of such activities and on any who receive the funds that those activities create.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Gregory Campbell.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the National Crime Agency specifically target the organised criminal gangs that are engaging in subterfuge and in the organised criminal activity of fuel laundering along the border areas of Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

That is a significant problem, and the House will have the chance to debate it later. Significant cross-border co-operation is under way, and the authorities in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the police services on both sides of the border are determined to tackle the problem and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The Prime Minister was asked—

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

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

[Stella Creasy]

Our allies are warning of a dangerous gap between us and America on this, so will the Prime Minister tell us what will be more important to him in the next Parliament: protecting our armed forces or introducing tax cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

What is important is combining economic security and national security, and the two go together. We inherited a £38 billion black hole in our defence budget, but because of the excellent stewardship of the economy by this Chancellor and this Government, we have filled that gap. We are investing in defence, our economy is strong and our country is safe.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in connection with the Post Office mediation scheme, the Post Office has just sacked the independent investigator, Second Sight, and told it to destroy all its papers? Does he agree that it is essential that Second Sight’s second report should not be suppressed, but should be supplied to sub-postmasters and MPs, starting with the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that he has consistently raised the concerns of some sub-postmasters about the operation of the Post Office IT system and the matter of the Post Office mediation scheme. The Business Committee is currently taking evidence on this issue, and it should be given all the relevant information. The Government should not interfere with the independent mediation process, but I will ask the Business Secretary to write to my right hon. Friend about his concern and to ensure that the Business Committee can do its job properly.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Less than two months ago, the Prime Minister said in this House that he wanted a head-to-head debate between me and him. He said it was game on. When did he lose his nerve?

[The Prime Minister]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants a debate, I have offered a date: the week starting 23 March. Why won’t he say yes to it?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to be at the debates set by the broadcasters on 2 and 16 April, but I am asking the Prime Minister about a two-way debate between him and me. The original proposal for the two-way debate did not come from me or from the broadcasters but from him. He said:

“I’ve suggested…we need a debate where the two people who could actually be Prime Minister debate directly with each other.”

It was a good proposal then, and it is a good proposal now. Why does he not just name the day?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman said “anytime, anyplace, anywhere”. I have told him: 23 March —let’s hold that debate. But I will tell him what has changed: it is now obvious that Labour cannot win without the Scottish National party. He says we need the two leaders, but we need the two leaders who can call the tune—that is me and Alex Salmond. Let us have the debate.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister says it is all about leadership. He says it is about him and me— [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nobody in the House of Commons—[Interruption.] The Government Chief Whip should not be smirking about it, as it is not a laughing matter. Nobody in the House of Commons should be shouted down. I have got news for Members: however long it takes, it is not going to happen—Members will be heard.

[Edward Miliband]

These are pathetic, feeble excuses. Can we now take it that there are no circumstances in which he will debate with me head to head between now and the general election?

[The Prime Minister]

We have had four years of debates and we have found out he has got no policies; he has got no plan; he has got no team; and he has got no clue about running the country. The truth is this: Labour is now saying that it cannot win the election. I have here the leaflet that Labour put out in Scotland—I think the SNP might be interested in this. It says:

“At the General Election we need to stop the Tories being the largest party.”

Labour is not trying to win; it is just trying to crawl through the gates of Downing street on the coat tails of the SNP. The right hon. Gentleman has to prove he is not a chicken and rule that out.

[Edward Miliband]

There is only one person preparing for defeat and it is this Prime Minister. He is not going to be able to wriggle out of this. This is what he said before the last general election:

“we have the opportunity to debate…at prime minister’s questions. But that is a very different matter to a proper television debate during a general election campaign…when Parliament is not sitting, and when people will be most receptive to engaging in political discussion.”

We know he lost to the Deputy Prime Minister last time. Why does he not just cut out the feeble excuses and admit the truth: he is worried he might lose again?

[The Prime Minister]

Amazing! The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the future of a television programme; I want to talk about the future of the country. Four questions, three weeks to go, and he cannot talk about jobs because we are growing jobs. He cannot talk about unemployment because unemployment is plummeting. He cannot talk about inflation because it is at a record low. The truth is he is weak and despicable and wants to crawl to power in Alex Salmond’s pocket.

[Edward Miliband]

If the Prime Minister is so confident, why is he chickening out of the debates with me? Everyone can see it. Mr Speaker, I will tell you why this matters. It matters because it goes to his character. The public will see through his feeble excuses. Instead of these ridiculous tactics, why does he not show a bit more backbone and turn up for the head-to-head debate with me—any time, anywhere, any place?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what goes to character: someone who is prepared to crawl into Downing street in alliance with people who want to break up our country. What a despicable and weak thing to do, risking our defences, risking our country, risking our United Kingdom. If he had an ounce of courage, he would rule it out.

[Edward Miliband]

There is only one person who is a risk to the integrity of the United Kingdom and it is this useless Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question will be heard. The noise calculatedly being made by some Members on both sides of the House is a disgrace to the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) will be heard and the Prime Minister will be heard. That is the end of the matter.

[Edward Miliband]

There is only one person who is a risk to the integrity of our country, and that is this Prime Minister. On the head-to-head debate, we have learned something about him: like all bullies, when the heat is really on he runs for cover.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has been offered a debate any time, any place, anywhere, but he will not take it. The truth is that Labour has nothing to say on policy and nothing to say on the economy. Its only way into Downing street is on Alex Salmond’s coat tails. It is an alliance between the people who want to bankrupt Britain and the people who want to break up Britain, and the British people will never have it.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On 25 March, the Penrose inquiry, which has been looking at the tragedy of contaminated blood in Scotland, will finally report. It is likely to have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. The time scale means that it is highly unlikely that there will be a full response by this Government before the end of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend, who has taken a great personal interest in this—as have more than 100 Members of this House—give an assurance that the matter will not slip from his or the Government’s agenda, and that as soon as possible in the new Parliament there will be an attempt at closing this terrible tragedy in our country?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for leading on this issue. I suspect that, like me, every Member of Parliament has heard moving stories at their surgeries from constituents who have hepatitis C or HIV because of contaminated blood. It is right to wait for the Penrose inquiry. Let me make it clear that that is not an excuse, because I want us to take action. I am not sure whether that action will ever fully satisfy those who want this wrong to be righted, but as a wealthy and successful country we should be helping these people more. We will help them more, but we need Penrose first, and if I am standing here after the next election it will be done.

[Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

Q2. Before the last election, the Prime Minister repeatedly promised to cut immigration. Instead it has gone up. Net immigration is now three times higher than he promised. Why has he failed?

[The Prime Minister]

We have cut net migration from outside the European Union. We have created more jobs than the rest of the European Union put together, so we now need to reform welfare to ensure that people who come from other European countries cannot claim unemployment benefit, leave after six months without a job and have to work for four years before they get tax credits. That is what people will get if a there is a Conservative Government after the next election.

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

In celebrating international women’s day, the Prime Minister can be congratulated on making it happen for women: we have more women in work than ever before, more female-led businesses than ever before, more females on boards than ever before, and more child care provision than ever before. Given that women are core to the long-term economic plan, will my right hon. Friend support the creation of a women and equalities Select Committee to ensure that future Governments do as much for women as the current Government have?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in agreeing to that. Of course we still have to break down disadvantage and barriers in our country, but there are more women in work than ever before; the pay gap for the under-40s has been eradicated; we are doing more to help with child care and to help people with caring responsibilities; and we have tried to help women around the world, not least by campaigning and working to cut out female genital mutilation and to put an end to the horrors of forced marriage. This Government have a good record on promoting women’s issues and rights, not just in the UK but right around the world.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Q3. Does the Prime Minister share my admiration for The Brick, a Wigan charity that last year gave 6,000 food parcels to local families? Will he tell those families why, 30 years after the miners’ strike, yet again our community is having to compensate for its heartless and hopeless Government? I would be ashamed of that record; is that why he will not go head to head and debate it?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall tell the hon. Lady what we inherited in Wigan: since we came to office, unemployment has come down by 44% in terms of the claimant count. In the north-west, we have seen 124,000 more people in work. Those people are now able to provide for their families. That is what is happening. We have a growing economy because we dealt with the mess left by the hon. Lady and her party.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Q4. We can be rightly proud of our science and technology research base, but there is a danger that Government spending on that important area is falling behind. When my right hon. Friend is returned as Prime Minister in only a few weeks’ time, will he commit to a real-terms increase in the science budget, thus supporting Basildon’s innovative industries, maintaining our world standing in the sciences and helping to create the high-paid jobs that we need to deliver our long-term economic plan?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention science. Of course, we ring-fenced the science budget during this Parliament because it is absolutely essential to building the modern manufacturing and advanced economy that we want to see. We can also see excellent initiatives such as the Newton fund, the Alan Turing institute and the Sir Henry Royce institute—all big investments in science in the next Parliament.

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

It has been estimated that entrenching market structures in the NHS, for example through tendering, bidding and contracting to the private sector, costs over £10 billion a year. Why does the Prime Minister not think that that money would be better spent on patient care?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have done is save money by cutting out bureaucracy, so we are seeing an extra £4.5 billion go into the NHS. If the hon. Lady is saying that there is no occasion at all when anyone from the independent, charitable or voluntary sectors can help in our NHS, I think that she is wrong. I think of the work that Macmillan cancer nurses and Marie Curie Cancer Care do, helping with the end of life. The idea that there is only one way to deliver health care in our brilliant NHS, which is expanding under this Government, is completely wrong.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Q5. Despite record numbers of new jobs, people with a learning disability can still find it tough to get into work. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the Basingstoke inclusion zone, which will recognise the commitment of local employers to people with a learning disability, whose talents and ability in the workplace are too often hidden?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my right hon. Friend in praising the great work of the inclusion zone, which is launching this Friday. We need to build on the success we have already, with employment of disabled people up by 141,000 over the past year. We need a change not only in action, but in culture, which is why the Disability Confident campaign is so important for encouraging employers to join in and give employment opportunities to disabled people. We now have over 1,000 committing to change their practices with disabled people, and I want to see that go right across the country.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Q6. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating Titanic Belfast, which this week beat competition from the London Eye and the Eiffel tower to become the best international group visitor attraction. Does he therefore share my frustration and anger that in the same week the much bigger prize of political stability and economic progress is being jeopardised by Sinn Fein reneging on promises made in the Stormont House agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me join the hon. Lady in praising the Titanic exhibition, which I have been to see myself. It is an absolutely brilliant visitor attraction and yet another reason to visit Belfast, and not only for people from across our United Kingdom, but for people from across Europe and around the world. I agree that what matters now is implementing the Stormont House agreement. Everyone should do what they signed up to do in that agreement, including Sinn Fein. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working very hard to try to ensure that everyone fulfils their pledges.

[Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)]

Q7. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the many dedicated health professionals who work at St Ann’s hospice in my constituency, and does he agree that the decision to devolve £6 billion of NHS spending to Greater Manchester presents a tremendous opportunity to integrate health care services better and secure a more positive long-term funding arrangement for our local hospices?

[The Prime Minister]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The hospice movement is another good example of something that provides vital health and social services in our country but is not necessarily owned and operated by the NHS. I am a parent who used a hospice in Oxford regularly, and I was absolutely amazed by the brilliant work they do. We have allocated over £100 million of capital funding to hospices since 2010, and that is in addition to the £10 million for children’s hospices. I would welcome more NHS money being made available to hospices, as he says, and I think that the Greater Manchester decision is a way of ensuring that decisions are made between local authorities and the NHS and are made closer to the patients who they are serving.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

A leaked NHS report shows a looming deficit of £200 million in Staffordshire in three years’ time. Last year, 10 more of these reports were commissioned into distressed local health economies around the country, and yet, after repeated stonewalling, health Ministers are now saying:

“Consultancy firms were not commissioned to produce reports on the local health economies, as described in the question”.

May I ask the Prime Minister why, election or no election, the Government are engaged in a cover-up of what lies in store for large parts of the NHS around the country?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a pattern, which is that Labour MPs in Staffordshire are determined to try to frighten people about the future of the NHS, and they are the last people who should do that after the appalling mess they made in Mid Staffordshire. We are seeing £12.7 billion more money going into our NHS and a strong future for the NHS in Staffordshire that will be continued as long as I am in this place.

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

Q8. This is the third time in four months that I have raised at Prime Minister’s questions NHS England letting down the 180 or so people with ultra-rare diseases, some of whom are outside the House today, who have been failed by a flawed process. Some of those children will lose access to their drugs from May, and their conditions will deteriorate irreversibly. We have two sessions of Prime Minister’s questions left. Can he tell me that, in that time, he will announce when we will get interim funding for the drugs that these children and these people need?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, because these are very rare and debilitating conditions, and there are drugs that can help the children who have them. Having looked at this—and I know that the health and science Ministers have looked vary carefully at it and met the families and the drug companies, as well as NHS England—my understanding is that NHS England is holding a review, which will be completed by the end of April, and the companies are currently funding these drugs until the end of May. So I do not see any reason why there should not be continuity of care and continuity of drugs, and that is what I hope we can achieve.

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

Spending 2% of GDP on defence is not only significant as part of our NATO commitment—it is also a commitment to being a reliable ally. Only last September, the Prime Minister still thought it was important when he lectured other NATO countries on meeting Britain’s commitment. Is he not just a little bit embarrassed that he himself has now reneged on that?

[The Prime Minister]

This country has met its NATO commitments, not only for 2% but to spend the money on deployable equipment and forces, which is just as important a commitment. What I would say to the hon. Lady is this: how does she feel about her leader contemplating a deal with the SNP, who want to strip this country of their defences? That is what they are prepared to do. He will not rule it out. It says very clearly in his leaflet: they are only trying to be the largest party; they are not trying to win a majority. That is the risk we face: no Trident, no protection for our country—defence stripped bare by a Labour party in hock to the SNP.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Q9. With unemployment falling in Southend, enterprises expanding and 310 new businesses being created, will my right hon. Friend describe to the House which Government policies will see this recovery continuing so that the irresistible and unstoppable case for Southend to be made a city actually happens?

[The Prime Minister]

May I once again commend my hon. Friend on the consistency of his campaign to see Southend recognised in that way? He asked me what policies will make a difference and continue to bring businesses to Southend. We are cutting the jobs tax for businesses and charities, and that is helping; we have got the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7, and that is helping; we are abolishing national insurance contributions for under-21s; and we are extending the doubling of the small business rate relief. All of these things, sticking to our long-term economic plan as the OECD, IMF and others have advised us to, can make sure that Southend can continue to grow and perform well.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Q10. In protecting universal benefits, the Prime Minister said that pensioners “deserve dignity” when they retire. Retired constituents in West Lancashire say, “What’s the point of a bus pass when there are no buses?” [Interruption.] There are not even trains, as the Conservative borough council has pocketed the additional money that would have been used to allow pensioners to have access to trains. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady needs to bring her question to a close, but that question, notwithstanding a display of very considerable rudeness towards her, will be heard. That is the end of it. It will be heard however long it takes; it does not matter to me.

[Rosie Cooper]

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and ensure that concessionary travel for all pensioners is fair and equitable?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, buses are the responsibility of the county council, so I think the point made was a fair one. I have talked about dignity and security in retirement, because we have kept our commitments and upgraded the pension by the triple lock, so pensioners in the hon. Lady’s constituency will have £950 more in terms of the basic state pension than when I become Prime Minister in 2010. We committed to keeping the free bus pass, keeping the free television licence, keeping the freedom from prescription charges. We have kept each and every one of those promises. We have gone beyond that by saying to pensioners that they do not need to buy an annuity: it is their money, their savings, and they can spend it as they choose. This has been a Government who have recognised that people deserve that dignity and security, and we have delivered in full.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Seventy-five per cent. of our schools contain asbestos, more than 20 teachers a year are dying from exposure to asbestos and our children are known to be particularly vulnerable. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government publish their completed policy review on asbestos in schools before Dissolution?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue, which has been well broadcast and covered in the media in the past couple of days. That is why we are carrying out an asbestos review going through all schools. We will publish it in due course, and action will have to be taken.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Q11. I was thinking of raising with the Prime Minister the Conservatives’ so-called long-term economic plan—like Pinocchio’s nose, it grows longer and less attractive by the day—but with just two Prime Minister’s questions to go, I thought that I would ask the Prime Minister whether he shared my imminent relief that neither he nor I will have to pencil in 12 noon on a Wednesday any longer.

[The Prime Minister]

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, as he will shortly be leaving the House? As a new Back Bencher, I will never forget coming to this place in 2001 and, in the light of the appalling terrorist attacks that had taken place across the world, seeing the strong leadership he gave on the importance of keeping our country safe. He is a remarkable politician, a remarkable man. I remember once in the Home Affairs Committee that, even though he could not see who we all were, he knew exactly who was concentrating and who was not. I do not know how—he has this extraordinary gift—but he is an extraordinary politician. I pay tribute to him, and I know the rest of the House will join me in doing so.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

During his conference speech, the Prime Minister rightly warned voters flirting with UKIP that if they went to bed with Nigel Farage on 7 May, they could end up waking up with the Leader of the Opposition on 8 May. May I put it to the Prime Minister that the outcome could actually be a lot more unpleasant? Is it not now the case that if voters go to bed with Nigel Farage on 7 May, they could wake up not only with the Leader of the Opposition, but snuggled up next to Alex Salmond?

[The Prime Minister]

That is the point. Who knows who you could wake up in bed with? It might not just be Alex Salmond; it might be Nigel Farage. It could be any number of people. [Hon. Members: “It could be Nick Clegg.”] Yes, of course that is an option too. It all points to the difference between the competence of the Conservatives and the chaos of the alternatives.

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

Q12. People in Northern Ireland have once more seen the issue of sexual abuse put under the spotlight as members of the IRA stand accused of holding kangaroo courts, re-traumatising victims as a result. Will the Prime Minister help to establish a cross-border inquiry with the power to call key witnesses, to try to bring some form of closure and justice, especially to young people who have been abused and whose abusers have been sheltered by the IRA?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Stormont House agreement includes a set of measures and proposals to try to deal with the issues of the past in a fair and accountable way—perhaps this is one such issue that could be dealt with in that way.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Q13. In Gosport we have a proud history of supporting the armed forces, and the recent £420 million contract to service the Chinook helicopter fleet will help local companies such as Vector Aerospace to preserve those links. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister reassure the House of his commitment to defence spending, the defence industry, defence procurement and defence jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly make that commitment. We have said that the £160 billion equipment programme over the next decade is fully protected and will grow in real terms, and I have recently been to Portsmouth to see for myself the new docks that are being put in to welcome the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, and the massive investment that will go into Portsmouth for ship servicing. My hon. Friend’s constituency will benefit from the Chinook contract—a new order of Chinooks pumping money into our defence industry and leading to the training of apprentices, jobs and livelihoods for many years to come.

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

A couple with two children where the man earns £25,000 and the woman earns £10,000 will be £9,417 worse off in tax credits if they stay together, as opposed to if they break up. Is that brutal attack on working families another reason why the Prime Minister will not go head to head in a pre-election debate with the Leader of the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government have obviously helped all couples by lifting the first £10,600 that someone earns out of tax, and we are the first Government to introduce a married couple’s tax allowance, which I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman voted against. If he cares about couples and commitment, he should be voting with us.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Q14. It has been an honour and a privilege to be the Member of Parliament for North Warwickshire for the past five years, and I am particularly proud that in that time crime in North Warwickshire has fallen. There are more doctors and nurses in the George Eliot hospital, and the number of schools rated as needing improvement has halved. Perhaps most importantly, unemployment in North Warwickshire has fallen to the lowest level since constituency records began in 1983. Does the Prime Minister agree that that shows that gripping the economy, gripping the deficit, and having an effective long-term economic plan is not just empty rhetoric but makes a real difference to people on the ground?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he has done. The claimant count in North Warwickshire has come down by 70% since the election, and the long-term youth claimant count has come down by 64%. I know that, working with Craig Tracey, he will work hard to ensure that North Warwickshire continues to benefit from our long-term economic plan.

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

Q15. The Prime Minister may know that this could be my last Prime Minister’s questions after 20 happy years representing Bradford South. He will be pleased to know that I am making my retirement plans—what are his?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only on his service in this House but on winning a by-election. Any of us who have taken part in by-elections—I remember the Bradford South by-election, not entirely happily from my point of view—knows what daunting prospects they are. We all have plans for after 7 May, and people who we want to spend more time with, and less time with. I have a little list, and I suspect he has one too.

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

Members of the Scottish National party have been licking their lips in public at the prospect of blackmailing one of the two main parties into delaying or abandoning the replacement of the Trident submarines. Will the Prime Minister confirm that if he is still Prime Minister in 2016, as he should be, he will ensure that the maingate contracts for four successor submarines are signed that year?

[The Prime Minister]

I can reassure my hon. Friend. For me, Trident and its replacement are non-negotiable. They are an absolutely vital part of this nation’s security. Let me just remind Labour Members of the leaflet going out across Scotland. It says this:

“At the General Election we need to stop the Tories being the largest party.”

They have given up trying to be the Government and trying to win a majority. They want to crawl into Downing street on the coat tails of the SNP and put our country at risk. The British people will never have it.

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

Seventeen thousand police officers have gone in this Parliament. Under the Chancellor’s spending plans, another 30,000 would go in the next Parliament. The outgoing president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, has warned that it would no longer be possible adequately to protect the public from criminals or from the growing threat of home-grown terrorists. Is he right?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have seen in this Parliament is that, yes, we have made difficult decisions on police spending, but crime is down, including crime in the west midlands.

As for the shadow Chancellor’s dossier this week, he briefed against it before we even had a chance. I have heard of him briefing against the leader, but he has beaten his own records. He now briefs against himself.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Points of Order

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

12:36

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need to declare an indirect interest. I seek your advice, because I would hate for a Minister to have unwittingly misled the House. Is it in order for the Chief Secretary to return to the Dispatch Box and supply the correct figures for social house building? Yesterday, in response to me, he said that the Government

“have the highest annual rate of social house building than under the previous Government”.—[Official Report, 10 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 145.]

The UK Housing Review, published on Monday, had within it a Department for Communities and Local Government live table, which had the following figures for social rent starts and completions: in 2009-10, there were 39,492 starts and 30,939 completions. The figures in 2013-14—the last full year—were 3,961 and 7,559 respectively. As you can see, Mr Speaker, the Chief Secretary’s statement is wrong, and his Government have not out-built the Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for notice of its likely content. She has put her point on the record. I hope she will understand if I say that the content of Ministers’ observations in the House is not a matter for the Chair. If the Chief Secretary, upon reflection, judges that he has made an inaccurate observation, it is of course open to him to correct the record in one or other of a number of different ways. I hope the hon. Lady will not take offence if I say—it is meant as a compliment—that she is a wily character. She has largely achieved her objective by putting her point on the record in prime time.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have always advised Members of this House of the importance of showing respect to others in the workplace. In that regard, is it appropriate, in this House, which is a workplace, that a female Minister should be referred to as a washing machine?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I certainly did not say that a Member was a washing machine. If I caused offence to an hon. Member on Monday afternoon in the course of Question Time, in rebuking her for a long answer—it did result in a somewhat shorter one after that—and if I caused offence by what I said, I very happily apologise to that Member. I intended to cause no offence to her and hold her in the highest esteem. I hope I ordinarily treat Members with great courtesy. It was an off-the-cuff remark, it may well have been a foolish one, and I apologise for it.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In this House, during a Division, if Members wish positively to abstain, the option of walking through both the Aye and the No Lobby is available to them.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No it is not.

[Conor Burns]

It is possible to walk both through the Aye Lobby and the No Lobby and—

[Chris Bryant]

No, it is not.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, Mr Bryant, I know you are an exceptionally clever man. No one is more aware of your cleverness than you, but you can leave me to deal with this matter.

[Conor Burns]

We are, of course, regularly reminded of that, not least by the hon. Gentleman himself.

In a deferred Division, when one wishes to abstain, as I tried to recently, I was told that if one fills in both the Aye and the No Lobby one is recorded as “not voting”. Was that advice correct, or should it be possible, in the same way that one can vote in both Lobbies, to do the same in a deferred Division?

[Mr Speaker]

I am advised that the advice the hon. Gentleman was given is correct. The hon. Gentleman will have heard that the Acting Clerk has confirmed the accuracy of that advice to the Chair.

More widely, perhaps I can take this opportunity to make it clear—I think this largely deals with the concerns of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—that the occasional practice, and it is usually a very occasional matter, of a Member going through both Lobbies as a means of abstaining has long been deprecated by the Chair. It is not a breach of any particular rules, so far as I am aware, but it has long been deprecated by the Chair. It did happen on a piece of legislation a couple of years ago. I have to say, I strongly deprecated the decision of a particular Member to abstain in that way. I think it is an unsatisfactory way to behave and it is better avoided.

I think we have dealt with the matter, but if the hon. Member for Rhondda now wants to have his say on his feet, rather than from his seat, doubtless he will do so.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated dissent.

Bills Presented

Standardised Testing for Diabetes (People Aged 40 and Over)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Keith Vaz, Mike Freer, Andrew George, Grahame M. Morris, Jim Shannon, Mark Durkan, Mark Reckless, Mr Adrian Sanders, Dr Julian Huppert, Valerie Vaz, John Robertson, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr Alan Campbell and Phil Wilson presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to provide annual standardised tests for diabetes for those aged 40 and over; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 186).

National Health Service

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Caroline Lucas, Andrew George, John Pugh, Mr Michael Meacher, Chris Williamson, Mr Roger Godsiff, Kelvin Hopkins, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Hywel Williams and Katy Clark presented a Bill to re-establish the Secretary of State’s legal duty as to the National Health Service in England and to make provision about the other duties of the Secretary of State in that regard; to make provision about the administration and accountability of the National Health Service in England; to repeal section 1 of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997 and sections 38 and 39 of the Immigration Act 2014; to make provision about the application of international law in relation to health services in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 187).

Horses and Ponies (Live Export)

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:42

[Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about improving and enforcing the arrangements for the regulation of the export of live British horses and ponies from the United Kingdom; to require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a study of the effectiveness of such arrangements, including their efficacy in distinguishing between the transportation of live horses and ponies for sports and those for meat; and for connected purposes.

The Bill would require the Animal and Plant Health Agency to take full responsibility for enforcement of horse health and welfare laws at British ports. It would require them to use the Government Agency Intelligence Network to involve Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency and other authorities to crack down on the illegal trafficking of tens of thousands of British horses, ponies and donkeys each year.

The UK can be proud of its laws that protect the welfare of every one of our country’s 1 million equines, including protecting them from indiscriminate export for slaughter. Indeed, if I want to export a horse legally I must complete various papers and declarations citing the purpose of export, the destination address, the veterinary certification that I have obtained stating that the horse is in good health, and details of the horse passport and microchip numbers. Ponies must also be above a certain value—at least £145, depending on size—if they are to be eligible for export. One might think that the information declared in these export applications would be occasionally checked and the destination address validated to ensure it exists. Sadly, it seems that this simply does not happen.

One might think that, at the very least, the health certification of animals leaving or entering our country would be checked by the APHA at our ports, but that does not happen. One might also think that occasional checks are made to ensure that the horses listed in the export declaration are the ones on the given lorry, but that does not happen, either. One might think that occasional checks would be made to ascertain the transported animal’s welfare, as advised by the European animal transport regulation, but that does not happen, either. In fact, horses and ponies can effectively be shipped anywhere, for any purpose, in any condition, despite our laws, which are meant to protect them.

For instance, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that there have been no applications to export horses for slaughter for very many years. However, World Horse Welfare, which I thank for its help in preparing the Bill, has clear evidence that many horses and ponies exported under the pretence of sport or leisure are actually taken directly to addresses associated with the meat trade, including markets on the continent where slaughter buyers are present. We are not talking about a few dozen horses slipping through the net; we are talking about tens of thousands of horses and ponies each year.

For example, over just one weekend of monitoring in 2013, World Horse Welfare saw 51 shipments exported from Dover to France and 41 shipments imported, on vehicles taking between two and 22 horses. Not a single check was observed being carried out by the APHA. It is no secret that these low-value horses and ponies are probably being exported with fraudulent identification documents, thereby allowing them to be entered into the meat trade on the continent. Without proper identification, these horses could not be considered safe to enter the food chain, but European abattoirs are much more likely to be fooled by false UK paperwork than our own abattoirs here in the UK. We are watching this happen and, it appears, doing nothing. I am afraid that this is exactly the kind of complacency that contributed to the horsemeat scandal. Horses, unlike other livestock, are relatively unregulated, so trafficking in them is easy to get away with.

Organised criminals are also exploiting the fact that horseboxes can sometimes travel in and out of Britain without a single check or search. Imagine the tax revenue we are losing by letting this trade flourish under the radar, never mind the value of the proceeds from crime. The case of a horse dealer from Northern Ireland, caught smuggling nearly 25 kg of cannabis worth nearly £250,000 in his horsebox, is just one example of the kind of trade we are dealing with. The charity World Horse Welfare estimates that a lorry load of 20 horses could be worth anything from £5,000 to £10,000 at the meat markets, and that trafficking 10,000 horses per year would fetch criminals £2 million to £5 million.

There no enforcement because there is no longer a workable line of responsibility or, it appears, the effective resources to enforce the laws. Instead, we seem to have a dysfunctional system where responsibility appears to be shunted between DEFRA, the APHA and local authorities. As the competent authority, DEFRA is responsible for the enforcement of the laws governing the welfare, transport and trade of animals. However, it has delegated that duty across different agencies. The APHA is clear that it does not enforce those laws. That is a job for local authorities through trading standards or other agencies, but trading standards will not consider enforcement unless there have been reported breaches in compliance. Even then, it must meet its public interest and proportionality tests. As the APHA does not have an intelligence capability, it can only act on specific intelligence. Without intelligence, the APHA is reliant on assessing the declared information of compliant individuals, which does nothing to identify or assess the non-compliant trade. Effectively, therefore, we have no enforcement whatsoever and criminals will continue to profit from horse suffering.

My Bill would, I hope, change that. First, it would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a study of the effectiveness of the current enforcement in horse exports. Secondly, DEFRA would make the APHA the enforcement authority for all equine exports and imports, including health, welfare and documentation. That streamlining of enforcement would be effective and simple to implement. A similar scheme was in place some years ago when checks at our ports were carried out by the State Veterinary Service before the current arrangements were put in place.

Penalties for breaches would be increased and the maximum imposed to serve as a deterrent. The penalties imposed for breaches of welfare-in-transit laws are usually insignificant—cautions or brief suspensions—despite the courts having the option of fines of up to £5,000 per animal. Penalties for breaches of other laws, such as the use of false horse passports or vehicle violations, are also relatively small and are therefore also too often not considered worth the time of local authorities. However, if it follows the national intelligence model the APHA could target prolific offenders collectively and significant penalties could be imposed through the courts, thus delivering much-needed revenue to the Government, never mind what tax officials and the criminal enforcement agencies might be able to recoup from the proceeds of these traffickers’ crimes.

My Bill would also require the APHA to put in place an effective collaborative framework to gather, assess, disseminate and act on intelligence regarding equine health, welfare and documentation irregularities as well as suspicious patterns in the trade. The APHA claims that it already conducts intelligence-led enforcement but it has no effective system to hold, analyse or act on that intelligence. Non-governmental organisations such as World Horse Welfare have extensive intelligence that they share with Government agencies and are keen to share with the APHA. Many NGOs are ready and willing to do all they can to help.

Finally, my Bill would require greater transparency and therefore accountability for the APHA by publishing enforcement actions and suspensions, as happens with vehicles through traffic commissioners and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. I hope that the House will support the Bill so that we can better protect our horses, stop this criminal trade and ensure that the Government receive their due revenues.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Gregory Barker, Mrs Anne Main, Zac Goldsmith, Sir John Randall, Caroline Nokes, Jim Fitzpatrick, Simon Kirby, Joan Walley, Michael Fabricant, Charlie Elphicke, Andrew Rosindell and Mr Shaun Woodward present the Bill.

Gregory Barker accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March and to be printed (Bill 188).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[19th Allotted Day]

General Election Television Debates

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

12:52

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

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the potential value of broadcast general election debates between party leaders; notes however that neither the broadcasters nor politicians can escape the charge of self-interest in their organisation, and that they should best be left to an independent body to arrange; further notes that the broadcast debate formats proposed for 2015 have been inconsistently and incompetently formulated so far; further notes that there exists a substantial danger as a result that these debates will now not happen; and believes that the point of any debates which do happen must be to benefit those who watch them, not those who appear in them or broadcast them.

Mr Speaker, you are the first among us to mention when the public think we are doing a good job of debating and whether we get it right or wrong. You, sir, do a much better job of ensuring that debates happen than the broadcasters do and, if I may say so, of ensuring that all the relevant people turn up, including Ministers. In this Parliament, Ministers have certainly been made much more accountable than they have been in previous Parliaments, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful for that.

With just eight weeks to go to polling day, there are as many questions as ever about the proposed television broadcast debates. Who will be debating with whom? Who is invited? Who will actually turn up? When are the debates happening? On not one point has agreement been established, and we heard again today at Prime Minister’s questions that the controversy continues to rage. The situation is completely unsatisfactory and deeply disappointing.

Before the broadcasters report critically about us, they must first ask what they have got wrong in this process. Did they engage constructively and sensibly with all the parties? Can they honestly say that they have had at the front of their minds the interests of the voters, their viewers? Has not the self-interest of the broadcasters been rather too evident in much of the many mistakes they have made so far?

When we put ourselves before the voters, we hope for a fair hearing. Does anyone think that the broadcasters have had that, rather than ratings and spectacle, in mind? If they did, how does one explain their oscillation from one format for debates to another?

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Did the right hon. Gentleman welcome, as I did, the intervention by Lord Grade, the former chairman of the BBC and chairman of ITV? He knows what he is talking about when he says that the arrangements for these debates are deeply flawed.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The intervention in a letter to The Times this morning from the noble Lord was interesting and pertinent. It is interesting to note that someone who might have a party political affiliation but who is so experienced in broadcasting for ITV and in the world of the BBC is speaking so forthrightly about how broadcasters have handled the situation. It has to be said that that is particularly the case with the BBC, which has a responsibility as a public broadcaster to be fair and impartial to everyone. One issue that concerns television licence fee payers in Northern Ireland is the deliberate exclusion of Northern Ireland parties when other parties from Scotland and Wales that stand only in their respective countries are included. That prompts serious questions about the impartiality and fairness of the BBC, in particular.

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

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s last point. It is no good the broadcasters saying that the Welsh nationalists and Scottish nationalists can take part in the debates if the parties from Northern Ireland cannot. He should pursue his case vigorously.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am also grateful for the support that has been evident from Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, I have with me letters from the leaders of other parties throughout the United Kingdom defending and supporting our inclusion in the national debates.

Let me make the position of the Democratic Unionist party very clear. We want the national debates to happen and we do not want to intrude or ask to be involved in a national debate involving the national parties. For instance, we are quite happy that there should be a head-to-head debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or a debate among those parties that are deemed to be national and have sufficient standing to stand in all parts of the United Kingdom. We did not raise any objections to that or ask to be included in that debate. When the broadcasters decided that they would invite the Scottish National party from Scotland and Plaid Cymru from Wales to be involved in the national debate, however, that prompted the question of why they would include a party that stands only in Scotland and a party that stands only in Wales but not the Democratic Unionist party, which has more MPs and more votes than Plaid Cymru and more MPs than the Greens, Plaid and the SNP put together. The whole thing is ludicrous.

We met the BBC at our request after it had proposed its second formulation. As I understand it, the BBC never asked to speak to any of the parties in Northern Ireland. Not only did the BBC not speak to the political parties in Northern Ireland but, as I understand it, the BBC mandarins and fonctionnaires did not even speak to their own journalists in Northern Ireland. I am not sure what happened in other countries or regions of the UK, but they took the decision without consulting the people directly involved in Northern Ireland. I hear them talk about consulting all the parties, but it is clear that they have not fulfilled their obligation, because they have not consulted us, despite our size and contribution and the potential for a hung Parliament on 8 May. These are serious questions, particularly for the BBC, that need to be answered. I reiterate our position: we are concerned with the national debates only because parties from other countries are to be involved but Northern Ireland is to be excluded, and there will be parties in those national debates putting forward candidates in Northern Ireland, and therefore it is prejudicial to Northern Ireland parties, particularly the DUP.

It is sometimes said by the BBC and other broadcasters, “Well, there will be local debates in Northern Ireland among the main parties. That is the opportunity for Northern Ireland politicians and parties to debate in front of the Northern Ireland electorate and set out their policies.” That is all fine and well—we have no objection to debating in that format—but I understand that such debates will also take place in Scotland and Wales. Yes, let us have those debates, but when it comes to the national debates, we cannot have one rule for parties chosen arbitrarily at the whim of unaccountable broadcasters deciding what is best for everyone else and having a different rule for Northern Ireland. That is totally unacceptable.

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

Lord Grade is reported as having accused channel bosses of breaking their legal duty of impartiality in threatening to stage the debates without the Prime Minister, but does that duty not also extend to the DUP, which is well represented in this House, given the inclusion of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend raises the important point, which the noble Lord referred to in his article, about the duty of impartiality that is placed on the BBC and to which I think other broadcasters should show due high regard. It remains to be seen what happens. Significantly, in this debate about debates, people have been forthright in saying, “This will happen”, but the reality keeps turning out to be very different. In the first formulation, the broadcasters assured us that there would be three debates with invitations to four parties—the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Lib Dems and UKIP—and that if anyone did not turn up, they would be “empty chaired”, but then of course they changed their minds.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, but is it not paradoxical to have party political broadcasts that virtually nobody watches but not to have debates that 23 million people watched the last time they took place? Are the broadcasters not trying simply to step into the vacuum that the House has left, and should we not legislate to ensure fair debates across the UK and in the nations and regions of the UK?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point to which I shall return. Indeed, our motion states that the matter has been so badly handled by the broadcasters—undoubtedly political self-interest has raised its head as well—that steps should be taken, as a result of this debacle, to ensure a fair and equitable basis on which to agree proper and fair debates. This experience makes that point very strongly—although whether it should be done through legislation is another matter.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and he makes his point about regional differences very well. Of course, the BBC and commercial stations can put on regional programmes involving regional politicians—regional parties are emerging in England, such as the North East party now standing in my seat, and Cornwall has a tradition of regional parties—but does he agree that the broadcasters need a model that fits all future purposes, whether for regional or national broadcasts, and that can determine which parties participate? They need to express a model that makes sense.

[Mr Dodds]

Until now, the broadcasters have made it up as they have gone along, responding to pressure here, there and everywhere. They have responded to the latest opinion polls—the exclusion and then inclusion of the Greens was done on the basis of opinion polls—but polls go up and down, so a decision on whether someone should be included will depend on when one takes note of the polls. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A model needs to be designed in good time, well before a general election—especially because with fixed-term Parliaments everybody knows when the election will be—and with maximum agreement, setting out fairly and squarely the rules that will apply come what may. It needs to be fair to all parties and all regions and countries of the UK. We cannot have one country excluded and one major party in the House disadvantaged compared with other smaller parties. It cannot go on like this—he is right about that.

The broadcasters came up with their first formulation—three debates, four parties—but then they changed their minds and told us that seven parties would be invited. Not only did they completely change the proposed format and bin the nonsense about dissidents being “empty chaired”; they came up with proposals that, among other fascinating things, told us that the Liberal Democrats and Plaid amounted to pretty much the same thing—I mean no disrespect to either party when I point out to the broadcasters that there is quite a big difference between them in terms of size and appeal across the UK.

Until last week, no one had agreed even to that second unsustainable debate format—Labour had not agreed; UKIP had not agreed; the Liberals were vigorously denouncing the prospect of being relegated to football conference status; and the DUP had not agreed either. We have been absolutely consistent. As I said in response to earlier interventions, we can entirely see the case for the parties that Ofcom deems “the big four” debating with one another. One can debate whether Ofcom is right, but that is what it has said, so we can see the case for the broadcasters organising the debates on that basis. At a stretch, we can see the case for including the Greens—it is arguable, although it would make for much better television, from the broadcasters’ point of view—but we do not accept that the BBC and other broadcasters can pick and choose which parties from the countries and regions of the UK they deem fit to attend.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem arose when the broadcasters broke their rationale simply to include UKIP, rather than sticking with the previous elections as the basis on which to decide who should participate? That is where the rot stems from.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady raises the point I referred to about Ofcom’s definition for deciding which the main parties are. It is for Ofcom to make its own decisions and explain its rationale, and she certainly has a point, but we are where we are with that decision. It goes back to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). We cannot go on making it up as we go along. We need a set of rules, well in advance of the elections, that are clear, rational, fair and understandable.

[Ian Swales]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is coming on to the issue later in his speech, but the question of thresholds is relevant. Will such arrangements or models contain some sort of threshold, based perhaps on current representation in this House or some other method? Such a system would have various features, which could be explained in advance, and then used on every occasion.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is certainly part of the debate that should happen, but it should happen well in advance—not in the heat of a general election and not in the run-up to the election when so many vested interests are at stake. As we have discovered, people who were previously enthusiastic have become less enthusiastic, depending on their particular vested interest. Likewise, others who were not so keen have suddenly become very keen indeed.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a compelling argument. Does he agree that the wider body politic and all our constituents right across the community would like to see us debating the substance of the issues that impact on them on a day-to-day basis, on which the general election will be decided?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, which is why it is important to have a debate about ensuring that that happens. As things stand, it looks likely that the public, who watched the debates in considerable numbers last time, will be denied the opportunity to hear the contributions from the various party leaders who could form the Government. The public would be very interested to hear about the priorities for the smaller parties that could play a significant role one way or the other—what is their general outlook and how would they see things shaping up? I agree entirely with the hon. Lady.

As I have said, at this time no one has any idea what debates, if any, are going to occur. The broadcasters can say what they like about being determined to proceed and can make threats of empty-chairing, but there is no consensus at all about whether these debates are going to occur.

I want to make it very clear to the House and people beyond it that Northern Ireland Members will certainly not tamely accept any attempt to pick and choose the parties to the detriment of Northern Ireland. We are part of the United Kingdom; we play a very significant role in the House. The Democratic Unionist party has eight MPs, but there are other Northern Ireland Members from other parties, and indeed no party, who play a role here, too. They deserve to have their voice heard on behalf of the people they represent. They should not be excluded, especially in a context where the Democratic Unionist party could play a much more significant role on 8 May than some of the parties that are going to be included in the debates. People across the United Kingdom need to know where we stand on the national issues.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I agree with virtually everything the right hon. Gentleman has said in this debate so far. Let me ask him about timing, which is a huge concern to me as a candidate. By having the TV debates within the last three or four weeks of the campaign, we convert it into a sort of “X Factor” whereby people will decide how to vote on the basis of looking at the television screen. The role of the hundreds and hundreds of candidates out there campaigning will be completely sidelined by this process if it takes place in the last few weeks of the campaign. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman intends to cover this, but I think the timing of these debates in a short campaign, which devalues the role of candidates, is an important one.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I think should be discussed in the wider context of setting out a model for how these debates should be run in the future. The timing is extremely important. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about the effect of these big debates and the attention they receive. The Prime Minister’s argument about sucking the life out of the campaign is relevant, particularly to local campaigns.

Having said that, however, I also have a lot of sympathy with the view that the public are interested in having these sort of debates between people who might become the Prime Minister and form the Government. It is a question of balance, and looking at when these debates should happen is relevant, but I am not going to be prescriptive about it. It should be discussed and debated, and we need an independent model to take it all into account. It is wrong to say merely that we should go along with what the broadcasters have outlined because they believe that it is the right approach, and that anyone who disagrees with that does not have the interest of the wider public at heart. I do not believe that that is the right approach; it is a question of balance.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My right hon. Friend has alluded to the fact that after 8 May Democratic Unionist Members could have a say on who walks into Downing street as Prime Minister. That being the case, is it not right and proper that the national audience should know where smaller parties such as ours stand on the issues of national defence and the Union, on grammar school education, health care, taxation, the cost of living, defence spending and so forth? The public are entitled to know that; it will help them to decide which parties should help to create and form the next Government.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is in the interests of people throughout the United Kingdom. If we are to hear the views of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, it is absolutely right for people to hear the views of the Democratic Unionist party and others on the national issues, because this could have a major impact on the next Parliament.

When the leader of my party, Peter Robinson, and I met the BBC in Belfast, we heard this argument: “We have included the SNP and Plaid in addition to UKIP, the Greens and the three major national parties, but it would be difficult now to include the DUP. We recognise the strength of your numbers; we recognise the role you could play in the next Parliament; we recognise that you have more votes than Plaid; we recognise that you have more seats than Plaid; we recognise that, unlike some parties, you are genuinely going to weigh up the options after the election on the basis of proposals that come forward. You are not in the pocket of any party; you have not already sold your vote. You have not already said that you are going to oppose the Tories, come what may, or that you will never go into coalition with the Labour party. All that is perfectly valid, but it will be very difficult to broadcast a debate because we would have to invite all the Northern Ireland parties, which would make it very unwieldy.”

So it comes down to a problem the broadcasters have created by the inclusion of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, leading them to say, “It is too difficult to cover Northern Ireland because we would then have to include more parties than the DUP”. It is a problem of their own creation. It is hardly fair to blame the DUP or Northern Ireland when this is a problem that the broadcasters have created themselves. When they came forward with this formulation and created this problem, they must have done so with their eyes wide open. They must have known that the effect would be to exclude Northern Ireland completely and that they would have to resort to a weak argument along the lines of: “It would be very unwieldy in broadcasting terms and it would not be a great television show.” I have no reason to doubt that functionaries at the top of the BBC and elsewhere are reasonably intelligent people, so they must have known the implications, but they were prepared to proceed nevertheless. In my view, that is a gross dereliction of their duty of fairness and reasonableness.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is blatant arrogance coming from the BBC. This is an organisation funded by the general public who pay the licence fee. The public want to hear what the parties have to offer. This is just blatant arrogance.

[Mr Dodds]

That is absolutely right, and I think the BBC will live to regret that arrogance. The way it is treating the political parties of Northern Ireland displays a great level of contempt for the people of Northern Ireland.

I shall start my conclusion as I know other Members want to speak. Where are we at the moment? We are, preposterously, supposed to believe the threat from the broadcasters that they can legally contrive debates during the short general election campaign at which the Prime Minister is not present while many of his political opponents are. Reference has been made to what Lord Grade has said today. Some people may believe that that is possible. Some people in the BBC, including broadcasters, may believe that it is possible, although I should add, in fairness to the BBC’s employees, that I have yet to meet a BBC journalist who believes that it is. It would do the BBC Trust, and indeed Rona Fairhead, some good to listen sometimes to what members of their front-line infantry are saying.

Even now, it is not too late to do what should have been done long ago. A matter of such importance—putting the electoral choices of the British people directly in front of them—should be raised above the level of partisan squabbling or media meddling. Even at this late hour, a Speaker’s conference would start to take us where we need to go, towards the establishment of an independent commission to superintend broadcast election debates. Of course the public want to hear from us, but they must hear from us fairly, without bias and without the blatant incompetence that we have seen here before getting in the way.

Throughout the world, broadcasters work with independent commissions arranging political debates of this kind, and the end result is that in other countries, those debates happen. Here, it seems that the broadcasters know best. They know how to organise the debates, and they go ahead and try to do so on their terms. What has been the end result here? Chaos and confusion—and, eight weeks before the general election, no one has any idea what is happening about any of these debates.

[Dr McCrea]

Lord Grade, whom I mentioned earlier, writes that the BBC and the broadcasters

“are not the guardians of democracy.”

He also writes that they are “unequivocally playing politics.” Surely those are not characteristics of an independent BBC, and surely that means that an independent body to arrange the debates is required.

[Mr Dodds]

Again, my hon. Friend has made an important point. We must remember that we are sent to this House, having been elected by the people, to speak for the people: that is our role. We must take some responsibility, and learn the lessons of this debacle. We need to ensure that the debates happen in future, but on the basis of a model that sets their organisation and formulation aside from broadcasters and politicians.

I want the debates to happen. I sense that many Members on both sides of the House want them to happen, and that many members of the public do as well. The public want to see their politicians in front of them, debating the issues, at the appropriate juncture. The tragedy is that, at present, it is the broadcasters who are getting in the way,

During Northern Ireland questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to the late Lord Molyneaux of Killead. Let me, as leader of the DUP group at Westminster, add my own tribute. I know that Jim Molyneaux, who was a distinguished and valiant Member of the House for many years, would have relished the excitable mess—as he would have put it—that people have got themselves into. He would have been getting them together and counselling them to sit down and find a way through it, calmly and rationally. He conveyed such a sense of authority that I think he was almost born an elder statesman, rather than growing into the role. He wanted people to engage in politics in sentences and paragraphs rather than in soundbites, and that is what these debates should be about. We should be seeking to place serious, coherent, cogent arguments before the public. That is one of the reasons I believe in a debate. I believe that, sadly, Prime Minister’s Question Time has become largely an exchange of soundbites, all sound and fury and very little elucidation.

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

Lord Molyneaux was adept in another respect. At the time of the last hung Parliament when Unionists held the balance of power, he showed that Ulstermen, and indeed women, are very good at doing politics when the occasion arises.

[Mr Dodds]

My right hon. Friend has made a very pertinent point, but I think it is a debate for another day.

Obviously my party will always stand up for Northern Ireland, and in raising this matter today, we are standing against an illogical and unreasonable attempt by some broadcasters to exclude us from the debates. However, the issue is wider than just us. Who are these debates for? Are they for the people who take part in them? Are they for the people who so desperately want to produce them? No, they are not. They are for the people who watch them, and who then decide whether we are to come back to this place. If the broadcasters cannot be trusted to put the interests of the voters first, in all parts of the United Kingdom, we must remember our historic role. We speak for the people because we are elected by the people, and others should never dare to presume to get in the way of the people when they are trying to hear their elected representatives speak and debate with one another. I commend the motion to the House.

13:25

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for giving us an opportunity to debate this matter, and for making such a powerful speech. I also thank him for evoking the spirit of Lord Molyneaux, whose presence, given the respect that he enjoyed in this place, would no doubt have been very welcome during these rather turbulent discussions.

This may be a debate about debates, but it still matters. Millions of people watched the televised debates at the time of the last general election, and I think that it was a positive step for our democracy that the electorate were able to reflect on the choices that were put before them. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), television debates are not the only feature of a general election campaign, and the intensity and concentration of their sequencing tends to generate a close interest which, as the Prime Minister put it, sucks some of the life and vitality out of the campaign itself. That was certainly the case last time. Three years ago, the Prime Minister proposed that we should agree on a set of debates that would, ideally, take place before rather than during the short campaign, so that campaigning in the constituencies would not be overshadowed by the very important aspects of the debate.

[Ian Swales]

Does the Minister believe that such debates should take place before the publication of party manifestos?

[Greg Clark]

As was made plain today during Prime Minister’s Question Time, there is plenty to talk about. I think that the choices between the parties are pretty clear, and I see absolutely no reason why we should not have a debate. The Prime Minister proposed that we should have one during the week beginning 23 March, and I hope that his proposal will be taken up.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North was ingenious in drafting the motion. This is not, of course, a matter in which the Government have any direct legislative say. I think it important for the press—and broadcasters specifically, as part of the press—to be recognised as being robustly independent, and I would not want to breach that in any way

The Government have no direct role in the conduct of the leaders debates, which, in my view, is entirely proper. Government policy extends only to the framework by which broadcasters are regulated in the United Kingdom. Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s independent communications regulator and competition authority, is required to set the standards for programmes on television and radio, which are embodied in the broadcasting code. The code applies to all broadcasters who are licensed by Ofcom. Crucially, it contains specific rules that apply during election periods and require licensed broadcasters to ensure that their coverage is duly impartial. That includes the requirement for due weight to be given to the parties.

In parallel the BBC, whose output is overseen by the BBC Trust, has editorial guidelines and election guidelines that set out the requirements for impartiality and accuracy generally, and specifically within an election period. The role of the press has been debated extensively during this Parliament and I know that all Members will support me in recognising the principle that independence and the requirements for accuracy and impartiality should be at the heart of broadcasting in this country.

Let me say a little about the particular contention in this debate. The aspect that the right hon. Member for Belfast North raised is who gets the power, in effect, to decide who gets a platform and who does not, and the way in which that has been conducted. He made a powerful case on behalf of his party and all parties in Northern Ireland. He expressed forcefully their concern about their exclusion from the arrangements proposed by the broadcasters. He referred to the fact that at the last election the Democratic Unionist party won more votes than one of the parties that is included in the seven-way debate, and more seats than four of them.

To try to cut through the logjam, the Prime Minister made an offer to participate in a seven-way debate before the start of the campaign. The leader of the Labour party said that he would debate the Prime Minister “any time, any place, anywhere”, as I understand it. The Prime Minister has proposed a time: he proposed that there should be a debate the week after next. The offer has been made; it is now up to the Leader of the Opposition to accept it.

As for the specific line-up of the parties, the Prime Minister has said, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North will be aware, that the leader of the DUP should be permitted to make his case for why he should be included, but that case should be made to the broadcasters rather than to the Government.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

May I take the Minister back to the point about the timing of these debates? Of course the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can find plenty to talk about. No doubt they could fill an hour arguing every day of the week, but the point is that in elections the electorate has the opportunity to vote for a manifesto. Is it not absurd for the Prime Minister to propose a debate before the manifesto is published? That is a con on the electorate.

[Greg Clark]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is plenty to debate, as he is kind enough to acknowledge, week after week. There will be no shortage of points that can be made in the debate and it would be a good thing to get on with it. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will change his mind and agree to participate in the debate.

In every part of the United Kingdom, we are living through a time of rapid political change. Between one election and the next, we have seen major shifts in voter support, so it is vital that we do not see the result of previous elections fossilised in the format of the TV debates. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister objected to the exclusion of the Green party from the broadcasters’ original proposal. To people who ask, “Why should he care?”, let me give an answer that should appeal to all of us in the House. The more we are seen as turning our back on the legitimate expectation that people whose parties enjoy some support in the country should be able to make their case, the more we risk increasing the sense of alienation between this place and the country we represent. I also think it is a good thing to put the smaller parties on the spot. We know they can protest, and they often do so vociferously, but the question is whether they can propose workable solutions to the problems that they draw attention to. That is a different matter.

Speaking of workable solutions, it is clear, as the right hon. Gentleman affirmed in his remarks, that the broadcasters have failed to produce one in regard to the debates. Today’s debate demonstrates that the proposals made thus far have not achieved the breakthrough or the consensus that three years ago the Prime Minister said should have been engaged in ahead of the general election. Lord Grade’s letter, which many hon. Members have spoken about today, comes from a very distinguished and experienced broadcaster and regulator, who should obviously be listened to with respect. My party entered into negotiations with the broadcasters in good faith and repeatedly made the case for a more representative debate structure. Initially this was unilaterally disregarded, as the exclusion of the Green party made clear. The follow-up proposal was made without any consultation.

The motion before the House today proposes a new way forward—the creation of an independent body with responsibility for arranging the debates. The right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that it is rather late in the Parliament to debate the proposal, but he proposes it to reflect his dismay at the arrangements that have been suggested. It gives us the opportunity to raise the key questions—most fundamentally, who would the independent body be independent of? How would it be established and how would it be funded? Which debates would it produce? Who would it invite and how would this stand up to challenge? How would it succeed in convening the parties at all? Would they be compelled to participate? How would it secure the distribution of the debates by the broadcasters?

[Ian Swales]

The Minister mentions the possibility of parties being compelled to participate. As a great student of politics, he will know that rule 101 for incumbency is, “Don’t give your opponent a platform.” Does he accept that those in power will try not to have such debates, as we are seeing right now?

[Greg Clark]

I can only speak for my party, but a platform for the Leader of the Opposition is something devoutly to be wished for by those of us on the Government Benches. I do not know whether that breaks rule 101, but I very much hope that the Leader of the Opposition will accept the invitation.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, the Leader of the Opposition has agreed to the broadcasters’ proposal for a head-to-head debate with the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to have that debate?

[Greg Clark]

The Prime Minister has made an offer. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would debate “any time, any place, anywhere”. The Prime Minister said that he would appear in the debate the week after next, and I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition appearing there.

The proposal for an independent body is not a new one. The House will be aware that the Select Committee on Communications in the House of Lords examined these questions and published its findings on 13 May 2014, in good time before the general election. Though recommendations were explicitly not made to the Government, reflecting the point that I made earlier, the Committee’s key conclusion questioned whether an independent body was required. It said that it had considered carefully the potential case for a body to be established independently of the broadcasters to oversee and produce broadcast election debates, but it has not been persuaded. It found no good arguments for the introduction of such a body.

Given the events of the past year, others, no doubt including the right hon. Member for Belfast North, will insist that the status quo is not working, and would perhaps invite that Committee to reflect on its proposals. In the immediate term, this is the purpose of the Prime Minister’s offer of a televised debate before the campaign proper, but time is running out. If the Leader of the Opposition does not make up his mind soon, it will be too late. Inevitably, he wants to distract us by insisting that the debate be restricted to the Prime Minister and himself alone. He does not want the scrutiny of the other party leaders—

[Stephen Twigg]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman will have his chance.

The Leader of the Opposition does not want the scrutiny of other party leaders, including the leaders of other parties who are entitled to their say—the point that the right hon. Member for Belfast North made.

The Leader of the Opposition has already had his chance. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was debating with him again today. I have calculated that they have spent nearly 40 hours facing each other across this very Dispatch Box over the past four and a bit years. The latest instalment of this long-running televised head-to-head debate took place just a few minutes ago, and it will continue up to the moment that Parliament is dissolved. I can understand that the Leader of the Opposition might like one more chance to get it right—he tends not to come off the better in these head-to-head debates—but if it has not happened yet, I suspect it never will.

I read in the papers that the latest wheeze from the official Opposition is a law to make the TV debates mandatory. It is hard to know where to begin, or where the legal action from excluded parties would end. If participation in the debates is to be made compulsory, then, goodness me, are we to make watching them compulsory too, as part of the edification of voters? Indeed, it sometimes seems that the Opposition’s way of thinking is: why achieve anything through voluntary action when we can use the power of the state to enforce our will? It is very revealing of the instincts of the Labour party that, faced with a difficulty, it reaches for legislation and compulsion rather than agreeing a consensual way forward. In making this ludicrous proposal, the Labour leader has done more to reveal the likely chaos that would ensue from the election of a Labour Government than any number of debates could achieve.

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

On voluntary or compulsory participation, does the Minister agree that the ideal solution would be some form of independent commission for the next election five years hence, which every party is obligated to agree to, and with fairness as the essence of the decision about how the debate would be constructed? In that way, no one would have any excuse for running away from the debate.

[Greg Clark]

I listened with respect to the proposal from the right hon. Member for Belfast North and his party. I understand the frustration they feel and why they are proposing this, but it is rather late in the day. I put on record my concern that compelling voluntary organisations to participate is not in the spirit of the way we have conducted these things. I accept the spirit in which the proposal has been made, however, and I do not think the intention is to put this on the statute book, but rather to explore the issues.

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

To assist in this matter, could a Speaker’s conference be brought into existence immediately after the election to ensure we have a way forward for the following election?

[Greg Clark]

This will be a matter for the next Parliament, and the Government have not taken a view to that extent—and, speaking for the Government, I think it is right for me to record that. No doubt, however, having raised the debate this side of the election, if the Members of the hon. Gentleman’s party are returned after the election, they may well come back to it. The right hon. Member for Belfast North said in his speech that if anyone should compel the party leaders to give an account of themselves, it should be in this House by Mr Speaker, not by an unelected quango. This is, thank goodness, a parliamentary democracy. We do not have a presidential system, although if it was the presidential system of the United States of America, it could be that the Leader of the Opposition will be spending more time in the USA with his brother before long. Before that, however, let us give him one last chance through his spokesman here: an opportunity to appear before the nation with the other party leaders to explain why he should be Prime Minister. Our offer of this televised debate before the campaign starts still stands. Is he up for the challenge, or is he frit?

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I thought he had sat down and had not allowed me in. Will he answer this question clearly for the record, because he has not done so yet: has the Prime Minister ruled out a head to head, potential Prime Minister with potential Prime Minister? Has he ruled that out, and am I correct in thinking that the debate he is offering is just one with other leaders?

[Greg Clark]

I am always happy to extend my remarks to include the hon. Lady. What we have seen—I think this has been attested to in the speeches so far—is complete chaos and confusion on the part of the broadcasters. The Prime Minister has made an offer—an offer he first made three years ago—to have a debate before the election campaign starts. The offer is there on the table; I very much hope the Leader of the Opposition takes it up.

13:44

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join the Minister in congratulating the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on securing this timely debate on this important subject. As has been said, the general election is just eight weeks away. In the 21st century, it is surely right that the public have an opportunity, in the weeks before polling day, to see the party leaders and potential Prime Ministers debate the issues.

Voter turnout has fallen significantly in recent years. Trust in politics and politicians is at a low ebb. We must do more to confront these challenges, and television debates are an opportunity for the party leaders to reach out, to inspire, to answer concerns and to attempt to engage with people. In 2010, nearly 10 million people watched the first TV debate between the leaders, eclipsing even “Coronation street” and “EastEnders”. It is an extraordinary opportunity to reach out to people, many of whom have not remotely started thinking about the election yet, and to give them the opportunity to hear from the leaders of the political parties. To reject that opportunity would be to show a disregard for the British public, who have made it clear that they want these debates to happen.

On this side of the House, we want these debates to happen. We have said that the broadcasters should make proposals, and we have accepted their proposals for three debates during the campaign. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) just reminded us, the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate the issues head to head with the Prime Minister. Realistically, there are only two leaders who could be Prime Minister after this general election, and the country should have the opportunity to see them debate head to head, and the broadcasters are proposing that there should be such a debate, alongside two others. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said, to use his much quoted term, he will debate with the Prime Minister any time, any place anywhere. Of course, regardless of who is in power, we might expect the Leader of the Opposition to be bullish.

[Greg Clark]

Does that offer extend to appearing in the week commencing 23 March?

[Stephen Twigg]

If that is the proposal that comes forward and is supported by other parties, but not as the only debate. What the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are proposing is an election debate before the campaign has even started. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) have said in this debate, party manifestos will not even have been published in that week. If the citizens of the country are going to have an opportunity to question, and listen to, party leaders, that should happen after manifestos have been published.

[Greg Clark]

As the hon. Gentleman said, part of the Leader of the Opposition’s phrase was “any time”, but the hon. Gentleman is now saying that there is a certain time before the election that is not acceptable. How does he reconcile that with the commitment to debate any time, any place, anywhere? Why not the week commencing 23 March?

[Stephen Twigg]

Because we do not believe these are decisions to be cooked up between the party leaders. They should not be being made by the party politicians. They should be taken away from them. The broadcasters have proposed three debates, two with seven parties and one a head-to-head debate, and we have accepted those proposals. Why can the Conservative party and the Prime Minister not accept those proposals? Does the Minister want me to give way to him so he can tell us why they are so reluctant to accept a head-to-head debate?

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Stephen Twigg]

If not, I give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert).

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case as to why we need to have debates, and I share his characterisation of the Prime Minister as a bit too scared to want to be properly involved, but why was neither his leader nor the Prime Minister prepared to take part in debates before the European elections? They both turned down invitations to debate with the leader of my party and the leader of the UK Independence party. If the Prime Minister continues to refuse to show up, is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to debate with the Deputy Prime Minister, leader of my party, or is he too scared to have that head-to-head debate?

[Stephen Twigg]

The reality is that the two people who may become Prime Minister after this election are the leader of my party and the current Prime Minister. I very much doubt that the Deputy Prime Minister, even in his most wildly optimistic moments, is expecting to form a Liberal Democrat-led coalition or majority Government after this election.

We want a debate between Labour and the Conservatives. Two of the debates proposed by the broadcasters would include the Liberal Democrat leader and other party leaders. The broadcasters have proposed a head-to-head debate as the third of three debates and we think that that makes sense. We accept that proposal.

[Dr Huppert]

I absolutely understand why the hon. Gentleman would like to return to two-party politics, with the two parties that get a larger share of MPs than their share of the vote. I understand why that is in his interests, but is he saying that his leader is not prepared to debate with the leader of my party head to head?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that we are prepared to have a debate with not only the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party but the leaders of a number of other parties. We accept the proposals of the broadcasters. We want a head-to-head debate with the leader of the Conservative party because there are two main parties in this country that poll consistently higher than the other parties, and nobody is seriously arguing that there is a prospect of anyone other than the current Prime Minister or the leader of the Labour party being Prime Minister after 7 May. If the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) wants to intervene on me to say that there is a serious prospect of the Deputy Prime Minister moving into No. 10 on 8 May, I will give way to him one more time.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. It is very hard to tell what will happen. I understand that he would be concerned, given the performance by my leader in the three-way debates last time, but it is a great shame that his leader seems to be too scared to take part in such a head-to-head debate. Maybe we should have three head-to-head debates: one between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; one between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister; and one between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. That could be a fascinating series of debates for the public.

[Stephen Twigg]

If the broadcasters come forward with such a proposal, we will of course take it seriously.

[Dr McCrea]

Bearing in mind the shambolic nature of the proposals from the BBC, does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are Members in this House who have no confidence whatever in the BBC or in the other broadcasters that are arranging the debates?

[Stephen Twigg]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Belfast North when he opened the debate today, and I entirely understand the concerns that he raised. We certainly do not see the case for treating Northern Ireland any differently from Scotland or Wales. However, we strongly believe that it is for the broadcasters, not the politicians, to determine the nature of the debates. Even at this late stage, we hope that agreement can be reached.

Before I took those interventions, I was quoting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It could of course be said that parties in opposition will be bullish about these matters. Five years ago, when the current Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he said:

“I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great”.

He agreed with us, saying:

“I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go some way to restoring the faith and trust into our politics because we badly need that once again in this country”.

I agree. In 2010, the then Leader of the Opposition was exasperated by any suggestion that the debates would not happen, saying:

“I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean, they happen in every country. They even happen in Mongolia, for heaven’s sake, and it’s part of the modern age that we should be in.”

Even as recently as last year, when he was no longer Leader of the Opposition but Prime Minister, he said:

“I’ve just always believed that these need to happen. It’s good for democracy. It’s good to see”;

and only five weeks ago, he said:

“I want to go and debate”.

But when push comes to shove, the Prime Minister is running scared.

We heard from the Minister today that the Conservatives want an election debate before the election campaign and before there are any party manifestos for the party leaders to be interrogated on. The Minister also talked about Prime Minister’s questions being the forum for debate. The current Prime Minister used to argue that Prime Minister’s Question Time was not a substitute for proper television debates, but he is now attempting to use it as his way out. We know what happens at Prime Minister’s questions: the Leader of the Opposition and other MPs ask a lot of questions and the Prime Minister does not answer them. The idea that that is a debate that could be a substitute for a forum in which party manifestos could be held to account is unacceptable.

Has the Prime Minister lost his nerve, or has Lynton Crosby lost the Prime Minister’s nerve for him? This is perhaps typical of this Prime Minister. He used to hug a husky and clamour for the green vote. That has gone. He used to talk about compassionate conservatism, but that has gone. He used to talk about a new way of doing politics, including the importance of TV debates, but now he is even turning his back on that, too.

We cannot allow future Prime Ministers, of whatever party, to play games with these TV debates, and I welcome what the right hon. Member for Belfast North said about creating a set of rules. We have said that a Labour Government would put the requirement to stage a fair and impartial leaders debate on a statutory footing. The Minister has done his best to make that proposal sound incredibly Orwellian and statist, but it would simply introduce a system that would work along similar lines to the current party political broadcasts, with the Broadcasters’ Liaison Group having the power to come up with proposals for the debates.

In keeping with what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, we believe that we shall have an opportunity in the next Parliament to get this right and to learn from what has happened during this Parliament in the lead-up to the election campaign. We suggest a deadline of 2017, midway through the next Parliament, for the proposed changes to be put in place. That would give everyone plenty of time to plan for the debates before the subsequent general election. This would be an important constitutional change, introducing a mechanism for the increased accountability of the Prime Minister and other party leaders. In our system, such reforms would be welcome.

[Greg Clark]

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. Will he tell me whether it would appear in the first Queen’s Speech of a Labour Government? Would it be such a priority for the running of the country that it would appear in a Labour Government’s first legislative programme?

[Stephen Twigg]

As the Minister well knows, neither he nor I can indicate what would be in either of our party’s Queen’s Speeches at any stage. We have fixed-term five-year Parliaments, so I am not going to comment on the timing. However, we welcome the opportunity to debate that important reform, and I hope that he will engage in a serious debate on it.

The Prime Minister’s politics tutor at university, Vernon Bogdanor, has welcomed our proposal, saying that

“the public are entitled to see how party leaders perform in debate, and also how the Prime Minister and alternative Prime Minister perform.”

A Prime Minister, of whatever party, should not be able to duck debates and thereby potentially cancel them for everyone. If a party representative refused to appear on BBC “Question Time” on a Thursday night, the show would go on. These debates are important for the credibility of this election. How can the Prime Minister, as leader of his party, look the British public in the eye, having been so overt in his support of debates, when he is now running away from them? Why should he have a veto on the opportunity for the public to hear from other party leaders?

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend not think that it is actually slightly worse than that? The Prime Minister is saying he will debate, but he is not saying he will debate head to head. He is trying to bamboozle people by saying he will take part in that debate. He is just saying things that are not really true.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been quoted as saying that he will meet the Prime Minister “any time, any place, anywhere”, and we have accepted the broadcasters’ proposals for three separate debates—

[Greg Clark]

What about 23 March?

[Stephen Twigg]

As the Minister confirms from a sedentary position, the Prime Minister will debate only with the other leaders, and only in a week before the election campaign, before the manifestos have been published. This Prime Minister is not prepared to debate head to head with the Leader of the Opposition after the manifestos have been published. That says a great deal about this Prime Minister and about the Conservative party’s approach to this election.

We on this side of the House are keen to make this happen, and we believe that there is still time for the Prime Minister to join us in accepting the proposal from the broadcasters. For the sake of democratic engagement, I really hope that he and his advisers will reconsider their opposition to these debates. Before the last election, the leader of the Conservative party—now the Prime Minister—said:

“I think people have the right to look at the people putting themselves forward as the next Prime Minister”

in TV debates. That could not be clearer. We agree. The public agree. Let’s get on with it.

13:59

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

To paraphrase the words of the famous comedy duo Laurel and Hardy, this is another fine mess they’ve gotten us into. I refer of course to the broadcasters.

We have heard a series of proposals, and a series of responses to those proposals, and it seems to me—and, apparently, to virtually the entire population of the United Kingdom—that we have a thoroughly unsatisfactory, unfair outcome as things stand at the moment. And who knows what tomorrow may bring? Initially, the broadcasters seemed to be looking favourably at what would have been a fair debate: the potential Prime Minister coming from the largest party in the opinion polls going head to head with the other potential Prime Minister from the second largest party. For a national debate, most people would have said, “Let the debate continue.”

The broadcasters moved from that position to include a range of smaller parties, but the threshold appeared arbitrary in that they included some parties but not others. That was particularly the case when they included the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. The defence I read after they had reached that conclusion was that Plaid Cymru and the SNP were facing the other parties in their respective jurisdictions, whereas, for example, the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland was not. What the broadcasters did not deal with was the fact that in the national debate that they are currently proposing, the UK Independence party, the Greens and the Conservative party will all be facing us in Northern Ireland, yet we will not have the opportunity to respond to issues that our competition will be putting forward in that debate. The current position is therefore totally untenable.

We are seeking a resolution for the upcoming and immediate election. It needs to be reached within the next day or two, so that the parties can debate adequately and, more importantly, so that the general public can understand what the issues are, make their minds up about those putting forward the positions and determine whether how they intend to vote is affected. In the longer term—this is why we have worded the motion in the way we have—there must be no repeat of this Horlicks. That is what it is: a complete Horlicks. I have heard no reporter from any broadcaster seek to defend it, because it is indefensible.

Beyond this election we must get some independent mechanism that will use a fair rationale for arriving at a debate. It could be a series of debates, one featuring the two potential Prime Ministers and then another debate among a series of parties, either including regional parties or excluding them. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, “We want a head to head. Then we are going to open up a regional debate, but we are only going to include some regions. We are going to include Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland.” This is indefensible and unjustifiable and it cannot be promoted, explained or rationalised by any sensible individual.

Given that my throat is about to give up, I shall call it a day.

14:03

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I rise to support the motion, but I do so with some reservation, because although I come from a part of the UK where we are well accustomed to talks about talks, I suspect that with debates about debates there is a similar relationship between public interest in the debate and the amount of time we spend debating the debate—an inversely proportional one. The timing of this debate is particularly unfortunate, as it feels slightly self-indulgent for us to be debating who is able to debate the issues instead of using parliamentary time actually to debate some issues that matter to our constituents and which would make a difference. As Northern Ireland MPs, we get a relatively limited amount of time on the Floor of the House to be able to engage in those issues where Westminster has a direct impact on our constituencies. So it is unfortunate that we end up today in something that could be viewed by the public as slightly self-indulgent: a discussion about how parties will engage with each other in the run-up to elections.

[Mr Donaldson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Naomi Long]

I want to move on, because I have said my piece on that.

How do the public view this? They will be weary of the debate around it. However, I did rise to support the motion; although I am not sure this is the right time or place, on this occasion I am not disagreeing with the proposal made. I believe there is an inherent unfairness in the way this whole situation has been handled. I agree with the motion because it is not about individual political parties or the amount of air time they get in the run-up to the election; it is about allowing members of the public to engage with the issues and to hear what those people who may beyond this general election have an influence on the formation of a Government—that could be any of us who stand for election to this place—would do in terms of the kind of Government who would be subsequently formed. So it is important that every party is treated fairly and equally.

Previously, two rationales were given to us as to why Northern Ireland was not included in those debates. The first was about the threshold at which parties “validly” could argue their position for being in those debates. The Liberal Democrats made a strong case on the last occasion, managing to find a way to be part of the debate, even though their prospects of providing a Prime Minister were very limited. That was the first point at which the normal rationale, about the parties that would provide a Prime Minister, started to break down.

We then moved beyond that to a basis of opinion polls and of elections of a different kind, whereby UKIP should also be included because of its performance. Previously, however, elections of a similar kind had been used as the basis for making those judgments. So the comparison between a European election, where UKIP’s policies perhaps have a particular resonance, and a general election, where wider policy may play a greater role in people making their decisions, would not have been taken into account in the same way. The inclusion of UKIP in the debate suddenly gave us another crack in the façade of the rationale as to why people were or were not included in the debate.

We moved on from that to discussing the political challenge around the debates, then demanding that the Green party ought to be included because it also ran in a national way across all of Great Britain. Of course that relates to the second logical reason for the exclusion of the Northern Ireland parties, and indeed the Scottish and Welsh parties: they did not run candidates in every part of the UK.

[Mr Donaldson]

It may have been a slip, but I am sure the hon. Lady did not mean to say that when we talk on a national basis, we talk about Great Britain—the nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long]

I think my views on that are well known. I did make the point that the Greens ran in all parts of the UK, so when I refer to the UK, that is what I am referring to.

The logical reason being given was that our Northern Ireland parties did not run candidates throughout the UK—that was the second rationale for our being excluded. However, when we remove that second rationale, no argument can be made for why a party that has one Member elected to this House in this Parliament—the Green party—ought to be in those debates, yet other parties that have eight Members, three Members and one Member are excluded. There is no logic to that. There is no rationale, and that is because this is all being done on an ad-hoc basis.

I believe that the logical reason was always there; there was a clear and concise reason and rationale for how the debates were structured, one that was clearly understood by the public, and clearly understood and respected by the political parties. However, when that was abandoned in favour of a kind of populism and things were thrown open, we opened a Pandora’s box. Wherever the line is now drawn it will feel unfair and arbitrary to some party in Parliament. Plaid Cymru could be included in the debate but the Social Democratic and Labour party excluded. Why would that be the case? It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

The problem is that, having opened Pandora’s box, no one seems clear about how to close it again. Let me make it clear that I am not standing here to make a pitch to be included in the national debate, or for the SDLP, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, or the SNP to be included in the debate. I say that not because I want to see any of our parties excluded, but because if the purpose of these debates is to engage the public and to make them interested in what the next Government and the leadership—particularly the Prime Minister—might look like, we will end up with a panel that is so large and unwieldy that any real debate, exchange of ideas, or engagement will be absolutely stifled.

What we need to do is return to a situation in which the panel size is reasonable and in which the rationale is clear, legal and justifiable. Given the mess, the time scale, and the challenges that could hold serious sway if they were taken up by a number of parties, my fear is that we will end up risking the situation. I say that not because of the debate we are having about the debate, but because of the unwieldiness of any subsequent panel. The number of people on the panel could outstrip the number of people who actually want to watch the debate. The biggest crime of all would be to disengage the public further. We need to stop debating the debate and to get a clear rationale, which must be fair and apply to all parts of the UK and not disadvantage those whom we represent.

14:11

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), not least because, on this occasion, I agreed with everything she said. When I say that it is important that we do not spend too much time here today debating this issue, I am not criticising the DUP for its choice of debate. Someone from the media said to me, “Is it not a bit much that Parliament is spending time debating this?” I made the point that the media are spending more time debating the matter, in between covering Jeremy Clarkson and other matters. It is a bit rich for them to criticise us for taking a bit of time in Parliament to debate the issue.

As other Members have said, the broadcasters have made a hames of the whole situation. They thought that they had to scramble together an offer, that a proposal on high from them would have to be accepted and that everyone would have to comply. Then they found themselves being played into different corners by the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who has created this situation with the broadcasters.

Last week, headlines said that Downing street had issued its final offer to the broadcasters, which did not look good. We are talking here about the office of the Prime Minister. It would have been one thing for Conservative party headquarters to say it, but it was Downing street, and the letter came from the director of communications, who is on the civil service payroll. The broadcasters should not have allowed themselves to be drawn into such a situation.

This is an unseemly mess. The way in which this debacle is playing out does no one any credit—the parties, the political process and the broadcast journalists. As the hon. Lady said, I do not think that any of us would have huffed or grumbled if a clear decision had been made that the main focus of the debate should be between the parties and the party leaders who are hoping to lead or to form a Government. That would have been clear. Even the broadcasters seem to accept that one of the debates should have that sort of bespoke focus, so no one contends with that principle. Once they started drawing in others, they took inclusion to the point of ridicule. By assembling such a large number, they will create the effect of a game show. The only problem is that the viewers will not have the joy of seeing people eliminated or have the opportunity to vote people off as the exercise progresses. Instead, people will switch off.

It is nonsense to have a studio-centred Tower of Babel presented as some sort of rational political debate. But we must remember that that idea came not just from the broadcasters, but from the Prime Minister. I never saw him as someone who was particularly concerned about the inclusion of all parties, even the small regional parties. We are seeing a whole new side to the Prime Minister. Certainly, he seems to be keener to hear people in debates than he is to hear people in this Chamber. This is a whole new dimension to him.

Why does the Prime Minister insist that we need this wide-level debate? I know that TV screens are getting bigger and wider, but they are not wide enough to take a pan shot of the debate that the broadcasters and the Prime Minister seem to want. It is all about the clear electoral strategy of the Conservative party. The Prime Minister wants to create this idea that the only alternative to a single-party Tory Government is the Leader of the Opposition and an absolute ragbag coalition of a rabble of other parties. He wants that image around the debate precisely because it suits the Conservative election message. Some Members have said that Lord Grade’s intervention was a neutral one, coming as it did from someone who has experience in so many different media outlets. However, his intervention is informed entirely by the fact that he is on side with the Prime Minister’s agenda to use these debates to create a picture that reinforces a basic Tory message in this election campaign. The intervention was entirely biased. The broadcasters have allowed themselves to be played into this situation.

I agree with the salient point in the DUP motion that, rather than having these confused and stylised arguments and rumours between the broadcasters and the politicians, all of whom will be accused of vying for their own interests and advantage, there should be some credible and neutral authority, whether it is set up specifically for the purpose or a hybrid between the Electoral Commission and Ofcom, to make judgments about how the debate should be framed. There will be other opportunities for wide diversity in debates. Many of us—even those who were not in Scotland—were absolutely transfixed and excited by the referendum debates in Scotland. Those debates took many forms, the most powerful of which were not necessarily those that included the party leaders. Some had strong inputs from studio audiences, which included young people. Just as there was a diversity in the type and range of debate in Scotland, so too should there be here. The broadcasters and the Prime Minister should not pretend that the only way of including the small parties is in the big head-to-head debates. That is why our party is not joining the queue to say, “Oh, no, it has to be us, too. If you are going to have Plaid Cymru, you must include us.”

On the point about which other parties to include, perhaps the broadcasters should have come up with some rationale around the number of candidates who were standing. Perhaps they would have been able to draw the line in that way. If parties are putting up candidates right across the UK and backing them up with a campaign effort, perhaps some regard should be given to that, as well as to factors such as opinion polls and seats in Parliament, when considering who is eligible to take part in the debate. We were told at the time of the recent by-elections that the results could change who would have to be in a TV debate. I found it hard to believe that a single by-election result could have that effect, but apparently that was what was understood in media circles. Other rationales could credibly be used to frame a debate sensibly, and a range of wider broadcast opportunities could be used to allow fair access for parties of all scales.

There are parties in Northern Ireland saying that, because of their size and standing in Northern Ireland, they should be included in just the same way as parties standing in Wales and Scotland, but some of them will not even be standing in all constituencies in Northern Ireland, because there will probably be electoral pacts and other factors. It is a bit much for parties that might not even stand in all Northern Ireland constituencies to insist on equal rights in a TV debate with parties that are hoping to form the next Government.

The fact that we have all been sucked into these arguments goes back to the false calls that were initially made by the broadcasters. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was right to criticise the broadcasters for scrambling their original proposals, and for doing so without sounding out parties or journalists, even those available to them within their own organisations. That is what created the problem. We have to find a more sensible way of doing this. Let us be clear that politics also lies behind the debacle we now have, because that debacle suits one party and one party leader, and we should not pretend otherwise.

14:21

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

I was amused by the comment made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the need for wide-screen TVs if all parties take part in the debates. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said from a sedentary position that it would be a bit like the game show “Take Me Out”. I am not sure that I would want to take part if Sinn Fein was involved, because “take me out” might have slightly different connotations. Perhaps “Blankety Blank” would be a more appropriate name, given that Sinn Fein Members do not take their seats in this House. That is a serious point that it is worth making in this debate.

In Northern Ireland we have traditionally had debates with the local political parties that participate in elections, and that has worked reasonably well. I do not think that the DUP would have raised this matter today had it not been for the proposal, particularly from the BBC, to include parties that contest seats only in certain regions of the United Kingdom—the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. An important principle was breached: that the main debate was about the national scene. I think that there is a lot to be said for the idea that the debate should be between the two leaders who are most likely to be Prime Minister and to lead the next Government of the United Kingdom.

If that debate is extended, especially to include parties that contest seats only in certain regions, then there is no valid reason to exclude Northern Ireland. If that occurs, the question, as others have asked, is this: why, then, would only one party from Northern Ireland be included? If we look at the political parties represented in this House, we see that the Democratic Unionist party is the fourth party in Parliament, and four of the parties that it is now proposed should take part in the national debate have fewer seats in this House than the Democratic Unionist party. That puts us in a unique position with regard to the national issue.

My second point is that everyone out there who is commenting on the likely outcome of the general election—including, most recently, Lord Mandelson—is saying that a hung Parliament is inevitable. Therefore, with regard to the complexities of the next Parliament and the question of who will form the next Government, there is a strong possibility that the Democratic Unionist party will be a factor in determining who forms the next Government. There is no prospect of Sinn Fein being a factor, since its Members do not take their seats. Therefore, their participation in debates at the national level is, frankly, irrelevant. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the SDLP, but I do not think that it will play a major role in determining who forms the next Government, since it is already aligned to one of the parties that could form the next Government.

Therefore, with regard to the national debate and the public interest, it could reasonably be argued that the Democratic Unionist party is the only party from Northern Ireland whose policies would be of interest to voters from other parts of the United Kingdom, since they might have a bearing on who forms the next Government.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point about Sinn Fein, because one of the broadcasters’ arguments for including the SNP and Plaid Cymru was that they will compete against parties that could form the next Government and so could play a role in the formation of the next Government. However, they also say that if they go to Northern Ireland, they will have to include all the parties, especially Sinn Fein, because they get votes and have seats. The reality is that there is absolutely no point in listeners hearing from Sinn Fein Members because they do not come to Parliament, they will not be voting in Parliament and they have no role to play in Parliament, and that is of their own volition. It is clearly a nonsense argument that the broadcasters are using.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have been very generous, but we must try to have shorter interventions.

[Mr Donaldson]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is interesting, is it not, that Sinn Fein declares itself to be the strong supporter of Irish freedom and independence yet wants to take part in a national debate that is relevant to the United Kingdom. The very same party is acting in a way that suggests it wants to hand back all the powers we have in our devolved Assembly and Executive to the national Parliament of the United Kingdom, and it really raises a question about their credentials as Irish republicans that they are in favour of returning to direct rule, rather than honouring the agreements that have been reached and are moving forward—but I digress.

The hon. Member for Belfast East said that we should not really be debating this issue because there are more important matters to debate. I simply point out that on every opportunity that the Democratic Unionist party has had, as the fourth party in this Parliament, to discuss matters—this is relevant to the wider issue—we have sought to focus not on issues that are relevant only to Northern Ireland, but on issues that are relevant on the national stage, and they are issues that are important to the people we represent. This afternoon we will debate another motion that is of national significance as well as of importance to our constituents in Northern Ireland.

We are all concerned about declining participation in the democratic process in the United Kingdom, with voter turnouts and membership of political parties going down, so this is an important issue. In fact, I would argue that few issues are more important than encouraging people to respect and participate in the democratic process, because that is about democracy itself. Indeed, one of the two gentlemen who may well be the next Prime Minister seemed to think the question of TV debates important enough to devote the entire exchange in Prime Minister’s questions to it.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all this could create a certain ennui or weariness among those in the wider body politic, who are interested in what we, Parliament and Government could do for them in delivering on the issues that matter for them rather than wider issues about debates and who should take part in them? That is what people are saying to me.

[Mr Donaldson]

I must say that most of my constituents do not mention the TV debates to me. Nevertheless, I repeat the important point that someone mentioned earlier: the TV debates had a massive audience the last time round. We should all welcome that, and it is why it is important that we get this right.

The formula that we should be looking at, at the national level, is a debate involving the two leaders who are most likely to be the Head of the next Government of the United Kingdom. We in Northern Ireland are happy to participate in debates among the political parties at the regional level, but we are not happy with being excluded on the basis that Northern Ireland is the only region not to be represented in the proposals.

[Dr McCrea]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be wrong for elected representatives in this House to fail to speak up for Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that they ought to be heard across the United Kingdom if the Democratic Unionist party were indeed able to assist any Government in governing the United Kingdom in future?

[Mr Donaldson]

I agree. I have great respect for the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but I have to say that my father, who is one of her constituents, would be very upset if he lost out on the opportunity to see these debates in the general election, because he is an avid watcher of political affairs.

I hope that these matters can be resolved. Our motion is an attempt to push the issue forward and to get some common sense applied. I hope that common sense will be the outcome. The outcome that must not occur is one that excludes Northern Ireland but includes other regions where political parties are represented that do not participate or put up candidates in other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be deeply unfair if Northern Ireland were the only region that was excluded on that basis.

14:32

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I emphasise at the outset points that other hon. Members have made. We brought this debate forward not because we have some selfish party political interest, but because we believe that if there are to be debates about the shape of future government, and the input that parties will have, or potentially have, into future government, including in Northern Ireland, then the public should have the widest possible information about who will be involved and the ideas that will be put forward.

We recognise that even in a hung Parliament our role may be quite marginal, so we would have been quite happy for the parties that are most likely to form the Government of the United Kingdom to have their leaders debating the issues before the general public. We are not as arrogant as the BBC or some of the other broadcasters. We do not believe that we have some God-given right to be included just because we happen to have Members in the House of Commons or are putting people forward to be Members. However, once the rules were manipulated, changed, twisted and warped to include some smaller parties, but not all, we had a right to make the demands that we have made to the BBC and the other broadcasters that are included in this motion.

I do not believe that the debate about the debates has done politics any good at all. Despite what has been said, I do not see this as a problem that was made by politicians, although some people would happily point the finger at the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. The problem was primarily caused by the broadcasters. We probably all have our own interpretations of what their motives were. Was it simply that they believed that they could imperiously wave their fingers at the politicians of this country and tell them, “We will give you broadcasting time. Here are the conditions on which you will have it, and if you do not obey the rules that we have set down, we will punish you”? Another interpretation is that they simply wanted to sex up the broadcasts, and saw that perhaps a good head-to-head row between the Prime Minister and the leader of UKIP would do the job. Alternatively, given the left-wing bias of the BBC—I have sympathy with the views of some Government Members on this—perhaps it mainly wanted someone present who would take on the Prime Minister. I have a great belief in the left-wing bias of the BBC. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, were you to give me time—I know that you will not, because I would be diverging from the motion—I could wax eloquent on that matter for a long time, but I will not do so.

[Ian Paisley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the left-leaning bias of the BBC with regard to these broadcasts again opens up the debate that should properly take place about whether we should be paying licence fees for such an organisation to exist?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will desist from getting into a discussion about licence fees, the payment of licence fees, the non-payment of licence fees, the compulsory payment of licence fees, or whatever. That is another favourite topic of mine, but it is not quite relevant to the motion before us.

Whatever the reason for it, we now have an unbecoming shambles that is not doing politics any good. Despite what is said about how rubbishy people think politicians are, I think there is a general desire among the public to hear debates on the issues. However, those debates have to be in a fair and properly structured format. The unbecoming shambles that we now have brings politics in this country further into disrepute.

We have put forward an unassailable case. We would prefer a much tighter arrangement for the debate, but if it is to be opened up—I add the qualifications put forward by Members from the Alliance party and the SDLP, and ourselves—there are absolutely no grounds for saying that the fourth largest party in this House, which stands only in a regional capacity but is no different in that regard from Plaid Cymru or the SNP, and has more members than many of the smaller parties that will be included, and could have the same influence as all those parties, should be excluded. That is especially the case because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, it is not as though we operate in some kind of bubble in Northern Ireland and will not be competing against some of the parties that are represented on these Benches and that will be participating in the debates.

I will have a UKIP opponent and perhaps even have a Conservative opponent and, by proxy, I will have opposition from Labour in the form of the SDLP and from the Liberal Democrats in the form of the Alliance party. When I say “opposition” from competitors I mean it in the loosest possible sense of the word, because such opponents will be somewhere down at the bottom of the pile when it comes to counting the votes. I will also have an opponent from the Greens, but given the fact that the Greens in Northern Ireland want to prevent the good constituents of East Antrim from eating bacon butties on a Monday in order to save the planet or from seeing adverts for flying to the Mediterranean because they will put too much CO₂ into the air—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we will both agree that this is not about debates between the party leaders, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to get back to that.

[Sammy Wilson]

The point I am making—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Never mind what point you are making. The point is that you are offbeat. Get back to the debates.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am trying to explain my point, Mr Deputy Speaker. My point is that the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Greens in the debates will not make any difference because their policies are so outlandish that nobody will vote for them anyway. However, they have been included, and given that they are a small party and much smaller than our party, our argument is that we ought to be included as well.

The problem, which has of course been created by the broadcasters, is that if we end up with seven parties, as we now have, or eight or nine parties, we will not have a debate—or even a beauty contest given some of the people involved. We will have a shambles or, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, a Tower of Babel—utter confusion—with points not being properly debated.

The problem created by the broadcasters is one reason why we believe that there should be some attempt, even at this late stage, to resolve the issue either by accepting the inclusion of all parties with a sizeable representation and candidates standing nationally and regionally, or by finding some way to narrow the number down. We cannot have the worst of all worlds, which is including some and excluding the others.

Another part of the motion that has generated a fair range of comment is about how we proceed. The proposal for an independent body to make an adjudication may well come too late for this election, but that is not to say that it should not be considered for future elections; otherwise this shambles might be repeated. On the one hand, there are the politicians who have their agendas, but on the other hand, the broadcasters have their own agendas, as we now know. The broadcasters are no less guilty in all this than those that some of the public may see as self-seeking politicians. We therefore believe in the creation of an independent body.

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), asked how independent the body should be and how it could be made independent. Such an idea has already been rejected in the House of Lords, but only because greater faith was placed in the broadcasters than should ever have been placed in them. Now we have seen that they are incapable of the degree of independence and objectivity required to ensure fair, reasonable and rational debate on the issues, we must look again at having an independent body. It should be no more difficult to create an independent body to oversee broadcasts during elections than to have an independent body for any other job for which such a body is required. The Minister’s point about how we ensure the body’s independence should not cause us a great deal of concern.

Another issue that hon. Members have raised is whether whatever is decided should be mandatory, as the Labour party wants, or voluntary. Our view is that the job of the independent body should be to set the rules. If the rules are set fairly, there will be no need for coercion. People will be able to sign up to the conditions attached to the rules, so there should not be any unseemly rows. At the end of the day, I must say that I am not attracted to making participation mandatory. Even once the rules have been set and the parties have agreed to them, there should still be a right and an opportunity for the parties—they will have to explain the circumstances to the electorate—to decide whether to participate.

[Stephen Twigg]

Let me make it clear that I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. We are suggesting not that participation in the debates should be mandatory, but that it should be mandatory for the debates to be held.

[Sammy Wilson]

We agree that, once we have a framework for the debates, people should have the right to decide whether to participate in them.

The final issue is whether the debates should be held before or during the election campaign. I do not like the argument that if the manifestos have not been published, there could not be a debate. What do debates consist of? Very often, they are as much about looking back as about looking forward. They are about looking at the parties’ record in the past, because that is sometimes a far better way of judging what they will do in the future than what might be in their manifestos, given the cynicism of much of the electorate about manifesto commitments. We only have to look at the Liberal Democrats to think of how they made a major commitment, but moved away from it very quickly. A debate on the basis of manifestos may not be all that productive.

I can see the argument for having a debate in the period up to an election without its sucking the lifeblood out of the election campaign. As the hon. Member for Foyle pointed out, there are many formats for debating the issues. He mentioned the variety of formats used during the Scottish referendum campaign. Whether the broadcasts are straightforward head-to-heads between the two main protagonists, panel discussions, debates involving audience participation or a range of other things, they can be done in many ways, so we are not all that worried about their timing.

I must say that I can see the Prime Minister’s point that a shambolic debate, especially with seven different parties all fighting and squabbling for a bit of time in a one-and-a-half hour debate, might not be all that edifying in an election campaign and might distract from many of the other good ways in which parties and individual candidates seek to communicate with the electorate.

One issue that the independent commission must sort out—the hon. Members for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and for Foyle made this point—is the basis on which we make judgments about the parties, which is where this debate started. Should a television debate include all parties, those that reach a certain threshold of Members of the House, or those putting forward a certain number of candidates? Do those candidates have to stand nationally? Will the debates be based on the results of the last Westminster elections or the latest opinion polls? If we are to have a fair framework those issues must be considered by an independent body.

In conclusion, we cannot afford in this election to have the same shambles as we experienced in the previous one: it is not becoming to democracy or to the parties involved, and it is distracting. I suspect that the debate about the debate will be more interesting than the debate itself, especially if we end up with a seven-party squabble on TV, or a debate where the main issue is, “Why is the Prime Minister not sitting there and why is there an empty chair?”, or whatever.

Sometimes there are things that we as politicians can be blamed for, but I do not believe that the finger of blame in this instance can be primarily pointed at us. It is unfair that all the attention is directed on the Prime Minister, because he had a reasonable case for saying that the BBC was setting rules that placed him at an unfair advantage, so why should he co-operate in its game. If we are to avoid that in future, some of the proposals in this motion should be adhered to, followed through and worked on, so that even if we do not sort it out this time, we can sort it out for the next election.

14:52

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

We have, once again, a debate about debates, and as the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said at the outset, these things matter in a democracy. Debate and discussion is how we arrive at consensus in a democracy, and how we inform the electorate about our respective views as parties and what we plan to do. It is important to have this debate today, although I recognise the comments by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) that in some quarters members of the public will be wondering why we have been talking about this issue for so long.

This is an important debate and it is surprising that, 60 days from the general election, the main opposition party in this House is more content talking about debates than about any other issue. What about the deficit, the fantastic employment figures, the fact that unemployment is down and wages are going up? Labour is willing to talk not about those things but about a debate—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said from a sedentary position, Labour did not initiate this debate today, but the Leader of the Opposition chose to focus on the TV debates in Prime Minister’s Question Time. He had the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister six important questions, but he focused on that debate, which is surprising.

I understand why Labour Members want the public to see more of the Leader of the Opposition before the election. I want that too. What is surprising, however, is the usual hue and cry that we have heard from the Labour party: “Let’s have legislation, legislation, legislation.” My right hon. Friend was right to ask whether, if we make debates compulsory, we will make watching them compulsory too. I dare say that Labour is staking a lot on having the Leader of the Opposition in the television debates. The understanding is that somehow after five years in this House, and four hours of debating at Prime Minister’s Question Time, an hour in the TV studios will make the British public finally see him as a future Prime Minister, but I think Labour is staking a lot on that idea.

[Stephen Twigg]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gyimah]

I have a short amount of time so I cannot take interventions.

All I am waiting for from Labour is a judge-led inquiry into the debates. The crux of Labour’s argument this afternoon—I will come on to the substance of the debates in a moment—is that we need a head-to-head debate, but the moment that idea was introduced we realised some of the problems with it. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) immediately asked, “Why don’t we have a head to head between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?”

[Stephen Twigg]

rose—

[Mr Gyimah]

I will carry on with my speech. The important point, while we discuss a head to head, is to remember that we are a parliamentary democracy and do not have a presidential system. People in this country vote for a party, and the leader of the party that is able to form a Government becomes Prime Minister. For me, the emphasis on the head to head is somehow misplaced, and the discussion about how the smaller parties can be incorporated and involved in that TV debate is important and powerful.

The Democratic Unionist party has more seats than four of the parties that it is proposed to include in the seven-way debate, and more votes than one of them. That raises a question about the influence and power of broadcasters to decide who is involved in debates and who is not. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) made a powerful and eloquent case, forensically analysing that issue. He spoke about the BBC’s handling of the matter, and the questions that it raises about the BBC’s impartiality. His central point was that the BBC cannot pick and choose which parties matter for the election, and he rejected the idea that any broadcaster should do that. Three years ago the Prime Minister proposed that we should hold debates and that they should be as inclusive as possible, but that was disregarded. He also said that it would be helpful for the debates not to be held in the short campaigning period, because we do not want them to be the only focus during the campaign. The broadcasters rejected that out of hand, and as a result there has been a lot of discussion that could have been avoided.

The Prime Minister did respond to the Leader of the Opposition saying that he would debate with my right hon. Friend “any time, anywhere”, but it turns out that the Leader of the Opposition meant, “any time, anywhere, but not the week commencing the 23rd”.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Let me be absolutely clear: it is any time, any place, anywhere. Only two people can seriously be Prime Minister after the election, so we want that head-to-head debate. Why is the Prime Minister running scared of it?

[Mr Gyimah]

A key point that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his speech today was that voter turnout is low and we need to engage and involve the public. One of the biggest features of British politics in this Parliament is the support going to the smaller parties. Why should not we have a debate that includes those smaller parties? That was the Prime Minister’s focus.

A point was also made about the timing of the debate and holding it before the short campaigning period. I understand the concern that if so many parties are involved in the debate, as the hon. Member for Belfast East said, it might resemble the television programme “Take Me Out”, but at least we would be giving the public a say and hearing from smaller parties, who would be put on the spot about the policies they are advocating. I believe that is as important as focusing on the policies of the main parties.

I want to make a quick point on the BBC and impartiality, and on consultation with the DUP. There is no specific requirement for the BBC to consult, but it would be for the BBC Trust to judge whether, by not consulting, editorial impartiality guidelines had been breached. It is worth putting that clearly on the record.

The DUP made a clear call. It wants an independent body to be in charge. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office raised a number of questions that need to be answered. How would it be established and funded? Which debates would it produce? Whom would it invite, and how would it stand up to challenge? How would it succeed in convening the parties, and how would it secure the distribution of the debates among broadcasters? It is an interesting suggestion, but it is obviously not a matter for the Government. Those are some of the questions that rightly need to be answered.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about an unseemly mess that does not credit anyone. If the Prime Minister’s formula from three years ago had been followed, that unseemly mess could have been avoided. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no clear rationale for what the broadcasters advocate in terms of which parties are included and which are not.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said that voter turnout makes the debates important. He made a powerful point that it is deeply unfair if Northern Ireland is excluded on that basis.

I always enjoy listening to the mellifluous tone of the oratory of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He dwelt on the inconsistency of the approach to the different parties and said that the problem was caused by the broadcasters. I was surprised by his suggestion of the Green party’s campaigning approach in East Antrim—it is stopping people eating bacon butties to save the planet. I believe that was a caricature of Green party policy rather than its actual policy.

The hon. Gentleman made an insightful comment that elections are as much about track record as about what the party promises for the future. For most voters, track record gives credibility to what a party promises for the future. For that reason, it is possible to have debates before manifestos are pledged. In fact, we know where a lot of the main parties stand on some of the big issues, such as the deficit and the economy. We have debated those issues a number of times in the House. We can have debates before the short campaign.

This is obviously not a matter of Government policy. There have been a number of debates within today’s wide-ranging discussion. Several different party views were represented. That attests to the reasons why this is not an easy problem to address, but it was a worthwhile discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the potential value of broadcast general election debates between party leaders; notes however that neither the broadcasters nor politicians can escape the charge of self-interest in their organisation, and that they should best be left to an independent body to arrange; further notes that the broadcast debate formats proposed for 2015 have been inconsistently and incompetently formulated so far; further notes that there exists a substantial danger as a result that these debates will now not happen; and believes that the point of any debates which do happen must be to benefit those who watch them, not those who appear in them or broadcast them.

Cross-border Crime

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

15:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the continued prevalence of serious organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland on a cross-border basis in relation to fuel smuggling, fuel laundering and the counterfeiting of consumer goods; recognises that this has had a significant and detrimental impact on HM Treasury; regrets the lack of prosecutions in relation to this activity; and calls on the Government to ensure greater co-operation between HM Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency and the PSNI so that this criminal activity can be eradicated.

It is a great pleasure to move the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

According to the Home Secretary, organised crime costs the UK at least £24 billion a year. In Northern Ireland, police assessments indicate that there are more than 140 organised criminal gangs in operation. We are all acutely aware of the audacious attempts by such gangs to carry out all sorts of crimes, including the laundering and selling of illegal fuel, and the counterfeiting of consumer goods.

Although the criminals respect neither borders nor victims in their illegal pursuits, Northern Ireland is unique within the United Kingdom in that it shares a land border with a foreign country. The findings of a recent British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly report show that law enforcement agencies in both jurisdictions work together; that illicit trade and smuggling are some of the largest challenges faced by cross-border agencies; and that the number of border area fuel laundering plants, and the number of filling stations selling illicit fuel, is alarming. The report called for a cross-border approach with a permanent multi-agency taskforce to deal with illegal activity and to tackle tobacco fraud, and for legal changes to prevent filling stations prosecuted in connection with illegal fuel from reopening within months of conviction.

I echo the comments made by Fine Gael TD Patrick O’Donovan when he spoke in a debate at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly on the report. He said that authorities were turning a blind eye to illegal activity in the border area, motivated by an “appeasement” process of replacing the cowardly butchery wing of the IRA with the racketeering wing, in what has effectively been considered a bandit area, which has helped to support claims that the Real IRA is the ninth richest terror group in the world.

Fuel laundering is currently worth around £400 million a year in lost tax revenues in Great Britain, and £80 million in Northern Ireland, where the problem is particularly acute. According to Mr Pat Curtis, a senior official at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, organised crime gangs have established sophisticated laundering plants to remove the giveaway dye, sourcing chemicals from China and using the internet to improve their techniques.

Figures for 2012-13 indicate that the illicit market is worth 13% of the total. HMRC is responsible for investigating fuel fraud, including fuel laundering—as part of that work, it cleans any sites it uncovers—but in 2012 the Northern Ireland Environment Agency commenced a fly-tipping pilot in partnership with local councils. Between June 2012 and January 2015, Antrim borough council, which is in my constituency, had one fly-tipping incident. The cost incurred by NIEA was £346.76. In the same period and in stark contrast, Armagh city and district council had 114 incidents at a cost of £266,743.65, and Newry and Mourne district council had 198 incidents at a cost of £585,333.94. Those figures are startling.

In 2013-14, some 38 fuel laundering plants were dismantled in Northern Ireland compared with 13 plants in 2003-04. Although a fuel laundering plant is detected every 10 days in Northern Ireland, and despite the fact that this criminality is filling terrorists’ coffers and bankrolling the IRA and Real IRA, no one has been jailed for fuel fraud since 2002. Such statistics are preposterous, and the Northern Ireland public have a right to know whether that is the price of keeping republicans bought off for the sake of the peace process, or whether fuel launderers are tipped off ahead of raids.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

One challenge is that the nature of the fuel laundering process means that people do not need to be present. Part of the difficulty is catching the right evidence. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice is trying to ensure that evasion of the duty becomes a criminal offence so that people can be put in jail for it. That is much easier to prosecute.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful comment. I trust that that will be a warning to those participating in that illegal activity.

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

I am sure my hon. Friend will mention this, but does he recognise that the criminality extends to drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and many other things in addition to fuel laundering? Does he also recognise that it is not the sole preserve of republican paramilitary organisations, but that some of the loyalist paramilitary organisations have moved into organised crime, and are corrupting our young people in many communities in Northern Ireland?

[Dr McCrea]

I concur. This is not an issue for just one community. However, there is an area of the Province along the border that lends itself greatly to cross-border crime, and republicans are up to their neck in that.

There is a query about whether fuel launderers are tipped off ahead of raids. After the 2013 major cross-border police raid on Thomas “Slab” Murphy as part of Operation Loft, the authorities at the time believed that the IRA chief of staff and his associates had been tipped off just hours before, as salvaged from the embers were the burnt remains of laptops, documents and computer discs. The status quo approach to tackling fuel smuggling and laundering is untenable. When the operators of filling stations are successfully prosecuted—this is not really happening at the moment—for selling illegal, laundered fuel, provision should be made in legislation to ensure that these outlets cannot simply be reopened again after a few weeks, as happens at the moment. The community is sickened by this.

The challenges we face are grave. We must take them head on and the Government ought to take them head on. These fraudsters must be stopped and the criminals must be put behind bars. However, a number of questions must be asked regarding Government proposals that are supposed to tackle this problem. Why are the Government continuing to designate the Dow fuel marker in legislation, when they knew a year ago that it was not fit for purpose? Why do the Government not support their own British science company, when its fuel markers are the only IMS-proven—invitation to make submissions—indelible markers recommended? Why did Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs director, Mike Norgrove, give evidence to the 2012 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry that he would travel anywhere in the world to find a solution for fuel fraud, when he personally turned down an invitation a year earlier by the same British science company that saved the Brazilian Government billions of US dollars and reduced fuel fraud to less than 1% by 2012? Why would any Government allow billion-pound fraud to continue, when a British science forensic solution already exists? Even more troubling to me, however, is that I am told that a Treasury Minister wrote to the NIAC Chairman asking him to keep the Dow launderability confidential. We must do all within our power to stop illegally traded fuel raking in massive profits for the criminal gangs mentioned today.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the loss of revenue to the Exchequer and the financing of criminal gangs, immense problems are being caused to the environment as a result of toxic chemicals being poured into water courses?

[Dr McCrea]

Concern for the environment was also mentioned by a Minister of the Irish Republic recently. The House should be taking this matter very seriously, because damage is being done and we cannot turn a blind eye. The concern that many of us have is that the Government could do more. I cannot understand why those involved in this activity have not been brought before the courts. That is totally unacceptable. The last time anyone was brought before the courts was 2002, even though there are those who are known to have committed this crime.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think the problem might be that HMRC has the lead duty to investigate fuel laundering? Perhaps, given that this involves serious organised crimes, the Police Service of Northern Ireland ought to have lead responsibility in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it would be more effective at bringing prosecutions.

[Dr McCrea]

I believe there are many agencies—when I am winding up I shall draw attention to this—that could work together to resolve this situation. I also accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said. We must turn our attention to the cross-border drugs and alcohol problem.

I turn now to another serious organised criminal cross-border activity: the counterfeiting of consumer goods. Although smokers have been warned of the serious health threats posed by illicit tobacco, the current price of duty-paid tobacco makes cheaper tobacco more readily available to the young and the vulnerable. For example, a notorious black market cigarette brand, Jin Ling, which is known to contain asbestos, was recently found on sale in Belfast. Smuggling black market cigarettes is extremely lucrative for organised gangs, which can make huge profits and which cost the UK £2 billion a year in lost taxes.

Last month, almost 1 tonne of raw leaf tobacco and 10,000 suspected illicit cigarettes were seized in raids by customs officers at a farm in south Armagh. HMRC said they were worth an estimated £236,000 in lost duty and taxes. In separate searches on the same day, 10,000 illegal cigarettes were recovered. A number of private and business addresses in County Down were inspected. A vehicle and the cigarettes were removed, worth an estimated £2,800 in lost duty and taxes. It is truly remarkable that no arrests have yet been made in relation to either operation. The question we have to ask is: why?

It is believed by many in the Province that the authorities are turning a blind eye, because this is a way to keep some paramilitary groupings sweet. Those groupings are able to fill the coffers of their organisations and even stand in elections against those who seek to do things in a legal and proper fashion. Although earlier this month five people from County Tyrone and County Down were arrested as part of an investigation into a suspected tobacco fraud worth £110 million, the situation highlights Northern Ireland as an attractive region for international crime gangs owing to the inertia in past months of parties failing to support the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. It is through these statistics that we are now clearly seeing the out-workings of not having the NCA in operation over the past year-and-a-half. It is no accident that these quantities of illegal substances are being smuggled across the border into Northern Ireland. These gangs know only too well that at present if the gang leaders are caught, some of their assets cannot be taken from them. For the past 18 months, we have been a soft touch for smugglers and criminal gangs. Although the NCA is now expected to be operational in Northern Ireland by May, it is largely a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Nothing surprises us about the intransigence of Sinn Fein and their hostility to the introduction of the NCA. They have a vested interest in seeking to hinder investigations into the skulduggery of their republican mates. However, others have dithered in their support for the NCA and have denied the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost revenue that could have ultimately benefited the people of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive. The difficulties of policing the area along the border are well documented. As recently as last month, a south Armagh man was injured in an explosion while taking down a poster, put up by republican criminal gangs, which claimed that a second individual was a security forces informer or “tout”. However, while it is clear that there are tensions within republicanism, there remains a prevalence of fear in the community about co-operating with the police to bring those behind such threats and attacks to justice.

In conclusion, the motion calls on the Government to ensure greater co-operation between HMRC, the National Crime Agency and the PSNI in combining their investigative prowess to eradicate the scourge of criminal activity from our society.

15:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am very grateful for this timely debate. The motion, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his DUP colleagues, is a good one and we support it. I am conscious that many in this House have given a great deal of attention over the years to the various issues under discussion. For example, I am happy to acknowledge the work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its 2012 report on fuel laundering and smuggling. I also pay tribute to the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, whose committee report, “Cross-border Police Cooperation and Illicit Trade”, which was published last month, the Government are studying closely. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on presenting his remarks in typically robust fashion. I will try to address the points he has raised as far as I can.

The motion lists a schedule of serious criminal activity, but before I address each of them in turn I want to put on the record the fact that crime rates overall in Northern Ireland are low and that Northern Ireland is a safe place to be. I say that because it is important to pay tribute to the various agencies that operate in Northern Ireland for the work they do in ensuring that safety, and to give a message to those who are looking at Northern Ireland as a good place to invest and a good place to be. Many of us grew up in the 1970s and ’80s and, although we did not live in Northern Ireland, every night we saw images on our television screens that portrayed a very different Northern Ireland. That is, mercifully, a thing of the past and, in order to foster the economic security that goes hand in hand with security, we need to give the right message to those who may be seeking to invest in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels as strongly as I do about that.

The DUP is right, however, to bring the issues under discussion to the attention of the House. Northern Ireland has particular issues regarding criminality. It is a very particular place and the challenges are peculiar to Northern Ireland, and we cannot ignore them. We owe it to people in Northern Ireland to address them to the best of our ability.

The hon. Gentleman effectively described the situation of fuel laundering, which is a clear and present danger that is particular to Northern Ireland, given that it has the United Kingdom’s only land border. Fuel laundering and fuel smuggling come at a great cost to the Exchequer, honest businesses and the environment. The hon. Gentleman also touched on the possible cost to security. The Government take the problem of oils fraud and crime very seriously indeed. The hon. Gentleman should be assured of that and I hope to be able to give him some examples of the efforts we have made to drive it down. Moreover, with the assistance of the agency to which he referred, I hope we will have further successes in the months and years ahead.

Fuel duty plays an important role in a range of Government objectives—social, environmental and fiscal. Fuel duty is also the fifth largest revenue stream for the Government at around £27 billion a year. Clearly, we cannot ignore it. The rates of fuel duty for all of the UK are set by the Chancellor, taking a wide range of factors into consideration. To support motorists and businesses, the Government cut fuel duty in March 2011 and have cancelled all subsequent planned increases until the end of the Parliament, a point I touched on during Northern Ireland questions earlier today.

The Government have a comprehensive strategy in place to tackle fuel fraud and crime. The oils anti-fraud strategy was originally launched in 2002, as the hon. Gentleman has said, and has driven down the estimated illicit market considerably in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, the latest tax gap figures published by HMRC indicate that the estimated illicit market share for diesel for Northern Ireland has fallen from 26% to 13%. By any measure, that is quite an achievement. The strategy was aimed at making it much harder for fraudsters to obtain rebated fuels, and to track and analyse the supplies of them, including a requirement for all dealers to register and submit returns. The registered dealers in controlled oil scheme has been a key weapon in our fight back against fuel fraud.

In Northern Ireland, the Government have close and productive co-operation with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the authorities in the Republic. Co-operation and intelligence sharing through the Organised Crime Task Force and the cross-border fuel fraud enforcement group has been invaluable in applying multi-agency pressure to tackle oils fraud, including fuel smuggling and laundering.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On combating fuel fraud, will the Minister confirm that the new fuel marker that is about to be introduced in Northern Ireland has no roadside test capability whatsoever and that, therefore, the Government are about to put in a marker that cannot be tested on our roadsides?

[Dr Murrison]

The road marker has been a long time in the making. It has been trialled both in the UK and in the Republic and both countries are happy with it. I am assured that it will be robust and that it is extremely difficult to remove.

[Ian Paisley]

I will have an argument with the Minister about its capability in a moment, but I am asking a specific question about roadside testing. We cannot combat crime if we are not able to stop someone who has the fuel and test it at the roadside. One of the requirements of the IMS test was to have roadside capability, so will the Minister confirm that the Dow marker has no roadside capability?

[Dr Murrison]

What I can confirm is that the marker is capable of being discovered; otherwise, frankly, there would be no point in having it, would there? What would be the point of going to the expense of putting in a marker if it was not possible for criminal justice agencies to determine whether the material was illicit or not? [Interruption.] Perhaps I will be able to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks later, but if I cannot deal with them satisfactorily perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who will be in the hot seat shortly, will be able to shed some further light to his satisfaction.

In the financial year 2013-2014 alone, HMRC dismantled 38 laundering plants, closed 79 huckster sites and seized more than 500,000 litres of illicit fuel in Northern Ireland. I accept that the hon. Member for South Antrim is frustrated by the failure to eradicate this particular form of criminality, but that is quite an achievement and it represents considerable downward pressure on organised crime in Northern Ireland. Although we are all impatient for more, we sometimes have to celebrate successes as well as take note of failures.

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

The Minister refers to progress, but what about the issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) about the lack of prosecutions and of people being put through the courts and convicted? A lot of people in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, anyone watching the debate, would find it incomprehensible given the scale of the illegal activity that so few people are brought before the courts.

[Dr Murrison]

There have been prosecutions and perhaps I can enlighten the right hon. Gentleman about them later in my speech. Clearly, we all want to see prosecutions for criminal activity and the hon. Member for South Antrim rightly highlighted the introduction of the NCA into Northern Ireland, which everybody in this House would welcome, I hope. We are doing that to drive down further organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland and to get the convictions that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

[Dr McCrea]

Does the Minister not realise that the community finds it absolutely abhorrent that filling stations that sell illegal fuel are not only not prosecuted but open the following week to sell fuel again? In many cases, the community has seen such filling stations closed down on a number of occasions without any court case following.

[Dr Murrison]

I would certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration if there has been criminality without prosecution. Of course, these matters do not rest with me but when crime exists we want it to be expunged and dealt with. I would start to part company with the hon. Gentleman, however, on the suggestion that there has been some complicity or a deal done. I have seen no evidence to suggest that that is the case. I can understand his suspicion, of course, but I would like to downplay some of his suggestions that in some way agencies have been allowing things to go on or have not been prosecuting or pursuing cases when, of course, the law would require them to do so. That is a very serious charge and were there to be substance in it I would expect it to be reported to the appropriate authorities and investigated.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I join the Minister and others in welcoming the fact that the NCA will now have a remit in Northern Ireland. I congratulate the DUP and all those who pressed the Government and other bodies to ensure that that happened. Given that the NCA now has this much wider remit, as the Select Committee on Home Affairs has recommended in the past, will it receive any additional resources to deal with these issues?

[Dr Murrison]

Part of the difficulty, of course, has been that the PSNI has had to deal with a lot of these matters itself. The Chief Constable will say that he is well resourced, but he has been subject to considerable restraints, as have all police forces in the United Kingdom in recent years. That inevitably has an impact on what he can do. The fact that the NCA has not been able to operate at anything like its fullest extent in Northern Ireland has meant that there has been a deficit in policing in Northern Ireland. That is now, mercifully, being remedied so that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from the full entirety of policing to which they are entitled. That will clearly have resource implications, which I hope will be beneficial, for the PSNI.

On the question of concerns about the lack of custodial sentences, after running a consultation in summer 2013 the Northern Ireland Department of Justice implemented legislative change in December of that year allowing the referral of unduly lenient excise fraud sentences to the Court of Appeal. The consultation and the resulting measure had the Government’s full support, of course. I can report to the House that in the period 2013-14 six individuals were prosecuted for fuel fraud in Northern Ireland. I accept that that is nothing like enough, given the extent of the problem, but it gives the lie to the suggestion that there have been no prosecutions as there clearly have. However, I would share the assertion made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that there need to be more. I hope that the introduction of the NCA will play a part in that.

On the specific issue of fuel laundering—

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I will in a minute.

Hon. Members might be aware that the UK has worked closely with Ireland to identify a new fuel marker. It will come in in May and represents a significant improvement on the current fuel marker. It gives much more protection against fraud.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I think that we have exhausted this particular point, and I did say that I would come back to the hon. Gentleman. However, I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills).

[Nigel Mills]

While we are talking about the lack of prosecutions, the sentences that are given out are somewhat more lenient than we might hope for an offence of such seriousness. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem in that a lot of people perceive fuel laundering and illegal sales of tobacco to be victimless crimes whereas—this is certainly the case in Northern Ireland—they are serious organised crime offences that fund other serious activity and should be treated with that seriousness by the public, by all the authorities and by those who give out the sentences when people are caught?

[Dr Murrison]

I agree it is not a victimless crime, as is clear from the figures I have trotted out—there is the cost to the Treasury alone. All of us who rely on the largesse of the public services we enjoy are victims of this crime, so I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend. On the leniency of sentences, I will be interested to see what the Court of Appeal decides.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I think the Minister said—I stand to be corrected on the exact wording—that the Government were confident that the marker would work, but a test carried out in Bellingham with Queen’s university and others, to which HMRC had to be dragged kicking and squealing, along with the Irish Revenue, proved that the Dow marker could effectively be removed by simple distillation. We must have confidence in the marker, but this one cannot do it.

[Dr Murrison]

I am certainly not going to assert that any marker or anything added to a substance is incapable of being removed, but clearly it is perfectly possible to launder fuel at the moment—it happens all the while—and although the pattern of fuel laundering is changing, as was touched upon by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), nevertheless it remains and brings with it financial and environmental costs, and costs in terms of criminality, security and all the rest of it. I am advised that the new marker, which we will introduce in May, is an improvement on what we currently have.

[David Simpson]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Murrison]

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not agree, and I am sorry if I cannot give him an absolute assurance that any substance we add could never be removed, but he will have to accept that it is an improvement on what is happening at the moment, which is patently inadequate.

[David Simpson]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Murrison]

Well, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks when he makes his contribution.



Mention has been made of fraud and tobacco—topical given the deferred Division at lunchtime. To be clear, our aim is to maintain the downward pressure on the illicit market in cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. HMRC’s anti-smuggling strategy is effective and has been adapted continuously to deal with changes in criminal behaviour. Since HMRC first launched its strategy to tackle tobacco smuggling, the illicit cigarette market has reduced by half and the illicit hand-rolling tobacco market by a third, which is substantial.

The motion refers to greater co-operation between the PSNI, the NCA and HMRC on combating serious criminal activity. This cuts to the heart of today’s debate and the point on which we pin so many of our hopes for the future. Extensive multi-agency cross-border co-operation is a key element of the operational response to fuel fraud. HMRC chairs a multi-agency cross-border fuel fraud group that meets quarterly and has representatives from HMRC, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, the NCA, the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and their Republic of Ireland equivalents. This group shares intelligence and information on operational activity, as well as co-ordinating joint operations. The joint UK-Irish project that identified the new fuel marker is a prime example of that co-operation, notwithstanding the remarks from hon. Gentlemen this afternoon.

I am delighted that the House has agreed legislation to extend fully the remit of the NCA in Northern Ireland. This follows the vote in its support last month in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Serious and organised crime groups do not operate in isolated pockets of each region, and nor do they respect borders or force boundaries. The PSNI estimates that there are between 140 and 160 organised crime groups active in Northern Ireland and 800 active criminals. Nearly one third of these groups are assessed as having links to international criminality, and another third are linked to criminality in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

Since it was created just over a year ago, the NCA has begun to make a real impact on the threat to the UK from serious and organised crime, but until now the fight against such offences in Northern Ireland has been inhibited. There have been a number of significant PSNI investigations that the NCA would have been better placed to lead, given that key criminals and their associated infrastructure have been based outside Northern Ireland. It has also been difficult for PSNI to access the specialist resource and capability that the NCA holds. Northern Ireland has been left at a greater risk from child sexual exploitation, cybercrime and economic crime because the specialist resources that the NCA has developed have not been available.

Civil recovery has been affected. Since June 2013, civil recovery investigations are down by more than 50% and property-freezing orders by more than 70%. This is worrying, because denying criminals the proceeds of crime is one of the most effective ways we have of disrupting their activities. However, the NCA will soon be able to deal with serious and organised criminals—no matter where they are—and I am confident that the people of Northern Ireland will now have the same protection against serious and organised crime as those in the rest of the UK. That is surely their right.

As I have said, we do not doubt the seriousness of these types of criminal activity and the harm they cause to society and security. We and devolved colleagues are, as I have outlined, working in co-operation with partners elsewhere to address these problems vigorously. There is often close co-operation with counterparts across the border, and I would say that it is increasing, but we need at all times to ensure that the fullest pressure is maintained on the perpetrators, wherever they may be, and the Government will seek to go on doing just that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. The Ayes were 367 and the Noes were 113, so the Ayes have it.

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

15:41

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

I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for bringing home both the scale and seriousness of the threat in Northern Ireland. I welcome the initiative of the Democratic Unionist party in bringing this motion before us, because the DUP is absolutely right to bring home the scale of the problem, and to argue for determined action to deal with what is a serious threat, involving effective co-ordination of all the agencies concerned within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

The motion is right, too, to argue for vigorous enforcement of the law in circumstances where, to be frank, enforcement in the past has sometimes been lamentable. In particular, for vigorous enforcement of the law, it is necessary to make an example of the worst culprits and to go after their ill-gotten gains, sending an unmistakeable message that crime will never pay. Sadly, at the moment, it too often does, which is wrong and must be put right.

David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister who chairs the Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland has said, as the Minister mentioned, that there are between 140 and 160 gangs operating in Northern Ireland. Criminal gangs in Northern Ireland are not just involved in what one might call “traditional criminal activity”, but are now turning to computer-based cybercrime and operating in rural areas. A report released last November on “Serious and Organised Crime” in Northern Ireland states that

“serious and organised crime ranks among the most serious risks of harm to the community in NI”.

It went on to say:

“Organised crime also has very significant consequences with the impact of, for example, drug dealing, robbery and fraud and other insidious forms of organised criminality. It has significant consequences for individual communities and for society as a whole. Both serious and organised crime…has a detrimental impact on public finances.”

That is absolutely right, because the consequences of serious and organised crime can include, with particular respect to the drug trade, the ruining of lives. Those who commit fraud and online crime and prey on the vulnerable may leave them bankrupt and destitute. There is also the impact on the taxpayer. The Minister mentioned the overall tax take of £27 billion from fuel duties, but too many people in Northern Ireland who are operating across the border get away with paying no duty at all.

The Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey, which measures perceptions, found that nearly two thirds of respondents believed that the problem of organised crime was widespread in Northern Ireland. Indeed, having recently reported its findings in Dublin, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly expressed alarm at the extent and scale of the fuel-laundering business along the border. On a fact-finding visit, members of the group witnessed no fewer than 12 diesel-laundering fronts in operation on the border area between south Armagh and the Republic. As a result, they made several recommendations with the aim of curbing the lucrative black market that currently exists. They urged, for instance, that

“every possible effort must be made by law enforcement authorities in their collaborative efforts to shut down these operations, despite the difficulties in policing some of these areas.”

In the context of fuel laundering and the avoidance of fuel duty, may I press the Minister further on the issue of the Dow Chemical Company? I should like to know how confident the Government are about that issue, because some serious questions have been posed to us. It was proved to HMRC and the Republic’s revenue authorities that the Dow marker was defective, in what we understand to have been a private test. Is that true? Both sides said that they would carry out a scaled-up version of the test. That has now happened, and a report is available. The report states that the Dow marker can be removed completely, and cost-effectively, in a scaled-up field test. Is that true? We are told that Ministers may not know exactly what is happening. We do not know; is that true? What does the Minister know, and what would he be prepared to tell Parliament?

Instead of opting for the immovable British marker that came top in the test but was more expensive, the Government are sticking to a flawed marker which may well not work. That cannot be right in the context of combating fuel laundering, and it also cannot be right for a good British product to be turned down in favour of an alternative that is flawed.

I have had sight of a letter to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) from the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the present Education Secretary, who was then in the Treasury, which deals with the question of whether the test is defective. In the letter, the right hon. Lady wrote that she was aware that the hon. Gentleman was focusing on the issue of the marker, and that his Committee was discussing it. She also wrote:

“I would be grateful if you could otherwise treat the contents as confidential as any information regarding theoretical weaknesses could alert fraudsters.”

Are there weaknesses, theoretical or otherwise? I think that the Government need to tell Parliament, because if we are finally and fully to combat the menace of fuel laundering, we need to be absolutely confident that what we have works.

It is clear that more needs to be done to combat such illicit activity. In fact, the report “Serious and Organised Crime: An inspection on how the Criminal Justice System deals with Serious and Organised Crime in Northern Ireland”, to which I referred earlier, recommended that

“The OCTF should develop a new jointly agreed strategy with clear outcomes focused on co-ordinated joint enforcement operations and linked to explicit underlying harm reduction strategies.”

The setting of such an objective is welcome, not least because crime groups are highly mobile and flexible, operating across national and international borders and criminal sectors. If there is a gap in our defences, including in respect of asset recovery and coverage, it affects everyone. These problems are not confined to Northern Ireland and can bleed through to Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and beyond, and vice versa. In some cases, the root cause is yet more nefarious than mere profit, because historically some of the gangs concerned have had strong links to both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups. Dissident republican groups, which continue to be a threat to the peace process and to the stability of Northern Ireland, are heavily dependent on organised crime. Members of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association, too, have been known to be involved in extortion, loan sharking, robbery, drugs, burglary, theft and money laundering, and the list goes on.

With reference to the powerful speech from the hon. Member for South Antrim, we are rightly concerned about the link between organised crime and dissident republican groups because that puts peace and stability in Northern Ireland at risk, but the problems of organised crime being linked to paramilitaries is not exclusive to the republican community.

I pay tribute to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, George Hamilton, for all the work that he has been doing to address these issues. However, the motion from the Democratic Unionists is right to say that we need to be more vigorous in our approach at the next stages, with strengthened and more effective co-ordination between all relevant bodies to enhance law enforcement and bring more people to justice in order to stamp out fuel and drug smuggling for criminal profit and, in some cases, terrorist ends.

On the extension of the National Crime Agency to Northern Ireland, we warmly welcome the fact that the impasse has finally been broken, the law has been changed and we will see the extension of the NCA’s coverage to Northern Ireland. It is an objective that we have supported for some time. We have encouraged parties to come together in Northern Ireland and agree that objective. It is not right that there were some who dragged their heels, but at last the remit of the NCA has been extended, which is to be welcomed. Wherever racketeering and exploitation take place, action should be taken to tackle those serious crimes.

I welcome the fact that in this place there was cross-Chamber agreement, with all parties coming together to say that the extension of the NCA to Northern Ireland was a sensible measure, not before its time. At the next stage, co-ordinated action is crucial, as the motion calls for. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about the effective resourcing of that was well made. In circumstances where the lack of prosecutions is lamentable, the enforcement of the law and—I stress this again—a much more vigorous approach are needed to pursue the ill-gotten gains of those involved in serious and organised crime. Although the extension of the NCA to Northern Ireland is a welcome step, it needs to take a much more vigorous approach to going after those who benefit from the proceeds of crime. During the passage of the recent Serious Crime Bill we sought to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and some progress was made, which we welcome, but there is enormous room for improvement in future.

Recently I heard Keith Bristow, head of the NCA, saying that the agency had seized only £22.5 million in criminal assets in its first year, and he went on to say that more than £1.3 billion of the £1.46 billion owed by convicted criminals to the taxpayer is unlikely ever to be recovered. As with so many other issues, this is an issue where, here in Britain but also in Northern Ireland, we must be more vigorous in our approach to recovering those ill-gotten gains and starving criminals in Northern Ireland of their resources.

This is a welcome debate at a crucial moment. There is a determination across communities in Northern Ireland, as here in Britain, more seriously to tackle serious and organised crime, but it is not enough that we simply pass motions in this House or elsewhere; it is about what is done to see the law implemented. There must be effective action against that which remains a serious threat. Tackling serious and organised crime is important no matter where we turn in the UK, but it is all the more important in Northern Ireland because of the tremendous progress that has been made in terms of the peace process. It remains in some respects fragile, and there are those who challenge it, but the last thing we want is that those who challenge it, particularly republican paramilitaries, being able to benefit from serious and organised crime to fund their nefarious activities. We strongly support the motion.

15:56

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this timely debate. We have debated this subject before. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has done a report on it, and it has been ongoing for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) used the word “Horlicks”—and that is exactly what this is. It is costing the Exchequer hundreds of millions of pounds. I predict that the Government will introduce this Dow marker, and it will not reduce the problem. That is my prediction, because the tests we have witnessed and those that have been carried out show that it does not work.

I will be brief as I know other Members wish to speak, but I need to put a number of questions to the Minister. Can the Minister or his officials tell us why Dow Chemical Company was not thrown out of the IMS—invitation to make submissions—tendering process for the marker under European law, when in 2013 it was fined $1.1 billion for fraud? It was fined $1.1 billion, yet it is part of the tendering process, and we are about to introduce a dye that comes from that company.

The Minister was asked a question earlier to which we did not get an answer, but perhaps his officials or the representation from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs today can provide the answer: why was this technology awarded to Dow with no roadside test when the other, British recommended company had a roadside test?

A number of years ago—maybe 10—I was asked to pay a visit to South Armagh by a political activist who lives there. He rang me and said, “David, you have raised issues of fuel smuggling. Would you like to see some of them?” I spent the day going around 15 distilleries and seeing their fuel laundering equipment—or whatever the terminology is—and got within 100 metres of Slab Murphy’s house and his laundering facilities. We moved back up the road a mile, on a hill, and the lorries were freely going in and out of Slab Murphy’s facilities, with nothing being done about it—absolutely nothing.

Right up to the present day, no one has been imprisoned for this. The Minister corrected one of my colleagues on the subject of prosecutions, but this is costing the Government and the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. We spoke earlier about the budgets. There is no money in the budgets, and I understand that there are to be further cuts after the general election to try to clear the deficit. There will be issues if that is the case, because we are suffering and the amount being lost to the Revenue every year could be used to build several hospitals.

[Dr McCrea]

Is my hon. Friend talking about the same Slab Murphy whom Gerry Adams described as a decent businessman?

[David Simpson]

Yes, absolutely.

After we had seen the activity I have just described, we reported it to what was then the RUC, and several moves were made to close some of the laundering facilities. These activities are unfair to the ordinary everyday workers and businessmen in Northern Ireland who are doing their best to pay their taxes and keep their businesses going. They are completely above board, yet other individuals are profiting from their activities. That is totally wrong, and it has been going on for far too long.

Whether the Minister has been furnished with all the information or not, the information I am giving him is factual, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will certainly be able to give him a lot more when he winds up the debate. This issue needs to be got right. It has gone on for far too long and it has become a laughing stock. At the beginning of the debate, it was suggested that this arrangement might have been a pay-off for the republicans. When we were talking about the National Crime Agency earlier today, someone in the House remembered that the deal involved 2p to the pound. I would hate to think that any Government had done any kind of deal with republicans and criminals or given them 2p to the pound to keep their mouths shut. It would be a travesty if that were the case. There is something rotten about this whole process and system. There is something wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

[Dr McCrea]

This might be a laughing stock, but it is certainly no joke. This is a very serious matter. Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) say that the British-Irish grouping went out on a fact-finding mission and saw 12 of these facilities in operation? If they could see 12 of them operating on that one day, where was HMRC and where were the authorities at the time?

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question. Someone was sleeping on their watch, if indeed they were watching at all.

I have another question for the Minister. Why would the Government not support their own world-leading British science company when its fuel markers are the only IMS-proven indelible markers that are recommended? I want to ask him a further question. Given that the IMS is a joint UK-Republic of Ireland process, why was a single Dow marker IMS awarded when the Government knew that they needed a minimum of two indelible markers? I have asked a series of questions. I do not expect to get the answers today, but it is important that we try to get to the bottom of this.

[Dr Murrison]

Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman with a fuller account if he wants me to. This whole debate appears to be revolving around the Dow marker. That is fine, but hon. Members need to understand that the tendering operation was free and open. The Government are bound by rules in that respect, so there was no shady deal in which a British company was disadvantaged or in which Dow was given preference. That would have been madness. The alleged laundering method does not appear to be a viable large-scale proposition. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks that a marker exists that can never be removed. The experiences in the laboratory and in the field are very different, as I think he will probably, on quiet reflection, understand.

On the other point about markers and whether we would be able to detect at the roadside whether something was illicit or not, clearly we are not going to remove the marker we already have until we are completely happy with the new one and it is proven. So the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the two will run in parallel and, thus, there will be no disadvantage. I am hopeful that the new marker will be an advantage, but certainly we will be running the two in parallel. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

[David Simpson]

Not really, but I will say something about the process. My understanding is that a year ago the Dow marker was tested and found not to work, yet a year down the road we are introducing it. I cannot understand that. If something does not work, why are we spending millions of pounds on introducing it? We are trying to get to the bottom of this and we need the proper marker introduced.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister said he is “hopeful” that it will work, but I am not sure that will inspire confidence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the Minister said that the Government were bound to accept the bid—suggesting that because it was a cheaper bid they were bound to accept it—that was not a correct reading of, among other things, European procurement rules, because ultimately what is procured has to work?

[David Simpson]

We do not necessarily have to take the cheapest option—it has to work.

[Dr Murrison]

I understand that 23 markers from 12 companies were assessed side by side, and clearly the one that worked was chosen. I hope that is helpful.

[David Simpson]

As I have said, time will tell. I think this is going to be an expensive exercise that will be proven in time to be not as effective as the Minister has been led to believe.

[Dr McCrea]

If we are introducing something, surely it must work—millions of pounds will otherwise be lost to the Exchequer. If those millions of pounds are not needed here, I assure hon. Members that they would be very welcome in the coffers of the Northern Ireland Executive, given the deficit we face. Surely this has to work and we have to be sure that it works. We are not doing this on a trial-and-error basis; we have to be sure that we have something that works.

[David Simpson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is correct about that. The matter is too serious for the marker not to work. This situation has been ongoing, and the amount of money that has been lost and wasted over the past 10 to 15 years—or longer—is just horrific. It could have done a lot to help many vulnerable people, not only in Northern Ireland, but on the mainland. We are where we are and time will tell, but I know my colleague will have a few other statistics and figures to give in his winding-up speech.

16:08

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for bringing this motion to the House today. This important issue is often overlooked because in many ways it is a hidden crime, and, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, it is often viewed as a victimless crime. It is anything but. It is important that as well as trying to combat it through the various agencies that have a role in addressing organised crime, we communicate carefully with the public about their role in combating it and about the risk it poses to them. People often simply see cheaper goods and that is the only aspect they see of organised crime; they do not see the risks to them, the other criminality that goes with it, the danger, or the money taken from revenue that would otherwise be invested in services.

Obviously this is a complex area. Others have mentioned how difficult it has been to secure convictions, and I shall move on to discuss that. First, however, I pay tribute to the law-enforcement agencies for the work they are doing on both sides of the border. A complex collection of agencies has to deal with this complex area of crime. We have the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Garda Siochana and the National Crime Agency. We welcome the fact that we now have the additional resource of the NCA, because while we focus on one border, criminals operate across many borders, so having that national organisation involved is hugely important. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Revenue commissioners and Border Force work closely together in order to share intelligence, to disrupt those who try to perpetrate crimes and to ensure that they are eventually brought before the courts. When people are brought before the courts for participation in organised crime or for benefiting from taking goods that are clearly only available as a result of organised crime, the penalties should be a deterrent.

The impact of fuel laundering has been discussed at considerable length. The scale of the problem in Northern Ireland is undeniable. Fuel laundering is not just a cross-border issue: the uncollected revenue from fraudulent diesel in Northern Ireland was estimated by HMRC to be £80 million in 2012-13, which is 13% of the overall market share in Northern Ireland. That is a significant sum of money, especially when we compare it with the GB figure for illicit market share, which was about 2% in the same year. That gives us a clear indication of the scale of the problem, but it is not just a Northern Ireland issue, because that revenue is being denied to the UK as a whole. There is a genuine interest here in Parliament to address the issue robustly, because it is Great Britain’s schools and hospitals as well as our schools and hospitals that lose out as a result of the revenue not being collected.

The nature of fuel laundering means that sites themselves are not regularly attended, which can make it difficult to establish a clear link to the perpetrators. In Northern Ireland, we often say that everyone knows who does things, but knowing and proving are two different things when it comes to the law. Part of the strategy is to disrupt those who are involved in illegal activity, and part of it is to try to catch them. Trying to balance those two things can be very difficult. It is often hard to make that clear link to the perpetrators. It requires the seizure of records and the scene of crime work, which is complex and slow. Prosecutions in this field often do not come to court for many years after the breaking up of the illegal fuel laundering plant.

There has been an increase in the number of fuel laundering plants dismantled—the number has risen quite quickly over the past few years. There has also been an increase in the number of convictions, but the problem is that not one person has received a custodial sentence of more than 10 years, which seems ludicrous given the impact that the crime has on society.

The challenge in making arrests and obtaining the evidence is something of which the Department of Justice and my colleague David Ford are fully aware. As the Minister rightly said, the Department of Justice has introduced legislation adding the evasion of duty in relation to fuel and tobacco to the list of offences that can be referred by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal when a sentence is considered to be unduly lenient. That does not resolve the issue entirely, but it does mean that there is a fall-back position when judges are seen not to have taken seriously enough someone who is brought before them in connection with these crimes.

[Dr McCrea]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there is another difficulty? In the instance I mentioned, laptops and documents were destroyed or burned before HMRC arrived at the scene. The concern was that there had been a tip-off.

[Naomi Long]

There is no doubt that that is a concern, and it has been a concern for some time. There is evidence that when HMRC or the PSNI has turned up on site, people have scattered and taken with them some of the critical evidence, which suggests that they were aware that those organisations were coming. Obviously, we can look at that in two ways. The first is that someone could be tipping off those launderers. The alternative is that these are complex organisations that have their own intelligence. They are observing the movements of the police, HMRC and others in the area and may well become aware that operations are moving against them. In some ways, we need the intelligence on the legal side of the fence to be much more robust than the intelligence on the other side. We should not rule out the possibility that the criminals themselves are gathering intelligence about what is happening in their neighbourhoods that helps them to evade capture.

I want to move on to the wider issue of the impact of this crime. I have referred to the fact that this is not a victimless crime, and it is worth talking now about some of the victims.

[Dr Murrison]

The point about intelligence is well made. It is important not to provide organised criminals with information if we can possibly avoid it, which recalls the letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I have not seen the letter so cannot comment on it in any detail, but I think it is probably wise not to put such a letter in the public domain if it would give succour to organised criminals. We must be careful not to display our tactics and what we do to those who might wish to make use of them in a way that is contrary to national security or good order.

[Naomi Long]

I understand the Minister’s point, but there is a wider point about how Members can raise their concerns about these issues. They have done so via correspondence and in private evidence sessions, as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has done here with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and in other places. It appears not to have been taken seriously. That is the concern expressed by Members on this side of the Chamber. I certainly would not wish to put anything into the public domain that would give any succour or encouragement to any criminal; neither would I want to rely on a marker if there was evidence that it could be easily removed.

We also need to acknowledge that this is a multi-billion pound business for the people involved. Whatever marker is used, they will invest in the technology that will allow them to evade it. All that we are trying to do—all that we can ever do in these circumstances—is stay ahead in the game. We need to be realistic about the fact that when it comes to protecting the public, what we are trying to do is stay ahead of the criminals in the technology we use: they will no doubt be chasing that technology as soon as it is included as a marker.

As I said, I want to move on to the wider issue of the impact on the victims. I have already mentioned that this is not a victimless crime. I want to talk about the wider impact of fuel smuggling and fuel laundering and the wider counterfeiting of consumer goods. The motion ranges slightly wider than fuel, although fuel obviously exercises us all because of its significance. There are two separate but linked issues. The illicit and counterfeit goods themselves have an element of risk attached to them. They defraud the public. People often purchase inferior goods in the belief that they are getting the real thing, and that in itself can be extremely dangerous.

For example, when fuel is stretched rather than laundered or smuggled, it can seriously damage vehicles. Often the people who purchase it are unaware that it has been stretched. There are two classes of people in that regard: those who know that they are buying fuel at a ridiculously low price and that they are risking their vehicles; and those who stop at what looks like a reasonable petrol station and purchase fuel, only to find out subsequently that it has damaged their vehicles because it was illicit. That is a different issue, but it causes real damage to vehicles, and is the public need to be made aware of that. Frankly, it may well provide a bigger deterrent against buying laundered fuel than almost anything else we could say to motorists.

Counterfeiting also places the public at risk in other ways. Reference has already been made to the discovery that some counterfeit cigarettes contain asbestos. Counterfeit cigarettes sold in Northern Ireland in the past have been found to contain arsenic. The people who make these products do not really care what goes into them or what impact they might have on health. When people purchase counterfeit and illicit goods, they are placing themselves at considerable risk. Another example is that of products made of flammable materials being brought into the household. People might think that those products meet the regular standards, unaware that they are actually bringing materials into their home that could put their family at serious risk.

I also want to highlight the conditions of those involved in counterfeiting these goods, because often they are being held against their will in other countries, having been trafficked as slaves in order to produce them. The abuse often reaches much further than consumers and the public here in Britain; it also affects those producing the goods further afield.

As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) rightly, if rather surprisingly, said, significant environmental damage is caused when people get involved in fuel laundering. The mess that is left around the countryside in Northern Ireland not only costs millions of pounds to clean up but will take many years to be ameliorated. It will leave an almost indelible mark on parts of our countryside, on our water supply, and on many other things, so these illicit and counterfeit goods have a significant impact on the public.

The other aspect is smuggled goods—the stuff that is brought in through smuggling routes. Those who open up those routes do so not for one particular set of goods; once they are available they will use them for anything. When they have good routes for smuggling fuel, consumer goods or cigarettes, we can be sure that they will use the same routes for smuggling people and drugs—and all human misery is there. It is about opening up routes around the world so they can smuggle goods, and they do not care whether it is people or goods being trafficked.

In all cases, whether counterfeiting and laundering or smuggled goods, people are evading their tax and Revenue payments. That brings us back to the issue of robbing public services. Those who purchase cheap cigarettes or cheap petrol and diesel, and thereby counterfeit goods, may think that it makes no difference. However, when they turn up at the hospital and face long waiting times for accident and emergency services, or cannot get a bed and are lying on a trolley for 48 hours, they should realise that those problems are due to money not going to the Revenue. We have to be honest with the public and say: “You are only stealing from yourself when you purchase goods in this way; you are not doing anything to help your own situation.” We need to try to disabuse people of the notion that this is a victimless crime.

In Northern Ireland, as several hon. Members have said, this has a more sinister element in that much of the money raised in this way is being funnelled into further illegal activity and, in particular, paramilitary activity. That should be a matter of concern to us all. We want a stable and peaceful future, but most of all we want a safe and secure future for the people we represent. We need to say to people: “When you purchase smuggled goods at the petrol pump or elsewhere, bear in mind the fact that you are putting money in the pockets of people who are quite happy to set out with murder in mind and take lives for political gain. Those are the people who benefit from this.” It is not only republicans but loyalists who are willing, through organised crime, to work in drug smuggling, drug dealing, counterfeiting, and all the other things. Criminals will work together where there is money to be made. That will be more important to them than any political objectives they may claim to have, and much more important than the lives and the security of the people in their communities.

It is important in this debate that we spend a little time considering the fact that this is not a victimless crime but a complex and difficult one that requires a multi-agency approach. I have no doubt that the agencies are pushing very hard to bring it to an end, but we need to secure public support. With that support, it will be much easier to find those who are behind these smuggling rings, hold them to account in the courts, and see them serve jail time for what they are doing. I commend the hon. Member for South Antrim for bringing this motion to the House.

16:23

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure again to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), as in the previous debate. Again, much of what I say will find agreement with what she has said, and indeed with what some other hon. Members have said. I might need to take up some other points that were directed particularly at the SDLP.

I am glad to endorse the motion and commend my colleagues—right hon. and hon. Members from the DUP—for introducing it. It is important that we now harness every single effort that we possibly can to combat organised crime in all its forms and at all its levels, conscious of all its effects and impacts.

As other hon. Members have said, some people perhaps labour under a false impression that fuel laundering or smuggling is a victimless crime, but it is not. It robs revenue from hard-pressed public services. Such scams are not against big business and the taxman, but against neighbours, the community and consumers, as well as against public services and the revenue on which those services depend. In that sense, we are all victims of these crimes.

Nobody should have any fancy notions about the rackets and scams happening in this part of the 21st century being in any way connected with little family, folklore stories of people smuggling butter during the war years. They are nothing like that, and should not be seen in such a way. This is ruthless big business, and people are in it not just for their own mercenary motives, but with lethal menace. They go about their business in that way, and people who dare to interfere with them, are suspected of cutting across them or make a tip-off about their rip-offs face very serious consequences. That is why people who are conscious of, or surmise that, things are going on, first, find that it is very difficult to say anything, and secondly, find it hard to believe that more is not being done by the authorities who know about it, seem to know about it or should know about it.

Other hon. Members have mentioned cases in which action has been taken, but such action has been taken at a time or in a way that means people have removed themselves from a property and destroyed the evidence there before the authorities arrive. That raises all sorts of questions about how such situations arise.

There is a sense of scandal in many quarters about the fact that, as we moved on from the paramilitarism in all the forms we knew during the troubles, there was basically an acceptance that it was okay for some paramilitaries to privatise themselves into various criminal activities so long as someone within their broad political community could vouch for their staying on the right side of the argument over the peace process. The authorities were told to be careful about interfering with or coming down too heavily on some of those people because it might upset the balance of opinion or of favour within their republican base. That sense of scandal is one reason why the authorities need to be seen to be acting with full intelligence and full vigour, and why people want to see the courts follow through on prosecutions brought by policing authorities and HMRC, with convictions and credible, meaningful sentences. Rightly or wrongly, there is currently the sense that in that regard something does not add up or some connection is not being made.

Hon. Members have touched on the environmental impact of some of these crimes. Just as the criminal activity—the sourcing, processing and transfer for sale of the materials—is of a cross-border nature, so too have been the hazardous environmental impacts. Materials have been dumped into watercourses and have found their way into various counties and communities, as well as into waterways contributing to the public water supplies, on both sides of the border. That shows that the people committing these crimes are not just content with acting against the authorities or big businesses, but are prepared fundamentally to risk the health and well-being of neighbours and communities.

Hon. Members have mentioned the delegated legislation Committee that met in the House this week to discuss providing for the NCA to have full powers in Northern Ireland, and that is something I welcome and that we have worked for. When the legislation was first introduced in the Chamber in 2012, we made it clear that our concern was not opposition in principle to the role of the NCA, but a requirement that the NCA should meet the Patten threshold. We set those terms and they have been reached. I acknowledge the role of the Home Secretary and her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, as well as that of the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, the NCA, its director, and the PSNI leadership, in helping to tease through those issues. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said that a circumstance has been arrived at that means Northern Ireland has a scheme of accountability and insight for the work of the NCA that he would like for parts of Great Britain as well. We have arrived at something stronger.

It must also be noted that the legislation does not only give the Policing Board Patten-style oversight and accountability in terms of the work of the NCA. It does not only vest particular responsibility in the Chief Constable, or only ensure that the ombudsman’s reach on issues arising with the NCA entirely matches the reach that it has for the PSNI. It also gives the Policing Board responsibility for encouraging public co-operation and support for the work of the NCA, which is hugely important. People need to understand what the work and role of the NCA will be so that they cannot misrepresent it in some sinister way, as some may try to do in the aftermath of the debate last month in the Assembly and the legislation passing through this House. That must be clearly understood, and I am sure that Members of all parties—certainly all those represented in this House—who are on the Policing Board will want it to discharge that role of assisting in full public co-operation with the NCA, as well as all the other vital roles that will fall to the Policing Board under these arrangements.

As we have heard, this debate is not just about fuel crime because there is also the issue of counterfeit goods. Again, criminals are using significant networks to make real profit for themselves at the expense of consumers. Those consumers are not buying quality or reliable products; they are buying products that are not only substandard but can be dangerous and risky in many ways. All of a sudden the House supports the added profile coming from organisations such as the Trading Standards Institute, again to help make people aware of the situation. It is important that some of these messages do not always appear to come from traditional law enforcement mechanisms but come from other civil purpose agencies as well, so that perhaps people will listen to them differently and hear—or at least credit—a warning that they do not hear from somebody else. We need to see that issue cracked, and action against it.

There is also significant waste crime in Northern Ireland and, of course, in the island of Ireland. Some of that waste crime has been cross-border in character, but not all of it. There have been debates about the NCA, and whether delays in passing legislation on that issue mean that all the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and other policing responsibilities that still fell to the police during that period will stop. One point that has been made is on waste dumps. One significant illegal waste dump was found in recent years in my constituency. It clearly represented an illegal business on the scale of millions of pounds. It emerged because of a random activity by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. It was not known to anybody in policing, anybody in HMRC or anybody in SOCA. Nobody knew it. Everybody knows that it was essentially sourced and directed not from my constituency but from South Armagh. It seems strange that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency happened to stumble on it. It was not because of a tip-off or anything else—it was pursuing another matter and it came to its notice. Given the provenance and the scale of the business, it is hard to believe that nobody knew it was going on.

That brings us back to the concern that other hon. Members have reflected. There is a sense that a blind eye is being turned, and that there is some sort of set-aside deal going on, where people are saying, “You can have those rackets up to that point so long as you don’t transgress in other matters.” The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned the 2p in the pound. I would certainly refer to deals done between SOCA and people it was meant to be pursuing in respect of criminal assets. Those deals were for pennies in the pound. The story is that such deals were brought before the High Court. What choice would the High Court have but to say, “Here is an agreement between SOCA and somebody it is pursuing”? Of course the High Court would accept that agreement. Word has it that that sort of agreement not only applies to the individual in that case, but has the status of a group deal—it becomes the going rate for offers to join in on those terms.

That is one of the issues that the Social Democratic and Labour party was at pains to ensure could be addressed in future. We want oversight and accountability mechanisms that apply to the NCA. Many of the questions asked in the debate could be framed, raised and properly addressed in the Policing Board’s engagement with the Chief Constable, and with the director of the NCA, whenever they hear NCA reports and plans, and whenever they monitor the effectiveness of the NCA’s work. That all goes to the Policing Board under the arrangements. It would be right and proper to pursue that.

Another experience of SOCA that I hope will not be repeated under the NCA arrangements is that we had evidence, which I took to the Secretary of State and others, that MI5 was promising that, if people turned and joined dissident organisations and essentially became MI5 agents, it could remove a working SOCA interest in them. We presented evidence that showed that SOCA seemed to be pursuing people not so much for SOCA’s purposes, but to help frame operations that had MI5 at their heart. We must ensure that none of that happens in future. We must ensure that the NCA’s work and the work it carries out in Northern Ireland with the PSNI under the approval of the Chief Constable has none of that about it. If it does, it brings the NCA into disrepute, and compromises the Policing Board’s important role in ensuring the fullest support for, and engagement with, the NCA’s future work.

Revenue and Customs needs to be more active in these areas. On many of the cases referred to by other hon. Members, it has been less than authoritatively convincing in its silence. More assurance is needed.

We need to encourage fully the significant cross-border work that takes place under the Organised Crime Task Force. I recognise that that extends not just to the areas of crime that many of us have touched on today, but to other areas of crime—this was touched on by the hon. Member for Belfast East—relating to human trafficking. It was heartening that one of the first engagements of the new UK Anti-Slavery Commissioner was a meeting with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland and his southern counterpart to address this issue. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), will recall that this was one of the issues on which I tabled amendments during the Committee stage of the Modern Slavery Bill, to ensure that all aspects of the Bill would either apply to Northern Ireland or be compatible with legislation that was then going through the Northern Ireland Assembly. In particular, I wanted to ensure that the new commissioner would be able to consider issues in Northern Ireland, and the performance of enforcement agencies not just in Northern Ireland but as they operated and liaised and engaged with their counterparts in the south as well.

I am very glad that we have legislation not just in respect of the NCA, but modern slavery provisions. That puts us in a stronger position to address different aspects of serious crime as they happen in Northern Ireland and across the border.

16:41

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

At the outset, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on securing this very important debate and on introducing it in such a powerful way. I thank all Members from across the House who have spoken, but I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the Labour Front-Bench Spokesman. He has put on the record some incredibly startling facts that require answers.

Last week, Alan Bennett, the famed playwright, when interviewed on “World at One”, was asked to outline for us the most important achievement of this nation. After pondering on whether it should be the National Trust or our physical heritage, he said very clearly that it was English hypocrisy.

I am sick, sore and tired. We have heard a unified voice from this side of the House, whether nationalist or Unionist. We are sick, sore and tired of the hypocrisy that is fed to us by the shovel-load: that we are somehow thick Paddies who have no idea of what is going on in our country when it comes to crime, and that if we dare to expose anything about it, we are told, “Hush, hush, you’ll tip the criminals off.” Anyone would think we were a bunch of suckers when it comes to dealing with crime, but we have lived among these criminals for decades. We see how they work. We see the evil they bring upon our society. We want it dealt with and we want it dealt with now. We are saying that with a unified voice on this side of the House, across all parties. We are no longer prepared to be fed, quite frankly, the bull that we are being fed: that this matter is being dealt with by officialdom.

Alan Bennett was right when he pointed to hypocrisy. I see it in the officials that I meet and have met daily since 2009 and since entering this House. We have tried to deal quietly and discreetly with the issue of how we can tackle serious and organised crime in our society. All we get, frankly, is this hypocrisy: it will be dealt with, it will be dealt with. Well, five-and-a-half years later it has not been dealt with. Since 2009, when I came off the Organised Crime Task Force board, I have not seen one single inch of progress. I have heard a lot of platitudes. We on this side of the House are sick, sore and tired. We want something done. We want something done urgently. We want something done that is effective and actually makes a difference. I believe we are all on the same side and want to see the criminals beaten, but officials are dragging their feet when it comes to sorting out this problem. I hope they can get to grips with it.

Last week, a national newspaper report by Brian Flynn dealt with a number of crime issues and I want to address those listed in the motion. The first is the smuggling of tobacco products and the impact it has on our economy. Every crate of smuggled tobacco products puts £1 million into the coffers of the criminals, and 40% of all cigarettes smoked across the United Kingdom are either counterfeit or smuggled. The vast majority of that money goes into the coffers of the IRA. In fact, last year it was estimated that it achieved about £22 million from that enterprise.

Some of us take a different view of plain packaging, but under new regulations it is estimated that the profit margin will increase to €120 million, which is £87 million. That is enough money, as we would say locally, to choke a donkey. The people engaged in this serious organised crime are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of plain packaging after today’s vote because, whether we are for or against plain packaging—I respect the views of those who support it for health reasons—the legislation is defective on the issue of tracking and tracing.

At present, the manufacturing of cigarette boxes involves placing an electronic track-and-trace system in each box. The legitimate manufacturer of the cigarette packet gives those track-and-trace numbers to the police and customs, and the police can at any time place the packet on a hand-held machine in order to see the date and location of manufacture. Under the defective delegated legislation that went through the House today, that has been removed and packs cannot have track-and-trace. The Government have told me privately, “We’ll introduce it later on,” but apparently the earliest it can be introduced under the delegated legislation is in about three years. There is a bonanza coming for the next three years, because cigarette packets will have no track-and-trace capability. Criminals out there are rubbing their hands in glee because an effective security measure has now been removed from cigarette packets. The hypocrisy stinks to heaven.

The second issue that has taken up a lot of time in this debate is that of fuel laundering and fuel fraud, and it is a most serious crime. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington asked some very serious questions. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) asked 13 specific questions that have not yet been answered, and this House is entitled to answers.

Why would the Government continue in January 2015 to designate in legislation the Dow fuel marker when they knew a year ago that it was not fit for purpose, being completely launderable using basic science? The Hydrocarbon Oil (Marking and Designated Markers) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 will come into force on 1 April and they indicate the precise ingredients of the Dow marker. Under law, believe it or not, we have to tell the world what makes up the Dow marker. That is how pathetic the hypocrisy of our country is: we have to tell the criminals that publicly. The Minister said tonight that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, should not have read out a letter as it could have tipped certain people off, yet we publish in black and white the exact ingredients that go into the Dow marker. The statutory instrument is well timed, because it comes into effect on 1 April, April fools’ day. What fools we are for just going along with that and accepting the regulations, which publish what will be in the fuel and tip off scientists, legitimate and otherwise, about what is in the recipe for the Dow marker and what they therefore need to do to remove it.

If the marker was effective, that would not matter, because we would have those people and could prevent them from doing that. However, it is not effective and the Government knew that it was not effective a year ago. The Opposition spokesman put on the record the letter from 9 July 2014 from the then Treasury Minister, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), telling him that the information about the theoretical weaknesses in the fuel could alert fraudsters. The idea was that he should just hush it up and not tell anyone and the Government would keep working on it. The Government then went on to say that there was insufficient evidence to show that the process of distilling the fuel was

“a viable option commercially on a large scale for effective laundering of rebated fuels, although HMRC are continuing to investigate these claims.”

I will come to the question of whether that can be done effectively and economically, but let me turn first to the question of hushing things up. Members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee were prepared to sit for some time and give the Government the opportunity to change things and to make a move. We waited from last July and promises were made through August, September and October. Bigger promises were made in December and, at the turn of the year, we were told that things would be changed. They have not been changed and the April fools’ day legislation will be put in place without a single jot or tittle removed from it. The legislation, which will be pushed through, will push through a defective marker that the criminals will welcome and that they know they can remove.

How do I know that it can be removed? Today, we have placed in the Library a report that was confidential until yesterday, written by four academics, one from Queen’s university. The report, entitled “Distillation of fuel markers”, makes a number of startling claims, which I want to put on the record. In its opening section, it states:

“Distillation is a very simple and highly cost-effective way of removing a marker and has a key advantage over many of the methods cited above in that there is no laundering residue for the criminal to dispose of.”

My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) can rest tonight in the knowledge that in future when criminals distil fuel and remove markers from it there will no longer be terrible sludge and waste pumped into our rivers. This marker is so simply removed that it can be distilled off the top of fuel without creating any terrible after-pollution. The simplicity of the distillation process is incredibly beneficial to the criminals.

The report goes on to state:

“Given the simplicity of distillation it is apparent that an authority would be foolhardy to employ a marker whose boiling point fell just in or entirely outside the boiling range of the fuel to be protected.”

That is exactly what Dow has done. It has created a marker that is effective until just below boiling point, so people can boil the marker away without causing any harm and it vanishes up into the heavens. It is the devil’s share. He gets his share and the criminals get theirs. That is what is happening as a result of the new fuel marker.

The report stated that the academics took a British piece of scientific equipment, a marker that was found worthy of being put into British fuel, and tested it against the Dow marker. It stated this, after testing both markers:

“These results clearly indicate that the Dow marker can effectively be removed by simple distillation and successfully separated from the diesel distillate.”

In other words, the fuel can be separated completely from the marker and sold as unabated fuel that is no longer marked.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is making a speech in his usual robust fashion, but it is important to put on the record the difference between a laboratory analysis and scaling up to field operations. I think he needs to reflect that in his contribution.

[Ian Paisley]

I am delighted by that, because I am going to reflect that point now and I thank the Minister for encouraging me to do so. The then Treasury Minister said that there was insufficient evidence that the process was a viable commercial option, which I think is the point the Minister has just made: “Yes, you can do this in a lab, but could you really do it in the field?” Well, the report that is now in the Library goes into this, under a section entitled, “Economics of distillation”:

“The capital cost of a distillation plant suitable for laundering out a marker from fuel is low. Cost for off the shelf plant can be as little as…£12k”.

For an initial outlay of £12,000 for a small plant, the criminals could make about £16,000 per day, after they have laundered the product, or 5.8 million quid a year—that is pretty economical in my books; that is pretty cost-effective. I will come to the in-field testing in a minute, so I hope the Minister will brace himself, because it gets even better.

The report goes on:

“Even taking into account the worst case scenario presented above, a 160kW distillation laundering plant would generate huge profits with a payback in just under a fortnight. If this process was refined with heat regeneration and vacuum distillation, it would be quite feasible to double the capacity of this system. A small 1MW industrial unit could operate 6 of these 160kW systems, generating clear profit of approximately £92,000 per day and a payback period of less than 2 weeks. Such a 960kW laundering facility would be capable of generating an annual profit of approximately £33.5 million.”

This is a feasible, cheap alternative for gangsters and criminals. This report, which is in the Library of the House, is by a credible group of scientists and, critically, presented in such a way that if it is wrong, the Dow Chemical Company could sue the pants of these people. But it won’t go near it—it won’t even address the points made.

I understand that in-field testing was carried out on four occasions. The one at Bellingham, which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned, was not a small test; it was a test of 30,000 litres of fuel distilled successfully—it was just distilled off. Another test was carried out in Northern Ireland, and another test of a similarly large quantity, carried out by a scientist, Professor J. J. Leahy, in the Republic of Ireland, also proved that this material could be distilled off. Queen’s university also carried out a test, but sadly, after it reported privately to officials last year, the official response to the professor at Queen’s university was this: “You’d better tell us where that illegal plant you’ve just set up is, because we want to put it out of business.” I can take a joke, but I do not think that was a joke—it is almost like they were telling him for daring to undermine what officials were doing. It is hypocrisy.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

As well as congratulating the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the huge amount of personal commitment he has put into this issue. Will he explain why, despite the evidence that the Select Committee saw, the Government, officials and the authorities have been so singularly afraid to go down the route we suggested?

[Ian Paisley]

I think that deserves a more detailed answer than a brief response at this point, so I will come back to the matter. The hon. Lady, my friend, puts her finger on a very important and worrying point. This was a worrying trend that we watched with our own eyes when we tried to deal with this matter.

I asked the Minister earlier whether there was roadside capability in detecting this marker in our fuel, but he did not quite get the right end of the stick. I must deal with this critical issue. The head of the oils fraud section takes the lead in dealing with fuel laundering in Northern Ireland. He is an important official in the department. He gave evidence to our Select Committee in 2013, and he told us that the IMS tendering process for the new fuel marker was incredibly important. Although a specific roadside test was not specifically asked for, his view was—and he is the expert—that it was critical because it was the one measure through which the system could be policed.

One of the companies that tendered brought forward a roadside test capability—a kit that is the size of a laptop. If a drop of fuel was put on to a pad, the kit could detect within two and a half minutes where and when the fuel was bought—both the location and time. That is how sophisticated the marker was, and the roadside test could be done in two and half minutes.

The Dow marker has no roadside capability. In fact, after the April fools’ day legislation comes into place, let me explain what will happen. If an official stops a vehicle and takes a sample from it, he will have to send it away to the Government’s own plant. Three weeks later, the sample will be returned and the result on whether the Dow marker remains or has been removed will be provided. Why should we have to wait three weeks? Unless someone has a very efficient car, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) does, the fuel will be evaporated within days.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a technical argument on this issue, displaying a lot of knowledge that is obviously garnered from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry. Is he aware of the level and number of prosecutions resulting from illegal fuel laundering? Is it documented on a year-on-year basis?

[Ian Paisley]

I understand that the level of prosecutions is woeful—zero. That is one of the driving forces that show why we need a marker that actually works, and it explains why some of us are so passionate about this issue. We know the type of villains and individuals who are carrying this out, and it would be valuable if we could get them behind bars or at least stop them in this particular aspect of their criminality. Yes, they will turn to something else, but at least we would have blocked off one section of activity for them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The prosecution level is woefully zero, and it will remain zero because of this defective marker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) asked why the Government would not support their own world-leading British science company whose fuel markers are the only recommended IMS-proven indelible markers. This is important. The final report on the IMS procedure, which was a tendering process between the Republic of Ireland revenue authorities and our own HMRC, provided two options. One was to implement the Dow marker—it listed what it was—and the other was to introduce two markers: the Dow marker and the British company’s marker, which would provide something with which to confuse the criminals. There would be a choice of markers, allowing consideration of which one went in one month and which one did not go in. That was one of the options provided, but that course of action was not chosen, but it could still be chosen today.

The Government could amend the April Fool’s day legislation. They could introduce another statutory instrument tomorrow, providing for a different marker, and I hope that they will. I hope that, following today’s debate, they will see how foolish they have been in following the line they have followed. Some of us never wanted this debate to take place. We wanted the Government to take action and solve the problem, but unfortunately we have been pushed to this point. I think it will be clear from the anger that has been expressed today by members of several parties that we are all rightly concerned about what is going on.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington asked why, given that the IMS had been a joint United Kingdom-Republic of Ireland process, an IMS for a single launderable dye marker had been awarded when the Government knew that they needed a minimum of two indelible markers. Why—this is another question that was asked today—was technology awarded to Dow when no roadside test was available?

Who has the contract for HMRC fuel marker testing, and did the testing company have anything to do with the evaluation and final recommendation group? That very important question goes to the heart of the IMS procedure. The allegation that something went awry between whoever was carrying out the evaluation of the tests and the company that was awarded the final contract is very serious, and deserves to be answered by Ministers.

We have seen the answers to those questions. We know what has gone on. I actually feel sorry for the Minister, because he has been dropped into this debate without having been properly briefed about what has gone on and how serious the position is.

In 2012, the HMRC director Mike Norgrove gave evidence to the Select Committee. He had been offered the chance to see the new marker being used in Brazil. Why did he turn down that opportunity? I believe that that question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann.

Why would the Government cover up a £1 billion fraud when a British scientific solution already exists?

One of the last questions that were asked was: the Government must be aware that the Dow Chemical Company was fined $1.1 billion in 2013 in a fraudulent bribery case, so why was the company allowed to continue to engage in the IMS tender process?

Opposition Members have asked important and pertinent questions that deserve to be answered. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked me why this was happening. I think that there has been a deliberate turning of a blind eye. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) put his finger on it when he said that a company had operated illegally in his constituency, and that it was based in South Armagh. I have the same problem in my constituency. North Antrim could not be any further from South Armagh, but we have a fuel station that changes its name regularly to avoid tax, and regularly sells illicit fuels to unsuspecting motorists. Sometimes it changes its name to “Taxco”, just for a laugh, to rub the officials’ noses in it. On other occasions, it changes its name to “Taxnoco”. It looks like “Texaco”. The name is spelt like that deliberately to embarrass officialdom, and nothing is ever done about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim spelt out loud and clear the problem of pollution that was associated with this crime—the leaking of waste into our lakes and river courses. With the new Dow marker, that will no longer be a problem, because it is now evaporating from our fuel. In the words of Alan Bennett, the hypocrisy will continue.

I think that we deserve answers to those questions, because we have waited long enough. We have pushed this issue for five years—we have pushed it in the Select Committee—and we have expected answers, but, to date, we have been let down.

17:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on introducing the debate and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on his concluding comments. It has been an interesting and passionate debate and in my closing remarks I will endeavour to address the points that were made.

As we heard, serious and organised criminal groups do not operate in isolated pockets. We know, for instance, that they exploit the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As the motion reminds us, they are engaged in a range of crimes, including fuel smuggling, the supply of counterfeit medicines and electrical goods, and fraudulent trading in numerous products to evade VAT or make illegal repayment claims. VAT fraud associated with tobacco and alcohol has become more sophisticated and more multinational, and the internet has opened more opportunities for the criminals. The cost to the Treasury is substantial and the impact is felt in communities throughout Northern Ireland.

A number of hon. Members referred to the fact that these are not victimless crimes. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made that point explicitly, and they are right. The effect of fuel laundering, which has been a major part of the discussion, means that it is clearly not victimless. The hon. Member for Belfast East spoke about the impact on the vehicles of unsuspecting purchasers of illicit fuel. The impact on us all from the loss of that tax revenue means that we have less tax from which to pay for much-needed teachers, nurses and police officers. People purchasing that fuel are aiding and abetting the criminals. This is not victimless crime. The people involved in such criminality are not cheeky scoundrels. This is serious crime that is a threat to us all.

Our strategic approach needs to be tightly co-ordinated to counter that threat; otherwise, serious and organised criminals will exploit the gaps. We need to ensure that measures are in place relentlessly to disrupt serious and organised criminals, stop people getting involved in crime and strengthen our protection against the criminals. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly are doing exactly that. The launch in 2013 of the National Crime Agency and the serious and organised crime strategy represented a step change in our approach. The NCA and the 4 Ps strategy are already making a difference, leading to a more co-ordinated response across the whole United Kingdom. As a result, we have improved our understanding of the threat, strengthened co-operation with partners, invested in better capabilities and introduced important new legislation.

Implementation of the serious and organised crime strategy is consistent with the approach in Northern Ireland, where the Organised Crime Task Force enables law enforcement agencies to work alongside other Government bodies and the private sector to share knowledge and tackle organised crime in partnership and to deliver the objectives of Northern Ireland’s organised crime strategy for 2014-16. Leading the operational fight are the PSNI, HMRC and the National Crime Agency.

The NCA works closely with its partners to investigate the activities of organised criminal groups, including those involved in fuel smuggling, fuel laundering and the counterfeiting of consumer goods. The NCA is a key member of the OCTF in Northern Ireland, providing specialist knowledge, support and expertise. It continues to support the PSNI through the exchange of intelligence and information relating to Northern Ireland, including instances where the situation has required constabulary powers to be exercised. The NCA is undertaking civil recovery investigations in Northern Ireland, where fuel laundering and cigarette smuggling are believed to be the underlying criminality.

It is clear that fuel smuggling and laundering is a major problem in Northern Ireland. I was interested in many of the points that were raised, including the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East about criminals. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. This is a supply chain issue that the hon. Member for Foyle and I explored at length when we served together on the Committee considering the Modern Slavery Bill. He is right to commend the Bill for covering Northern Ireland where necessary, as does the remit of the commissioner. He made an interesting point about the impact on human trafficking and modern slavery. Sometimes we say that the criminality of organised crime groups lies in drugs trafficking, firearms trafficking or people trafficking, but in reality those groups are involved in all forms of criminality. That was brought home to us all by the dreadful case of the container in Tilbury docks with 35 Sikh people in it, including one who, sadly, died in transit. Part of the investigation of that incident involved a fuel laundering plant. That brings it home that this is not a victimless crime; it is a crime that affects us all, and those criminals are nasty people who want to harm us and are prepared to go to great lengths and hurt many people through different types of criminality to make money from organised crime.

We have heard from my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), that the Government have a comprehensive strategy in place to tackle fuel fraud and crime and it is working. HMRC’s latest figures indicate the illicit market share of diesel for Northern Ireland has fallen from 26% to 13%. Co-operation and intelligence sharing through the Organised Crime Task Force and the Cross Border Fuel Fraud Enforcement Group has been invaluable in tackling oil fraud, including fuel smuggling and laundering, and I remind the House that in 2013-14 HMRC dismantled 38 laundering plants, closed 79 huckster sites and seized over half a million litres of illicit fuel in Northern Ireland.

As has been said, a new fuel marker will come in on 1 April. Many Members, including the hon. Members for North Antrim, for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Belfast East and for Upper Bann (David Simpson)—and I am sure there were more—raised that point.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister refers to some of my party colleagues. My hon. Friends the Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mean no discourtesy to the Minister, whom I know they are very fond of, but they have had to leave the Chamber because of a meeting tomorrow morning with a Minister in Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister will appreciate that they had to catch their flight.

[Karen Bradley]

I appreciate that intervention, apart from anything else because I am not going to have to answer yet another question from those hon. Gentlemen, who gave me a significant number to try to address. I do understand completely the time pressures we all face, however.

I understand that HMRC is making sure it has the best and most appropriate roadside marker testing equipment, further to strengthen testing capability. From day one of the new marker implementation, its road fuel testing units will be able to use their existing battery of tests to identify suspicious samples, and I should repeat the point that this is not a replacement marker initially; this is a running-alongside marker with the existing marker, to ensure we have full evidence and information. I also understand that, in addition, HMRC expects to have ground-breaking roadside testing equipment by the summer.

The hon. Member for North Antrim made a number of points and I understand that HMRC has written to him on many of them, in particular the point about the new marker being easily laundered and that that can be done on a commercial scale. I urge him to provide details of any trials about which he believes HMRC may be unaware. It does want to review the report he has laid in the House, and it will respond to him. The Government will of course review the report as well, and HMRC has investigated whether this can be done on a large scale. The hon. Gentleman says he has seen the test to prove that that is the case. If he provides that evidence to HMRC, it will review the report and write to him, but the only large-scale test that we are aware has been undertaken, which was with 25,000 litres, fully supported HMRC’s conclusion that this is not easily translated to large-scale operations in the field. We do take these claims very seriously, however, and HMRC will look at any reports that the hon. Gentleman provides.

The hon. Member for South Antrim talked about the number of arrests and prosecutions for this crime. In the period 2011-14 there was a total of 56 arrests for fuel fraud, and 47 of them were in Northern Ireland, while just nine were in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have not, of course, yet got the full figures for 2014-15, but the latest information is that there were 25 arrests, 13 of which were in Northern Ireland and 12 in the rest of the UK. That shows that we take this crime very seriously, including in Northern Ireland.

Confiscation was also mentioned. In 2013-14, the last year for which we have figures, £113,001 was applied on confiscation orders relating to this type of crime, of which £113,000 related to confiscation orders in Northern Ireland, with only £1 relating to the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and I have enjoyed many debates on the topic of asset recovery, and we agree that we want to see more confiscation orders and more recovery. The Government take this issue seriously and progress is being made.

HMRC’s anti-smuggling strategy is effective, and we continuously adapt it to accommodate changes in criminal behaviour. Since it was first launched, we have reduced the illicit cigarette market by half and the illicit hand-rolling tobacco market by a third, but we all recognise that more can be done. The hon. Member for East Antrim contributed to yesterday’s debate on the order to bring the National Crime Agency into Northern Ireland. I want to put it on record that, in regard to the priorities for policing and the NCA in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Policing Board will agree the NCA annual plan. That will allow key crime types, which may include fuel laundering, to be prioritised for the NCA in Northern Ireland.

One of the blockages to having full support in Northern Ireland has been the limit to the NCA’s ability to provide support to HMRC and the PSNI in Northern Ireland. That related to the powers issue, and thankfully that issue is now resolved. Yesterday, we debated and approved in Committee here, and in another place, the draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015. The order will enable the NCA to operate with police powers in Northern Ireland from around the end of May. It puts in place accountability arrangements for the NCA that have been agreed with the Northern Ireland parties. It also extends civil recovery provisions and civil recovery investigation provisions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to Northern Ireland. This will increase activity and improve performance, alongside the efforts of other accredited financial investigators in Northern Ireland, such as the Serious Fraud Office, the PSNI and the Environment Agency. Perhaps that will answer the question from the hon. Member for Foyle about waste crime.

We are also strengthening the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act through the Serious Crime Act 2015. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and I served on the Committee that considered that legislation. Its provisions will make it harder for criminals to move, hide and use the proceeds of crime through the better enforcement of existing court orders and the better recovery of hidden assets overseas. These steps are important, as denying criminals the proceeds of crime is one of the most effective ways of disrupting their activities. We agree that, so far, not enough has been recovered, but with these enhanced powers, the NCA, working with law enforcement, will be able to recover more. I urge the courts to ensure that confiscation orders are applied whenever possible, and that compensation orders for victims are also put in place.

The hon. Member for Foyle also raised concerns about engagement with communities. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 that we approved yesterday provides that the Northern Ireland Policing Board must make arrangements for obtaining the co-operation of the public with the NCA in the prevention of crime. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, as part of the Justice Minister’s proposal paper, there will also be a requirement for NCA officers to have a duty to secure the support of, and to act in co-operation with, the local community. Additionally, the order provides that the NCA’s director general must obtain the Policing Board’s prior consent to the Northern Ireland aspects of the NCA’s annual plan.

Serious and organised criminal groups do not respect borders or force boundaries. The PSNI estimates that there are around 150 organised crime groups active in Northern Ireland. Nearly a third of those groups are assessed as having links to international criminality, and another third are linked to criminality in the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. HMRC operates across the UK as a whole, and the National Crime Agency has both national and international reach. They are working more closely than ever before with the PSNI and other partners to disrupt organised criminal groups undertaking fuel laundering and smuggling in Northern Ireland and to deny criminals the proceeds of that crime. As has been said, we will not oppose this motion, and I want to thank everybody for the debate. I look forward to Northern Ireland seeing the benefits of the NCA that the rest of the UK has benefited from since October 2013.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with concern the continued prevalence of serious organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland on a cross-border basis in relation to fuel smuggling, fuel laundering and the counterfeiting of consumer goods; recognises that this has had a significant and detrimental impact on HM Treasury; regrets the lack of prosecutions in relation to this activity; and calls on the Government to ensure greater co-operation between HM Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency and the PSNI so that this criminal activity can be eradicated.

Ark Pension Schemes

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

17:25

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I begin by expressing my personal gratitude to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting this important subject for an Adjournment debate this evening. The Ark pension schemes were put in place a few years ago to offer an apparently lawful method by which participants could realise a substantial proportion of their pension pot many years before the relevant retirement age. At the heart of these schemes was a structure called a “maximising pension value arrangement”—MPVA. That involved a pension reciprocation plan by which members could gain access to their pension capital prior to the minimum retirement age without, it was claimed by its promoters, breaching Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs rules. That was achieved by one of the schemes under the control of the trustees “loaning” funds to a member of another scheme under their control and, reciprocally, the same amount being “loaned” back to a member of the first scheme.

In a High Court judgment in December 2011 on the Ark schemes, Mr Justice Bean said that the arrangements, including the MPVA loans, were “beyond the scope” of the trustees’ powers. They were “made for ulterior motives” and were a

“fraud on the trustees’ powers.”

According to Mr Justice Bean, the Ark schemes in question had funds originally of approximately £25 million, with a total membership of at least 487 members. Those members were from across the United Kingdom, and their situation has been a matter of concern to many Members of this House. One of those scheme members, however, is my constituent. For reasons that are readily understandable, he does not wish to be publicly identified, so although I have provided the Minister with his full details in confidence, in this debate I will refer to him simply as Mr Smith.

Mr Smith is in his late 40s. At 18, he showed rather more foresight than is usual for people of that age and took out membership of a private pension scheme, initially with Britannic Assurance but this was later transferred to Standard Life. After almost a quarter of a century paying into the scheme, he decided in 2008 to stop paying his monthly instalments, which had latterly been about £300 per month. The earliest payout date under the scheme was 2022, at age 55. The total pension pot—the fund—was valued at £122,000 in 2011. Mr Smith had for almost the whole of his working life been employed in a specialist sector of the building supplies industry, as a salesman, and had been employed by the same company for 23 years. However, as one of the many consequences of the 2008 world financial crisis, that company went into liquidation in 2010, and his job with it was no more. He found employment with another firm in the same sector, but by February 2011 it became apparent to Mr Smith that because of trading conditions he was likely to be made redundant from that firm, too.

Given that uncertainty, compounded by his age, Mr Smith thought that the best thing he could do was to set up a shop in the sector and work for himself. On the internet, he saw an advertisement that promised that he could “release 50%” of his “pension tax free”. The scheme claimed to be

“registered with HMRC, and the Pension Regulator”.

It was under the name of “Ark” pensions, with Minerva and Athena as trustees. Ark claimed around that time that

“both HMRC and the FSA”—

the Financial Services Authority, as was—

“have conducted detailed enquiries (with the full cooperation of Ark) but neither has seen fit to take any action”.

Ark also claimed that the schemes were lawful and that it had been advised so by leading counsel.

Mr Smith decided to participate in the Ark scheme. He duly completed all the application forms, and transferred the whole of his pension pot of £122,000 from Standard Life to Ark. His wife also transferred her smaller pension pot of £20,000 to Ark. The issues raised by her case are the same, so for simplicity’s sake I shall concentrate on Mr Smith’s position in this debate.

On 20 April 2011, Mr Smith received from Ark a cheque for £58,725—50% of his pot, less a 5% charge and other charges levied by Ark. Two weeks later, on 6 May 2011, Mr Smith, as he had anticipated, was made redundant for the second time in less than a year. Three weeks after that, on 31 May 2011, the Pensions Regulator decided to impose independent trustees, Dalriada, in place of those operating the Ark schemes, owing to

“concerns over the behaviour of the previous trustees.”

Fourteen days later, on 14 June 2011, Dalriada wrote to all Ark members, including my constituent Mr Smith, to say that they had been advised by leading counsel that there was a “strong possibility” that the MPVA arrangements by Ark were void. Dalriada said:

“This would mean that the arrangements would not be recognised as ever having taken effect.”

The subsequent court action between Dalriada and the original Ark trustees resulted in the judgment of Mr Justice Bean, to which I have already referred, declaring that, as Dalriada had anticipated, the MPVA arrangements were indeed void. The judgment has not been appealed, and therefore stands.

As soon as Mr Smith had had a chance to digest the implications of both the Pensions Regulator’s decision to impose different trustees and the High Court decision, he took the initiative and asked his accountant to contact HMRC about his likely liability to pay tax on the £58,000 received from Ark pensions in April 2011. In a letter to me on 24 February 2014, the chief executive of HMRC, Lin Homer, said:

“Mr [Smith] ... cooperated throughout the process.... and in January 2014 he made the decision to make a payment”

to HMRC

“on account in the sum of £32,300.”

This sum is currently held on Mr Smith's self-assessment account, and to date HMRC has not raised an assessment about it.

Over the past few years, I have come to know Mr Smith very well. He is a thoroughly decent, honourable man. He is expert in his own field of work, but not in pension law. He was led to believe that this MPVA method of releasing funds early from his pension account was entirely lawful. Mr Smith now finds himself in limbo.

I hope that in this short debate the Minister can clarify what the future holds for Mr Smith and other members of the Ark schemes. What Mr Smith most wants is to be put back to the status quo ante. In other words, he refunds the total of what he has received from Ark—£58,000—and it is invested by respectable trustees in the usual way, and the benefits of his pension pot then become available to him, in the usual way, from the age of 55. Of that sum, £26,000 would be paid direct by him, and the other £32,300, which is currently held in a suspense account by HMRC, would be paid by HMRC to the new trustees. That seems to be entirely consistent with the statement of the new trustees, Dalriada, that if, as indeed happened, the MPVA arrangements were declared void, then they would

“not be recognised as ever having taken effect.”

My first and key question to the Minister is therefore this: can what Mr Smith is seeking happen, and if not—with respect—why not? Mr Smith fears that he may end up being the subject of a double whammy: first, he will have to pay the £32,000 in tax on the moneys released; and secondly, he will then find that the £61,000—the 50%—that was left in his pension pot under the arrangement is considerably reduced in value because of poor decisions by the Ark trustees, even though they had control of his moneys for less than six weeks. As I have already mentioned, HMRC has yet formally to raise an assessment against Mr Smith, so my second question to the Minister is this: are Mr Smith’s fears justified, and when is HMRC likely to decide whether or not to require the payment of the £32,300 held in the suspense account against a tax liability?

My third question builds on the second. Mr Smith fears that a considerable part of his outstanding pension pot will be absorbed by fees and legal costs incurred by the new Dalriada trustees. Are those rational fears?

My fourth and final set of questions relates to the assertion that Ark claimed its scheme was

“registered with HMRC and the Pensions Regulator”.

Are those claims correct? If they are, does that not imply that some responsibility for what has happened to individuals such as Mr Smith, who were acting in good faith, must lie with HMRC and the Pensions Regulator? If Ark’s claims are not correct—they were claims that my constituent and, I suspect, every other person who became a member of the schemes relied on—and they were fraudulent, what civil and criminal action is being taken against those responsible?

In short, it seems to me that my constituent has been the innocent victim of an elaborate and sophisticated arrangement designed to evade our pension laws. I have no sympathy for the architects of the scam or for those advising them. I have every sympathy for Mr Smith and his wife, and indeed for others in the same situation. I very much hope that the Minister does too and that he can offer the couple some better hope for their future.

17:37

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on securing the debate and on setting out his case so clearly and with such forensic skill, which has been a characteristic of his role as a Member of Parliament for some 36 years.

As the right hon. Gentleman outlined, the Ark pension schemes are a number of schemes that were administered by Ark Business Consulting. The schemes operated a pensions reciprocation plan that involved loans being paid between schemes and their respective members. That was on the basis that members could access a proportion of their pension savings without breaching tax rules intended to ensure that members access their tax-relieved pension savings only from age 55, under a practice known as pension liberation.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of concerns about the tax implications for individuals involved in the schemes. It might help if I set out the tax rules in a little more detail before turning to the particular points he raised. Tax relief is provided on pensions savings with the expectation that the funds are used by the member to provide benefits later in life. The tax rules therefore set out the various payments that a pension scheme is authorised to make to, or on behalf of, a member. They include payments of authorised benefits—pensions and lump sums—as well as such payments as transfers to another registered pension scheme. To be an authorised payment, these benefits cannot be paid before the minimum pension age, currently 55.

Where payments are made that are not authorised, they are classed as “unauthorised payments” and are subject to certain tax charges. These charges are intended to recover the tax relief previously given on the savings, as they have not been used as intended by the tax rules. Where savings are taken before age 55, this is an “unauthorised payment” and tax charges will apply. A loan made to a member from a registered pension in connection with their pension savings is also an “unauthorised payment”. This guarantees fairness to the taxpayer and ensures that pensions are not simply used as a tax-efficient savings tool. HMRC is looking into whether the payments made to the members of the Ark schemes are authorised by the tax rules.

The tax position in relation to the Ark pension schemes is by no means straightforward. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, if the loans are repaid, they can be treated for tax purposes as though they had never happened. That is not the case, as loans are “payments” for the purposes of the tax legislation under consideration, whether or not they are repaid. He asked why we cannot return to the status quo ante. To do otherwise than treat loans as “payments” would enable people to withdraw funds early from their pension pots without any tax implications, and then return them to their pension pots at some point in the future if they so wished, with no consequences. Clearly, we do not want to encourage that type of speculative behaviour. The rules essentially comply with the principles that have been in place since tax relief was introduced many years ago.

[Mr Straw]

Of course I accept, as does, I think, everyone in this House, that if we are going to have arrangements by which people are able to save up for their retirement and to gain tax advantages in doing so, we cannot, in principle, have a situation where, in advance of their retirement age, they can simply pick and choose what they take out of the scheme, or not. However, does the Minister recognise the inequity of the fact that my constituent, who has acted in good faith, has been the victim of circumstances where he believed that what was happening was lawful—as indeed, at the time, it was—and accept that, in the special circumstances in which he finds himself, arrangements ought to be made by which he can return to the status quo ante, because otherwise he will suffer a huge penalty for no benefit?

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman puts his constituent’s case very well. In the situation as he describes it, it is hard not to be sympathetic to an individual placed in that position. However, the law is very clear that a loan payment of this sort constitutes a “payment”, and certain consequences follow. I take his point, and this may well be a hard case. The challenge arises if we have a situation whereby people are able at least to attempt to access some of their pension pot, and then subsequently find, for one reason or another, that that was not the right thing to do. However, simply putting them in the position they were in to begin with is, to use a snooker term, a bit of a shot to nothing. Although this might be unfair—I am sure that it is—on the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent, others who are acting in not quite such a degree of good faith might attempt to liberate, as it were, their pension in the hope that it does not get picked up, and in the knowledge that if it does, they are in no worse a situation. That is one of the challenges that a Government of any description would face, and that is why the law in this area has been tightly drawn for many years.

In the right hon. Gentleman’s second question, he asked when the matter might be settled so that he could provide some certainty for his constituent. I fear that I cannot provide such certainty about when the tax position will be settled. This is a complex case, and it may ultimately be for the tax tribunal to determine the correct tax position. Until that has been determined, it will not be possible for HMRC to settle the specific case, and that timetable is not within the control of HMRC. I have asked HMRC when it anticipates dealing with this case, but given that it will have to go to a tribunal, HMRC is not willing to provide a precise date.

The Government have a duty, not least to the taxpayer, to apply the legislation fairly and consistently in line with statutory provisions. Where a liability to tax arises, the normal rules in relation to interest accruing on any outstanding tax charge apply. Existing arrangements that allow individuals to get more time to pay or to pay their tax bill in instalments will be available to help those who want to use them.

On the specific case, in May 2011, the Pensions Regulator decided to appoint Dalriada Trustees Ltd as the independent trustee of the Ark pension schemes. It did so because it was satisfied that the interests of scheme members were at risk due to the schemes being used for pension liberation. Under trust law, Dalriada has a duty to act in the best interests of the members. I am sure that it will seek to locate as much of the scheme’s funds as possible, and to recover assets wherever it is reasonable and proportionate to do so, bearing in mind that the standard practice is for the costs of investigating and recovering assets to be met from member funds.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s third question, there are responsibilities on Dalriada as the trustee to ensure that its actions are proportionate and that the pension funds of Ark members are not frittered away. None the less, it faces a challenge in recovering the assets. I suspect that Dalriada as the trustee is better placed to give an estimate of the risks of legal costs substantially diminishing the pension pot in the Ark scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman has raised the concern that Ark scheme members entered the arrangements in good faith. As I have mentioned, Dalriada was appointed because the schemes were suspected of being involved in pension liberation. He will doubtless be aware that pension liberation is a threat to individuals’ hard-earned pensions savings. It occurs where a scheme is set up to enable someone to access their pensions savings early—usually before age 55. Scheme promoters often fail to tell people about the tax consequences of accessing their pension savings early, and promoters often charge high fees. In some cases, people are promised cash if they invest their pension funds in esoteric investments, on which a high return is promised, and people unfortunately often lose all their pension savings in those cases.

Some products claim to unlock, liberate or provide early access to pension savings without giving rise to tax charges. That is not true: anyone receiving money from their pension scheme before the age of 55 will normally be subject to tax charges aimed at recovering tax reliefs. It is therefore vital for individuals to recognise the danger of entering into such schemes. If they choose to access their pensions savings early, they need to be aware of the tax charges and risks. HMRC is continuing to take action in pursuit of those who deliberately bend or break the rules by offering schemes to liberate pensions savings. That is part of a continuous strategy to combat pension liberation, as is the ongoing review of pension tax legislation. The Government will not hesitate to make further changes if necessary.

[Mr Straw]

It may be that the Minister is coming to my fourth question, but I would be grateful to know whether it is correct, as my constituent claims, that Ark held out that it was regulated by HMRC and the Pensions Regulator. If that is correct, does he believe that any responsibility for the fact that the scheme was advertised in that way rests with those two regulators?

[Mr Gauke]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I will turn to his fourth question in a moment, but before I do I hope it will be helpful if I first say a little more about what HMRC is doing in this area, and then I will deal with his question directly.

In addition to the measures I have mentioned, HMRC has been working extremely closely with partner agencies—the Pensions Regulator, the Financial Services Authority and the Serious Fraud Office—to detect, disrupt and deter promoters, and to warn people of the dangers of entering into these schemes. Although HMRC and its partners are taking action to raise awareness of potential threats, the Ark case highlights the need for people to be on their guard against promises of tax loopholes, offers of unrealistic investment returns, or other dubious advice linked to their pension pot or cash lump sums. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Individuals need to consider carefully what is on offer and whether it is appropriate to their circumstances, and ensure they have carried out sufficient due diligence, taking professional advice as they deem necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the Ark pension schemes were registered with HMRC, and I confirm that they were. As he will appreciate, it is difficult to know at the point an application for registration is received whether any particular pension scheme will ultimately be misused, but that is not to say that the Government should be complacent. Changes have recently been made to the process for registering a new pension scheme with HMRC to make the system more robust and disrupt any fraudulent intentions.

Legislation in last year’s Finance Act provided greater powers to check that pension schemes are being set up for the genuine provision of retirement benefits, and to impose penalties where wrongdoing is identified. That includes a “fit and proper person” test for those running the pension schemes applying for registration. Essentially, these changes provide stronger powers for existing pension schemes to be deregistered, or for new schemes to be refused registration where there are concerns.

HMRC’s role is to ensure that the tax system is being complied with. It is not there to perform a role of consumer protection, but to ensure that pensions are not liberated, and we have made a number of changes in recent months to strengthen its powers in that area. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate I cannot discuss individual cases, but I assure him that HMRC continues to ensure that the tax rules are applied fairly and consistently, that it will continue to pursue those behind pension liberation schemes, and that the British taxpayer continues to get a fair deal.

Question put and agreed to.

17:53

House adjourned.

Division 174

Ayes: 367

---

Labour: 192
Conservative: 122
Liberal Democrat: 37
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 113

---

Conservative: 103
Labour: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
UK Independence Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 March 2015

[Annette Brooke in the Chair]

Russian Membership of the Council of Europe

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I think this is the first time I have had that privilege and I fear that it might be the last, because of your impending retirement.

This is a great opportunity to discuss the importance of the Council of Europe and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am delighted to see a number of my colleagues from the Parliamentary Assembly here today, along with the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), who was a long-serving member of the Assembly until he retired at the beginning of this year after some 18 years’ service.

The statute of the Council of Europe was agreed in London on 5 May 1949. There were 10 founding members. Today, 47 countries belong to it, and Russia is one of those, having joined in 1996. All have signed up to the aims of the Council as set out in chapter I, article 1(a), which provides:

“The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals… which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.”

Article 3 of the statute provides:

“Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.”

If one recites the text of article 3 and sets that against the recent actions of the Russian Federation, the question immediately arises of what sanctions there are against members that are in breach or violation of article 3. The answer is contained in article 8:

“Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of representation and requested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw under Article 7. If such member does not comply with this request, the Committee may decide that it has ceased to be a member of the Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.”

My first question for my right hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am delighted to see is responding to the debate, is, has the Russian Federation seriously violated article 3 of the statute? My view is that it certainly has, which I think is a view shared by all 18 members of the UK delegation and the 18 substitute members.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

What the hon. Gentleman is describing could have been the case on at least five previous occasions, but it would appear that this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, certainly as far as the UK delegation is concerned. We could have had this over South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, the human rights issues relating to the death penalty and so on. All those have come up one time after another, so why now?

[Mr Chope]

I will go on to explain exactly why. It is not just the view of all the UK delegation’s members that the Russian Federation has seriously violated article 3; it is also the view of a substantial majority of the Parliamentary Assembly, as evidenced by the decision in January this year to impose sanctions against representatives of Russia, and of the European Conservatives group in the Assembly, which I have the privilege of chairing. It also must be the opinion of the Committee of Ministers, which has made various declarations calling on the Russian Federation to do this, that and the other, all of which have been ignored.

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I confirm that that is also the view of the majority of the Socialist group in the Council of Europe.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. I know that within the Socialist group, strong, differing views have been expressed, but the UK delegation in the Socialist group has been solidly supporting the notion that we must have application of the rules of law to the Russian Federation’s membership of the Council of Europe.

What has the Russian Federation done to put itself in fundamental breach of its obligations? First, it has illegally annexed the territory of another member country of the Council of Europe through the use of armed aggression. To make that worse, its President this week finally admitted that he ordered that annexation, and that there was no free will involved on the part of those living in Crimea. However, as recently as January this year, Mr Putin’s poodles in the Russian state Duma were trying to equate Crimea’s referendum with that the one that took place in Scotland last year and to say that the annexation was equivalent to the Federal Republic of Germany’s annexation of East Germany in 1989.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South asked what is new, and I have here an article from a Russian newspaper, dated 28 January 2015, with the headline “Russian lawmakers to consider declaration on 1989 ‘annexation of East Germany’”. It states:

“Sergei Naryshkin, the speaker of Russia’s lower house of parliament, has asked the parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs to look into the possibility of adopting a declaration which denounces the reunification of Germany in 1989”.

He goes on to say that the Parliamentary Assembly’s reference to the events in Crimea was unlawful and that

“‘97% of Crimean residents voted for reunification with their motherland’”.

The article continues:

“Following the logic of those who call this historical event an annexation, the Federal Republic of Germany annexed East Germany, Naryshkin stated.”

We now know, from Putin’s words a year later, that he ordered that, so all the subsequent bluff and bluster were lies, as we knew they were at the time, and as most of us on the Parliamentary Assembly realised.

The second thing that I hold against the Russian Federation is that it has deployed Russian troops across the border in eastern Ukraine who have used and continued to use heavy weapons against the Ukrainian people. I ask the hon. Gentleman, is that not enough?

Thirdly, Russia has brazenly defied the rule of law by harbouring Andrei Lugovoy, one of its own MPs, who was involved in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. As has become clear at the public inquiry currently taking place, Lugovoy achieved a score of minus 2 when asked during a polygraph test in Moscow in April 2012 whether he had handled polonium, yet at the time Russia claimed that the test had emphatically established his innocence. To add insult to injury, on Monday this week, President Putin awarded a state honour to Mr Lugovoy for what was described as “services to the fatherland”. That is putting the proverbial two fingers up to all the other members of the Council of Europe. What are those members doing in response?

The fourth charge that I levy against the Russian Federation is that it has refused to honour its obligations under international law to release from custody Nadiya Savchenko, who was an elected Member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. She was illegally abducted from Ukraine last July.

Then there is the Magnitsky case. That is a case of the Russians exercising impunity in relation to the killers of Sergei Magnitsky. A recently published book by Bill Browder, “Red Notice: How I Became Putin’s No. 1 Enemy”, is, according to the inside cover,

“a searing exposé of the wholesale whitewash by Russian authorities of Magnitsky’s imprisonment and murder, slicing deep into the shadowy heart of the Kremlin to uncover its sordid truths… With fraud, bribery, corruption and torture exposed at every turn, Red Notice is a shocking but true political roller-coaster that plays out in the highest echelons of Western power.”

On the back of the book, which, not surprisingly, has been banned in Russia, there is a quote from Bill Browder:

“I have to assume that there is a very real chance that Putin or members of his regime will have me killed some day… If I’m killed, you will know who did it.”

That is, sadly, rather reminiscent of what Boris Nemtsov’s mother said before his assassination in Russia last month.

In addition to all that, there have been multiple breaches of the accession document that Russia signed when it joined the Council of Europe. As Russia is still in deliberate breach of its obligations under article 3, why is nothing being done by the United Kingdom Government to trigger action against Russia under article 8? Indeed, one might ask what the purpose is of belonging to an organisation that manifestly shows so little respect for the values espoused in its founding statute.

There are precedents for suspension or expulsion from international organisations, and I want to touch on what happens in the Commonwealth. On Monday, Her Majesty the Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, attended the annual service at Westminster abbey, and her message for Commonwealth day was that the organisation’s values are

“more important and worthy of protection than perhaps at any other time in the Commonwealth’s existence.”

The same is true of the values of the Council of Europe. The principles of the Commonwealth were set out in the Singapore declaration of 1971 and restated in the Harare declaration of 1991. In essence, they talk about peace, democracy, liberty and the rule of law.

Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth in 1995 for breaching the Commonwealth principles. It was reinstated in 1999, when it had a democratically elected President. Fiji was suspended in September 2009 for being in breach of the principles and is still suspended. Indeed, I think it has now left the organisation. Zimbabwe was suspended in March 2002. That resulted in its leaving the Commonwealth in December 2003. There are well established precedents for exercising the power of suspension from an international organisation when a member of that organisation is manifestly in breach of the principles.

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

I have a word of caution for my hon. Friend, who is making a very powerful and correct point. I am a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and one problem that we have had is that we are losing countries from the CPA because of the problems that we are facing. Australia is an obvious one. The problem in this case is that we may split the Council of Europe if we are not careful. The idea that my hon. Friend is putting forward is absolutely right—we have to have sanctions—but we do not want a polarised Council of Europe, in which countries feel that they are so bullied by Russia that they cannot continue to be within the Council of Europe. Does he see that that may be a problem, rather like what the Commonwealth has been facing over the last 20 years with the countries that we have had to suspend?

[Mr Chope]

There may be parallels. I defer to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of what happens in the Commonwealth. However, if we and the other founding members of the Council of Europe do not stand up for our belief in the principles of the Council of Europe, we make things much more difficult for other countries, particularly those that were formerly in eastern Europe and part of the Soviet bloc. It is much more difficult for them to try to comply with the principles of the Council of Europe if they can see that the bully boy next-door to them is being treated with impunity, which is exactly what is happening with Russia at the moment. We could send a very strong message if we took effective action and used sanctions against Russia. We would be sending a message to those other countries that we were on their side and would help them to stand up against their bully-boy neighbour.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I am curious to know why the Conservative group stayed in the same group as the Russians for so long if it felt so strongly about Russian abuses that have gone on for the past 18 years or so.

[Mr Chope]

The answer to that is that the abuses that I have been describing have not been going on for the last 18 years or so. What has happened is that things have got very much worse within the last year. That is why the European Democrat group, as it then was, decided to take sanctions against the Russians, as members of that group, for being in manifest breach of the Council of Europe. What was the straw that broke the camel’s back in that respect? It was the motion, passed in the Russian Duma by elected members of the Parliamentary Assembly from Russia, supporting the illegal annexation of Crimea. It was not a situation, as sometimes happens in the Parliamentary Assembly—this has happened with the hon. Gentleman and to an extent with myself—in which we as elected members say that we are not necessarily four-square supporting our Government but are standing up for the values of the Council of Europe against our Government. What happened in that case was that the members of the Russian Federation delegation and members in the European Democrat group were actively undermining the principles of the Council of Europe and actively engaged in supporting the illegal annexation of Crimea and were thereby breaching the principle that the Council of Europe stands for the territorial integrity of all its member countries. That is the short history.

[Mr Hancock]

But not Georgia.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman takes us back to what happened in relation to Georgia. He may recall that at that time there was a Labour Government in this country and one of the first international statesmen who spoke out in support of Georgia was none other than our present Prime Minister, so I do not think that we can be criticised for being slopy-shouldered in relation to what happened in Georgia. That was part of a continuing scenario. When it comes down to it, we have to face the fact that in Mr Putin we are dealing with a dictator and a tyrant. That is the scenario. In the same way, we have been dealing with a dictator and a tyrant in Zimbabwe. Eventually, patience ran out and Zimbabwe was expelled from the Commonwealth. It was not expelled immediately, because everyone was using the same arguments as are now being used in relation to Russia: “Isn’t jaw-jaw better than any alternative?” However, there comes a time when, if someone continues to be in complete defiance of the principles, we need to take, in my view, the only sanction that is available under the rules.

We are already in danger of being accused of double standards. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) chaired the Joint Committee on the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muiznieks, wrote to him on 10 October 2013:

“Thus, my message is clear: the Court’s judgments”—

Mr Muiznieks was referring to the European Court of Human Rights—

“have to be executed and the automatic and indiscriminate ban on voting rights for prisoners should be repealed. If the Court system is to continue to provide protection, there is no alternative to this for member states, other than leaving the system itself.”

He goes on to say:

“I think that any member state should withdraw from the Council of Europe rather than defy the Court by not executing judgments.”

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, until recently, the committee on legal affairs and human rights of the Council of Europe had for some time seen Russia engaging more, explaining its views about judgments and following up on some of them? That seemed quite encouraging, so it is a great pity that we have got into the current situation. Would it not be best for the Russians to follow the ceasefire agreement and find an honourable peace in Ukraine, so that the progress that has been made could resume?

[Mr Chope]

Of course it would be, but the point that I am making, and the reason why I have secured the debate, is that everything suggests that the reverse is true. In relation to the Court judgments, on 13 December 2013 President Putin praised the Russian Constitutional Court for upholding the Russian constitution by effectively stating that the Constitutional Court’s authority was superior to that of the European Court of Human Rights. As a result of that, did the Commissioner for Human Rights tell Russia that it should withdraw from the Council of Europe, as he told my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that the UK should do? No, he did not. Has the commissioner said anything similar about the various actions that Russia has taken in defiance of its obligations under the statute? No, he has not, and that is where the double standards come in.

We are being told that, because of our failure to implement an interpretation of the European convention on human rights which is in breach of the original terms of the convention—originally, it was clear that they did not apply to prisoner voting, but the interpretation has been extended—the United Kingdom should expel itself from the Council of Europe. Meanwhile, the commissioner has not said anything to the Russians about their membership.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am following the trend of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I am slightly unclear about whether he is against Russia, against the Council of Europe, or against our engagement with either.

[Mr Chope]

I am very much in favour of engagement, but only with those who want to engage on the same page, if I may put it in such a way. My concern is that the Russians are not showing any willingness to do so. If we believe that there has been a fundamental breach of the statute, as I have set out, and if that is allowed to happen with impunity, it brings into question the whole purpose of this international organisation. What is the point of belonging to it? That is the question to which I hope we will get an answer from the Minister.

[Mr Spellar]

We are a member of the United Nations, in which there is a huge range of opinions, democracy and practices. How does the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument follow?

[Mr Chope]

The Council of Europe is different from the United Nations, and the statute spells out that it is separate from the United Nations. The Council of Europe covers only Europe—European values and principles. I would be concerned if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to be an apologist for the Russian Federation, although I do not believe that he does. Until now, cross-party concern has been expressed in the House about the behaviour of the Russian Federation. If we are prepared to take economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, why should we not take the sanctions that are available to us under the Council of Europe statute? The answer may be because certain other members of the Council of Europe are too frightened to want to join in, but my answer to them is that the United Kingdom has traditionally taken a lead in such things. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his response to the debate, will say that we are taking a lead and explain what we will do.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about engaging with people. Does he agree that we should encourage engagement with the sections of Russian society that have taken a stand against Putin, and that we should ensure that they have a voice not only in the Council of Europe but across the globe?

[Mr Chope]

I agree, but how best can we do that? That is a question of judgment. I have heard it said, for example, that we must keep Russia in the Council of Europe because if we do not, it will reinstate the death penalty. In fact, however, we can see from recent events that the Russian Government exercise an extrajudicial death penalty by murdering enemies of the state in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Do we tolerate such behaviour because we are fearful that Russia might reintroduce a judicial death penalty instead of the extrajudicial death penalty that is currently handed out by the President?

The extent to which we should impose sanctions is an eternal dilemma. Just as public opinion in this country is influenced by international events, if we took a firmer line against Russia on its human rights record and its breaches of the rules of the Council of Europe, we would support those in Russia who are trying to fight against the system. I know from having had the privilege of talking to Bill Browder that he also believes that it is better to try to sanction the regime in Russia than to continue to indulge it.

09:57

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We owe a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for securing the debate, because it encourages a useful exchange of views. He is the most distinguished leader of the European Conservatives Group on the Council of Europe. He has devoted himself body and soul to working on the Council in an often unsung role, and we are grateful to him. We all understand the depth of his feeling, and we can understand why he advances the argument that we should now expel Russia from the Council of Europe. I am sorry to say that I disagree with that argument. So far, Russia has behaved in an utterly lamentable fashion, and the Council of Europe has decided effectively to suspend it. In theory, Russia can turn up, but in practice it does not. It does not vote or speak.

Taking the next dramatic step of expelling Russia would be a mistake because, although my hon. Friend will not agree, as long as Russia is involved in the Council of Europe, whether on the death penalty, human rights or its position with regard to other countries, there is some sort of link and encouragement for it to make progress along the road of human rights.

Why was the Council of Europe set up? It is a very different organisation from the European Union. As my hon. Friend said, we are one of the creators of the Council of Europe. He referred to the famous remark of Winston Churchill in 1954:

“To jaw-jaw is…better than to war-war.”

That is what the Council of Europe is all about. I view it not as an executive body like the European Union; I view it as an inter-parliamentary assembly. I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and one of the Council of Europe’s values is that we recognise that our powers are extremely limited—in fact, they are virtually non-existent, with the exception of voting for judges on the European Court of Human Rights—but it is an opportunity to meet Members of Parliaments from across Europe to exchange views. That is what the Council of Europe is: it is an inter-parliamentary assembly.

Article 1 of the statute of the Council of Europe states that its purpose is

“to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.”

As long as Russia is, albeit suspended, a member of the Council of Europe, we can hope to press it to mend its ways. Expelling Russia would be a considerable step. My hon. Friend mentioned suspended members of the Commonwealth, but it has been a rare step to expel countries from the Commonwealth—South Africa might have been expelled, and it might even have expelled itself in the early years of apartheid—and expelling a member of the Council of Europe would be a dangerous precedent, particularly in our vulnerable situation, as has already been mentioned.

As I understand it, in our Conservative party manifesto, we will proclaim the supremacy of Parliament. We will proclaim that, if our Parliament votes for a particular position, such as on prisoner voting rights, the Court cannot gainsay it. If there is a Conservative Government and if we pass such an Act of Parliament, there will undoubtedly be a move from some of our friends in Europe to expel us, but I am pretty sure that we will not be expelled. It is pretty foolish for us to set a precedent by now expelling Russia.

What Russia is doing by invading a sovereign country, its neighbour, is infinitely more egregious, more damaging to human rights and more lamentable in every respect than our will and desire to proclaim the supremacy of Parliament—I recognise that—but we have a problem, have we not? As some people will articulate, we have signed various conventions and, in a very real sense, the European Court of Human Rights is a supreme court, an ultimate authority of laws. Although we will undoubtedly want to stay in the Council of Europe—my right hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that—despite proclaiming the supremacy of Parliament, we will be in some difficulty. It is not entirely useful for us to set a precedent.

[Mr Chope]

Article 8 outlines a two-stage process. The first stage states:

“Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of representation”.

That is what I am suggesting as a first stage. Article 8 goes on to say what can happen afterwards. My hon. Friend says that expulsion would be a very strong sanction, but my suggestion is that we should start off with suspension, using the powers under article 8.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I argue with the position that we effectively have at the moment. Russia might not be formally suspended, but it is effectively suspended, which is a sort of halfway house. We are rapping its knuckles. If he is now saying that under no circumstances does he wish to expel Russia and that he does not view this as a process towards expelling Russia, I am sorry that I misunderstood his arguments. I am in favour of giving a message to Russia, but I am not in favour of expelling Russia. If he wants to make it clear that he is also not in favour of expelling Russia, I will happily give way.

[Mr Chope]

There are two separate issues: the Russian delegation’s membership of the Parliamentary Assembly and Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe as a country. I am saying that article 8 should be applied on that latter point. I am not talking about the situation within the Parliamentary Assembly, which has already been well rehearsed. I am talking about the Government’s responsibility to do something under article 8.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We now understand each other perfectly. I tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. We have taken the right, measured steps within the Parliamentary Assembly. The process of suspension may result in expulsion, and there should be no route towards suspending or expelling Russia from the Council of Europe. I think we have done the right thing.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing to bear in mind is that the European Court of Human Rights is extensively used by citizens of Russia and human rights defenders who want justice? They find justice in the Court when they do not necessarily find it in Russia itself. Equally, Russia benefits from bodies such as the Group of States against Corruption, which is trying to improve standards across Europe. Pulling the rug from under Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe as a whole, or putting its membership at risk, would have damaging effects.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree entirely. I was thinking of intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch when he introduced this debate. Has he been in touch with non-governmental organisations across Russia? Has he been in touch with people who are appealing to the Court, as my hon. and learned Friend said? My understanding—the Minister can confirm this or otherwise—is that the Council of Europe is valued by some people in Russia. They still have the right to go to the Court, and starting a process to expel Russia from the Council of Europe and denying those people the right to appeal to the Court would be dangerous.

Time is running by, and we do not want to get bogged down on the invasion of Ukraine. I am not pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian. All I seek is to understand the mentality of the Russian people and the Russian Government, and that is part of the importance of sitting on a body such as the Council of Europe. Seeking to understand our opponent’s position does not necessarily mean that we agree with that position. It belittles and over-simplifies the debate to say that, because the current President of Russia, Mr Putin, is a tyrant—he may well be a tyrant and an extremely unpleasant person—this is somehow all his doing and that, if we in Britain were to apply certain pressures on him such as starting the process of expelling his country from the Council of Europe, we would somehow influence him.

We have to understand the attitude of many people in Crimea, eastern Ukraine and Russia. Thirty-four of the Council of Europe’s 47 member states have recognised the forcible division of Serbia after Kosovo proclaimed its independence. That is often cited, and it was directly cited by the Crimean Parliament when it voted to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. It blames us for double standards on Serbia, and it asks us, “Where were you, Britain, and what debates were there in the House of Commons, when Khrushchev forcibly, by diktat, removed Crimea from Russia and gave it to Ukraine in the 1950s?”

I do not want to comment on whether this is right or wrong, but there is a substantial body of opinion—a majority opinion—in Crimea and Russia that thinks that the people of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, who are ethnic Russians and Russian speakers, have a right to self-determination. We can have as many debates as we like, we can pose as many sanctions as we want and we can criticise Mr Putin as often as we like, but we are up against the absolute, convinced opinion of an overwhelming majority of Russian people, who think that the people of eastern Ukraine have a right to self-determination.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend extend the same argument to the Russian minorities in the Baltic states—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am simply seeking to understand the Russian point of view. There is a difficulty with Latvia, because there are 300,000 ethnic Russian speakers in that country who are effectively denied their human rights. I am not going to get involved in a debate about whether that is bad or good, but my hon. Friend is right to say that it is often talked about in Russia. It is a real problem. However, there is a difference, because Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are members of NATO. We decided to draw them into NATO, so we are bound by article 5 to defend them.

I must end in a moment, because I do not want to weary the House by speaking for too long. I believe—I have said this before and I will say it again—that Great Britain has an historic role. There is no history between us and Russia, so we are natural arbiters. We were allies in the two greatest conflicts of the 20th century, and in many ways we are natural allies. There is a way out of this impasse.

I spent an hour with the Russian ambassador recently, and I asked his opinion. Hon. Members may say that he is just another diplomat sent abroad to lie for his country. I did not believe everything that he told me, but he said that Russia’s position—take it or leave it, but it is not completely unreasonable, and it is the basis for some sort of negotiated peace—is that Ukraine should not join NATO. Apparently, we have no desire for Ukraine to join NATO. The Russians claim that they are reasonably relaxed about Ukraine’s moving further towards the European Union, but they would like that to be balanced with corresponding trade agreements with Russia, which is a perfectly reasonable position. They recognise that eastern Ukraine should remain part of the sovereign state of Ukraine, which should have self-determination. Those three points of view are not completely unreasonable; they are the basis for peace.

I believe strongly that we should keep Russia in the Council of Europe and that we should go on talking to it. We should seek a solution based on peace; otherwise, we will be in a situation of war without end. The Russian people, who suffered terribly during the 20th century, will not give up on this issue. It is not of massive strategic concern to the British people, although we have an interest and a role to play as an arbiter. I believe that we should go on playing the role of arbiter and be a proponent of peace in the Council of Europe.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

I propose to call the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am at the very latest. Two hon. Members wish to speak, so that should be satisfactory.

10:14

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on bringing this challenge, which we have to face up to, to the House today. We should all be mindful of his words, but, like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I think there is another side to the issue.

We ought to look at what the Council of Europe is about. We know that its main three pillars—its raison d’être—are human rights, the rule of law and democratic processes. However, all of us who have been in the Council of Europe for any length of time know that it also has two negative pillars, which it embraces with great enthusiasm: double standards and the lowest common denominator when it comes to getting something through the Council of Europe. Often, it is not the best argument that wins, but the one that the political bosses of the various parties decide they can carry in the Chamber.

A good example of the Council of Europe’s double standards is the situation in Ukraine. When was the last time we had a debate in the Council of Europe about the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus? I cannot remember one in my 18 years there. When did we have a debate in the Council of Europe about the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, which is an idea I support? When was the last time we criticised Armenia for occupying a third of the land mass of Azerbaijan? We have not had those debates. Why not? Because we would have to take positive action against those countries. Do we really want to say that to Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia? I think not. We know that will not happen.

The Library produced a very interesting document, which states:

“A group of Conservative MPs led by”

the then leader

“led a charge to suspend Russia fully from the assembly. His amendment was defeated”.

It was defeated because those people were taking a step too far, as far as the Assembly was concerned. I have long held the view that we have to have a debate on whether we want Russia in or out. There cannot be any half measures. Suspending the voting rights of the delegation is totally irrelevant. It causes a bit of panic in the Hemicycle for the hour or so after the vote is taken, when the Russian press are there and the media are trying to get a quote from everyone and anyone. I am sure I have seen some of the cameramen giving quotes about the issue to other television stations because there were no politicians around to do it.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe had the pleasure of having Boris Nemtsov at its meetings on several occasions. I had the pleasure of meeting him, having dinner with him and talking to him. The question I asked him at our group meeting was, “Do you think we should expel Russia from the Council of Europe?” His words were, “Most definitely not.” He then spoke for about half an hour about why he thought that was not the case. During his half-hour response, he made a number of points that a lot of us thought gave conclusive evidence that Russia should not be in the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, he said no.

Over the years, the biggest problem has been the way we have looked at Russia since it joined in 1996. I joined the Council of Europe in 1997. Since then, the Council of Europe has not taken action against Russia on at least five occasions. One was when we had the long, drawn-out debates over Chechnya, which went on for the best part of four years. I went to Chechnya twice. One of our former members, Lord Judd, was one of the leading players on that issue. He came close to recommending that Russia be suspended and then expelled, but he drew back from that. He would say that he drew back because he was put under pressure.

There was the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Once again, are we really saying that it was okay for Georgia’s land to be occupied and for two free states to emerge in a Council of Europe country? What action did we take on that issue? We are still having a debate. We have rapporteurs looking at the Russia-Georgia issue, but we have not made a decision, although it occurred in 2008. Six years on, the Council of Europe has done nothing. Why? Because, once again, it aims for the lowest common denominator to keep everyone in the tent.

Human rights in Russia was another issue on which the Russians flatly refused, until 2012, to agree to the very principles that they had signed up for. The abolition of the death penalty—

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying very carefully. Does he not agree that in diplomacy it is important to have some messages that can be sent and some sanctions that can be imposed, in an escalating fashion, to make one’s point? Taking away voting rights in the Council of Europe, which annoys the Russians a good deal, is a measure that one can use, and it is wrong to say that it is all or nothing. Those escalating sanctions are useful.

[Mr Hancock]

But there comes a time when the credibility of the Council of Europe is at stake. That is the issue, is it not? Sooner or later, we come to a line in the sand and say, “Is it really worth belonging to this organisation?”

I do not want Russia to leave the Council of Europe, but I want to call the bluff of those who agitate time and again to nitpick—not “nitpick”, as that is the wrong expression—and to take voting rights away. Who gets cheesed off about having their voting rights taken away? Probably the wives of the Duma Members, who can no longer go to Paris and Strasbourg for sittings. I do not believe the politicians are particularly bothered that they do not have their voting rights. They know that in January next year there will be a vote and they will have their voting rights back. I am sure of that.

How can that be the case? The hon. Members who intervened on the hon. Member for Christchurch—the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger)—raised a point about Russia, saying, “Oh, well, if they agree to a certain line in the sand over Ukraine, that is okay.” Is it okay? Russia will never give up Crimea now, so where does the Council of Europe stand on the issue of Crimea? Forget eastern Ukraine; where does the Council of Europe stand on the issue of Crimea? I have friends who live in Crimea. They are Russian by ethnicity, have absolute faith that they are now back where they belong and are committed to staying there, and will fight very hard to do so.

[Mr Chope]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that people can be in a parliamentary assembly and have their rights suspended while they still remain members of the Council of Europe itself, because if someone’s country is still in the Council of Europe there is an argument for saying that their parliamentarians should be in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That is why I am arguing that Russia should be suspended from the Council of Europe itself.

[Mr Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he presented his case extraordinarily well. I have no doubt about the merits of that case, but there is this other argument, which other Members have alluded to, that it is better to have people inside the organisation.

Would the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe have the same facilities offered to them in Russia if Russia was out of the Assembly? I think not. Would people in Russia, who make up nearly two thirds of all the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights, have any access to redress if Russia was out of the Assembly? I think not. If the £24 million that the Russians put in, as a grand payer along with the UK, was removed from the Council of Europe, what would that do for the Court in Strasbourg?

[Sir Alan Meale]

The hon. Gentleman said that the members of the Russian delegation to the Assembly do not really care whether they have voting rights, so why do they continually campaign to get the votes back and why do they threaten in discussions in the Duma that, if they do not get their votes back, they will seek to leave the Council of Europe? Surely, voting rights are important and, as the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said, the strength of the push towards getting the negotiation to the Council of Ministers, or to the UN or wherever, is the important factor here.

[Mr Hancock]

The simple answer to that is that the Council of Europe needs Russia more than Russia needs the Council of Europe. That is the real issue for the Russian Duma Members and I have read with interest some of the comments they have made in the Russian press since the issue in January; they make interesting reading. Those Duma Members genuinely believe that the threat to suspend Russia is a bluff, because they know that the track record of the Council of Europe on taking forceful action is pretty abysmal and they have a lot of evidence to support that line.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) raised the issue of Latvia. Interestingly, the 300,000 ethnic Russians in Latvia are classed as non-citizens. If the Council of Europe believes in anything to do with human rights, how can it allow that situation to persist? It is ridiculous.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is pretty intolerable that a country that is a member of the EU and the Council of Europe is effectively denying citizenship to people, and the right for them to sit in Parliament and all the rest of it, unless they learn Latvian. Imagine if the boot was on the other foot and there were large numbers of people here who could not speak English, or they were Urdu speakers or whatever, and we said, “You can’t stand for Parliament and all that sort of stuff because you have to vote in English.” There is a real problem here. I am not defending the Russian position, but we have to recognise that that is what the Russians think.

[Mr Hancock]

Some people might suggest that we are getting pretty close to that in the UK regarding the ability of people to speak English, but how can people be classed as non-citizens in an EU state—or, more importantly from our point of view, in a member state of the Council of Europe—and nothing is done or said about it, except by those of us who believe passionately that everyone living in a country should be classed as a citizen of that country?

What do we do? We have a debate here. I am not sure whether the suspension of voting rights for the Russians will do much at all. Expelling Russia from the Council of Europe would undoubtedly harm the organisation; it would diminish the Council of Europe’s credibility for being able to speak on behalf of the 700 million people who inhabit the 46 member states in the Council of Europe, so it would be a mistake to do it.

We must continue to work with Russia. It is quite interesting to see who the rapporteurs on Russia have been over the years. In most instances, they have been leaders of the political groups, or senior members of those groups who have taken on that responsibility. None of them has ever recommended anything like the suspension or removal of Russia from the Council of Europe. Why? Because they believed that their efforts brought some reward for the citizens in Russia.

The best message we can send out today is that we do not like what the Russians are doing and that we will do everything we can to achieve a peaceful settlement to the issues of eastern Ukraine, but that situation will not be solved and the people involved will not be saved from further harm by expelling Russia from the Council of Europe. We should take a positive step today to say that we hope to see in January a different attitude from the Russian side and from the Council of Europe side.

More importantly, however, for those Members who are lucky enough to be on the delegation to the Council of Europe after the general election, I suggest that they need to get rid of the two things that undermine the Council of Europe time and again: double standards and the continual striving to find the lowest common denominator, instead of finding the right answer.

10:19

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me to speak.

It is a great pleasure to play a part in this thoughtful debate. It has been particularly interesting to be part of a debate in which a diversity of views has been expressed. Often, our relationship with Russia is seen in a monochrome way.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on bringing this matter to the House. As he pointed out, the Council of Europe was established in the embers of the second world war and inspired by the need at that juncture to rebuild our continent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) pointed out, it was Sir Winston Churchill himself who recognised that only shared standards and values on the law and human rights, alongside democratic development, would help to stitch Europe back together. However, I do not think there was any great naivety at that stage about those ideals. There was a recognition that the ideals would be perhaps honoured in part in their breach, but it was still important to be able to talk and to have some sort of relationship.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) made it clear that there are a number of glaring situations in our continent at the moment that do not pass muster, and that if we take this draconian step against Russia it would be very difficult to see that we would not do so against a number of other nations, given some long-standing issues. One that he did not mention that comes to mind is, as the Spanish would see it, the occupation of Gibraltar, which might also become an issue. However, perhaps it is better that we move on from that to something closer at hand.

The Council of Europe as currently constituted consists of 47 member nations, incorporating nearly all the European countries as well as the outliers in the Caucasus. It has, of course, become best known in this country for the European Court of Human Rights, which sits within its auspices. As hon. Members mentioned, it was almost 20 years ago, in 1996, that the Russian Federation was formally admitted as a Council of Europe member. Even then, its relatively dubious human rights record was overlooked, on the basis that it was making progress on implementing the rule of law alongside free and fair elections. That decision symbolised the west’s optimism, at that juncture, that Russia was on its way to a normalisation after the collapse of the Soviet Union only five years before. People were saying, “Give it time and patience. If Russia is brought into the international fold, it will eventually begin to act like an open, democratic state.” Or so we thought.

Since then, the relationship between the Council of Europe and Russia has at times been testy, particularly with regard to questions about legal supremacy. In 2014, the ECHR made more judgments against Russia than against any other country. The ECHR has been used by many enemies of the Kremlin, most notably the Yukos founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, to bring cases against the Russian state.

After President Putin’s intervention in Ukraine, the Council of Europe deprived Moscow’s delegation of its right to vote, a move that has sparked wider discussion among Russia's ruling class—not just the wives of those in the Duma, I suspect—about whether Russia would wish to continue its membership of the Council. Many in Russia believe it has a negative influence on their nation and would like Russian sovereignty restored on matters such as the death penalty. If Russia withdrew from the Council, that would likely sound the death knell for some of the naive idealism that has guided western policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I had a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said in quite a brave contribution that was not something one necessarily hears on the Floor of the House. He is right: the simplistic way in which Putin is portrayed as a dictator and a tyrant in much of our press fails to understand some deep-seated issues in Russia.

I have long cautioned against assuming that Russia is on a steady path to becoming a functioning, multi-party democracy. We have always failed to understand that many Russians, to this day, see the Gorbachev and Yeltsin era as a time of chaos, uncertainty and utter humiliation. Putin has been able to maintain some domestic popularity by retelling a more traditional Russian story, filling the vast ideological vacuum left by the disintegration of the communist ideal with the notion of a Russian civilisation based upon patriotism, selflessness and deference to an all-powerful state. In doing so, he continues to tap into a pool of resentment that goes beyond Russian borders, to encapsulate many of those who dislike the global dominance of the USA over the past two decades. Specifically in relation to Georgia, there is no doubt that the Georgian leadership in that period, up to 2007-08, was little more than a CIA front. That was going on in Georgia and it is perhaps one reason why we have rapidly moved on from discussing that issue.

We are now faced with the Crimean crisis—let us be brutally honest: there is no going back from Crimea’s being returned as part of Russia—and the ongoing hostilities in eastern Ukraine. This continues to baffle many here in the west who fail to grasp why Vladimir Putin would wish to re-engineer an old-fashioned, imperialistic land-grab that risks western ire and Russian company balance sheets. The Russian President may well be a nasty piece of work—I am not in any way defending what he is doing—but he is a master at fashioning strength from weakness. From a position of fragile financial and geopolitical clout, Putin has boosted his profile with a domestic and global audience as a champion for the interests of Russia and, more worryingly, the Russian diaspora, which we have touched on in relation to Latvia and Estonia. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said: there is a fundamental difference between the way that we will look at Latvia and Estonia in years to come—they are members of NATO, and therefore protected under article 5, and members of the EU—and how we view Ukraine. The “one step forward, one step back” approach that has characterised western diplomacy in Ukraine in the past 18 months will endanger the countries beyond and give Putin a sense that we will not be serious about where a line is drawn to defend countries that are in NATO.

I should not be too surprised if Putin were now to engineer a similar victory by pushing for Russian withdrawal from the Council of Europe, making the case that continued membership is untenable now that the institution has become a vehicle through which western policy alone is exercised. Mr Putin has already suggested that neighbouring countries’ membership of the EU and NATO is equivalent to those nations existing in a “semi-occupied state”. He may also try to present an exit from the Council as a proud declaration of the supremacy of Russian sovereignty, as well as a defence of his nation’s distinct world view and political culture when it is under grave threat. In doing so, Putin will hope to sow the seeds of discord among remaining Council members, particularly when it comes to the ECHR, already a subject of hot debate on these shores. Why not try to fracture the consensus on human rights by suggesting that the ECHR has diminished national sovereignty, blunting members’ ability to tackle dangerous terrorists and the like? That argument is made on these shores and I suspect it may be made by Putin’s Russia as well.

For nearly two decades, the ECHR has enhanced Russia’s domestic legal system and provided an important outlet of dissent for those most at risk in Putin’s Russia. Without it—we should remember this in debates that we will, no doubt, have in this country on the ECHR in years to come—many opponents of the Kremlin would not have been able to gain the same level of publicity for their day-to-day plight. Naturally, if Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe, the repercussions for such individuals would be considerable. Many colleagues have spoken about those issues in detail this morning.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful contribution, but where does that leave us in relation to the enforcement of judgments? For example, it is clear that the Russian Federation is not going to comply with the Yukos judgment against it. What sanction will there be when it does not?

[Mark Field]

I accept that. That is, I am afraid, part of the frustrating battle of diplomacy, which we can look at from afar, but which my right hon. Friend the Minister has to deal with day to day. I think diplomacy within the Conservative party is bad enough, let alone having to deal with the other 46 members of the Council of Europe, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the nature of the steadfast, patient way in which we approach these issues. We need to approach the issue of Putin in a steadfast and patient way.

My long-term belief is that, looking at what is happening geopolitically, including with the rise of China, for example—I know it pains many to even think in these terms—our relationship with Russia has to be part of our solution, not part of our problem in the longer term. Putin will not be there for ever. We need to recognise the importance of Russia as a place with which we have to have a working, workable relationship. That is in no way to justify what is going on. It is right that we should try to work with whoever is leading Russia to ensure that, if we cannot solve the real problems that we face, diplomatically, at least we are able to move steadfastly in the right direction.

My main concern with a Russian withdrawal is that President Putin will use it as a sparkling opportunity to stoke division and sow doubt among remaining members of the Council of Europe. No nation has ever resigned its membership, just as no country has ever left NATO, the eurozone or the European Union, and I hope that will continue for the foreseeable future, although one or two of my hon. Friends do not take a similar view. I fear that, by demonstrating that the post-cold war consensus on democracy, human rights and rule of law might be shattered, Putin could challenge at a stroke other international institutions that have so painstakingly been built to serve our best interests and foster freedom in our continent over the past 70 years.

10:39

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I think this is also the first and last time I have served under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. We should record that it is 30 years to the day since Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. That set off, or was the catalyst for, momentous global change. Not all welcomed that change. Vladimir Putin and the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) lament the decline, demise and fall of the Soviet Union, but western Europe and the peoples of the freed countries of the Warsaw pact and the former Soviet Union do not—they welcomed that change. That is not, however, to proclaim the end of history, as was most unwisely done at the time. History has shown that she has a lot of resilience left in her yet.

Where are we now? The annexation of Crimea and conflict in Ukraine have undoubtedly focused attention, but they did not come out of a clear blue sky. Assisted by the previous escalation in oil prices, Russia had already embarked on a substantial programme of rearmament. I outlined that on Monday in the Chamber in the debate on the non-proliferation treaty:

“We need to be concerned about the expansion of Russian capability and a major modernisation of Russia’s strategic forces—involving the deployment of two new types of sea-launched ballistic missiles, a new class of ballistic missile submarines, a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile; and work on a new bomber and long-range cruise missiles.”

I also said that Sir John Sawers, the previous head of MI6, gave evidence that the Russians had indicated that they were

“prepared to use those weapons in certain circumstances.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 118.]

That rearmament has been accompanied by increasing activity and tension, especially but by no means exclusively on Russia’s western borders. The pressure on countries in the near abroad, especially the Baltic states, has already been mentioned. Cyber-attacks have hit Estonia in particular, and NATO is discussing its response to such attacks. There is increasing maritime activity, particularly from submarines—not only in the Baltic, but around our shores. We have seen numerous instances, as have other countries, of near incursions by aviation activity, which is very much about testing our defences and our responses. We have also seen wider diplomatic initiatives, with an evolving approach from Russia.

We do not have time to explore Russia’s involvement in the middle east, but her deepening engagement in Asia, whether multilaterally through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or bilaterally with the agreement with China, is interesting and of concern; it remains to be seen whether they will be allies or adversaries in the end. That engagement was aptly described, I think by The Economist, by the headline “Autocrats of the World, Unite”. The underlying question is whether Russia sees herself as a European power or whether she sees her future in Asia. In other words, this is about the comment from General de Gaulle that Russia was not left, but east. That evolving situation has implications, including for our discussions here.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) outlined at some length the position in the Council of Europe, but I was still slightly unclear at the end on whether he had answered Vladimir Lenin’s question, “What is to be done?”, particularly by Britain and our European allies. Lenin asked that question in one of his pamphlets. Clearly, the isolationism of the left or right is not a realistic option—certainly not for Britain. As a member of the P5, a leading member of the Commonwealth and a member of the G7 and the G20, we are engaged internationally. We dealt with the isolationism of the left and the belief in unilateralism on Monday in the debate on the non-proliferation treaty. Interestingly, many of those engaged with the debate on the unilateralist side held the same views in the cold war about the malign intentions—they did not see them as that—of the Soviet Union and the need to resist them.

We also have to resist the isolationism of the right, which seeks to detach us from the institutions of Europe and, in particular, the EU. The hon. Gentleman gave a vigorous documentation of recent actions by Russia, but Europe’s response is crucial. Interestingly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), whose portfolio this is, is addressing a conference on precisely that issue and our need for engagement. He will be saying that the EU has in recent months stood together to agree sanctions against Russia over its proxy war in Ukraine.

The security dimension of our membership of the EU is becoming more important. The hard edge of our security will continue to be provided by NATO, but the commitment to the common values represented by the EU is crucial. Eurosceptics seek sovereignty, but the security situation demands common action and resolve. If the EU was to splinter or split, no one would be more pleased than President Putin, which is presumably why he supports some of the populist parties of the right in Europe, financially and rhetorically. It is no accident that the political forces that he admires are anti-European, nor is it an accident that the Front National in France has received loans of millions of euros from a Russian bank. It is also possibly no accident that Mr Farage has singled out Mr Putin for admiration “as an operator”.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) used an unfortunate word—I do not blame him for it—when he talked about “understanding”. It has an unfortunate resonance. The Germans have a phrase—the Putinversteher—for those who understand Putin. Talking about being able to “comprehend” the argument might be better, because we have to understand the different landscape that is evolving. I would say that it is reverting to a previous era. In Ukraine, we are seeing the implementation of hybrid warfare, with irregular forces and a wide range of propaganda, which softens up the will to resist. All that is reminiscent of the cold war, when there was a wide cultural front that covered the arts, sport, non-governmental organisations and trade unions. The labour attachés of the Russian and American embassies were major players in the trade union movement in that period.

It is extraordinary that we are cutting defence expenditure at the same time as we are cutting expenditure for the World Service, but we need to look at how we respond across the wider complex and whether we stay engaged. That is the crucial point arising from today’s debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch wants to engage only with countries that are on the same page, but that is a policy for hermits. Russia is a fact and China is a fact. We therefore need to look at how we can engage, and we should not underestimate the impact of engagement and of channels of communication and dialogue.

There is good historical precedent for that. There was a lot of criticism by the Republican right of Republican officials in the Administration when they undertook the Helsinki accords in 1975, which were seen as legitimising Russia and its control over the near abroad. In fact, those officials provided the basis and the channels that started to trigger the break-up of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union. It is about widening those channels. As was rightly said by the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), we should not underestimate the value to Russian citizens of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights.

We need to work to ensure that Russia meets its obligations if it wants to remain a member or active participant in international forums. That is why we support the steps taken so far by the Council of Europe to increase the pressure on President Putin to change course. Nevertheless, it is important that we maintain channels of communication, so that there is a possibility of moving forward through dialogue: ultimately, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

22:49

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I echo the comments of my colleagues who welcomed you to the Chair, Mrs Brooke, and I wish you well after you step down from the House of Commons at the forthcoming election. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing and leading what has been throughout an extremely serious-minded and thoughtful debate about not only Ukraine, but the more general relationship between the United Kingdom and the west and Russia and how we should address the challenges that we currently face.

I rather agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) when he said that there has been a tendency in the west to underestimate the extent to which people in Russia see the era of Gorbachev and Yeltsin as a national humiliation. Nevertheless, I do not believe that that suggests that the west has provoked President Putin and the current Russian Government in the way that he sometimes tries to claim. When looking back over the past 10 years or so, we see an effort by western countries to try to involve Russia in those international organisations that are the core of a rules-based international order. We have seen Russia brought into the G7, which became the G8; into the World Trade Organisation and the OECD; and into organisations such as the Council of Europe, which has been at the heart of today’s debate.

The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) was correct to remind the House that we are looking not only at Ukraine, nor even only at Ukraine and Georgia, but at a number of areas where, in recent years, Russia has demonstrated a more aggressive pursuit of its national interests and posed a greater challenge to a rules-based international system—or at least, a system that we had hoped was rules-based. He mentioned cyber attacks and the increase in air and naval activity. I could add to that list the abduction of an Estonian official from Estonian soil. He is still in prison in Moscow, where he has been for six months without evidence being brought against him. I could also add the use of energy and strategic investments as a weapon of Russian power, the 2007 suspension of Russian participation in the conventional forces in Europe treaty and the fact that, only yesterday, Russia announced that it would suspend its participation in the Joint Consultative Group, the committee in Vienna that monitors the CFE treaty.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Perhaps the Minister could add to that list trade with Armenia. Recently, Armenia agreed to move closer to the European Union, resulting in a direct threat from Russia that if it continued to move away from the Commonwealth of Independent States, Russia would instead trade with nearby partners.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman puts the point well, and one could add other items to that list.

We face not only a crisis over Ukraine, but an issue of principle. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the international community, including the Russian Federation, recognised the republics that then became independent states as sovereign and entitled to determine their own future. The question now is whether we believe that that is an important principle that should be upheld for both legal and political reasons, or that Russia is justified in trying to exert some kind of informal imperium over those countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid I will not. I have just over five minutes left and want to respond to the points made in the debate.

Today, we mark the 25th anniversary of Lithuania’s recovery of its independence after half a century of occupation. We would be foolish if we thought that simply acquiescing in a breach of the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states would have consequences that could be confined even to Europe. Countries throughout the world are watching the crisis in Ukraine and drawing conclusions about how the international community might or might not react in other circumstances.

We welcome the Minsk implementation plan for Ukraine. It is not perfect, but it is the best hope we have of turning a fragile and incomplete ceasefire into an effective truce and then, I hope, into a peacemaking process. I am advised that the latest situation is that the ceasefire has led to significant reductions in fighting, but there are still localised outbreaks of violence, especially around hot spots such as Donetsk airport and Debaltseve. Heavy weapons withdrawal has begun on both sides. On Monday, President Poroshenko said that Ukraine has withdrawn the lion’s share of its rocket and heavy artillery systems and that the Russian-backed fighters have also withdrawn a significant amount.

On verification, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is still not being granted full and unhindered access to the crisis zone. It seems to me that letting OSCE monitors through to see what is going on is a key test of Russia’s seriousness of purpose about whether it will try to turn the Minsk agreement into something meaningful on the ground.

As is clear from the debate, the issue is not only Ukraine. We must look at the full range of tools of international diplomacy to influence Russia’s behaviour and hold it to account for its actions. Organisations such as the Council of Europe offer opportunities for doing that. It is an organisation within which Russia itself has signed up to exacting standards in the field of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked a straight question: do the Government think that Russia is in breach of article 3? During the debate, I reminded myself of the text of article 3; I am no lawyer, but my political judgment is that I would feel pretty hard-pressed to argue that Russia is currently compliant with it. Nevertheless, it is a separate political judgment to decide what, if anything, should be done after that. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government’s judgment is that, on balance, despite its actions, it is currently better to have Russia inside the Council of Europe, where it can be held to account, than either suspended or expelled.

The European Court of Human Rights is a crucial mechanism for the protection of human rights against the most egregious abuses. The cases of disappearances and other serious abuses in Chechnya are important examples of where the Court must focus its attention. The majority of human rights NGOs and defenders in Russia tell us that the Court is the only chance they have of receiving some form of redress, which is why they value Russia’s continued membership of the Council of Europe. My hon. Friend mentioned the plight of Nadiya Savchenko: the Government strongly support the Committee of Ministers’ call for her immediate release on humanitarian grounds.

The Council of Europe has an important role in supporting Ukraine, not least through the advice of the Venice Commission on constitutional reform issues. I agree that we should not allow Russia free passes; it should be held to account. Depending on what Russia does in practice, I do not rule out the need to review and reconsider the Government’s current position. We do see a sharply deteriorating situation in Russia in respect of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

We will continue to work in the Council of Europe, the UN, the OSCE and other international organisations to uphold our rules and values, and we will strive to bind Russia more closely to them. However, we should not do that at any cost. If Russia continues to flout those rules and undermine our values, that will bring further isolation, economic damage and hardship for the Russian people themselves. I very much hope that Russia will not choose that path. It is in her own long-term interests to embed the high standards in the fields of human rights, democracy and the rule of law to which the Russian Government have committed themselves through their membership of the Council of Europe.

British Hong Kong Servicemen

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Good morning, Mrs Brooke. I am proud to be given the opportunity to address the House today in support of all those who served in Her Majesty’s armed forces in the former British Crown colony of Hong Kong, in particular the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Hong Kong Royal Naval Service.

Each and every one of us in the Chamber should salute with enormous pride the sacrifice made by all of Britain’s armed forces in defence of Queen and country over the past century, but none are more loyal servants to and truer guardians of the British Crown than the Hong Kong ex-servicemen. I am grateful that today we have the opportunity to bring into the spotlight a number of those who were prepared to uphold British rule in Hong Kong and to serve their country with bravery and dignity. In spite of that, they have faced grave injustice. They are servicemen who have been indiscriminately denied the right to claim citizenship of the nation to which they swore their allegiance, under the Crown that they served so gallantly.

In the final days of this Parliament I call upon Her Majesty’s Government to right that wrong and to recognise the ex-servicemen’s entitlement to full British citizenship. We should offer priority citizenship to all former Hong Kong soldiers of the British Hong Kong Military Service Corps and those who served in the Hong Kong Royal Naval Service.

Those proud people were born British, they lived as Britons, they fought to defend Britain and they paid into the British Treasury in the same way that we who live within the islands of the United Kingdom do. It was not the choice of those loyal people for the sovereignty of Hong Kong to move to the People’s Republic of China in June 1997—no self-determination for them, no referendum about their future. Indeed, Hong Kong was the only British colony where the inhabitants had no direct say over their own destiny. In such circumstances, it is only just for anyone who served in the forces of the Crown to be granted the British nationality that was always theirs.

As the Minister is aware, between 1990 and 1997, the British Government established a scheme that permitted a select number of British Hong Kong citizens to be granted full British citizenship. Only 50,000 persons were eligible, as per the recommendation of the Governor of Hong Kong at the time. What is regularly overlooked is the allocation of that 50,000 was more or less indiscriminate and the scheme did not pay the necessary or deserved attention to those who took the extra step to serve Queen and country.

Among the scheme categories, British Hong Kong soldiers were placed in the disciplined services class, or DSC, which was primarily based on a points system. Various factors were considered, such as the soldier’s army rank, qualifications, length of regular service and so on. In my firm view, that represents a remarkable error in the process. Beyond doubt, those servicemen should have been allocated their own armed forces class. They were serving in the conventional British armed forces and should have been treated as such, thus being afforded the privileges that they had fought for. All those who wished to do so should have been able to reside in the United Kingdom.

Moreover, it is totally unacceptable that only 500 passports were allocated to the some 2,000-strong Hong Kong Military Service Corps. Even more pertinently, repeated freedom of information requests have declined to state exactly how many of those 500 soldiers actually chose to reside in the UK and to become British citizens. It is wholly wrong that only 25% of the serving British Hong Kong soldiers in 1997 had access to UK citizenship and that so many men were forced to be left behind to suffer an uncertain future under the control of communist China.

The Home Office has stated in correspondence that the original citizenship policy was “fair and just”, but how could it be when only some 500 soldiers out of the 2,000 in the entire Hong Kong Military Service Corps could obtain UK citizenship, even had they all applied for citizenship? I understand and indeed acknowledge the reasons why the allocation for the entire Hong Kong population was capped at 50,000, but surely we must look after our armed forces first and foremost. We have a duty to those who have given their oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and who have performed their duty to Britain.

The Home Office has said that those men were only locally employed, with the status of locally enlisted personnel—since they were recruited locally, they would not have had the expectation of or automatic right to a British passport. If that is indeed the case, perhaps the Minister will explain why 500 passports were allocated at all? Why were any one of the Hong Kong ex-servicemen given British citizenship? Surely they should all have been treated the same. Those men were all born British, but some of them were denied the right to be British and to have the citizenship that they had every right to obtain.

Those veterans, whom I have had the honour to get to know in recent months, would tell you that they are British—they are more British than they would ever consider themselves to be Chinese. It was an appalling injustice to transfer their national status overnight from being British Hong Kong to Hong Kong Chinese, without even giving them the option to remain British subjects. The time has now surely arrived to correct that injustice and to grant those proud men the British citizenship that should rightly be theirs.

The Home Office has stated that, under existing legislation, individuals from Hong Kong may follow the immigration process and apply for UK citizenship. Such legislative provisions, however, by no means guarantee the outcome. They fail to acknowledge the seriousness of our failure of duty to those former servicemen and the debt that we owe them.

I was recently granted a debate and addressed the House in Westminster Hall about Commonwealth visas and immigration. Much of my frustration in that debate is echoed in the sentiments that I am expressing in the debate today. We continue to tolerate uncontrolled and indiscriminate immigration from the European Union while neglecting those to whom we owe true allegiance and with whom we enjoy a shared history and friendship going back sometimes many hundreds of years. In this instance, the former British soldiers and naval personnel from Hong Kong who were prepared to lay down their lives in service to our country appear now, frankly, to be held in lower esteem than a citizen from an EU member state. How can that be right?

I remind the House of our obligations under the armed forces covenant, which stipulates clearly that we have a duty to our veterans and their families. The ex-servicemen from Hong Kong were part of the British Regular Army, working side by side with British troops both in Hong Kong and elsewhere. These men are now our veterans. The covenant involves an obligation for life, and the commitment and sacrifices made by veterans in the past, as well as their continuing value to society, should be properly recognised in the support that they receive.

To many, however, it seems that these veterans of ours now form a forgotten part of British history. They are soldiers who fought in numerous wars, who were awarded high honours and medals for bravery and were distinguished for their gallant service and sacrifice. It is surely a sad day when we find ourselves putting together bureaucratic excuses to push a matter such as this one under the carpet. We have no reason other than sheer defiance for turning our backs on our own veterans.

As I said to the House in the emergency debate on Hong Kong in December last year, Britain has no interest in interfering in the internal affairs and politics of China. But Hong Kong is different. Britain has a duty to the people of Hong Kong and we must not abandon them. The United Kingdom owes an allegiance to the people of Hong Kong, but particularly those who served bravely in Her Majesty’s armed forces. They should not be left behind any longer.

On 6 November last year, along with a number of the Hong Kong veterans, I delivered a formal petition to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. The research team involved with the campaign for right of abode for Hong Kong ex-servicemen managed to locate 302 Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans, 301 of whom signed the petition—a pretty high percentage—asking for equal rights for those soldiers and military personnel. We are not talking about thousands of people; we are talking about a relatively small number of people who are over there, but want to be here and to have the right to be British. Why should they not have that right? They have served our country and deserve to be treated equally. I urge the Minister to examine the issue more closely and to find a solution sooner rather than later.

It is clearly time to reflect on the injustice that has been carried out. The situation is unique and the British Government need to address it. It simply cannot be right to stand idly by while fellow Britons who served diligently in Her Majesty’s armed forces are forced to remain in a country where they do not feel truly at home and where, as they have explained to me first hand, they often feel persecuted and discriminated against for their allegiance to the Crown.

We must take the opportunity to undo the errors of the past and offer these men what is a small token when compared with what they really deserve. It is deeply sad to have to say that successive Governments have opted to turn their back on these soldiers. I believe it is high time for the policy on this matter to change. It is time for those who have proudly served Queen and country from Hong Kong to be given the recognition they so richly deserve—time, indeed, for Her Majesty’s Government to do the right thing.

11:13

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate and on the passionate way in which he has advocated not only his case, but the interests of Hong Kong ex-servicemen who served with the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. He rightly underlined the service they gave to this country.

I am afraid that I will not be able to accede to the request my hon. Friend has made this morning, and I hope to explain some of the reasons for the approach that has been taken consistently by the Government. However, that should in no way be taken as undermining or casting any negative impression of the important service those people provided. I hope that I will be able to explain some of our thinking and some of the existing rights. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to make the points that he has in the way that he has. I honestly hope that he will be returned safely as the Member for Romford at the general election and so will be able to continue to make his case in the next Parliament as well, as the issue will no doubt be returned to then.

My hon. Friend has suggested that former Hong Kong servicemen should be given a right of abode in the United Kingdom. Under current legislation, the only people who have the right of abode here are British citizens and some Commonwealth citizens who had secured that right before the law changed in 1983. It has been a long-established practice in British nationality law for British nationality to be lost when a country ceases to be a UK territory. That has been the case since 1949, when countries such as Australia and Canada ceased to be colonies, and was so through the 1950s and 1960s, when countries such as Uganda and Jamaica became independent.

The normal practice is that those who acquired British nationality only through a connection with the newly independent country ceased to be such a national on independence. The only people who retained British nationality were those with a continuing connection with the UK—for example, through birth here or descent from someone born here. It was not the practice for nationality to be retained as a reward for service within the former territory.

We accept that the position with Hong Kong was unique. Before Hong Kong was returned to China on 1 July 1997, it was a British dependent territory. Therefore, persons acquiring nationality only through a connection with Hong Kong were British dependent territories citizens: they would not have held British citizenship, and thus had no right of abode in the UK.

The position with Hong Kong was also unique in that British dependent territories citizens with a connection with Hong Kong were given the right to acquire the status of British nationals overseas and to retain that new status for life. Therefore, when someone ceased to be a British dependent territories citizen in 1997, they could still hold a form of British nationality. The issuing of passports to people with the status of British nationals overseas began on 1 July 1987. British nationals overseas are eligible for British consular protection and services when travelling or residing abroad and are exempt under the immigration rules from any requirement to hold an entry certificate or visa to visit the UK. However, they do not have the right of abode in the UK.

It was not, of course, obligatory for British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong to apply for British national overseas status, but they could apply even if they held another nationality. If they did not choose to apply and on 1 July 1997 had another nationality, they automatically lost British nationality. If on 1 July 1997 they did not have another nationality and would otherwise have become stateless, they automatically became British overseas citizens. Those arrangements ensured that no one was left stateless as a result of the handover to China. A large number of people in Hong Kong chose to apply for British national overseas status. We estimate that there are approximately 3.4 million holders of BNO passports in Hong Kong, the majority of whom are also Chinese citizens.

My hon. Friend has already referred to the British nationality selection scheme, which was introduced in 1990. That scheme was set up in recognition of the fact that the confidence of the Hong Kong people needed to be restored leading up to the handover in 1997. It was felt that granting British citizenship to 50,000 of Hong Kong’s best-qualified key people, together with their spouses and minor children, was a means of achieving that aim. Under the scheme, 7,000 places were allocated to the disciplined services class. Places were given to each service in proportion to their staff numbers. For individuals within the services, a points system was used to select applicants. There was also a framework to award additional special circumstances points in the disciplined services class to reflect the varying needs of each service. Registration under the scheme was optional. Those applying had to submit an application and fee before a specified date. We remain of the view that the route to gaining a British passport under the scheme was fair and that the criteria were clear. As such, it would not be appropriate to revisit the terms of the scheme, which was established in 1990, and to introduce additional measures for those who were not selected.

Members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps played an important role in the British garrison in Hong Kong—a point my hon. Friend made clearly, effectively and passionately—but they were locally recruited, and the majority remained in Hong Kong for most of their careers, so there was a distinction, in that their service was conducted in Hong Kong, rather than in other places where British forces were deployed on active service.

We recognise the contribution of those who served in Hong Kong, and we are grateful for their dedicated service. However, it is not appropriate to single them out by granting them citizenship exceptionally. We recognise their service, but other groups who served under the dependent territory Government and who may also have demonstrated commitment in their line of work may equally have failed to be selected. Similarly, others may have served while their territory was a colony, but they may not have gained British citizenship—for example, Australian Anzacs in the second world war and those who served in colonial police forces.

Those who hold British national overseas status or British overseas citizenship through a connection with Hong Kong already have a route to British citizenship if they do not have another citizenship or nationality.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister rightly mentioned Australia, but will he acknowledge that many former colonies have an ancestry visa that allows people to come to live in the UK if they choose to? Furthermore, all the other former colonies he may be thinking about are members of the Commonwealth. Uniquely, Hong Kong is denied the opportunity to be a member, because it has been taken into the People’s Republic of China. The people of Hong Kong are therefore hugely disadvantaged, compared with those of any other former British colony he may care to mention.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear my hon. Friend’s point. Hong Kong certainly has a unique status, but I underline the fact that we had the selection scheme from 1990 to 1997. Those who hold British national overseas status or British overseas citizenship through a connection with Hong Kong have a route to British citizenship if they do not have another citizenship or nationality.

Under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997, a person who is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong on the date of application and who was resident there on 3 February 1997 as a British overseas territories citizen can apply to register as a British citizen if he or she has no other nationality. Similarly, section 4B of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows for the registration of British nationals if they do not hold any other citizenship or nationality and would otherwise be stateless and if they have not voluntarily renounced or relinquished another nationality. I accept that those provisions are available only to British nationals who would otherwise be stateless and that many former Hong Kong service personnel will have Chinese nationality. However, they can rely on that Chinese citizenship for travel, and they have a right of residence in Hong Kong.

The Government are committed to creating a fair immigration system and to righting the wrongs of history where it is appropriate to do so. In the Immigration Act 2014, we therefore created a registration route for people who would have become British citizens but for the fact that their British father was not married to their mother. I am pleased to say that that provision will be commenced on 6 April, and applications can be made on or after that date.

I want to come back to my hon. Friend on the Government’s commitment to supporting our armed forces. The armed forces covenant was published in May 2011, and it is based on the principles of removing disadvantage for serving personnel in accessing public and commercial services and of allowing special provision in some circumstances, such as for the injured or bereaved. Through the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Act 2011, we have enshrined in law the need to have regard to those two key principles and an obligation to produce an annual report on the covenant’s operation in a number of areas, including health, education, welfare and inquests. The covenant is an obligation on the whole of society. It includes voluntary and charitable bodies, private organisations and individuals, all of whom are asked to recognise our armed forces and to offer respect, support and fair treatment.

We have a positive record on providing for the armed forces in immigration and nationality matters. Nationality legislation was amended last year to give the Secretary of State discretion to overlook, in armed forces cases, the requirement to be physically in the UK on day one of the five-year qualifying residency period for naturalisation. Therefore, members or former members of Her Majesty’s forces on overseas postings at the relevant time will not have to wait longer to become British citizens. We have introduced processes to enable foreign or Commonwealth members of Her Majesty’s forces to apply for settlement in advance of discharge, thus smoothing the transition to civilian life. Both those measures were priority commitments under the armed forces covenant.

In addition, changes to the immigration rules in 2013 provided, for the first time, a single set of rules for the dependants of members of Her Majesty’s forces, regardless of the nationality of their sponsor. Those rules mirror those for dependants of British and settled civilians, but they contain some flexibility to ensure that the armed forces community is not disadvantaged through service life. For example, partners of members of Her Majesty’s forces can serve their probationary period outside the UK if they are accompanying their sponsor on an overseas posting, and they are granted a longer period of initial leave to prevent the financial disadvantage of renewing leave from overseas.

Let me return to the right of abode for former Hong Kong servicemen. It would not be right to grant citizenship to this group of locally recruited staff who were engaged by the UK Government, who remained in Hong Kong for most of their careers and who would not, at the time of their service, have had an expectation or automatic right of British citizenship.

This is a continuing concern to my hon. Friend and other Members of the House. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee made recommendations about British nationals overseas in the report that it published last week— my hon. Friend is a member of the Committee—and the Foreign Office is giving due consideration to those recommendations.

We recognise the service provided by former Hong Kong military personnel, but I underline the fact that it is not appropriate to revisit decisions made as part of the selection scheme introduced under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 and to create another category of people entitled to become British citizens and to have the right of abode in the UK. My hon. Friend will continue to press the point—

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will briefly give way one final time because I know how passionately my hon. Friend believes in the issue, which I am sure he will continue to campaign on.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister has clearly taken on board all the points I made, and he clearly senses that there is an injustice, which could be looked at. Is he willing to meet me and representatives of the Hong Kong ex-servicemen to see whether there is a way forward and to find a long-term solution?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, we have little time left in this Parliament to consider further representations, although I know the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), has written to my hon. Friend about this issue. What I can say is that I note my hon. Friend’s representations, and I am sure we will return to the issue in the next Parliament to hear further representations.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

HIV Treatment: Low and Middle- income Countries

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

14:29

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Main. I and the other members of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS are extremely grateful to be granted this debate to discuss access to HIV treatment in low and middle-income countries. The debate is based on the findings of our “Access Denied” report, which our group has been working on for a long time, so we appreciate the chance to bring it to Westminster Hall today.

I am grateful to the members of the group who have come to join us today. They have shown great dedication to this issue, which has not been riding high in the public agenda in recent years. Nevertheless, it is still extremely important and I am grateful for their support. It is notable that the group has extremely active members from all political parties represented in the House of Commons, and we have many active members of considerable experience from the other place, too. The cross-party consensus has been consistent for the four years that I have been chair of the group, as I understand it was before my chairpersonship, and I hope that that will long continue.

The debate is about access to HIV treatment in low and middle-income countries, but many issues that we will cover today, and which were covered in the report, are relevant to various diseases of poverty. I hope that we are able to discuss some of those later in the debate.

Our report outlines the findings of almost one year of research conducted by the all-party group, which included visits to South Africa and India, and also many written and oral evidence sessions here in Parliament.

Despite the incredible progress that has been made in the battle against HIV, there remain many barriers to accessing medicines and treatment in low and middle-income countries. The latest estimates from UNAIDS—the joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS—show that there are around 35 million people infected and living with HIV globally. There are encouraging figures, too. New infections have reduced from a peak of 3.4 million in 2001 to 2.1 million in 2013, the most recent year that we have complete figures for. However, 2.1 million is still a staggering number of people, so we must continue to do everything we can until we reach the ultimate goal of zero infections.

AIDS-related deaths have fallen from a peak of 2.3 million in 2005 to 1.5 million in 2013. In the past three years alone, deaths have fallen by a huge 19%. The statistics show that incredible progress is being made, but those huge numbers also show that more must be done. Behind the statistics are real people trying to live fulfilling lives. Mothers and fathers are trying to provide for their families, and young people are facing the prospect of a lifetime living with a currently incurable, although treatable, disease. If they are to have any chance of a high quality of life, they must be able to access treatment.

We now have almost 14 million people across the world accessing ARV—antiretroviral therapy—compared with fewer than 1 million 10 years ago. That is a tremendous, unprecedented achievement, which is the result of the global community coming together and a campaigning movement unlike anything the world has seen before. Many of the people who access treatment are able to do so thanks to the work of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I commend the Government for their significant commitment of £1 billion to the fund, and also for the utilisation of the UK’s influence on convincing other donor countries to contribute.

So, 14 million people on treatment is clearly a significant number, but that leaves us around 21 million people in the world still unable to access treatment. That is equivalent to three out of every five people living with HIV unable to access ARVs. If 60% sounds high, the figure is even higher and even worse when we consider paediatric care. Of those children and adolescents living with HIV, 80% are unable to access treatment; we covered that in depth in the report. We have reached a crossroads in the AIDS response. Progress has been made, but international aid and public interest in HIV and AIDS is no doubt diminishing.

According to figures from UNAIDS, international donor funding for the HIV response is stagnating, with funds remaining largely the same since 2008, despite the fact that we now have an increased scientific understanding of HIV. We now know, for example, that starting treatment earlier saves lives, and, thanks to groundbreaking research, we have proof that treatment is highly effective at preventing transmission of the virus in the first place. That new tool, combined with improved targeting of a range of effective prevention interventions, means that we could significantly reduce the number of new cases of HIV by scaling up our response.

To sum up my introduction, we have the tools at our disposal to end AIDS in a generation, so this is not the time for us to walk away from that important issue. This is the time when we have to scale up the response. The Government have been at the forefront of that so far, and I want that to continue.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We need renewed political commitment to keep the momentum going so that we do not lose it and undo much of the good work that we have achieved to date.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is an active member of the all-party group, and I appreciate his support in the work that we do.

I want to move on to the barriers to accessing treatment, which we have drawn attention to in our report. Various barriers were obvious to us at the beginning of our inquiry, but the impact of many came as a surprise. Barriers include the continued high cost of second and third-line treatments. The cost of first-line treatments has come down considerably, particularly due to the fantastic impact of the medicines patent pool. Indeed, the full impact that that will have is yet to come to fruition. However, second and third-line treatments remain very expensive for the poorest people living with HIV.

In our inquiry, we also found that there is completely inadequate access to the most effective testing and diagnostic tools, especially viral load testing. We found that continued weak and unsupported health systems in low and middle-income countries were having a direct impact on people living with HIV. Poor supply chain management is having an impact, although it is avoidable with technical support. Lack of investment in research and development is still having an impact. We found that particularly in lower priority areas and in less profitable treatment areas such as paediatric medicines.

In many countries there is still no political prioritisation of key populations most at risk, unlike here in the UK with our development work. We still see men who have sex with men, sex workers, injecting drug users and transgender people not getting the prioritisation that they need. They are being left behind, even in countries that are otherwise doing well in creating access to medicine. We also continue to see severe stigma and discrimination with respect to all people who live with HIV. That stops people accessing not only treatment, but advice on prevention and testing. That is causing people to contract HIV; it is not just affecting their treatment.

Sharp reductions in support—financial, technical and otherwise—to countries becoming classified as middle income are having a direct impact on the treatment of people living with HIV. To be clear, that is a much bigger debate in international development, but it is a clear example of the impact that is happening.

I will discuss some of those barriers in more depth, but I will start with the cost of treatment. Treatment prices remain one of the biggest barriers to accessing ARV treatment. From my experience in the all-party group and otherwise, the justification that we have often heard for high prices of medications has been the extremely high cost of research and development. Although that is a considerable cost and investment for many pharmaceutical companies, it was enlightening to hear, in one oral evidence session for the report, a pharmaceutical company representative admit that it is not the case that that determines the price. He was clear in saying that the price of treatments is primarily driven by licensing costs and decisions by pharmaceutical companies about what the market will bear.

Intellectual property rights grant exclusive rights to manufacture drugs without competition, and that lack of competition leads to high prices. That said, there is a globally accepted principle that IP rights and patents do not interfere with public health. That was not always the case, however, and in my experience threats to that principle have been overcome only by huge public campaigns.

Governments can bypass IP rights if there is a public health need by imposing compulsory licences. Alternatively, innovator drug companies can agree voluntary licences. Both those ways allow generic pharmaceutical companies to produce quality-assured generic treatments. We saw that first hand during our inquiry, when we visited India and South Africa. We visited generic companies and saw the work that they were doing, and we went to clinics to see the people who were being treated with those drugs, who otherwise would not be receiving any medication. We now have affordable first-line treatments that are available as a result of the voluntary licences, and that has been instrumental in increasing access to treatment.

We now have a price for first-line treatments of around $100 per person per year, whereas 10 years ago it was $10,000 per person per year, so there has been a huge drop in price. Unfortunately, however, if a patient’s first-line treatment is failing and second and third-line treatments are required, the cost of those treatments still remains high.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this extremely important debate. Will she expand on the role of the pharmaceutical industry? On page 21, the report mentions that

“a leaked document outlining a lobbying plan for the Innovative Pharmaceutical Association South Africa (IPASA)—the representative body for pharmaceutical companies in South Africa—highlighted the industry’s plans to delay reforms.”

What does that mean?

[Pamela Nash]

We met the South African Government and lobby groups in South Africa on that issue. There was a war between the pharmaceutical companies and Médecins sans Frontières and other smaller groups about this, and it was part of a wider campaign from some pharmaceutical companies to prevent any legislation that might reduce their power to have higher prices. That included such things as “evergreening”, which we have seen in other countries, when patents are granted for a drug because there is a slight change in its chemical composition. Drugs are designed to have a new patent and therefore get round some of the existing patent legislation.

There has been a lot of experience of those companies trying to dodge that, but there are good examples of companies such as Gilead, which have been willing to be at the forefront of being part of voluntary licences and of the medicines patent pool. I do not want to stand here and paint the pharmaceutical companies as the bad guys, because without them we would not have those drugs, but we want to encourage responsible behaviour from them and ensure that they realise what a fantastic contribution they can make to the public health of the world and of people living with HIV.

As I said before the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), there is still a clear problem with second and third-line medication being much more expensive than first-line treatment. In relation to the points that my hon. Friend made, issues have been raised about free trade agreements, in the inquiry and since with the all-party group.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will certainly not be a stranger to the inboxes of most Members in Westminster Hall today. TTIP and the Asia-Pacific Trans-Pacific Partnership—free trade agreements that are under negotiation—seem to pose the risk of introducing additional property rights restrictions or extending patent exclusivity. Although TTIP and TPP do not have a direct impact on the low and middle-income countries that we are discussing, an impact will be felt by them. There is a reasonable fear that the precedent set by those trade agreements will have an impact and shape future agreements.

Any introduction of more onerous patent rules would hinder the ability of generic manufacturers to operate and reduce competition and drive prices back up. That would be disastrous for access to treatment, and our Government must do all they can to protect global public health within these and future agreements. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified today whether the Department for International Development shares any of those concerns and if he put on record his Department’s formal input into free trade agreements. I appreciate that some of that is private, but I am asking how the Department does that and whether he feels that has an impact on the Government’s view as they go into these negotiations.

I shall move on to middle-income countries. During the inquiry, I was particularly struck, more than ever before in my involvement in international development, by the squeeze on middle-income countries and particularly by the impact on the poorest people living in those countries. As I said, this is part of a much bigger debate in international development—it is not confined to HIV—but access to medicine is a clear example of where we might be going wrong.

In providing HIV treatment, middle-income countries in particular are facing a crisis of increased prices combined with reduced financial support. Many of those countries are excluded from the licensing deals that I just mentioned for first-line treatments that allow generic production and supply, forcing them to purchase from innovator pharmaceutical companies at market prices. Those prices are prohibitive and inconsistent. For example, prices for second-line drugs in Argentina are $2,570 per person per year, and the price in Mexico is similar. That is over 12 times the price that South Africa pays at $204 per person per year, which is double the price that I mentioned earlier of $100, which is available for first-line drugs in many low-income countries.

At the same time as they face increased prices, many middle-income countries are having their official development assistance withdrawn from bilateral and multilateral donors. As far as I can see, that has been this Government’s policy, not only in bilateral support, but in using the UK’s influence on the expenditure of multilateral donors to which we contribute, such as the global fund. In addition, we are, in my view, using outdated country classifications and pushing more and more countries prematurely into middle-income status.

When those factors combine, national Governments in middle-income countries are unable to provide services, leading to a treatment crisis. Classification of countries must move away from the current gross national income to a more nuanced analysis. Further support needs to be given to countries, as they graduate through classifications. Decisions about the provision of aid need to be based on need, not just country classifications, although it is completely correct that resources should be prioritised to those who need them most.

Of course, we should expect countries to take on an ever-increasing responsibility for their own development as they become wealthier, but we should not assume that a country with a label of middle-income status has the resources or the technical capacity to cope with aid being withdrawn. The inequality within middle-income countries must be kept in mind. Increasing GNI does not instantly equate to improved living standards or fantastic new health systems, particularly for the poorest and hardest to reach. In relation to access to treatment, funding decisions should be based solely on evidence.

As bilateral donors such as us are withdrawing funding from middle-income countries, so the burden falls on multilateral donors to plug the gaps until countries in transition can fund their services from domestic resources. However, we have seen multilateral organisations following the lead of bilateral donors and reducing support for middle-income countries.

I repeat to the Minister that we should not underestimate the influence that the UK has globally. I say that not with a conceited British ego, but from the experience of speaking to multilateral donors and the people who run those organisations and to people from donor countries and from countries that benefit. When we speak to them, they beg us to bring to DFID the view that this is a huge problem. If a solution to it is to be found, it will require political leadership from the British Government and DFID and a concerted effort to make this issue a priority to ensure that it receives the necessary political attention. Will the Minister tell us whether that is recognised by the Government and whether there is any change in the Government’s thinking on how we look at middle-income countries and their support, particularly on this issue but also more generally?

As I said, the current models of research and development are not delivering all the treatments necessary to meet public health needs. R and D is not prioritised based on need; it is prioritised according to the most profitable products. In our report, we found that there is a gap in relation to treatment for many HIV co-infections, paediatric treatment and diagnostics for small children. Existing models for R and D rely on pharmaceutical companies securing patents that grant exclusive rights to sell the drugs that they develop. If a potential market does not exist, there is currently no incentive to develop products. The need for market advantage reduces collaboration between researchers and increases delays in research into potential vaccines and cures and more effective treatment regimes.

At this point, I want to highlight the fact that in the report we note the disappointment in the UK Government for withdrawing 80% of the funding for the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and research into an HIV vaccine. Will the Government reconsider that? If not, can the Minister explain why not?

On treatment, a key recommendation in the report is for DFID to play a role in developing new R and D models that are delinked from profits, based on open data sharing and reward people for the development of new clinical technologies, rather than exclusive sales rights being granted. We have recent examples of where what I have described could be a continued problem and where the solution that we have proposed could work. The Ebola crisis is a good example of the failings of the current global model, whereby a vaccine is developed only after a crisis has developed because there was no market incentive to develop one before. Médecins sans Frontières estimates that a vaccine for Ebola will emerge not from a private laboratory, but from publicly funded research.

Models for encouraging innovation in relation to HIV and neglected diseases can broadly be divided into push and pull mechanisms. Push mechanisms reduce the risks and costs of investment in R and D. They include direct funding of research and tax credits, both of which have already been used by the UK Government. The main drawback to push mechanisms, such as direct funding, is that they require funders to make a judgment about which research bodies are most likely to achieve the needed results. Clearly, more research is needed into who would be the best people to make that judgment.

Pull mechanisms, in contrast, create an extra incentive to achieve the result, such as a new medicine, with the benefit delivered only on achievement. Examples of such mechanisms include prizes for the first researchers to come up with a specified innovation, advance market commitments or tax credits on the sale of a certain product that has yet to be developed. There are examples of that already.

We have seen success in delinking R and D costs in relation to the meningitis A vaccine initiative. That developed an adapted meningitis A vaccine through collaborative research, which included the National Institutes of Health and the Serum Institute of India, a private vaccines company. The cost of the vaccine is approximately 50 cents a dose. Furthermore, delinked models of R and D are under consideration for the development of new antibiotics, particularly because there are no incentives for industry to develop products that are meant to be both affordable and conserved or tightly managed.

Our research findings show that the Government could be doing much more to explore the benefits of alternative research models, and I urge them to commission a paper analysing the costs and benefits of alternative R and D models. I ask the Minister whether the Department is considering that. It was a key recommendation of the “Access Denied” report and was previously communicated to the Department.

I want to touch on another finding of the report—the lack of access to viral load testing. We need effective diagnostic tools if we are to provide quality care, but we are seeing very limited investment in that area of research and provision. Viral load testing is the gold standard of diagnostic testing, with increases in viral load indicating treatment failure. If any of us in this Chamber were living with HIV in the UK, we would be undergoing regular viral load testing to ensure the effectiveness of our treatment. The idea is that if the treatment is not effective, people are moved on to second-line or third-line treatment as soon as possible.

In low and middle-income countries, however, viral load testing is limited, which leads to lower standards of care and delays in identifying treatment failure. There have been recent moves to reduce prices, but the tests are carried out only in specialist centres with limited capacity. When I was in India, we went to a clinic and saw the situation at first hand. There was very limited capacity to provide viral load testing. When someone was suspected of having a treatment failure, they had to go in front of a board. There were layers and layers of bureaucracy for such a person. The only justification that I can give is that people there just did not have the capacity and were trying to limit the number of individuals going for viral load testing because they could not afford to send any more. When we met representatives of organisations that were lobbying the Government and, indeed, us on this issue, they told us horrific stories of people who had died waiting to get a test to know whether their treatment was failing. That is something that we do not need to live with in this country, and we have the technology to stop it happening. I feel that we have a responsibility to try to increase the capacity for viral load testing across the world as soon as possible.

Even as the tests are becoming more affordable, there remains a challenge to ensure that these systems are in place. There is a need to develop affordable, accurate point-of-care testing to increase available testing and to reduce delays. That would avoid the need for patients to travel hundreds of miles to testing centres far from their homes and would significantly improve the quality of care received by patients.

Diagnostics are just one area where we see a disparity in treatment between rich and poor countries. We also see that across the spectrum of clinical settings. Distribution networks and health systems in low and middle-income countries are far behind where they need to be. Supply chains are vulnerable to a number of issues, resulting in poor access to treatments. Those challenges include significant delays in registering new drugs, poor demand forecasting and ordering, inadequate storage facilities, stock-outs, corruption and poor patient record management. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what his Department is doing to address those issues and to support health system strengthening to improve access to treatment, particularly in terms of what we can do to encourage investment in making viral load testing cheaper and more accessible to low and middle-income countries.

The final issue that I will consider is that key populations are being left behind. That has been much debated in the main Chamber and in this room by the all-party group on HIV and AIDS and by our friends among other all-party groups. In addition to the practical, scientific and economic barriers that have been outlined, there are definite social barriers to treatment. The UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic demonstrates that key populations are being left behind when it comes to access to treatment across the globe. The problem is not confined to low, middle or upper-middle-income countries, but it is particularly acute in some upper-middle-income countries—such as former Soviet Union states and countries in central Asia—because HIV epidemics are growing rapidly among key populations.

As MSF pointed out in its submission to our inquiry, the problem of pricing in such countries is compounded by the fact that the epidemics are not generalised but concentrated in marginalised populations. For the avoidance of doubt, I am talking about injecting drug users, sex workers, men who have sex with men, and the transgender population. As I outlined earlier, many global funders actively restrict funding to such countries. That inevitably creates barriers to access for the most vulnerable groups, because there is no political will in those countries to help the key populations that are most affected.

The UNAIDS report highlighted the barriers to treatment created by punitive and discriminatory legislation in many countries:

“As of 2013, 63 countries have in at least one jurisdiction, specific provisions that allow for the persecution of HIV nondisclosure, exposure and/or transmission. Criminalisation of key populations also remains widespread, and 60% of countries report having laws, regulations or policies which present obstacles to effective HIV prevention, treatment, care and support for key populations and vulnerable groups.”

Stigma and discrimination must be challenged wherever they are encountered, whether at a community or a state-wide level. If we do not remove social barriers to accessing testing and treatment, scientific advances will be ineffective. The thing I find most painful about this section of the report is that the position of key populations is not improving but getting worse. There have been many debates in this Chamber about the situation in Uganda and the change in its laws, and there has been much interest in what has happened in Russia. There is cross-party support in the House for fighting discrimination, and I am proud of our country’s record of working to do so. I hope that that will continue.

In conclusion, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this important subject. Hon. Members may think that I have gone on a bit, but I could speak for hours about the detail of the report. It was born out of the huge impact of the report on access to medicines that our predecessor group published in 2009, which I have seen on shelves across the world in countries that I have had the privilege of visiting as chair of the all-party group. A huge amount of progress has been made in the past five years, and a great deal has changed, so I felt that it was time to look at these issues again. As I said at the start of my remarks, despite that progress, so much more can be done. We need to ensure that that happens by working together to tackle the barriers that are outlined in the report.

15:03

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

I want briefly to reinforce four of the many excellent points that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) has made. First, I want to talk about access to medicine. Fifteen years ago, 70% of people living with HIV were located in low-income countries. Estimates now show that, by 2020, about 70% of people living with HIV will be located in middle-income countries. That dramatic shift means that a fresh approach is required to the AIDS response.

Recently, Governments and multilateral donors have withdrawn funding from middle-income countries, at the very moment when they are faced with increasing treatment costs. Outdated classifications of countries based on simplistic gross national income calculations need to be replaced with evidence-based approaches to ensure that the response to HIV/AIDS, and to other diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C, is as effective as possible. The focus should be not on low-income countries versus middle-income countries, but on ensuring that the most vulnerable and marginalised in society receive the services that they require.

Secondly, we need to keep going. It is now possible to end the HIV epidemic as a public health threat, but at the very moment when that has become possible, HIV has fallen off the political radar as a matter that requires urgent attention. There is an ever-decreasing window of opportunity to bring HIV under control, and that can be achieved only with a renewed political commitment. Without such a commitment, we face losing momentum and seeing a reversal of the progress that we have made. We must not let that happen.

Thirdly, I want to mention HIV transmission. Access to treatment is a significant problem that we must solve, and we must consider what more we can do to prevent new HIV transmissions. Social factors play a significant role in reducing HIV transmission. If people know how the virus is transmitted, they can often take action to protect themselves—often, but not always, because social factors such as stigma, discrimination and inequality can reduce the options available to vulnerable and marginalised groups. Fear and lack of knowledge about how HIV is transmitted can lead to stigma and discrimination, which make people afraid to get tested or to reveal their status.

Fourthly, we must consider social barriers. Women and girls face a disproportionate risk of HIV, and it has a disproportionate impact on them, because of gender power imbalances that result in economic disempowerment, gender-based violence and the denial of their human rights. Others at high risk of contracting HIV—including those who use drugs, sex workers, prisoners and people from LGBT communities—often cannot access evidence-based prevention services because of punitive laws, stigma and discrimination. Young people are denied access to information on their sexual and reproductive health and rights, including information on HIV prevention. Those social barriers to accessing HIV services such as testing, counselling and prevention services, alongside the freedom to control life choices, must be addressed as part of a holistic approach. I joined the all-party group on HIV and AIDS nearly five years ago, because it is a considerable issue in my constituency. It is still a big issue, but there is a realisation that we need to continue to do all we can around the world to end the HIV epidemic. I welcome the report.

15:08

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) not only for calling the debate, but for her leadership of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS since she took over as chair after the tragic loss of our parliamentary colleague David Cairns, who passed away suddenly.

I have been a member of the all-party group since I came into Parliament almost 18 years ago. The leadership of my hon. Friend and the previous leadership of David Cairns have backed up a robust group of individuals who have worked long and hard in Parliament on the problem of HIV and AIDS. I have not visited some of the many places that my hon. Friend has visited, but a few years ago I visited Ukraine courtesy of UNICEF UK. I was asked to go there because I am also joint chair of the all-party group on street children.

UNICEF UK looked at what was happening in Ukraine. Children sleeping rough on the streets were taking drugs intravenously, with many then finding that they had become HIV-positive. That brings us back to the point about stigma and discrimination. Many of those young people were living in fear, because if they presented for a medical, and it was discovered they were carrying the infection, they would be reported to the authorities—the police. They were in a real dilemma: they understood something was medically wrong, but should they go for the medical, given the consequences?

I and the UNICEF UK person who went with me to Ukraine, along with a couple of people working on behalf of UNICEF in Ukraine, visited the British ambassador, and I have to say that I was bitterly disappointed. I came away from the meeting thinking, “I sincerely hope that that individual has arrived here only in the last couple of days,” because he had no perception of the problems on the ground or of what people were experiencing. I also met one or two Ukraine Government officials, and it was anything but heartening to realise that what was happening was not an issue for them.

At that time, Ukraine was heavily dependent on global funding and support. Less than 12 months after I visited, that funding and support were taken away. Just because certain countries fall into the middle-income category, that does not mean they are handling some of these problems better. In my view—it is only my view, although one or two people did share it with me—Ukraine was on the verge of being a basket case in terms of dealing with HIV/AIDS, because there was no real support for people. That goes back to the issue of stigma and discrimination.

The all-party group’s report mentions paediatric treatment, which is lagging behind adult treatment in terms of access and research. Our report indicates that the market for paediatric treatments is, regrettably, a low-profit market, which reduces the incentive for research and development by private companies. There is a real lack of adequate treatment regimens for children, which often leads to adult treatments simply being broken up and given to children. It must be recognised that children are simply not being given the proper treatment and dosage on many occasions. Treatment regimens need to be tailored to individuals because children are not all the same weight or same height. We need to ensure that the correct dosage is given if we are truly looking for these young children to get proper treatment. If incorrect dosages or unsuitable adult treatments are administered, children’s treatment is unlikely to be as effective, which could lead to resistance and the need to switch to second or even third-line treatments.

Any of us, with any condition, would want to know that whatever we were prescribed would meet our needs as individuals. Of all the conditions that exist in the world, HIV/AIDS needs proper treatment. As a starting point, we need to encourage pharmaceutical companies to deliver more suitable dosages for children, because this problem has existed for far too long—indeed, it has existed since I joined the all-party group almost 18 years ago.

There is also a gap in early infant diagnostics, and there are insufficient opportunities for testing children. That results in children living with HIV not being identified and given treatment, or in those whose treatment is failing not having their problems addressed.

I do not want to say much more, because my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) have covered a significant amount of the report. However, I want to put on record that, in taking evidence for the inquiry, we were assisted by colleagues from the other place, as my hon. Friend said. Their support and assistance are invaluable. The oldest soldiers in the all-party group are Lord Fowler, who has done so much in the Palace of Westminster over all these years, and Baroness Sue Masham, whom I met when I first joined the group. They are absolute stalwarts, and it is fitting that we recognise the work they have done and the way they have assisted in maintaining such a robust group. I hope it will continue after the election on 7 May.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, as the chair, for pulling the report together and for securing the debate.

15:16

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I start where my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) ended, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on securing this important debate. I also recognise her unflinching commitment and her leadership on this important issue, and the tremendous work she and the all-party group have done on the “Access Denied” report. We can tell from her contribution that she has a genuine passion and commitment on the issue, which she has championed in Parliament for the past five years, and which I hope she will be championing here for many years to come.

The previous Government and this Government have done constructive work on this important issue, and we require a reaffirmation of that commitment on HIV/AIDS as we move forward, but I start by mentioning a few things from the report that shocked me. Two thirds of adults with HIV do not have access to treatment or are not on treatment. Three quarters of children with HIV do not have access to treatment—that is completely unacceptable in the modern day, and something must be done about it. Children and adults in low and middle-income countries have seen support from the international community fall and prices from pharmaceutical companies rise, which is a stain on the international community. By 2030, 55 million people are expected to need HIV treatment. Last year, 1.5 million people died of HIV when that disease can be managed, although we do not have a cure. Again, that figure is a stain on the international community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts said some thing that struck me—people need to come before profits, which is a powerful phrase. Treatments are available to help to manage conditions, but people do not receive them because they are too expensive, there is no health care system or stigma is attached to HIV/AIDS. That is completely unacceptable. We must remember that behind the statistics are real people, who have the basic human rights that we all share. They have the right to life, health, and dignity, and to contribute positively to their family and society.

It is easy to focus on doom and gloom, and obviously there is much that is negative, but there are also things to welcome. According to data, last year, for the first time, more people gained access to HIV drugs than were infected with the virus; the ONE campaign has called that the tipping point. In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, 2.3 million people gained access to HIV treatment programmes, compared with 2.1 million people with new infections. That is a welcome statistic, but we cannot be complacent.

We do not want such progress to be reversed. The ONE campaign’s recent report noted that the US, France and the UK in particular have carried what it calls an “unsustainable” share of the burden in the international community. It is incumbent on the Government and their international partners to press donor countries, and indeed those developing countries able to provide support to those who need it, to do more. I look forward to hearing more details about that from the Minister.

The November 2014 UNAIDS report talked of a fast-track approach to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030, with a target to be reached by 2020, called 90-90-90. The target is that 90% of people living with HIV should know their status, 90% of those who know it should have access to treatment and 90% of those being treated should have suppressed viral load. That is a difficult but positive target, achievable if there is the will in the international community. It has been said that turning the target up to 95-95-95 would be tantamount to ending the epidemic.

A further report, “Fast track: Ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030”, also said that nearly 28 million new infections and 21 million AIDS-related deaths could be averted by 2030 if the target were met. However, it also warned that “business as usual” could mean missing the opportunity to end the epidemic for a long time to come. UNAIDS estimates that, by June 2014, 13.6 million HIV-positive people around the world had access to antiretroviral therapy, but an estimated 35 million need it. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the UNAIDS 90-90-90 target, what partnership work the Department for International Development is doing with it towards that aspiration, and what global leadership we are showing to get our bilateral partners and multilateral funding agencies to reflect those priorities.

It is important to talk about funding and to recognise the responsibility of the UK and the global community to support HIV and AIDS treatment. In 2012, the UK Government contributed 10.7% of all bilateral aid for HIV. That statistic is welcome, and so is the fact that between 2008 and 2013 DFID’s overall spend, including bilateral and multilateral funding, averaged £300 million a year. At the time of the recent global health fund replenishment, a commitment was given to provide £1 billion for 2014-16, which means that the annual contribution will increase significantly to £500 million. I am sure the Minister will confirm those figures.

I wonder, following the UNAIDS report, whether that funding and support have been reflected on. We have heard today, in the context of DFID funding, about budget spending that has been committed and unallocated funding. Might there be scope to look again at the funding and support we give to the global health fund, particularly given our withdrawal of funding for the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts pointed out? I welcome the fact that we spend £300 million annually, and the £500 million commitment for 2014-16, but cutting by up to 80% our support to IAVI—the fund trying to find a cure and a vaccine—is unacceptable.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation for that cut. We should not give up on the dream and hope of finding a cure and a vaccine for HIV and AIDS. I would like to think that we could find those things in my lifetime and bring an end to a global injustice.

Although the UK has come in for praise from the ONE campaign, as have the US and France, there is still a hell of a lot of work to do. Global funding for anti-HIV programmes reached an all-time high of $19.1 billion last year, but that is still an estimated $3 billion a year short of the annual $22 billion to $24 billion that the UN says we need to spend.

By 2020, low-income countries will need $9.7 billion, lower-middle-income countries $8.7 billion, and upper-middle-income countries $17.2 billion for the fight to bring the epidemic to an end. However, the report says that if the money is forthcoming and enough effort is made to reach the 2020 targets, the need for more funds will decline. That is an interesting point: the fund could decline if we matched the UNAIDS aspiration. By 2030, the funding needed globally could drop from $35.6 billion in 2020 to $32.8 billion. If we make an initial big investment—not taking any wasted route, in terms of value for money, but investing in genuine care and treatment to help to save lives—the long-term positive effect will be not only those lives saved and a reduction in the proliferation of the condition, but money saved that can be used to fund other areas of work.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts noted the important point made in the report about middle-income countries. There are many issues related to extreme poverty besides HIV and AIDS, including access to education and other health care, such as drugs and treatment for TB and malaria. We still have a lot of work to do in middle-income countries: 50% of people in extreme poverty live in those countries, so the international community, and particularly the UK, cannot afford to ignore or pass by their challenges. We must still engage with them, and consider need, as my hon. Friend said, rather than classification.

We need to support people as those countries graduate from the low-income to the middle-income group, rather than thinking that that means our job is done. Quite the opposite: sometimes in those cases, even more support is needed, particularly when there is a lack of governance, although some people might think that the graduation to middle-income status means Government officials can think less about their obligations to the poorest citizens.

I have in mind two examples raised by my hon. Friend and in the “Access Denied” report, which have been the subject of much discussion and negotiation. South Africa and India, with their continuing struggles, still need our support—particularly technical assistance and help with strengthening health care systems. Currently, 58% of people who are HIV positive live in middle-income countries. By 2020, the proportion is expected to rise to 70%. We cannot ignore that 70%; we need to engage and work with them.

There are a couple of other issues. First, 52% of people suffering from HIV and AIDS in low and middle-income countries are women. One young woman contracts HIV every minute. The report also found that in sub-Saharan Africa the proportion of young women aged 15 to 24 living with HIV is twice that of young men. There are also cultural issues. Given that carers and people with caring responsibilities when loved ones are unwell are often women and girls, we have a responsibility to support people with conditions and to support people who support those with conditions. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that, too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway rightly mentioned child treatment and transmission. When I read some of the stats in preparation for today’s debate, the stat that got me most was that, across the world, there are 3.2 million children with HIV and that 20,000 children a month are still being infected. Up to half of all new paediatric HIV infections occur during breastfeeding, which is a heartbreaking tale: a mother trying to do her very best to give her child the best possible start in life has, through breastfeeding, transmitted HIV and AIDS to that child.

In many cases, perhaps, the mother had to choose whether to breastfeed her child, knowing that the child would suffer because of her condition. That is heartbreaking indeed. More work needs to be done to ensure that we are giving adequate treatment to women and girls to prevent the transmission of the disease to children in the first place. If children contract the condition, they should get the support, medicine and treatment they need.

I have two further points in relation to women and girls. First, education is crucial. There should be education for all, and we should ensure that people know about the risks of HIV and AIDS. Secondly, we must address violence against women and girls. The Minister and I have talked about the important issue of female genital mutilation and violence against women and girls more generally, particularly in conflict. We have talked about putting women and girls at the heart of development, and putting women and girls at the heart of support for HIV and AIDS is also crucial and must be considered much more carefully.

Another issue raised in “Access Denied” that has perhaps been mentioned less in the debate is the support given to people who inject drugs. If we are to follow the “no one left behind” principle, we must ensure that we give adequate support to people who inject drugs, which means access to clean syringes, opioid substitute treatment and naloxone to prevent overdose and the spread of infections.

We have two good cases where treatment has helped to make a difference. Tanzania and Kenya have demonstrated good practice on those issues, but we must scale that up and ensure that we give them and other people in the region the same adequate support and treatment. UNAIDS estimates that $2.3 billion is needed annually to fund preventive measures for those who inject drugs, but all global donors combined spend only $160 million—that is $160 million when we need $2.3 billion every single year. How can we ensure that those issues are more fully considered?

We have heard colleagues talk about the obstacles faced in licensing and about companies putting profits before people. I welcome the progress that has been made on relaxing intellectual property rights to produce low-cost generic drugs for first-line treatment. I welcome the coalition of five big pharmaceutical companies that is granting licences for generic production to the UN-backed medicines patent pool, but more can and must be done.

Second-line drug combinations are far more expensive than the basic cocktail, which costs no more than $100 per person per year, although we have heard that in South Africa people are being charged exponentially even for first-line treatment. Granting licences for second and third-line drug combinations must be implemented much more efficiently than in previous decades. We must reduce the price of front-line drugs to a much more manageable level. That is the responsibility of the UK Government, working in partnership with the international community and other key development agencies, whether in country or through multilaterals. It is also for the drug companies to ensure that second and third-line drugs are available and affordable for all, irrespective of the income or the affluence of a person or a country. I emphasise the 80% cut to IAVI.

We can all get wrapped up in one fundamental issue, and I say that particularly in the climate of the discussions on sustainable development goals, which are ongoing and will continue—hopefully, they will conclude later this year. We see a lack of strong universal health care systems in developing countries. We see clinics popping up for tuberculosis, malaria and HIV and AIDS, but what we need is holistic care so that people, whatever conditions they turn up with, receive adequate support and the care they need.

There is no better example than our own national health service. We have a system that is based on people’s need, not their ability to pay. If we have that great system in the UK, it is incumbent on us to work with the international community to help to promote such a system of universal health coverage globally. That is why we have already said that we would set up a universal health coverage institute within the Department for International Development to provide technical assistance using the expertise of the Department, of the people who work with and for the Department, and of the NHS.

The institute would bring together the expertise of people who put together tax systems to help to create and build models in developing countries so that those countries may have universal health care systems that have the support they need, but are sustainable and able to raise their own funds. There is no greater example than the Ebola crisis. In Nigeria, where money has been spent on the health care system, Ebola was brought reasonably under control, which helped to save lives, and in Sierra Leone, which did not have such a system, the Ebola crisis worsened and up to 10,000 people lost their lives. I encourage the Minister to move forward with universal health care systems and access to health for all.

Today, let us resolve to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts and the wider all-party group on HIV and AIDS have done and put this important issue at the forefront by talking about it, discussing it and debating it. We must put the solutions at the forefront, too, so that in my lifetime, and in the Minister’s lifetime, we can bring HIV and AIDS to an end.

15:30

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), particularly when he makes such a helpful and thoughtful contribution. I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) not only on securing this debate and on introducing it so well but on the enormous impact that her all-party group has achieved with its two publications. It is extraordinary for an all-party group to be able to inform the public and the legislature in that way. I commend the other Members who have contributed: the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby). I owe my hon. Friend a particular debt because he drew my attention to this subject and engaged and interested me in it. He has worked very hard on HIV and AIDS in his constituency, where he rightly says that they have been a significant issue. I pay tribute to him.

I have been asked a large number of questions, so I will race through putting the Government’s position on the record, and then I will deal with the questions as expeditiously as I can. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts said that there are 35 million HIV-positive sufferers, but I think that one of the most worrying statistics is that 19 million of them do not know that they have the disease. We have to draw attention to that. Only 34% of those who are eligible for treatment under the World Health Organisation’s 2013 treatment guidelines have access to antiretroviral treatment.

We remain the second biggest donor in the world. We set out our approach in the document “Towards zero infections” in 2011, and we updated it in “Towards zero infections: two years on” at the end of 2013. In those documents, we clearly laid out a pathway for withdrawing from bilateral funding and transferring to a multilateral approach to this problem. Principally, we are going to work through the Global Fund, which represents about one fifth of the entire world’s contribution.

We have changed the way we operate, but we have not reduced it at all. I looked at the figures extensively this morning. From 2006-07 to 2009-10, we spent £849 million on HIV/AIDS, and from 2010-11 to 2013-14 we spent £1,070 million. The highest years for expenditure were last year and one a couple of years before that. Therefore, quite properly, we are maintaining the pressure on this important issue. We are not slacking or suffering from donor fatigue. The measure of that—the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Airdrie and Shotts referred to this—is our commitment of £1 billion to the Global Fund from 2014 to 2016, subject to a 10% burden share.

We see ourselves as the voice of the affected populations. I will return to that point, because a number of hon. Members have expressed concern about it. We are driving forward improvement and integrating HIV treatment with health systems in the countries where people are affected. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central drew attention to that important agenda. We are driving forward the centrality of women and girls. He was entirely right when he said that, every hour, 50 young women between the ages of 15 and 24 are affected. That is twice the infection rate of young men, and it represents 22% of new infections. In sub-Saharan Africa, 57% of sufferers are women.

We want to use market shaping to ensure that drugs are available at affordable prices, so we have committed £35 million between 2012 and 2015 to the Clinton Health Access Initiative. That money has been used effectively to shape the market and to bring about £1 billion of savings to the purchasing countries, which translates to 2.5 million more people being treated and getting drugs, so it is an important part of the agenda.

The hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway and for Airdrie and Shotts spoke about children. I recognise that there is a gap in the market for paediatric care. The United Kingdom and France are the major funders of UNITAID, to which we made a 20-year commitment. As part of that agreement, we have committed an average of €60 million per year. UNITAID provided 400,000 children with fixed-dose combinations last year, and was instrumental in reducing the price of those doses from $252 per child in 2006 to $130 in 2011. Those actions contributed to the 52% reduction in child infections since 2001. That reduction has been accelerating in recent years.

UNITAID also funds the medicines patent pool, which has been performing well. I know that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts has an interest in it because she raised it with my noble Friend Baroness Northover. That model was designed specifically for AIDS, but it is reasonable to ask whether it can be expanded and used to deal with other diseases. It is an effective way of operating and it has been a success, so I hope it is going to be part of the agenda in future.

[Pamela Nash]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for making that point, which will be good news not only for the all-party group but for the organisations that support us. I want to make one small point, which I have raised informally with the Department. The minutes of the UNITAID board meeting in December state that there was a reduced contribution from the UK Government. Can the Minister clarify that or seek advice from his colleagues?

[Mr Swayne]

The commitment of an average of €60 million per year for 20 years has been and will be met, but it is an average. There was a reduction, and my understanding is that it was made good with a €40 million contribution. The contributions are being met and we are fulfilling the requirements.

HIV treatment is linked to broader issues of health development, the strengthening of health systems, gender equality, and stigma and discrimination. All those things have to be addressed. We have to have a rights-based prevention and treatment regime. That remains a key policy objective in tracking how our contributions and investments deal with those issues. We need to be much better informed, and we must understand how to tackle stigma. Only when that happens will more people be able to access preventive programmes, get tested, and initiate and adhere to treatments.

The product development partnerships model has been very successful in bringing forward new drugs to the market. It has brought forward 43 new drugs in the past 10 years, and there are 350 under development. The Department for International Development is a strong supporter of PDPs; indeed, we were the first Government donor to them. I congratulate the Labour party on its initiative in 2008 and on driving forward that innovative agenda. It was an important contribution. We remain a globally significant player in that field, having committed £154.2 million between 2013 and 2018.

I was asked any number of questions. Let me start with those about vaccines and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. There has been no cut. We fulfilled the contract that we had with IAVI. All the money that we had committed was paid. We have a new contract now for £5 million, for which it competed, for a slightly different programme.

Let us be clear about what has happened. It is quite right that we have withdrawn from something that we were previously involved in, just as any organisation continually reviews its operations and does what it does best. I understand that some six vaccines went for field trials and we were funding that process. The results were disappointing, so it was back to the laboratory. We do not consider laboratory work as part of our comparative advantage. There are organisations in the world that are much better at dealing with that sort of scientific funding and do that work. Frankly, I believe that our funds are better expended elsewhere, where we have a comparative advantage.

Remember that we have not made a saving; we are spending more than we were spending before. We are spending it differently and I believe that we are spending it effectively, although we are not funding IAVI to the extent that we were in the past. That is a perfectly reasonable position to have taken, given the change in the situation.

[Anas Sarwar]

The Minister mentions the six vaccines that went to field trials and the “disappointing” results. He does realise that we only need success once, but we need to fund that programme to be able to get that one success.

[Mr Swayne]

Absolutely, but the difference is this. Funding field trials is one thing but going back to the laboratory and working there is a different field of endeavour, one where we have no comparative advantage. [Interruption.] I think we will just have to agree to disagree about this one, but there has absolutely been no cut in our funding of IAVI. We fulfilled our contracts and entered into a new one—a quite different one—with IAVI.

Now we come to the big question of the middle-income countries. I accept entirely that, when a country becomes a middle-income country, it hits a double whammy: one, the funding is withdrawn; and, two, all the prices go up. But hey—they are middle-income countries, and we are trying to encourage people to invest properly and to step up, as they are richer countries, and fund their health systems properly and have properly integrated health systems. That is an important part of the deal.

I accept entirely that that is a bit like falling off a cliff. Perhaps we should have some system akin to, say, universal credit, where there is a taper, as countries move from low-income status to middle-income status. I accept that there is an argument—a case to be made here. I am open to that discussion. It is something that we would have to agree with our international partners; I do not think we would have leave to change the system ourselves. Hon. Members have drawn attention to a very clear problem. The way we get around it at the moment is through the funding of the Robert Carr network, to which we have committed £4 million until the end of this month, and then we will have to replenish it. That is underfunded; there is a £13 million funding gap in respect of the Robert Carr network. We have to work with our donor partners to try to see how that gap can be filled.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts that viral load testing is the top end. It is exactly what we should be pursuing. I am glad that the price has fallen significantly as a consequence of the market shaping; it is down to a cap of $9.40, which is down some 40% in low-income and middle-income countries. The problem is, as she rightly pointed out, that that requires a developed network of laboratory testing. Again, I entirely share her view that we have to continue investing in alternative point-of-care technology, and in research and development in that area. I know that there have been more than 924,000 CD4 tests at point of care, but she is right that load testing is a much better and much more valuable tool. The way the Global Fund works is that it asks countries that are capable of supporting the network with laboratories for viral load testing to apply for that funding, and it asks other countries that are not able to support that to apply, certainly for the moment, for funding to deal with CD4 and whatever else may be brought forward. The work of UNITAID and the Clinton health foundation has been instrumental in reducing the price of viral load testing, which was one of the principal problems with it.

I come on to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the impact of any trade negotiations. I was asked whether we have formal input into the process. The reality is that, as a consequence of decisions taken in 1975—decisions that might be reviewed if the election result turns out the way I want it to—trade policy is a European Commission competency. Within the UK Government, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is the lead Department in relation to that, but DFID successfully ensures that issues such as access to medicines and intellectual property rights lead to joint discussions between our Departments. It is physically in BIS but it is actually staffed by DFID officials. Therefore, we do that.

On the issue itself, my own view is that it is down to the negotiations at the time, on a case-by-case basis. When we make a trading agreement, we have to ensure that we are absolutely certain that we are not compromising ourselves on intellectual property and that we are not going to restrict access to drugs as a consequence of the decisions we make. That is just down to being vigilant when we come to make these arrangements.

I was specifically asked about research and development. That agenda has been driven forward largely by civil society, rather than by nation states and Governments. Nevertheless, it is important. Frankly, it is unlikely that there will be a legally binding instrument for health research and co-ordination. The Government’s view is that any agreement needs to be built on existing mechanisms, such as that proposed by the expert working group.

The background to the issue is that for the past 10 years the World Health Organisation has convened a number of working groups to discuss and suggest solutions to the issues that the hon. Lady has raised, namely, funding flows, innovative funding mechanisms and co-ordination of health research. The latest of these groups—the consultative working group—suggested that we should establish a WHO global R and D observatory and a pooled fund for product R and D, together with a co-ordinating mechanism to support the fund.

The World Health Assembly is due to discuss that matter later this year. My concern is this: will countries wish to put more into this pool than they are putting in at the moment to contributions to R and D, particularly when the pool will be controlled by a mechanism other than the countries themselves? My estimate is that most countries would want to put research funding into a direct contribution that they control and to know where it is going. I will not go any further than that, because I was asked about 90-90-90 and I have one minute left to respond. It is a very interesting thing. It is far too soon to tell. My concern is that it adds a very substantial burden to the funding that already exists, and the emphasis must be on the poorest and the sickest first. I would want to see a little more about how the UNITAID proposals are brought forward before committing myself irrevocably to the 90-90-90 strategy.

Co-operative Schools

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2007, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, said the Conservatives would shortly publish their policy proposals for a supply-side revolution in Britain’s schools system—a long-term response to various challenges and what he saw as educational failure. He said that he wanted to highlight one specific aspect of that revolution: the opportunities that his reforms would create for a new generation of co-operative schools. What better way to give parents direct involvement in their school than to give them ownership—not just as stakeholders, but as shareholders, and as shareholders not in a profit-making company, but in a co-operative built around the needs of local children?

The co-operative model reflects an important vision of social progress that Conservatives believe in: the role of strong independent institutions, run by and for local people. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the Conservative party to take the lead in applying the co-operative ideal to the challenges of the 21st century, and announced the establishment of the Conservative Co-operative Movement.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am absolutely tickled to join the hon. Lady in the debate. She has reminded me what a strong supporter I am of the Prime Minister and how delighted I would be if he completely fulfilled that vision.

[Meg Munn]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman—a strong supporter of co-operative schools who has advocated for them.

Let us find out a little more about what actually happened as a result of what the Prime Minister said. When the coalition Government came to office, there were 87 co-operative schools in England. Today, there are 834. The majority of those are foundation trust schools established under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, passed by the previous Labour Administration. One might expect the Government to trumpet the growth of those co-operative schools. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. What is heralded instead is a hoped-for expansion of free schools: 500 in the next Parliament. That is where effort and money are targeted—not on the parent-owned co-operative free schools, despite co-operative trust schools excelling with parent involvement.

Clearly, the Prime Minister’s words have been forgotten by the Department for Education—and by him. Some might say, “But there are 834 co-operative schools, so the commitment is there.” However, the remarkable advance of co-operative schools has happened despite, not because of, Government support. In debates in the past two years, Ministers have said they have not prevented growth and that they are therefore supporting co-operative schools. However, that is not the same thing at all. I am beginning to think that there is an ideological block on the issue somewhere in the Department.

I have been trying to engage the Department for some time in removing a fundamental barrier to the expansion of co-operative schools. I proposed two legislative changes: enabling schools to register as industrial and provident societies and amending the 2006 Act to enable nursery schools to be established as school trusts.

Let me provide a brief history. In 2013, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill. The two proposals were adopted as Labour party amendments to the Deregulation Bill in Committee in the Commons in February last year. The Labour team withdrew their amendments when the Government indicated that they were willing to work with the Co-operative party to put Government changes in the Bill. With the Co-operative party and co-operative schools experts, I worked with the Department to try to make that happen.

The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), was supportive, but officials indicated that the Department lacked the expertise and resource to take the issue forward. Lord Nash, a Minister in the Department, then expressed limited support for co-operative schools and changes to legislation. Following the reshuffle, the Department indicated that it would not be introducing legislative change.

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

My hon. Friend is, like me, a Co-operative Member of Parliament. Perhaps this is not a question of detail or the Department blocking. Perhaps it is just that the political leadership of this Government is put off by those schools, which are in favour of equality, equity, solidarity, openness, honesty, social responsibility and caring for others.

[Meg Munn]

I would like to know what is putting the Government off, because I spoke to the new Secretary of State for Education and she indicated that she was willing to consider the issue.

The Department said that it would work with co-operative schools to produce data on performance and look at a power to innovate to try to resolve the issue preventing nursery schools from becoming co-operatives. The power to innovate would suspend the relevant legislation for three years to test whether nursery schools wished to join co-operative trusts. However, since that offer was made the Department has not, despite repeated inquiries, responded to requests for an update on progress. On Second Reading and on Report in the Lords, the amendments were tabled again and ably moved by Baroness Thornton for Labour, but were not supported by the Government. Can anyone now believe that there is any Government commitment to co-operatives in the public sector?

Why does this matter? Leaving in place barriers to the growth of co-operative schools is simply an opportunity wasted. It holds back the possibility of lasting improvement in educational standards, which would benefit children’s education and local communities.

Many schools want to adopt the co-operative model. They have a desire to develop a self-improving school system, where a number of schools can work together and inculcate those co-operative values mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman): self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. We know that some schools, working together in a group, are achieving outstanding results.

The Schools Co-operative Society believes that by encouraging everyone within an organisation to work together they gain mutual benefits. Performance improves and pupils are engaged in the life of the school. The best possible environment for young people to learn and develop is created. Stakeholders in the local community have a say in the way the school is run. The values of equality and equity ensure that the environment is free from bias and that everyone can be the best they can be.

[Mr Sheerman]

When my hon. Friend and I were together on the Bill Committee—the Minister was there, too—we picked up on the fact that the quality of teaching matters in every school. Has she seen the high retention rates of staff and the contentment of teachers and staff working in co-operative schools? That trickles down to the students.

[Meg Munn]

Of course, my hon. Friend is right: these are key issues. He is a great advocate of that approach. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) spoke extraordinarily eloquently about the schools in his area and he is, believe it or not, a Conservative, so there is still some support.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is not a run-of-the-mill Conservative.

[Steve Baker]

Listening to the hon. Lady describe those schools, I was reminded of the success we are seeing in Cressex school in Wycombe. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), whom I work with occasionally, is a bit of a rascal, because Conservatives do support many of the values he described. The disagreement is probably on the margins. I say to the Government that it is time that we woke up to this message.

[Meg Munn]

I agree. I am not for one minute suggesting that Conservatives do not support those values. In fact, the Cabinet published a document called “Making it mutual: the ownership revolution that Britain needs”, which stated:

“The conditions are right for a resurgence of co-operative mutual and reciprocal activity.”

That has been said not just by people in the Labour and Co-operative movement, but by Conservatives, so my puzzlement at why we are not moving forward grows ever more.

[Steve Baker]

I hope the hon. Lady agrees that what is needed is another term of Conservative government so that we can put all those things fully into practice.

[Meg Munn]

We are getting into the realms of fantasy now, are we not? The hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to agree to that. What I am saying is, regardless of our party political affiliations and regardless of where we come from, why can we not get together around the issue of co-operative schools? Why have those schools become so contentious when there is support for them, and not just from the hon. Gentleman? In a previous debate, we also heard support for them from other Conservative Members. The Minister attended that debate.

Why can we not get together around something that is good for our children? Let us do what the electorate so often ask us to do and put party politics aside and say, “This is how we should move forward.” Whether the coalition remains in place after the election, or whether we have a Labour Government or a coalition of another type, the Department will still be there, so let us get the officials working on this now.

Getting back to my specific points on why we should move forward, encouragement is given in co-operative schools to supporting each other and the local community—to give back to others the benefits that have been had and to spread the positive learning experience. There is evidence that young people brought up in that environment continue to contribute positively to their communities long after they have left school.

Children benefit from a positive start in life. That was recognised when the academies programme was extended to primary schools. Children need the best foundation at primary level to realise their potential at secondary level, but we have to go further and ensure that we also get it right at nursery level.

Many co-operative school trusts are based on strong geographical areas. They aim to raise achievement by supporting young people through the education system from nursery age to school leaving age. We have to recognise that children do not differentiate between being looked after, being cared for and learning. Learning begins as soon as a child is born, so we need our nursery schools to have a co-operative approach that involves parents, and then the children can do so well. Would they not do even better if they were part of that co-operative ideal from the start?

While there have been failures with co-operative schools—it would be wrong to paint a rosy picture everywhere—there have also been failures in the academy programme. Co-operative schools have seen remarkable success. More than 80 have been judged by Ofsted as outstanding. That was achieved with no support from Government, financial or otherwise, which is in stark contrast to the many thousands and millions spent on the academies and free schools programmes. Co-operative schools do not want preferential treatment; they just want a fair and level playing field and the same engagement and support as free schools.

Action is being blocked by the Department. Why? What will the Minister do to ensure progress on the issue and, in particular, to ensure that actions agreed with the Department are implemented? I would also like him to put on the record the assistance the Department will give to fulfil his Government’s pledge to support co-operatives. That pledge has been given by the Prime Minister and two Secretaries of State. An incoming Government must support the growth of co-operative schools.

We need cross-party support so that swift progress can easily be made. Just two steps would go a long way. First, the co-operative model as defined in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 should be made available to foundation trusts. Secondly, nursery schools should be enabled to form or join foundation trusts by removing the restriction in the 2006 Act. The remarkable progress of co-operative schools proves that there is an instinct among many school leaders for co-operation as a means to drive up standards, rather than a dogmatic view that only competition can achieve improvement.

[Mr Sheerman]

This may be the last Westminster Hall debate where my hon. Friend and I are together. It is so appropriate that she is talking about co-operative schools and she has had such a distinguished career in the House. I congratulate her on all the effort she has put into co-operative schools and so much else in Parliament over the years.

[Meg Munn]

How could I object to that intervention? Before I finish, on the issue of co-operation as opposed to competition, I quote Franklin D. Roosevelt:

“Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but co-operation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off”.

The Department’s vision is for a highly educated society in which opportunity is equal for children no matter their background. That is a vision I believe we all share. I thank my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for Wycombe, for intervening and showing that there is cross-party support for co-operative schools. I thank them for all their work to support co-operation and co-operative schools.

I want us to take an important step in helping to make that vision a reality. Let us put aside ideology and dogma, allow real choice in education and allow co-operative school trusts to flourish by removing the barriers that make achieving that vision difficult.

16:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. In the usual way, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) on securing another important debate on co-operative schools. I well remember the debate we had in October 2013, which I have taken the time to re-read. Other Members who are present today also spoke at that debate. What struck me was that through it shone a real shared purpose on the need to raise standards right across the education system. There was also a recognition that co-operatives are a part of the solution. I will remind Members of some my comments, which support my contention that the Government support the work that many co-operative schools across the country are doing. I said:

“We should, and do, cherish the values of co-operative trust schools”.

I also expressed the hope that I had given—I hope I will do so again today—

“a forceful indication that this Government hugely value the co-operative movement’s work in our schools.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 127WH, 132WH.]

I want to make it clear that those values, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said in his intervention, are shared by all parties, which is demonstrated by the fact that there has been no attempt to prevent in an ideological way the growth of co-operative schools. In fact, they have seen their biggest growth in quite some time. We have more than 700 of them, and we will be close to 1,000 by the end of next year. That is a huge increase for the co-operative movement in education.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) slightly stole my thunder in recognising that, in her time as an MP, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley has, there is no doubt, been a huge force for good in ensuring that children of all backgrounds, but particularly the most disadvantaged, have their voices heard. It is a great loss to us all that she has decided to go on to bigger and better things in her future career. The service she has given and her commitment to the area is noted and should be applauded. In doing that, I hope that she recognises that we share the same endeavour. I reassure her and other Members that the Government continue to support wholeheartedly the role that school collaboration and partnerships play in achieving our goal of a high-performing, self-improving education system, which includes the role of co-operatives.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister is the acceptable face of the Conservative party, as is the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), but they are atypical. The fact of the matter is that we need a real commitment to change the law. That is what we want. We do not want to muck around. We have got 837 schools. We want a change in the law, for a faster expansion—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief and in the form of a question.

[Mr Timpson]

I like to think that I am typical of the Conservative party, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels the same about himself and his party. It is clear that there is a determination to drive up standards across our education system. He will appreciate that we are in the last few weeks of this Parliament, so there will be no time to change legislation. Nevertheless, we must increase and better understand the evidence base, so that co-operative schools can show the impact they are having and we can possibly widen their remit and potential in future.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley has met Lord Nash, and as part of her exchange with the Secretary of State for Education, she was invited to provide evidence on why we should accede to some of her suggestions, both legislative and otherwise. I look forward to receiving that evidence in due course.

[Meg Munn]

Significant evidence has already been provided. With all due respect to the Minister, for whom I have a lot of time, the problem is that the evidence is there and the opportunity was there with the Deregulation Bill, but this has simply been blocked.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Lady received a letter from the Secretary of State on 11 February that set out the Government’s position on the legislation and the amendments that were tabled in both this House and the other place. She will appreciate that the position articulated by the Secretary of State in that letter makes it clear that additional evidence or arguments in support of the educational benefits are still required to reassure the Secretary of State that the changes would be worth while. The hon. Lady will appreciate that that issue falls outside my portfolio. The best I can offer is to take back her clear sense of the direction that we need to follow. If she wishes to provide any further and better particulars to support her argument, I will endeavour to ensure that they are shared as soon as possible.

We are seeking to ensure that we are able to deliver better results, year on year and right across the education system. Inspection data show that more schools are now rated as good or outstanding than at any time since Ofsted was created in 1992. Based on the most recent inspections, 81% of all schools are outstanding or good. Since 2009-10, the proportion of schools rated less than good has decreased from 33% to 19%. As part of that process, the values of co-operative trust schools are ones that the Government share. They are good values. They were given a strong airing in our previous debate, and I would reiterate them all today, particularly the importance of shared responsibility for problems and designing solutions and of the people involved in a child’s learning having a real stake in that learning.

I am pleased to note the role of the co-operative movement as a sponsor of schools that require extra support and the increasing number of co-operative schools that are choosing academy status, thereby becoming co-operative academies. Collaboration is a defining feature of the academies programme as well. The formal partnership arrangements for academies and maintained schools provide a framework for joint working in which the lines of accountability remain clear. The co-operative trust model is one of many that facilitate effective partnership working. It is true that the education system is increasingly diverse, and we are seeing many models emerge, such as multi-academy trusts and teaching schools. That is helping to increase the choice for parents and the support for schools. Parents are clearly aware of the co-operative movement in the education system because more of their children are being taught within it. There is clearly value for communities across the country, including my own constituency, in having that model available for education provision.

The hon. Lady asked about amending the legislation on maintained nursery schools—an issue that goes back to the previous Government and the Education and Inspections Act 2006—and I know that she has some regret that the opportunity to resolve the matter was not taken up at that stage. I am sure that, beyond 7 May, she will continue to fight to allow a co-operative trust to support a maintained nursery school in much the same way as it can a maintained school. The Government have supported collaboration in such institutions, with the sector already benefiting from the freedom to create partnerships, should that be the choice. Maintained nursery schools can already work with other local partners and the wider community, and they can federate with other schools and early years providers. A wide range of providers facilitate the parental choice that we all hold dear. That comes with a high degree of autonomy. Similar to our position on schools, the Government require more evidence of educational gain if we are to expand provision into the nursery arena, and we must look more closely at the fact that only a small percentage of overall providers could do that.

[Meg Munn]

One thing that I struggle with is that the evidence base for free schools is nowhere near as robust as the evidence base for co-operative schools. For example, the excellence that has been achieved in a multi-school trust in Birmingham is there for all to see. Why is the Department so resistant to supporting co-operative schools as an alternative model?

[Mr Timpson]

We have, of course, seen co-operative free schools emerge as well. The free schools policy is benefiting the co-operative movement and helping to increase the diversity of choice for parents. There is no reluctance, and there is no attempt either to suppress or deny the expansion of any type of school. The issue is one of empowering parents to make the decision to expand provision if they feel that there are not enough good school places in their area. On Monday, I visited Cheadle Hulme primary school, a new free school that will be opening soon to meet the need in an area with mixed advantage but a particular lack of places. That is a good example of how the flexibility that we have provided to the education system is allowing parents, outstanding head teachers, charities, and others with an interest in boosting education throughout the country, the opportunity to do just that.

[Steve Baker]

The hon. Lady opened her speech with a clear summary of what the Prime Minister has said. As Conservatives, surely we should believe in a dynamic process of discovery. Although I admire my hon. Friend the Minister’s noble defence of the Government’s position, is it not time that we allowed some of these schools to expand at nursery level to discover whether they will succeed?

[Mr Timpson]

I applaud the passion displayed by my hon. Friend not only today but on many other occasions when he has advocated the co-operative movement, both at Cressex school in his constituency and elsewhere. He will appreciate that I am not the man with the manifesto in his hands, so I cannot give him any reliable information about what reassurance we might be able to provide in that document. Nevertheless, I hope that I am able to put across the fact that, in the expansion of co-operative schools that we are seeing—they are set to get into four figures by the end of next year—there has been no holding back of those who want to take that step. Ultimately, it should be for the individual school or community to make the choice that they feel best fits with the need in their local area. That is the right approach. Through the expansion of the academies programme, with more than 60% of secondary schools and 17%—and rising—of primary schools now having academy status, we have seen a real movement that helps to support and complement the co-operative movement in driving forward quality and higher standards in the education system.

[Meg Munn]

We could get to 5,000 co-operative schools in the next five years if we changed the law and made it easier. Why will the Government not sign up to give so many schools that opportunity?

[Mr Timpson]

No limit has been put on the expansion of co-operative schools under this Government; indeed, we have seen a huge rise. There is no cap and there has been no attempt to try to dilute that opportunity. With the hon. Lady’s huge influence in her party, I am sure that when she has some control over the manifesto that is being written, she will make co-operative schools a centrepiece of Labour’s offer. In saying that, I re-emphasise that the Government do hugely value the role of co-operative schools, but more importantly the people who work in them. They work extremely hard to ensure that children in their area get the best possible start in life. That should be the driving force for any of our efforts to support children into adulthood. I hope that we can do that in future.

Transport Management: Kent

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have the debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am bringing before the House the issue of gridlock in Dover recently and the wider problems on the M20 and A20 through Kent.

The most pressing matter for my constituents is the gridlock in Dover. In January and February 2015, and indeed today, Dover has been experiencing a serious rise in gridlock on the roads through and into the town. Tailbacks and gridlock have been a constant problem for many years, but they have become more serious recently. They have the following effects: residents are unable to travel around my constituency or Kent in general; local businesses are hurt as visitors stay away or cannot access businesses in the town; access for emergency vehicles is restricted, as is access altogether to some parts of Dover, in particular for the long-suffering residents of Aycliffe; and vast amounts of rubbish and litter are left along the A20 by the drivers of parked heavy goods vehicles. Some of that rubbish is unhealthy or contaminated waste and does not belong on a roadside.

To give an idea of the gravity of the problem, a number of my constituents have got in touch to tell me their experiences over the past few months. On 20 December, Mr and Mrs Brown, residents of Dover, wrote to me:

“Dover has been gridlocked with lorries and traffic travelling to the Port constantly for 3 weeks. I dread to think what the fumes from the continuous running of the static engines are doing to our health, let alone the use of our streets as lavatories”.

On 15 January 2015, Rohan Sootarsing, a resident of Guston, wrote:

“Every night this week my usual 20/30 minute drive home from work has taken nearly two hours.”

Mr Parsons, a resident of Martin Mill, wrote to me on 20 January:

“I have taken nearly 3 hours to complete a road journey that would normally be completed in 25 minutes. There was a backlog of HGVs that started at Capel and continued to the docks. This area of the A20 was gridlocked entirely due to trucks blocking both carriageways.”

Mr Dowley of Capel-le-Ferne wrote to me on 24 January about the M20 between Dover and Capel:

“On 21st January numerous lorries were parked, without lights, on the hard shoulder. On 24th January on the M20 heading west, 15 articulated lorries were parked on the hard shoulder”.

On 30 January Mr Terry, a local businessman, wrote to me:

“I run a business in Snargate Street and the continual queuing of lorries is having a seriously detrimental effect on it. The Harbour Board Police block the roundabouts to prevent the lorries from cutting into the queue, but this also prevents us from getting into Snargate Street”.

Mr Wilson, another local businessman, wrote on 5 February:

“Last evening after leaving work I had to drive up the A20 to Capel-le-Ferne to get back into Dover via the B2011. An extra 7 miles or so on my journey home”.

On 11 February a Mr Williams wrote:

“Roundabout is blocked, and fire service answering a call at the school could not get past traffic”.

This morning Mr Dodd, a resident of Aycliffe, which is again cut off today, wrote:

“Lorries are backed up on the A20 and both lanes are blocked. The first roundabout at South Military Road to Aycliffe and lorries are continuously blocking the entrances and exit”.

This morning the chairman of community group Castle Forum, Denise Smith, wrote to me:

“Local and regular disruption happens many times a week and is not caused by extreme events, but by volume of freight traffic not being processed and taken into the docks. Therefore we would like to make it clear that this request is NOT about Op Stack but about Operation Open-Dover.”

I hope to set out the situation that my residents and constituents have to face and put up with constantly. The causes include, first of all, simply, economic growth—our long-term economic plan is working, and all too well for the port of Dover. The rise of international trade is greater than economic growth. In the past year freight traffic has risen 10% and it is forecast to grow further. So the problem is structural and it will not go away; it will become more serious unless action is taken.

There is also a structural problem around Dover, with restrictions on the flow of traffic through the town and the lack of space in the port zone causing gridlock. Poor management of one-off problems such as the fire in the Channel tunnel not so long ago, and Dover port ferries being away on maintenance because there have been problems, have contributed to the situation, as has a lack of investment by the Dover Harbour Board and ferry companies in IT systems or advance check-in for the management of inbound lorries. I want to focus on advance check-in as a way to deal with the problem through a longer-term, sustainable solution.

The first of my proposed solutions therefore is that Ministers treat this as a national strategic priority. The traffic situation facing Dover should be such a priority and the Minister, who has responsibility for roads, is best placed to lead on finding a solution, in particular because he has been the most proactive and energetic roads Minister on the matter in the past 20 years.

Recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who is in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who regrets that she cannot be with us today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), met with the roads Minister. It was great to see the difficulties being encountered taken up with such alacrity, for which all of us in Kent are extremely grateful. We urge the Minister to go further and to take the situation on as a specific national strategic priority.

My second solution is the necessary advance check-in system. The eastern docks have only 1,000 spaces, but with a park further up the motorway of 1,000 spaces, for example, we could do advance check-in and the sorting of lorries there, then stream them into the docks so that they can move swiftly through the port zone and on to the ferries for departure to the continent. That sort of dedicated lorry park for advance check-in before the lorries arrive at the port should be implemented as a priority.

It is ridiculous that lorries can simply head into Dover irrespective of whether there is space for them or a ferry is available. The issue needs to be dealt with and a site near Folkestone with the possibility of 1,000 spaces has been identified. Shepway district council tells me that it is keen to give planning permission for up to 1,000 spaces. The proposal is supported by the people I have spoken to in Dover and Deal, with a measure of consensus throughout east Kent and among the long-suffering residents along the M20.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As he has acknowledged, the problem is not only a Dover one. My constituents in Ashford and many other people throughout Kent or passing through to do business find the clogging up of the motorways to be unacceptable, in particular during Operation Stack. Does he agree that the solution, as he is beginning to set out, is a series of lorry parks around both the M20 and the M2? A consensus Kent proposal to put to the Minister is now essential, so that we may facilitate his great desire to help us.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree. There needs to be a consensus solution. All of us are finding and building that consensus. More places for lorries to park at the tunnel and indeed the docks are welcome, but they are still constrained and not enough given the growth in international trade. A thousand spaces around Folkestone, at the site that has been identified as a leading candidate, would be a start, but it is not enough. We need to look at other lorry parks—not one mega-park, but a number of parks down the M20. In particular, we need to look at Detling; the Kent County Show ground offers great potential for a park to be used in Operation Stack. I will come on to that, as Operation Stack is less frequent than the literally nightly gridlock my constituents suffer.

My proposal is to have an advance check-in lorry park at Folkestone, which would clear Dover of the queues of lorries blocking the town centre and causing tailbacks. That would improve access to residential areas such as Aycliffe, where the long-suffering residents long to get out of their area and not be jammed in by lorries. Port and ferry companies need to work together to invest in advance check-in lorry parks; they should do their bit by taking responsibility for the problems that they contribute to. They need to invest in their IT to bring it up to date in time for the exit checks that will come in shortly.

Funding could also be provided through the HGV road user levy, which has raised over £23 million to date. Funding for lorry parking of £3 million has already been won from central Government through the local enterprise partnership. To that could be added another £5 million that the LEP has won to facilitate the expansion of the port. Port expansion should be conditional on there being lorry parking capacity so that lorries can go into the port zone and on to ferries.

My next solution is more proactive policing. Both Kent police and the Port of Dover police need to take more effective action to ensure that traffic is managed more effectively and more speedily whenever there is short-term disruption at the port and the channel tunnel. The police need to clamp down on illegal HGV parking to ensure that lorries do not cause gridlock or access problems to Dover. Kent county council ought to consider issuing traffic orders under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to turn the A20 into a clearway, where no parking is allowed. It should also look at weight restrictions on outside lanes and other measures that could be used to ease congestion on the A20 and M20. Such measures are taken elsewhere, so we could do it at Dover as well.

I turn now to the related but separate issue of Operation Stack. Since 2010, it has come into effect four times, so effectively, on average, once a year. When it happens it is serious and problematic. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford rightly says, there need to be further lorry parks further up the motorway, rather than the M20 being turned into a gigantic car park, which is what happens at the moment. When Operation Stack is in place the motorway in effect becomes single lane, causing congestion and massive difficulties throughout Kent. We need extra lorry parks further up the M20.

Finally, I turn to my requests to the Minister. First, will he agree to make this matter a national strategic priority and to take the lead on the issue in his capacity as roads Minister? Secondly, will he give an update on the progress of the review seeking long-term solutions to the problem? Thirdly, will he agree to support, if only in principle, a request made to Kent county council to introduce a clearway through the A20 by a traffic order? Finally, will he look to provide funding for the advance check-in lorry park, either from Government funds, from LEP funds or by leaning on the port and ferry companies so that they understand their need to take responsibility and to do their bit? That way we can bring forward the investment needed to ensure that traffic can move swiftly throughout Kent.

As well as being roads Minister, the Minister has had responsibility for ports, and has been instrumental, as a people’s champion, in bringing forward a people’s port at Dover, for which I thank and praise him. There is a real opportunity to extend that further by ensuring that people in Dover and across Kent are more able to go about their daily business, to enjoy their lives, to bear less of the burden of our centre of international trade, transport and commerce and to enjoy more of its benefits, for the future economic prosperity of Kent and of Britain.

16:44

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I have not served under your stewardship very frequently, Mrs Main, so it is a particular delight to do so, certainly for me; I hope it will be for you, as well. It is also a pleasure to respond to the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). We have met a number of times about Kent issues, including about the port of Kent, which is closely connected to our considerations today. We have also met about road traffic issues in Kent. He is right to draw attention to the meeting I held with a number of Kentish Members, including him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who is in his place.

Ruskin said:

“The highest reward for a person’s toil is not what they get for it but what they become by it.”

In those terms, the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover—his labour in representing the interests of his constituents—has turned him into a powerful advocate, an impressive campaigner and a sagacious voice in this House. I listen to him carefully about all such matters.

Before I respond to the specific points my hon. Friend has raised, it is perhaps worth me setting those comments in the context of the Government’s wider view about the strategic road network. I will speak about the questions he has raised, and I think I have good news for him, but I do not want to deliver that until the end of my speech, because otherwise I will blunt the excitement that is already beginning to percolate through the Chamber.

Let me instead say a few words about a subject that is almost equally as exciting—there are those who would say it is more exciting, but I am not prepared to say that in a debate on Kent, which, as my hon. Friend and others know, is very dear to my heart. The strategic road network matters for all kinds of reasons. Its strategic importance can barely be overstated. The arterial routes by which goods are moved around and businesses do business are vital to our economic well-being and to the success of our long-term economic plan, to which he drew the Chamber’s attention. Less frequently argued for, although of equal importance, is the effect that our roads have on societal interests—communal well-being and individual opportunities. The ability to get to where we need to go, whether for jobs, for public services or simply for recreational travel, plays an important part in all our lives and can enhance them or do the opposite.

Traffic congestion and any compromises on road safety do damage, so it is vital that the Government take seriously the considerations that my hon. Friend has brought to our attention, and also take seriously our duty—I use the word advisedly, as it is more than a responsibility—to plan carefully for the development of our strategic road network.

I think I can say without hyperbole that this Government have done exceptionally well in those terms, with the biggest road building programme of my adult lifetime—that illustrates how very young I am—and a strategic plan that in scale and character is genuinely impressive. There has been investment of £15.3 billion with schemes across the country that, when gauged in cost-benefit terms, on an empirical basis are as impressive as anything we have ever seen, and money following that strategy.

To forward-commit funds to a road investment programme of this scale is not something that Governments have typically done. Our statement of 26 June 2013 announcing the conclusion of the Government’s 2013 spending review made it clear that there would be a step change in road investment. Our more recent work, at the end of last year, with the publication of our road investment strategy, gave life to that investment plan. The plan will take us through to 2020-21, deliver improvements and put us on a path to achieving our long-term vision.

The scheme to improve our major roads will have a long-lasting and wide-ranging effect, but, as we discussed when we debated the Infrastructure Bill, which I was honoured to take through the House, I was determined that the Government should amend their thinking—I like to bring fresh thinking to all the jobs that I do in government—to include a legislative requirement to take into account route strategies. They should take into account the plans of local highways authorities for the roads that adjoin the main arterial routes in places such as Kent, Lincolnshire and elsewhere, because it seems to me that we can improve the major roads, but unless we take account of the roads that feed them and that are fed by them, the character of the investment and the nature of the improvements that I have described will not be fully realised. So, it is through the route strategies that we will ensure there are operational investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network, which are consistent and coherent in as much as they involve those more local plans.

The Kent corridors to the M25 that encompass the area we are discussing, for the period up to March 2021, will be included in the strategy. The Highways Agency published a set of evidence reports developed directly from the work that we have done, and a number of routes in Kent are being considered as part of that work. Those studies are being finalised, and the Highways Agency aims to publish the second part of the route strategy shortly, which will include a number of schemes in Kent.

As part of the spending round in June 2013, the Government committed to funding the M20 junction 10A scheme, subject to finalisation of options and agreement being reached on developer contributions. The existing M20 junction 10 south of Ashford, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford knows, suffers from congestion and delays, especially in peak periods, mainly due to conflict between strategic and local traffic. That is precisely why the relationship between the route strategies and our road investment plan is so vital. Improved access to and from the motorway via the proposed junction 10A is seen as a key part of delivering the proposed development in Ashford. As my right hon. Friend has made clear a number of times, the development in Ashford, which is substantial—31,000 homes and 28,000 jobs—will, under the local plan and the growth area agenda, lead to significant extra demand on the road network there.

In November, we changed the charging method of one of the worst performing parts of the strategic road network anywhere in the country, the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, leading to an immediate improvement in the performance of the crossing. I know that this is only a medium-term measure to alleviate the congestion that previously afflicted the crossing. In the longer term, a new Lower Thames crossing is needed to provide additional capacity. Without going into detail, the House will want to know that we are considering options. We are listening to local stakeholders, and we will say more about that in the next Parliament when the Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and in which I will play a central and vital role, will, I hope, be able to put into operation an exciting new scheme there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover raised specific issues and I will deal with them in the way that he asked me to. He has, as other Kentish MPs have, made a strong case for Operation Stack. When Operation Stack is in place, great disruption and inconvenience are caused to the citizens of Kent, and we need to find a long-term solution. I hear what he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford say about there not being a single solution. There is a strong argument for a series of measures across the county, which alleviate the congestion that arises from those occasional but none the less important happenings that were described.

When I had the meeting that included my hon. Friends the Members for Dover and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), the point was made to me that a regional solution was required precisely because the reverberating effect—the ripple effect—was so significant. Any solution must include managing the traffic better and minimising the effects of traffic as increased numbers of vehicles use the network. The proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover makes regarding the use of Stop 24 in Folkestone as an advance check-in for Dover port is interesting and it will be given further consideration. I give him that undertaking today.

I recognise that Operation Stack must be a last, not first, resort and that the solutions are likely to include a mix of private and public sector actions. I commend all parties involved in this work for taking on this difficult task. I expect the public to see a real difference in the coming months and weeks. The issue has plagued the people of Kent intermittently for many years, and the Government have resolved to ensure it is addressed.

However, Operation Stack is a last resort, not a first resort. I want to see long-term solutions proposed and steps taken to prevent Operation Stack from being needed in the first place. The Government recognise the value of the port of Dover and Eurotunnel to the national and local economies, but we need to ensure that the communities of Kent are not inconvenienced by them. Those involved need to understand that, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover suggested.

I will deal now with the exciting news that I promised. In principle, the Government could, through a traffic order, support any request made to Kent county council to introduce a clearway along the A20. That is something my hon. Friend has asked for. He made his case responsibly and clearly, and it is something I am keen to take forward. I understand that the A20 is a Highways Agency road, not a Kent county council road, and it would put the traffic order in place. However, I have been advised that the creation of a clearway would not necessarily solve all the problems of traffic queuing on the A20.

On the advance check-in lorry park at Stop 24, as my hon. Friend has suggested, this could be done through revenue raised through the HGV road user levy. I am not a great supporter of hypothecation, as I know he is not, either, because we have talked about that on other occasions in other forums. None the less, I think we would need the Department to take action alongside, as he has also suggested, the port and ferry companies to develop a funding strategy for investment in traffic management in the Dover area. We will continue those discussions, but I think we will do more than that.

As my hon. Friend says, we need to look at IT systems. We certainly need to look at lorry parks, and I will ensure that the various groups looking into the issue of traffic management in Kent take his proposal into close consideration. I am prepared to make funding available for this. I will say more than that. There are additional measures emanating from a different Department, which will have an effect on traffic movements in the near term, so we cannot afford to let the grass grow under our feet. We need a solution that will ensure that those additional measures that emanate from Government do not have a deleterious effect on the interests of the people of Dover and other parts of Kent, or on other people using the port.

We will introduce further proposals as a direct result of those considerations—stimulated by this debate, inspired by my hon. Friend’s commitment, informed by him and other Kentish Members—to address the issues, and I plan to do so before the end of this Parliament. I put this on the record: we will introduce those proposals in good time, in good order and in good shape.

WB Yeats said:

“Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”

My hon. Friend described me in extremely complimentary terms—perhaps even more complimentary than I deserve—but I am the kind of Minister who makes the iron hot by striking.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

Wednesday 11 March 2015

Single Source Profit Rate

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I am today announcing that the Secretary of State for Defence has accepted the revised profit formula allowances recommended by the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO). The new profit rates for 2015, which are lower than those currently in force, will be published in the London Gazette, as required by the Defence Reform Act 2014 and will come into effect from 1 April 2015 onwards. The table below shows the change to the profit rate.

Town and Parish Councils

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

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

The Government believe that neighbourhoods, and the communities that live in them, are the most fundamental element of localism. Neighbourhoods are where local democracy begins and where people are often most ready to get involved. Working at the neighbourhood level can transform local services, with better collaboration between agencies and services more flexible and responsive to local need. We want to see communities more in control of the decisions, assets and services that affect them; to build different relationships between people and services—with interaction, engagement and ownership accepted as the norm; and for people to have an understanding of how they can make a difference. Our support for neighbourhood planning is helping over 1,400 communities shape the future development of their area; the delivering differently in neighbourhoods programme is helping local authorities redesign services around the neighbourhood level; and we have supported 100 areas in using the our place approach to enable communities to have a greater say in how services are delivered in their area. On 17 February 2015 I announced a £6 million funding boost to the community rights programme for 2015-16, to help give even more people greater control and influence over what happens locally.

Parish councils are a vital part of this picture, as the tier of local government closest to their communities. Parish councils provide communities with a democratically accountable voice and a structure for taking community action. Currently only around two fifths of the population is covered by a parish council, so the Government want to make it easier to set up new town and parish councils by changing the rules around how community governance reviews are triggered and carried out.

The draft Legislative Reform (Community Governance Reviews) Order 2015 was laid before Parliament on 11 December 2014. The order aims to make it easier to set up new town and parish councils by proposing a reduction in the percentage of local government electors required to sign a community governance petition, to trigger a review, from 10% to 7.5% in larger electorates—the proportions required for smaller electorates would be reduced in line with that change. It also proposes a reduction in the period for the relevant local authority to conclude a community governance review, from 12 months from the date the review begins, to 12 months from the date of receipt of the petition or application. Finally, it proposes that those neighbourhood forums which have a neighbourhood development plan that has passed a referendum should be given the right to trigger a community governance review without the need for a petition.

The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended, in its 15th report, that the order follow the super-affirmative procedure and sought some additional information about the nature of the burdens in relation to the changes to reduce the time period for a community governance review and to give neighbourhood forums the right to trigger a community governance review. The Committee also raised the issue of the proportionality of the changes proposed. Following consideration of additional information provided by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Committee has reported, in its 19th report, published on 6 March, that it is now satisfied that the order meets the tests set out in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and is not otherwise inappropriate for the Legislative Reform Order procedure. (The correspondence between the Committee and the Secretary of State is published in its 19th report.)

The House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the draft order be approved subject to the outcome of the further deliberations of the Lords Committee.

No other representations have been made to the Department for Communities and Local Government in connection with this order. I therefore propose to proceed with the draft order without any revisions.

[HCWS369]

Marine Management Organisation (Triennial Review)

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing the report of the triennial review of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), which was launched by DEFRA’s then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on 10 September 2013. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

The MMO exists to make a significant contribution to sustainable development in the marine areas and to promote the UK Government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The purpose behind its creation was to bring marine management activities from across Government into one place, to provide a more integrated approach to fisheries management, marine planning, licensing and conservation.

The review has concluded that the functions of the MMO are necessary for the UK Government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The function should continue to be delivered by a non-departmental public body; and the MMO remains the right body to deliver them.

The review also considered the MMO’s governance and control arrangements. It found many positive features and concluded that it has shown improvements in service delivery since 2010. However, the review has made some recommendations.

The full report of the review of the MMO can be found on the website at: http://www.gov.uk and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS366]

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 March and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 17 March. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Latvian presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

Bosnia Herzegovina (BiH)

During her introduction, Ms Mogherini will update Ministers on progress of the EU initiative on Bosnia. Now that the BiH Parliament has approved the written commitment to reform we expect Ms Mogherini to recommend that the Foreign Affairs Council give political agreement for the EU/BiH stabilisation and association agreement to be adopted at the April General Affairs Council. The UK will fully support this approach.

Africa

Ministers will have a strategic discussion on Africa, which was rescheduled from the February FAC. The UK will stress the link between trade and development and peace and security, and underline the importance of the EU retaining its role as a key player on the continent. The UK will also emphasise the importance of a partnership of equals: the EU should welcome the African Union’s developing capacity to respond to African crises, while encouraging the Africans to speak out constructively on global issues. The UK will also use the FAC to focus on Nigeria’s 28 March presidential elections and will want to signal continued support for supporting regional efforts to tackle Boko Haram. The UK will also encourage the EU to capitalise on the successful high-level Ebola conference on 3 March, stressing the primary objective of getting to zero new cases and the immediate need to fund the $400 million of critical activity to achieve this, as well as other priorities such as improved regional co-ordination and a safe transition to a sustainable recovery.

Libya

We expect the discussion to focus on the role that the EU should play in Libya. The UK will seek agreement from member states to a twin-track approach that includes providing support to the political process and improving the security situation. A further discussion on Libya will take place at the European Council on 19 March.

Eastern Partnership

Ministers will discuss preparations for the Eastern Partnership summit, which will take place in Riga on 21-22 May 2015. The UK will argue that the summit should send a strong message endorsing the sovereign right of Eastern Partnership countries—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine—to make their own strategic choices without third party interference. The EU should also confirm support for the implementation of real reforms on the ground for the benefit of citizens of partner countries, including through the implementation of the EU association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Migration

Ms Mogherini has proposed a review of policies on migration, arguing that the challenge of migratory pressures needs both a political and operational response, with migration being linked to external affairs and other engagements with third countries. Ministers will consider this review and have a strategic discussion on the proposed migration agenda. The UK broadly supports this initiative but we look forward to further detailed information about the proposal and how it may impact on our broader interests.

AOB: Iraq

The Hungarian Government have requested that member states contribute financially to an appeal by Archbishop Wardh of Erbil for Christian families displaced by ISIL. The UK remains deeply concerned by the persecution of all communities, Muslims, Christians, Yezidis, Turkmen and others, by ISIL. The UK is providing £39.5 million in humanitarian aid and supports the commitments made by Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi to inclusive governance and protecting the rights of all minorities.

General Affairs Council

The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 17 March is due to focus on: preparation of the European Council on 19 and 20 March 2015; and the European semester.

Preparation of the March European Council

The GAC will prepare the 19 and 20 March European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The March European Council agenda is expected to include: energy union; economic issues (including the 2015 European semester); and external relations issues (likely to include preparation for the Eastern Partnership summit in May, Ukraine and Libya).

European Semester

The GAC will consider the synthesis report on the 2015 European semester exercise. This is a policy discussion and there are no anticipated outputs at this stage. We welcome the focus of the annual growth survey on jobs and growth and emphasise that the semester should not be diluted by the inclusion of other agendas.

[HCWS368]

NHS Charges

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, Earl Howe, has made the following written ministerial statement.

Regulations have been laid before Parliament to increase certain national health service charges in England from 1 April 2015.

This Government have made tough decisions to protect the NHS budget and increase it in real terms, but health charges remain an important source of revenue to support the delivery of high-quality NHS services. This is particularly important given the increasing demands on the NHS, with spending on medicines alone doubling since 2000. It is therefore crucial that these charges increase to keep up with rising costs.

This year, we have increased the prescription charge by 15p from £8.05 to £8.20 for each medicine or appliance dispensed.

Ninety per cent of prescription items are already provided free of charge.

To ensure that people with the greatest need are protected, such as those who are not eligible for free prescriptions but who have long-term conditions, we have again frozen the costs of a prescription prepayment certificate (PPC). The three month certificate remains at £29.10, and the cost of the annual certificate will remain at £104. An annual certificate means that a person can have all the prescribed items they require during the year dispensed for £2 per week.

Regulations have also been laid to increase NHS dental charges from 1 April 2015. The dental charge payable for a band one course of treatment will increase by 30p from £18.50 to £18.80. The dental charge for a band 2 course of treatment will increase by 80p from £50.50 to £51.30. The charge for a band 3 course of treatment will increase by £3.50 from £219 to £222.50. The small increases this year are lower than in recent years.

Dental charges represent an important contribution to the overall cost of dental services. The exact amount raised will be dependent upon the level and type of primary dental care services commissioned by NHS England and the proportion of charge paying patients who attend dentists and the level of treatment they require.

Charges will also be increased, by an overall 1.6%, for wigs and fabric supports.

The range of NHS optical vouchers available to children, people on low incomes and individuals with complex sight problems are also being increased in value. In order to continue to provide help with the cost of spectacles and contact lenses, optical voucher values will rise by an overall 1%.

Details of the revised charges are in the following tables.